Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have recommended that industrial and organizational (I-O) researchers and practitioners take a more nuanced perspective with respect to nepotism and cronyism—recast as social connection preference (SCP)—when relevant I-O decisions (e.g., hiring) are made on the basis of kin or affiliation considerations. Jones and Stout's (Reference Jones and Stout2015) arguments have challenged the reflexive view that SCP is always negative and thus the prudent approach is to restrict and, if possible, prohibit it. They call for further research to flesh out our understanding of SCP in organizations, and we suggest that one way to do that is to explicitly incorporate trust theory, that is, the components of trustworthiness, which represent antecedents of trust.
The concept of trust appears many times in various models and discussions of SCP. Jones (Reference Jones and Jones2012b), in his attempt to define nepotism and SCP, stated that trust is one mechanism through which nepotism can lead to organizational effectiveness. Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have cited Dickson, Nieminen, and Biermeier-Hanson (Reference Dickson, Nieminen, Biermeier-Hanson and Jones2012), noting that “the development of trust in nepotic relationships may . . . grant an important advantage” (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, p. 8). Trust as a critical mechanism in SCP has the potential to mitigate some or all of the potential negative shortcomings that flow from organizations using SCP to make I-O decisions. Fully integrating trust and the components of trustworthiness into discussions of SCP can lead to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying SCP and can lead to well-informed practitioners, thereby maximizing functional outcomes.
Trust and Trustworthiness
In the Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) theory of trust, trust is defined as a behavioral intention that arises in situations of uncertainty. A trustor is the person who is doing the trusting, and the trustee is the person who is being trusted. When a trustor cannot fully monitor a trustee, the trustor must determine his or her willingness to be vulnerable to the trustee (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995). “Trust is not taking risk per se, but rather it is a willingness to take risk” (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995, p. 712, emphasis in the original). Because the trustor believes him or herself to be in a risky situation, the trustor will assess the trustworthiness of the trustee before becoming willing to take a risk.
The three components of trustworthiness, according to Mayer et al. (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995), are characteristics of the trustee. First, ability is defined as the trustor's perception that the trustee is competent because of his or her skills in a specific area or field of knowledge. Second, integrity is the trustor's belief that the trustee's values are similar to those of the trustor. Third, benevolence is the trustor's perception that the trustee will benefit the trustor without expecting anything in return. Ability and integrity are more proximal assessments of trustworthiness, whereas benevolence is considered a more distal assessment (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995). This is because the notion of “benefiting” the trustor implies that an attachment or relationship between the trustee and the trustor already exists, so the trustee knows what would profit the trustor.
It is proposed that this theory of trust can assist in increasing our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie a determination of whether SCP is beneficial. Meta-analytic research supports the unique role of the three trustworthiness factors of ability, integrity, and benevolence as antecedents to trust (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, Reference Colquitt, Scott and LePine2007). Also, this theory allows for variation in trust. “Trust [is] an aspect of relationships. That [means it varies] within person and across relationships” (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis2007, p. 344). Thus, there is a particularistic nature to trust in that a trustee may be highly trusted by one trustor but not by another (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis1996). In the context of SCP, the perception of nepotism or cronyism as beneficial or harmful will depend on the assessment of trustworthiness made by a particular trustor.
Trustworthiness and Social Connection Preference
To date, discussions of SCP do not fully articulate the potential contributions that are possible through the explicit integration of the components of trustworthiness into SCP models. A negative assessment relative to any of the three aspects of trustworthiness jeopardizes the subsequent development of trust in a trustor–trustee dyad, which threatens the effectiveness of an I-O decision.
Although Jones (Reference Jones and Jones2012a) and Muchinsky (Reference Muchinsky and Jones2012) noted that there is no such thing as a typical nepotic situation or organization, Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have made reference to an idealized example. They used the example of Happy Place (HP), where Sam, the chief operating officer, has been asked by Jan, a life partner, to hire Danny, a favorite cousin, to be a supervisor (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, pp. 3–4). This example involving Sam, Jan, and Danny hinges on the issue of Danny's competence. It evokes one of the main complaints against SCP, in that the selected individual is not qualified, or competent, to do the job, and a more competent individual was passed over simply because of a relationship between the hiring manager and the new employee. As a result, current prohibitions against SCP “attempt to reduce the perception of incompetence” (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, p. 6, emphasis in the original), which further highlights the importance of the trustworthiness component of ability.
