National culture and organizational trust

The issue

Where people cannot be trusted controls may be put in place to inhibit or reprehend deviant behavior. If people could be trusted to pay for all merchandise taken out of a store, retailing operational costs would be lower and all would benefit. However, we know that some controls are necessary. What we do not know as clearly is whether the need for such controls varies with culture. To reveal this possible association  I would like to carry out this simple experiment in several environments.

I am particularly interested in comparing Anglo-Saxon environments with several European and Latin American ones, but I am also curious as to the outcomes in Middle-East countries, besides India, China, and others. Do not be shy, if you are curious yourself, please carry out the test below and share the results with me. I will consolidate the results share them with all, giving credit for your collaboration and only disclosing your affiliation if you allow to. If you wish to participate please request from me a table to log your findings, in order to make them comparable with the work of others.

Of course this simple experiment cannot reveal all the complexities of reasons for the possible lack of trust in an organization. It may simply reveal no more than a few opportunists lurk around. But the results may inspire adequate policies to curb deleterious behaviour and smoothen unwanted outcomes. For instance a large company may wish to carry this experiment in several countries, or a single business unit in one country may wish to carry out this experiment in different plants in order to figure out where it may make sense to deploy and ethical oriented training first, or even where to redesign the policies that may be triggering the unwanted behaviour.

The experiment:

In an unsupervised get-together place like an office watering hole, leave a box of sweets or similar individually wrapped treat and a small box to collect the unsupervised sales of those sweets. Unless you are at Google - where this experiment would make little sense - those corporate watering holes usually do not offer more than water, coffee and tea. Choose a watering hole that will be visited by at least 10 people in the time interval you choose to work with. Make sure there are no hidden cameras filming the area. Request eventual cleaners or administrators not to interfere nor comment on the experiment. If the watering hole is  visited by  at least ten people  they are unlikely to  start asking who put that box for what reason.

On the box stick a note indicating the individual price of the sweets in your currency. Make sure that the price to pay for the individual goodies is not much greater than twice what the people would have to pay for the sweets if they purchased them in a sealed container. For instance, if twenty Ferrero Rocher bonbons in a box retail for $20 in your city, charge no more than $2 for each Ferrero Rocher bonbon you leave for clients to take (and pay). Baci bonbons or anything reasonable in your culture will do. Also, if possible, price in integers and avoid having to use small change. If  you need to charge non-integer prices you may leave some coins in the money box to facilitate change. Allow a couple of hours to go by (whatever time may be reasonable to you) before you remove both the bonbons and the money (if any). Fill out the log table below on a new sheet of paper each time you carry out the experiment; this could be all in the same day, perhaps in different floors  or in different watering  holes on the same floor.

If you want to take this even further, which I would much appreciate, during the following day rplease repeat the experiment adding, to the note with the price, that the proceeds of the sale will be donated to a charity; and really donate to a worthy charity.

 What will this experiment show?

The extent to which you raise less money than you should will indicate how much attention you should be paying to rogue behaviour by your employees or colleagues. The reason for the organizationally deleterious behaviour is harder to ascertain, and you may want to look more carefully into this. Some training may be necessary, but there may be a generalized disatisfaction  which is encouraging organization members to take back on the organization where they feel they can. But do not doubt, if your people take merchandise without paying even when asked to pay, your organization may be in trouble.

The log table

Home