Their interplay with forgiveness in organizations
There’s a world of difference … a night and day kind of difference between forgiveness and trust. Forgiveness is about the past … what has happened. Trust is about the future. What the relationship will be like from here on out.
(Pastor Jeff Conrad)
Decades of research have established the vital importance of trust, not only to interpersonal relationships but also to any well-functioning society at large. Trust facilitates cooperation (Barnard, 1938) and enhances the stability of social institutions and markets (Williamson, 1975; Zucker, 1986). As stabilizing a force as it may be, trust is also a fragile commodity that can be easily broken (Kim, Dirks, & Cooper, 2009). Given its tenuous nature, it is perhaps not surprising that a substantial literature has emerged examining how to restore trust in the aftermath of a transgression (for a detailed discussion of trust and distrust repair, see Kim, this volume). Although much of this research focuses on how transgressors can rebuild trust through reparative actions (e.g. apologies, compensation; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004) or through legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms (e.g. Long & Sitkin, 2006; Sitkin & George, 2005), studies have also indicated that those who are aggrieved can play an important role in the trust-rebuilding process (e.g. Goodstein & Aquino, 2010). Of particular concern has been the role of forgiveness. Specifically, scholars have argued that violations of trust can create the opportunity for forgiveness, which can have beneficial consequences for trust restoration (e.g. Aquino, Grover, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Waldron & Kelley, 2008).
Despite the significance of trust and trust repair for forgiveness, and vice-versa, the trust and forgiveness literatures have developed relatively independently of each other. However, there is increasing recognition that our theoretical understanding and ability to effectively manage trust can be substantially enhanced through the integration of these literatures. In their review of the trust literature, for example, Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007, p. 349) argued that forgiveness is ‘an evolving area that holds promise for understanding trust repair’ and called for empirical research on foundational questions, such as the conditions under which forgiveness is likely to occur and the role of forgiveness in trust restoration.
In this chapter, we explore these foundational questions in three ways. First, there is increasing recognition of the importance of context for forgiveness – forgiveness does not occur within a vacuum but rather in a multi-layered contextual environment. However, research has only just begun to identify the contextual factors that can impact this important phenomenon. By reviewing the literature, we highlight the roles of trust and distrust as two contextual factors that can shape forgiveness processes, with trust enabling and distrust disabling forgiveness. Second, although forgiveness is often assumed to be a positive and functional outcome, individuals can be reluctant to forgive and may even find that forgiveness can have negative consequences. For example, individuals do not always feel ready to forgive (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003), they may not believe that forgiveness is appropriate or valued in workplace contexts (Chusmir & Parker, 1991; Palanski, 2012), or they may find that the offense has created so much distrust that forgiveness is not even considered as a possibility. We examine when forgiveness may be unlikely and explore its alternatives, especially those that can emerge when individuals have varying degrees of trust or distrust in the offender. Third, we discuss how forgiveness can shape the restoration of trust in organizational settings, as forgiveness is typically viewed as an important stepping-stone on the path to restoring trust (e.g. Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Finally, we conclude with a call for further research into the reciprocal and dynamic nature of trust, distrust, and forgiveness.
From anthropology to zoology, the study of forgiveness has intrigued researchers from a diversity of disciplines. Although forgiveness is often treated as a decision and measured at a single point in time (McCullough et al., 2003), numerous researchers have argued that it is most effectively conceptualized as a psychological process that unfolds in a series of stages over time (e.g. Baskin & Enright, 2004; McCullough et al., 2003; Wohl & McGrath, 2007). In a recent multi-disciplinary and integrative review, Bies, Barclay, Tripp, and Aquino (2016) provided a unified definition of forgiveness, describing it as ‘the internal act of relinquishing anger, resentment, and the desire to seek revenge against someone who has caused harm as well as the enhancement of positive emotions and thoughts towards the harm-doer.’ This definition highlights the prosocial psychological changes underlying forgiveness, in which individuals move from a focus on the past (i.e. the negative emotions one feels about the transgression) towards prosocial and positive emotions, cognitions, and behavioral intentions (McCullough et al., 2003). Further, this definition emphasizes the importance of time in forgiveness processes, with many of the conditions that facilitate forgiveness evolving over time, such as the development of empathy, the creation of distance between the victim and the negative event (Wohl & McGrath, 2007), and the re-establishment of closeness after a violation (e.g. Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006).
Although forgiveness is often considered at the individual level of analysis, it is also important to examine forgiveness from a ‘systems’ perspective (Bies et al., 2016). From the dyad, to the group and organization, to the broader cultural forces that surround the individual – forgiveness is enveloped by contextual layers, which can exert powerful influences over employees by creating enablers (i.e. gateways or bridges) and barriers to forgiveness. For example, cultural values can guide how employees interpret and handle conflict (Schein, 1990). Consequently, forgiveness is facilitated in cultures that support values of compassion, collective mercy, and hope (Bazemore, 1998; Walker, 2006), whereas it is hindered in cultures that view forgiveness as a sign of weakness (Tripp & Bies, 2009), value individualism (Hook, Worthington, & Utsey, 2009), or adopt ‘cultures of honor’ (i.e. endorse the use of aggression to defend against personal insults or challenges to one’s reputation/status; Cohen & Nisbett, 1994).
Building on the systems foundation, we argue that it is critical to examine how trust and distrust can create a context for forgiveness and explore the role of forgiveness for the restoration of trust. Specifically, we propose that trust and distrust are key factors that can influence forgiveness, with trust enabling and distrust disabling forgiveness. Further, trust and distrust can influence forgiveness by impacting the various contextual factors that envelop the individual. We begin our discussion by acknowledging the distinction between trust and distrust. Next, we highlight the important role of these constructs for forgiveness.
Traditionally, trust and distrust were conceptualized as mutually exclusive conditions that existed at opposite ends of a single continuum (with trust being viewed as ‘good’ and distrust as ‘bad’; cf. Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). As the field developed, however, trust and distrust came to be defined as related but distinct constructs that serve different functions. Briefly, trust reflects positive expectations and the willingness to be vulnerable to another (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), whereas distrust involves pervasive negative expectations and perceptions about the intentions or behavior of another (Lewicki et al., 1998; for further discussion, see Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Thus, trust and distrust are similar in that both entail expectations – with trust reflecting ‘confident positive expectations’ and distrust indicating ‘confident negative expectations’ on the part of one party about another (McAllister, 1995). Trust and distrust also allow individuals to manage uncertainty and complexity by focusing on the likelihood of being the target of (un)desirable conduct or harmful actions (Luhmann, 1979). However, these constructs are distinct in that both have different antecedents. Sitkin and Roth (1993, p. 271), for example, argued that ‘trust is violated to the extent that expectations about context-specific task reliability are not met … distrust is engendered when an individual or group is perceived as not sharing key cultural values.’ Trust and distrust can also have different underlying processes and outcomes (cf. Kramer, 1999).
In an influential article, Lewicki et al. (1998) highlighted that trust and distrust are embedded in a dynamic system of multiplex social relations. In this view, it becomes possible for one person to both trust and distrust another person simultaneously, at different times, and in different contexts. The authors suggested a 2x2 typology in which relationships can be broadly categorized as being: (i) low trust and low distrust; (ii) high trust and low distrust; (iii) low trust and high distrust; and (iv) high trust and high distrust. When situated within the context of forgiveness, this typology suggests that the interplay between trust (an enabler of forgiveness) and distrust (a barrier to forgiveness) may create tension that can influence the emergence of forgiveness. For example, under conditions of high trust and high distrust, individuals have both shared and separate objectives with another, which can give them grounds to feel assured by and extend confidence towards others but also have grounds to be dubious about or suspicious of them. Further, under conditions of high trust and high distrust, the relationship can be characterized by ‘ambivalence’, with the parties assuming a default operating philosophy of ‘trust but verify’ (Bies, 2014; Lewicki et al., 1998).