However, this example does not address the complexity of I-O decisions in which other factors bear on the situation. First, in any organization, there is an elaborate web of trustor–trustee dyads making evaluations of trustworthiness. It is critical to explicitly acknowledge that evaluations of ability are not limited solely to Sam's appraisal of Danny's ability. Other parties to consider would be Danny's future colleagues (i.e., other supervisors) and Danny's potential subordinates. These people would also evaluate Danny's job-related skills as well as Sam's ability to make a good hiring decision.
The greater the perceptions of Danny's and Sam's abilities, the greater the likelihood of people taking a risk and trusting Danny and Sam, which should lead to positive outcomes at HP despite the existence of SCP. For example, managers of stores where the employees had higher levels of trust in their managers had higher sales and profits (Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, Reference Davis, Schoorman, Mayer and Tan2000). Trust is a key element of many I-O decisions, and trust has demonstrable bottom-line impact (e.g., Davis et al., Reference Davis, Schoorman, Mayer and Tan2000). Thus, there may be an additive effect to trustworthiness in that the more that various supervisors and subordinates rate Danny and Sam as high on ability, the more Danny and Sam will be trusted, so that all employees can focus on the work that needs to be done for the successful operation of HP.
Second, another factor to consider is the other two components of trustworthiness: integrity and benevolence. If Danny is incompetent in the supervisory position, the other supervisors and his subordinates may believe that there is a violation of the criterion of merit in the hiring decision. The supervisors and subordinates may feel that the hiring decision was unfair because it was based on SCP and rate Sam, and possibly Danny, low on integrity. In this situation, there would be a mismatch of values in that the supervisors and subordinates may believe that hiring decisions should be based on skill level, whereas Sam and Danny may believe that the welfare of family members takes precedence. Although Becker (Reference Becker and Jones2012, p. 138) suggested that value congruence is especially important among top managers in a firm, it is suggested that mismatches between integrity-relevant values among a variety of trustor–trustee dyads would heighten workplace conflict, reduce trust overall, and hurt organizational effectiveness.
Although Becker (Reference Becker and Jones2012) considered benevolence as an example of an integrity-relevant value, Mayer et al.'s (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) trust theory made a crucial distinction between integrity and benevolence. Mayer et al. (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) suggested that integrity could be assessed fairly quickly, whereas an evaluation of a trustee's benevolence can only occur after the trustor and the trustee have known each other for some time. Also, benevolence implies that the trustee makes a sacrifice because the effort to reduce the trustor's suffering is not perfunctory; rather, it involves significant resources (Livnat, Reference Livnat2004).
Because an SCP situation assumes the existence of previous relationships, benevolence is important to examine. Van Hooft and Stout (Reference van Hooft, Stout and Jones2012) noted that the object of the nepotism might suffer, for example, if he or she is coerced by family members into taking a position with the organization that runs counter to his or her true career desires. Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have suggested that in some situations, Danny may feel coerced into accepting employment at HP. Danny would then rate Sam low on benevolence because Danny would feel that Sam did not care about him and his job preferences. If the other supervisors and the subordinates observe this dynamic, they may also rate Sam low on benevolence, feeling that if Sam does not actively care for a family member, then he may care even less for nonfamily employees.
However, if Jan has asked Sam to hire Danny because he is recovering from a serious injury and Sam both cares about Danny and shows a willingness to invest resources to accommodate Danny in his new job as supervisor, Sam may be highly rated as benevolent by Danny. Sam may also be evaluated as high in benevolence by the other supervisors and subordinates if they observe that Sam has gone out of his way to assist Danny, who is truly in need. A consideration of the all three components of trustworthiness as well as the various trustor–trustee dyads influenced by I-O decisions is important to understand the impact of SCP on trust and organizational outcomes.
Discussion
In our elaboration of the Sam–Jan–Danny example (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015), our aim was to highlight the many trustor–trustee pathways that might be salient and to illustrate how the consideration of the components of trustworthiness, as antecedents of trust, could more fully inform our analysis of the SCP situation. I-O psychologists in general should not shy away from this complexity because it points to the many potential points at which an SCP decision can go wrong and suggests the awareness that managers must have of how their actions may influence perceptions of their trustworthiness.
