Research Design and Sampling

Trust restoration and knowledge processes –

A qualitative study within leader-follower relationships

Referencing this article: Savolainen, T., Ikonen, M., Laitinen, M. 2018. Trust restoration and knowledge processes – A qualitative study within leader-follower relationships. In Proceedings

of the 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2018), 6-7 Sept.,

University of Padua, Italy. Vol 2, pp. 765-772. Bolisani, E., Di Maria, E., Scarso, E. (Eds.),

Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd. Reading, UK,ISBN:978-1-911218-95-1

Prof. Taina Savolainen 1

University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Finland

Dr. Mirjami Ikonen 2

University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Finland

Masters Student Mikko Laitinen 3

University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Finland

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Abstract:

The paper discusses and explores trust development focusing on restoration of trust after trust violations

or breaches within leader-follower relationship and focusing on the follower’s view in the empirical

qualitative study. Trust is an important intangible asset, knowledge resource growing or diminishing in

organizations and their leadership. Trust is a multi-level, dynamic and complex concept in nature embedded

in abilities, skills, knowhow, insights and relations enabling human capital growth and improved

performance. In the trust research within managerial context, trust forms a foundation for cooperation in

workplace relations. Knowing and sharing knowledge play a role in trust and its restoration. The paper aims

to increase understanding of trust restoration in workplaces searching for decisive incidents, moments and

phases in the process, and followers’ perceptions of the most significant issues. The purpose of the paper

is two-fold; first, to produce new empirical findings from trust restoration in workplace relationships that are

still scarcely studied empirically, and second, provide insights into current and further research, and

implications to practice. A need for studying and understanding trust and trust restoration more in-depth is

well grounded, as the prior studies show that trust development process appears rather complex, multi-

form and unpredictable boosting even unintentionally “the dynamics of evil”. Trusting in workplace resource

and activity is largely about communication and sharing knowledge by multi-channel and presently more

and more technology-mediated, which may lead to misunderstandings and even violations of trust. The

empirical qualitative data consists of interviews and written accounts of followers’ experiences of trust

restoration in leader-follower relationship. The findings reveal three phases within the trust restoration

process discussed in more detail in the paper. Implications are made to avoiding mistrust development and

trust breaches highlighting e.g., trustworthiness and communication.

KEYWORDS: follower, HRM, knowledge, leader, process, trust violation, breach, restoration, work

relationship, qualitative

1. Introduction

Changing working life needs deeper awareness and understanding of the significant role trust plays in

workplace relationships; how trust develops, deteriorates, is violated, broken and how trust is restored. The

paper focuses on the central workplace relationship between leader and follower, specifically examining

follower’s view of trust restoration process after the violation or breach. This paper adopts a relational view

of trust representing the view of trust as intangible, relational asset in reflective, interactive process

occurring in co-operation between people. Trust develops in interaction and reciprocal activity between

individuals, groups and organizations.

The paper identifies decisive incidents, moments and phases in the restoration process and discusses the

issues that followers perceive as most significant in a leader-follower relationship. The empirical study

produces new findings and applicable implications to workplaces, their leadership and HRM practices. The

paper aims to gain a deeper understanding of the restoration of trust the follower’s perspective. New

findings are provided based on the data of real-life stories gathered from individuals in workplaces who

have experiences of trust restoration. The purpose is also to elaborate and add to Grover's et al. (2014)

study producing insights into the restoration process theory and further empirical research.

Knowledge processes link to trust and are discussed in the paper. Especially knowledge sharing is essential

in trust building and restoration. In today’s management, the focus is placed on managing knowledge as

such unlike decades ago when organizations and not their knowledge were managed (Lyles and Easterby-

Smith, 2003; Vasilache, 2008). Knowledge dynamics is the mechanism recognized in organizational

learning and development processes to sustain competitive ability. Managing knowledge plays an important

role in collaborative processes and actions where trust is an essential antecedent.

2. Trust in organizations

2.1 Concept and nature of trust

Trust and trust building is emerging as a more and more important asset and required skill in workplaces

affecting organizational performance. Trust forms a foundation for cooperation in workplace relationships.