While some may be tempted to disparage ambivalence for the uncertainty it engenders, it can also serve a functional and stabilizing role by giving rise to ‘a productive tension of confidences’ (Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 450). This is due to the fact that if people trust too little they get nothing done, while if they trust too much they become easy candidates for harm and betrayal. Additionally, as Sitkin and Roth (1993) point out, organizational environments characterized by low levels of trust tend to adopt legalistic remedies to stabilize relations (e.g. policies, contracts, and dispute resolution mechanisms). While such remedies bring a measure of stability, they come at the cost of flexibility and speed. Moreover, they constrain the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness when trust has been tested or broken. In other words, nurturing an optimal balance of trust and distrust – or ambivalent trust – that allows people to be as productive as possible without rendering them unduly vulnerable to exploitation can be an important source of competitive advantage for contemporary organizations.
Building on the above, we propose that high trust may enable forgiveness, whereas high distrust can make it more difficult to facilitate forgiveness. Specifically, forgiveness involves prosocial psychological changes (McCullough et al., 2003). When considering how to facilitate change, Lewin (1951) argued that it is important to consider the driving and restraining forces that can facilitate versus hinder change, respectively. When high trust is combined with high distrust, we argue that the drivers that facilitate forgiveness may be constrained by barriers to forgiveness. In contrast, forgiveness may be facilitated more easily in relationships that are characterized by high trust and low distrust because the enablers (‘driving forces’) towards forgiveness are not bound by the constraints (‘restraining forces’) of distrust. Taken together, it is important to examine how both trust and distrust can shape the emergence of forgiveness. In the next section, we explore how trust can facilitate and distrust can create obstacles for forgiveness in organizational contexts.
Although research examining the inter-relationships between trust, distrust, and forgiveness is in its infancy, there is evidence suggesting that trust can serve as an enabler and distrust as a barrier to forgiveness. As we argue in detail below, there are at least three ways that trust and distrust serve these functions. First, trust and distrust can create a context that influences whether violations are even perceived (e.g. Lind, 2001). For example, trust and distrust can frame the way that individuals experience and interpret violations, which can ultimately impact whether individuals choose to and/or are able to forgive (i.e. trust/distrust can serve as antecedents and/or moderating variables in the relationship between violations and reactions). Second, violations can create distrust (i.e. distrust can be an outcome of a violation), which can disable one’s desire or ability to engage in forgiveness (e.g. Dirks, Kim, Ferrin, & Cooper, 2011). Third, trust and distrust can influence other contextual factors (e.g. at the levels of the dyad, group, organization, and even external environment) as well as emerge at multiple contextual levels, which can subsequently influence forgiveness.
Within relationships, individuals often use trust to interpret and react to others’ behavior (Lind, 2001). When individuals feel trust towards another, they tend to respond in a cooperative manner. By contrast, when they experience distrust, they may scrutinize requests and engage in protective behaviors. This happens because it is cognitively inefficient for individuals to deeply process every interaction, and thus they often form heuristics that guide their evaluations and interactions. These evaluations can create a context in which incoming events and information are interpreted. Choi (2008), for example, found that social entity judgments moderate the relationship between events and reactions, such that holding positive evaluations of one’s supervisor can lessen the impact of an unfair event on attitudinal and behavioral reactions towards that supervisor. In other words, individuals do not encounter events as a ‘blank slate’; instead, they hold evaluations and expectations that can influence the way that they perceive, experience, and respond to events.
Within the context of forgiveness, trust and distrust can influence the way that individuals interpret the event, thereby impacting one of the key factors predicting whether individuals will forgive (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). Specifically, when individuals experience a violation, they are motivated to determine ‘what happened’ and engage in sensemaking to understand the offense, why it happened, and how they should react. However, their pre-existing judgments can influence the way that they interpret incoming information, with individuals often being motivated to maintain their current judgments (Lind, 2001). For example, individuals who believe that their supervisor is a trustworthy person are more likely to give their supervisor the benefit of the doubt and/or discount negative information whereas individuals who distrust their supervisor are more likely to give more weight to negative information. This can also influence their expectations for treatment. Skarlicki, Barclay, and Pugh (2008), for example, found that individuals who had low prior trust in their employer were more likely to retaliate when they were treated fairly during a layoff. Although one would expect that fair treatment would be desired, individuals with low prior trust interpreted this fairness as lacking sincerity and being ‘too little, too late.’
Although forgiveness is beneficial for maintaining critical social relationships, it can be dysfunctional if it makes one vulnerable to further exploitation (Fitness & Peterson, 2008). As such, individuals must weigh the costs and benefits of forgiveness (McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2010, 2013). When individuals distrust the perpetrator or perceive that they have other attributes that make further victimization likely (e.g. the perpetrator lacks integrity), they are less likely to consider forgiveness as a viable strategy (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006; Kim et al., 2004), particularly when they perceive that these characteristics cannot be changed (Kim et al., 2006, 2009; Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). In contrast, when individuals perceive that the transgressor has positive attributes, they can experience empathy thereby facilitating forgiveness (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). That is, people take into account their pre-existing evaluations and expectations when deciding whether to forgive an offender (Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006; Guerrero & Bachmann, 2010; McCullough, 2008).
Although trust can provide a ‘buffer’ for incoming negative information and/or events, it is not a panacea. In some cases, high trust can actually enhance the perceived negativity and/or felt violation. Brockner, Tyler, and Cooper-Schneider (1992), for example, found that highly committed employees showed the steepest decline in commitment in response to highly unfair treatment. The large discrepancy between one’s expectations and treatment may be particularly disconcerting to these individuals. Indeed, individuals tend to re-evaluate their judgments when they experience ‘phase-shifting events’ that either call the relationship into question or involve an event or information that is sufficiently discordant from the current judgment that individuals must re-evaluate their judgment (Lind, 2001). In these cases, individuals who were quite trusting may revise their evaluation to either lower their level of trust or even become distrusting.
Distrust can not only serve as a frame guiding the interpretation of offenses, it can also emerge and/or intensify as a result of a violation. Some events, for example, can create uncertainty and/ or negative expectations about the transgressor’s future behavior (Dirks et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2009). This is particularly likely when transgressors engage in repeated or severeviolations (e.g. Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008), intentionally cause harm (e.g. Boon & Sulsky, 1997), and/or deceive the individual (e.g. Desmet, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2011; Schweitzer, Hershey, & Bradlow, 2006). By creating distrust, these situations can be particularly challenging to forgive (Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006).
How transgressors respond to violations can also impact one’s ability to forgive. Research has shown that offenses create an ‘injustice gap’ – a situation where a discrepancy exists between what the victim perceives should have happened and the actual outcomes of a transgression (Exline, Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003). The wider the gap, the more difficult it is to forgive. Although this gap can be reduced by the transgressor, the effectiveness of attempts to address the gap depend on factors such as whether the remedy addresses the concerns raised by the violation (e.g. Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano, 2006) and aligns with the needs of the victim (e.g. Fehr & Gelfand, 2010). It also depends on the type of violation that has occurred (e.g. Kim et al., 2004, 2006). In their study of competence- versus integrity-based violations, for example, Kim et al. (2004) found that the effectiveness of a repair depended on the type of violation. Whereas apologizing was more effective in restoring trust for competence-based violations, denying culpability was more effective for integrity-based violations. In the case of integrity-based violations (i.e. violations involving wrongdoing that is attributable to the transgressor), apologizing can be potentially harmful because through this action, the transgressor accepts blame and may acknowledge negative intentions, which can validate the victim’s concerns that this person can be untrustworthy (Kim et al., 2006).