The integration of trustworthiness into SCP research suggests some future directions for researchers and practitioners. For example, Mulder (Reference Mulder and Jones2012) suggested a decision tree germane to I-O decisions in nepotic situations. The effectiveness of this decision tree would be further enhanced by explicitly integrating nodes reflecting ability, integrity, and benevolence. Two relevant decision nodes are “effect on family” and “effect on business.” Explicitly incorporating trustworthiness (i.e., ability, integrity, benevolence) would allow for a finer grained evaluation of the impact of an SCP decision on both the family and the affected member of the family before proceeding to a go/no-go decision. In addition, relevant organizational actors (e.g., the hiring manager, peers, subordinates) could be evaluated along all three components relative to each other and the potential new hire. Organizational decisionmakers should give special attention to any negative assessments of ability, integrity, and/or benevolence because these assessments would serve to identify potential problem areas that could undermine trust and organizational effectiveness down the road.
Another contribution may be in the area of trust repair. Each evaluation of the trustworthiness components has the potential to derail I-O decisions if perceptions of ability, integrity, and benevolence are poor. Research on trust repair (e.g., Tomlinson & Mayer, Reference Tomlinson and Mayer2009) may assist managers who use SCP in I-O decisions in understanding how to address the trustor's concerns.
Often, especially in larger organizations, it may be the case that the hiring manager and the new hire are not related at all, but a situation suggesting an SCP may still exist (e.g., the new hire has a relative in another department) and be known to relevant trustors. In such cases, there may not be an individual identifiable as the trustee; however, an SCP situation still exists. It may be more appropriately described as a case in which the trustee identified by a trustor (e.g., potential colleagues) becomes the organization or institution. The trustors may scrutinize the organization's policies to make an evaluation of trustworthiness in the context of SCP. Research on the development of institutional trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, Reference Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer1998) may indicate future directions in this area.
Making the components of trustworthiness explicit in our discussion of SCP aids researchers and practitioners alike in bringing this area out of the realm of a reflexive negative reaction (“it is bad—avoid it”) to a more nuanced appreciation (“it can have beneficial outcomes if properly managed”). A critical consideration is the development of trust among the parties affected by the SCP event. Fully understanding the development of trust through its antecedents of the trustworthiness components has the potential to inform SCP research and practice.
%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have recommended that industrial and organizational (I-O) researchers and practitioners take a more nuanced perspective with respect to nepotism and cronyism—recast as social connection preference (SCP)—when relevant I-O decisions (e.g., hiring) are made on the basis of kin or affiliation considerations. Jones and Stout's (Reference Jones and Stout2015) arguments have challenged the reflexive view that SCP is always negative and thus the prudent approach is to restrict and, if possible, prohibit it. They call for further research to flesh out our understanding of SCP in organizations, and we suggest that one way to do that is to explicitly incorporate trust theory, that is, the components of trustworthiness, which represent antecedents of trust.
The concept of trust appears many times in various models and discussions of SCP. Jones (Reference Jones and Jones2012b), in his attempt to define nepotism and SCP, stated that trust is one mechanism through which nepotism can lead to organizational effectiveness. Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have cited Dickson, Nieminen, and Biermeier-Hanson (Reference Dickson, Nieminen, Biermeier-Hanson and Jones2012), noting that “the development of trust in nepotic relationships may . . . grant an important advantage” (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, p. 8). Trust as a critical mechanism in SCP has the potential to mitigate some or all of the potential negative shortcomings that flow from organizations using SCP to make I-O decisions. Fully integrating trust and the components of trustworthiness into discussions of SCP can lead to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying SCP and can lead to well-informed practitioners, thereby maximizing functional outcomes.
Trust and Trustworthiness
In the Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) theory of trust, trust is defined as a behavioral intention that arises in situations of uncertainty. A trustor is the person who is doing the trusting, and the trustee is the person who is being trusted. When a trustor cannot fully monitor a trustee, the trustor must determine his or her willingness to be vulnerable to the trustee (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995). “Trust is not taking risk per se, but rather it is a willingness to take risk” (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995, p. 712, emphasis in the original). Because the trustor believes him or herself to be in a risky situation, the trustor will assess the trustworthiness of the trustee before becoming willing to take a risk.
