The Complexity of Trust-Control Relationships in Creative Organizations: Insights From a Qualitative Analysis of a Conductorless Orchestra
Dmitry M. Khodyakov, Rutgers University
Using a qualitative approach, I study two processes of intra- organizational cooperation and coordination – control and trust – in
creative organizations. Specifi cally, I analyze the complex nature of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 trust-control relationships in Orpheus orchestra, the world’s largest contemporary conductorless orchestra. I discuss how it rehearses and performs without a baton holder and benefi ts from the creativity of all musicians. This study supports the duality perspective of trust- control relationships. While competence trust and goodwill trust enable musicians to participate in organizational decision-making and be creative, it is behavioral, input, output and social control strategies that facilitate the development of trust and help ensure the orchestra’s long- term success. Trust-control duality allows Orpheus to achieve “optimal distinctiveness,” which aligns creativity and artistic freedoms with the goals of economic stability.
Introduction
Creativity in organizations emerges from the collaboration of many people who share their unique skills and talents to reach a desired goal (Henry 2004). Creative collaboration, however, raises multiple coordination problems and increases the potential for intra-organizational conflict. Although difference in perspectives may increase the quality of the final product in creative organizations, it can also make the decision-making process less efficient. Research on creativity shows that successful collaboration is based on trust and willingness to cooperate (Sawyer 2001; Henry 2004; Moran and John-Steiner 2004). Trustworthy relationships, however, make people vulnerable to the behavior of their colleagues, who are expected, but not obliged, to act in the best interest of the organization. Therefore, creative organizations are faced with a dilemma in which they must allow their employees’ creative freedom but also have to control their actions. Trust-control relationships in organizations have recently become a hot topic of theoretical debates.1 Some scholars claim that trust and control are substitutes because the presence of one governance strategy reduces the need for another (Bradach and Eccles 1989; Sitkin and Roth 1993). Research demonstrates that
The author wishes to thank Lee Clarke, Paul McLean, Deborah Carr, Pat Roos, Barbara Misztal and three anonymous Social Forces reviewers for their detailed comments and helpful suggestions. Appreciation is also extended to all Orpheus musicians who participated in the study and to Ryan McCarthy, former Education and Outreach Coordinator of the orchestra, whose help was invaluable. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the World Congress of Sociology in Durban (RC 10). Direct correspondence to Dmitry M. Khodyakov, Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, 54 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8045. E-mail: [email protected].
© The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, Volume 86, Number 1, September 2007 2 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 organizations can save on expansive control mechanisms as trust can lower transaction costs and facilitate exchange by reducing the need for contract enforcement (Nooteboom 2000). At the same time, some organizations adopt legalistic remedies to solve the problems of reduced trust or increased distrust (Sitkin and Roth 1993). Others suggest that control and trust complement each other by allowing organizations to achieve “greater exchange performance than either governance choice [can provide] in isolation.” (Poppo and Zenger 2002) Formal binding Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 contracts and impersonal power in organizations allow for trust because they create an institutional environment that facilitates the development of trustworthy relationships (Sitkin 1995; Malhotra and Murnighan 2002). Similarly, trust can help sustain business relationships when contracts fail to specify all contingencies (Poppo and Zenger 2002). Nonetheless, according to Das and Teng (2001), these approaches oversimplify the complexity of trust-control relationships that vary depending on the type of trust and control involved. While formal control may undermine trust (because rules reduce employee autonomy to make decisions), social control, achieved through socialization into organizational culture, may encourage the development of trustworthy relationships. Therefore, trust and control are “two separate routes to risk reduction… [which] can and should be combined in specific ways for best risk management results” (Das and Teng 2001) because simultaneous reliance on trust and control contributes to the effectiveness of both governance strategies (Long and Sitkin 2006). As such, trust and control can be both substitutes and complements (Klein Woolthuis, Hillebrand and Nooteboom 2005). According to Möllering (2005), however, treating trust and control as separate routes to risk reduction implies only “a potential relationship between trust and control.” In contrast, he proposes to treat trust and control as a duality, which means that trust and control always assume each other’s existence, refer to and create each other, but are irreducible to one another. The duality approach suggests that trust and control cannot be analyzed in isolation because they are always co-present. This article qualitatively analyzes trust-control relationships in a creative organization. I chose to study the Orpheus orchestra, the world’s largest conductorless chamber orchestra, because it does not have a baton holder, employs both trust and control and relies on the artistic input of its musicians. Orpheus is a creative organization because of its novel, self-invented and successful method of music making that allows it to be different from other orchestras and benefit from such uniqueness (Hall, Zhu and Yan 2002). While Orpheus is a unique orchestra, it represents the type of creative organizations that are relatively small, willing to change and innovate, promote open communication and encourage employee participation (Cummings 1965). They include, for example, R&D units of large corporations, improvisational theaters and fashion industry firms. The goal of this project is twofold: to explain how Orpheus performs without a conductor by relying on trust and control and to evaluate the applicability of existing theories of trust-control relationships to a creative organization. The Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 3 results of this study suggest that reliance on trust and control allows Orpheus to achieve “optimal distinctiveness,” which can be understood as an intersection of artistic uniqueness and organizational competitiveness (Alvarez et al. 2005). I found strong support for the duality theory of trust-control relationships because trust and control in Orpheus are intricately intertwined. The analysis of Orpheus offers three contributions to the literature on trust- control relationships. First, it focuses on trust-control relationships within organizations that value creativity and uniqueness more than efficiency and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 productivity. Usually scholars analyze trust-control relationships either between organizations, such as strategic alliances (Das and Teng 2001), international joint ventures (Fryxell, Dooley and Vryza 2002) and marketing partnerships (Aulakh, Kotabe and Sahay 1996), or within organizations that value efficiency and profitability, such as factories (Rus and Iglic 2005). Second, while most empirical studies of trust and control are based on a quantitative research methodology (Fryxell, Dooley and Vryza 2002; Rus and Iglic 2005)2, this project uses a qualitative approach, which is particularly suitable for providing rich, in-depth understandings of trust-control relationships within organizations. Third, by employing Das and Teng’s (2001) typology of trust and control, this study empirically demonstrates merits of the duality perspective of trust-control relationships.
