REPAIRING RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN AND BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS: BUILDING A CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

Academy of Management Review 2009, Vol. 34, No. 1, 68 84. INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM REPAIRING RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN AND BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS: BUILDING A CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION KURT T. DIRKS Washington University in St. Louis ROY J. LEWICKI The Ohio State University AKBAR ZAHEER University of Minnesota How can relationships be repaired after being damaged? There is a small but growing body of work on the topic from a number of different disciplinary perspectives using different theoretical lenses and at different levels of analysis. We begin by examining the existing streams of work on relationship repair and organizing them into a conceptual framework. We then consider four questions that probe assumptions or overlooked issues in existing research with the intent of moving toward a more comprehensive conceptual foundation. We thank Don Ferrin, Nicole Gillespie, Barbara Gray, Peter Kim, and Roger Mayer for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. How can relationships be repaired after being damaged? The question is not new, but it has been made increasingly salient in recent years with reports of organizations damaging relationships with employees, shareholders, and/or customers, and with even once-venerated institutions involved in situations causing constituents to question their trust in the institution and their relationship with it (e.g., religious institutions, media companies, governments). Not by coincidence, recent survey results have indicated that worldwide trust in companies and governments is near a low point (World Economic Forum, 2005) and that in the United States over half of employees do not trust the leaders of their organization (e.g., Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2005; Watson Wyatt, 2007). More common, albeit less spectacular, incidents also arise in relationships between coworkers, leaders and subordinates, or departments for reasons such as conflicting goals, organizational changes, and conflicting values or cultures. For example, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) reported that over half of their respondents felt that their contractual relationship with their employer had been violated, while Conway and Briner (2002) suggested an even higher percentage of violations. Researchers also have observed that even close relationships involve negative events and conflict and that the resilience of relationships is contingent on how those events are resolved (Driver, Tabares, Shapiro, Nahm, & Gottman, 2003). The phenomenon of damaged relationships has clearly been of interest to organizational researchers. For example, organizational researchers have studied trust violations and the dynamics of distrust within and between organizations (e.g., Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Robinson, 1996; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Zaheer, Lofstrom, & George, 2002), violations of psychological contracts (e.g., Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), negative relations (e.g., Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998), feelings of injustice (e.g., Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005), revenge (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1996), and defections in economic games (e.g., Komorita & Mechling, 1967), among other issues. However, much of the extant research has focused on the processes by which relationships are damaged and the implica- 68 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 69 tions of such damage, as opposed to how they are repaired. Only recently has the nascent interest in the problem of repairing relationships begun to gain momentum. For example, scholars have examined how to repair trust (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Nakayachi & Watabe, 2005), how to promote forgiveness and reconciliation (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004), how to restore cooperation (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, 2002), and how to minimize the damage to reputations (Elsbach, 1994). Although these efforts are an excellent start, they tend to take place in relative isolation from each other, since they rely on a diversity of theories, define the problem in different ways, and have different foci. Furthermore, as yet, there are no unifying conceptual foundations or theoretical frameworks that will stimulate research and facilitate analysis directed at the broader problem of relationship repair. The purpose of this special topic forum (STF) is to address these issues, with the central objective being to stimulate research on this important yet relatively underresearched topic. The STF includes four articles using several different theoretical perspectives, involving different levels of analysis, and helping to build a conceptual foundation for research in the field. This introduction is also intended to address this larger objective providing a conceptual foundation for future research but in a manner that is different from the four articles. Whereas each of the articles in this STF contributes toward the overall goal by drilling deep into a particular aspect of the topic, here we attempt to provide a broader view of the terrain and to raise critical questions for future research. We begin by examining the existing streams of work on relationship repair and organizing them into a conceptual framework. In the second section we consider four questions that may provide the basis for a more comprehensive and unified conceptual foundation. PROBLEM DOMAIN AND THEORETICAL PROCESSES Problem Domain What does it mean to repair a relationship? Existing research appears to have provided a range of answers. For example, Kim and colleagues (2004, 2006) have investigated how trust (perceptions) can be made more positive after a trust violation (also see Lewicki & Bunker, 1996, and Nakayachi & Watabe, 2005). Schweitzer, Hershey, and Bradlow (2006) have adopted a similar but slightly broader definition of repair in examining how trust perceptions and behaviors (specifically, risk-taking behaviors) can be made more positive following a transgression. Taking a different view, Bradfield and Aquino (1999) have examined the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation, conceptualized as releasing negative affect and forgoing revenge (also see Tomlinson et al., 2004). Taking a slightly different focus, Bottom et al. (2002) have examined the restoration of cooperation and positive affect following a transgression. The articles in this STF represent and advance these different views. Looking across these studies and the broader set of work that they represent, we see some convergence in terms of the general conceptualization of repair. Specifically, we propose the following conceptualization, which is intended to span the cross-disciplinary work on this topic: relationship repair occurs when a transgression causes the positive state(s) that constitute(s) the relationship to disappear and/or negative states to arise, as perceived by one or both parties, and activities by one or both parties substantively return the relationship to a positive state. As illustrated by the sample of studies cited above, however, there is divergence in the literature in terms of exactly what factor of a relationship is damaged and, thus, needs to be repaired. Specifically, when a transgression occurs, there are several interrelated factors that are damaged and that need to be addressed for the future viability of the relationship. Failing to identify the underlying structure of the problem could cause researchers to overlook aspects of the broader problem of relationship repair, how related work is complementary or contradictory, and how future research could holistically tackle the problem. We address this issue by mapping the domain of relationship repair. As described below, existing research has identified three factors that are consistently impacted by a transgression and that have important implications for the viability of the relation-

