Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:54:46.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Trustworthiness for a More Nuanced Understanding of Nepotism and Cronyism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

David K. Palmer  and
Michelle M. Fleig-Palmer
David K. Palmer*
Affiliation:
College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney
Michelle M. Fleig-Palmer*
Affiliation:
College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David K. Palmer, Department of Management, West Center 255W, College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849, or to Michelle M. Fleig-Palmer, Department of Management, West Center 409C, College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David K. Palmer, Department of Management, West Center 255W, College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849, or to Michelle M. Fleig-Palmer, Department of Management, West Center 409C, College of Business & Technology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jones and Stout (2015) 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 (2015) 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.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 22 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, T. E. (2012). Nepotism and the commitment of relevant parties. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 129–145). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909Google Scholar
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 563–576. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<563::AID-SMJ99>3.0.CO;2-0Google Scholar
Dickson, M. W., Nieminen, L. R. G., & Biermeier-Hanson, B. J. (2012). Nepotism and organizational homogeneity: How the attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) process is accelerated by nonmerit-based decision making. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 93–128). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, R. G. (2012a). Defining a psychology of nepotism. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, R. G. (2012b). Toward a new understanding of nepotistic organizational behavior. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 253–267). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, R. G., & Stout, T. (2015). Policing nepotism and cronyism without losing the value of social connection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Y. (2004). On the nature of benevolence. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35, 304–317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00234.xGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (2012). The nepotistic organization: What is this place and how do the people make it? In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 43–66). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mulder, B. K. (2012). A model of organizational nepotism. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 219–251). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617Google Scholar
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996). Organizational trust: Philosophical perspectives and conceptual definitions. Academy of Management Review, 21, 337–340.Google Scholar
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410Google Scholar
Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104. doi:10.5465/AMR.2009.35713291Google Scholar
van Hooft, E. A. J., & Stout, T. (2012). Nepotism and career choice, job search, and job choice. In Jones, R. G. (Ed.), Nepotism in organizations (pp. 67–91). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar