This paper investigates how an organization attempts to repair trust after organizational-level integrity violations by examining the influence of organizational rules on trust repair. We reconstruct the prominent corruption case of Siemens AG, which has faced the greatest bribery scandal in the history of German business. Our findings suggest that tightening organizational rules is an appropriate signal of trustworthiness for external stakeholders to demonstrate that the organization seriously intends to prevent integrity violations in the future. However, such rule adjustments were the source of dissatisfaction among employees since the new rules were difficult to implement in practice. We argue that these different impacts of organizational rules result from their inherent paradoxical nature. To address this problem, we suggest managing an effective interplay between formal and informal rules.
AlvessonMatsSandbergJörgen (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271.
2.
AßländerMichael S. (2013). Honorableness or beneficialness? Cicero on natural law, virtues, glory, and (corporate) reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 751–767.
3.
Bijlsma-FrankemaKatinkaCostaAna Cristina (2005). Understanding the trust–control nexus. International Sociology, 20, 259–282.
ClaussenJens. (2011). Compliance- oder Integrity-Management. Maßnahmen gegen Korruption in Unternehmen. Marburg: Metropolis.
6.
CorbinJuliet M.StraussAnselm L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
7.
CorleyKevin G.GioiaDennis A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.
8.
CostaAna CristinaBijlsma-FrankemaKatinka (2007). Trust and control interrelations: New perspectives on the trust–control nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32, 392–406.
9.
DasT. K.TengBing-Sheng (1998). Between trust and control. Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491–512.
10.
DasT. K.TengBing-Sheng (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22, 251–283.
11.
DeephouseDavid L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.
12.
DietzGrahamGillespieNicole (2012). The recovery of trust: Case studies of organizational failures and trust repair. London: Institute of Business Ethics.
13.
DirksKurt T.LewickiRoy J.ZaheerAkbar (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 68–84.
14.
EberlPeterClementUteMöllerHeidi (2012). Socialising employees’ trust in the organisation: An exploration of apprentices’ socialisation in two highly trusted companies. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 343–359.
15.
EIRIS (Ethical Investment Research Service) (2005). An International Survey of Bribery and Ethical Standards in Companies.
16.
EisenhardtKathleen M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31, 134–149.
17.
EisenhardtKathleen M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
18.
EisenhardtKathleen M.GraebnerMelissa E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
19.
FeldmanMartha S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.
20.
FeldmanMartha S.OrlikowskiWanda J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22, 1240–1253.
21.
FeldmanMartha S.PentlandBrian T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
22.
FerrinDonald L.KimPeter H.CooperCecily D.DirksKurt T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893–908.
23.
FreibergerHaraldHagelükenAlexanderOttKlaus (2008). Reden wir über Geld (28): Reinhard Siekaczek – ‘Eine Million in der Aktentasche’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17May2008.
24.
FrenchPeter A. (1996). Integrity, intentions, and corporations. American Business Law Journal, 34(2), 141.
25.
GebhardtChristianMüller-SeitzGordon (2011). Phönix aus der Asche. Eine ereignisorientierte Betrachtung des Siemens-Korruptionsskandals als Nexus zwischen Organisation und Umwelt. Managementforschung, 21, 41–90.
26.
GeigerDanielSchröderAnja (2014). Ever-changing routines? Toward a revised understanding of organizational routines between rule-following and rule-breaking. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 66, 170–190.
27.
GherardiSilvia (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7, 211–223.
28.
GherardiSilviaNicoliniDavide (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice. Organization, 9, 191–223.
29.
GhoshalSumantraMoranPeter (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21, 13–47.
30.
GillespieNicoleDietzGraham (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34, 127–145.
31.
GillespieNicoleDietzGrahamLockeySteve (2014). Organizational reintegration and trust repair after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24, 371–410.
32.
GioiaDennis A.CorleyKevin G.HamiltonAimee L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.
33.
GraebnerMelissa E.MartinJeffrey A.RoundyPhilip T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10, 276–284.
34.
Howard-GrenvilleJennifer A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16, 618–636.