Attempts to close the gap can also backfire, such as when the transgressor offers insincere reparations (Skarlicki et al., 2008) or fails to engage in behaviors that are consistent with the apology (i.e. post-apology behavioral consistency; Hui, Lau, Tsang, & Pak, 2011). The injustice gap can also increase when transgressors do not realize that a violation has occurred (and therefore do not take action) or refuse to acknowledge the violation (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007; Kim et al., 2009). When transgressors refuse to engage in reparative attempts, the gap can also widen (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Hedrick, 2013). For example, transgressors may not apologize because the organization’s policies prohibit this type of action (Bies et al., 2016) or because they find apologizing to be self-threatening (McLaughlin, Cody, & O’Hair, 1983). Additionally, some transgressors are not motivated to apologize, particularly when refusing to apologize can enhance their feelings of power, control, and self-esteem (Okimoto et al., 2013). Thus, transgressors are not always able or motivated to reduce the injustice gap. As a result, their actions in the wake of a violation may even increase the gap, thereby making forgiveness not only more challenging but also more risky.
Although forgiveness is an intrapersonal process, the systems perspective highlights how it can be influenced and shaped by the contextual layers that envelop the individual (Bies et al., 2016). We argue that trust and distrust can influence forgiveness by impacting factors within these contextual layers. For example, forgiveness can be influenced by leadership factors. Having trusted and fair leaders may enhance forgiveness, as employees may be more deferent to such leaders and more likely to follow their decisions and interests (Tyler, 1990). Thus, if organizational leaders are interested in forgiveness and reconciliation, then individuals may be more likely to forgive and reconcile when these leaders ask or inspire them to do so.
The structure of the organization and the group context may also create conditions that are ripe for distrust and increased conflict. For instance, in multi-divisional and geographically dispersed organizations, teams rely more heavily on media-lean communication (e.g. email; Hinds & Bailey, 2003). This can result in greater misunderstandings and poorer negotiation than with media-rich communication (e.g. face to face) because less information is successfully transferred (Bies & Tripp, 2012; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Kahai & Cooper, 2003). Distance can also deprive dispersed teams of familiarity and friendship, because they spend less time together and have greater cultural differences. Additionally, individuals derive their identity from the groups to which they belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and these identities can influence their affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions (e.g. Smith 1993; Tajfel, 1981). By creating in-groups and out-groups, social identity can increase competition among groups, which can hinder forgiveness (e.g. Collier, Ryckman, Thornton, & Gold, 2010; De Dreu, Carsten, & Van Knippenberg, 2005). In other words, these structures can enhance distrust between groups, thereby making it harder for a victim from one group to forgive a perpetrator from another group (Bies et al., 2016). Further, trust can play a mediating role in this relationship. Voci (2006), for instance, found that identity threats that amplify intergroup differentiation also can cause in-group members to distrust out-group members.
In-group/out-group distinctions can also lead in-group members to believe that out-group members have hostile motives and that the in-group needs protective action. For instance, Waytz, Young, and Ginges (2014) found that people tend to attribute their own aggression more to in-group ‘love’ motives (e.g. protect one’s own community) than to out-group ‘hate’ motives (e.g. destroy and cause misery to the out-group). Groups can also compare who has suffered more in a conflict by engaging in competitive victimhood (i.e. believing that one’s group has suffered more than the other group with whom conflict exists or has existed), which can undermine trust and hinder forgiveness (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008). Because calculative trust is undermined by perceptions of hostile motives (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), it follows that in-group/out-group distinctions may negatively impact trust, which can decrease forgiveness. Supporting this line of reasoning, Crossley (2009) showed that victims who attribute hostile motives are more likely to seek revenge than victims who attribute non-hostile motives, and revenge typically is negatively correlated with forgiveness (Tripp & Bies, 2009).
Belonging to a group also has the potential to make trust and forgiveness more likely, especially when the victim and perpetrator belong to the same group or when the group is led by individuals who behave fairly. Tyler (2001) argues that trust in the group increases group members’ willingness to defer to the group authorities (e.g. company CEOs, organizational ombudspersons, union stewards), especially when these authorities use fair procedures. The use of fair procedures also affects the tendency to forgive. Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2006) found that when victims perceived a fair procedural justice climate, it moderated the effect of power such that victims were more likely to forgive and reconcile and less likely to seek revenge. The role of procedural justice in this relationship is not that of a trigger (i.e. low procedural justice is the offense that triggers the desire for revenge), but rather the victim trusts that the organizational systems will fairly prosecute grievances, thus making revenge less necessary to ensure that justice is served (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007).
Finally, while our analysis focused on trust, distrust, and forgiveness at the individual level, these constructs can also exist within and between groups. Studies examining the intersection of trust and forgiveness at the group-level often focus on ‘deep-rooted conflicts’ between ethnic or religious groups (e.g. Cehajic, Brown, & Castano, 2008; Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008). In general, these studies have shown that trust can promote inter-group forgiveness, even in such difficult situations.
Taken together, empirical evidence indicates the importance of trust and distrust for forgiveness, with trust serving as an enabler and distrust as a disabler of forgiveness. Although trust and distrust can exist simultaneously, in the next section, we explore what happens when distrust takes over and makes some offenses seem ‘unforgiveable.’
Some offenses create so much distrust that forgiveness is not an immediate outcome, or even a possibility. That is, distrust not only poses a barrier to forgiveness but can actually make some offenses seem too grave to be ‘forgivable’ (Tripp & Bies, 2009). In these cases, individuals may experience ‘unforgiveness’ – a ‘cold’ emotion that typically centers on resentment, bitterness, and even hatred, which can also include negative motivations towards the transgressor (e.g. retaliation, avoidance; Worthington & Wade, 1999). Although it is often assumed that forgiveness is merely the reduction of unforgiveness (see Worthington & Wade, 1999 for a discussion), research has shown that reducing unforgiveness does not imply that victims have forgiven their offenders (Wade & Worthington, 2003, 2005; Worthington & Wade, 1999). Similar to the distinction between trust and distrust, research suggests that it is important to differentiate between forgiveness and unforgiveness.
Unforgivable offenses are relatively common – 25 percent of people report having experienced an unforgivable offense (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). However, harboring unfor-givingness can have significant implications for the individual, including more negative and less positive affect (e.g. Kluwer & Karremans, 2009), decreased feelings of relatedness (e.g. Karremans, Van Lange, & Holland, 2005), higher stress (e.g. Worthington & Scherer, 2004), and even perceived physical burden (e.g. Zheng, Fehr, Tai, Narayanan, & Gelfand, 2015). Unforgiven offenses are also less likely to be perceived as resolved, and transgressors of these types of offenses are often depicted as immoral, cruel, and/or harmful (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002).
Unforgiveness can emerge for a variety of reasons related to the victim, perpetrator, and offense. Victims with certain personality traits (e.g. narcissistic entitlement; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004) or ways of processing information (e.g. using narrow vs. broad construals; Mok & De Cremer, 2015) may be particularly prone to unforgiveness. Perpetrators who display humility can mitigate unforgiveness (Davis et al., 2013; Van Tongeren, Davis, & Hook, 2014) whereas perpetrators who have been demonized (i.e. who are viewed as evil and unredeemable) are likely to remain unforgiven (Exline et al., 2003).
Research has also examined what makes some offenses unforgiveable. Some research has focused on perceptions of the offense, with offenses that are seen as disgusting or morally condemnable being associated with unforgiveness (e.g. Cohen, Malka, Rozin, & Cherfas, 2006). Other research has focused on the nature of the event. Rapske, Boon, Alibhai, and Kheong (2010), for example, categorized ‘unforgiveable’ offenses according to whether they involved betrayal, violence or abuse, inappropriate communication, harm to others, relational devaluation, and reputation defamation, among others. Others have suggested that unforgiveable offenses have common underlying characteristics. In a qualitative study of unforgivable injuries, Flanigan (1992) suggested that unforgivable offenses are characterized by shattered assumptions about personal control, justice, self-worth, and the goodness of others. Bies (2007) also examined the characteristics of unforgiveable offenses within organizational contexts. We provide a detailed overview of this study below.