Control and Trust in Organizations
Control and trust are often viewed as distinct yet related mechanisms of coordination and cooperation within and between organizations (Das and Teng 1998). Control is typically understood as “a regulatory process by which elements of a system are made more predictable through the establishment of standards in pursuit of some desired objective or state.” (Rus and Iglic 2005) Although organizations create rules to reduce the chance of opportunism and disobedience, they also establish norms and values that encourage desirable outcomes (Fryxell, Dooley and Vryza 2002; Long and Sitkin 2006). The former type of control is known as formal control, while the latter is called informal or social control. Formal control is further subdivided into behavior, input and output control. Behavior control, also known as structural or bureaucratic control, is usually based on the use of rules and procedures to monitor employee behavior (Eisenhardt 1985). Input control refers to the manipulation of resources intended to influence organizational performance (Cardinal 2001). Output control describes the regulation of results of activities in an attempt to achieve desired goals (Eisenhardt 1985). Social control performs the function of structural constraints that foster employee socialization into a specific organizational culture, which consists of a system of values and norms intended to reinforce and reward certain behaviors. As a result of such socialization, employees internalize organizational goals and use them as their guiding principles. Consequently, social control influences employees’ behavior indirectly by ensuring that their preferences coincide with those of management (Das and Teng 2001). Trust is often defined as the process of forming “positive expectations [about others’ behavior] in the face of uncertainty emerging from social 4 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 relations.” (Guseva and Rona-Tas 2001) According to Jones (1996) and Das and Teng (2001), these positive expectations are based on competence and goodwill. While competence trust (also known as expertise trust) is defined as the expectation of technically, cognitively and communicatively competent role performance (Klein Woolthuis, Hillebrand and Nooteboom 2005), goodwill trust (or commitment trust) refers to “one’s good faith, good intentions, and integrity.” (Das and Teng 2001)
Reliance on trust can be viewed as an indication of organizational willingness Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 to embrace uncertainty and to be vulnerable to the behavior of its employees, who are expected, but not fully constrained, to perform actions that are beneficial for all members of the organization (Six 2003). Although there might be a conflict of interest, some organizations take risks and encourage the development of trustworthy relationships in anticipation of improved performance and increased intra-organizational exchange, which are associated with trust (Sako 1998; Spreitzer and Mishra 1999). Moreover, because trust is fostered through open and sincere behavior, willingness to be obligated to others and recognition of shared interests among all people within an organization, it allows employees to freely express their opinions and innovate (Edmondson 2004; Rus 2005). Trustworthy relationships may reduce uncertainty associated with innovation because they increase interdependency between people. The success of an individual depends on how well the group performs, while the person’s reputation depends on his or her contribution to the group (Kamoche and Cunha 2001). Although formal control and trust can reduce organizational risks, there are important differences between the two. Formal control is effective in monitoring performance if the outcomes are measurable and behaviors are predictable. It also requires certain objective criteria for evaluating deviation from norms and clearly identified penalties for opportunistic behavior (Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa 2005). In contrast, trust implies the idea of future uncertainty and unpredictability of results that are mediated through on-going interaction that helps establish mutual understanding, reciprocity and collaboration. Trust creates social embeddedness and depends on reputation mechanisms to facilitate the development of intra-group cooperation, which helps organizations embrace uncertainty (Bijlsma-Frankema and Klein Woolthuis 2005). The differences between informal control and trust, however, are not so clear cut. Some scholars even argue that trust is a mechanism of social control (Bradach and Eccles 1989), which facilitates social-economic exchange by promoting norms of mutual obligation and creating “a set of expectations shared by all those in an exchange.” (Zucker 1986) According to Ouchi (1981), behavior within the company is guided by the corporate philosophy communicated through organizational culture. Similarity of goals within an organization promotes the development of trust and therefore replaces explicit rules and regulations.
Control and Trust in Orchestras
Organizations exercise control over their employees to ensure that operations run smoothly, goals are reached efficiently, and employees cooperate with managers and each other. Research has demonstrated that control can speed up repetitive Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 5 work, raise total output and increase the predictability of employees’ behavior by making workers closely follow the rules (Eisenhardt 1985; Fligstein 1990). In large conventional symphony orchestras, it is the main role of a conductor to increase efficiency of rehearsals and performances by providing musicians with a coherent interpretation of music, clearly indicating nuances of each musical piece and coordinating different sections of the orchestra (Kamerman 1983; Virkhaus 1997). From this view, it is formal hierarchical control, “… giving orders to subordinates and then evaluating their performance,” (Das and Teng 1998) that Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 helps conducted orchestras reduce performance risks. Nonetheless, hierarchical control often “stifles creativity, fosters dissatisfaction, and demotivates employees,” (Adler and Borys 1996) which may negatively influence the quality of the final product in creative organizations. In traditional orchestras, performance creativity depends largely on the conductor’s creativity. Hierarchical control becomes more important than trust in musician-conductor relationships because conductors determine artistic goals and the expected means of achieving them. Such top-down managerial practices are highly efficient in terms of saving rehearsal time, but the apparent price of such efficiency is musicians’ detachment from artistic decision making. Although good conductors can minimize performance risks, musicians cannot fully express their creativity and have to comply with the conductor’s vision. This may partially explain why musicians have very low levels of job satisfaction3 (Allmendinger, Hackman and Lehman 1996). Because the literature suggests that “trust-based relationships provide more room for the openness, creativity and flexibility,” (Bijlsma-Frankema and Klein Woolthuis 2005) it is logical to assume that interpersonal relationships in conductorless orchestras are based on trust rather than on hierarchical control. In such orchestras, artistic goals are achieved through collaborative and participatory decision making, and interpersonal relationships among musicians are based on honesty, openness and loyalty to the idea of conductorless performance. Musicians form self-managing work teams, whose members participate in creative decision making, divide up work and share leadership roles (Seifter and Economy 2001). Although the development of a shared vision of music is very slow, it makes a conductorless performance creative, its sound distinctive, and playing with such an orchestra unforgettable (Sawyer 2001). Recent studies of jazz improvisation and product innovation, however, show that creative organizations also need organizational structures. Instead of imposing strict limitations on employees, these structures should create implicit rules that enable and facilitate creativity by allowing people to freely exchange ideas and depend on each other (Hatch 1999; Kamoche and Cunha 2001). Therefore, it seems that conductorless orchestras should employ not only trust-based governance strategies, but also some form of control to indirectly regulate musicians’ behavior and enable them to perform successfully without a single leader.
