The Emergence of knowledge-based trust

As the relationship continues, the members of the two universities get to know and gain knowledge about each other. The information is generated during the interaction with the other party to form a basis for trust. Knowledge-based trust is grounded in the other’s predictability. during the history of interaction, in-formation is gathered that allows one party to expect the other party to behave trustworthily (Lewicki & Bunker 1996, 121).

Cooperation is needed in a transforming university organisation. The new col-leagues from the other campus are introduced. The ability to discursively reflect on contemporary working methods is needed. Routinisation and tacit knowledge guides the work and common jargon and practices are developed. This brings challenges to the transforming organisation.

There is a need to unite the way of doing things in a new organisation. This conforming of the procedures entails communication between the two parties.

While the concepts and manners of the former organisation are still in mind forming new and common ways of doing things is challenging and can lead to conflicts between members of the parties (organisation). When uniting two organ-isations, the way of speaking about the same things (concepts) varies. Learning the new organisational jargon and practices requires effort by the parties.

There are different ways of interacting between parties in a new organisation.

The example of practical differences mentioned by the rector was the separate IT-programmes. As the new organisation was formed after the merger, common IT-programmes were introduced. Besides learning to get along their new col-leagues, members of the organisation need to learn new skills. The trust level of the workers may decline because the domain of ability may change overnight;

yesterday you may have been an expert and the next day a novice in your profes-sion. The building of trust is needed at an organisational level to bring back the trust level of the workers in their abilities in the context of the new organisation.

In the new university organisation, e-communication procedures were utilised because the campuses were situated far apart. Videoconferencing, e-learning and communication technology were all used in the new organisation. To be able to operate fruitfully via video-conferencing, the other party has to be known and fa-miliar. That is why the personal contacts and interaction between the members of the parties must be organised in a new organisation. As the familiarity increases, negotiation via video conferencing becomes easier. The familiarity enhances trust (Luhmann 1979 and Möllering 2006, 94). The more there is trust between members of the parties the more productive the co-operation becomes. As Savolainen states (2014, 258), trust building creates added value benefiting the entire organisation, as a competitive advantage strongly rests on creating and sharing knowledge.

Trust at an organisational level (‘system trust’, Giddens 1990) has a very im-portant impact on trust building processes which include two parties (i.e. two main campuses). From this point of view, as Bachman & Inkpen (2011, 283) note, trust may be conceptualised as an ‘organising principle’ (McEvily et al. 2003) or an efficient means to coordinate expectations and interaction in relationships.

Organisations are most in need of co-operation from their members during times of organisational change. (Tyler 2003, 567)

As the members of the new organisation do not know each other, the benevo-lence of the other partner is not fully trusted. There are suspicions concerning the intentions of the members from the other campus. There is also insecurity towards the rector about his willingness and intentions towards supporting both of the main campuses, as well as the third campus in Savonlinna. The aspect of benevolence becomes more ingrained as the members of the organisation get to know each other and gain more knowledge about each other’s’ behaviour. The trust in the rector’s benevolence increases during longitudinal cooperation.

Novel and common working methods need to be found. If there is trust in an organisation it shows in a positive work orientation (Savolainen 2011) and it enables the transaction costs of the omitting new working methods to diminish.

Sydow (2006, 379) Trust also eases the communication (Tyler 2003, 567; Savolainen

& Lopez-Fresno 2012) about the work procedures with new members of the other campus. The harmonizing process is enhanced. The rector builds trust by offer-ing the general elements of interaction within the university organisation.

By working together, the colleagues get to know each other beyond the cam-pus barriers. As knowledge-based trust is formed, e-communication can be fully utilised between campuses. As a result, the effectiveness of the communication benefits the new organisation. As the rector states in 2010 that by the autumn all the organs and team had been formed. The grass roots development and coopera-tion, also with labour unions and the Student Union, also proceeds. Thereby a larger amount of colleagues will get to know each other beyond the campus bar-riers. The rector states (2010) that after the first contact and familiarisation, remote access works well as a natural communication platform. The knowledge-based trust development is illustrated in Figure 17 in a timeline during the commitment process in the context of the merger of two university organisations.

