多层信任:理论和实践的需要

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657
Ashley Fulmer, K. Dirks
{"title":"多层信任:理论和实践的需要","authors":"Ashley Fulmer, K. Dirks","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Levels of analysis has long been identified as a key feature of trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Trust, as a product and driver of a relationship, by definition involves two or more parties (Ferris et al., 2009). Each party’s trust in another is subject to a host of influences across levels of analysis, ranging from dispositions at the individual level and history at the relationship level to norms at the network level and values at the institutional and societal levels, to name a few. The multilevel complexities only increase when we consider trust beyond interpersonal contexts, such as within a team, between different teams, within an organisation, and between different organisations. Despite this inherently multilevel nature, research on trust incorporating multiple levels of analysis remains limited, while research on trust at different levels of analysis, such as trust in teams and organisations, continues to develop independently with little cross-fertilisation (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). This isolation of trust at a single level of analysis ignoring processes and factors from other levels creates non-trivial gaps in our understanding of trust. As a few recent papers show, without a multilevel perspective, we cannot examine critical trust dynamics such as differences in trust within teams and the relationship between interpersonal trust and interorganisational trust. For instance, in a study of teams, De Jong and Dirks (2012) demonstrated how the effect of intra-team trust on team performance is contingent upon the asymmetry in trust between individual dyads. In a study of interorganisational relationships, Vanneste (2016) showed that indirect reciprocity between boundary spanners, where they give to those who give to others, facilitates interorganisational trust between groups of individuals. In addition to this theoretical imperative, from a practical point of view, a multilevel perspective is necessary to appreciate the role of trust in our changing environment. Individuals and institutions are frequently forced to respond to changes driven by factors at multiple levels. For example, trust in institutions has become more challenging as technology and social media change how people come together and share information. Individuals now have opportunities to engage in both formal and informal relationships through social media, and these relationships can change interpretations of the information from institutions as it shapes the trust that develops. Moreover, individuals and organisations face greater competition, and more rapid change in response to competition, which make trust more difficult to establish and maintain. The need to understand how trust functions in these multilevel frameworks continues to grow as trust holds promise to bridge differences across boundaries and through challenges.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multilevel trust: A theoretical and practical imperative\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Fulmer, K. Dirks\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Levels of analysis has long been identified as a key feature of trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Trust, as a product and driver of a relationship, by definition involves two or more parties (Ferris et al., 2009). Each party’s trust in another is subject to a host of influences across levels of analysis, ranging from dispositions at the individual level and history at the relationship level to norms at the network level and values at the institutional and societal levels, to name a few. The multilevel complexities only increase when we consider trust beyond interpersonal contexts, such as within a team, between different teams, within an organisation, and between different organisations. Despite this inherently multilevel nature, research on trust incorporating multiple levels of analysis remains limited, while research on trust at different levels of analysis, such as trust in teams and organisations, continues to develop independently with little cross-fertilisation (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). This isolation of trust at a single level of analysis ignoring processes and factors from other levels creates non-trivial gaps in our understanding of trust. As a few recent papers show, without a multilevel perspective, we cannot examine critical trust dynamics such as differences in trust within teams and the relationship between interpersonal trust and interorganisational trust. For instance, in a study of teams, De Jong and Dirks (2012) demonstrated how the effect of intra-team trust on team performance is contingent upon the asymmetry in trust between individual dyads. In a study of interorganisational relationships, Vanneste (2016) showed that indirect reciprocity between boundary spanners, where they give to those who give to