70 Academy of Management Review January ship: trust, negative affect resulting from the transgression, and negative exchange resulting from the transgression. We suggest that each factor contributes a unique and important perspective to what it means to repair a relationship, and, together, they provide an essential set of factors that jointly comprise the domains of relationship damage and repair. Research consistently implicates trust and perceived trustworthiness 1 as cognitive factors that are negatively impacted in damaged relationships (Robinson, 1996; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Specifically, as a result of the transgression, individuals form inferences about the future behavior of the party, positive expectations disappear and are replaced by negative expectations, and individuals become unwilling to expose themselves to further vulnerability (Lewicki et al., 1998). Trust is important for the future viability of the relationship because it serves as a lens for interpreting the party s behavior, as well as a basis for making decisions about whether and how to interact with that party (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). As McEvily, Perrone, and Zaheer (2003) have observed, trust operates as an organizing principle for managing relationships both within and across organizations. Researchers have also pointed out that, in addition to a drop in trust, individuals experience negative affect after a transgression. It is well documented that individuals experience negative emotions such as disappointment, frustration, anger, and outrage following a transgression (Barclay et al., 2005; Bies & Tripp, 1996; Conway & Briner, 2002; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mikula, Scherer, & Athenstaedt, 1998; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). From the standpoint of repairing relationships, however, the transitory emotional states may be less important than the implications that the transgression has for the stable affective relationship with the offending party (e.g., general dislike, feelings of injustice). Negative affect has important implications for the viability of the relationship because it may negatively bias trust and because one party 1 Because trustworthiness is a dominant determinant of trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) and because trust repair often occurs through the repair of perceived trustworthiness (Kim et al., 2004), both concepts are relevant. Throughout the paper, however, we use the term trust for convenience. may terminate the relationship to avoid the negative state. Finally, the above-cited research suggests that individuals are likely to suspend positive exchange (e.g., cooperation) and possibly even engage in negative exchange (e.g., retribution, revenge, withheld effort). For example, it is clear that cooperation drops following a transgression and that this pattern is likely to continue until cooperation is extinguished (Bottom et al., 2002). In addition, the desire to punish the other party in some manner following a transgression appears to be a fundamental tendency, possibly of evolutionary origins (de Quervain et al., 2004). The implications of these negative behaviors and the need to shift the relationship back toward positive exchange are obvious for the viability of the relationship. Figure 1 provides a map of a representative sample of studies that have examined relationship repair with regard to these three outcomes. Readily apparent is that although studies have examined one or two of the domains, there appear to be none directly addressing all three. Does this present a problem for understanding relationship repair? We explore this issue in a later section. Related to this issue, the narrow focus of many studies may obscure what is being violated, what needs to be repaired, and what needs to be measured over time in this process. We also consider this issue in a later section. Processes for Relationship Repair If one were to select a set of studies from Figure 1 based on the outcome studied, on the level of analysis, or on the disciplinary basis, one might see a relatively focused view but also get the sense that other parts of the conceptual landscape are obscured. As one looks across a broader set of studies, however, a more varied landscape emerges. In order to make sense of this landscape, it is necessary to recognize that there are three different theoretical processes being advanced for the repair of relationships: attributional, social equilibrium, and structural. Table 1 provides a summary. One perspective focuses on the psychological processes of the party that perceives another party to have committed a transgression. Specifically, this perspective suggests that a transgression provides negative information, which

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 71 FIGURE 1 The Conceptual Domain of Relationship Repair with Examples of Prior Research the perceiver uses to draw a negative inference about the traits and intentions of the other party (e.g., the party is untrustworthy). Repair must therefore provide information that can offset and overcome that negative inference. In other words, in order to repair trust, the wronged party must perceive that the transgression does not reflect the violator s true nature, or the party must perceive that the violator has experienced redemption following the transgression. This process has been modeled by psychologists under the label of attribution theory (Heider, 1958). Tomlinson and Mayer (this issue), as well as other researchers (Kim et al., 2004), have demonstrated how attribution theory is particularly well suited to study the repair of trust. The principles of attribution theory can be applied when the transgressor is an individual, a group, or an organization, although there are some differences in the theory s applicability across levels of analysis (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). Along these lines, Gillespie and Dietz (this issue) describe how the attributional perspective relates to the repair of trust in organizations; this perspective also underlies Rhee and Valdez s (this issue) view of reputation repair. Research has documented a variety of ways that transgressors can attempt to rebuild relationships through managing the attribution process, including apologies and accounts (Kim et al., 2004, 2006; Tomlinson & Mayer, this issue), as well as substantive actions (Gillespie & Dietz, this issue). Although the attributional process is helpful for understanding the cognitive intraperson components of relationship repair, it is not well suited to explain the social or interpersonal aspects of a relationship that are damaged following a transgression. Building on the sociological work of Goffman (1967), Ren and Gray (this issue) propose that transgressions disrupt the social order. In other words, the transgression calls into question the relative standing of the

72 Academy of Management Review January TABLE 1 Process for Relationship Repair Attributional Social Equilibrium Structural Perspective Assumption Implications for repair strategies and tactics Transgression leads to loss of trust through attribution process; repair involves cognitive processes by which trust is restored Individual differences of actor (trustworthiness) are primary determinant of behavior; therefore, perceivers are motivated to draw attributions and targets are motivated to shape those attributions Targets will try to shape perceivers attributions about whether they committed a transgression, whether it reflects on their true nature, or whether they experienced redemption Examples of tactics: social accounts, apologies, denial, penance Examples of articles Gillespie & Dietz (2009); Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin (2006); Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks (2004); Rhee & Valdez (2009); Tomlinson & Mayer (2009) Transgression leads to disequilibrium in relationship and social context; repair involves social processes by which equilibrium in relationship is restored Individuals desire to have equilibrium in norms and social relationships Targets will engage in appropriate social rituals to restore equilibrium in standing and norms Examples of tactics: penance, punishment, apologies Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan (2002); Bradfield & Aquino (1999); Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano (2006); Ren & Gray (2009) Transgression leads to breakdown in positive exchange and increase in negative exchange; repair involves structural processes by which negative exchange is discouraged and positive exchange is encouraged Individuals are motivated by selfinterest in relationships; targets engage in transgressions when the incentives of a situation make it profitable to do so and perceivers will help maintain relationship so long as it is profitable Targets will implement structures or use other signals to provide credible assurance of positive exchange and prevent future transgressions Examples of tactics: legalistic remedies (incentives, monitoring), social structures Gillespie & Dietz (2009); Lindskold (1978); Nakayachi & Watabe (2005); Sitkin & Roth (1993) parties, as well as the conventions or norms that govern the relationship, thus creating social disequilibrium. To repair the relationship, it is important to reestablish the equilibrium by restoring the relative standing of the parties and to reaffirm the norms that govern them through various social rituals (Goffman, 1967). Examples of such rituals include apologies, penance, and punishment (Bottom et al., 2002; Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano, 2006; Ren & Gray, this issue). These rituals help to settle the accounts in the relationship as well as to reestablish the expectations in the relationship. Researchers have suggested that this social equilibrium process is crucial across a wide spectrum of contexts, ranging from relationships within and between complex social organizations (Reb et al., 2006) to straightforward exchanges between individuals (Bottom et al., 2002) and even primates (de Waal, 1993). According to Ren and Gray, this process is particularly useful for decreasing negative affect and restoring positive exchange. In the focus on the intrapersonal and social processes involved, however, these perspectives give little consideration to the formal organizational, group, or interpersonal structures, systems, and incentives that may be put in place following a transgression and the role they may play in repairing a relationship. More specifically, whereas the attributional process perspective focuses on relationship repair via the cognitions of the violated party and the social equilibrium process perspective focuses on the social or interpersonal aspects of the relationship, the structural process suggests that it is necessary to change the contextual factors within which damaged relationships are situated and to install structures, systems, or incen-