In a qualitative study, Bies (2007) asked a sample of working professionals to recount an incident in which they were harmed by another person in the workplace and had decided not to forgive. Using a grounded theory approach, three different categories for why people decide not to forgive others in the workplace emerged: shattered assumptions, damaged identity, and interpersonal indignities. We discuss each of these categories in turn.
Shattered Assumptions occur when people believe they have been betrayed and their fundamental beliefs about the sanctity of their relationship with the offender are brought into question. Common betrayals include betrayals of confidence (e.g. disclosing sensitive personal information or invading one’s privacy; Bies, 1993, 1996) and betrayals of trust (e.g. violating one’s fundamental expectations in a way that threatens the well-being of the trustor; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998). Regardless of the type, betrayals can cast into doubt one’s basic assumptions about the relationship and are often viewed as unforgiveable ‘cardinal sins.’
Damaged Identity occurs when offenses bring into question or tarnish the victim’s self-concept or reputation. Bies and Tripp (1993, 1996) indicate that identities may be damaged as a result of (a) unfair characterizations of a person or their performance (e.g. when one party unjustifiably lays responsibility for a performance failure on another party or exaggerates claims about the other party for political ends); (b) wrongful accusations (e.g. when one party falsely accuses the other of wrongdoing); (c) insults and abuse (e.g. when one party ‘bad mouths’ another to create an unfavourable image of that person); and (d) public criticism and beratement (e.g. when an employee is disciplined by a manager in front of colleagues). Damaging one’s identity often results in intense negative emotions, including feelings of ‘losing face,’ being ‘belittled’ or ‘degraded,’ and even ‘emotionally scarred.’ In many cases, the harm done to a relationship as a result of a damaged identity is irreparable.
Interpersonal Indignities describe relational violations in which the victim feels that the offender has disregarded a sacred aspect of the victim’s basic humanity. At least three types of behaviors fall within this category: (a) deceit (i.e. intentionally lying or misrepresenting the truth to another party); (b) disrespect (i.e. actions that demean or otherwise devalue the intrinsic value or worth of an individual); and (c) exposure to personal danger (i.e. a violation of one’s psychological and/or physical safety; Kahn, 1990). When people experience an interpersonal indignity, it can strike a deep emotional chord in which victims can feel unfairly treated, angry, outraged, and resentful (Bies, 2001; Bies & Tripp, 1996). Further, it can create intense feelings of distrust (Lewicki et al., 1998), and even make people feel that they have been treated in a ‘subhuman manner’ that violates their sense of human dignity.
In summary, unforgiveable offenses can shatter assumptions, damage identities, and inflict interpersonal indignities. By creating so much distrust, these types of offenses not only create barriers to forgiveness but, in some cases, the distrust they create can become an insurmountable obstacle (Tripp & Bies, 2009). Further, similar to the way that trust and distrust can create enablers and barriers to forgiveness, we propose that the combination of forgiveness and unforgiveness can also influence trust and distrust. For example, individuals may be more willing to rebuild trusting relationships when forgiveness is high and unforgiveness is low. By contrast, distrust may be more likely to linger when unforgiveness is high. If the restoration of trust relies on individuals moving beyond the past (i.e. forgiving) to re-establish and rebuild their relationships, this begs the question of what happens when forgiveness is not a possibility. We turn to this issue next.
It is one of the things about forgiveness you have to remember.
It is not spiritual. It is part of real politics.
(Bishop Desmond Tutu)
Forgiveness is not always a desirable or an attainable option. In some cases, the damage can only be contained, mitigated, or otherwise ‘managed’ (Lewicki et al., 1998; Sitkin & Roth, 1993), but never fully repaired. Given that forgiveness is often considered a ‘stepping-stone’ on the road to trust restoration, it is important to explore other approaches that individuals can choose, particularly when they will not or cannot forgive. Whereas some approaches (e.g. reconciliation), can allow the emergence of positive emotions and even some relationship repair, other approaches (e.g. continued conflict, withdrawal) often allow the conflict to fester, thereby making the situation worse (for the focal individual, conflicting parties, and/or even third parties). However, individuals may also resort to strategies that leave some or most of the conflict unresolved yet constrain the hostilities. Such strategies may help the parties tolerate each other and/or work together without open conflict. Further, individuals are likely to select their preferred approaches based on the level of trust and distrust that they have in the offender (Bies & Tripp, 2012). We explore approaches that range from little or no engagement with the offender (e.g. withdrawal, exit, separation), to potentially antagonistic approaches (e.g. revenge, continued conflict), to cautious engagement (e.g. détente, peaceful coexistence), to high engagement (e.g. reconciliation).
In some cases, individuals may choose to voluntarily withdraw or exit from the situation. Whereas withdrawal involves the individual remaining in the situation (e.g. stays in the organization but is less engaged), exit typically involves departure from the situation (e.g. by leaving the organization). Individuals may choose withdrawal when they need the time, space, and resources to process the situation or do not feel that they are able to cope (Thau & Mitchell, 2010). Withdrawal tendencies may be particularly strong when the offense is severe (i.e. unforgiveable), the costs of forgiveness are high, and/or the level of distrust is simply too high to continue in the relationship (e.g. Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999).
Withdrawal can be relatively minor or temporary. For instance, individuals may be less likely to engage in prosocial behaviors towards the offender and/or organization (Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006; Moorman, 1991), particularly when they do not feel supported by the organization (e.g. in a low procedural justice climate; Aquino et al., 2006). In contrast, exit is a more permanent choice that may be reserved for the most severe violations and is likely to depend on other factors, such as the presence of other attractive job opportunities as well as the embeddedness of the employee (e.g. employees are less likely to leave when they are deeply tied to the community; Lee et al., 1999; Turnley & Feldman, 1999).
Whereas withdrawal involves a feeling of giving up and a passive avoidance of the offender, separation consists of a cessation of contact between the parties (at least for a given period of time) that is either imposed by a third party or actively decided upon by the conflicting parties. Separation can assume multiple forms and have a variety of objectives. Research from law suggests that separation imposed by a third party may be used with the aim of taking control of the conflict, imposing order, reducing disruptions in the work context, and/or minimizing the chances of reoccurrence of open conflict (Bayley & Bittner, 1984). Separation may be physical (e.g. assigning different workspaces for one or both of the disputants) or symbolic (e.g. limiting lines of communication). Separation may be temporary or permanent (Davis, 1983); and it may be followed up with actions from the third party, such as when the third party further investigates the nature of the conflict, listens to the disputants, offers advice, or gives warnings (Bayley & Bittner, 1984). Although separation can also be voluntary, this option can be precluded in organizational settings where parties need to interact to fulfill their responsibilities.
The consequences of separation are somewhat unclear, with different trajectories existing for post-separation conflict. In some cases, separation can reduce the frequency and intensity of the conflict, while in others it can increase conflict over time (e.g. Drapeau, Gagné, Saint-Jacques, Lépine, & Ivers, 2009; Graham, 1997). Why are there such divergent outcomes for separation? We propose that these differences may relate to the underlying conditions that prompted the separation in the first place and also the interactions that occurred between the parties. For example, as noted above, distrust may be more difficult to overcome than low trust (Lewicki et al., 1998). When individuals have low trust, separation may allow them to ease tensions with the other party by giving them time to process their negative emotions and cognitions and rebuild their coping resources (Billings & Moos, 1981). In contrast, when individuals have high distrust, they may perceive that their values are incompatible or even fundamentally divergent with the other party (Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, & Weibel, 2015). This can create uncertainty, perceived threat, and vulnerability, as well as negative expectations and perceptions towards the other party (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). Further, if the parties have interactions or the opportunity to see the other party interacting with others, they are likely to interpret the other party’s behavior through a distrust frame, which can reinforce negative evaluations and expectations, thereby enhancing the conflict. Regardless of the outcome, separation can involve adjustment to the new situation, changes in the structure of the support network of each of the parties (Walker, Logan, Jordan, & Campbell, 2004), and, in some situations, a ‘process of dehumanization’ of the other party (Northrup, 1989).