Research Methods
A qualitative approach is used to explain the intricate nature of trust and control and their relationships in creative organizations. This approach is particularly 6 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 useful for the study of unique cases because qualitative data allow researchers to develop context-specific explanations. Qualitative methods provide a set of tools to better understand how Orpheus musicians rehearse and perform without a conductor, collaborate with each other and solve artistic and interpersonal conflicts. Because Orpheus relies on trust and control, this orchestra is used as an explanatory case study that allows for evaluation of how existing theories of trust-control relationships apply to creative organizations (Yin 2002). To increase the validity of the research findings, this study relies on multiple Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 data sources. I use secondary data analysis, in-depth interviews with orchestra musicians, and observations of orchestra rehearsals and performances to study how trust and control are used in Orpheus. Extensive secondary data analysis includes newspaper and magazine articles, as well as concert programs. A careful analysis of these documents provided detailed information about the orchestra’s history and its public image that allowed me to ask musicians informed questions about Orpheus. This study is based on interviews with 18 musicians: 11 men and 7 women, 9 string players and 9 wind players, 12 permanent musicians and 6 substitute players. Each interview lasted for approximately 70 minutes, with some interviews lasting for 100 minutes. All interviews were taped and transcribed. Musicians were recruited by using snowball sampling and referrals from orchestra management. During the interviews, I asked open-ended questions about musicians’ experiences, their vision of the Orpheus philosophy and culture, relationships with other players and opinions about intra-group conflicts. I did not ask specifically about trust and control until musicians would mention them. After each interview, I recorded my impressions, which later were used in the data analysis. I also observed 10 rehearsals and 6 performances of the orchestra. I observed core group,4 full orchestra and dress rehearsals. Each rehearsal lasted for two and a half hours with one 20-minute break. I also attended orchestra concerts at Carnegie Hall, Trinity Church and New Jersey State Theater. During observations, I focused on how musicians divided the conductor’s responsibilities, shared leadership roles, solved artistic conflicts and came up with decision-making compromises. I paid special attention to control strategies used in Orpheus, such as relying on rotating core groups. During the data analysis stage, the presence of open communication between orchestra members, civility of interaction, ability to listen to and follow other musicians, willingness to take initiative and express personal opinions, readiness to be personally accountable for decisions and actions, openness to considering alternatives and admitting mistakes were treated as components of trust. I focused on how new substitute players signaled their trustworthiness and became accepted by the full members of the orchestra. In contrast, such factors as organizational hierarchy, rules and regulations, domination of one musician, careful screening of new players, electing musician representatives to the board and the managerial team and evident insecurity about expressing ideas were treated as indicators of reliance on control. Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 7 Music Making in Orpheus
Orpheus is the world’s largest conductorless contemporary chamber orchestra that employs 28 permanent musicians and relies on multiple substitute players for concerts, tours and recordings. It is committed to illuminating classical and contemporary works of art in a profoundly unique and creative manner. This orchestra rotates leadership roles among its musicians on a piece-by-piece basis, which allows it to rehearse and perform without a baton holder. In addition to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 touring the United States, Europe and Asia, Orpheus performs an annual series of five concerts at Carnegie Hall. It has also recorded nearly 70 albums, received the 1998 “Ensemble of the Year” award by Musical America and the 2001 Grammy Award for “Shadow Dances: Stravinsky Miniatures.” Cellist Julian Fifer and a group of musicians, who aspired to perform orchestral repertoire without a conductor, founded Orpheus in 1972. Graduates of Juilliard, Marlboro and Aspen music schools, these musicians follow the chamber paradigm, which is based on the principles of collaboration, equality and democracy in the orchestra. The idea is to give all instrumentalists an opportunity to show their creativity and experience artistic freedom that they felt they would not have in conducted settings. Although performing without a conductor creates various technical problems such as balance and tempo achievement, critics tend to agree that “it is difficult to remain indifferent to the energy, beauty of tone, and gracefulness that this group typically brings to its performance.” (Kozinin 1998) Orpheus deliberately chose not to have a single formal leader and to employ the chamber approach to create an environment where all musicians could participate in creative decision making. Participation promotes trust because musicians work together for the common good and learn about each other’s personalities. In turn, trustworthy relationships among musicians help them reduce the artistic risks of performing without a formal leader by forming close ties that allow for greater flexibility and mutual support. The absence of a baton holder, however, increases the chance of uncoordinated performances and artistic conflicts among musicians. In such a situation, players must trust other members of the orchestra to listen carefully to everyone and take responsibility for the orchestra’s performance as a whole. As Jack,5 one of the orchestra’s cellists, put it:
“In Orpheus, you don’t put it off…. You do not displace your accountability. You do not say that’s someone else’s [fault]…. In everything that we do, we depend on each other.… If something is bad, that is because we are bad, it is us.”
Musicians view trust as an assumption that their colleagues “are working for the collective good, and [that] they are able to put aside their individual need, or wrap their individual need into collective.” (Jack) Although having positive expectations of each other allows musicians to experiment with different musical 8 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 interpretations and play together, it also makes them vulnerable to the behavior of their fellow musicians. According to Neil, an orchestra violist:
“You trust that your colleagues’ ideas and comments about the music are sincere…. In the concerts, you have to rely on each other. You trust that that person will be able to do their job well – either lead well, follow well, listen to you, fitting
with you, or allow you to fit with them.” Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021
Over time, musicians have learned to respect each other’s opinions and go along with the decisions made by the group even if they disagree with them. Although artistic differences often help musicians come up with interesting musical interpretations, they may also reduce the quality of interpretative decisions and lead to personal animosities. As one musician, Peter, put it:
“I find that consensus approach can as often dilute the integrity of the performance, as it is to create something that people can feel good about.”
In a conductorless setting, each musician is constantly faced with the dilemma of whether he or she should persuade the orchestra to follow his or her suggestion or defer to the group’s interpretation of the music. During the search for consensus, the ability to express ideas and disagree with others politely becomes crucial. Sharon, a flutist, explains:
“In Orpheus, you have to trust that when you speak up, people will listen to you fairly, support what you have to say, or be able to say why they don’t. When someone criticizes what you do, we trust that it is out of the desire to make the music better, and that it is not personal.”
