Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1705844
Marc Järvinen, Minna Branders
Cooperative relationships require trust. Trust, on the other hand, requires a framework, i.e. an environment, in which it can be built. Numerous studies have focused on the antecedents of trust. For example, various trust-building factors have been identified in these studies. However, there is no comprehensive study exploring the ways in which contracts support the trust-building environment. This study attempts to fill this gap by drawing on the notion that contracts have a framing effect on trust, thereby creating an environment that can lead to trust building. The study entails an analysis of eight contracts made between the Finnish Defence Forces and its civilian contractors. The analysis is theory-driven and applies a framework of trust-building factors. The conclusion of the study is that the contracts support the environment by defining roles and responsibilities, relevant legal regulation, communication processes, and forums for interaction. However, trust building would benefit if contracts were improved in five ways, namely by establishing fewer forums of communication, encompassing personal relations and potentially deviating interests, providing more communication via avenues other than key personnel, carefully considering the need for restrictive confidentiality clauses, and using contracts to pursue a certain culture.
{"title":"Contracts as trust builders","authors":"Marc Järvinen, Minna Branders","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1705844","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1705844","url":null,"abstract":"Cooperative relationships require trust. Trust, on the other hand, requires a framework, i.e. an environment, in which it can be built. Numerous studies have focused on the antecedents of trust. For example, various trust-building factors have been identified in these studies. However, there is no comprehensive study exploring the ways in which contracts support the trust-building environment. This study attempts to fill this gap by drawing on the notion that contracts have a framing effect on trust, thereby creating an environment that can lead to trust building. The study entails an analysis of eight contracts made between the Finnish Defence Forces and its civilian contractors. The analysis is theory-driven and applies a framework of trust-building factors. The conclusion of the study is that the contracts support the environment by defining roles and responsibilities, relevant legal regulation, communication processes, and forums for interaction. However, trust building would benefit if contracts were improved in five ways, namely by establishing fewer forums of communication, encompassing personal relations and potentially deviating interests, providing more communication via avenues other than key personnel, carefully considering the need for restrictive confidentiality clauses, and using contracts to pursue a certain culture.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"46 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1705844","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48890353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1692664
Angelos Kostis, M. Näsholm
ABSTRACT Trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the importance of trust in the light of coopetitive interactions, i.e. simultaneously cooperating and competing. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. Whilst coopetition research has mentioned the important role of trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the tensions, risks, and uncertainties involved. The purpose of this paper is to identify limitations and gaps in the extant literature on trust in coopetition, bring promising research opportunities into light, and create an agenda for future research focused on the roles of both trust and distrust in coopetition. By means of a systematic literature review, we find that the importance of trust in different phases of coopetition has been acknowledged by prior research, yet deeper explanations of how, when, and why different aspects of trust and distrust matter to coopetition are missing. A normative view on trust prevails and the potential fruitfulness of distrust is neglected. Based on these limitations, an agenda including six promising research avenues is constructed.
{"title":"Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition","authors":"Angelos Kostis, M. Näsholm","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1692664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1692664","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the importance of trust in the light of coopetitive interactions, i.e. simultaneously cooperating and competing. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. Whilst coopetition research has mentioned the important role of trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the tensions, risks, and uncertainties involved. The purpose of this paper is to identify limitations and gaps in the extant literature on trust in coopetition, bring promising research opportunities into light, and create an agenda for future research focused on the roles of both trust and distrust in coopetition. By means of a systematic literature review, we find that the importance of trust in different phases of coopetition has been acknowledged by prior research, yet deeper explanations of how, when, and why different aspects of trust and distrust matter to coopetition are missing. A normative view on trust prevails and the potential fruitfulness of distrust is neglected. Based on these limitations, an agenda including six promising research avenues is constructed.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"66 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1692664","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45893972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1684302
Robert R. Martin
ABSTRACT This article examines how public trust in physicians varies across two primary dimensions: trust in physicians' technical competence and in their fiduciary duty to prioritise patients' interests above their own. While prior empirical studies explain variations in trust of physicians primarily by focusing on patients' individual characteristics, trust differences across national borders remain underexplored. This study utilises nationally representative survey data from 26 countries and data from national-level collections to investigate the correlates of both dimensions of trust. Multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis reveals associations between the two dimensions of trust in physicians and a host of individual and national characteristics. The study reveals a complex relationship between trust and how countries fund health care delivery. Trust that physicians uphold their fiduciary duty to patients is significantly stronger in countries with predominantly tax-funded primary care systems. Conversely, both fiduciary trust and competence trust are weaker where out-of-pocket payments comprise a greater percentage of total health spending. Finally, individuals who report they are in better health are more likely to trust physicians.
