This paper investigates the relationships between organizational change and trust in management. It is argued that organizational change represents a critical episode for the production and destruction of trust in management. Although trust in management is seen as a semi stable psychological state, changes in organizations make trust issues salient and organizational members attend to and process trust relevant information resulting in a reassessment of their trust in management. The direction and magnitude of change in trust is dependent on a set of change dimensions that reflect trust relevant experiences and information. We distinguish between dimensions related to trust relevant consequences of the change and trust relevant aspects of how the change process is performed. Empirical results indicate that increases in post change emotional stress and the use of referential accounts for justifying change are both negatively related to post change trust in management. The use of ideological accounts and participation were found to be positively related to post change trust in management, so was perceived decision quality. Findings also indicate that the effects of change on trust are negatively moderated by tenure.
The aim of this article is to identify those aspects of global leadership development (GLD) programs that promote social capital and knowledge sharing in multinational enterprises (MNEs). The analysis is conducted within the context of two Scandinavian MNEs. Both MNEs had aimed at the development of inter-unit social networks and knowledge sharing. In the one program, participants bonded with other participants while remaining socially embedded in their business units of origin. As a consequence, bridging social capital was developed, and knowledge sharing across the MNE increased. For the other program, despite apparent similarities in design and goals, we found the reverse. In addition to differences in the selection mechanisms employed by the two programs, our research identifi ed contrasting modes of organizing the in-program learning processes and dissimilarities in the roles played by top management and GLD consultants during the programs. Overall, while the one program was congruent with the Scandinavian corporate culture context, the other was at odds with it, and instead of developing social capital it turned out prima donnas. We argue that MNEs aiming to use GLD programs for developing social capital across their operations must be highly sensitive to the issue of congruence with the established corporate culture.
The problem and the solution. The majority of contemporary theories about management and leadership development suggest techniques and best practices for improving management and leadership to optimize organizational performance. Despite the abundance of advice and the manifestly instrumental intention, most organizations struggle to achieve this connection between management development (MD) and improved performance. This article switches attention from the actual MD methods employed to the stories that managers tell about their experience of development. Drawing on 10 case studies in Norway, the focus is on how managers talk about management and leadership development and the degree to which this matches how such development actually happens in their organizations. In doing so, the article presents a better understanding of why some MD activities achieve little, why some succeed, and why some change shape beyond recognition.
This article addresses the question: How can one understand the dynamics involved in translating experience into organizational routines? In the pursuit of such understanding, the article examines two dynamic threats to the relationship between experience and routines. The results suggest that these threats interrelate with how multiple actors interact in an organizational context. This interrelation constitutes different learning processes. One type of learning is associated with heedful interaction—where organizational routines become a source of exploration and adaptiveness. The other type of learning is associated with heedless interaction—where routines become a source of exploitation, inertia, and carelessness. The data used in approaching the research question are from a longitudinal research project that illustrates how multiple actors in an organization generate and change routines in the face of changing experience.
Although a near consensus exists on the need for balancing lower and higher order learning, there is considerably less clarity about how and under which organizational conditions a balance can be achieved. From this view, this study addresses the question, What are the rules of the game that may facilitate a balance between lower and higher order learning? The findings from the study show that lower order learning is an outcome of learning from one's own experience, and higher order learning is an outcome of learning from the experience of others. The findings also confirm that a balance between these types of learning depends on social interaction—based on norms that are different from the norm that the learning actors follow in their formal organizational setting. The data used in approaching the research question are from a case study that shows how and under what conditions a team of professionals managed to balance lower and higher order learning over time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.