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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1649153
E. Roud, A. Gausdal
ABSTRACT Trust has long been identified as an essential component in different disciplines. However, trust in the context of emergency management is a less often researched phenomenon. This article intends to enrich our theoretical understanding of trust by exploring the role of interorganisational trust and the process of trust development across phases of emergency management. To achieve this, a critical case study of the cross-national Arctic Sea region is conducted. The findings reveal that in each phase of emergency management, trust has a critical role to play such as improving coordination, communication, reliability and learning. Moreover, a cross-level framework for trust development is presented in order to illustrate how each phase of emergency management contributes to process theories of trust. The article explicates how the preparation phase contributes to developing interorganisational trust. The response phase contributes significantly to developing swift interorganisational trust. Although the evaluation phase has significant potential to transform this swift and fragile trust into a more resilient interorganisational trust, this potential is underexploited due to the low priority accorded to this phase. The article elaborates on trust in the emergency context and brings the group and project level concept of swift trust to the interorganisational level of analysis.
{"title":"Trust and emergency management: Experiences from the Arctic Sea region","authors":"E. Roud, A. Gausdal","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1649153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1649153","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Trust has long been identified as an essential component in different disciplines. However, trust in the context of emergency management is a less often researched phenomenon. This article intends to enrich our theoretical understanding of trust by exploring the role of interorganisational trust and the process of trust development across phases of emergency management. To achieve this, a critical case study of the cross-national Arctic Sea region is conducted. The findings reveal that in each phase of emergency management, trust has a critical role to play such as improving coordination, communication, reliability and learning. Moreover, a cross-level framework for trust development is presented in order to illustrate how each phase of emergency management contributes to process theories of trust. The article explicates how the preparation phase contributes to developing interorganisational trust. The response phase contributes significantly to developing swift interorganisational trust. Although the evaluation phase has significant potential to transform this swift and fragile trust into a more resilient interorganisational trust, this potential is underexploited due to the low priority accorded to this phase. The article elaborates on trust in the emergency context and brings the group and project level concept of swift trust to the interorganisational level of analysis.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1649153","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47671111","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: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751
Sandra J. Schiemann, Christina Mühlberger, F. D. Schoorman, E. Jonas
ABSTRACT A client's trust in the coach is essential for a well-functioning coaching interaction. This trust depends on the coach's trustworthiness in terms of ability, integrity, and benevolence. In three mixed-method studies, we investigated how these components of trustworthiness were established by the coach asking inexperienced (N1 = 42) and experienced (N2 = 29) coaches as well as clients (N3 = 24). An inductive qualitative content analysis revealed a range of approaches to establish trustworthiness that varied depending on the coach's experience: Inexperienced coaches (Study 1) and clients of inexperienced coaches (Study 3) focused most on the coach's ability, whereas experienced coaches (Study 2) focused most on the coach's benevolence. As the client's autonomy need is important in coaching, questions about the need (Study 2) and its fulfilment (Study 3) were added and it was hypothesised that communicating benevolence is autonomy need supportive. The results revealed that when a coach perceived a higher client autonomy need they focused more on communicating benevolence (Study 2). In accordance, when the client reported that the coach communicated more benevolence they felt more autonomy need fulfilment (Study 3). Thus, communicating benevolence can support the client's autonomy need.
{"title":"Trust me, I am a caring coach: The benefits of establishing trustworthiness during coaching by communicating benevolence","authors":"Sandra J. Schiemann, Christina Mühlberger, F. D. Schoorman, E. Jonas","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A client's trust in the coach is essential for a well-functioning coaching interaction. This trust depends on the coach's trustworthiness in terms of ability, integrity, and benevolence. In three mixed-method studies, we investigated how these components of trustworthiness were established by the coach asking inexperienced (N1 = 42) and experienced (N2 = 29) coaches as well as clients (N3 = 24). An inductive qualitative content analysis revealed a range of approaches to establish trustworthiness that varied depending on the coach's experience: Inexperienced coaches (Study 1) and clients of inexperienced coaches (Study 3) focused most on the coach's ability, whereas experienced coaches (Study 2) focused most on the coach's benevolence. As the client's autonomy need is important in coaching, questions about the need (Study 2) and its fulfilment (Study 3) were added and it was hypothesised that communicating benevolence is autonomy need supportive. The results revealed that when a coach perceived a higher client autonomy need they focused more on communicating benevolence (Study 2). In accordance, when the client reported that the coach communicated more benevolence they felt more autonomy need fulfilment (Study 3). Thus, communicating benevolence can support the client's autonomy need.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42314225","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741
Katherine M. Engelke, V. Hase, Florian Wintterlin
ABSTRACT The rapid advancement of research on trust and distrust in the news media and the plethora of methodological approaches that accompany it leads us to critically reflect the status quo and make suggestions for the road ahead. Following a brief overview of conceptual definitions of trust and distrust as well as of related concepts used in journalism studies, we turn to our main endeavour by presenting measurements used in the field. We identify difficulties in measuring both trust and distrust in journalism and offer suggestions for dealing with them. Specifically, we focus on four main issues: the concept drawn upon for measurement, the employed research design, the object of investigation, and the items and dimensions of measurement. Rather than presenting a finished solution, we hope to advance the methodological consolidation of the field and contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate.
{"title":"On measuring trust and distrust in journalism: Reflection of the status quo and suggestions for the road ahead","authors":"Katherine M. Engelke, V. Hase, Florian Wintterlin","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rapid advancement of research on trust and distrust in the news media and the plethora of methodological approaches that accompany it leads us to critically reflect the status quo and make suggestions for the road ahead. Following a brief overview of conceptual definitions of trust and distrust as well as of related concepts used in journalism studies, we turn to our main endeavour by presenting measurements used in the field. We identify difficulties in measuring both trust and distrust in journalism and offer suggestions for dealing with them. Specifically, we focus on four main issues: the concept drawn upon for measurement, the employed research design, the object of investigation, and the items and dimensions of measurement. Rather than presenting a finished solution, we hope to advance the methodological consolidation of the field and contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46954326","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1567733
Geoffrey A. Hosking
ABSTRACT This book review relays key theoretical points put forward by Nicholas J. Wheeler in his book Trusting Enemies, in particular how face-to-face bonding between state leaders is essential for building trust between states in conflictual relationships. The reviewer, Geoffrey A. Hosking, supports many of the arguments put forward by Wheeler but also challenges some ideas around how identity and suspension played out in trust building in the historical cases presented in the book. He suggests additional explanations and issues, such as the background work of other officials. The review also covers the notion of security communities and highlights possible deeper insights into their development. It ends by pointing out how timely, telling and necessary Wheeler’s analysis is given the current international relation challenges.
{"title":"Trusting enemies: Interpersonal relationships in international conflict, by Nicholas J. Wheeler, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018","authors":"Geoffrey A. Hosking","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1567733","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1567733","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This book review relays key theoretical points put forward by Nicholas J. Wheeler in his book Trusting Enemies, in particular how face-to-face bonding between state leaders is essential for building trust between states in conflictual relationships. The reviewer, Geoffrey A. Hosking, supports many of the arguments put forward by Wheeler but also challenges some ideas around how identity and suspension played out in trust building in the historical cases presented in the book. He suggests additional explanations and issues, such as the background work of other officials. The review also covers the notion of security communities and highlights possible deeper insights into their development. It ends by pointing out how timely, telling and necessary Wheeler’s analysis is given the current international relation challenges.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1567733","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49161045","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730
Christopher S. Calhoun, P. Bobko, J. Gallimore, J. Lyons
ABSTRACT This study provides an initial experimental investigation of the extent to which well-known precursors of interpersonal trust (ability, benevolence, integrity, or ABI) will manifest when assessing trust between a human and a non-human referent (e.g. an automated aid). An additional motivation was the meta-analytic finding that the ABI model only explains about half of the variation in interpersonal trust. Based on a review of interpersonal and automation trust literatures, two additional precursors to trust – transparency and humanness – were identified and studied as exogenous variables (with A, B, and I analysed as explanatory mediators of their relationships to trust). In our experimental task, users interacted with an automated aid in decision-making scenarios to identify suspected insurgents. Results indicated that perceived humanness of the aid significantly correlated with trust in that aid (r = .364). This relationship was explained in part by perceptions of both ability and benevolence/integrity (unit-weighted average) of the aid; the latter finding suggesting that human-like intentionality attributed to the aid was a factor in automation trust. Perceived transparency also significantly correlated with trust (r = .464) although much of this relationship was explained by ability rather than benevolence/integrity. Aid reliability was also varied across the experiment. Interestingly, the explanatory power of benevolence/integrity increased when the aid’s reliability was lower, again suggesting human-like intentionality matters in automation trust models. Research and design considerations from these findings are noted.