{"title":"International variations in fiduciary and competence trust of physicians: A multilevel study","authors":"Robert R. Martin","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1684302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1684302","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how public trust in physicians varies across two primary dimensions: trust in physicians' technical competence and in their fiduciary duty to prioritise patients' interests above their own. While prior empirical studies explain variations in trust of physicians primarily by focusing on patients' individual characteristics, trust differences across national borders remain underexplored. This study utilises nationally representative survey data from 26 countries and data from national-level collections to investigate the correlates of both dimensions of trust. Multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis reveals associations between the two dimensions of trust in physicians and a host of individual and national characteristics. The study reveals a complex relationship between trust and how countries fund health care delivery. Trust that physicians uphold their fiduciary duty to patients is significantly stronger in countries with predominantly tax-funded primary care systems. Conversely, both fiduciary trust and competence trust are weaker where out-of-pocket payments comprise a greater percentage of total health spending. Finally, individuals who report they are in better health are more likely to trust physicians.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"23 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1684302","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42395098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2020.1804240
Guido Möllering
It feels strange to introduce this issue of Journal of Trust Research (JTR) as its content was created before COVID-19 hit us all, but one is tempted to read it through a Corona lens. And, once aga...
{"title":"Communicating (about) trust","authors":"Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2020.1804240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2020.1804240","url":null,"abstract":"It feels strange to introduce this issue of Journal of Trust Research (JTR) as its content was created before COVID-19 hit us all, but one is tempted to read it through a Corona lens. And, once aga...","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2020.1804240","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44231874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1689826
J. Wubs-Mrozewicz
ABSTRACT This paper puts forward the argument that the concept of the language of trust and trustworthiness can be a useful way of understanding what trust means in specific situations. This concept refers to linguistic devices – verbal and non-verbal – which purposefully convey trust and create a foundation for continuing or improving relations. The concept has been developed based on research into relations between premodern merchants and their urban governments. In this context, the language of trust has emerged from historical sources as a tool which was used with great skill. By studying the form, the functions and the content of the language of trust in a concrete setting, contemporary or historical, we can grasp what can constitute the basis for trust and trustworthiness. The second argument proposed here is that, by pointing to the foundations of trust, the language of trust reveals the core values of an individual, a group or a society at a given time and place.
{"title":"The concept of language of trust and trustworthiness: (Why) history matters","authors":"J. Wubs-Mrozewicz","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1689826","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1689826","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper puts forward the argument that the concept of the language of trust and trustworthiness can be a useful way of understanding what trust means in specific situations. This concept refers to linguistic devices – verbal and non-verbal – which purposefully convey trust and create a foundation for continuing or improving relations. The concept has been developed based on research into relations between premodern merchants and their urban governments. In this context, the language of trust has emerged from historical sources as a tool which was used with great skill. By studying the form, the functions and the content of the language of trust in a concrete setting, contemporary or historical, we can grasp what can constitute the basis for trust and trustworthiness. The second argument proposed here is that, by pointing to the foundations of trust, the language of trust reveals the core values of an individual, a group or a society at a given time and place.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"107 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1689826","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49298551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1653767
Reuven Shapira
ABSTRACT Earlier ascending/descending trust spirals have been explained by the job discretion allowed to employees by managers; few have studied such spirals as this has required a bi-directional longitudinal framework. Such a framework has used ethnographies of managers who ‘jumped’ from other organisations and suffered gaps of knowledge that curbed their psychological safety. Gap-exposing vulnerable involvement in locals’ deliberations would have been required for mutual trust building. These managers were mostly detached or autocratic and generated descending trust spirals which barred locals’ knowledge-sharing. In their ignorance they used immoral subterfuge, furthered distrust, shaped low-trust cultures, and mismanaged. However, detached/autocratic ‘jumpers’ often managed mediocrely by ‘riding’ on the successes of trusted vulnerably involved mid-levelers. Only a few ‘jumpers’ generated ascending mutual trust spirals by vulnerable involvement, learned from and with locals, and succeeded by shaping high-trust innovation-prone cultures. Contextual factors helped explain choices of practicing/avoiding vulnerable involvement and generating ascending/ descending trust spirals. Further study of these choices and these factors is suggested.
{"title":"‘Jumper’ managers’ vulnerable involvement/avoidance and trust/distrust spirals","authors":"Reuven Shapira","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1653767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1653767","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Earlier ascending/descending trust spirals have been explained by the job discretion allowed to employees by managers; few have studied such spirals as this has required a bi-directional longitudinal framework. Such a framework has used ethnographies of managers who ‘jumped’ from other organisations and suffered gaps of knowledge that curbed their psychological safety. Gap-exposing vulnerable involvement in locals’ deliberations would have been required for mutual trust building. These managers were mostly detached or autocratic and generated descending trust spirals which barred locals’ knowledge-sharing. In their ignorance they used immoral subterfuge, furthered distrust, shaped low-trust cultures, and mismanaged. However, detached/autocratic ‘jumpers’ often managed mediocrely by ‘riding’ on the successes of trusted vulnerably involved mid-levelers. Only a few ‘jumpers’ generated ascending mutual trust spirals by vulnerable involvement, learned from and with locals, and succeeded by shaping high-trust innovation-prone cultures. Contextual factors helped explain choices of practicing/avoiding vulnerable involvement and generating ascending/ descending trust spirals. Further study of these choices and these factors is suggested.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"226 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1653767","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45737056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1678853
Guido Möllering
One important reason why trust and trustworthiness should not be confounded (e.g. Hardin, 2002) is that the latter focuses our attention mainly on the trustee and away from the trustor. Even when we are careful to talk about ‘perceived trustworthiness’ (e.g. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 715, Figure 1, emphasis added) – which should convey that it is up to trustors to interpret any cues of trustworthiness – there is a tendency to see trust mainly as a result of the trustees’ given characteristics, especially the likelihood they will honour trust. Similarly, the ‘standard’ survey question used by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists and others (see, e.g. Uslaner, 2015) to the present day asks respondents, if they think ‘most people can be trusted’. The question is thus phrased with reference to the trustee side, instead of checking the trustor side and probing, for example, if ‘most people are willing to trust’ or at least the respondents themselves are ‘mostly willing to trust’. Somewhat paradoxically, answers to the widely used ‘standard’ question are actually supposed to tell us something about the trustors answering (their propensity to trust, see also the comments on Patent & Searle, 2019 below) rather than about the actual trustworthiness of all those potential trustees out there. Who are ‘most people’ supposed to be in the first place (see Delhey, Newton, & Welzel, 2011 on the ‘radius of trust’ problem)? Still, the trustors’ (propensity to) trust is framed primarily as a matter of trustee trustworthiness, obscuring any other factors that might influence the trustors’ trustfulness and actual trusting actions. Trustworthiness and trustfulness go together, of course, especially if we do not merely see them as static dispositions but as dynamic accomplishments in trusting relationships. However, researchers tend to be preoccupied with trustworthiness. This has not always been so and it may well be the case that early trust research focused too much on trustors and individual traits that would explain their willingness to trust (Rotter, 1967; Wrightsman, 1966) so that later trust research went the other way and examined mainly the trustees’ incentives or inclinations to be trustworthy. Jones and Shah (2016) provide a very helpful analysis of how the ‘locus of trust’ may shift from trustor to trustee to dyadic influences, which unfortunately still refers mainly to the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness as the dependent variables instead of also devising a model of the trustor’s trustfulness. In this vein, Lu, Kong, Ferrin, and Dirks (2017) present evidence that trustor attributes, along with shared attributes but not trustee attributes, influence trust in negotiations. Hence I am glad to announce that the current issue of Journal of Trust Research (JTR) contains articles that put a spotlight on the trustor again. For sure they do a lot more than this and they all contribute various valuable insights beyond this