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 73 tives that discourage or prevent future transgressions. To the extent that factors are put in place following a transgression, the aggrieved party may begin to form positive expectations about the other party s future behavior. Several examples of this idea exist in the literature. Sitkin and Roth (1993) refer to the role of legalistic remedies that is, the use of various controls (e.g., policies, procedures, contracts, monitoring) that increase the reliability of future behavior and therefore restore trust. In this issue Gillespie and Dietz discuss a similar concept, which they term a distrust regulation mechanism. Similarly, Nakayachi and Watabe (2005) use the concept of hostage posting, which presumably makes it difficult or costly to engage in future transgressions. The notion of repair in this structural perspective is slightly different from the other two perspectives, and its logic is more focused on restoring positive exchange than on repairing trust or reducing negative affect. In summary, existing research can be classified as using one of these three processes to study relationship repair. The processes tend to be differentially suited for addressing the different aspects of this multifaceted problem. As we suggested above, the attributional perspective is particularly useful for addressing trust repair, although it can also indirectly address issues of reducing negative affect and restoring positive exchange. The social equilibrium perspective is particularly suited for addressing negative affect and exchange, although it might indirectly address the repair of trust (Ren & Gray, this issue). Finally, the structural perspective is particularly effective for addressing exchange behaviors and (indirectly) the repair of trust and affect (e.g., through fear of punishment or monitoring). A key theoretical issue that arises is whether, in order to fully understand the repair of relationships, researchers will need to consider the interplay between two or more of these processes. BUILDING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND UNIFIED CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION In the preceding section we attempted to map the domain of existing research on relationship repair and the theoretical processes covered by the literature. The overview reveals a body of work that spans several disciplinary perspectives and levels of analysis. Given the combination of the breadth of the topic and the limited amount of research on it, it is not surprising that a unified conceptual foundation for the notion of relationship repair has yet to emerge. In this section we examine four questions through which we probe implicit assumptions or overlooked issues in existing research. In considering these issues, we hope to advance toward a more comprehensive and unified conceptual foundation for future research. What Does It Mean to Repair a Relationship? As noted above, repair is conceptualized as occurring when a transgression causes the positive state(s) that constitute(s) the relationship to disappear and/or negative states to arise, as perceived by one or both parties, and activities by one or both parties substantively return the relationship to a positive state. Below we raise questions about two ways to view repair that fit within the broad definition but depart from existing approaches found in the literature. The first issue returns to the question of what outcomes are being repaired. In many situations an employee who has experienced a transgression is likely to lose trust, to have negative affect, and to be more likely to engage in negative exchange compared to an employee who has not experienced a transgression (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). However, scholars have tended to focus on only one or two of these factors in a given study (see Figure 1). The following question arises from this approach. Is a relationship truly repaired if only one or two of the outcomes identified in Figure 1 are addressed, or must all three be addressed? For example, if positive exchange is restored, perhaps by putting structures in place to prevent negative behaviors, but distrust and negative affect still exist, can we consider the relationship to be repaired? As another example, if the party has been forgiven (i.e., negative affect is eliminated) but trust is not repaired, is the relationship repaired? In short, does repair necessitate that the relationship be repaired across all factors that were affected by the transgression? The answer to this question is not straightforward. On the one hand, trust, affect, and exchange are clearly separate and distinct constructs, and each is grounded in a particular literature base. Focusing on only one or two factors allows researchers to probe with greater