The concept of trust refers to something intangible and fragile asset, a resource in workplace relationships.

Yet, a universally supported definition of trust is lacking. Interpersonal trust implies human and relational

aspects between people (Savolainen and López-Fresno, 2013; Savolainen et al., 2017). Trust describes

the positive expectations of a person in relation to another’s behaving respectfully also in situations of risk.

“Trust is an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement

of another individual or group can be relied upon" (Rotter, 1967). Trust is multi-level, dynamic and complex

in nature, involving individual, dyadic, group and organizational levels, cultural and contextual issues, such

as language and politics. Emotions are also involved (Gillespie and Mann, 2004). In knowledge-related

processes, trusting one another plays an important role in disclosing sensitive information to another.

Moreover, trust in workplaces involves interaction and dynamics within relationships, uncertainty, and many

situational issues affecting the development of trust - its building, deterioration, breach, and restoration

(Rousseau et al., 1998; Lewicki et al., 2006; Savolainen et al., 2017).

To understand the role and nature of trust in organizations, a few antecedents and essential requirements

signify trust development between people. Risk taking, interdependence, and vulnerability are commonly

recognized. Risk taking is at the core of trust and vulnerability appears in most definitions including

cognitive, affective and behavioural components of trust (Lewicki et al., 1998). Making oneself vulnerable

entails risk-taking implying that there is something of importance to be lost. Rousseau et al. (1998) argue

that there is a cross-disciplinary conceptual agreement around the notions of ‘confident expectations and a

willingness to be vulnerable’. Management practices undergo change into e-leadership influencing leader-

follower relationships (Savolainen, 2014).

2.2 Trust in leader-follower relationships

In inter-personal work relationships, the process of trust development is dynamic appearing as ‘wavelike’

movement with splashes and calm, in several episodes and phases (Savolainen and Ikonen, 2016). Power

relations make trusting complex and fragile in workplaces. New management environment, e-leadership,

with technology-mediation is changing workplace practices (Savolainen, 2014.) Yang and Mossholder

(2010) suggest that types of trust (McAllister, 1995) may have different effects on relationships between

leaders and followers. Cognitive trust can increase followers’ dependence on the leader having negative

outcomes, as followers may not act on their personal initiate. Transformational leadership may affect

cognitive and affective trust, and affective trust organizational commitment and loyalty. The researchers

assume that be based on the creation of affective trust in a mutual exchange of worry and care between a

leader and follower. Cognitive trust, in turn, may lead to reduced self-initiate, especially in a multi-member

group.

2.3 Trust deterioration and violation

Deterioration of trust, defined as “lack of confidence in the other” (Grover et al., 2014) has various harmful

consequences in workplaces (Savolainen, 2009). When a violation of trust occurs the trustor's (i.e. victim),

positive expectations of the trustee (i.e. offender) are not met (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003). Violations

may even result in trust breach and the victim’s unwillingness to cooperate causing a ‘vicious’ cycle and

leading a breaking point of the trusting relationship eventually (Csik 2012; Ikonen et al., 2016, Savolainen

et al., 2017). Lewicki and Tomlinson (2003) point out that trust violations affect mutual support,

communication, knowledge and information sharing (Savolainen, 2008; Savolainen et al., 2014), and even

have negative effects on job performance, turnover, and profits. In some cases, a single trust violation may

seriously damage or irreparably destroy trust while in other cases one trust violation may not be that

damaging when considered in isolation. A repeating ‘pattern of violation’ may be needed for causing serious

damage to the relationship (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003; Grover et al., 2014).

2.4 Trust breach and restoration

A trust breach refers to the reconsideration of and reduction in either trust beliefs or behaviours, or both

(Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2011). In the trust literature, trust decline,

erosion, and breach are often used interchangeably as outcomes. Pertaining to restoration, the degree of

trust decline influences trust breach and its reparability. The deeper and the broader the trust erosion, the

less reparable the trust is (Chen et al., 2011). Kim et al. (2009) note that parties may often violate trust by

intentionally exploiting dependencies or by neglecting to fulfil expectations. Unintentional violation may also

occur, for example, caused by a manager’s passive behaviour (Ikonen, 2013). Restoration of broken trust

may be challenging but is possible (Savolainen et al., 2015; Ivakko, 2015; Kellokumpu, 2015; Laitinen,

2018). Restoring trust requires re-establishing a sense of perceived trustworthiness. A certain procedure is

needed for restoring rational and emotional consequences of broken trust. The empirical part studies and

discusses how the procedure unfolds in real life.