The simultaneous changes that the new organisation faces are confusing and the members of the community cannot separate the changes caused by the uni-versity reform from the changes caused by the merger (2010). It is obvious (2010) that there are a lot of changes that would have occurred anyway because of the university reform even if there would have been no merger.

In this execution stage (Ring & Van de Ven 1994, 98), the commitments and rules of action are put into effect. Initially, formally designated role behaviour by the parties reduces uncertainty when they implement commitments, and it makes interactions between the parties predictable. Through a series of role interactions, the parties also become more familiar with one another as people. Thus, they may increasingly begin to rely on interpersonal, as opposed to inter-role, relationships (Ring & Van de Ven 1994, 98).

The rector ends the history of the University of Joensuu and begins the his-tory of the University of Eastern Finland in 2009. The common hishis-tory of the new university is counted from 1966 when the three universities in Eastern Finland were founded.

Figure 17: Emergence of knowledge-based trust in the ‘new’ organisation after a merger

The rector builds trust in the new organisation by promoting positive perceptions and a trusting state of mind for the future in 2010. The rector believes in a bet-ter future for the new university organisation. The new university organisation, being larger and more professionally managed, will meet the future challenges better than the former two organisations by themselves – and ‘the voice of the bigger organisation will be heard with a more sensitive ear.’ (2010)

The trust building process is enhanced by creating common and novel tradi-tions. There is a new and permanent tradition concerning the semester opening ceremony. The teacher of the year will be announced in the ceremony. The rector states in 2010 that this way, the importance of teaching as the other core mission of the new organisation is emphasised.

There is a new sound of music in the second opening ceremony of the new organisation – jazz. The rector discusses the nature of the university organisa-tion. The strength of the university institute depends upon its continuity. The university does not follow the fashion and trends in society. On the other hand, it is natural for the university institute to be open –minded and have the ability to reform. “Therefore, it is important for us every now and then to shake out our old routines.” (2011)

A novel tradition to the opening ceremony is added in 2012. There is a campus festival after the ceremony. The festival gathers together the students and staff in a natural way. The festival benefits the integration of international students to the local university community. The interaction is easier in a festival style and relaxing situation.

University of Eastern Finland

2008 2009 Knowledge-based trust

Commitment

Trust decline with transforming domain of ability;

novel lingos, practices and routines Trust building: novel common traditions and continuity; familiarity

Novel common interaction and communication;

predictability

As two university organisations merge forming one entity, there is lot of learn-ing needed in the new organisation. The rector states in an interview (2014) that the greatest challenge was to unite the administration and scientific cultures of the former university organisations. This is due to differences between these cultures in the former two organisations. On the other hand, the rector notes (interview 2014) that the cultural differences within the administration and sci-entific cultures were perhaps not that deep after all. Otherwise, the adjustment process would not have been as smooth and amalgamated as it appeared from the rector’s perspective.

6.2.3 Two becoming as one – the emergence of identification-based trust The merger between the two universities in Eastern Finland can be considered as a voluntary merger. There was a full reason to expect a relative smooth merger process according to Tirronen et al. (2016, 180). But the complexity of the merger process became evident only after actual merger in 2010 as Tirronen et al. (2016, 180) note.

The complexity seemed to be related to the divergent academic cultures in the two merging universities, as Tirronen et al. (2016, 181) state. There were also issues on how the merger was initiated and communicated by the management in the ‘new’ university.

