Order 1150039: See instructions

We are all lay scientists and have a tendency to observe others’ behavior in order to draw inferences

about who they are. In fact, this attribution process, as described in Chapter 3, is the same process

that a trustor uses to discern whether a trustee is trustworthy. A trustor observes the trustee’s

behavior and judges the trustee’s ability, benevolence, and integrity to assess the extent to which

the trustee is trustworthy.[19] Ability, benevolence, and integrity reflect the three dimensions of

trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust in organizations. We define each of these

dimensions of trustworthiness below and relate them to the example of CEO Tony Hsieh at Zappos.

Chapter 9 Promoting Fairness and Trust 303

Perceived ability

Based on the belief that a

trustee possesses the

technical and interpersonal

skills necessary to do a

job.

Perceived benevolence

Based on the belief that a

trustee wants to take care

of the trustor or do good

things for the trustor, aside

from any egocentric profit

motive.

Perceived integrity

Based on the belief that

the trustee adheres to a

set of principles that the

trustor finds acceptable.

• Perceived ability is based on the belief that a trustee possesses the technical and interpersonal

skills necessary to do a job. If an employee thought Hsieh made sound decisions in leading

Zappos and communicated with employees in a timely and appropriate manner, then the

employee would perceive Hsieh to have high ability.

• Perceived benevolence is based on the belief that a trustee wants to take care of the trustor or

do good things for the trustor, aside from any egocentric profit motive. If an employee thought

that Hsieh was generous in terms of compensation and benefits and was concerned with

employee well-being (and not just productivity), then this employee would perceive Hsieh as

being very benevolent.

• Perceived integrity is based on the belief that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the

trustor finds acceptable. If an employee thought that Hsieh had good values and made ethical

decisions, then this employee would perceive Hsieh as having high integrity.

The trustor’s assessment of trustworthiness along these three dimensions then determines the

extent to which the trustor will trust the trustee. At Zappos, if an employee perceives that Hsieh

demonstrates high levels of ability, benevolence, and integrity, then this employee is likely to have

high levels of trust in Hsieh. To determine the extent to which you consider a person to be trustworthy,

you can respond to the items in "Measuring Trustworthiness and Trust".

9.3 Repairing Broken Trust

Learning Goal

1. Describe ways in which trust is violated and tactics for repairing damaged trust.

Rick Holley returned his restricted stock because Plum Creek’s shareholders had been suffering and

he felt that returning the stock was the right thing to do. But what if he hadn’t returned the stock?

Well, we can assume that Holley lining his pockets while Plum Creek’s revenue was stagnant probably

would not have gone over well with investors. In fact, if Holley had kept the stock, he may have

violated the trust that shareholders had in him as CEO. Trust is fundamental to effective leadership

as well as effective relationships, in general. The challenge with managing trust, however, is that

trust is fragile and can be easily broken. Many individuals do not have the foresight of Holley and

violate the trust of their employees, coworkers, bosses, or external constituents such as customers

308 Mastering Organizational Behavior

Trust repair

Those activities in which a

trustee seeks to restore

the willingness of the

trustor to be vulnerable in

the future.

apology

A statement that

acknowledges

responsibility and regret

for a trust violation.

excuse

A self-serving explanation,

or account, that aims to

reduce personal

responsibility for an event.

promise

An assertion designed to

convey positive intentions

about future actions.

denial

A statement that declares

an allegation to be untrue.

Reticence

A statement in which the

accused party explains

that he cannot or will not

confirm or disconfirm the

veracity of an allegation.

or investors. This violated trust, then, needs to be repaired in order to restore trust-associated benefits

such as cooperation, collaboration, and performance.

An important aspect of trust violations is that they can result from mere accusations, devoid

of any proof of an actual transgression.[29] For example, if your close colleague at work mentions

your boss has used company funds inappropriately, then you may begin to doubt your boss’s

integrity. Your lapse in trust for your boss in this case was precipitated by a perceived, rather than

actual, transgression since proof of guilt is not known. Another key aspect of trust violations is that

they can relate to any of the three dimensions of trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, or integrity.

In other words, trust may be broken as a result of trustee behaviors reflecting poorly on any of

those three categories.

After trust has been violated as a result of an actual or perceived transgression, trust repair is

needed. Trust repair encompasses those activities in which a trustee seeks to restore the willingness

of the trustor to be vulnerable in the future.[30] Repairing trust can be difficult but is sometimes possible,

depending on the type of offense as well as the nature of the response offered. We describe

strategies for trust repair as well as their strengths and limitations as follows.

Tactics for Repairing Trust

Many tactics exist for repairing trust in the aftermath of a violation. These tactics can be divided

into two categories: verbal responses and substantive responses.

Verbal Responses

Verbal responses may be preferable from a trustee’s perspective because they are low cost. In other

words, offering a verbal response to address a trust violation requires very little effort or resources.