Trust breaches have been categorized according to the ways trust breaches occur and also according to

whether they are repairable or not; e.g. communication issues, such as not listening to others, and

breakdown in communication (Frazier et al., 2010). Typical to trust breaches are also broken promises,

breaches of the psychological contract and of rules, structural issues and changes in systems and

procedures (Lewicki and Polin, 2012; Andiappan and Trevino, 2010). In order to restore broken trust or

repair trust, it is critical to understand how trust is violated since different ways of damaging trust are likely

to require different reparation means (Schoorman et al., 2007). Trust researchers have pointed out that, in

addition to deteriorating trust, individuals experience negative emotions such as disappointment, frustration,

anger, and outrage following a transgression (Dirks et al., 2009).

Grover and others (2014) conduct one of the few qualitative studies of restoring relationship-based trust

from the follower’s perspective. They divide restorable trust violations into three categories according to

leader’s actions. The first category is incompetent leading and organizing followers’ work including the

leader incompetency to set clear goals or guidelines make expectations transparent and a lot of mistakes

or poor decisions, and is unpredictable changing mind and decisions. The second category is neglectful

behavior including lack of support and appreciation, not defending followers subject to dissatisfaction, and

other negative behavior. The third category is an excessive intervention, meaning, for example, too high

control, spying, and micromanagement.

Trust restoration requires positive attention from the leader when improving the interaction and mutual

relationship. The leader is assumed an initiator (Grover et al., 2014; Whitener, 1998). Savolainen (2016)

and Ikonen (2013) also emphasize the leader’s initiating role in trust restoration. If the leader is not initiative

in the process of restoring trust, the follower may apply one of the two approaches to cope with the

relationship. One, commit his or her work more and hope it will improve the relationship and two, contact

with the leader for explaining the situation, or to get directions and feedback to be able to perform better

with work.

According to Grover et al. (2014), non-reparable trust violations are threatening follower’s wellbeing,

misusing his or her position or misleading followers. Trust restoration may be irreversible. Such critical

events are often linked to the leader's integrity. Grover and others recognize two types of irreversible trust

violations: fraud and abuse of power, e.g. lying, not kept promises, withholding information, favouring,

blackmail, and other situations where a follower feels betrayed. According to Grover et al. (2014), the

irreversible violations of trust may cause withdrawal from the relationship and even the job itself. The

follower may take distance through disengagement with work or looking for a new job (cf. Csik 2012).

2.5 Knowledge processes and trust

In organizations, knowledge dynamics is the mechanism recognized in organizational learning and

development processes to sustain competitive ability. When knowledge was understood existing inside the

organization back of the decades it was not deliberately managed, while current management places the

managerial focus on knowledge as such (Lyles and Easterby-Smith, 2003; Vasilache, 2008).

Currently, complex and non-routine actions in knowledge processes characterize knowledge management

that plays an important role in organizational structures and processes where trust is important antecedent

for collaborative efforts. As to knowledge dynamics, Giroux and Taylor (2002) discuss a reflective

(constructivist) view of dynamics suggesting that tacit knowledge is not converted to explicit but is a

creation. Thus, transformation of tacit to explicit knowledge creation reflects in fact the specific modes of

tacit knowledge production characteristic of the community. They suggest this is what represents

knowledge dynamics. In managing knowledge, sharing is particularly a key process that is based on trust-

based relationships. Pertaining to trust, and trust restoration in specific, the sharing of information and

knowledge or poor sharing become critical (Savolainen, 2008). Yet, discussion is scarce in current research

of trust violation, breaches, and restoration. Interpersonal level trust, involving interaction, sharing and

individual-related motivations, is built or lost within relationships. As to e.g. knowledge sharing, mistrust and

trust violation situations may cause trust breach, and lead to restoration respectively.