The three components of trustworthiness, according to Mayer et al. (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995), are characteristics of the trustee. First, ability is defined as the trustor's perception that the trustee is competent because of his or her skills in a specific area or field of knowledge. Second, integrity is the trustor's belief that the trustee's values are similar to those of the trustor. Third, benevolence is the trustor's perception that the trustee will benefit the trustor without expecting anything in return. Ability and integrity are more proximal assessments of trustworthiness, whereas benevolence is considered a more distal assessment (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995). This is because the notion of “benefiting” the trustor implies that an attachment or relationship between the trustee and the trustor already exists, so the trustee knows what would profit the trustor.
It is proposed that this theory of trust can assist in increasing our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie a determination of whether SCP is beneficial. Meta-analytic research supports the unique role of the three trustworthiness factors of ability, integrity, and benevolence as antecedents to trust (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, Reference Colquitt, Scott and LePine2007). Also, this theory allows for variation in trust. “Trust [is] an aspect of relationships. That [means it varies] within person and across relationships” (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis2007, p. 344). Thus, there is a particularistic nature to trust in that a trustee may be highly trusted by one trustor but not by another (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis1996). In the context of SCP, the perception of nepotism or cronyism as beneficial or harmful will depend on the assessment of trustworthiness made by a particular trustor.
Trustworthiness and Social Connection Preference
To date, discussions of SCP do not fully articulate the potential contributions that are possible through the explicit integration of the components of trustworthiness into SCP models. A negative assessment relative to any of the three aspects of trustworthiness jeopardizes the subsequent development of trust in a trustor–trustee dyad, which threatens the effectiveness of an I-O decision.
Although Jones (Reference Jones and Jones2012a) and Muchinsky (Reference Muchinsky and Jones2012) noted that there is no such thing as a typical nepotic situation or organization, Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have made reference to an idealized example. They used the example of Happy Place (HP), where Sam, the chief operating officer, has been asked by Jan, a life partner, to hire Danny, a favorite cousin, to be a supervisor (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, pp. 3–4). This example involving Sam, Jan, and Danny hinges on the issue of Danny's competence. It evokes one of the main complaints against SCP, in that the selected individual is not qualified, or competent, to do the job, and a more competent individual was passed over simply because of a relationship between the hiring manager and the new employee. As a result, current prohibitions against SCP “attempt to reduce the perception of incompetence” (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015, p. 6, emphasis in the original), which further highlights the importance of the trustworthiness component of ability.
However, this example does not address the complexity of I-O decisions in which other factors bear on the situation. First, in any organization, there is an elaborate web of trustor–trustee dyads making evaluations of trustworthiness. It is critical to explicitly acknowledge that evaluations of ability are not limited solely to Sam's appraisal of Danny's ability. Other parties to consider would be Danny's future colleagues (i.e., other supervisors) and Danny's potential subordinates. These people would also evaluate Danny's job-related skills as well as Sam's ability to make a good hiring decision.
The greater the perceptions of Danny's and Sam's abilities, the greater the likelihood of people taking a risk and trusting Danny and Sam, which should lead to positive outcomes at HP despite the existence of SCP. For example, managers of stores where the employees had higher levels of trust in their managers had higher sales and profits (Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, Reference Davis, Schoorman, Mayer and Tan2000). Trust is a key element of many I-O decisions, and trust has demonstrable bottom-line impact (e.g., Davis et al., Reference Davis, Schoorman, Mayer and Tan2000). Thus, there may be an additive effect to trustworthiness in that the more that various supervisors and subordinates rate Danny and Sam as high on ability, the more Danny and Sam will be trusted, so that all employees can focus on the work that needs to be done for the successful operation of HP.
Second, another factor to consider is the other two components of trustworthiness: integrity and benevolence. If Danny is incompetent in the supervisory position, the other supervisors and his subordinates may believe that there is a violation of the criterion of merit in the hiring decision. The supervisors and subordinates may feel that the hiring decision was unfair because it was based on SCP and rate Sam, and possibly Danny, low on integrity. In this situation, there would be a mismatch of values in that the supervisors and subordinates may believe that hiring decisions should be based on skill level, whereas Sam and Danny may believe that the welfare of family members takes precedence. Although Becker (Reference Becker and Jones2012, p. 138) suggested that value congruence is especially important among top managers in a firm, it is suggested that mismatches between integrity-relevant values among a variety of trustor–trustee dyads would heighten workplace conflict, reduce trust overall, and hurt organizational effectiveness.