Musicians try to be civil and make sure that their comments are worded in a non-offensive manner. Inappropriate comments undermine trust, which can make musicians reluctant to share their opinions in the future. My observations of rehearsals show that musicians carefully choose words to express their suggestions. It is typical for them to say: “George, will you consider more tempo?” or “I was wondering, should we be less aggressive on the eight because we are overpowering the winds?” My interviews show that when musicians talk about trust, they imply two things: professionalism and interpersonal characteristics. All Orpheus members are excellent instrumentalists who also perform with major symphony and chamber orchestras. Although a particular individual can be a great instrumentalist, he or she may not be a very pleasant person; he may be unwilling to listen to others or to back off when others disagree with suggestions. Over time, Orpheus members have learned about professionalism and personalities of long-time orchestra musicians. The orchestra, however, relies heavily on substitute players whose personalities may not be known to others. Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 9
Orpheus is a very selective orchestra: only high-caliber musicians who can listen to each other, do not grandstand and can blend in are invited to become substitute players. According to Neil:
“Musicians are looking for those who have the qualities the Orpheus musicians should have: being smart, having good instrument skills and musical awareness, and being
a leader. We want those who can be leaders and followers, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 someone who would not just sit in the section.”
To make sure that only “the right” musicians perform with the group, Orpheus does not have formal auditions. Instead, full members invite musicians whom they played with in other settings. Regardless of the high risk of artistic conflict, difficulties in achieving consensus and the need for extra rehearsals, Orpheus has always rehearsed and performed without a conductor. At first, orchestra rehearsals were long and chaotic because each musician wanted the group to try his interpretation. They needed “an infinite amount of time” and “were yelling and screaming at each other” during rehearsals (Daniel). According to Jane, an orchestra violinist:
“Every person in the orchestra would say: ’Can we try it my way? Let’s just do it a little slower, a little bit more like this.’ And we were very flexible trying everybody’s way.… But this was very frustrating because some people did not like rehearsing that much.”
Although such chaotic rehearsals were exciting for musicians, they slowly realized that it was not efficient. Recalls another violinist:
“I think we did between seventeen and twenty rehearsals for our first Tully Hall performance…. Eventually, as the group became successful, we had to find ways to be more efficient and to recognize the fact that, besides being an artistic entity, there were going to be financial realities involved here.” (Whiting, Wagner and Ward 2004)
Even though original principles behind Orpheus were rather idealistic -- dissatisfaction with authority figures and the desire to have artistic freedom -- when the orchestra became a commercial success, finances became a vital issue. Rehearsal time was the biggest concern: the orchestra could not pay musicians for all the rehearsals they needed to prepare for a concert. According to Daniel, a wind player in the orchestra, “at that time… members were not actually getting paid because we [only] paid substitute players.” As a result, musicians decided to formalize the process of music making without violating chamber principles and to become more involved in all other aspects of organizational life. All musicians are now paid. 10 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007
Although there is no hierarchical control, Orpheus uses various control strategies. One of them is a system of seating position rotation on a piece-by-piece basis that provides everyone with an opportunity to lead the orchestra. A typical Orpheus concert consists of four pieces of music. The leader of the first piece will take the first chair in his or her section and then will literally move back for the next piece. Thus, such a system allows each concertmaster to be a leader and a follower within the same concert. Leadership rotation helps Orpheus increase performance creativity and ensures equality and sharing among musicians. Says Neil: Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021
“Switching seats – that’s the beauty of it.… You know that you will have a chance to put a piece together and be a major part of it. Then you turn around and sit in the section. It means that it is someone else’s turn…. We want people to be leaders and followers. That’s the essential theme – you have to be both.”
Orpheus rehearsal techniques have been refined to reduce the number of rehearsals and to make them more productive. The teams of 10 to 13 musicians – “cores” – are accountable for providing the artistic framework, developing musical interpretation and leading rehearsals. Core group members meet before the first full orchestra rehearsal to work on interpretation, tempi, balance and articulations. “Core groups,” according to Sharon, “save time, and they allow to have less voices to speak. You are trusting these people who are in the core that they are speaking for you in the best way possible.” Each core group has its own leader – the concertmaster – who is ultimately responsible for negotiating and explaining the core’s vision of music to all musicians during the full orchestra rehearsals. Says Megan, a frequent concertmaster:
“As a concertmaster, my role is to make sure that rehearsal time is used efficiently because there can be a lot of talking and discussing that takes too much time. My role is to tell others what core decided at the core rehearsal…. It’s kind of me directing the flow of a rehearsal.”
The concertmaster, however, is not a conductor who dictates his own vision of music, but is just a representative of the core group designated to find and to communicate a consensus. Concertmasters do not stand in front of the orchestra like conductors; they sit in the first violin’s chair and play with the orchestra. Other core members are responsible for explaining to their own instrumental sections how the core decided to perform a particular piece. Although every musician is expected to speak up, the core and its concertmaster are accountable for running rehearsals and leading the orchestra. Not having a permanent leader makes it more difficult for the orchestra to come to an artistic agreement and to play in unison. Musicians in traditional symphony orchestras often get used to the way a particular conductor runs rehearsals and leads the orchestra. In Orpheus, with its system of leadership rotation, it is simply Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 11 impossible to get used to a particular way of rehearsing because, even if the concertmaster is the same, the core consists of different players. Nonetheless, having such an elaborate rehearsal strategy does not fully solve the inefficiency problem as it still takes Orpheus longer than a conventional orchestra to prepare for a concert. While musicians may understand that they need to rehearse less to increase organizational efficiency (save money), they do not want to jeopardize their artistic creativity and freedom and consequently have more rehearsals than conducted orchestras. That is why musicians openly disagree Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 with the core group’s musical interpretations, which would not be possible if the orchestra had a conductor. It is also common for Orpheus members to resolve a particular artistic conflict by voting if other methods are not working. When all musicians are expected to participate in artistic decision making, not everyone’s ideas will be accepted. As Daniel explains:
“You can say: ‘Well, I like to do it this way.’ Musicians may try it, and say: ‘No, thanks.’ And then you kind of lower down in your chair in a little pose…. Or they can try your idea, and they like it.”
To make sure that rehearsals do not become chaotic even in the presence of a concertmaster and a core group, each musician is also expected to control his or her own behavior. According to Jack:
“You have to be reasonable; you have to back off when you are not helping the core…. You have to build a consensus. But if that consensus is not there, you back off…. We all understand that there are kind of unwritten rules…. You can try your idea, but if it is not taken by the group, you don’t fight the core.”
