Fall from Grace: A qualitative field study examining organization-level trust in the context of a CEO: digital marketing Research paper, OC, Ireland

Research Proposal

“Fall from Grace: A qualitative field study examining organization-level trust in the context of a CEO transgression and the subsequent organizational response. A case study of the Football Association of Ireland (FAI)”

1. Introduction

“We don’t trust the FAI, we don’t trust them with the money, we’ve withdrawn from them and we’re not going to give them any government money or taxpayers money” (Shane Ross, Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, December 2019)

Over the past decade there have been several high-profile, often scandalous, organizational breaches of trust resulting in a deterioration of trust amongst stakeholders. In the Irish context these include the Garda whistle-blower scandal, the HSE cervical check failure and the FAI transgression.

The underlying driver for this trend is partially due to changing behaviors emanating from an increase in internal pressures and constraints (targets, budgets and competition) and a decrease in external constraints (regulation and monitoring) (Dietz and Gillespie, 2011). Given this context, it can be argued that these crises in organizations are inevitable and natural (Lewicki et al., 2016).

The consequence is that the overall level of trust that society has in businesses, governments and institutions is at an all-time low (“2019
Edelman Trust Barometer | Edelman,” 2019). Given this dire situation, it is crucial that organizations understand how to effectively build trust among stakeholders, how to behave in a trustworthy manner and how to repair trust following a violation.

2. Research Questions
The present study seeks to understand how trust is impacted by a transgression and how it can subsequently be repaired. The research questions have been developed through identifying gaps in the existing theories. The questions are designed to test, qualify and build on the key concepts, assumptions and findings within the extant literature.

RQ1: How does a CEO transgression impact the level of trust that stakeholders have in an organization?

RQ2: Following a CEO transgression how do the use of repair mechanisms effectively recover trust in an organization?

a) How does the timing of response contribute to the effectiveness of trust repair?
b) How does the timing of apology contribute to the effectiveness of trust repair?
c) How does dismissal of the CEO contribute to the effectiveness of trust repair?

RQ3: Following a CEO transgression, are there any instances where a trust
preservation approach is effective?

3. Literature Review

Trust is a construct with a long history and extensive significance with scholars across multiple disciplines considering it’s causes, nature, and effects. Trust is generally accepted as the willingness of a person (trustor) to be vulnerable to the actions of another (trustee) based on the expectation that the trustee will act in a certain way. Ability, benevolence and integrity are identified as key trustworthiness factors (Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). Risk and interdependence are the conditions identified as critical prerequisites for  the existence of trust (Bigley and Pearce, 1998; Hosmer, 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). Trust propensity (willingness to rely on others) is another related concept. Trust is a situational state and trust propensity is individual based (Colquitt et al., 2007).

3.2 Organizational Trust

Organizational trust theory has its foundations in interpersonal trust theory and, whilst they share many key concepts, there are some important differences. Early research focusses on interpersonal trust, a dyadic context where the individual is the referent of trust (Colquitt et al., 2007; Ferin et al., 2007b; Tomlinson et al., 2004; Tomlinson and Mayer, 2009). Many studies on organizational-level trust simply adapt interpersonal trust dynamics to the organizational level (Lewicki et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998).

Trust repair at organizational-level is different to the interpersonal context as the focal object differs (Bachmann et al., 2015; Rousseau et al., 1998). The additional complexity that exists within organizational settings gives rise to the concept of perceived organizational trustworthiness, a separate construct affected by multiple sources of evidence and actors across numerous organizational levels (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009).

3.3 Trust Breach
Whenever trust exists there is the risk it can be breached. There are several ways in which a trust breach is conceptualized within the literature. The most prevalent refers to a breach of trust which takes place when proof disconfirms the positive expectations regarding a person’s behavior and redefines the nature of the relationship as believed by the injured party (Tomlinson et al., 2004). The impact of this type of breach and recovery approach depends upon how it is perceived and whether it is integrity or competency based (Dirks et al., 2011).

