The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders' Apologies to Repair Followers ...

51 Pages·2016·0.5 MB·English

(cid:55)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:17)
Running head: APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR

The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders’ Apologies to Repair
Followers’ Trust in the Aftermath of Leader Failure
Tessa Haesevoetsa, Anne Joostena, Chris Reinders Folmerb, Lisa Lernera, David De Cremerc
and Alain Van Hiela
a Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology; Ghent University; Henri
Dunantlaan 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium
b Erasmus School of Law; Erasmus University; Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
c Judge Business School; University of Cambridge; Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2
1AG, United Kingdom

Authors Note
The authors would like to thank the University College West Flanders (Howest) for
their help with the data collection of the third study. In this regard, special thanks go to
Hannes Verdru.
This research was supported by a research grant from the National Fund for Scientific
Research-Flanders (under grant number G095912N).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tessa Haesevoets,
Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-
9000, Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected], Tel: [phone], Fax:
[phone].
(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:83)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:68)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:38)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:78)(cid:3)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:90)(cid:3)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:78)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:86)
(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:83)(cid:87)(cid:12)
Running head: APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR

1
2
3

4
5
6
The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders’ Apologies to Repair
7
8
9 Followers’ Trust in the Aftermath of Leader Failure
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 2
Abstract
1
2
3 Purpose – The aim of the present research was to investigate how a negative decision
4
5
outcome generated by a leader in a hasty, timely, or delayed manner impacts upon the need
6
7
8 for, and the effectiveness of apologies to restore followers’ trust.
9
10 Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using five studies in which the effects
11
12
of timing of an incorrect decision on the trust repair process were investigated.
13
14
15 Findings – In the aftermath of a leader’s failure, followers experienced a delayed incorrect
16
17
decision as a more severe transgression than a hasty or a timely incorrect decision. This effect
18
19
20 was mediated by procedural fairness concerns (Study 1). The present findings also revealed
21
22
an interesting paradox. Specifically, in the delayed condition followers expressed the highest
23
24
25 need for an apology (Studies 2 and 3), but at the same time expected an apology to be less
26
27 effective for enhancing trustworthiness than in the timely and the hasty condition (Study 3).
28
29
Moreover, we also showed that the actual provision of an apology was effective for restoring
30
31
32 both trustworthiness (Study 4) and trust (Studies 4 and 5) in the timely and the hasty
33
34
condition, but ineffective in the delayed condition.
35
36
37 Implications – The present research shows that when the outcome of a decision is uncertain,
38
39
it is better to make a decision (too) soon rather than (too) late.
40
41
42 Originality/value – Despite the ubiquity of timing errors in daily life, our studies are the first
43
44
to focus on the role of timeliness of decisions in the trust repair process.
45
46
47
48 Keywords: decision timing; delays; trust; apologies; leader failure; leader-follower
49
50 relationships; fairness
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 3
The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders’ Apologies to Repair
1
2
Followers’ Trust in the Aftermath of Leader Failure
3
4
5
On almost a daily basis leaders have to make decisions that can either benefit or harm
6
7
8 their organization, their employees, and themselves (Messick & Bazerman, 1996). When leaders
9
10 make inadequate decisions a host of negative consequences may arise, which can hamper
11
12
followers’ future collaboration and compliance (De Cremer, 2013). Importantly, prior research
13
14
15 has also indicated that leader failure decreases followers’ confidence and trust in this leader
16
17
(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Trust is an important element of organizational functioning and
18
19
20 influences leadership effectiveness considerably (see Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), and for that reason
21
22
leaders need to be able to restore trust once it is violated. One relevant way to address trust
23
24
25 violations in an effective way is through the delivery of an apology (Lazare, 2004).
26
27
28 In the present paper, we investigated the type of transgressions that can be restored
29
30 through the use of apologies in the context of dyadic leader-follower relationships. We aim to
31
32
show that, in the case of an incorrect decision by a leader, the timing of when the decision was
33
34
35 made can influence how much a trust repair strategy (by means of delivering an apology) is
36
37
needed. Did the leader make the incorrect decision in a hasty, timely, or delayed fashion?