{"title":"Linking precursors of interpersonal trust to human-automation trust: An expanded typology and exploratory experiment","authors":"Christopher S. Calhoun, P. Bobko, J. Gallimore, J. Lyons","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study provides an initial experimental investigation of the extent to which well-known precursors of interpersonal trust (ability, benevolence, integrity, or ABI) will manifest when assessing trust between a human and a non-human referent (e.g. an automated aid). An additional motivation was the meta-analytic finding that the ABI model only explains about half of the variation in interpersonal trust. Based on a review of interpersonal and automation trust literatures, two additional precursors to trust – transparency and humanness – were identified and studied as exogenous variables (with A, B, and I analysed as explanatory mediators of their relationships to trust). In our experimental task, users interacted with an automated aid in decision-making scenarios to identify suspected insurgents. Results indicated that perceived humanness of the aid significantly correlated with trust in that aid (r = .364). This relationship was explained in part by perceptions of both ability and benevolence/integrity (unit-weighted average) of the aid; the latter finding suggesting that human-like intentionality attributed to the aid was a factor in automation trust. Perceived transparency also significantly correlated with trust (r = .464) although much of this relationship was explained by ability rather than benevolence/integrity. Aid reliability was also varied across the experiment. Interestingly, the explanatory power of benevolence/integrity increased when the aid’s reliability was lower, again suggesting human-like intentionality matters in automation trust models. Research and design considerations from these findings are noted.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43785958","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1566073
B. Grimpe
ABSTRACT Previous research has shown that trust is often not a given but grows over time, in a process including various steps of trust-building. In a similar and interrelated vein, the context within which trust emerges is not a given but is continuously processed by the actors involved. The paper explores this understudied research area, namely actors’ continuous efforts in shaping the context of (their) trust (in others), and identifies three basic patterns of contextualisation. These are developed from empirical findings from the case of global microfinance. In particular, fund managers’ various trust strategies and associated contextualisation practices, which help them to determine the trustworthiness of a potential or already existing investee, are investigated. Against this backdrop, the paper confirms, refines and extends existing process theories of trust and, in particular, existing research into ‘active trust’. A key contribution consists of a new concept of active trust, for which the term ‘synthesised trustworthiness’ is coined.
{"title":"Attending to the importance of context: Trust as a process in global microfinance","authors":"B. Grimpe","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1566073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1566073","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Previous research has shown that trust is often not a given but grows over time, in a process including various steps of trust-building. In a similar and interrelated vein, the context within which trust emerges is not a given but is continuously processed by the actors involved. The paper explores this understudied research area, namely actors’ continuous efforts in shaping the context of (their) trust (in others), and identifies three basic patterns of contextualisation. These are developed from empirical findings from the case of global microfinance. In particular, fund managers’ various trust strategies and associated contextualisation practices, which help them to determine the trustworthiness of a potential or already existing investee, are investigated. Against this backdrop, the paper confirms, refines and extends existing process theories of trust and, in particular, existing research into ‘active trust’. A key contribution consists of a new concept of active trust, for which the term ‘synthesised trustworthiness’ is coined.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1566073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46530596","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732
Guido Möllering
The Journal of Trust Research (JTR) is growing. Across indicators such as articles handled, downloaded and cited, the rate of growth is around 15% per year according to the Publisher’s Report of January 2019. Beyond plain numbers, which could be even better but are encouraging nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the journal increasingly fulfils its mission to be a truly interdisciplinary forum (Möllering, 2017). Submissions and, indeed, published articles come from an ever wider range of disciplines. Whilst in its founding years JTR relied very much on research coming out of management and organization studies, the journal now also connects strongly with sociology, political science, economics, international relations, communication studies, education research and other fields. This represents a challenge for the JTR Editorial Team in doing justice to the highly diverse submissions received, but it is through the editorial process that we can also encourage authors to integrate insights from other fields, thus to ensure that JTR is not merely multidisciplinary but interor, ideally, transdisciplinary in the new knowledge on trust developed. The current issue, JTR 9(1), is a regular issue in the sense that the articles were not specifically curated around a predefined theme but are simply the next ones in line in our publication pipeline. Nevertheless, as Editor, one looks at the collection and wonders to what extent the new articles presented this time are indicative of some overarching theme that seems to be, or should be, on trust researchers’ minds at the present time. Without claiming a perfect match for every paper included, the topic of power stands out this time. “Power” is probably even more elusive than “trust”, but – if we are prepared to take the additional headaches – it is time to connect the two concepts (again). Research explicitly connecting trust and power is surprisingly rare. Fox (1974), Zand (1997) or Bachmann (2001) can be noted as prominent exceptions. Perhaps in our preoccupation with the relationship between trust and control we have presumed that the latter, control, already includes power, but it is not as simple as that. Trust and power can be seen, for example, as contexts for each other, as functional equivalents (substitutes, supplements) or as an inseparable duality. What about the “constraining prejudice” (Simmel, 1906, p. 473; also translated as “compulsory power”, Simmel 1950, p. 348) of trust? What about the power-infused politics, façades and entrapments of trust (e.g. Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 1998; Möllering & Sydow, 2019; Skinner, Dietz & Weibel, 2014)? In return, all the way from Max Weber to current thinking in fields as diverse as leadership and international politics, it is recognized that power in practice requires elements of trust (e.g. in line with relational conceptions of power such as Giddens, 1984). Like trust (e.g. Fulmer & Dirks, 2018), power is a multilevel phenomenon and thus there is an