In knowledge processes, dyadic and group level dynamics play a role in the situations of low or neglected

communication affecting functioning relationships between individuals, and workplace climate. Interaction

is the most decisive activity for managing and sharing knowledge. The level of trust influences the support

to continuous information and knowledge flow. In the group level study, for example, Savolainen (2008)

concludes that trust seems to play an important role in interpersonal knowledge processes. She found out

that tacit knowledge embeds in the individual’s professional experience and knowledge that are complicated

to formalize and share in the group (cf. Giroux and Taylor, 2002) where it partly depends on how the

relationships between project group members work. As to managing knowledge processes, the study

implies for managers that in restoring trust it is important to create and sustain open workplace climate that

supports interaction, openness and functioning relationships between group members. Sustaining a high

level of trust decreases suspicions and conflicts between group members and increases openness

releasing emotional energy, and resources needed for sharing, idea creation, and concentrating on key

tasks more effectively (Savolainen, 2008).

3. Methodology, data and analysis

In the empirical study, a qualitative open-ended theme interview method was applied due to the abstract

and sensitive nature of the topic. The analysis of data and its interpretation aims at describing and gaining

understanding of the perceptions of the informants in real-life situations (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2016).

The data collection proceeded in two stages. First, a link to a questionnaire was sent to the personnel of

the target organizations to find people who had personal experiences of trust restoration and were willing

to participate in the study. Thus, the selection of informants was not limited in any other way than the

informant had personal experience of trust restoration. The restoration concerned relationship between

leader and follower and in follower’s role. Seventeen persons met the criteria and all of them were qualified

for the study.

The empirical data comprises of 12 interviews (conducted in 2017) and 5 written accounts describing the

informants’ own experiences of trust restoration in leader-follower relationship. The data is about the

restoration of trust in a leader-follower relationship from follower’s perspective. The informants described

the process of restoring trust in a situation where they were in a follower position, the other party being a

leader. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis method that is a

cyclical, unstraightforward process with the parallel steps of progress and several rounds of analysis. The

transcribed interviews and written accounts produced nearly 100 pages of data. The analysis of the study

proceeded with thorough reading of data, initial analysis, theming, classification, comparisons, and

recurrence. No NVivo nor ATLAS.ti was utilized but several rounds of close reading instead. Similarities,

differences and unique details were searched and marked on the data and 12 summations of the interviews

were rewritten for the analysis.

The focus of the analysis was on the process of trust restoration: what kind of phases and transitions are

involved in the process. The findings and interpretations were discussed aligned with the theoretical

framework. First, trust violations were divided into three categories based on the dimension of

trustworthiness the violations were targeted. Mayer et al. (1995) model of the dimensions of trustworthiness,

namely ability, benevolence, and integrity was used. Interestingly, most of the violations encountered

integrity, since Grover et al. (2014) study shows that restoration was unlikely if the violation affected

integrity.

4. Key findings

The analysis of the data resulted in dividing the process of trust restoration into three main phases: first, a

turning point, second, an attentiveness (caution) phase, and finally, forgiveness. The first phase, the turning

point is highlighted as a momentum in the data. At the beginning of trust restoration process, a turning point

appeared mainly as an apology from the leader making it possible to move into the process of restoration.

However, when trust violation originated from an over-rigorous interpretation of the leader’s words or

actions, an apology was not necessarily needed. In such cases, the turning point showed, for example, the

awareness of one's own incorrect or too strong misinterpretation of the situation. Additional type of turning

point incidents involved a conversation with a colleague or a friend. As a result, the follower understood his

or her overdone interpretation. In any case, the significance of the interaction was indispensable from the

first step in the restoration process.

The second phase of the process involves followers’ attentiveness (caution) towards leader behavior lasting

months or years depending on the case. That phase includes monitoring the work of a leader and the

assessment of the leader’s trustworthiness. The leader had to prove his or her actions are benevolent and

that harmful acts no longer occurred on his/her own initiative. Most importantly, this phase was for followers’

expectations positive fulfilment through the leader’s behavior.