Although the system of leadership rotation and self-control play important roles in trying to make music making more efficient, Orpheus also has a formal organizational structure that ensures the orchestra’s stability. After Julian Fifer, the founding member of the orchestra, left Orpheus in 1998, musicians invited Harvey Seifter, a theater professional, to become their executive director. During his four- year tenure, Mr. Seifter improved the orchestra’s financial situation and introduced the so-called “process demonstrations” that showed business professionals how Orpheus’s participatory decision-making strategies can be applied to other organizations. Nonetheless, his business approach to management was not fully compatible with Orpheus’s culture that values freedom and participation. In 2002, Mr. Seifter left the orchestra (Jepson 2002). To ensure collaboration at all levels, musicians also created a specific way of managing the orchestra. They elect three rotating representatives, known as “artistic directors,” to work with the managing director, who is also an Orpheus musician, and the general director, who supervises the administrative team. Artistic directors are members of the administrative team, which is responsible for the 12 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 orchestra’s day-to-day operations, such as taking care of scheduling, personnel and budgetary issues. Other elected musicians serve on the board of directors that is accountable for the stability and financial well-being of the orchestra. Elections of artistic directors and board members enable musicians “to mirror Orpheus’s collaborative process in every part of the organization.” (Kozinin 2002) Reliance on the chamber paradigm has helped Orpheus establish trustworthy relationships, which facilitate participatory decision making. Such an open organizational culture makes Orpheus significantly different from other orchestras Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 and helps it attract great musicians. Nonetheless, because of the need to have numerous rehearsals, reliance on trust alone proved not to be very efficient. Now, Orpheus employs a system of leadership rotation that creates a temporary hierarchy among musicians, which helps reduce the number of artistic conflicts and makes rehearsals more orderly. At the same time, Orpheus worked hard to create a formal organizational structure that ensures its financial stability but does not violate the group’s participatory ethos. Such reliance on both trust and control suggests that these two governance strategies are intricately intertwined.
Discussion
My research shows that an orchestra can become famous and successful in the absence of a baton holder as it benefits from the talent and creativity of all its members. Compared to conducted orchestras, Orpheus players have more freedom and responsibility because no one tells them what to do. On the one hand, musicians can come up with creative musical interpretations, select the repertoire themselves, and perform “risky” contemporary music. On the other hand, each musician is personally accountable for the decisions the group makes and has responsibility for leadership in both interpretation and performance. Such personal involvement in organizational life brings musicians together and enables them to perform without a formal leader.
Trust
Professionalism and interpersonal characteristics are two primary components of trust in Orpheus. Trust enables people to be optimistic that others will reciprocate by responding favorably and competently and to act according to the existing norms of interaction (Jones 1996; Das and Teng 2001). When others are perceived as competent and committed, our reliance on them becomes more reasonable in light of an uncertain future. All Orpheus musicians are high-caliber professionals, who also play with the best American chamber and symphony orchestras and perform as soloists. Such exposure to various types of musical performance helps musicians become stellar players and gives them an opportunity to learn about different interpretations of the same piece of music, which further increases their competence. Orpheus musicians are also very committed to the idea of performing without a conductor. Commitment to Orpheus requires that musicians know what role their parts play in the whole piece and how each part is related. Knowing the score allows players to enter at the right time and to play well with other Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 13 instruments. Orpheus musicians trust that their colleagues work hard not only during rehearsals and concerts but also before the orchestra even gets together by carefully studying the score. Commitment to the orchestra also requires that musicians adapt quickly to role changes. Because Orpheus players are both leaders and followers, musicians’ flexibility becomes particularly important. Neither conducted orchestras nor chamber ensembles require that players change their seats on a piece-by-piece basis. In such a situation, Orpheus risks by inviting substitute players as their Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 flexibility becomes fully visible only after they have performed with the group. Moreover, because a conductorless performance depends on close collaboration between musicians, players’ interpersonal characteristics become very important. One of them is civility. Musicians have to be very careful not to offend colleagues when they disagree. According to Misztal (1995), civility facilitates social interactions because “rituals of etiquette are essential for promoting greater social trust and integration.” When musicians follow ceremonial rules of interaction, they feel more comfortable sharing ideas and trusting their colleagues. In Orpheus, trust enhances group’s performance by allowing musicians to take up more uncertainty, thus creating more opportunities for experiencing creativity and learning from colleagues. Therefore, the relationship between trust and performance is not direct: trustworthy relationships among musicians seem to facilitate the development of a number of intra-organizational processes that have a positive impact on the group’s performance. In particular, goodwill trust allows Orpheus to perform without a conductor because all musicians are highly committed to performing that way and go above and beyond what is expected from them in traditional orchestras. This type of trust increases musicians’ willingness to rehearse more and facilitates music making by helping them share ideas and accept criticism from others (Misztal 1995; Sako 1998; Bijlsma- Frankema and Costa 2005). Competence trust enables orchestra members to take bigger risks by performing technically difficult programs that usually require a conductor and by commissioning new music written by yet-to-be-famous composers. Musicians trust that they will perform a technically demanding program that no one has performed before. Thus, goodwill trust and competence trust both increase performance creativity because players feel safe to exchange ideas and to collectively come up with musical interpretations. Moreover, both types of trust help Orpheus differentiate itself from competitors and give “rise to a special quality in music that no conductor could ever duplicate.” (Sawyer 2001) The group is able to develop distinctive sound that is warm and beautiful not only because of musicians’ professionalism and commitment but also because of their “infectious, obvious joy in what they do.” (Bambarger 2003) Conductorless performance became Orpheus’s unique and idiosyncratic approach to making music (Alvarez et al. 2005) that allowed removal of the biggest barrier between the audience and the music – the conductor. Although trustworthy relationships within the orchestra help musicians be creative and innovative, the processes of establishing and retaining trust can be very costly. The decision to rely on trust requires musicians’ commitment to give 14 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 up such short-term profits as the ability to save on the number of rehearsals for the sake of long-term profits that include artistic freedoms, intensive professional development and opportunities to perform new contemporary music. At the same time, the absence of a single leader increases the chance of a free rider problem (Olson 1965) and may cause psychological distress among those musicians who may be unhappy about the time it takes to reach compromises (Steiner 1972).