Another possible response to an offense is to approach it aggressively; for example, by engaging in revenge. The intent of revenge is to restore justice, even the score, and/or resolve conflict by teaching the offender a lesson (Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmidtt, 2011; Tripp & Bies, 1997). Given that revenge can entail risks for the person who engages in revenge and can have negative consequences for the recipient, it is often conceptualized as a dysfunctional response. However, revenge can also be functional for groups because it can help re-establish social norms and show the offender that such behavior will not be tolerated in the future (Tripp & Bies, 1997). Engaging in revenge, however, can often have unintended consequences and can escalate the conflict rather than resolve it (Axelrod, 1997).
Continued (and even escalated) conflict can also emerge, with organizations and employees (un)intentionally promoting conflict. Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015), for example, outlined a self-amplifying cycle of distrust, in which one party communicates distrust to another through its behaviors. In turn, these behaviors prompt the other group to reciprocate by engaging in negative behaviors. This not only amplifies distrust through negative reciprocity, but it can also encourage ‘overmatching’ (i.e. negative behaviors are reacted to with more extreme negative behaviors), more negative attributions, and within-group convergence (i.e. when members of a group share their negative perceptions encouraging shared negative perceptions to arise). These conditions can result in diminished cooperation for formal relations, with individuals being less willing to act in a prosocial, helpful, and/or compliant manner. Further, individuals are also more likely to avoid contact, where possible. Specifically, groups may meet when required (e.g. to work together) but they are likely to avoid informal interactions. We propose that this amplification of distrust can make forgiveness even more difficult and may also enhance unforgiveness, particularly when negative attributions are intensified (e.g. the accumulation of negative perceptions can make specific harms seem more intentional and severe when placed in this cumulative context; Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015).
Organizations may also promote conflict unintentionally. Organizations can create barriers to conflict resolution through procedures, culture, and climate, as well as formalized systems (Bies et al., 2016). For example, organizations can develop formalized dispute-resolution procedures to manage conflict in the hopes that these procedures will help de-escalate and ideally resolve conflict. However, employees can feel forced into these procedures and find that these systems intensify their anger and tendency to hold a grudge. That is, these well-intentioned procedures can backfire thereby prolonging and intensifying the conflict.
Employees can also (un)intentionally sustain conflict. For example, some employees may embrace low-grade conflict and refuse to address it because it establishes a ‘known’ pattern for interacting. That is, they don’t avoid each other or seek out confrontations, but when they do interact, it typically involves a set of patterned behavior, in which they often let their irritations and animosities surface. Further, sometimes employees just don’t know how to resolve conflict and simply ‘act out’ whatever heated emotions and impulses they feel.
Finally, organizations can also intentionally create competition and conflict. For example, some organizations operate on the assumption that employees will work harder if they must compete with each other (i.e. they believe that competition can motivate greater productivity). For instance, General Electric was known for its ‘rank and yank’ performance appraisal system that ranked all employees against each other and then terminated the lowest 10 percent of employees each year. Some organizations use profit-centered divisions where each unit is directed to look after itself instead of looking after the collective organization. Although it is assumed that the organization will benefit if units are given goals that align with the organization’s interests, in reality, this structure can put units in competition with each other for resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1974). Sometimes competition can create destructive conflict, such as when employees steal credit for others’ sales. Other times, such competition can create constructive conflict. For instance, Data General famously let one group of engineers feel inferior and passed over to motivate them to prove themselves by working harder (Kidder, 1981). Indeed, they worked so hard that they created a product that saved the company.
Détente involves an abandonment of belligerent intentions and a relaxation of tension between conflicting parties (Oelsner, 2007; Pedaliu, 2009; Romano, 2009). An expression frequently used to describe détente is ‘living with’ (Aksu, 2010; Bardes & Olendik, 1978), indicating the need to coexist with one’s enemies without necessarily resolving the issues underlying the conflict (Pedaliu, 2009). Détente emerges from the recognition of the potentially negative consequences of conflict (Romano, 2009; Suri, 2008) and the benefits that can be gained if open hostilities are terminated (Bardes & Olendik, 1978; Oelsner, 2007; Romano, 2009). Détentes can open lines of communication, thereby facilitating negotiation and dialogue (Pedaliu, 2009; Romano, 2009) and allowing the parties to achieve stability, mutual control, and deterrence (Romano, 2009; Suri, 2008). Given its characteristics, détente is not sufficient to fully resolve the problem or develop positive relationships between the parties (Aksu, 2010) and can therefore be shortlived (Oelsner, 2007).
Within an organizational context, we define détente as the actions taken by conflicting parties (or by others with the authority to do so) to terminate open hostilities against each other. Although a relatively passive strategy, détente can facilitate the emergence of a peace process by opening communication lines and easing tensions between the conflicting parties (Oelsner, 2007). Thus, we propose that détente may be more likely to emerge in ambivalent relationships – that is, when parties have some trust in each other (thereby eliciting their desire to terminate open conflict and possibly initiate a process of peace building) but also a relatively high level of distrust (thereby creating the need for the implementation of controls and deterrence).
Although there is a dearth of empirical research on détente in organizational contexts, research in international relations and political science can offer some suggestions about strategies that can facilitate its emergence. First, rules can be established governing each party’s behavior (sometimes coupled with penalties for agreement breach; Aksu, 2010; Oelsner, 2007; Romano, 2009; Schlotter, 1983). Direct contact between the parties can also be promoted, either with the general aim of fostering dialogue or with the more specific aim of creating an agreement as described above (Aksu, 2010; Romano, 2009). However, these interactions may bring more benefits if they focus on concrete concerns (Romano, 2009), solutions that benefit both parties (Brands, 2006), and cooperation (Aksu, 2010; Romano, 2009; Schlotter, 1983), while avoiding sensitive issues (Aksu, 2010). Détente is likely to fail, however, when there is a superficial adherence to established policies (Pedaliu, 2009), when the pressure for consensus creates vague rules that can be interpreted and applied as desired (Romano, 2009), or when unexpected crises emerge (Aksu, 2010).
Peaceful coexistence implies not only ‘living peacefully side by side’ but also involves ‘some degree of communication, interaction, and even some degree of cooperation’ (Chayes, 2003, pp. 152–153). In practice, peaceful coexistence involves the recognition of each party’s humanity and similarities; the acceptance of differences; the acknowledgement of the other’s suffering; and the establishment of a relationship involving recognition, respect, and solidarity (Haider, 2011; Kymlicka, 2001). Such attributes are achieved through the reduction of social distance (often through direct contact between the parties), which allows for the rehumanization of the other party and the attenuation of perceived differences (Haider, 2011; Zembylas, 2011).
Despite striving for positive outcomes, peaceful coexistence does not directly address profound psychological wounds nor does it attempt to resolve deeply ingrained conflicts or inequalities (Haider, 2011). As such, many people may prefer peaceful coexistence, particularly in the aftermath of severe offenses, because it can appear less intrusive and demanding than forgiveness (Chayes & Minow, 2003). Further, peaceful coexistence can be an important first step towards reconciliation and forgiveness, given the reduction in social distance and increase in positive social interactions that is frequently involved in peace processes (Haider, 2011).
Peaceful coexistence is distinct from détente in that it involves more than a general easing of tensions; it is a more active and process-oriented strategy that involves increased contact between the conflicting parties. Within organizational contexts, we define peaceful coexistence as the actions taken by conflicting parties to not only decrease open conflict but also to increase positive interactions. This can include the reduction of social distance as well as re-humanization of the other party. However, problem solving measures aimed at addressing psychological hurts are still relatively limited. Given the dynamic between trust and distrust, we propose that peaceful coexistence is likely to emerge when trust is present and when some of the distrust has already been processed or is beginning to lessen.
