Page - (000229) - in Knowledge and Networks

224 several prior studies suggesting the likelihood that self-monitoring orientation relates to involvement in the provision of workplace advice to colleagues. For example, we know that high self-monitors, relative to lows, are better at scanning the social world for information concerning others, and are also better at remembering such information (Berscheid, Graziano, Monson, & Dermer, 1976). If valuable information is available in the organization relevant to workplace prob- lems, then it is the high self- monitors who are likely to collect and utilize such information. High self-monitors tend to be more successful than low self-monitors at eyewitness identification (e.g., Hosch, Leippe, Marchioni, & Cooper, 1984) and at detecting people’s intentions (Jones & Baumeister, 1976). Thus, in work situa- tions, high self-monitors are more likely than the lows to grasp what problems peo- ple are trying to solve. Further, high self-monitors strive to establish reputations as generous exchange partners—people who are willing to provide help to others with- out expecting to be helped in turn (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006). Overall, then, high self-monitors are likely to emerge as central in advice giving networks in organizations because they collect important knowledge from the social environment and recognize when such knowledge is likely to be of use in helping others. Hypothesis 2: High self-monitors, relative to low self-monitors, are more likely to be sought for advice by organizational members. Finally, we come to the thorny issue of trust. Surely, it must be, as Bedeian has argued (Bedeian & Day, 2004), that the true-to-themselves low self-monitors, con- sistent in their attitudes across different situations, are more likely to be trusted than the chameleon-like highs? Does not the changeability of the high self-monitoring orientation undermine trust? Self-monitoring theory suggests a more complex pic- ture. Yes, low self-monitors, because of the consistency they demonstrate between their attitudes and behaviors (Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980), can build reputations as principled and autonomous individuals. But, high self-monitors are also likely to exhibit autonomy and independence when normative climates favor such noncon- formity (Snyder & Monson, 1975). Perhaps surprisingly, given the flexibility that high self-monitors exhibit, there is no general association between self-monitoring and conformity to social pressure (Santee & Maslach, 1982; Snyder, 1987, p. 37). Where high self-monitors do exhibit consistency is in presenting a general appearance of friendliness and the absence of anxiety (Lippa, 1978), and this general appearance is likely, one could argue, to engender trust. Thus, on the basis of self-monitoring-theory, it is difficult to formu- late any simple relationship between self-monitoring and the extent to which indi- viduals are trusted by others, given that both the principled low self- monitoring orientation and the sociable high self-monitoring orientation offer bases for estab- lishing trust. It is possible, however, to respond to the request from the leading exponent of structural hole theory to “take the next analytical step” (Burt, 1992, p. 275) in understanding why some individuals rather than others benefit from bro- kerage opportunities in the trust network. M. Kilduff et al.