Graham Dietz

Trust Repair After An Organization-Level Failure

We propose a systemic, multilevel framework for understanding trust repair at the organizational level. Drawing on systems theory, we theorize how each component of an organizations system shapes employees’ perceptions of the organizations trustworthiness and can contribute to failures and effective trust repair. We distinguish the framework from prior work grounded in dyadic assumptions and propose underlying principles and a four-stage process for organizational trust repair. Finally, we explore the implications for research and practice.

Measuring trust inside organisations.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which measures and operationalisations of intra‐organisational trust reflect the essential elements of the existing conceptualisation of trust inside the workplace.Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an overview of the essential points from the rich variety of competing conceptualisations and definitions in the management and organisational literatures. It draws on this overview to present a framework of issues for researchers to consider when designing research based on trust. This framework is then used to analyse the content of 14 recently published empirical measures of intra‐organisational trust. It is noted for each measure the form that trust takes, the content, the sources of evidence and the identity of the recipient, as well as matters related to the wording of items.Findings – The paper highlights where existing measures match the theory, but also shows a number of “blind‐spots” or contradictions, particularly over the...

Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other?

Why do we trust people? More precisely, on what basis do we trust people? Reinhard Bachmann’s paper, and my response here, are both concerned with this enduring yet curiously neglected question. Many, perhaps most, trust scholars’ instinctive answer would be: we trust based on an assessment of the other party’s trustworthiness. They might then invoke the three dimensions of trustworthiness in Mayer, Davis and Schoorman’s (1995) widely cited model: ability, benevolence and integrity [hereafter ‘ABI’]. Standard models of trust then proceed as follows: assuming this assessment is broadly positive, we are likely to feel Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer’s ‘willingness to render ourselves vulnerable’ (1998, p. 395). However, many argue, persuasively in my view, that this ‘psychological state’ what Li (2007, 2008) calls ‘trust-asattitude’ is not enough for trust to actually happen. There must be a behavioural manifestation for trust to be made ‘real’ (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007): what Li (2007, 2008) calls ‘trust-as-choice’. We demonstrate trust by taking a risk with respect to our dealings with the other party (Mayer et al., 1995). The outcome from doing so then feeds back information which updates the assessment on the other’s trustworthiness, and so trust’s cyclical dynamic continues. The first point on which I differ from Bachmann’s argument is that I believe this basic sequence to be a universal dynamic, common to all trust encounters. Indeed, I would argue that any trust encounter anywhere in the world, in any country, in any sector, and in any relationship can probably be interpreted accurately using this staged model: there is always an assessment (however thorough) of the other party’s trustworthiness which informs a preparedness to be vulnerable that, in genuine cases of trust, leads to a risk-taking act. The results of the trusting encounter update the foundational assessment. In other words, there is only one essential ‘trust experience’, and this sequence is it. Within our literature, however, scholars have proposed a number of different types of trust: ‘contract trust’, ‘competence trust’ and ‘goodwill trust’ (Sako, 1992), ‘deterrence-based’, ‘calculus-based’, ‘knowledge-based’ and ‘identification-based trust’ (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). These different types are held to have distinctive origins and dynamics, and an unspoken assumption seems to be that people deploy different types in dealings with others, as circumstances and personal preferences dictate. In depicting interaction-based trust and institution-based trust as qualitatively distinguishable and uniquely suited to particular circumstances,

The dark side of trust: when trust becomes a 'poisoned chalice'

Trust is typically portrayed as beneficial to all concerned; something which is inherently good. In this article we focus on interpersonal trust and argue that, while there are undoubted benefits, trust can also be problematic; there are circumstances in which it can become a ‘poisoned chalice’ for one or other of the parties involved. We question whether the potential for negative experiences in relation to trust has been fully explored and argue that its true dark side lies within the dynamics of the trust relationship. From this stance we use the social exchange and gift giving literatures to re-appraise trust in a way that highlights the importance of expectation and intent and demonstrates the circumstances in which trust may not be beneficial for one of the parties involved. We conclude with a research agenda which we believe will further develop our understanding of this complex human interaction.