others, facilitates interorganisational trust between groups of individuals. In addition to this theoretical imperative, from a practical point of view, a multilevel perspective is necessary to appreciate the role of trust in our changing environment. Individuals and institutions are frequently forced to respond to changes driven by factors at multiple levels. For example, trust in institutions has become more challenging as technology and social media change how people come together and share information. Individuals now have opportunities to engage in both formal and informal relationships through social media, and these relationships can change interpretations of the information from institutions as it shapes the trust that develops. Moreover, individuals and organisations face greater competition, and more rapid change in response to competition, which make trust more difficult to establish and maintain. The need to understand how trust functions in these multilevel frameworks continues to grow as trust holds promise to bridge differences across boundaries and through challenges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1531657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

长期以来,分析水平一直被认为是信任的一个关键特征(Rousseau、Sitkin、Burt和Camerer,1998;Schooman、Mayer和Davis,2007年)。根据定义,信任作为一种关系的产物和驱动因素,涉及两方或多方(Ferris等人,2009年)。每一方对另一方的信任都会受到不同分析层面的大量影响,从个人层面的性格和关系层面的历史,到网络层面的规范,以及制度和社会层面的价值观,等等。当我们考虑人际环境之外的信任时,多层次的复杂性才会增加,例如团队内部、不同团队之间、组织内部和不同组织之间的信任。尽管这种本质上是多层次的,但结合多层次分析的信任研究仍然有限,而不同分析层次的信任研究,如对团队和组织的信任,继续独立发展,几乎没有交叉影响(Fulmer&Gelfand,2012)。这种在单一分析层面上对信任的孤立,忽略了其他层面的过程和因素,在我们对信任的理解中造成了不小的差距。正如最近的几篇论文所表明的那样,如果没有多层次的视角,我们就无法研究关键的信任动态,如团队内部信任的差异以及人际信任和组织间信任之间的关系。例如,在一项团队研究中,De Jong和Dirks(2012)证明了团队内部信任对团队绩效的影响是如何取决于个体二人组之间信任的不对称性的。在一项关于组织间关系的研究中,Vanneste(2016)表明,边界跨越者之间的间接互惠,即他们给予他人的人,有助于个体群体之间的组织间信任。除了这一理论上的必要性之外,从实践的角度来看,有必要从多层次的角度来理解信任在我们不断变化的环境中的作用。个人和机构经常被迫对多个层面因素驱动的变化做出反应。例如,随着技术和社交媒体改变人们聚在一起分享信息的方式,对机构的信任变得更加具有挑战性。个人现在有机会通过社交媒体建立正式和非正式的关系,这些关系可以改变机构对信息的解释,因为它塑造了发展中的信任。此外,个人和组织面临着更大的竞争,以及应对竞争的更快变化,这使得信任更难建立和维持。了解信任在这些多层次框架中如何发挥作用的需求不断增长,因为信任有望跨越边界和通过挑战弥合分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Multilevel trust: A theoretical and practical imperative
Levels of analysis has long been identified as a key feature of trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Trust, as a product and driver of a relationship, by definition involves two or more parties (Ferris et al., 2009). Each party’s trust in another is subject to a host of influences across levels of analysis, ranging from dispositions at the individual level and history at the relationship level to norms at the network level and values at the institutional and societal levels, to name a few. The multilevel complexities only increase when we consider trust beyond interpersonal contexts, such as within a team, between different teams, within an organisation, and between different organisations. Despite this inherently multilevel nature, research on trust incorporating multiple levels of analysis remains limited, while research on trust at different levels of analysis, such as trust in teams and organisations, continues to develop independently with little cross-fertilisation (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). This isolation of trust at a single level of analysis ignoring processes and factors from other levels creates non-trivial gaps in our understanding of trust. As a few recent papers show, without a multilevel perspective, we cannot examine critical trust dynamics such as differences in trust within teams and the relationship between interpersonal trust and interorganisational trust. For instance, in a study of teams, De Jong and Dirks (2012) demonstrated how the effect of intra-team trust on team performance is contingent upon the asymmetry in trust between individual dyads. In a study of interorganisational relationships, Vanneste (2016) showed that indirect reciprocity between boundary spanners, where they give to those who give to others, facilitates interorganisational trust between groups of individuals. In addition to this theoretical imperative, from a practical point of view, a multilevel perspective is necessary to appreciate the role of trust in our changing environment. Individuals and institutions are frequently forced to respond to changes driven by factors at multiple levels. For example, trust in institutions has become more challenging as technology and social media change how people come together and share information. Individuals now have opportunities to engage in both formal and informal relationships through social media, and these relationships can change interpretations of the information from institutions as it shapes the trust that develops. Moreover, individuals and organisations face greater competition, and more rapid change in response to competition, which make trust more difficult to establish and maintain. The need to understand how trust functions in these multilevel frameworks continues to grow as trust holds promise to bridge differences across boundaries and through challenges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1