In the Riptide of Control and Trust: Emergence of Control Practices, Suspicion, and Distrust in New Technology Deployment

Abstract

In this study, we focus on the unintended consequences of new technology deployment for control‐trust dynamics. When addressing these dynamics, managers and management researchers often focus on consciously designed and implemented controls and management actions that build, repair, or preserve trust. At the same time, unowned processes – processes that have no single source or purpose – easily go unnoticed. These processes may have effects that are inadvertent and sometimes detrimental. A close‐up ethnographic study of a technology deployment provides insight into the emergence of unintended control practices and shifts in trust. Our findings demonstrate how deployment of new technology prompted a shift in the loci and forms of control and how trust, suspicion, and distrust surfaced asymmetrically as organizational members interpreted in different ways how others were using the new technological features. These developments contributed to the emergence of four unintended control practices: incidental monitoring, organizational surveillance, individual concealment, and collective resistance. Our study highlights the role of unowned processes in the control‐trust dynamics and emphasizes that whether or not control and trust are consciously addressed, both play interactive and evolving roles in organizations.

Rethinking Control and Trust Dynamics in and between Organizations

“…Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al (2023) explore how emergent and ‘unowned’ features in new technology deployment can serve as a catalyst for unintended changes in control and trust at all organizational levels ( Theme 4, dynamics ). Their study illustrates how four unintended control practices (incidental monitoring, organizational surveillance, individual concealment, and collective resistance) can lead to varying control and trust perceptions in different organizational groups that shape organizational members’ experiences (especially trust, suspicion, and distrust) in unexpected and dysfunctional ways.…”

“…and (3) Why are the actions being directed in particular ways? By observing how technologies alter organizational control practices (de Vaujany et al, 2021; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Zuboff, 2015), Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al (2023) examine the constitution of controls as relational practices that are applied through monitoring and surveillance (Brivot and Gendron, 2011; Patil and Bernstein, 2021). They outline several forms of control‐based actions that have not been clearly and systematically distinguished previously: incidental monitoring (i.e., monitoring others’ work habits and changes in work content), organizational surveillance (i.e., covertly evaluating how individuals act in relation to a technology's functions), individual concealment (avoiding particular patterns of technology usage), and collective resistance (resisting and regulating technology usage).…”

“…Several observations presented in the articles here suggest that it may be time for control‐trust scholars to look beyond the complementary‐substitution debate to examine other control‐trust relationships. For example, Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al (2023) demonstrate how ‘unowned’ processes can stimulate the development of unintended control practices (MacKay and Chia, 2013). They suggest that, due to the complexity of organizational contexts and the multiplex nature of value matrices, control and trust dynamics are constantly changing in emergent and often unintentional ways (Möllering, 2013).…”

“…By employing a longitudinal analysis, they are able to examine the various categories of actions managers take to ensure that their interorganizational relationships perform and endure over time. Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al (2023) similarly employ ethnographic techniques to chronicle how unintended control practices emerge in the wake of shifting control‐trust dynamics (Järventie‐Thesleff et al, 2016). Bhardwaj and Sergeeva's (2023) historical case study (Argyres et al, 2020; Cardinal et al, 2018) combines collected memoirs, private archival data, and interviews to identify factors that enable organizations to redress opportunism concerns, build trust among members of similar values catalysed copyrighting innovations.…”

“…Alternatively, Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al (2023) describe situations where control may be exercised by individuals who lack legitimate authority but affect control‐trust dynamics through upward‐influence mechanisms. Further research along this line of inquiry could delineate how power asymmetries arise and contribute to control applications, as well as how employee agency and opportunism manifest in control‐trust dynamics (MacKay and Chia, 2013); how distrust develops and can be repaired (Brattström et al, 2019; Gillespie and Siebert, 2017; Gustafsson et al, 2021); and how elements of control can be applied to best effect (Cooper, 2005; Delbridge and Ezzamel, 2005).…”