The academic, administrative and management culture at Faculty (and dis-cipline) level was very different in the University of Joensuu and the University of Kuopio. There are challenges to merge divergent cultures, and to create a shared academic culture as well as to bring internal coherence to the merged university. The integration is particularly demanding when historically and sym-bolically non-complementary cultures are merged. Cultural elements are deeply embedded in academic institutions, and therefore they have a great influence on institutions’ everyday activities. disciplines have their distinctive cultural characteristics, due to which they differ both on social behaviour and on their epistemological considerations. The significance of disciplinary cultures is being largely ignored in university merger practices, as also seemed to be the situation in the context of the merger between the University of Joensuu and the University of Kuopio. While the culture in the University of Kuopio, with the strong Faculty of Medicine, could be characterised as overriding, straightforward and manage-rial, the culture of Faculties of education and social science at the University of Joensuu was rather negotiating and collegial. The ‘new’ university was develop-ing a ‘virtual culture’ aimdevelop-ing to achieve technological and social modernisation.

(Tirronen et al. 2016, 180-181)

The after-merger integration process entails the emergence of the mutual understanding concerning the other party’s desires and intentions. At this third stage, referred as identification-based-trust, trust exists because the par-ties effectively understand and appreciate each other’s wants; this mutual un-derstanding is developed to the point that each party can effectively act for the other (Lewicki & Bunker 1996, 122). There are still aspects such as calculus

and knowledge which form the basis for trust. Identification based trust also contains elements of feelings (Child 1998; McAllister 1995) and perceptions.

(Möllering 2006, 89-90).

Trust is initiated and develops in the transforming university organisation (trustee) on the basis of the cognitive evaluation of the organisation’s trustwor-thiness. Benevolence is the one of the three factors of trustworthiness presented by Mayer et al. (1995, 718-719). Benevolence includes the notion that the trustee wishes to do good, rather (Schoorman et. al 2007, 345) than having an opportunist motive, and has an attachment to the trustor.

A common organisational ethos (Fairclough 1992) concerning the aspect of benevolence in relation to the trustworthiness of the transforming university organisation could be found from at least two perspectives. First, the idea of benevolence is found in the universities Act (558/2009): “the mission of the uni-versities is to promote free research and academic … education, to provide higher education based on research, and to educate students to serve their country and humanity.” And additionally, as follows: “The universities must arrange their ac-tivities so as to assure a high international standard in research, education and teaching in conformity with ethical principles and good scientific practices.” Therefore, the university organisation’s basic ethos could be perceived as benevolence (i.e.

for the good).

Secondly, the common organisational ethos (Fairclough 1992) concerning the aspect of benevolence in relation to trustworthiness concerns the core educa-tional fields in both of the former university organisations. The humanities and education in Joensuu and health care and medicine in Kuopio share a common benevolence – to do good for others, aside from any opportunistic motives. It may be assumed that a teacher, as well as a doctor, wishes the best and has an attachment to the student/patient. Therefore, a common organisational ethos of benevolence may be interpreted to create a basic ground for the trust develop-ment process when two organisations become as one.

In the new university organisation, this means trust in new colleagues and unfamiliar disciplines. When trust exists, the formation of multidisciplinary re-search groups is eased and fruitful cooperation that creates innovative and novel scientific knowledge is possible. The chosen strategy of the University of Eastern Finland, as an international level research university, is financially challenging (2010). There needs to be budgeting for strategic allocations, in order to achieve international level research accomplishments (2010). The humanities, educational and cultural sciences are not evidently economically effective. The rector provides assurance in 2010 that in the future those subjects will be essentially needed in an innovation economy.

In 2012 the rector discusses that “we” have remarkable national education-al missions. One of them is teacher education. The pedagogic science does not belong in the core fields of the classical multidisciplinary research university.

Neither is pedagogy the sexiest field in the marketization driven field of higher education. Nowadays, however, the orientation has changed due to Finland’s

success in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) survey.

There is no reason to focus on pedagogy at every university in Finland, but the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) without any form of pedagogy science is like a ‘lame duck’ (speech 2012).