These types of responses can usually also be offered very quickly and, thus, enable an immediate

response to an accusation. Common verbal responses include the following:

• An apology is a statement that acknowledges responsibility and regret for a trust violation.

Leaders can offer different types of apologies. Some apologies are worded such that the leader

accepts full responsibility, whereas others point to external factors that may have also played

a role in causing the behavior.[31]

• An excuse is a self-serving explanation, or account, that aims to reduce personal responsibility

for an event.[32]

• A promise is an assertion designed to convey positive intentions about future actions.[33]

• A denial is a statement that declares an allegation to be untrue.[34]

• Reticence refers to a statement in which the accused party explains that he cannot or will not

confirm or disconfirm the veracity of an allegation. A common example of reticence is the use

of the phrase “no comment” in response to questions.[35]

Substantive Responses

Despite having some advantages, verbal responses may not be effective at repairing trust if a

trustor interprets them as “cheap talk.” For this reason, trustees sometimes offer something tangible

in addition to or in lieu of a verbal response. Common substantive responses for repairing trust

include offering penance or reparations or installing a monitoring system:[36]

Chapter 9 Promoting Fairness and Trust 309

Penance

A response in which the

trustee offers to pay a

personal price.

Reparations

A response in which the

trustee offers to

compensate the victim.

Monitoring systems

Policies or procedures that

are implemented to ensure

future trustworthy behavior

on the part of the trustee.

• Penance is a response in which the trustee offers to pay a personal price (e.g., a CEO accused of

financial malfeasance may forgo his or her salary for a few years to signal regret and a desire

to behave differently in the future).

• Reparations is a response in which the trustee offers to compensate the victim (e.g., a company

responsible for placing a hardship on customers because of faulty products would offer victims

extra money as an attempt to make up for the inconvenience, hassle, or injury caused).

• Monitoring systems include policies or procedures that are implemented to ensure future

trustworthy behavior on the part of the trustee (e.g., an executive board attempting to repair

trust with employees might create a policy wherein employees elect representatives to attend

executive board meetings and represent employee interests).

Key Contingencies

Clearly, trustees countering an accusation or mitigating a violation have a number of options for

responding, including all the verbal and substantive options noted in the prior section. In choosing

which response to offer, however, trustees need to consider two questions.

Am I Guilty?

If a trustee is innocent, then the appropriate response would be to deny the accusation. The

remaining responses either acknowledge guilt (e.g., apology) or offer no information about innocence

(e.g., reticence) and, therefore, are not the most effective responses for cases in which the

trustee is innocent of the accused wrongdoing. In addition to a verbal denial, an innocent trustee

should also offer any exonerating evidence he or she might have to further support and prove the

claim of innocence.

Of course, in reality, trustees who are actually guilty often deny wrongdoing in order to resolve

the issue without taking personal responsibility. We do not recommend this, however, for both normative

(the right thing to do) and practical (the smart thing to do) reasons. Offering a false denial is

inherently unethical. When individuals, particularly those in positions of leadership, behave unethically

these behaviors can pervade the organization and motivate others to behave unethically.

(Refer to Chapter 11 for a more extensive discussion of ethical leadership.) Offering a false denial is

also very risky from a practical standpoint, because evidence of guilt often becomes available. If a

trustee has offered a false denial prior to proof of guilt being revealed, then this constitutes two

trust violations (the initial violation and the false denial).

If a trustee is guilty, then any of the other verbal (apology) or substantive (penance) responses

can be used in isolation or in conjunction. Even if guilt is certain, however, there is still another consideration

that must be weighed when determining a response.

Did My Actions Result from a Lapse in Ability or Integrity?

If a trustee’s actions resulted from a lapse in ability rather than integrity, trust can be repaired

much more readily. Transgressions related to a lapse in integrity are much more difficult to overcome

because they are seen as being very diagnostic of the trustee’s true character. For example, if

an accountant intentionally underreports capital gains earnings for an important client so that the

client can avoid paying taxes, the incident will be viewed very differently than if the accountant

underreported the client’s capital gains earnings as a result of not having knowledge of the relevant

tax codes. The violation is the same—underreporting of the client’s capital gains earnings—but

the reason for the violation differs. In the first example, the accountant’s integrity is in question,

whereas in the second example the accountant’s ability is in question. Transgressions related to a

lapse in ability are easier to overcome because variations in ability are more accepted. To use a baseball

analogy, a player who hits a home run is still considered a home run hitter even if he strikes out

310 Mastering Organizational Behavior

his next time at bat. Trustors also tend to perceive ability as more malleable and, therefore, expect

that others can improve their abilities when motivated. For this reason, apologies can be effective

in overcoming ability-related violations. On the other hand, apologies are very ineffective at overcoming

integrity-related violations, since low integrity is seen as constant and untreatable.

People who understand how ability versus integrity violations are perceived can use this

knowledge to help them repair trust. In particular, perceptions of the event, itself, might be malleable.

