defining trust at organisational level

“Trust may be defined as confidence in the reliability of a person or system, regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where that confidence expresses a faith in the probity or love of another, or in correctness of abstract principles.”

(Giddens 1990, 34)

Trust is an elusive concept to define. The trust definition by Anthony Giddens (1990, 34) is applied in this case study because trust is explored from an organisa-tional level perspective. Organisaorganisa-tional level trust is found in Giddens’ definition (1990, 34) referring to the concept of “system trust”. In a university organisation we find knowledge, ability, traditions, routines, integrity, rituals and benevolence which resonate with ontological security and a sense of trust.

In economic and organisation theories, trust has been conceded to be the most efficient mechanism for governing transactions (Blomqvist 1995, 3). As Bachmann (2006, 399) states, trust is a resource in organising individual and organisational relationships. Trust can save transaction costs (dei Ottati 1994; Zaheer et al. 1998) because expenditures, such as monitoring efforts, as well as time and emotional disadvantages are reduced (Bachmann 2006, 399). Thus, more efficient manage-ment is achieved. Trust (Zaheer et al. 1998, 141) can also be a source of competitive advantage (Gulati 1995; Barney & Hansen 1995).

There is no need for trust in two situations. If there is a situation of the per-fect knowledge or it there is a situation of the complete ignorance, they would eliminate the need for trust (Möllering 2001, 406). Thus, in a situation of total ignorance, it is possible to have only faith or to gamble. On the other hand, in the case of perfect information and knowledge, trust is replaced by rational calcula-tion (Blomqvist 1995, 10).

The concept linked to trust is confidence. When discussing the nature of trust, Möllering (2001, 406) cites Simmel (1950) declaring ‘confidence is intermediate be-tween knowledge and ignorance’. The notion of risk separates the concept of con-fidence from trust. Mayer et al. (1995, 713) note that Luhmann (1988) argued trust differ from confidence because trust requires a previous engagement on a per-son’s part, recognizing and accepting that risk exists. Therefore, the trustor has an explicit recognition of risk. despite the risk, the trustor has ‘the willingness to be vulnerable’ which is defined as trust according to Mayer et al. (1995, 712).

Trust in symbolic tokens or expert systems, as Giddens (1990, 33-34) states,

‘rests upon faith in the correctness of principles of which one is ignorant, not upon faith in the good intentions of others,’ (Giddens 1990, 33-34). Giddens continues that ‘trust in persons is always to some degree relevant to faith in systems, but concerns their proper working rather than their operation as such,’ (Giddens 1990, 33-34).

The transformative nature of human action is characteristic to modern soci-ety. Modern social institutions and organisations are dynamic. As Giddens notes (1990, 34) ‘The concept of risk replaces that of fortuna.’ and continues ‘The idea of

change, in its modern senses, emerges at the same time as that of risk,’ (Giddens 1990, 34). Therefore as Giddens (1990, 35) continues ‘Anyone who takes a “cal-culated risk” is aware of the threat or threats which a specific course of action brings into play.’

Giddens (1990, 35) notes that risk and trust are intertwined. Trust serves to reduce or minimize the dangers or risks. The experience of security usually rests upon a balance of trust and acceptable risk. As Giddens states (1990, 35) ‘In all trust settings, acceptable risk falls under the heading of “weak inductive knowl-edge”’. Therefore, as Giddens (1990, 35) notes, there is a balance between trust and the calculation of risk. What is assessed as ‘“acceptable” risk varies in dif-ferent contexts, but is usually central in sustaining trust,’ as Giddens (1990, 35) continues. Giddens (1990, 36) stresses that the discussion of the definition of trust does not define the opposite of trust. He further states, ‘the opposite of trust is not simply mistrust,’ (Giddens 1990, 35).

The definition of trust by Mayer et al. (1995, 712) is widely cited in organisa-tional studies;

“… the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectations that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irre-spective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.“ (Mayer et al., 1995, 712)

There is also popular trust definition used among researchers by Rousseau et al.

(1998, 395);

“a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another.” (Rousseau et al., 1998, 395)

The trust development process is examined at an organisational level in this study. Therefore, a definition of an organisation is presented. It seems that the explicit definition of an organisation is easier to make that it is for the concept trust. The following is one example according to Hall & Tolbert (2005, 4-5) and is applicable to a university organisation;

“An organisation is a collectivity with a relatively identifiable boundary, a normative order (rules), ranks of authority (hierarchy), communications systems, and membership coordinat-ing systems (procedures); this collectivity exists on a relatively continuous basis, in environ-ments, and engages in activities that are usually related to a set of goals; the activities have outcomes for organisational members, for the organisation itself, and for society.” (Hall &

Tolbert, 2005, 4-5)

On the other hand, an organisation can be defined from the perspective of ‘or-ganising’ as a process (Mumby and Clair (1997) or ‘organisational becoming’

(Tsoukas and Chia 2002) stated in Fairclough (2005, 917):

“…organisations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse. This is not to claim that organisations are “nothing but” discourse, but rather that discourse is the principal means by which organisation members create a coherent social reality that frames their sense of who they are.” (Mumby and Clair 1997)

As there are multiple levels in an organisation, trust also operates at different levels. Trust can be explored at the individual, team and organisational levels of analysis (Fulmer & Gelfand 2012, 1168). In this research, trust is analysed at the organisational level. The university organisation is seen as an important internal factor (Bachmann & Inkpen 2011) itself for the trust development in this research.

Therefore, the trust definition proposed by Fulmer & Gelfand (2012) concern-ing trust in an organisation at the organisational level is partly applicable in this research. Trust is defined by Fulmer & Gelfand (2012, 1174) as follows:

“a shared psychological state among organisational members comprising willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of an organisation.” (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012, 1174)

The definition of trust as a “shared psychological state” is not totally feasible in this study. This is because the dynamic perspective of trust development re-quires a process view and the static perspective of trust as “psychological state”

is only party fitting. Therefore, trust is viewed as trusting (Möllering 2013, 286).

Trusting as a process is linked to the trust definition by Mayer et al (1995, 712)

‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable’ and can be interpreted according to Möllering (2013, 286) as how such a willingness is generated, maintained, applied and maybe lost in an organisation.

Blomqvist (1995, 24) notes that the time-dimension is robust in trusting. Trust between partners could be seen as a bridge between their past experiences and anticipated future (Salmon 1994). The level of trust in a relationship is constantly transforming as trust might grow or wither (Blomqvist 1995, 24).

When two university organisations merge, a ‘leap of faith’ has been taken. The risk is accepted. According to Möllering (2006, 110), there is a process that enables actors to cope with uncertainty and vulnerability. Possible doubts are suspended and the other party is assumed to be trustworthy. As Bachmann & Inkpen (2011, 284) note, through ‘a leap of faith’, trust transforms uncertainty into the assess-able risk that a trustor is prepared to accept and thus creates opportunities for an interaction which might otherwise not exist. Therefore, trust may be defined according to Möllering (2006, 111) as:

“Trust is an ongoing process of building on reason, routine and reflexivity, suspending irreducible social vulnerability and uncertainty as if they were favourable resolved, and maintaining thereby a state of favourable expectation towards the actions and intentions of more or less specific others.” (Möllering 2006, 111)