Interpersonal trust refers to confidence in another person (or between two persons) and a willingness to be vulnerable to him or her (or to each other). In contemporary organizational science, research conducted within organizations has extensively investigated personal, dyadic, and contextual factors that motivate interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between two persons) and the consequence of interpersonal trust for the trustor and the trustee. This line of work distinguishes between two orientations that researchers have taken when conceptualizing interpersonal trust: unidirectional trust and bidirectional trust. Unidirectional trust refers to a focus on one person’s trust in another without regard to the reciprocation of that trust. Unidirectional trust research investigates trust in another party at a higher hierarchy level (e.g., followers’ trust in the leader), a lower hierarchy level (e.g., the leader’s trust in followers), or at the same hierarchy level (e.g., employees’ trust in coworkers). Bidirectional trust focuses on the shared trust in a dyad. Research on bidirectional trust helps to provide insights about the complex pattern and evolution of interpersonal trust over time. However, research investigating bidirectional trust is relatively limited compared to unidirectional trust. Besides research on interpersonal trust within the same work unit, there is also a recent trend toward investigating interpersonal trust across work unit and organizational boundaries. Another important line of literature regarding interpersonal trust is the investigation of the causes and consequences of interpersonal trust violations and the effectiveness of remedies (e.g., apologies) for these violations.
Article
Jingjing Ma, John M. Schaubroeck, and Catherine LeBlanc
Article
John Bryson and Lauren Hamilton Edwards
Strategic planning has become a fairly routine and common practice at all levels of government in the United States and elsewhere. It can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation. Strategic planning can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health), and to places ranging from local to national to transnational. Research results are somewhat mixed, but they generally show a positive relationship between strategic planning and improved organizational performance. Much has been learned about public-sector strategic planning over the past several decades but there is much that is not known.
There are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. Some are comprehensive process-oriented approaches (i.e., public-sector variants of the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems). Others are more narrowly focused process approaches that are in effect strategies (i.e., strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation). Finally, there are content-oriented approaches (i.e., portfolio analyses and competitive forces analysis).
The research on public-sector strategic planning has pursued a number of themes. The first concerns what strategic planning “is” theoretically and practically. The approaches mentioned above may be thought of as generic—their ostensive aspect—but they must be applied contingently and sensitively in practice—their performative aspect. Scholars vary in whether they conceptualize strategic planning in a generic or performative way. A second theme concerns attempts to understand whether and how strategic planning “works.” Not surprisingly, how strategic planning is conceptualized and operationalized affects the answers. A third theme focuses on outcomes of strategic planning. The outcomes studied typically have been performance-related, such as efficiency and effectiveness, but some studies focus on intermediate outcomes, such as participation and learning, and a small number focus on a broader range of public values, such as transparency or equity. A final theme looks at what contributes to strategic planning success. Factors related to success include effective leadership, organizational capacity and resources, and participation, among others.
A substantial research agenda remains. Public-sector strategic planning is not a single thing, but many things, and can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Useful findings have come from each of these different conceptualizations through use of a variety of methodologies. This more open approach to research should continue. Given the increasing ubiquity of strategic planning across the globe, the additional insights this research approach can yield into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.
Article
Niall O'Riordan, Paul Ryan, and Ulf Andersson
Corporate governance is concerned with how firm performance may be affected by how the organization is governed. Corporate governance is a multifaceted concept that ranges in scholarly interest from the composition of boards to ownership and relational issues of power dependency, control, and decision-making within an organization. International business (IB) researchers have employed multiple theoretical lenses across institutional, resource dependency, and agency theories to examine corporate governance in the multinational enterprise (MNE). As the organizational form of the MNE shifted from hierarchical to heterarchical, and responsibility for sourcing market and innovation knowledge was increasingly devolved to competent subsidiaries, governance arrangements in the MNE came under increased scrutiny. Much IB research into corporate governance examined the balance of power within the MNE and how decision making is influenced by both headquarters (HQ) and its subsidiaries. A parent-subsidiary governance dilemma became apparent around the degree of freedom and control that HQ should leverage over its foreign subsidiaries to maximize the survival and performance of these economically, culturally, and politically dispersed units. Agency theory and resource dependence theory were to the fore in examining the parent-subsidiary dilemma around how control over decision-making scope and processes shaped subsidiary governance around the strategies and operations with the MNE governance architecture. In essence, subsidiary governance and strategy can be seen to represent two sides of the same coin.
Subsidiary governance and strategy become complex issues the minute we step outside the hierarchical domain and allow for subsidiaries to have a greater contributory role in the MNE. As a subsidiary is mandated to pursue certain activities in the environment where it has been located, it also is granted some autonomy to strategize around its assigned activities and responsibilities. Opportunities may surface through the embeddedness of its activities in the local environment and the resources this can provide to the subsidiary and MNE. Acting on these opportunities by taking initiatives can result in increased influence and an elevated role in terms of mandate gain and enlarged responsibilities. The issue of subsidiary governance first emerges in relation to how the subsidiary strategy is aligned or not aligned with HQ strategy.
Subsidiary managers can decide to solely perform their assigned mandate, or they can choose to generate a resource endowment that may help them become indispensable for HQ, but crucially to guarantee their own survival. The mechanisms available to subsidiaries to achieve this strategic aim are evidenced via initiative taking, seeking autonomy, increasing their role, appropriating power and influence, and embedding themselves in the local and internal environments. In this chapter we approach corporate governance from the perspective of the subsidiary (subsidiary governance) and examine the relationship between subsidiary governance and what we determine to be the prime elements of subsidiary strategy. We respectively define subsidiary governance as the gamut and interplay of control and operations around which management strategize and subsidiary strategy as a process of continuous, deliberate upgrading of knowledge and capabilities to thrive and survive. IB literature on MNE subsidiary governance and strategy to date is incomplete insofar as there are disparate steams of research that warrant integration into a grand theory of subsidiary governance and strategy.