不应混淆信任和可信度的一个重要原因是（例如Hardin，2002），后者主要将我们的注意力集中在受托人身上，而不是委托人。即使我们谨慎地谈论“感知可信度”（例如，Mayer，Davis，&Schoorman，1995，第715页，图1，重点添加）——这应该传达出由委托人来解释任何可信度的线索——也有一种倾向，认为信任主要是受托人特定特征的结果，尤其是他们尊重信任的可能性。同样，心理学家、社会学家、政治学家、经济学家和其他人至今使用的“标准”调查问题（例如，见Uslaner，2015）询问受访者，他们是否认为“大多数人都可以信任”。因此，这个问题的措辞是参考受托方，而不是检查委托方，例如，如果“大多数人愿意信任”，或者至少受访者自己“大多愿意信任”。有点矛盾的是，对广泛使用的“标准”问题的回答实际上应该告诉我们一些关于受托人回答的事情（他们的信任倾向，另见下文对Patent&Searle，2019的评论），而不是关于所有潜在受托人的实际可信度。“大多数人”首先应该是谁（见Delhey，Newton和Welzel，2011年关于“信任半径”问题）？尽管如此，委托人的（信任倾向）主要被定义为受托人的可信度问题，掩盖了可能影响委托人信任和实际信任行为的任何其他因素。当然，值得信赖和值得信赖是相辅相成的，尤其是如果我们不仅将它们视为静态的倾向，而且将其视为信任关系中的动态成就。然而，研究人员往往专注于可信度。事实并非总是如此，早期的信托研究很可能过于关注委托人和解释他们信任意愿的个人特征（Rotter，1967；Wrightsman，1966），以至于后来的信托研究走上了另一条路，主要考察受托人的动机或值得信赖的倾向。Jones和Shah（2016）对“信任点”如何从委托人转移到受托人再到二元影响进行了非常有用的分析，不幸的是，二元影响仍然主要指感知可信度的维度作为因变量，而不是设计委托人的信任模型。在这种情况下，Lu、Kong、Ferrin和Dirks（2017）提出了证据，证明委托人属性以及共享属性而非受托人属性在谈判中影响信任。因此，我很高兴地宣布，最新一期的《信任研究杂志》（JTR）包含了一些文章，这些文章再次将焦点放在了委托人身上。当然，他们所做的远不止于此，他们都在我选择在这里指出的这一方面之外贡献了各种有价值的见解，但我相信所有作者都会同意，他们的特定故事尤其围绕着委托人，而不仅仅是受托人。在下面更详细地展示他们的贡献之前，编辑团队有一个好消息。JTR现已列入修订后的澳大利亚商业院长理事会（ABDC）期刊质量列表(https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/)。加入申请由我们在澳大利亚的同事Tyler Okimoto、Nicole Gillespie、Matthew Hornsey、Bart de Jong、Steven Lui、Bo Bernhard Nielsen、Natalia Nikolova和Michael Rosemann提交并签署。以下领导也提供了强有力的支持
{"title":"Putting a spotlight on the trustor in trust research","authors":"Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1678853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1678853","url":null,"abstract":"One important reason why trust and trustworthiness should not be confounded (e.g. Hardin, 2002) is that the latter focuses our attention mainly on the trustee and away from the trustor. Even when we are careful to talk about ‘perceived trustworthiness’ (e.g. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 715, Figure 1, emphasis added) – which should convey that it is up to trustors to interpret any cues of trustworthiness – there is a tendency to see trust mainly as a result of the trustees’ given characteristics, especially the likelihood they will honour trust. Similarly, the ‘standard’ survey question used by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists and others (see, e.g. Uslaner, 2015) to the present day asks respondents, if they think ‘most people can be trusted’. The question is thus phrased with reference to the trustee side, instead of checking the trustor side and probing, for example, if ‘most people are willing to trust’ or at least the respondents themselves are ‘mostly willing to trust’. Somewhat paradoxically, answers to the widely used ‘standard’ question are actually supposed to tell us something about the trustors answering (their propensity to trust, see also the comments on Patent & Searle, 2019 below) rather than about the actual trustworthiness of all those potential trustees out there. Who are ‘most people’ supposed to be in the first place (see Delhey, Newton, & Welzel, 2011 on the ‘radius of trust’ problem)? Still, the trustors’ (propensity to) trust is framed primarily as a matter of trustee trustworthiness, obscuring any other factors that might influence the trustors’ trustfulness and actual trusting actions. Trustworthiness and trustfulness go together, of course, especially if we do not merely see them as static dispositions but as dynamic accomplishments in trusting relationships. However, researchers tend to be preoccupied with trustworthiness. This has not always been so and it may well be the case that early trust research focused too much on trustors and individual traits that would explain their willingness to trust (Rotter, 1967; Wrightsman, 1966) so that later trust research went the other way and examined mainly the trustees’ incentives or inclinations to be trustworthy. Jones and Shah (2016) provide a very helpful analysis of how the ‘locus of trust’ may shift from trustor to trustee to dyadic influences, which unfortunately still refers mainly to the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness as the dependent variables instead of also devising a model of the trustor’s trustfulness. In this vein, Lu, Kong, Ferrin, and Dirks (2017) present evidence that trustor attributes, along with shared attributes but not trustee attributes, influence trust in negotiations. Hence I am glad to announce that the current issue of Journal of Trust Research (JTR) contains articles that put a spotlight on the trustor again. For sure they do a lot more than this and they all contribute various valuable insights beyond this","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1678853","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47857582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1633337
Tine Bentzen
ABSTRACT In the wake of New Public Management reforms, the prospect of increasing task performance by building trust within public organisations has awoken renewed interest in the public sector. The focus has, however, predominantly been on strengthening leaders’ trust in employees by offering the latter greater autonomy, while employees’ decisions to accept and return trust have received less attention. The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual framework for studying how interactional and institutional trust interplay when employees in public organisations respond to leaders’ attempts to build trust by offering them greater autonomy. The conceptual framework is applied to a case study conducted in Copenhagen Municipality, which is actively engaged in a reform to strengthen trust. The results support the proposition that the optimal conditions for employees to accept offers of greater autonomy occur when they experience both high interactional and high institutional trust. However, the case study also illustrates that other factors such as horizontal trust, professional confidence and available resources also affect employees’ willingness to accept offers of greater autonomy.