Research from international relations and political science can shed light on how peaceful coexistence can be implemented in organizational contexts. For example, such strategies can involve conflict management measures (e.g. activities aimed at attenuating conflict, such as training, joint problem solving activities, and dialogue facilitation), collaborative activities (e.g. activities aimed at facilitating direct social contact, including joint projects, establishment of shared goals, and the development of cross-cutting identities), and education (e.g. providing information and opportunities for interaction that humanize the other party) (Haider, 2009, 2011). However, these strategies may fail if there is a lack of support from organizational authorities (Haider, 2011), if key values of any of the parties are blatantly disregarded (Kubálková & Cruickshank, 1978), if there is a strong insistence on the maintenance of separate and even opposite identities between the parties (Zembylas, 2011), or if there is a failure to acknowledge the effects that the conflict may have had on the collectives to which each of the parties belong (Haider, 2011).
Reconciliation involves efforts aimed at restoring a damaged relationship (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001; Aquino et al., 2006), and occurs when a mutually acceptable balance of the parties’ respective welfares is achieved (McCullough et al., 2013). Unlike forgiveness (an intrapersonal process that occurs within individuals), reconciliation is a behavioral response to conflict that occurs between individuals (Palanski, 2012) or groups (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). That is, reconciliation occurs at the level of the relationship. Although forgiveness can facilitate reconciliation (e.g. Goodstein & Aquino, 2010; Hall & Fincham, 2006), reconciliation does not require forgiveness and can be attempted even when the victim still harbors negative feelings towards the offender (Aquino et al., 2006). Further, while forgiveness is a victim-centered process, reconciliation can be initiated by the victim (e.g. Aquino et al., 2001, 2006), the offender (e.g. Balkin, Harris, Freeman, & Huntington, 2009), or both (e.g. Andiappan & Treviño, 2010; McCullough et al., 2013).
Reconciliation often emerges for instrumental reasons, with this strategy being likely in relationships that are highly valued (Karremans et al., 2011; McCullough, Luna, Berry, Tabak, & Bono, 2010), when there are material interests to be preserved (Aquino et al., 2001, 2006), when victims fear repercussions if they engage in destructive responses (e.g. revenge; Aquino et al., 2001), and when the victim wishes to appear compassionate, moral, and fair (Andiappan & Treviño, 2010; Aquino et al., 2001). Further, reconciliation can involve a cessation of conflict (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991; Van Lange et al., 1997) and restored trust between the parties (Andiappan & Treviño, 2010), which can be especially helpful when two conflicting employees have to work together (Aquino et al., 2001). Despite its positive outcomes, reconciliation may not be warranted and/or functional when offenders do not show remorse (Balkin, Harris, Freeman, & Huntington, 2014), do not want to participate in the reconciliation efforts (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999), or are motivated to further exploit the victim (Exline et al., 2003). Thus, reconciliation is likely when individuals have some trust in the offender and relatively low levels of distrust.
Although it is often assumed that forgiveness is the first step in a path towards rebuilding trust, forgiveness is not always desirable or possible. Following Lewicki et al. (1998), we suggest that individuals may have to use other approaches, which vary not only in their contact with the offender but also in the degree to which they can constructively manage the conflict. Further, an individual’s willingness to consider these approaches is likely dependent on the level of trust or distrust that one feels towards the offender. We propose that withdrawal, exit, and separation are more likely when trust is low and/or distrust is high whereas détente, peaceful coexistence, and reconciliation are more likely to emerge when levels of trust are relatively high. In some cases, engaging in these alternatives can facilitate forgiveness, such as when peaceful coexistence or reconciliation allows for positive interactions that can lay the foundation for later forgiveness.
Further, it is important to note that trust and distrust may initiate other behaviors that can influence how these processes unfold. For example, distrust can impact individuals’ perceptions of value incongruence and vulnerability as well as heighten negative attributions, which can diminish cooperation and enhance avoidance. In a case study of distrust development, Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) found that distrust was associated with diminished cooperation, which was reflected by behaviors such as contesting decisions, failing to comply with procedures, reversing decisions, spreading rumours, engaging in obstructing actions, and reinforcing decision-making authority. Distrust also enhanced avoidance, which was associated with behaviors such as retreating from ‘battle zones’, closing ranks, conferring with like-minded others (e.g. to validate opinions and share outrage), and decreasing communication with the other party. These behaviors can further escalate conflict and reinforce distrust, thereby hindering forgiveness and/or creating unforgiveness.
Finally, forgiveness is a process that unfolds over time as individuals experience changes in their psychological and emotional states. Thus, it is also important to note that the above-mentioned outcomes may be more likely, appropriate, and/or effective at some phases of the forgiveness process than others. For example, in the initial aftermath of a transgression, individuals may need to withdraw or separate to facilitate processing of the transgression and/or to build coping resources. Thus, they may not be able to engage in other more active alternatives (e.g. reconciliation, peaceful coexistence) until they have undergone these earlier stages in the process. Further, trust and distrust are also dynamic phenomena – building and declining as well as resurfacing in long-standing relationships (Rousseau et al., 1998). Given this possibility, managers dealing with conflicts should recognize the needs of the conflicting parties and where they are in the processes of forgiveness, rebuilding trust, and managing distrust. Otherwise, intervening with some strategies may further escalate the conflict or result in dysfunctional outcomes if the employees are not ready or able to cope with that particular alternative. Clearly, it is important to explore when these approaches are most effective as well as how these approaches impact the restoration of trust and the effective management of conflict.
People believe that it’s hard to forgive. Well I say, to forgive is easier than learning to trust again.
(Abhishek Tiwari)
Although there are numerous alternative outcomes to forgiveness, little is known about how these alternatives influence the rebuilding of trust. For example, agreeing to a détente may facilitate peace, but does peace eventually lead to forgiveness? Does engaging in continued conflict change the process for restoring and rebuilding trust? Further, it is possible that the process for rebuilding of trust is not only influenced by what strategies are chosen but also by why these strategies were selected and/or how the strategy is implemented.
We use the strategy of forgiveness to demonstrate. For example, some people want to forgive but find that the offender refuses to address the ‘injustice gap.’ To facilitate forgiveness, victims can address the gap on their own (e.g. through victim-centred interventions; Barclay & Saldanha, 2015). However, this may not provide the necessary foundation for trusting the offender, especially when the offender has not acknowledged the violation or when there are no reassurances that the offender will not further exploit them.
Further, not all forgiveness is the same. Forgiveness can vary in the degree to which it is genuine and authentic. Whereas genuine forgiveness is a voluntary process involving the release of negativity and enhancement of positive emotions and thoughts towards the offender (Enright & Coyle, 1998), individuals can also experience pseudo-forgiveness (i.e. using forgiveness for manipulative intent; cf. Enright, 2001) or hollow forgiveness (i.e. expressing forgiveness without having experienced intra-psychic changes; Baumeister, Exline, & Sommer, 1998). Although genuine forgiveness may provide a foundation for restoring trust, other forms of forgiveness may not allow for effective trust restoration.
Similarly, individuals can have different motivations for forgiving. Cox, Bennett, Tripp, and Aquino (2012) identified five motives for forgiveness: moral (i.e. forgiving because it is the morally correct thing to do), relationship (i.e. forgiving because the relationship is highly valued), apology (i.e. forgiving because the offenderatoned), religious (i.e. forgiving to fulfill religious expectations), and lack of alternatives (i.e. forgiving out of fear that future offenses will occur if forgiveness is not granted). Further, the authors found that these motives were differentially related to outcomes. For example, individuals who forgave due to a lack of alternatives or for religious reasons were more likely to report stress and poorer health than those who forgave for other reasons (Cox et al., 2012).