Unravelling the complexities of trust and culture

Badri is an Iranian businesswoman representing her firm in first-round negotiations with a new alliance partner from Munich, Germany. When she enters the room, her counterpart from the German firm, Johann, reaches out his hand for her to shake as a first gesture of goodwill. Badri hesitates, but takes Johannʹs hand briefly, shakes it once, smiling the whole time. Then she sits down. Johann is impressed by her apparent openness; for him, this bodes well for the talks ahead. Behind him, a few colleagues wince at his indiscretion, but are relieved when it appears he has got away with it. Behind her, Badriʹs male colleagues from Iran are shocked. Some are disgusted. For women to touch unfamiliar men is neither customary nor appropriate in their culture. But Badri has studied and worked in the States for several years and, though she finds such incidents uncomfortable, she has learned to ‘switch’ between styles of working when required. Plus, for her, the priorities of her employer mean that nurturing a solid, trusting relationship with their German partner is of paramount importance. Sean and Nils are elected employee representatives sitting on the European Works Council of the Anglo–Dutch steel firm, Corus, for whom they both work. Nils is Dutch and works in his native Holland; Sean is Irish but works in a smelting works in England. They are both union members (though in different unions), both Corus employees, and both engineers.

Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or independent but co-existing?

This article provides an empirical test of whether trust and distrust can co-exist in the mind of an employee. Two interrelated questions are considered: firstly, whether trust and distrust judgements are ‘symmetrical’ or whether they can occur ‘simultaneously’ as separate constructs; and, secondly, whether trust and distrust judgements entail the same or conceptually different expectations as revealed in their expressions and anticipated manifestations. Using a concurrent mixed-method design incorporating a structured card sort and in-depth interviews, data were collected from 56 participants in two organizations. The card-sort findings offer little support for the co-existence of trust and distrust, but suggest they could be separate constructs. Interview data indicate that participants do perceive trust and distrust as entailing different sets of expectations and having different manifestations, providing some support for the ‘separate constructs’ thesis. We also find evidence of two new combinations of weak levels of trust and distrust not previously specified. The findings highlight how employees’ trust and distrust judgements are shaped, in part, by managerial actions and policies relating to quality of communication and job security. They also emphasize how, when employees are distrustful, different practice interventions may be needed to reduce distrust from those used to build trust.

Editorial: Trust and HRM: Current insights and future directions

Over the last 20 years, HRM has been identified as one of the most influential organisational contexts in which to explore trust, and yet scholars have been slow to look systematically at both the systems and practices that underlie this assertion. Organisations make choices regarding both the design and implementation of HRM policies and practices, with research considering the impact on trust for both key single policy areas and bundles of policies. We outline the previous dominance on teleological approaches compared with a dearth of more deontological perspectives which would highlight moral and ethical considerations implicit in definitions of trustworthiness. We review the contribution of five new articles to further our understanding of trust and HRM and identify future research and practice agendas.

Trust and justice in the formation of joint consultative committees

The paper identifies six phases in the creation of new joint staff–management consultative arrangements such as works councils or staff forums. Trust and justice theories are used to analyse the processes involved in initiating, designing, setting up and maintaining such a forum. The resulting framework considers both institutional and interpersonal aspects, and is intended to present researchers with a structure and an agenda for investigating the nature and consequences of the processes involved. The framework also provides initial guidelines to practitioners involved with establishing new consultative arrangements.

Can there be non‐union forms of workplace partnership?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore a number of issues pertaining to the conceptualisation, operationalisation, feasibility and effectiveness of workplace partnership arrangements in a non‐unionised setting.Design/methodology/approach – The paper discusses the most common definitions of partnership to discern whether scope exists for non‐unionised forms. It then presents a detailed case study, based on 38 semi‐structured interviews with 29 interviewees, inside a non‐unionised company to analyse whether its people management arrangements conform with the definitions presented, and to examine the employees’ experience of those arrangements.Findings – The paper notes that most partnership definitions can accommodate non‐unionised forms, if the arrangements for people management inside such firms meet certain standards on employee voice mechanisms and the exchange of mutual gains. The evidence from the case study suggests that its unusual policies and practices do conform with a viable model of ...

The impact of contracts on trust in entrepreneur–venture capitalist relationships

Venture capitalists (VCs) increasingly rely on elaborate formal contracts and incentivization through share ownership to manage their relationships with the entrepreneurial firms in which they invest. This study analyses the impact of a high degree of such ‘neoclassical contracting’ on entrepreneurs’ trust in their VC backers. The results from a sample of 86 Dutch entrepreneurial firms indicate not only that a high degree of neoclassical contracting tends to erode entrepreneurs’ trust in their VCs, but also that the use of more informal, relational contracting fails to moderate the negative association between a strong focus on neoclassical contracts and trust. However, entrepreneurs do welcome some level of monitoring, which highlights the enduring tension between trust and control, and the need for VCs to strike a productive balance.