74 Academy of Management Review January depth into the theoretical processes involved and may allow for more precision in explaining why and when repair can be achieved. On the other hand, the other factors are also important components of the relationship, and they may have implications for whether the relationship can remain viable in the long run. Building on the example described above, even though exchange may be restored, the lack of trust or high levels of negative affect may eventually lead to the dissolution of the relationship because of the costs involved in maintaining the relationship in this situation. Or if negative affect is eliminated in the short term, the lack of trust may cause it to reemerge at a later point (see the linkages described in Tomlinson & Mayer, this issue). Thus, defining repair narrowly (e.g., only focusing on affect) may mean that another critical state may be overlooked (e.g., trust); although this may not be problematic in the short term, the overlooked state may eventually undermine the former in the long term. We suggest that instead of a clear-cut answer, the issue comes down to one of trade-offs. One such trade-off is that theory cannot be simultaneously general, accurate, and simple (see Thorngate, 1976). For example, the broader view of relationship repair may provide a more general and perhaps more accurate view of the phenomenon, but simplicity is likely to be compromised. There may also be a trade-off between more precise theory (current approach) and more practical theory, to the extent that dealing with violations in practice requires simultaneously addressing issues related to trust, negative affect, and exchange. Thus, researchers might determine how to make these trade-offs by considering the objective of the research. In those situations where researchers choose to focus on a narrow conceptualization, we recommend that they explicitly recognize and discuss the limitations of their approach. The second issue involves what facet of the relationship is repaired. This issue arises from the assumption in existing research that repair involves movement along a continuum, from negative to positive valence for the factor in question (e.g., trust, affect, exchange). This approach is represented in the majority of conceptual and empirical research on the topic (e.g., Bottom et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2004; Schweitzer et al., 2006). In this conceptualization the negative state is eliminated from the relationship by definition. An alternative conceptualization will allow for the simultaneous existence of positive and negative states of the factors in question that is, trust and distrust, positive and negative affect, and/or positive and negative exchange will coexist (i.e., the relationship involves ambivalence). Lewicki et al. (1998) foreshadowed this idea with regard to trust (similar ideas exist in research on affect and exchange). They argued that as a relationship becomes multiplex or multifaceted (i.e., operates around different content areas or domains), it can simultaneously involve trust and distrust. This argument relies on the notion that individuals can segment relationships and thus allow for the possibility that the complex relationship can at the same time be positive in some facets and negative in others. Adapting their example, one may interact with a fellow faculty member in several facets, including teaching, research, and outdoor pastimes such as golf, and might trust the colleague as a research collaborator, but not as a golf partner (see also Rhee & Valdez, this issue). This idea has potential implications for repair. For example, perhaps the research collaborator takes an action that results in a loss of trust in his or her work with data, but not in his or her work with the theory. Repair might involve the coauthor s buttressing or proving his or her trustworthiness in the empirical domain but not in the theoretical domain. This conceptualization of repair is fundamentally different from the prevailing view in the literature since it recognizes the continued coexistence of positive and negative states (i.e., ambivalence) across different facets. The ambivalence conceptualization is worth exploration because it may offer a different or broader range of repair strategies than the existing literature, extending it to options such as segmenting the relationship or downplaying the negative facets while enhancing the positive (for an example, see Pratt & Dirks, 2006). When might researchers give consideration to this conceptualization? We propose that a critical contingency is the nature of the transgression, since this will determine whether the relationship can be segmented. Researchers examining all three repair processes (attributional, social equilibrium, and structural) have identified the nature of the transgression to be a pivotal determinant of the success of repair efforts (Gillespie & Dietz, this issue; Kim et al., 2004;

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 75 Reb et al., 2006; Ren & Gray, this issue; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). The nature of the transgression may also be important for the present issue, since it will determine whether a transgression in one facet will spill over into other facets. To the extent that a transgression in one facet has a spillover effect (e.g., trust in multiple facets is affected), it may be difficult to have a relationship that is simultaneously both positive and negative. Prior research has proposed that an important distinction between types of transgressions is whether they call into question the integrity or values of a party versus the competence of the party (Kim et al., 2004; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Using this distinction, we suggest that transgressions that call into question the integrity or values of a party have significant potential to spill over into other facets. Sitkin and Roth (1993) proposed, for example, that a transgression involving values or integrity tends to be generalized across facets because of stereotypes. Although they did not elaborate, this tendency may result when individuals have cognitive schemas encoded with the belief that negative information about integrity is not only highly diagnostic (e.g., see Reeder & Brewer, 1979) but also is informative about an one s character in a way that transcends situations. The notion is aptly represented with the quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson that no change of circumstances can repair a defect of character (1876: 97 98). This logic would suggest that individuals tend to assume that, for example, when a person cheats at golf, he or she might also be likely to cheat in other situations (business). In addition to this cognitive mechanism, transgressions involving integrity arouse greater levels of negative affect than other forms of transgressions (Tranfinow, Bromgard, Finlay, & Ketelaar, 2005), and the increased magnitude of negative affect may make it difficult to isolate. In contrast, transgressions of competence may be more likely to be facet specific, since individuals are less likely to assume that skills or abilities are generalizeable across facets. For instance, individuals are likely to recognize that lack of competence at golf is not diagnostic of competence in business, or that lack of knowledge of tax codes is not necessarily diagnostic of lack of knowledge in other facets. In addition, to the extent that transgressions of competence result in lower levels of affective arousal, they may also be easier to isolate. In sum, we propose that transgressions perceived to stem from a lack of integrity are much more likely to spill over into other facets of a relationship than transgressions that are perceived to result from a lack of competence. As a result, the ambivalence model may be appropriate to consider when transgressions involve competence but not necessarily integrity. Are the Processes for Repair Independent or Connected? Earlier, we raised the question of whether researchers need to understand the interplay among the three repair processes (attributional, social equilibrium, and structural). As suggested above, researchers have focused on only a single process and have tended to study only one or two outcome variables related to that process. For example, in this issue Tomlinson and Mayer address repair as an attributional process, whereas Ren and Gray discuss it as a social equilibrium process. These articles do not cross into each other s territory (at least explicitly), and neither incorporates the structural perspective. Prior studies have tended to do the same (e.g., see Kim et al., 2004, 2006; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). In addition, the models make different assumptions about where the action is. Whereas the attributional perspective suggests that the locus of action lies within the individual, the social equilibrium model emphasizes the relationships between individuals and the structural perspective focuses on the context in which the breakdown occurs. In short, because past research on repair has implicitly tended to take place within theoretical silos, limited consideration has been given to how these repair processes might relate across these silos. Separate development does not necessarily mean, however, that the processes are unrelated. Understanding whether and how these different processes might relate to each other is important for several reasons. One reason for understanding the relationship is that it informs whether it is viable to try to utilize all three processes and outcomes at once (see Figure 1). A second reason is that some of the tactics for repair have the potential to influence more than one process. Consider the role of apology as one example. Researchers have analyzed the effects

76 Academy of Management Review January of apologies from both attributional (e.g., Tomlinson & Mayer, this issue) and social equilibrium (Ren & Gray, this issue) perspectives. Likewise, the notion of hostage posting studied by Nakayachi and Watabe (2005) has its theoretical roots in the structural perspective, but evidence suggests that its effects operate at least in part via attributions. Thus, understanding the full set of effects may require the specification of the linkages and interactions among theoretical processes. A final reason for considering this issue is that the violator may try to employ multiple tactics, the effects of which may either reinforce each other or perhaps cancel out each other. For example, following an integrity violation, apologizing and accepting blame may reduce negative emotions (e.g., Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989) but may make it difficult to repair trust (Kim et al., 2004). Is there a single or direct way to understand the connections? Our analysis suggests that there is not. Instead, in some cases one process may facilitate another, in others one process may inhibit another, and in still other cases processes may be independent (see Figure 2). Although our analysis is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of a complex set of relationships, it is intended to illustrate some of the primary ways in which they might relate. The attributional and social equilibrium processes would both seem to have a limited effect on the structural process and, thus, be relatively independent in that sense. The assumption of the structural process is that, given the right opportunity or motivation, all individuals are capable of engaging in a transgression. To the extent that this is true, while attributional and social equilibrium processes would seem to decrease the perceived risk related to a future transgression by a specific party within a specific relationship context, structural processes are intended to curb such behaviors in a uniform way across parties. In contrast, the attributional and social equilibrium processes are likely to mutually complement each other. For example, to the extent that the social equilibrium process defuses negative emotions (Ren & Gray, this issue), it may also remove some of the negative biases described by Tomlinson and Mayer (this issue). Alternatively, if the wronged party shifts the attribution such that he or she sees it as less controllable or more unstable (Tomlinson & Mayer), the negative emotion experienced may FIGURE 2 Potential Linkages Among Processes Note: Figure is arranged to show potential effects of antecedent process (columns) on outcome process (rows).

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 77 be decreased and the need to reestablish norms or rebalance the scales may be decreased (Ren & Gray). Thus, in some circumstances activities that support one process may support the other. Structural processes have the potential to facilitate or complement social equilibrium processes. For example, structure might formalize and (re)affirm norms about appropriate behavior in the relationship, particularly those related to the transgression. In addition, structural processes might prevent future transgressions. Research on societal conflicts provides examples of these ideas: peacekeeping forces are used to limit retaliation between parties, and treaties help define the roles and behaviors of the different parties (Gray, Coleman, & Putnam, 2007). Finally, in some circumstances structural processes may inhibit attributional processes. Strickland (1958) conducted an experiment in which a subject viewed two workers who provided the same level of work, but one of the workers was monitored by the supervisor and the other worker was not. The former worker was seen as less trustworthy (dependable). Malhotra and Murnighan (2002) reached a similar conclusion, finding that the use of binding contracts impeded the development of trust and diminished existing trust. Both studies point toward the fact that trust development may be inhibited in these situations because perceivers may make situational attributions for cooperation when it takes place under structural constraints that promote cooperation. In short, this work suggests that when structural constraints are in place to ensure positive exchange, it is difficult to distinguish their effects from the effects of other actions designed to build or rebuild trust. It is worth noting, however, that the relationship between structural processes and attributional processes is complex (Costa & Bijlsma- Frankema, 2007) and the processes may relate in other ways. In summary, looking at the intersections among these processes, it is clear that some processes facilitate others, some undermine others, and yet others are largely independent. As discussed above, structural processes are most likely to operate independent of the other two, and researchers will need to take this into account. Gillespie and Dietz (this issue) theorize about steps that might be taken to address multiple processes, such as the structural and attributional. Specifically, they discuss the role of distrust regulation to overcome confident negative expectations following a transgression. Likewise, in earlier work on reducing interpersonal or internation conflict, Lindskold (1978) proposed that in high stakes situations it is important, and perhaps necessary, to sustain the potential to deter the other party from engaging in a relationship transgression through punishment or other structures, even as one attempts to reestablish trust. Thus, while the structures attempt to ensure cooperation or provide a foundation on which the relationship can survive, the parties can work to build trust. Again, given the fact that these processes often are not independent, we encourage future research to consider their various connections and the implications for relationship repair. What Are the Implications of Viewing Repair As a Temporal Process? Existing research implicitly recognizes that relationship repair is a dynamic process, but much of the existing empirical research has tended to examine it as one snapshot or a series of snapshots. Theoretical perspectives, which do not involve the constraints of empirical studies, have provided a more dynamic view. The articles in this issue provide examples. Tomlinson and Mayer discuss the series of steps involved in transgression and repair as part of a larger model of trust. Ren and Gray offer a face management perspective, which creates a time line of sequential steps that provide insight into the time sequence of events in a relationship transgression. Finally, Gillespie and Dietz describe a four-step process for organizational trust repair. In order to effectively map the domain of relationship repair and to understand how these papers are located within that broad domain, it may be helpful to deconstruct a relationship transgression episode into four stages, each of which has a different set of issues. (1) Pretransgression: What is the state of trust, affect, and exchange in the relationship prior to the transgression? (2) Disruption: What factors are changed by the transgression and how? (3) Repair: What actions are taken to repair these factors? (4) Postrepair: What is the state of trust, affect, and exchange following trust repair actions? Figure 3 depicts these four stages; we discuss each briefly here. The discussion presumes that

78 Academy of Management Review January FIGURE 3 Relationship Repair As a Temporal Process the transgression is between a single actor (the violator) and a single victim (wronged party) and that the stages are perceived and interpreted from the wronged party s perspective (actors may not recognize these stages or may view them differently). Pretransgression: What is the state of trust, affect, and exchange? At the most basic level, the state of the relationship prior to the transgression might be construed as the raw or absolute level of trust for the other party. We can assume that this level of trust is somewhere above zero that is, there is an amount of trust that varies from low positive to high positive. Moreover, as we noted earlier, research on trust has shown that the construction of trust itself is not unitary (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Trust has cognitive components and affective components that lead to behavioral intentions, and there are other elements in the relationship that may be affected (e.g., expectations of fairness that may affect judgments of trust; Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson, 2005). Therefore, a complex understanding of changes in the trust level should specify the pretransgression level of cognitive, affective, and intention levels, as well as other factors of the relationship, since any or all of these trust components can be affected by a relationship transgression. Disruption: What factors are changed by the transgression and how? An external event, presumably initiated by the actor or attributed to his or her actions by the victim, creates a relationship disruption. The exact nature of this event may be simple or complex and is highly contextualized within the pretransgression state of the relationship. As noted above, trust, affect, and exchange may all be negatively affected, or perhaps only a subset of them. Exactly how much they are affected, as well as which facet of the relationship the violation occurred within (see above discussion), is also an important consideration. Repair: What actions are taken to repair these factors? The third box in Figure 3 indicates that the violating actor initiates a set of actions motivated by a desire to repair or restore the relationship (the precise nature of the intent and the consequence of these actions repairing versus restoring are addressed below). Presumably, the actions themselves are directed toward altering the negative consequences produced by the transgression (here and elsewhere we have assumed the actor has a desire to deal with or repair the violation). Consistent with our threefold characterization of repair processes discussed earlier, repair actions can target attributional processes, producing new or revised cognitions (trust). Repair actions can restore the social equilibrium to act on the affective feelings of hurt, betrayal, and anger that may exist. Finally, repair actions can involve instituting structures to facilitate future positive exchanges, such as contracts or covenants that specify intentions, obligations, and penalties for future transgressions (Loomis, 1959; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Postrepair: What is the state of trust, affect, and exchange? Finally, the last box in Figure 3 represents the state of the posttransgression relationship after repair initiatives have been attempted in Stage 3. If relationship repair is successful, it should be possible to measure the impact of the repair actions on subsequent states and actions. These measures may include new or changed cognitions about the actor by the victim, more positive (or less negative) affective disposition toward the actor, more positive intentions to trust the other in future exchanges, and expectations of more productive exchanges within the specific facet of the interpersonal relationship.

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 79 Although we readily acknowledge that the process is much more fluid in reality, we believe that it is helpful to deconstruct and delineate this four-stage process for two major reasons. First, many studies of repair only focus on the repair efforts themselves and their presumed consequences, without calibrating either the prior levels of key relationship variables before the transgression or their subsequent levels after the transgression. Admittedly, there are significant problems in effectively assessing these distinctions: the violating actor may have incomplete information about how the transgression was interpreted by the victim, or the actor may not know the range of options available for repairing specific types of wrongs. Second, there are significant measurement problems for valid and reliable data collection at all steps in this flow, but this should not deter researchers from attempting to be more precise about what data are collected pretransgression and posttransgression and how the repair actions actually attempt to operate on the damage created by the transgression itself. Connecting this issue with our earlier discussion about the nature of repair, one area for future consideration is whether repair initiatives fully restore the relationship to the pretransgression state. For example, is trust (or affect or exchange) in its postrepair state the same as in its prerepair state? On the one hand, it may be presumed that Stage 3 efforts (Figure 3) fully restore trust to its pretransgression state or condition that is, there are no visible (or less visible) traces of the impact of the transgression. On the other hand, it may be that Stage 3 efforts only repair trust, but in a manner that now incorporates and cannot hide the impact of the transgression that is, the transgression has transformed the underlying trust in a significant way. Several of the papers in this issue address this problem, to some degree. Tomlinson and Mayer address the problem most directly, referring to updated evaluations of trust and the violated person s judgments of ability, benevolence, and integrity following repair efforts. Similarly, Ren and Gray write about a restored equilibrium following restoration efforts, although this process receives considerably less attention than the nature of the restoration activities and the cultural context in which they occur (Stage 3). Neither paper, however, directly compares the repaired trust or affect to pretransgression trust or affect, and both papers discuss repair and restoration interchangeably. Nor do the authors consider whether trust exists in the same facets as opposed to being repaired in one facet while distrust continues to exist in another facet (see our discussion in an earlier section). An appropriate metaphor to distinguish between these two alternatives (restoration versus repair) may be a flower vase in which the broken pieces have been cemented, the joints sanded, and the vase reglazed so that there is absolutely no visible trace of the break, versus a flower vase in which a simple cementing process has been used so that the fracture lines and glue joints can still be seen. Research on relationship repair has not distinguished between repair and restoration, either in conceptual distinction or empirical measurement. It may be possible to gain a better understanding of these dynamics by improved research attention to and measurement of both pretransgression and posttransgression cognitions, affect, and behavioral dispositions. Finally, it may be that, compared to a relationship that is restored, a repaired relationship may be more fragile and susceptible to future transgressions because there may yet be deep-seated scars from the transgression so that the relationship can never again become exactly what it was initially. Is Repairing a Relationship the Same or Different at Different Levels of Analysis? As should be obvious, the problem of relationship repair is relevant at all levels of analysis. There has, however, been little or no consideration in the literature about the implications of different levels of analysis. For the purpose of developing a more comprehensive and unified conceptual foundation for relationship repair within and between organizations, we suggest that it is important to consider what might be the same or different across a variety of levels of analysis. To address this issue, this STF includes articles that span a range of levels of analysis and also develop multilevel theories. Specifically, Tomlinson and Mayer focus on repairing the trust one individual has for another, Ren and Gray theorize about the relationship between individuals but focus on the dyad, Gillespie and Dietz examine an employee s relationship with the organization, and Rhee and Valdez study the