The rector unfolds the trust building management discourse in the second opening ceremony speech in 2011. The rector discusses the multidisciplinary nature of the new organisation. The civilizing, Humboldt-style, university is multidisciplinary. Although the development process of a civilizing university leads to deeper specialisation, now there is an obvious need for multidisciplinar-ity in the ‘new’ organisation. (2011). As a consequence, there is a special need in the new organisation in two senses: first, to respect the less familiar disciplines and second, to generate genuine cooperation between disciplines and across campuses.

The rector builds trust (2011) by stating that both former universities have a common multidisciplinary history. In the former organisation in Kuopio, there was multidisciplinarity across themes concerning health and the environment.

In the former organisation in Joensuu, multidisciplinarity influenced research with themes concerning education, borders, colour (photonics) and the environ-ment. This discourse also reflects the multidisciplinary strategy later in Chapter 6.3.

The trust building discourse unfolds further (2011). The rector gives an exam-ple of cooperation across disciplines in practice. The scientific border has been crossed between human sciences and natural sciences. This border has been crossed in research by the Environment and Natural Resources Research Group.

The rector stresses that he believes this sort of scientific cooperation across bor-ders is needed on a wider scale in the new organisation.

The rector gives two examples related both to Kuopio campus disciplines and Joensuu campus disciplines. In health sciences valuable contributions are be-ing made by cooperatbe-ing with social sciences, e.g. in geriatric and effective, but still personal caring, healthy life style and sickness. On the other hand, within educational sciences there is a challenge concerning the attractiveness of natural sciences and integrating it into education.

The rector builds trust (2011) in the UEF by stating the elements for the com-petitiveness of the new organisation. The rector expresses discursively some be-musement about the opinions that the campuses should be profiled on the basis of human sciences and natural sciences in the new organisation. This kind of profiling will lead to losing the competitive advantage that has been the major motive for the merger. Multidisciplinarity is the reason for forming the larger units and research groups. Multidisciplinarity brings more volume and impact to strengthen the competitiveness of the new organisation.

The rector states (2011) that the humanities are needed in a democratic society to produce innovations. The economy will not grow without the humanities. The rector add to the facts of his argument by stating that there has also been a lack of innovation in societies where inequality exists.

There is a novel aspect to fund raising within universities after the university reform in Finland. Traditionally, fund raising and donations have not been a part of Finnish university culture. Therefore, there is suspicion towards donations within the university community. There is a fear that donators may influence sci-ence. The rector eases this fear discursively in 2012. The management change at university aims to ensure the accomplishment of the basic missions of the univer-sity; that the teaching and research are public goods and that the resources come from the state budget (tax payers’ money). The rector stresses that fund raising from outside is only a minor portion of the budget of the university and it does not constrain the freedom of teaching and research at the university.

In 2011 the rector discusses the fears of marketization in universities as a consequence of the university reform. The rector presents the opposite view. The university reform aims to ensure the basic missions of the university in the con-temporary era. Education and research in the university are still public goods and the funding is state-based. The donation campaign from the private sector is only a minimal portion of the university budget and it does not endanger the freedom of science or education.

The rector builds trust in the new organisation by promoting the ethos of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF). In 2012 the rector discusses the core priorities of management at the beginning of the UEF organisation. The main priority for the rector and university management is to unite the three campuses of the university as functional, managerial and physical structures. The aim of management is to build a new sense of community. The operational focus at the beginning of the University of Eastern Finland has been integration. The opera-tional, administrative and physical structures of the new organisation need to be harmonized and integrated.

The developing process of the novel (sense of) community within the new organisation has been the main priority of the management. “Even though there is a great deal to be done with the structures of the new organisation, from now on we have to take special care of the competitiveness of the academic core and the good atmosphere in our university.” (2012) A common bond is sensed and felt

The developing process of the novel (sense of) community within the new organisation has been the main priority of the management. “Even though there is a great deal to be done with the structures of the new organisation, from now on we have to take special care of the competitiveness of the academic core and the good atmosphere in our university.” (2012) A common bond is sensed and felt