38
39
40 Leaders can quickly make decisions but can also miss deadlines for those same decisions.
41
42
Although not much research attention has been devoted to the issue of timeliness in explaining
43
44
45 leadership effectiveness, prior research has revealed that delayed decisions lead to negative
46
47 consequences in terms of organizational performance and leadership perceptions (e.g., Cha &
48
49
Edmonston, 2006; Gilliland, 1993; Truxillo, Bauer, Campion, & Paronto, 2002). The present
50
51
52 research aimed to show that the timing of a leader’s incorrect decision also influences the
53
54
effectiveness of an apology for enhancing trust repair.
55
56
57
Trust in Leader-Follower Relationships
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 4
Almost any decision or exchange that we engage in includes some sort of trust
1
2
evaluation, either towards a person, an organization, or even society as a whole. As such, trust
3
4
5 represents a fundamental ingredient to coordinate and facilitate social relationships (Bohnet &
6
7 Croson, 2004). In this regard, the integrative model of Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995)
8
9
makes an important conceptual distinction between trustworthiness and trust. Trustworthiness is
10
11
12 a multidimensional construct that comprises the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee
13
14
(Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Mayer et al., 1995). These three facets are viewed as
15
16
17 antecedents of trust, which has been defined as the intention to accept vulnerability based on
18
19
positive expectations of the actions of another person (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).
20
21
22 In the current contribution, we take trustworthiness and trust into account when investigating the
23
24 reconciliation process in the aftermath of leader failure, because the leader-member exchange
25
26
theory describes both these concepts as crucial elements of effective relationships between
27
28
29 leaders and their followers (see Liden & Graen, 1980).
30
31
32 Indeed, researchers have identified the presence of trust as a critical prerequisite for
33
34
leaders to empower their followers (see Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995). Because of
35
36
37 high trust employees effectively complete their jobs and go above and beyond the call of duty in
38
39
their work without clear compensation (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). In addition, a meta-analysis of
40
41
42 Dirks and Ferrin (2002) revealed that trust in leadership also has significant positive relationships
43
44
with employees’ outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and
45
46
47 commitment to the leader’s decisions. Yet, in everyday life leaders are confronted with many
48
49 challenging situations which offer numerous opportunities for violating their followers’ trust.
50
51
One way in which leaders may violate trust is by making decisions that fail to reach desired goals
52
53
54 and subsequently produce unfavorable outcomes for their followers. Acknowledging the
55
56
ubiquity of such leaders’ failures, a vital question that arises is how followers’ trust can be
57
58
59 regained in the aftermath of leader failure.
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 5
Trust Repair: The Use of Apologies
1
2
3 The trust repair strategy that received by far the most research attention is the provision
4
5
of an apology (De Cremer, 2010). An apology is generally defined as a combined statement of
6
7
8 an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and an expression of guilt (Lazare, 2004). Another crucial
9
10 element of a persuasive apology is an explicit promise of future trustworthy behavior (Scher &
11
12
Darley, 1997). In the aftermath of a trust violation, an apology can thus be seen as an adequate
13
14
15 response because it implies that the transgressor distances him- or herself from prior actions.
16
17
18 A considerable body of research has shown that offering a sincere apology might indeed
19
20
be an effective strategy to enhance trust (e.g., Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989; Schwartz,
21
22
23 1978; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). Specifically, these studies found that transgressors
24
25
who apologize are rated more favorably and as less culpable than transgressors who do not
26
27
28 apologize. However, evidence is growing that apologies do not always facilitate the repair of
29
30 trust (De Cremer & Desmet, 2012). The theory of impression management suggests that
31
32
apologies can be ineffective due to the acknowledgment of guilt (Schlenker, 1980). In line with
33
34
35 this theory, Sigal, Hsu, Foodim, and Betman (1988) found that a denial of misconduct is a more
36
37
effective strategy to obtain votes for a political candidate than the provision of an apology.
38
39
40 Moreover, prior research revealed that the type of violation plays a crucial role in determining
41
42
whether apologies are effective to repair broken trust (e.g., Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007;
43
44
45 Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). Specifically,
46
47 apologies are effective to enhance trust after a competence-based trust violation. However, when
48
49
the transgression reflects a lack of integrity (such as the sexual or financial misconduct in the
50
51
52 study of Sigal and colleagues) apologies are ineffective to repair broken trust. A similar result
53
54
was obtained by Leunissen, De Cremer, Reinders Folmer, and van Dijke (2013), who found that
55
56
57 an apology leads to more forgiveness after unintentional than after intentional transgressions.