80 Academy of Management Review January relationship between external stakeholders and the organization through its reputation, akin to a collective-to-collective level of analysis. Thus, this set of papers captures three forms of organizational relationships, varying the level of analysis of both parties: a relationship between two individuals (e.g., coworker-coworker), a relationship between an individual and an organization (employee-organization), and a relationship between two institutions (stakeholderorganization). Below we develop the outlines of a theory to systematically connect levels of analysis with repair processes. In effect, we attempt to answer the question What differences exist between relationships at different levels of analysis, and how do they affect repair processes? We suggest that the general concept of levels of analysis is too coarse to provide traction for addressing the issue. Instead, we propose focusing on two dimensions on which these relationships might differ: compositional and contractual. We discuss each dimension below, including what they mean and why they have important implications. For the sake of simplicity, we consider two kinds of relationships over different levels of analysis: individual-to-individual (hereafter interpersonal ) and organization-to-organization (hereafter interorganizational ). By the term compositional we mean that the interpersonal relationship is composed of unitary actors, whereas an interorganizational relationship is made up of collectives. For example, with the concept of trust, an interpersonal relationship involves one individual trusting another individual, whereas an interorganizational relationship involves one organization (i.e., collection of individuals) trusting another organization (i.e., collection of individuals). Thus, this dimension derives directly from the definition of an interpersonal versus interorganizational relationship. This dimension has implications for the nature of the concepts themselves (e.g., trust), as well as the processes involved in their repair. We begin by conceptually distinguishing the essential nature of interpersonal trust from that of interorganizational trust. A well-known trust model at the interpersonal level views trustworthiness as composed of ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). In their crosslevel model of trust repair, Gillespie and Dietz also view the trustworthiness of an organization, in the eyes of individual employees, as composed of the same three factors. In contrast, at the interorganizational level, trust has empirically been shown to be a composite of reliability, predictability, and fairness (Zaheer et al., 1998). In sum, there may be some differences in the structure of the constructs at different levels, although research is needed to establish whether the constructs actually operate in the same way despite the differences (e.g., see Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2007). Similar issues arise with the concepts of affect and exchange. Not only may the concept of trust be different for individuals versus collectives, but the processes by which trust arises and is repaired may also be different. For example, if the perceiver is a collective, judgments of trust may shift from identifying underlying attributes of individuals to evaluating the trustworthiness of the systems and processes that make up the organization. Along these lines, Gillespie and Dietz propose that perceived organizational trustworthiness involves judgments about the systems, processes, culture, and management practices of an organization, as opposed to the personality attributes of an individual. Furthermore, there may be differences related to the target as a collective versus the individual. Hamilton and Sherman (1996) proposed that the attribution principles operate in the same way for individuals and collectives in situations where the organization is perceived to be a unitary and homogeneous collection. However, when the organization is perceived to be diverse (as opposed to unified), the attribution principles may be less applicable. These potential differences have implications for repair processes. Repair at the organizational level may be more difficult, owing to the compositional dimension (i.e., if multiple organization members have to be convinced to recalibrate their views toward a violating organization). Similarly, if the multiple and complex structures and systems at the organizational level have been modified to treat another organization as a violator, repair will involve the wholesale recalibration of systems and processes in a coherent and systemic fashion (Gillespie & Dietz). In addition, a greater range of options for repairing trust may be available when dealing with two collectives (e.g., firing the person responsible for the act) as opposed to two individuals.

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 81 The second dimension is the contractual form of the relationship. Macneil (1980) categorized contracting processes in relationships as social or relational, in contrast to the classical characterization that is, purely economic, market based, or transactional. Social elements such as norms and expectations enter into and form part of relationships based on relational contracting, but not those based on classical market contracting. Another factor that distinguishes these two types of relationships is the time horizon; whereas relationships based on classical contracts are instantaneous, spot, arm s-length transactions, those based on relational contracting adopt an extended time horizon and promote serial equity (equity calibrated over a series of transactions) over spot equity (equity calibrated within the transactional exchange). Referencing essentially the same idea, sociologists have distinguished social exchange relationships from economic exchange relationships (e.g., Blau, 1964). Whereas relationships based on economic exchange operate in a marketlike relationship with specified obligations, relationships based on social exchange tend to operate through trust and reciprocity, without specified obligations. In addition, an affective element also tends to accompany social or relational exchange to a greater extent than pure economic exchange. According to Blau, Only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust; purely economic exchange as such does not (1964: 94). It is possible for both interpersonal and interorganizational relationships to involve either contractual form. For example, Fiske (1992) discussed how interpersonal relationships can operate according to norms associated with social or economic forms of exchange. Likewise, interorganizational relationships include institutionalizing processes (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994), which extend the time horizon of relationships beyond the individuals involved in them and thus allow for a relational exchange. That said, comparing the two forms, it is often the case that the exigencies of efficiency ( business is business ) are likely to result in interorganizational relationships being more market oriented than interpersonal ones, and affective elements of the relationship that might overcome pure business considerations may be reined in by the threat or reality of audits and reviews. In sum, relationships of either kind can be market or relational, but interorganizational relationships are much less likely to be of the latter type, and this issue might be confounded in the analysis of repair at different levels of analysis. The contractual form is important for repair because it may have implications for the effectiveness of repair processes (see Table 1). In particular, to the extent that relationships involving economic versus relational contractual forms are governed by different rules that reside in the schemata of the actors (Fiske, 1992), different repair tactics or processes may be required. For example, whereas structural remedies might be considered as highly appropriate in economic exchanges, they sometimes may be difficult to impose in relational exchanges without violating the norms governing the relationship. In examining repair from a social equilibrium perspective, Ren and Gray propose in this STF that the cultural context of the relationship will determine which behaviors are seen as transgressions and how effective remedies are offered as solutions. Extending this idea, the contractual form of the relationship may also determine the actions viewed as transgressions and the remedies that right them. For example, while the social equilibrium process may be particularly crucial to a relational exchange, the perspective may be less powerful in the context of short-term economic exchanges where affective components are less relevant. In sum, we expect these two dimensions to provide leverage for understanding similarities and differences for repair of interpersonal versus interorganizational relations. Because the two dimensions are largely independent, they may be combined to form a 2 2 matrix contractual form: relational versus economic; compositional form: individuals versus collectives which may reveal interesting implications. For example, in the relational-collective quadrant, the complexity of the transgression discovery process; the disruption caused to the large number of components, systems, and organizational members involved in the relationship; and the complexity of the repair processes will together create a qualitatively different phenomenon both in terms of the transgression and the repair relative to all other quadrants. Repair in the economic-individual quadrant is also quite different from other quadrants. While social equilibrium processes in this case will be underemphasized relative to the relational