{"title":"The birdcage is open, but will the bird fly? How interactional and institutional trust interplay in public organisations","authors":"Tine Bentzen","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1633337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1633337","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the wake of New Public Management reforms, the prospect of increasing task performance by building trust within public organisations has awoken renewed interest in the public sector. The focus has, however, predominantly been on strengthening leaders’ trust in employees by offering the latter greater autonomy, while employees’ decisions to accept and return trust have received less attention. The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual framework for studying how interactional and institutional trust interplay when employees in public organisations respond to leaders’ attempts to build trust by offering them greater autonomy. The conceptual framework is applied to a case study conducted in Copenhagen Municipality, which is actively engaged in a reform to strengthen trust. The results support the proposition that the optimal conditions for employees to accept offers of greater autonomy occur when they experience both high interactional and high institutional trust. However, the case study also illustrates that other factors such as horizontal trust, professional confidence and available resources also affect employees’ willingness to accept offers of greater autonomy.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"185 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1633337","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42458758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1675074
Volker Patent, R. Searle
ABSTRACT In a rapidly changing and dynamic world, individuals’ propensity to trust is likely to become an increasingly important facet for understanding human behaviour, yet its measurement has mostly been unexplored. We undertake the first systematic qualitative survey of propensity to trust scales using qualitative meta-analysis methodology to review the literature (1966–2018) and identify 26 measures and their applications in 179 studies. Using content analysis, we thematically organise these scales into six thematic areas and discuss the emerging implications. We find that while most of these scales reflect propensity to trust in terms of a positive belief in human nature, other themes include general trust, role expectations, institutional trust, cautiousness and other personality attributes. We reveal significant methodological concerns regarding several scales and argue for more considered selection of scales for use in research. We examine the case for multidimensionality in measures of propensity to trust used within organisational research. Rather than treating a lack of generalisability of findings in existing organisational studies as purely a problem of measurement design, we instead outline an agenda for further conceptual and empirical study.
{"title":"Qualitative meta-analysis of propensity to trust measurement","authors":"Volker Patent, R. Searle","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1675074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1675074","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a rapidly changing and dynamic world, individuals’ propensity to trust is likely to become an increasingly important facet for understanding human behaviour, yet its measurement has mostly been unexplored. We undertake the first systematic qualitative survey of propensity to trust scales using qualitative meta-analysis methodology to review the literature (1966–2018) and identify 26 measures and their applications in 179 studies. Using content analysis, we thematically organise these scales into six thematic areas and discuss the emerging implications. We find that while most of these scales reflect propensity to trust in terms of a positive belief in human nature, other themes include general trust, role expectations, institutional trust, cautiousness and other personality attributes. We reveal significant methodological concerns regarding several scales and argue for more considered selection of scales for use in research. We examine the case for multidimensionality in measures of propensity to trust used within organisational research. Rather than treating a lack of generalisability of findings in existing organisational studies as purely a problem of measurement design, we instead outline an agenda for further conceptual and empirical study.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"136 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1675074","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48281294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：