Trust Building

To be able to understand the role and options of trust in management, we have to admit that trust is a strongly situational phenomenon and varies from one situation to another. Nooteboom (2002) describes it as a four-place predicate where someone has trust in something, in some respect and under some conditions. The question of trust is not the question of whether "to trust or not to trust," but much more relative and conditional. Therefore, the possibility to build trust or the culture of trust is always related at least to a person who would and should trust; a person, who is asked to be trusted; a thing in relation to which trust has been asked, e.g., the person's competence; and further, conditions where and when trust is needed and wanted.

Trust is also a developing and changing variable, which is learned but also lost on the basis of our experiences (Iivonen & Harisalo, 1997). On one hand, trust may produce more trust, although it is often a slow process. On the other hand, mistrust produces more mistrust, and many times it does so very quickly. Trust building is a difficult task because all efforts to produce more trust also include an option to lose trust, which we already have. Shaw (1997) describes this as risking trust because trust cannot grow unless we take risks that may result in distrust. He states: "Trust, however, comes with a price. The more we trust, the more we risk disappointment, if not harm. Trust increases our vulnerability to others; distrust decreases that vulnerability. We thus face competing needs" (p. 28).

Shaw (1997) also presents the concept of a trust threshold, which is needed to keep the balance between trust and risk, and to help protect us from the untrustworthy. The height of the trust threshold has been affected by the situation where the participants are, by those who are giving their trust, and by those who are asking to be trusted. Some situations require a higher trust threshold than others because the risk involved in them is bigger. Some people and organizations giving their trust may have a higher trust threshold than the others because of their own characteristics and experiences. Similarly, a trust threshold may be higher for some people and organizations asking to be trusted because of their own history and reputation.

The question of how and if trust can be built and maintained has been specifically broken down by Lane (1998) into three following sub-questions: First, whether trust can be developed or not. Second, if it is possible, how to maintain and expand trust. Third, how to recognize trust and distinguish it from simulated trust and opportunism. While some authors claim that trust cannot be consciously and intentionally developed and created, others see it possible, although they admit that it is a slow and gradual process. Ciancutti and Steding (2000) even talk about leadership organizations where leadership consciously and intentionally creates a culture of earned trust based on closure and commitment. Trust building has been described as paying attention to trust building processes, trust principles and trust imperatives.

Trust Building Process

Trust building processes refer to various stages where trust building moves on from one stage to another. Nooteboom (2002) describes this by a three-stage model of trust. In the three-stage model, the first stage is control in the absence of trust. In this stage one must take into account the possibility of opportunism and lack of competence, and move on with small steps and little risk, or even use control to manage the risk. The second stage is assessing trustworthiness and developing tolerance levels of trust. In this stage one obtains more knowledge and experience for setting tolerance levels of trust, and finds out under which conditions trust works. However, at the same time, when some scope of trust has been allowed, the option of reverting to control — if it is needed — has been preserved. The third stage is widening tolerance levels on the basis of identification. According to Nooteboom, this stage is based on the development of shared cognitive frames and reduction of cognitive distance. He emphasizes that this model is not the only one, and that there are several possible scenarios for the development of trusting relationships. What he actually does, is that he starts from the control, which is needed in the absence of trust, and emphasizes different types of knowledge, which is needed in various stages in building trust. It includes both knowledge needed for control, e.g., knowledge about a partner's competence, performance, behavior, etc., and knowledge required for developing shared meanings, e.g., knowledge about cultural norms of behavior.

Trust Principles

Trust principles refer to a framework or guidelines, which can be involved in the organization's work and everyday life. By accepting them in the entire organization, trust can be built and maintained. Good examples of trust principles are presented by Ciancutti and Steding (2000) who include in trust principles: closure, commitment, communication, speedy resolution, respect, and responsibility. In their framework, closure means a specific agreement about future activities including the decision, "who will do what and when." Commitment as a trust principle means that people take their work seriously and enter into their commitment without hidden "ifs," "ands," or "buts." Communication as a trust principle emphasizes direct and open communication. Speedy resolution demands that critical unresolved issues would be handled, instead of waiting for problems to solve themselves. Respect principle calls people to treat each other with dignity and respect, as they would like to be treated themselves. Responsibility requires that although help and support are essential in organizations, everyone must also be responsible. It is important to notice that although Ciancutti and Steding talk about leadership organization, they do not mean that trust principles should be accepted or even carried out only by managers or leaders. Instead, they very strongly call for the whole organization and all its members to be involved in following trust principles.

Trust Imperatives

Trust imperatives are necessary conditions without which trust cannot be built. Shaw (1997) has presented three key imperatives in building high-trust organizations and teams. They are achieving results, acting with integrity, and demonstrating concern. Achieving results means following through on business commitments and having clear, ambitious performance targets, execution of initiatives, and understanding of consequences for success and failure. Acting with integrity refers to behaving in a consistent and honest manner. It is based on defining a clear purpose, confronting reality, having an open agenda, and following commitments. Demonstrating concern and respecting the well-being of others demands building one vision for one organization, showing confidence in people's ability, establishing familiarity and dialogue, and recognizing contributions. Shaw emphasizes that because in some cases these imperatives may come into conflict with each other, sustaining an appropriate level of trust requires balancing those three imperatives. In addition, he points out that leadership practices, organizational architecture, and organizational culture work as key leverage points in building trust.

Trust building is a challenge, but also a very complex and difficult task. To include it in strategic thinking calls for considering what it means to see trust ahead, behind, above, below, beside, beyond, and through.