The final phase of the process identified in the data, forgiving, occurred mainly after the second phase.

However, the exact moment of forgiveness was not clearly identifiable, as forgiveness occurred beyond the

recognized process ‘periods’ described above. Followers’ memorizing of the experiences of trust violations

changed into more forgettable when the trustworthy behavior of the leader increased motivation to re-

evaluating/building of trust within the relationship. In summary, the key findings of the study show that it is

challenging to restore trust at the level before trust violation. The findings also highlight the apology as the

turning for entering into the restoration process.

5. Summary, discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this paper is to present new findings of trust restoration in leader-follower relationship adding

to prior empirical research. The study seeks a deeper understanding of trust restoration from a follower’s

point of view. The paper draws on and elaborates Grover et al. (2014) study in the empirical part. The

empirical study analyzes real-life perceptions gathered from workplaces of informants who had experience

of trust violation/breach and restoration process. Informants narrated their personal experiences.

In summary, the findings reveal three phases in the restoration process, the turning point (named apology),

attentiveness (caution), and forgiving. In the latter, time and willingness to forgive are highlighted in findings.

Regular interaction, mutual understanding in communication and consensus turn out to be the enablers in

for the progress of the restoration process. An apology seems an important initiating act. Further, the key

findings show that it may be challenging to restore trust at the level prior to trust violation/breach. An apology

provides followers a permission to feel violated and signals that the leader has understood the effects of

trust violation. In addition, a follower may experience that his or her reactions were justified and they matter.

An apology indicates that the leader has misbehaved and has understood it. The apology is critical as the

first phase, turning point, into the restoration process (Grover et al., 2014; Pate, 2012; Bottom et al., 2002;

Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2006). However, the findings of this study differ from Kim et al. (2004)

study in that an apology does not seem to affect integrity in a negative way.

In broken relationships, a challenge might often be that leaders are not aware of the severe consequences

of their actions. The leader may have inadvertently missed the need of an apology and the process of

restoring trust has not been able to begin properly. In that case, the follower feels left in an injured state

and may slowly take distance in the relationship. Our findings indicate that an apology is not necessary if

the leader's actions indirectly links to trust violation, for example, misunderstanding. Noteworthy, the

apology does not cause any negative effect either. On the contrary, an apology is a sign of the leader's

awareness of driving a wedge between him/herself and the follower. The trust violations and breaches may

have occurred due to misinterpretation or incorrect observations and the follower may realize and admit

his/her interpretation too harsh and find and apology unnecessary. Then, attribution may act as an apology

and allow the second, attentiveness phase to begin (e.g. Burke et al., 2007; Dirks et al., 2009). Sometimes

an honest and open conversation with the leader may let the follower realize that his negative interpretation

is originated from something else than the untrustworthiness of the leader. Yet, trust violation needs

restoring as soon as possible (Ferrin et al., 2007; Ikonen, 2013; Grover et al., 2014).

The importance of interaction plays a major role in the restoration process. The significance of

communication in trust-based relationships is highlighted in our findings. Communication helps to find out

the degree (difficulty) of trust violation. Conversations may be enough to restore trust back to the pre-

violation phase. Restoration of trust requires interaction in the first two phases of the restoration process.

An apology (in the turning point) and the second phase proceed through interaction. Free-form

communication and discussion, for example, precisely explaining misbehaviour seems to be effective in the

restoration process (Lei et al., 2014).

The results of this study shows somewhat contradicting with Grover et al. (2014) study in that the trust

restoration was not considered possible when the leaders' integrity was violated. Based on the data of this

study, the follower may forgive even if the violation concerned his/her integrity. Based on the data, six

informants re-built trust in their leaders after violations against integrity. Three of them perceived that trust

was fully restored, at the level prior to the violation, and three that the trust has partially recovered to the

extent that they were able to trust their leaders despite of the violation. One explanation to controversy with

Grover et al. (2014) study may be the data used in the study based on the informants’ imagining the trust

violation and restoration and not the data from real life experiences. Another explanation might be the

setting of our study. The criteria for informants were a personal experience of trust restoration in leader-

follower relationship. Two more explanations are worth mentioning, first, the informants of this study might

be exceptionally forgiving, second, the methodology-related limitations including the amount of data,

different context, and non-generalizability of findings.