Control Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021
Relying on colleagues and building trustworthy relationships are inherently risky due to the ever-present possibility of unmet expectations and the lack of reciprocity. To reduce these risks, Orpheus musicians use various control mechanisms that enable and sustain trust-based governance strategies. For example, trust in substitute players is facilitated by the system of input control, which allows musicians to carefully select substitute players. Only those musicians who seem compatible with the orchestra’s culture, demonstrate great interpersonal skills, and have a record of excellence as chamber musicians are invited to join Orpheus. These criteria are often used as proxies in informal evaluations of competence and goodwill in potential substitute players. When new instrumentalists get a chance to play with Orpheus, they have to learn how to blend in and listen to others. During this initial stage of working together, substitute players are socialized into the values and traditions of the orchestra. This socialization process represents the reliance on social control. New players learn about the Orpheus’s culture, which teaches them how to behave appropriately, express their opinions and perform without a conductor. Social control helps structure personal interaction among musicians and informs players about their rights and obligations as members. Performance creativity depends on the input of every member. When many players with different musical ideas come together, artistic disagreement and personal animosities are inevitable. Although healthy debates are necessary, the line between constructive arguments and counterproductive disagreements blurs. Numerous artistic conflicts and multiple rehearsals, which can be viewed as the negative consequences of not having a conductor, prompted Orpheus to modify its rehearsal techniques. Musicians could not employ hierarchical control because it would destroy the orchestra’s original principles of music making. Rotational core groups, which create temporary hierarchy and impose subtle limitations on the behavior of musicians, turned out to be the form of behavioral control suitable for a creative organization. Temporary hierarchy illustrates what Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) call a semistructure and Kamoche and Cunha (2001) refer to as a minimal structure. Semistructure is an organizational design that provides employees with an overarching framework by setting up clear priorities and responsibilities but also giving them freedom to innovate and be creative. Temporary hierarchy in Orpheus is not as rigid as a conductor’s control and does not prevent musicians from voicing their opinions, but it ensures that musicians do not become too dominant or too passive. Flexibility of this control strategy is ensured by the system of leadership rotation, which gives musicians an opportunity to be both leaders and followers. Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 15
Reliance on semistructures also helps Orpheus achieve the “optimal distinctiveness,” which is the ability to successfully couple artistic uniqueness with the standard business strategies intended to provide economic stability (Alvarez et al. 2005). Pressures of artistic creativity and idiosyncrasy have to be reconciled with isomorphic business pressures for attracting audiences and selling tickets. Orpheus competes with traditional orchestras that are very efficient because each member of the orchestra has a narrowly defined jurisdiction: musicians play on their instruments, conductors lead the orchestra, and management solves Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 financial and logistic problems. Due to isomorphic pressures towards efficiency, Orpheus also has a professional managerial team, but in an attempt to preserve its idiosyncratic approach to music, the orchestra engages all players in decision- making processes. Musicians elect representatives to serve on the board and the administrative team to make sure that organizational decisions do not violate the orchestra’s original principles of collaboration and to ensure its long-term success. Election of representatives can be viewed as an example of output control because musicians are getting accurate and reliable information about management’s plans and can influence the decision making. This enables musicians to psychologically “own” the orchestra and to be confident that their opinions are taken into account. Such consolidation of creative and business roles in musicians’ hands is largely responsible for Orpheus’ artistic success.
Trust-Control Relationships
There is an intricate relationship between trust and control in Orpheus. My study provides empirical evidence for Möllering’s (2005) duality perspective, which views trust and control as always being co-present. Both trust and control are used in the orchestra to help musicians form positive expectations about each other’s behavior. In the case of control, musicians’ positive expectations are grounded in various structural influences on their behavior; in the case of trust, however, their expectations are based on the perceived benevolence and professionalism of all orchestra members. Nonetheless, the line between trust and control in Orpheus starts to blur. It is often hard to understand when collaboration is facilitated by trust or control, which suggests that these governance strategies cannot be fully understood without considering the roles both of them play at the same time. It is true that Orpheus was originally founded on ideals of artistic freedom, participation and rejection of hierarchical control. Musicians, however, quickly learned that despite the benefits of democracy and trust-based governance, successful long-term collaboration requires that certain limitations be imposed on musicians’ behavior. Orpheus members also realized that reliance on control- based mechanisms is successful only if musicians trust that these limitations are imposed to facilitate creative decision making and ensure the orchestra’s long-term future. My findings show that different types of trust and control assume, refer and create each other, but at the same time, are irreducible to one another. Behavioral control assumes both goodwill trust and competence trust because core groups in Orpheus cannot function without musicians’ trusting that core members are 16 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 competent and work on behalf of the whole orchestra. Although core groups limit musicians’ freedom, Orpheus members must believe that every musician will be professional, creative and willing to take personal responsibility for the entire score. If this trust didn’t exist, core groups would not have survived. Musicians would have simply felt that core groups were a collective alternative to the conductor’s ultimate authority in the orchestra and would be unwilling to go along with them.