Although trust and distrust may influence the conditions under which individuals are willing to forgive, trust, and/or distrust may not always form the foundation or even be central in forgiveness processes. For example, individuals may choose to forgive because it is in their best interests to do so (e.g. it can decrease psychological and physical stress, allow them to move on from the transgression). We term this ‘functional forgiveness.’ Importantly, forgiving does not entail forgetting nor does it mean that individuals need to reconcile with the transgressor. Rather, forgiveness is an intrapersonal process that occurs within the individual and it does not always necessitate interpersonal or intergroup consequences, particularly when individuals chose not to share with others that they have forgiven. In some cases, individuals may forgive but still retain low trust or even distrust in the relationship, especially if they are worried about potential future exploitation (e.g. Fitness & Peterson, 2008).
These different motives for forgiveness may also translate into other outcomes. For instance, for giving due to lack of alternatives may result in a lower commitment to forgiveness whereas for giving for moral reasons may result in a deeper and longer-term commitment to forgiveness. Given that forgiveness can help form the foundation for restoring trust, the more stable the foundation, the easier it will be to rebuild trust. For example, individuals who forgive because they fear what will happen if forgiveness is not granted are likely to hold some distrust, which may infuse attempts to rebuild trust and make the process more difficult.
These issues and questions are also likely to extend to the alternative outcomes discussed above. For instance, individuals who feel forced into a separation process may feel that resolution of the conflict is no longer under their control. This may make them less receptive to attempts to restore trust or even feel that they have been absolved from having an active role in the restoration process. Thus, similar to the way that trust and distrust can influence forgiveness, we suggest that what, why, and how strategies are undertaken can influence the rebuilding of trust by providing a foundation (or lack thereof) for these restoration processes.
Our analysis has not only highlighted the reciprocal and dynamic relationships between trust, distrust, and forgiveness but also the importance of exploring forgiveness and the rebuilding of trust as processes that occur over time and that are shaped by the context in which they occur. To better tap into these questions, we argue that it is necessary to expand beyond the cross-sectional designs that are heavily favored in the trust and forgiveness literatures. Methodologies that may be particularly useful include qualitative research, longitudinal studies, and multi-level investigations. Specifically, qualitative research can provide theoretical richness and depth, highlight theoretical processes, and draw attention to the importance of the contexts in which these processes are embedded (e.g. Bamberger, 2008; Johns, 2006; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). Longitudinal studies are important to better understand how temporal dynamics can influence these processes (including the role of subsequent events) whereas multi-level approaches can highlight the role of context. Given the process-oriented nature of these relationships, researchers may also find it helpful to leverage person-centric approaches, which highlight individuals’ subjective experiences and within-person processes as they navigate daily life (Guo, Rupp, Weiss, & Trougakos, 2011; Weiss & Rupp, 2011). Expanding our methodological toolset is likely to not only yield additional theoretical and practical insights but can also open new and important research questions.
Let us forgive each other – only then will we live in peace.
(Leo Tolstoy)
Life in organizations is punctuated with acts of harm and wrongdoing. Repairing and rebuilding trust in these fractured, if not broken, relationships can be critically important, yet extremely difficult to accomplish. In this chapter, we examined trust and distrust as an enabler and a barrier, respectively, to forgiveness as well as how forgiveness can serve as a stepping-stone on the path to rebuilding trust. However, forgiveness is not always possible – the costs of forgiveness can sometimes outweigh the benefits, some offenses are simply unforgiveable, and some barriers to forgiveness are simply too strong to overcome. In these cases, forgiveness may not be the ‘right’ outcome for the individual or the organization. Instead, other approaches (e.g. reconciliation, revenge, peaceful coexistence, or exit) may be the only possible alternatives.
Given the importance of forgiveness and trust repair to effective conflict management and organizational functioning, we strongly encourage researchers to devote more scholarly attention to integrating these literatures. In addition to better understanding the roles of trust, distrust, and forgiveness in organizational settings, it is also critical to expand our focus to examining the interplay between these processes. Further, it is important to examine when alternative approaches to forgiveness are likely to be most effective and how they can influence the emergence of forgiveness and rebuilding of trust.
Addressing these research questions will require the field to leverage methodologies beyond cross-sectional studies. In addition, we must embrace new ways of thinking about these constructs, including a consideration of the role of context, person-centric experiences, and time. By integrating these literatures, we can not only deepen our theoretical insights but also facilitate the development of actionable theory and practical insights that can help managers and organizations effectively manage conflict.
Our analysis also suggests another important aspect of forgiveness and conflict management: the healing of wounds from the harms and wrongdoing of others. This focus on healing is reflected in the efforts of Nelson Mandela when he was elected president of the Republic of South Africa. As illustrated in the movie Invictus President Mandela focused on healing the wounds experienced during apartheid by blacks in South Africa by finding a common goal with white South Africans in supporting the national rugby team. Such leadership efforts are part of the healing process that is often overlooked in organizations – and the world. As Marianne Williamson noted, ‘The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world.’ Given that offenses and violations are a part of the social fabric of organizations, the time has come to recognize the powerful roles of trust, distrust, and forgiveness in managing these issues in organizations.
Aksu, F. (2010). Turkish-Greek relations and the Cyprus question: Quo vadis? UNISCI Discussion Papers, 23, 207–223.
Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor–subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64, 359–386.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn’t come to shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relationships. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 209–216.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictor of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668.
Axelrod, R. M. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Balkin, R. S., Harris, N. A., Freeman, S. J., & Huntington, S. (2009). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and mechila: Integrating the Jewish concept of forgiveness into clinical practice. Counseling and Values, 53, 153–160.
Balkin, R. S., Harris, N. A., Freeman, S. J., & Huntington, S. (2014). The forgiveness reconciliation inventory: An instrument to process through issues of forgiveness and conflict. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 3–13.
Bamberger, P. (2008). Beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 839–846.
Barclay, L. J., & Saldanha, M. F. (2015). Recovering from organizational injustice: New directions in theory and research. In M. Ambrose & R. Cropanzano (eds), The Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (pp. 497–522). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barclay, L. J., & Saldanha, M. F. (2016). Facilitating forgiveness in organizational contexts: Exploring the injustice gap, emotions, and expressive writing interventions. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1007/s10551–015–2750-x
Bardes, B., & Olendik, R. (1978). Beyond internationalism: A case for multiple dimensions in the structure of foreign policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 59, 496–508.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baskin, T. W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Intervention studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 79–90.
Baumeister, R. F., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and two dimensions of forgiveness. In E. L. Jr.Worthington (ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 79–104). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Bayley, D. H., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47, 35–59.
Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: Communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 768–813.
Bies, R. J. (1993). Privacy and procedural justice in organizations. Social Justice Research, 6, 69–86.
Bies, R. J. (1996). Beyond the hidden self: Psychological and ethical aspects of privacy in organizations. In D. Messick & A. Tenbrunsel (eds), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 104–116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (eds), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bies, R. J. (2007). Unforgiven: When the consequences of interactional injustice are irreversible. In M. A. Cronin, K. B. Elder, & W. E. Botsford (Co-Chairs), R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to OB. Symposium conducted at the 67th meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
Bies, R. J. (2014). Reducing criminal wrongdoing within business organizations: The practical and political skills of integrity. American Criminal Law Review, 51, 225–243.
Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2016). A systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 245–318.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1993). Employee-initiated defamation lawsuits: Organizational responses and dilemmas. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 313–324.
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 (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2012). Negotiating the peace in the face of modern distrust: Dealing with anger and revenge in the 21st century workplace. In B. M. Goldman & D. L. Shapiro (eds), The psychology of negotiations in the 21st century workplace (pp. 181–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Sitkin, S. B., & Weibel, A. (2015). Distrust in the balance: The emergence and development of intergroup distrust in a court of law. Organization Science, 26, 1018–1039.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139–157.
Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 19–44.
Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607–631.
Brands, H. (2006). Progress unseen: U. S. arms control policy and the origins of détente, 1963–1968. Diplomatic History, 30, 253–285.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241–261.
Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29, 351–367.
