Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders’ Apologies to Repair Followers’ Trust in the Aftermath of Leader Failure

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present research was to investigate how a negative decision outcome generated by a leader in a hasty, timely, or delayed manner impacts upon the need for, and the effectiveness of apologies to restore followers’ trust.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were collected using five studies in which the effects of timing of an incorrect decision on the trust repair process were investigated.

Findings

In the aftermath of a leader’s failure, followers experienced a delayed incorrect decision as a more severe transgression than a hasty or a timely incorrect decision. This effect was mediated by procedural fairness concerns (Study 1). The present findings also revealed an interesting paradox. Specifically, in the delayed condition followers expressed the highest need for an apology (Studies 2 and 3), but at the same time expected an apology to be less effective for enhancing trustworthiness than in the timely and the hasty condition (Study 3). Moreover, we also showed that the actual provision of an apology was effective for restoring both trustworthiness (Study 4) and trust (Studies 4 and 5) in the timely and the hasty condition, but ineffective in the delayed condition.

Implications

The present research shows that when the outcome of a decision is uncertain, it is better to make a decision (too) soon rather than (too) late.

Originality/Value

Despite the ubiquity of timing errors in daily life, our studies are the first to focus on the role of timeliness of decisions in the trust repair process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To provide an additional point of reference for the timeliness of the leader’s decision, in all three decision timing conditions, we also displayed a notice when the leader of ‘Team Red’—another group that simultaneously performed the study—had made his or her decision. This message was shown after 3:45 min (on average; the program randomly selected a value between 3:43 and 3:47). Although both groups performed the task individually and were not in competition for the prize, highlighting the timing of ‘Team Red’ provides a useful reference point for participants to judge the timeliness of their leader’s decision.

  2. ANOVAs and subsequent simple effects tests for the trustworthiness facet scales of ability, benevolence, and integrity led to similar conclusions as the ones reported here for the total scale.

References

  • Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O. H., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Shein, G. (2007). Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The care of penalty kicks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 606–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73, 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2001). When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing changes in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 566–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 469–498). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I., & Croson, R. (2004). Trust and trustworthiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 443–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cha, S. E., & Edmonston, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemmer, E. C., & Schneider, B. (1996). Fair service. In T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown (Eds.), Advances in services marketing and management (pp. 109–126). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119–151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2010). To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 843–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2013). The proactive leader: How to overcome procrastination and be a bold decision-maker. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Desmet, P. T. M. (2012). Restoring trust depends on the victim’s motives: A motivated trust repair model. In R. M. Kramer & T. Pittinsky (Eds.), Restoring trust: Challenges and prospects (pp. 241–256). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural fairness, self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151–218). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). Trust recovery following voluntary or forced financial compensations in the trust game: The role of trait forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 267–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Reparing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues. In R. Kramer & K. Cook (Eds.), Trust within organizations (pp. 21–40). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 responding to integrity-and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, F., & Solomon, R. C. (1998). Creating trust. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 205–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2001). What you don’t know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review, 79, 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 26, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to service failures: influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 25, 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haesevoets, T., Reinders Folmer, R., De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). Money isn’t all that matters: The use of financial compensation and apologies to preserve relationships in the aftermath of distributive harm. Journal of Economic Psychology, 35, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior research methods. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z.

  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, P. (2005). Put the right decisions in the right hands. Harvard Management Update, 10, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S. (2007). The art and power of the apology. Washington Lawyer, 21, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., Reinders Folmer, C., & van Dijke, M. (2013). The apology mismatch: Asymmetries between victim’s need for apologies and perpetrator’s willingness to apologize. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgements as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lount, R. B., Zhong, C. B., Sivanathan, N., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1601–1612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. (2009). The incorporation of time in team research: Past, current and future. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 321–348). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohbuchi, K. I., 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A. A., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). What it takes to forgive: When and why executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 119–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutte, C. G., & Messick, D. M. (1995). An integrated model of perceived unfairness in organizations. Social Justice Research, 8, 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Procedural justice in entrepreneur-investor relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 544–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65–99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management of escalation of conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. (1978). Vengeance and forgiveness: the uses of beneficence in social control. School Review, 86, 655–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: the role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756–769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. (1988). Factors affecting perceptions of political candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political Psychology, 9, 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: Effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronto, M. E. (2002). Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1020–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tukel, O. I., & Rom, W. O. (1998). Analysis of the characteristics of projects in diverse industries. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valkeapää, A., & Seppälä, T. (2014). Speed of decision-making as a procedural justice principle. Social Justice Research, 27, 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the University College West Flanders (Howest) for their help with the data collection of the third study. In this regard, special thanks go to Hannes Verdru. This research was supported by a research grant from the National Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (under Grant Number G095912 N).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Tessa Haesevoets, Anne Joosten, Lisa Lerner & Alain Van Hiel

  2. Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Chris Reinders Folmer

  3. Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AG, UK

    David De Cremer

Authors
  1. Tessa Haesevoets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Joosten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Reinders Folmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa Lerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David De Cremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alain Van Hiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tessa Haesevoets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haesevoets, T., Joosten, A., Reinders Folmer, C. et al. The Impact of Decision Timing on the Effectiveness of Leaders’ Apologies to Repair Followers’ Trust in the Aftermath of Leader Failure. J Bus Psychol 31, 533–551 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9431-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9431-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation