Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process

Grover, Steven L.; Hasel, Markus C.; Manville, Caroline; Serrano-Archimi, Carolina

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.002

Cited by 49 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that the LMX dyads were a part of a broader social network, with multiple actors influencing the experience of an LMX breach; a finding in line with recent studies of LMX relationships in organizations (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995;Regts et al, 2018;Sparrowe and Emery, 2015). Trust is important to a working relationship (e.g., Grover et al, 2014), as is perceived justice and equity (Henderson et al, 2008;Hooper and Martin, 2008), and the results of this study indicate that subordinates assess the trustworthiness and perceived commitment to justice of the leader by reflecting events taking place within other dyads.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Spanning leader–subordinate relationships through negative interactions: An examination of leader–member exchange breaches

Kangas

2020

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to discover the dynamic and processual nature of a supervisory relationship (here a leader–member exchange) through a novel, theoretical concept termed leader–member exchange breach, and by examining the characteristics of negative exchange interactions within the leader–member exchange relationship. The notion of the leader–member exchange breach is empirically defined through data on 336 responses to open-ended questions on negative interactions between leaders and subordinates, analyzed through qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study raise questions about the complexity of leader–member exchange relationships and show that breaches of the leader–member exchange relationship might lead to a reassessment of the dyadic relationship between leaders and their subordinates, spanning or even breaking the exchange relationships. This study extends current knowledge on leader–member exchange relationships by providing a viewpoint on the leader–member exchange breach that helps explain the processual and dynamic nature of those relationships through interpersonal interactions and exchanges.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Spanning leader–subordinate relationships through negative interactions: An examination of leader–member exchange breaches

Kangas

2020

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also urge researchers to consider varying levels of severity of integrity violations in any forthcoming investigations. Grover et al (2014), for instance, provided a taxonomy of recoverable and irrecoverable trust violations, ultimately specifying that severity of the breach is an important consideration. Specifically, the authors showed that regardless of the type of violation (i.e., competence-, integrity-, or benevolence-based), trust was reparable, but only if the violation was not too severe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Denial and Empathy: Partners in Employee Trust Repair?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research on trust repair has focused primarily on investigating verbal responses to breaches of trust. Although consistently implicated in violations, the role of affect in the repair process has been mostly ignored. Using a scenario-based paradigm, we conducted an experimental study to examine the value of mistrusted party’s empathy, specific responses to an integrity-based violation (apology vs. denial), and nature of consequences (personal vs. organizational), as well as their interactive effects, on trust repair. Consequently, we sought to merge work on verbal responses with affect. Major findings indicated that presence of mistrusted party’s empathy functioned to repair trust better than its absence and, when coupled with a denial of culpability, produced markedly increased perceptions of violator’s integrity. These findings contribute to our understanding of how leaders influence followers through affect, informing both emotion and trust theory.

show abstract

“…At the micro level, prior organizational research has emphasized both the importance of trust in managers and trust of managers. The majority of publications deal with trust in managers or leaders (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007;Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Grover, Hasel, Manville, & Serrano-Archimi, 2014;Mayer & Davis, 1999) and have demonstrated, for instance, that employees' trust in managers is associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to stay, and job performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Nienaber, Romeike, Searle, & Schewe, 2015a). However, empirical research on trust of managers or leaders is relatively scarce, as has been noted previously (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009;Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012;Nienaber et al, 2015a).…”

Section: Distrustful Managersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refuting the cliché of the distrustful manager

Hommelhoff

Richter

2017

European Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW Berlin This series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences:

show abstract

Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process

Cited by 49 publications

References 53 publications

Spanning leader–subordinate relationships through negative interactions: An examination of leader–member exchange breaches

Spanning leader–subordinate relationships through negative interactions: An examination of leader–member exchange breaches

Denial and Empathy: Partners in Employee Trust Repair?

Refuting the cliché of the distrustful manager

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About