Seeing Trust Behind

Strategic thinking includes also seeing behind and having an understanding of the past. As Mintzberg (1991) remarks, it is impossible to see the future with the ignorance of the past. He refers to Gahmberg's characterization about "strategy as signification of memory." The past and the memory of organizations have been manifested in organizational culture, which shapes the present and transfers the organization's past into future. The role of the organizational culture in social capital has been emphasized already elsewhere in this book (see Huotari & Iivonen, 2003). In addition, some authors have retrospectively described the differences between high-trust and low-trust organizations seeing behind their functions and activities (see e.g., Shaw, 1997; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Seeing trust behind means also — unfortunately — often seeing mistrust, especially where the organization has gone through difficult times and where many historical boundaries and barriers have been established. Previous experiences might have been known, analyzed, and taken into account in building more trust in a future. However, the organization's past can also occur in tacit knowledge, which plays a crucial role in organizational culture and the impact on everyday processes cannot be underestimated.

Tacit knowledge has often been described with a positive tone because of its essential and critical role in knowledge creation and in the spiral of knowledge (see e.g., Nonaka, 1987). Choo (1998) emphasizes that tacit knowledge is vital to the organization because the organization can only learn and innovate by deriving advantage from the implicit knowledge of its members. Tacit knowledge may, however, also have a negative dark side. Stewart (1997) describes this dark side of tacit knowledge by stating: "But every virtue has a set of reciprocal vices, and tacit knowledge has three: It can be wrong; it's hard to change; and it's difficult to communicate. Heaven help that deft organization if the market changes radically … Because tacit knowledge is unexpressed, it's often unexamined; it can go wrong without one's being aware of the fact" (p. 73).

If the organizational culture has developed in circumstances of mistrust, people's tacit knowledge carries suspicions, fears, and negativism. People have adopted behavioral manners that reflect their tacit mistrust. When they feel mistrust and threatened, their behavior easily becomes aggressive or passive. Worse, people may even feel safe or strong in the atmosphere of mistrust because their coping skills have been developed for this kind of situation. Shaw (1997) remarks that individuals with a long history of antagonistic relationships are unable to switch and overcome mistrust and to collaborate. Similarly Nooteboom (2002) refers to the pathologies of trust when people maintain trust or suspicion in spite of contrary evidence. They subconsciously resist information that is in conflict with established and cherished views or convictions.

When people have learned to cope with mistrust, it may be difficult for them to learn trust as long as their coping skills are tacit because it is hard to change tacit knowledge. Therefore, in the circumstances where trust should be built, but the history of the organization is based on mistrust, the tacit knowledge of mistrust should be turned visible. Otherwise mistrust cannot be overcome. Instead, people's tacit knowledge directs their coping skills and maintains the atmosphere of mistrust. Therefore, it is necessary that managers help people break down barriers and overcome boundaries, and also encourage or even force collaboration at various levels. Learning away from mistrust may be a slow process where every small step must be appreciated. As described earlier, trust building processes move from one stage to another, and may also need some amount of control in the absence of trust.