58
59
However, apologies may not only be ineffective, but even counterproductive. In this regard,
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 6
Kellogg (2007) has referred to apologies as “highly risky strategies” that can make “a bad
1
2
situation worse” (p. 21). Empirical research supports the idea that apologies can backfire and
3
4
5 lead to a further decline of trust (Skarlicki, Folger, & Gee, 2004).
6
7
8 How can the mixed results of these prior studies be explained? Previous research has
9
10 shown that the effectiveness of an apology as a means to repair broken trust is dependent on
11
12
whether people are willing to rebuild their relationship with the transgressor (Tomlinson et al.,
13
14
15 2004). This willingness strongly depends on how the trust violation occurred. Although much is
16
17
known about how the type of violation (for instance in terms of competence versus integrity or
18
19
20 unintentional versus intentional violations) influences the trust repair process, a crucial category
21
22
of organizational trust violations − that is, delayed decisions and missed deadlines − has not yet
23
24
25 been examined. In the present research, we argue that a leader’s decision timing, another
26
27 important dimension of transgression, is a crucial antecedent of whether apologies will be able to
28
29
positively influence trustworthiness and trust.
30
31
32
The Role of Decision Timing
33
34
35
There is some prior research that indicated the importance of the role of timing for the
36
37
38 trust repair process. In this venture, Lount, Zhong, Sivanathan, and Murnighan (2008) found that
39
40
the timing of a trust breach (i.e., whether the breach occurred at an early or later phase of the
41
42
43 relationship) influences the restoration process. Investigating another aspect of timing, Frantz
44
45
and Benningson (2005) reported that whether an apology was offered at the beginning or the end
46
47
48 of a conversation impacts its effectiveness to enhance recovery. Specifically, these studies
49
50 revealed that getting off on the wrong foot has especially devastating long-term consequences for
51
52
trust and that later apologies are more effective to restore trust than earlier ones. However, no
53
54
55 previous studies investigated how the timing of an incorrect decision influences the need for and
56
57
the effectiveness of apologies as a trust repair strategy. This lack in the literature is regretful
58
59
60 because leaders are regularly confronted with deadlines. Delays thus appear to be a ubiquitous
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 7
problem for organizations (De Cremer, 2013; Tukel & Rom, 1998), making attempts to repair
1
2
trust under such circumstances highly relevant. With regard to the timing dimension, leaders’
3
4
5 decisions can either be generated hasty (when the decision is made too early, without considering
6
7 all relevant information), timely (when the decision is made at the appropriate or opportune
8
9
moment in time), or delayed (when the decision is made too late, for example after the passing of
10
11
12 a predefined deadline).
13
14
15 What happens when decisions are delivered in a timely fashion, too soon, or too late?
16
17
Hogan and Kaiser (2005) have argued that “good leaders make good decisions in a timely way”
18
19
20 (p. 173). In line with this statement, timeliness has been associated with positive outcomes in
21
22
terms of leadership effectiveness and organizational performance (see Bluedorn & Denhardt,
23
24
25 1988; Jacobs, 2005; Snowden & Boone, 2007). With regard to the outcomes of decisions, from
26
27 this literature it is not clear whether these positive consequences are only applicable to timely
28
29
decisions that had positive outcomes, or also when the outcome of the decision process was
30
31
32 negative. With regard to the consequences of hasty decisions the results are more mixed. On the
33
34
one hand, some studies have shown that an overly fast decision-making style may reflect
35
36
37 negatively upon leaders (e.g., Gavin & Roberto, 2001). On the other hand, there are also studies
38
39
which have indicated that a fast decision-making style is positively related to organizational
40
41
42 performance, as fast decisions are associated with efficiency and effectiveness (e.g., Bluedorn,
43
44
2002). With respect to delayed decisions, the results of previous studies are more
45
46
47 straightforward. People have a strong aversion for delays, especially when a delay affects desired
48
49 outcomes and incur costs (Blount & Janicik, 2001). Postponing a decision can lead to important
50
51
deadlines being missed, which can have severe consequences for team processes and outcomes
52
53
54 (Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009). Moreover, leaders who employ a delayed decision-
55
56
making style are perceived as ineffective, lazy, and even hypocritical (Cha & Edmonston, 2006).