Consider again the accountant who misfiled the tax return. Did the accountant misfile the

return because of lack of knowledge of the tax codes? If so, the accountant should explicitly state

this when addressing the incident. If the cause of the misfiled return is not addressed, then trustors

will make their own attributions and may wrongfully assume the accountant was being dishonest.

By explicitly framing the incident as stemming from a lapse of ability, this accountant will be much

better positioned to regain the trust of colleagues and clients.

In the course of doing business, it is also important to keep in mind that leaders are often

faced with addressing trust violations that may arise from situations that are out of their immediate

control. Such was the situation for David Neeleman at JetBlue when his airline experienced

an operational meltdown. David Neeleman founded JetBlue in 2000 with the intention of “bringing

humanity back to air travel.” Headquartered in Long Island City, New York, the company positioned

itself to offer low fares but with a much higher level of service and amenities than other carriers.

The airline currently services 38 million customers annually, flying 925 daily flights to 100 destinations.

The JetBlue values are stated as safety, caring, integrity, passion, and fun, but JetBlue and

David Neeleman were not having fun in February 2007 as described in the following communication

competency.[37]

COMMUNICATION COMPETENCY: David Neeleman’s Worst Valentine’s

Day Ever

Source: Leonard Zhukovsky / Shutterstock.com

Chapter 9 Promoting Fairness and Trust 311

Video: David Neeleman’s Apology

View the video online at: //www.youtube.com/embed/-r_PIg7EAUw?rel=0

On February 14, 2007—Valentine’s Day—a devastating ice storm hit New York’s John F.

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), JetBlue’s home base. Flights were delayed and cancelled

and passengers were stranded. Numerous planes were trapped on the tarmac at JFK airport for

eight hours or more, and some were never able to leave even after waiting. To make matters

worse, passengers who were stranded or had cancelled flights were not able to reach customer

service agents.

When other airlines face similar weather-related problems, usually they can get passengers back

in the air within the next day or two. At JetBlue, however, the operational issues were not

corrected for almost a week and JetBlue cancelled more than 1,000 flights over the six days following

Valentine’s Day. What began as an operational meltdown exploded into a public relations

nightmare.

Neeleman, who was CEO at the time, knew he had to take significant action to restore the confidence

of passengers, employees, and the general public. On February 19, he posted a video

apology on the Internet titled “Our Promise to You.” The next day Neeleman announced JetBlue’s

creation of a customer bill of rights that guaranteed compensation to passengers who face travel

delays. (This bill of rights was also used to retroactively compensate the passengers affected during

and after Valentine’s Day.)

To get the word out about the new bill of rights and further apologize for JetBlue’s failure, Neeleman

made 14 television appearances on February 20, including a Today Show discussion with

Matt Lauer and a guest appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. In these television

interviews, Neeleman looked very repentant while he outlined a variety of measures that would

help JetBlue navigate future weather-related challenges. In particular, Neeleman detailed changes

being made to JetBlue’s reservation systems and operations team. He appeared to speak sincerely

and earnestly and assured the public such an event would never again occur at JetBlue.

Despite Neeleman’s thorough and sincere mea culpa for the February incident, JetBlue’s board

forced him to step down from his CEO spot in May of that year. Neeleman was disappointed with

the board’s decision. “Obviously, when you found a company, and you’re the visionary and you

start it from Day 1, no one really wants to give up the reins.” Neeleman now controls two other

airlines, Azul and TAP Portugal.

To learn more about JetBlue, go to www.jetblue.com.

Insights for Leaders

Because trust is invaluable to leadership, leaders must endeavor to maintain the trust of employees.

To manage trust over time, leaders must address any accusations or acts violating trust in order

to repair trust with employees and other constituents. As can be seen in the prior communication

competency, David Neeleman had to address the trust concerns of passengers, the general public,

312 Mastering Organizational Behavior

Perceived

repentance

The perception that the

trustee regrets his or her

actions, is intrinsically

committed to reforming

personal shortcomings,

and has resolved to act

differently in the future.

as well as JetBlue employees who were affected. For leaders concerned with managing and repairing

trust, we have a number of recommendations:

• Consistently act with integrity. Even one lapse in integrity can be difficult, if not impossible, to

overcome.

• When determining a strategy for repairing trust, keep in mind that although verbal responses

can repair trust in the short term, over the long term actions are more important than verbal

responses to being seen as trustworthy.

• How the response is offered matters a great deal. Responses will only be effective in repairing

trust if the trustor perceives the trustee has truly repented. Perceived repentance is the perception

that the trustee regrets his or her actions, is intrinsically committed to reforming

personal shortcomings, and has resolved to act differently in the future.

• Do not remain reticent on an issue unless absolutely necessary. Reticence is an ineffective

response. Reticence does not address guilt (like a denial) or communicate remorse (like an apology).

Although reticence is often used in the hopes that others will withhold judgment, in the

absence of information, trustors will often make assumptions and come to the most damaging

conclusions: that the trustee is guilty and not remorseful.