At the same time, goodwill trust and competence trust assume input and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 social control. Musicians’ trust in the benevolence and professionalism of new players is facilitated by a careful selection of substitute players. Orpheus has a personnel manager, who is a full orchestra member, whose responsibility is to select substitute players. Moreover, the behavior of substitute players during the initial stage of their careers is also socially controlled. Substitute players are rarely invited to become members of the core group right away. They are expected to learn the group’s culture first and be able to blend-in before formally leading the orchestra. Thus, performing with Orpheus not only teaches substitute players how to be good members of the orchestra, but also allows other musicians to form positive expectations about new players. Trust and control refer to each other by helping musicians form positive expectations about each other’s behavior. My previous example shows how control helps musicians form positive expectations, but trust also helps them collaborate with one another. In particular, goodwill trust allows musicians to cope with risks associated with players’ homogeneity, which is an unintended consequence of social and input control. Although it is easier to establish trustworthy relationships among musicians with similar backgrounds, such homogeneity can also lead to groupthink (Polley and Van Dyne 1994). Consequently, musicians may experience the group’s pressure to choose a satisfactory but not optimal solution to a problem, follow routines without trying to search for new interpretations, or have a selective bias toward information favoring a particular course of action during rehearsals. In such a situation, musicians trust that nobody in the orchestra gives in to the group’s pressure, and that everyone tries to make the orchestra’s performances as good as possible. Trust and control produce each other. Trustworthy relationships in Orpheus encourage musicians to control their own behavior. Leadership rotation allows players to learn what it takes to be a leader and a follower, and how different interaction styles facilitate or prevent the development of collaboration. Because civility is so important in Orpheus, musicians try to control their behavior by making sure that they politely express their disagreement with others. Therefore, by trying to preserve an image of a trustworthy person, musicians actively engage in self-control. Similarly, reliance on output control also generates trust. Electing representatives to the board of directors and the administrative team allows musicians to have higher levels of trust in the decisions made by the board and the management. The role of these elected representatives is to act as intermediaries between musicians and the management. Musicians feel more confident that their interests will be taken into account when non-artistic decisions are being made because Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 17 through these elected representatives, they participate in non-artistic decision making as well. If musician representatives do not like a particular decision, they will let other members know about it and will speak up against that decision. Finally, although the line between trust and control starts to blur, these two governance strategies are mutually irreducible concepts. Having core groups does not necessarily mean that all orchestra members automatically behave benevolently and can always suppress their true emotions and egos when someone rejects their suggestions. Musicians always have a possibility to go Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 against the group or act selfishly. That is why trust is still necessary even in the presence of control. Although it may seem that trust in Orpheus is used as a mechanism of social control (Ouchi 1977) because it promotes norms of mutual obligation and creates a set of expectations shared by all musicians (Zucker 1986), trust should not be reduced to social control. If that were the case, high levels of trust in Orpheus would not require various organizational control strategies and would allow the orchestra to function under the assumption that every musician is able to adequately control his or her own behavior. Moreover, acceptance of the duality perspective does not invalidate the substitute and the complementary perspectives. By using the duality approach and differentiating between different types of trust and control, it is possible to find empirical examples where the emphasis is placed more on some form of control than on trust and vice versa, to support the assumption that trust and control complement each other and to show that the emphasis on control or trust may shift over time. Orpheus, originally founded on the principles of chamber music that reject conductors’ control, only later decided that such heavy reliance on trust is inefficient. This suggests that trust was originally achieved without hierarchical control and enabled participatory and creative decision making. Yet, the goal of creating a democratic environment itself illustrates the reliance on strong input and social control strategies because only competent chamber musicians devoted to the ideal of a conductorless performance were invited to play with the group. Therefore, while trust and hierarchical control may be inversely related, as claimed by the substitution perspective, trust and input and social control are co-present in Orpheus. Control and trust can complement each other because they create one another. As such, the complementary perspective illustrates one of the assumptions of the duality perspective. The duality approach, however, can be used to analyze how an emphasis on trust or control changes over time. Although trust was independent from behavioral control in the early years of Orpheus, it became intertwined with control after core groups were implemented. This example shows that trust and control do not automatically become a duality. Instead, each organization goes through a process of institutionalizing trust-control duality, which may move from either primarily control-based or trust-based governance mechanisms to a realization of benefits of a trust-control mixture. The logic of the duality perspective can also be applied to conducted orchestras. Even though conductors can formally control their players, good conductors also trust musicians. Hierarchical control alone can be successful only if conductors 18 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007 fully understand the peculiarities of performing on all musical instruments. Although conductors know how to play at least one instrument, it is hard for them to know how to perform on all instruments. Conductors, therefore, cannot control musicians efficiently in this respect. Consequently, baton holders trust their players’ knowledge and skills when it comes to instrumental performance.
Conclusion Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 This article presents a single-case exploratory study of a conductorless orchestra (Yin 2002), which represents creative organizations that depend on collaboration and participation of its members (Cummings 1965). It shows that successful performance in Orpheus requires both trust and control. Although there is no formal hierarchical control, Orpheus benefits from behavioral, input, output and social control. Reliance on these less direct control strategies, however, blurs the line between trust and control, which suggests that the duality theory can better explain the intricacy of trust-control relationships. Differentiating between the types of trust and control further adds to our understanding of trust-control relationships in creative settings because it produces a more analytically sophisticated approach to intra-organizational dynamics. Further empirical studies are required to replicate these findings in other creative organizations. The Orpheus orchestra is unique, but the results of this study can also be applied to such creative organizations as R&D units of large corporations, improvisational theaters, and fashion industry firms. If these insights about trust and control survive additional tests, they will further advance our theoretical understanding of trust-control relationships and help researchers analyze how organizational environment, structure and culture may influence trust-control dynamics.
Notes
1. See special issues of Organization Studies (February 2001) and International Sociology (September 2005).
2. For a notable exception of using in-depth interviews, see Klein Woolthuis, Hillebrand and Nooteboom (2005).
3. This study shows that out of thirteen groups researched, orchestra musicians ranked seventh on the job satisfaction scale, which is lower than string quartet players, airline cockpit crews, and federal prison guards but slightly higher than industrial production teams, beer sales representatives, and professional hockey players.
4. For a discussion of core groups see pp. 13-14.
5. Pseudonyms are used throughout the paper to protect subjects’ confidentiality. Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 19 References
Adler, Paul, and Bryan Borys. 1996. “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1):61-89.
Allmendinger, Jutta, Richard Hackman and Erin Lehman. 1996. “Life and Work in Symphony Orchestras.” The Musical Quarterly 80(2):194-219.
Alvarez, Jose Luis, Carmelo Mazza, Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen and Silviya Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 Svejenova. 2005. “Shielding Idiosyncrasy from Isomorphic Pressures: Towards Optimal Distinctiveness in European Filmmaking.” Organization 12(6):863-88.
Aulakh, Preet, Masaaki Kotabe and Arvind Sahay. 1996. “Trust and Performance in Cross-Border Marketing Partnerships: A Behavioral Approach.” Journal of International Business Studies 27(5):755-86.
Bambarger, Bradley. 2003. “Orpheus Shines with a Radiant Eurydice.” Newark, NJ: The Star-Ledger. Dec. 5.
Bijlsma-Frankema, Katinka and Ana Crista Costa. 2005. “Understanding the Trust- Control Nexus,” International Sociology 20(3):259-82.
Bijlsma-Frankema, Katinka, and Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis. 2005. “Trust under Pressure: Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances.” Pp. 1-17. Trust under Pressure: Empirical Investigations of Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances. Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema and Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis, editors. Edward Elgar.
Bradach, Jeffrey, and Robert Eccles. 1989. “Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms.” American Review of Sociology 15:97-118.