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 8
Taken together, these studies show that particularly a delayed decision-making style is
1
2
harmful for leadership effectiveness and social reputation. What is interesting to note, however,
3
4
5 is that timing of a decision in most studies refers to the process of making decisions, and does not
6
7 necessarily imply positive or negative outcomes. Below, we argue that the timing dimension will
8
9
be highly relevant to followers in cases where they suffer negative outcomes due to a leader’s
10
11
12 (hasty, timely, or delayed) erroneous decision.
13
14
15 Being Wrong and Too Late: Implications for Trust Repair
16
17
18 From a purely instrumental perspective, followers should not care about the leader’s
19
20
decision timing when this decision failed to reach a desired outcome. Indeed, in such instances
21
22
23 the leader’s decision generated a negative outcome, regardless of the timing of this decision.
24
25
However, people are not only influenced by the outcomes of a decision, but also by the way the
26
27
28 decision has been reached. The distinction between distributive and procedural fairness helps to
29
30 understand why decisions that are incorrect and delayed are not well received. Distributive
31
32
fairness refers to the perception of fairness of received outcomes and allocations (Cropanzano &
33
34
35 Ambrose, 2001). Yet, people’s satisfaction with tangible outcomes is also determined by the
36
37
degree to which fair procedures are applied in order to arrive at this outcome. Procedures are
38
39
40 considered fair when, for example, they are free from bias and when accurate information is
41
42
collected and used in the decision process (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980).
43
44
45
Rutte and Messick (1995) suggested that when people’s outcomes are unfavorable, they
46
47
48 start to “search for one or more rules that were violated” (p. 247). Particularly relevant in the
49
50 present context is the finding that when outcomes are negative and distributive fairness is at a
51
52
low level, people are especially influenced by and concerned with procedural fairness (Brockner
53
54
55 & Wiesenfeld, 1996). Hence, when a leader’s decision hurts the interests of his or her followers,
56
57
followers will pay special attention to the way in which the decision was made. In this respect,
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APOLOGIES, DELAYS, AND TRUST REPAIR 9
timeliness can be considered as an important dimension for evaluating procedural fairness (e.g.,
1
2
Bies & Moag, 1986; Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996).
3
4
5
Indeed, recent justice research investigating the speed of decision-making as a procedural
6
7
8 fairness principle found that overly slow decision-making processes trigger perceptions of
9
10 unfairness (see Valkeapää & Seppälä, 2014; see also Gilliland, 1993; Truxillo et al., 2002).
11
12
When decisions last much longer than expected, uncertainty increases and people may start
13
14
15 looking for parties at fault and possible reasons for the delays (Lind, 2001). Similarly, a fast
16
17
decision process might also be perceived as unfair as it indicates that there might be problems in
18
19
20 the adherence of proper decision-making procedures, as full adherence to procedural fairness
21
22
principles takes time (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). Consequently, fast decision-making
23
24
25 processes could also be negatively related to perceived fairness. Yet, the study of Valkeapää and
26
27 Seppälä provides initial evidence that the negative effects of delayed decisions, in terms of
28
29
lowered procedural fairness concerns, are more pronounced than the negative effects of hasty
30
31
32 decisions. This finding can be explained when taking the concept of uncertainty into account.
33
34
Indeed, a slow decision creates both uncertainty in the short-term (greater time spent under
35
36
37 uncertainty) and long-term (concerns about the quality of the decision-making process), while a
38
39
fast decision creates only concerns about the quality of the decision-making process as it
40
41
42 minimalizes short-term uncertainty (see Valkeapää & Seppälä, 2014). In sum, it can thus be
43
44
expected that, compared to timely decisions, especially delayed decisions will lead to low
45
46
47 procedural fairness perceptions.
48
49
A range of studies found that negative reactions are most prominent when low
50
51
52 distributive fairness is accompanied by unfair procedures (for an overview, see Brockner &
53
54
Wiesenfeld, 1996). Put otherwise, the combination of low procedural fairness and low outcome
55
56
57 favorability engenders the most negative reactions. Hence, in the aftermath of a leader failure
58
59
which results in a negative decision outcome, followers will react most negatively when the
60
61
62
63
64
65