Although Becker (Reference Becker and Jones2012) considered benevolence as an example of an integrity-relevant value, Mayer et al.'s (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) trust theory made a crucial distinction between integrity and benevolence. Mayer et al. (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) suggested that integrity could be assessed fairly quickly, whereas an evaluation of a trustee's benevolence can only occur after the trustor and the trustee have known each other for some time. Also, benevolence implies that the trustee makes a sacrifice because the effort to reduce the trustor's suffering is not perfunctory; rather, it involves significant resources (Livnat, Reference Livnat2004).
Because an SCP situation assumes the existence of previous relationships, benevolence is important to examine. Van Hooft and Stout (Reference van Hooft, Stout and Jones2012) noted that the object of the nepotism might suffer, for example, if he or she is coerced by family members into taking a position with the organization that runs counter to his or her true career desires. Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have suggested that in some situations, Danny may feel coerced into accepting employment at HP. Danny would then rate Sam low on benevolence because Danny would feel that Sam did not care about him and his job preferences. If the other supervisors and the subordinates observe this dynamic, they may also rate Sam low on benevolence, feeling that if Sam does not actively care for a family member, then he may care even less for nonfamily employees.
However, if Jan has asked Sam to hire Danny because he is recovering from a serious injury and Sam both cares about Danny and shows a willingness to invest resources to accommodate Danny in his new job as supervisor, Sam may be highly rated as benevolent by Danny. Sam may also be evaluated as high in benevolence by the other supervisors and subordinates if they observe that Sam has gone out of his way to assist Danny, who is truly in need. A consideration of the all three components of trustworthiness as well as the various trustor–trustee dyads influenced by I-O decisions is important to understand the impact of SCP on trust and organizational outcomes.
Discussion
In our elaboration of the Sam–Jan–Danny example (Jones & Stout, Reference Jones and Stout2015), our aim was to highlight the many trustor–trustee pathways that might be salient and to illustrate how the consideration of the components of trustworthiness, as antecedents of trust, could more fully inform our analysis of the SCP situation. I-O psychologists in general should not shy away from this complexity because it points to the many potential points at which an SCP decision can go wrong and suggests the awareness that managers must have of how their actions may influence perceptions of their trustworthiness.
The integration of trustworthiness into SCP research suggests some future directions for researchers and practitioners. For example, Mulder (Reference Mulder and Jones2012) suggested a decision tree germane to I-O decisions in nepotic situations. The effectiveness of this decision tree would be further enhanced by explicitly integrating nodes reflecting ability, integrity, and benevolence. Two relevant decision nodes are “effect on family” and “effect on business.” Explicitly incorporating trustworthiness (i.e., ability, integrity, benevolence) would allow for a finer grained evaluation of the impact of an SCP decision on both the family and the affected member of the family before proceeding to a go/no-go decision. In addition, relevant organizational actors (e.g., the hiring manager, peers, subordinates) could be evaluated along all three components relative to each other and the potential new hire. Organizational decisionmakers should give special attention to any negative assessments of ability, integrity, and/or benevolence because these assessments would serve to identify potential problem areas that could undermine trust and organizational effectiveness down the road.
Another contribution may be in the area of trust repair. Each evaluation of the trustworthiness components has the potential to derail I-O decisions if perceptions of ability, integrity, and benevolence are poor. Research on trust repair (e.g., Tomlinson & Mayer, Reference Tomlinson and Mayer2009) may assist managers who use SCP in I-O decisions in understanding how to address the trustor's concerns.
Often, especially in larger organizations, it may be the case that the hiring manager and the new hire are not related at all, but a situation suggesting an SCP may still exist (e.g., the new hire has a relative in another department) and be known to relevant trustors. In such cases, there may not be an individual identifiable as the trustee; however, an SCP situation still exists. It may be more appropriately described as a case in which the trustee identified by a trustor (e.g., potential colleagues) becomes the organization or institution. The trustors may scrutinize the organization's policies to make an evaluation of trustworthiness in the context of SCP. Research on the development of institutional trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, Reference Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer1998) may indicate future directions in this area.
Making the components of trustworthiness explicit in our discussion of SCP aids researchers and practitioners alike in bringing this area out of the realm of a reflexive negative reaction (“it is bad—avoid it”) to a more nuanced appreciation (“it can have beneficial outcomes if properly managed”). A critical consideration is the development of trust among the parties affected by the SCP event. Fully understanding the development of trust through its antecedents of the trustworthiness components has the potential to inform SCP research and practice.