Brown, Shona, and Kathleen Eisenhardt. 1997. “The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1):1-34.
Cardinal, Laura. 2001. “Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Organization Science 12(1):19-36.
Cummings, Larry. 1965. “Organizational Climates for Creativity.” The Academy of Management Journal 8(3):220-27.
Das, T.K., and Bing-Sheng Teng. 1998. “Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances,” The Academy of Management Review 23(3):491-512.
______. 2001. “Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework.” Organization Studies 22(2):251-83.
Edmondson, Amy C. 2004. “Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group Level Lens.” Pp. 239-72. Trust and Distrust in Organizations. Roderick Kramer and Karen Cook, editors. Russell Sage Foundation. 20 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007
Eisenhardt, Kathleen. 1985. “Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches.” Management Science 31(2):134-49.
Fligstein, Neil. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Harvard University Press.
Fryxell, Gerald, Robert Dooley and Maria Vryza. 2002. “After the Ink Dries: The Interaction of Trust and Control in Us-Based International Joint Ventures.” Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 Journal of Management Studies 29(6):865-96.
Guseva, Alya, and Akos Rona-Tas. 2001. “Uncertainty, Risk, and Trust: Russian and American Credit Card Markets Compared.” American Sociological Review 66(5):623.
Hall, Douglas, Guorong Zhu and Aimin Yan. 2002. “Career Creativity as Protean Identity Transformation.” Pp. 159-82. Career Creativity. Maury Peiperl, Michael Arthur and N. Anand, editors. Oxford University Press.
Hatch, Mary Jo. 1999. “Exploring the Empty Spaces of Organizing: How Improvisational Jazz Helps Redescribe Organizational Structure.” Organization Studies 20(1):75-100.
Henry, Jane. 2004. “Creative Collaboration in Organisational Settings.” Pp. 158- 75. Collaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives. Dorothy Miell and Karen Littleton, editors. Free Association Books.
Jepson, Barbara. 2002. “The Orpheus Mystique (and Myths).” New York, NY: The New York Times. Oct. 6.
Jones, Karen. 1996. “Trust as an Affective Attitude.” Ethics 107(1):4-25.
Kamerman, Jack. 1983. “Symphony Conductors as an Occupation.” Pp. 43-57. Performers and Performances: The Social Organization of Artistic Work. Jack Kamerman and Rosanne Martorella, editors. Praeger Publishers.
Kamoche, Ken, and Miguel Pina Cunha. 2001. “Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innovation.” Organization Studies 33(5):733-64.
Klein Woolthuis, Rosalinde, Bas Hillebrand and Bart Nooteboom. 2005. “Trust, Contract and Relationship Development,” Organization Studies 26(6):813-40.
Kozinin, Allan. 1998. “26 Years of Togetherness without a Baton.” New York, NY: The New York Times. Dec. 9.
______. 2002. “Orpheus Group to Do without Director, Too.” New York, NY: The New York Times. May 4.
Long, Chris, P., and Sim B. Sitkin. 2006. “Trust in the Balance: How Managers Integrate Trust-Building and Task Control.” Pp. 87-107. Handbook of Trust Research. Reinhard Bachmann and Akbar Zaheer, editors. Edward Elgar. Trust and Control in Creative Organizations • 21
Malhotra, Deepak, and Keith Murnighan. 2002. “The Effects of Contracts on Interpersonal Trust.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47(3):534-59.
Misztal, Barbara A. 1995. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Polity Press.
Möllering, Guido. 2005. “The Trust/Control Duality.” International Sociology 20(3):283-305. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 Moran, Seana, and Vera John-Steiner. 2004. “How Collaboration in Creative Work Impacts Identity and Motivation.” Pp. 11-26. Collaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives. Dorothy Miell and Karen Littleton, editors. Free Association Books.
Nooteboom, Bart. 2000. “Trust as Governance Device.” Pp. 44-68. Cultural Factors in Economic Growth. Mark Casson and Andrew Godley, editors. Springer-Verlag.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.
Ouchi, William. 1977. “The Relationship between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control.” Administrative Science Quarterly 22(1):95-113.
______. 1981. Theory Z. How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Avon Books.
Polley, Douglass, and Linn Van Dyne. 1994. “The Limits and Liabilities of Self- Managing Work Teams.” Pp. 1-39. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Michael Beyerlein and Douglas Johnson, editors. JAI Press.
Poppo, Laura, and Todd Zenger. 2002. “Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes of Complements?” Strategic Management Journal 23(8):707-25.
Rus, Andrej. 2005. “Trust and Performance: Institutional, Interpersonal and Network Trust.” Pp. 80-105. Trust under Pressure. Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema and Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis, editors. Edward Elgar.
Rus, Andrej, and Hajdeja Iglic. 2005. “Trust, Governance and Performance: The Role of Institutional and Interpersonal Trust in SME Development.” International Sociology 20(3):371-91.
Sako, Mari. 1998. “Does Trust Improve Business Performance?” Pp. 88-118. Trust within and between Organizations. Christel Lane and Reinhard Bachmann, editors. Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. Keith. 2001. Creating Conversations: Improvisation in Everyday Discourse. Hampton Press, Inc. 22 • Social Forces Volume 86, Number 1 • September 2007
Seifter, Harvey, and Peter Economy. 2001. Leadership Ensemble. Times Books.
Sitkin, Sim. 1995. “On the Positive Effect of Legalization of Trust.” Pp. 185-217. Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Robert Bies, Roy Lewicki and Balir Sheppard, editors. JAI Press.
Sitkin, Sim, and Nancy Roth. 1993. “Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust.” Organization Science 4(3):367-92. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/86/1/1/2234911 by guest on 27 September 2021 Spreitzer, Gretchen M., and Aneil K Mishra. 1999. “Giving up Control without Losing Control: Trust and Its Substitutes’ Effects on Managers’ Involving Employees in Decision Making.” Group and Organization Management 24(2):155-87.
Steiner, Ivan Dale. 1972. Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press.
Virkhaus, Taavo. 1997. “Myths and Magic: A Word from a Conductor.” Harmony 4:86-89.
Whiting, Melinda, Robert Wagner and Tina Ward. 2004. “A Road Less Traveled.” Symphony Sept.-Oct.:30-40.
Yin, Robert. 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
Zucker, Lynne. 1986. “Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure 1840-1920.” Research in Organizational Behavior 8:53-111.