Violation is another concept, defined as an event in which a trustor believes that a trustee has failed to deliver on their obligations to the relationship (Kharif and Lund, 2019). A third conceptualization is organizational failure which is a single major incident, or collective series of incidents, resulting from the action or inaction of individuals within an organization that manifests into threatening the legitimacy of the organization and the well-being of their stakeholders (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009). The fourth concept is a CEO transgression and is described as a violation of trust that lowers perceptions of the CEO’s trustworthiness and trust in the organization (Ferin et al., 2018).

3.4 Trust Repair

The concept of trust repair features strongly within the literature as a means of restoring trust following a breach. The primary objective of a trust repair process is to overcome negative expectations about a violators’ trustworthiness. This is achievable through applying the principles of distrust regulation (regulating negative behavior) and trustworthiness demonstration (displays of positive trustworthiness). Each element within an organization’s system shapes an employee’s view of trustworthiness in the organization and can impact failures and trust repair. Gillespie and Dietz’s (2009) study, informed by systems theory and multi-level theories, illustrates how an organization’s various components operate at multiple- 7 levels and how activities within one component and level can influence and be influenced by those occurring in other components and levels (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009).

3.5 Trust Preservation

Trust preservation, a less developed theory, is distinct from trust building and trust repair and is a construct that serves to protect established trust in instances where trust has not been breached. The theory suggests that a preservation approach is most effective in times of business disruption (e.g. technological, economical) based on the idea of trust as an ongoing achievement (active trust) being continuously worked on by actors (Gustafson et al., 2020).

The theoretical model from Gustafson, Gillespie, Hailey, Ros and Dietz (2020) proposes that organizational actors preserve employees trust through cognitive bridging, emotional embodying and inclusive enacting. Trust preservation is therefore a manifestation and extension of active trust. Their case studies of four separate organizations reveal that, in three out of four cases, employees’ trust in their organization was preserved using the above approach (Gustafson et al., 2020).

4. Methodology

4.1 Epistemological Approach

My philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of reality are based on constructivist ontology and the belief that social events and their meanings are constructed by social actors. In research terms this allows for various interpretations of the data. The epistemological approach adopted is Interpretivist as I endeavor to see the world from the actors’ perspective (Isaura et al., 2015).

4.2. Research Method

To fulfil project the objectives I am using a qualitative research method as a vehicle to explore peoples’ experiences of trust violations through their own detailed descriptions (Falmer et al., 2018). The relevance of this approach is supported by the theory maturity fit, with organizational trust research being at an intermediate level of maturity. A qualitative method will be more beneficial than quantitative as it can provide greater validity, broader insights and the capability for making sense of complex organizational realities (Saunders and Townsend, 2016). Choosing a qualitative technique will also answer the call from the organizational psychology domain for more diversity in the range of methodological tools used in the field (Cassel and Symon, 2011).

4.4 Ethical Considerations

To ensure all ethical standards are adhered to, full consideration is being given to each of the phases including initial research design, participants access, data collection, data interpretation and conclusion forming (Saunders et al., 2003). The ethical principles inform the approach and will ensure there is no harm to participants, no invasion of privacy, no deception, no conflict of interest and that informed consent is given at all times (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Once participants are identified and interview questions prepared, the full ethical implications of the study can be assessed. No issues are anticipated in terms of relationship with participants, individual consent or storage of confidential information but there might be some sensitivity regarding the questions for FAI employees which will need to be addressed.

4.5 Interpretation of Data / Research Outcomes

Inductive thematic analysis will be used to interpret the data to identify, analyze and report patterns and to organize and describe the data set in rich detail. This inductive approach will ensure the analysis is data driven as the coding will be completed without trying to fit it into a pre-existing theory or any analytical preconceptions (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The output will be a scholarly report of the analysis including selected extracts, linking the analysis to the research questions and literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006). It will also include a case write up of the processes investigated and the development of a theoretical framework (Stake, 1995).