Chayes, A. (2003). Bureaucratic obstacles to imagining coexistence. In A. Chayes & M. L. Minow (eds), Imagine coexistence: Restoring humanity after violent ethnic conflict (pp. 152–190). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chayes, A., & Minow, M. L. (2003). Imagining coexistence in conflict communities. In A. Chayes & M. L. Minow (eds), Imagine coexistence: Restoring humanity after violent ethnic conflict (pp. xvii–xxiii). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Choi, J. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees’ reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 513–528.
Chusmir, L. H., & Parker, B. (1991). Gender and situational differences in managers’ values: A look at work and home lives. Journal of Business Research, 23, 325–335.
Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Rozin, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion and unforgivable offenses. Journal of Personality, 74, 85–118.
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 551–567.
Collier, S. A., Ryckman, R. M., Thornton, B., & Gold, J. A. (2010). Competitive personality attitudes and forgiveness of others. Journal of Psychology, 144, 535–543.
Cox, S. S., Bennett, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2012). An empirical test of forgiveness motives’ effects on employees’ health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 330–340.
Crossley, C. D. (2009). Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer look at perceived offender motives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 14–24.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.
Davis, P. W. (1983). Restoring the semblance of order: Police strategies in the domestic disturbance. Symbolic Interaction, 6, 261–278.
Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58–77.
De Dreu, C. K., Carsten, K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345–357.
Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2011). In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 75–86.
Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 87–103.
Drapeau, S., Gagné, M.-H., Saint-Jacques, M.-C., Lépine, R., & Ivers, H. (2009). Post-separation conflict trajectories: A longitudinal study. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 353–373.
Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). The mediating role of perceptual validation in the repentance-forgiveness process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1389–1401.
Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23, 547–566.
Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: APA.
Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness within psychological interventions. In E. L. Jr.Worthington (ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139–161). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894–912.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914.
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.
Fitness, J., & Peterson, J. (2008). Punishment and forgiveness in close relationships: An evolutionary, social-psychological perspective. In J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (eds), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational perspectives (pp. 255–269). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Flanigan, B. (1992). Forgiving the unforgivable. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 364–374.
Goodstein, J., & Aquino, K. (2010). And restorative justice for all: Redemption, forgiveness, and reintegration in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 624–628.
Graham, E. E. (1997). Turning points and commitment in post-divorce relationships. Communication Monographs, 64, 350–368.
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachmann, G. F. (2010). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 801–823.
Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10, 1–14.
Guo, J., Rupp, D. E., Weiss, H. W., & Trougakos, J. P. (2011). Justice in organizations: A person-centric perspective. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (eds), Research in social issues in management: Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics (Vol. 7, pp. 3–32). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Haider, H. (2009). (Re)imagining coexistence: Striving for sustainable return, reintegration and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 3, 91–113.
Haider, H. (2011). Social repair in divided societies: Integrating a coexistence lens into transitional justice. Conflict, Security & Development, 11, 175–203.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508–522.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615–632.
Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2009). Collectivism, forgiveness, and social harmony. Counselling Psychologist, 37, 821–847.
Hui, C. H., Lau, F. L., Tsang, K. L., & Pak, S. (2011). The impact of post-apology behavioral consistency on victim’s forgiveness intention: A study of trust violation among coworkers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1214–1236.
Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 263–299.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). “All in a day’s work”: How follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 841–855.
Karremans, J. C., Regalia, C., Paleari, F. G., Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Takada, N., Ohbuchi, K., Terzino, K., Cross, S. E., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Maintaining harmony across the globe: The cross-cultural association between closeness and interpersonal forgiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 443–451.
Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315–1326.
Kidder, T. (1981). The soul of a new machine. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
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.
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., Ferrin, D., Cooper, C., & Dirks, K. (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.
Kluwer, E. S., & Karremans, J. (2009). Unforgiving motivations following infidelity: Should we make peace with our past? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1298–1325.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 245–277.
Kubálková, V., & Cruickshank, A. A. (1978). The Soviet concept of peaceful coexistence: Some theoretical and semantic problems. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 24, 184–198.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, multiculturalism, and citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450–462.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. M., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 438–458.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments in pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (eds), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2006). Trust in the balance: How managers integrate trust-building and task control. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (eds), Handbook of trust research (pp. 87–106). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2010). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (eds), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 221–239). Washington, DC: APA.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1–15.
McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Berry, J. W., Tabak, B. A., & Bono, G. (2010). On the form and function of forgiving: Modeling the time-forgiveness relationship and testing the valuable relationships hypothesis. Emotion, 10, 358–376.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208–224.
Mok, A., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Overlooking interpersonal hurt: A global processing style influences forgiveness in work relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 267–278.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229.
Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 819–832.
Noor, M., Brown, R., & Prentice, G. (2008). Prospects for intergroup reconciliation: Social-psychological predictors of intergroup forgiveness and reparation in Northern Ireland and Chile. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (eds), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Northrup, T. A. (1989). The dynamic of identity in personal and social conflict. In L. Kriesberg, T. A. Northrup, & S. J. Thorson (eds), Intractable conflicts and their transformation (pp. 55–82). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Oelsner, A. (2007). Friendship, mutual trust and the evolution of regional peace in the international system. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10, 257–279.
Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Hedrick, K. (2013). Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 22–31.
Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multilevel perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 190, 275–287.
Pedaliu, E. G. H. (2009). “A sea of confusion”: The Mediterranean and détente, 1969–1974. Diplomatic History, 33, 735–750.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135–151.
Rapske, D. L., Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Kheong, M. J. (2010). Not forgiven, not forgotten: An investigation of unforgiven interpersonal offenses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 1100–1130.
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.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.
Romano, A. (2009). Détente, entente, or linkage? The Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in U. S. relations with the Soviet Union. Diplomatic History, 33, 703–722.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schlotter, P. (1983). Détente: Models and strategies. Journal of Peace Research, 20, 213–220.
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.
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.
Sitkin, S., & George, E. (2005). Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20, 307–338.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/ distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367–392.
Skarlicki, D. P., Barclay, L. J., & Pugh, S. D. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not enough: Employer’s integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 123–146.
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (eds), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–316). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Suri, J. (2008). Détente and human rights: American and West European perspectives on international change. Cold War History, 8, 527–545.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. Turner & H. Giles (eds), Intergroup behavior (pp. 144–167). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.
Tomlinson, E. C., & Lewicki, R. J. (2006). Managing distrust in intractable conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 219–228.
Tomlinson, E., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). What’s good about revenge? The avenger’s perspective. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (eds), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 145–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2009). Getting even: The truth about workplace revenge – and how to stop it. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2007). A vigilante model of justice: Revenge, reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Social Justice Research, 20, 10–34.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). The longitudinal association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 448–472.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895–922.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Why do people rely on others? Social identity and social aspects of trust. In K. S. Cook (ed.), Trust in society. Russell Sage Foundation series on trust (Vol. 2, pp. 285–306). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2014). Social benefits of humility: Initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 313–321.
Voci, A. (2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 265–284.
Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 343–353.
Wade, N. G., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). In search of a common core: A content analysis of interventions to promote forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42, 160–177.
Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, R., Logan, T., Jordan, C. E., & Campbell, J. C. (2004). An integrative review of separation in the context of victimization: Consequences and implications for women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 143–193.
Waytz, A., Young, L. L., & Ginges, J. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 15687–15692.
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 83–97.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wohl, M. J., & McGrath, A. L. (2007). The perception of time heals all wounds: Temporal distance affects willingness to forgive following an interpersonal transgression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1023–1035.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 19, 385–405.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Wade, N. G. (1999). The social psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385–418.
Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686.
Zembylas, M. (2011). Ethnic division in Cyprus and a policy initiative on promoting peaceful coexistence: Toward an agonistic democracy for citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 6, 53–67.
Zheng, X., Fehr, R., Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2015). The unburdening effects of forgiveness: Effects on slant perception and jumping height. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 431–438.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 53–111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.