In conclusion, the process of trust restoration seems to begin when both parties of the relationship are

ready to deal with and process the violation, to interact and communicate for understanding other’s

experiences, to apologize and forgive, and be willing to change their behaviour. In the beginning of the

process, the follower’s ability to forgive and the willingness to provide the leader another opportunity to

prove his/her trustworthiness is important. It is worth noticing that forgiveness, and restoration of trust are

fundamentally different. Forgiveness may be a turning point, providing an opportunity to rebuild trust in

leader-follower relationships. Forgiveness is the momentum a follower approves re-building of trust in the

relationship. This study concludes that restoring trust is a complex and dynamic process that may not stop

at any phase. Trusting is re-evaluated and trust may vary in form and in different situations. Consistent with

recent findings, (e.g. Bottom et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2006; Pate, 2012; Grover et

al., 2014), restoring trust may never reach the end, which clearly shows a processual nature of the

phenomenon. In addition, the trust violation may be unforgettable experience imprinting the relationship

and even affecting trustor’s future relationships and influencing the individual’s propensity to trust.

The implications to leaders signifies paying more attention to trust development, and becoming aware of

the harmful consequences of trust violations, and actively promoting restoration in a dyadic leader-follower

relationship. The leadership skills need development for understanding the role of followers’ emotions,

appreciating them and fostering the relationship. In trust violations and breach, an apology from a leader is

a powerful catalyst in moving from the turning point into restoring process. After apology, appropriate

arrangements should be in place to prevent future violations. Restoration of trust is important issue in the

today’s workplaces deserving further research in different contexts and angles, for example, the role of

emotions in trust restoration.

References

Andiappan M. & Trevino L., 2010. Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice.

Human relations 64(3), 359-386.

Bottom, W., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. & Murnighan, J. 2002. When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and

expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497- 513.

Burke, C., Sims., D., Lazzara, E. & Salas, E. 2007. Trust in leadership: A Multi-Level review and integration. The

Leadership Quarterly. 18(6), 606-632.

Chen, C., Saparito, P. & Belkin, L. 2011. Responding to trust breaches: The domain specificity of trust and the role of

affect, Journal of Trust Research, (1), 85–106.

Csik, M. 2012. Trust breach and restoring of violated trust: A narrative study of the stories from Finnish workplaces.

Master's Thesis (Awarded), University of Eastern Finland, Business School.

Dirks, K., Lewicki, R. & Zaheer, A. 2009. Repairing relationships within and between organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 33(1), 68–84. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350−383.

Lyles, M., & Easterby-Smith, M. P. V. 2003. The blackboard handlock of organizational learning and knowledge

management. Introduction. In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (Eds.) Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. 2016. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Ferrin, D., Kim, P., Cooper, C & Dirks, K. 2007. Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence in Comparison

to Apology and Denial for Responding to Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(4), 893-908.

Frazier, M., Johnson, P., Gavin, M., Gooty, J. & Bradley Snow, D. 2010. Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and

trust: A multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management (35)1, 39-76.

Grover, S., Hasel, M., Manville, C. & Serrano-Archimi, C. 2014. Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded

theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process. European Management Journal. 32(5), 689-702.

Ikonen, M., Savolainen, T., Lopez-Fresno, P. and Kohl, H. 2016. Trust Restoration in Workplace Relationships: Multi-

Level Analysis of (Mis)Trusting In C. Baglioni, C. Mio and A. Garlatti (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th European Conference

on Intellectual Capital, May 12-13, Venice, Italy.

Ikonen, M. 2013. Trust development and dynamics at dyadic level: A narrative approach to studying processes of

interpersonal trust in leader-follower relationships. Väitöskirja, Itä- Suomen yliopisto, Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja

kauppatieteiden tiedekunta. no 53.

Ivakko, E. 2015. Multilevel development of trust in organizational change– A Narrative study of employees’ experiences.

Master’s Thesis, University of Eastern Finland, Business School. in Finnish.

Kellokumpu, S-M. 2015. Rikkoutuneen luottamuksen palauttaminen: narratiivinen tutkimus työpaikoilta Master’s Thesis, University of Eastern Finland, Business School. in Finnish.

Kim, P., Dirks, K. & Cooper, C. 2009. The repair of trust: a dynamic bilateral perspective and multi-level

conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 401–422.

Kim, P., Ferrin, D., Cooper, C. & Dirks K. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology vs. denial

for repairing ability- vs. integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104-118.

Laitinen, M. 2018. Rikkoutuneen luottamuksen palautuminen esimies-alaissuhteessa – Alaisen näkökulma. Master’s

Thesis, University of Eastern Finland, Business School. In Finnish.

Lei, V., Masclet, D. and Vesely, F. 2014. Competition vs. communication: An experimental study on restoring trust.

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 108, 94-107.

Lerner, J., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P. & Kassam, K. 2015. Emotion and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66,

799.

Lewicki, R. 2010. Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of

Management Annals, 4, 245-277.

Lewicki, R. & Bunker, B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Teoksessa: Kramer & Tyler

(toim.), Trust in organizations, Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage1, 14–137. Re-printed in:

Bachmann, R. & Zaheer, A. (toim.) Landmark Papers on Trust Volume II. Great Britain: MBG Books.

Lewicki, R. & Polin, B. 2012. The art of the apology: the structure and effectiveness of apologies in trust repair. In: R.

Kramer and T. Pittinsky (eds.): Restoring Trust: Challenges and Prospects, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lewicki, R. & Tomlinson, E. 2003. The Effects of Reputation and Post Violation Communication on Trust and Distrust.

SSRN Electronic Journal.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. & Schoorman, F. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management

Review. Academy of Management, 20(3), 709-734.

McAllister, D. 1995. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24−59.

Pate, J. 2012. Trust restoration: An examination of senior managers' attempt to rebuild employee trust. Human

Resource Management Journal, 22(2),148-164.

Rotter, J. 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651- 665.

Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. & Camerer, C. 1998. Not So Different After All: A Cross Discipline View of Trust.

Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Savolainen, T. and Ikonen, M. 2016 Process dynamics of trust development: Exploring and illustrating emergence in

the team context. In Jagd, S. and Fuglsang, L. (eds.) Trust, Organizations and Social Interaction. Studying Trust as

Process within and between Organizations, 236-251.Edward Elgar Publishing.

Savolainen, T., Ivakko, E. & Ikonen, M. 2017. Trust development in workplace relations during change: A multi-level

analysis of narratives from leaders and followers. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Management

Leadership and Governance, Wits Business School, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, March.

Zanele, N., and Mokoteli, T. (Eds.). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited (ACPI Ltd.). Reading,

UK. 393-400.

Savolainen, T. 2008. Sharing tacit knowledge in a project-based organization: Perspective of Trust. In: Research

reports in Industrial Engineering and Management, Oulu 2/2008. Kujala, J. and Iskanius, J. Electronic Publication, CD.

676-688.

Savolainen, T. 2014. Trust-Building in e-Leadership: A Case Study of Leaders' Challenges and Skills in Technology-

Mediated Interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8 (2), 45-56.

Savolainen, T., Lopez-Fresno, P. & Ikonen, M. 2014. Trust-Communication Dyad in Workplace Relationships. Findings

from a Qualitative Study of Trust Violation and Breach. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 232–

240.

Savolainen, T. and Lopez‐Fresno, P. 2013. Trust as Intangible Asset ‐ Enabling Intellectual Capital Development by

Leadership for Vitality and Innovativeness. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 244‐255.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer R.C. & Davis J.H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.

Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Schweitzer, M., Hershey, J. & Bradlow, E. 2006. Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 1–19.74

Vasilache, S. 2008. Organizational knowledge dynamics. Challenges for the Knowledge Society. Management &

Marketing 2/2008, 94-104, ISSN 2069–8887.

Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. & Werner, J. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship

framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513−530.

Yang, J. & Mossholder, K. 2010. Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21(1), 50-63.