{"title":"Connecting trust and power","authors":"Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732","url":null,"abstract":"The Journal of Trust Research (JTR) is growing. Across indicators such as articles handled, downloaded and cited, the rate of growth is around 15% per year according to the Publisher’s Report of January 2019. Beyond plain numbers, which could be even better but are encouraging nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the journal increasingly fulfils its mission to be a truly interdisciplinary forum (Möllering, 2017). Submissions and, indeed, published articles come from an ever wider range of disciplines. Whilst in its founding years JTR relied very much on research coming out of management and organization studies, the journal now also connects strongly with sociology, political science, economics, international relations, communication studies, education research and other fields. This represents a challenge for the JTR Editorial Team in doing justice to the highly diverse submissions received, but it is through the editorial process that we can also encourage authors to integrate insights from other fields, thus to ensure that JTR is not merely multidisciplinary but interor, ideally, transdisciplinary in the new knowledge on trust developed. The current issue, JTR 9(1), is a regular issue in the sense that the articles were not specifically curated around a predefined theme but are simply the next ones in line in our publication pipeline. Nevertheless, as Editor, one looks at the collection and wonders to what extent the new articles presented this time are indicative of some overarching theme that seems to be, or should be, on trust researchers’ minds at the present time. Without claiming a perfect match for every paper included, the topic of power stands out this time. “Power” is probably even more elusive than “trust”, but – if we are prepared to take the additional headaches – it is time to connect the two concepts (again). Research explicitly connecting trust and power is surprisingly rare. Fox (1974), Zand (1997) or Bachmann (2001) can be noted as prominent exceptions. Perhaps in our preoccupation with the relationship between trust and control we have presumed that the latter, control, already includes power, but it is not as simple as that. Trust and power can be seen, for example, as contexts for each other, as functional equivalents (substitutes, supplements) or as an inseparable duality. What about the “constraining prejudice” (Simmel, 1906, p. 473; also translated as “compulsory power”, Simmel 1950, p. 348) of trust? What about the power-infused politics, façades and entrapments of trust (e.g. Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 1998; Möllering & Sydow, 2019; Skinner, Dietz & Weibel, 2014)? In return, all the way from Max Weber to current thinking in fields as diverse as leadership and international politics, it is recognized that power in practice requires elements of trust (e.g. in line with relational conceptions of power such as Giddens, 1984). Like trust (e.g. Fulmer & Dirks, 2018), power is a multilevel phenomenon and thus there is an ","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48834407","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2018.1552592
F. Kroeger
ABSTRACT This contribution takes the 50th anniversary of the original edition of Vertrauen, and the publication of a new translation of Trust and Power, as an opportunity to reconsider Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to, and further promise for, trust research. It demonstrates the manifold ways in which Luhmann’s insights can inform trust research, without therefore having to subscribe to Luhmann’s systems theory as a whole. It focuses on five thematic fields in particular: the fundamental significance of trust, interpersonal vs. system trust, the relationship of trust and distrust, trust as a distinctly social phenomenon, and the relationship of trust and power. For each of these, it finds that while some aspects of Luhmann’s contribution have experienced widespread (if not always explicit) adoption already, others have remained underresearched and hold great promise for further study, making Luhmann’s theory a veritable ‘treasure trove’ for trust research.
{"title":"Unlocking the treasure trove: How can Luhmann’s theory of trust enrich trust research?","authors":"F. Kroeger","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2018.1552592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1552592","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This contribution takes the 50th anniversary of the original edition of Vertrauen, and the publication of a new translation of Trust and Power, as an opportunity to reconsider Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to, and further promise for, trust research. It demonstrates the manifold ways in which Luhmann’s insights can inform trust research, without therefore having to subscribe to Luhmann’s systems theory as a whole. It focuses on five thematic fields in particular: the fundamental significance of trust, interpersonal vs. system trust, the relationship of trust and distrust, trust as a distinctly social phenomenon, and the relationship of trust and power. For each of these, it finds that while some aspects of Luhmann’s contribution have experienced widespread (if not always explicit) adoption already, others have remained underresearched and hold great promise for further study, making Luhmann’s theory a veritable ‘treasure trove’ for trust research.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2018.1552592","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49035640","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：