Janowicz-PanjaitanMartynaKrishnanRekha (2009). Measures for dealing with competence and integrity violations of interorganizational trust at the corporate and operating levels of organizational hierarchy. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 245–268.
37.
KimPeter H.DirksKurt T.CooperCecily D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualizationAcademy of Management Review, 34, 401–422.
38.
KimPeter H.FerrinDonald L.CooperCecily D.DirksKurt T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.
39.
KramerRoderick M.LewickiRoy J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 245–277.
40.
LangfredClaus W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 385–399.
41.
LichtblauEricDoughertyCarter (2008). Siemens to Pay $ 1,34 Billion in Fines. New York Times, 16December2008.
42.
LuhmannNiklas (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.
43.
LuhmannNiklas. (1995). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation: mit einem Epilog 1994 (4. Aufl.. ed.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
44.
MaguireStevePhillipsNelsonHardyCynthia (2001). When ‘silence = death’, keep talking: Trust, control and the discursive construction of identity in the Canadian HIV/AIDS treatment domain. Organization Studies, 22, 285–310.
45.
MalhotraDeepakMurnighanJ. Keith (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534–559.
46.
MayerRogerDavisJamesSchoormanDavid (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
47.
MerchantK. (1985). Control in business organizations. Boston: Longman Higher Education.
48.
MölleringGuido (2005). The trust/control duality an integrative perspective on positive expectations of others. International Sociology, 20, 283–305.
OrtmannGünther (2003). Regel und Ausnahme: Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung (Orig-Ausg., 1. Aufl.. ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
51.
OrtmannGünther (2010). On drifting rules and standards. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 204–214.
52.
OuchiWilliam (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25, 833–848.
53.
PentlandBrian T.HaeremThorvaldHillisonDerek (2011). The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22, 1369–1383.
54.
PentlandBrian T.RueterHenry H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.
55.
PiererHeinrich von (2003). Zwischen Profit und Moral. In PiererH. v.HomannK.Lübbe-WolffG. (Eds.), Zwischen Profit und Moral: Für eine menschliche Wirtschaft (pp. 7–34).
56.
PoppoLauraZengerTodd (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707–725.
57.
RueßAnnette (2011). Sparring für Saubermänner. In WeidenfeldU. (Ed.), Nützliche Aufwendungen? - Der Fall Siemens und die Lehren für das Unternehmen, die Industrie und Gesellschaft (pp. 45–52). München: Piper.
58.
SchmidtT. W. (2009). Sweetening the deal: Strengthening transnational bribary laws through standard international corporate auditing guidelines. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 1120–1145.
59.
SeligmanAdam B. (1998). Trust and sociability: On the limits of confidence and role expectations. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 57, 391–404.
60.
ShapiroSusan P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658.
61.
SidhuKarl (2009). Anti-corruption compliance standards in the aftermath of the Siemens scandal. German Law Journal, 10, 1343–1354.
62.
SiggelkowNicolaj (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20–24.
63.
SitkinSim B.GeorgeElizabeth (2005). Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20, 307–338.
64.
SitkinSim B.RothNancy L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘remedies’ for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367–392.
65.
StawBarry M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, 27–44.
66.
SydowJörgWindelerArnold (2003). Knowledge, trust, and control. Managing tensions and contradictions in a regional network of service firms. International Studies of Management and Organization, 33, 69–99.
67.
TomlinsonEdwardMayerRoger (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104.
68.
TurnerScott F.RindovaViolina (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23, 24–46.
VlaarPaul W. L.Van den BoschFrans A. J.VolberdaHenk W. (2007). On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32, 407–428.
71.
WalgenbachPeter (2001). The production of distrust by means of producing trust. Organization Studies, 22, 693–714.
72.
WeibelAntoinette (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet?Group & Organization Management, 32, 500–517.
WolfSebastian (2009). Die Siemens-Korruptionsaffäre – Ein Überblick. In GraeffP. K.SchöderS. W. (Eds.), Der Korruptionsfall Siemens (pp. 9–17). Baden Baden: Nomos.
75.
YinRobert K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