82 Academy of Management Review January quadrants, the clarity of the locus of the transgression and, relative to organizations, the lack of complexity in the nature of the relationship mean that external attributions may need greater justification. Consequently, repair in this quadrant might involve significant mea culpas, economic reparations, and easily observable structural remedies, rather than just the restoration of the affective state. However, as in the collectives quadrants, the nature of repair will also depend on the relative power balance in the relationship (from, say, the existence of alternatives). While we have provided some ideas in this direction, an important avenue for future research would be to empirically identify both the presence and weight of different processes and factors, as well as to identify boundary conditions (such as the power balance) in each quadrant. It is important to pursue this line of research because the nature of relationship repair is likely to systematically vary in each of the four quadrants, and such variation is grist for the mill of a theory of repair at different levels of analysis. CONCLUSION The question motivating this STF was How can individuals or organizations repair relationships once they are damaged? Each of the four articles in the STF, as well as this introduction, makes the case that relationship repair is a fundamental but surprisingly understudied problem. The purpose of the STF is to stimulate work on this important topic and to provide a stronger, comprehensive, and more unified foundation for such work, both as it exists now and for the future to build on. What might future work look like? The contributions that make up this STF provide the foundations for advancing different perspectives on this problem and for systematically incorporating the different levels of analysis at which the phenomenon is observed. The idea behind publishing the articles as a set, as well as this introduction, is to reinforce the integration of perspectives and to encourage extensions into future work. Consequently, the spirit of the STF advocates research that not only drills down into a particular perspective but also takes into consideration and integrates these other perspectives. In doing so, we hope that future studies will not only develop more comprehensive theoretical insights but also will be more likely to provide a window into how relationship repair dynamics operate in practice. REFERENCES Barclay, L., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. 2005. Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 629 643. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. 1996. Beyond distrust: Getting even and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 246 260. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13: 497 513. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. 1999. The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on revenge and forgiveness in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25: 607 631. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. 2002. A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 287 302. Costa, A. C., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. 2007. Trust and control interrelations: New perspectives on the trust-control nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32: 392 406. de Quervain, D. J.-F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. 2004. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305: 1254 1258. de Waal, F. B. M. 1993. Reconciliation among primates: A review of empirical evidence and unresolved issues. In W. A. Mason & S. P. Mendoza (Eds.), Primate social conflict: 111 144. Albany: State University of New York Press. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450 467. Driver, J., Tabares, A., Shapiro, A., Nahm, E. Y., & Gottman, J. 2003. Interactional patterns in marital success or failure: Gottman Laboratory studies. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity: 493 513. New York: Guilford Press. Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. 1998. Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23: 547 566. Elsbach, K. D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 57 88. Emerson, R. W. 1876. Essays: Second series. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

2009 Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer 83 Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. 2007. Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32: 465 499. Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2007. Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for repairing integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 893 908. Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99: 689 723. Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34: 127 145. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Gray, B., Coleman, P. T., & Putnam, L. L. 2007. Intractable conflict: New perspectives on the causes and conditions for change. American Behavioral Scientist, 50: 1415 1429. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. 1996. Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103: 336 355. Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. 2006. When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99: 49 65. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology vs. denial for repairing ability- vs. integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 104 118. Komorita, S. S., & Mechling, J. 1967. Betrayal and reconciliation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 349 352. Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. 1998. Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 55 67. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 114 139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23: 438 458. Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. 2005. What is the role of trust in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: Fundamental questions about fairness in the workplace: 247 270. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lindskold, S. 1978. Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects of conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. Psychological Bulletin, 85: 772 793. Loomis, J. L. 1959. Communication and the development of trust. Human Relations, 12: 305 315. Macneil, I. R. 1980. The new social contract: An inquiry into modern contractual relations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 534 559. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709 734. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14: 91 103. Mercer Human Resource Consulting. 2005. U.S. workers trust in management is low. Mercer press release on 2005 What s Working survey, New York. Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. 1998. The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 769 783. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226 256. Nakayachi, K., & Watabe, M. 2005. Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary hostage posting on trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 1 17. Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. 1989. Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 219 227. Pratt, M., & Dirks, K. T. 2006. Rebuilding trust and restoring positive relationships: A commitment-based view of trust. In J. Dutton & B. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation: 117 136. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. 2006. Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59: 31 64. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. 1979. A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86: 61 79. Ren, H., & Gray, B. 2009. Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34: 105 126. Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. 2009. Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. Academy of Management Review, 34: 146 168. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 90 118.

84 Academy of Management Review January Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574 599. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245 259. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. 2006. Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101: 1 19. Shapiro, D. L. 1991. The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 614 630. Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. 1993. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4: 367 392. Strickland, L. H. 1958. Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26: 200 215. Thorngate, W. 1976. Possible limits on a science of social behavior. In J. H. Strickland, F. E. Aboud, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social psychology in transition: 121 139. New York: Plenum Press. Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. 2004. The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30: 165 187. Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. 2009. The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34: 85 104. Tranfinow, D., Bromgard, I. K., Finlay, K. A., & Ketelaar, T. 2005. The role of affect in determining the attributional weight of immoral behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31: 935 948. Watson Wyatt. 2007. WorkUSA 2006/2007. Research report, Arlington, VA. World Economic Forum. 2005. Trust in governments, corporations and global institutions continues to decline. Press release, Geneva, Switzerland. Zaheer, A., Lofstrom, S., & George, V. 2002. Interpersonal and organizational trust in alliances. In F. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies and alliances: What we know 15 years later: 347 377. London: Elsevier Science. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9: 141 159. Kurt T. Dirks (dirks@wustl.edu) is an associate professor at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on trust in the workplace. He also conducts research on feelings of ownership. Roy J. Lewicki (Lewicki_1@fisher.osu.edu) is the Irving Abramowitz Memorial Professor at the Max M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University. His research interests include trust development and repair and negotiation processes in organizations. Akbar (Aks) Zaheer (azaheer@umn.edu) is the Curtis L. Carlson Chair in Strategic Management at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, and director of the Strategic Management Research Center. He received his Ph.D. from MIT. His research interests include trust, networks, alliances, and mergers and acquisitions.