Everyday Management of Trust and Distrust in the Conceptual Organization | WarDriving: Drive, Detect, Defend, A Guide to Wireless Security

Because the conceptual organization's vision and goals focus on complex and challenging problems, the organization will not meet its vision and goals without collaboration among its members. In this context, collaboration includes coordination, but goes beyond coordination to include developing a shared understanding and shared creation of new knowledge. Cognitive trust is essential in the conceptual organization. Although the organizational structure, power and ICT within the conceptual organization help facilitate cognitive and affective trust, distrust can still arise. Following are two examples that illustrate cognitive distrust and affective distrust, and how the distrust was managed.

Managing Cognitive Distrust in Conjunction with Affective Trust

The following excerpt from a telephone meeting discussing research proposals submitted by Center members highlights the emergence of cognitive distrust and controls to monitor and support R&D efforts of members who were the source of cognitive distrust. First, the problem is identified, and then a variety of solutions are discussed.

Person #1: One of the critical areas for the Center as a whole is study related to [topic] … there is a lot of opportunity that's being missed between [the three scientists investigating this topic.] … It's not a funding issue, it's really a matter of getting better coordination among at least three investigators and making sure that we've got the right communication and mentoring, etc., going on.
Person #2: I really like the idea of every couple of months having a group meeting on this topic …
Person #3: We could mandate and allocate these group meetings early on in the funding cycle … to coordinate goals at that meeting … and come up with a written game plan …
Person #4: I agree we don't want to go back and tell them that they have to write another proposal and we'll decide when we see that proposal whether they'll get funded or not …
Person #1: One proposal would be that we ask the three of them to lead the meeting and open it up to others to go, to contribute. I think there are a few other people I'd like to have there. We could have [A] be the one to write the summary. And you know darn well, if [B's] in the room and it's got to be a collective document, [B] will contribute and it will be good …
Person #3: I agree … that that's a great idea. But it needs to go further … Make them produce a document tomorrow and then they go their separate ways. What they need to do is meet regularly as a group and listen to each other …
Person #1: Let me capture this … mandate a coordination meeting up-front, early in the funding cycle … so there's a [meeting] product which is a research game plan; ask them for dates of subsequent coordination meetings…and we could then state that this area is missing critical force with good opportunities, and encourage them to encourage their students and post-docs to be more collaborative.

The meeting participants question the competence and reliability of the three scientists as a group; the group is missing research opportunities. However, they do not question the scientists' motivation, attitudes or interpersonal interaction. In this situation, cognitive distrust exists simultaneously with affective trust.

The final proposed solution consists of mentoring and bringing additional expertise into the group. Thus, controls to monitor and support efforts are established, and efforts to reduce the risk of critical work not being done are initiated (see Table 1).

Managing Affective Distrust in Conjunction with Cognitive Trust

Affective distrust can emerge between individuals when a person's actions appear to be personally harmful to others. Following is an excerpt from a telephone meeting in which a person's (Person #2) motivations and activities regarding research in a particular topic area are questioned because they appear to overlap with the career interests and works of others (Person #1 and Person #3).

Person #1: These sorts of Center activities I'm finding are more and more like a marriage. You really have to work at it to get things to work well. And everyone is certainly committed to try to make everything work as well as possible and so it's in that context and approach that I just want to address a topic that has come up … at our … [most recent] group meeting … there were several of us in the audience and several of the students as well that were pretty surprised at the topics covered in [a student's] talk … it was surprising in the sense that we never heard about any of your intentions to do work on [a specific topic] ... [It was not mentioned in] any of the plans that were submitted within the planned activities with the [Center] … [At] all the different management meetings that people participated in where a lot of … work [in this topic area] was presented, it certainly appeared that [people from your location were] just silent on [this topic area.]
Person #2: Well, a couple things. First, which management meeting are you referring to? Because … I'm really interested in seeing how we can be as helpful to the Center as possible. That's number one. And … it's important for me to be aware of what's going on and to coordinate with what's going on and I certainly want to do that … I think you guys … met July 27^th… The problem is that I was on vacation … that whole week. I'm really sorry I didn't call … I just missed it.
Person #1: Well, … some of it was discussed in the [July] meeting, but certainly we've had group meetings where [a student working in this area] has presented his work. And you know we've been talking about [work on these topics] at national meetings.
Person #2: I think [your student] talked to [my student] in some detail about these things [at the national meeting] because [my student] actually had a poster on this [at the national meeting].
Person #3: Well I may need to talk to [my student] again but he was very surprised at the material that was presented [at the recent group meeting]. But I will ask him if he did talk to [your student] or not.

In the last exchange, the response to issues regarding motivation and activities is formal in nature. Person #2 mentions specific meeting dates and interactions. These events are invoked to clarify his motivation and justify activities. He continues, providing information about the history of the project and explicitly stating his motivations and intentions.

Person #2: I should probably tell you about the history of the project … to make sure that we're not doing the same thing you're doing. The impression I had was that you had an interest in looking at [a specific subtopic] and we're not doing any of that … [Gives example of previous work he and his students did on related subtopics] so you know we've got a long history of looking at that … I'm going to be very, very careful here. I don't want to step on people's toes.
Person #1: I appreciate that, and that's why we're all talking through this.
Person #2: The reason I want to join the Center is I want to help the Center. I want to collaborate. I want to do things that complement what you're doing and it just wouldn't make sense for me to just go do something that one of you guys said you want to do.
Person #3: We all agree on that. That's why we're talking this out.

In the exchange above, the value of collaboration and cooperation are acknowledged, and the discussion shifts slightly to include how things could be done differently to avoid these types of problems.

Person #1: We need to encourage the students at these group meetings to be even more interactive. I remember [the student's talk] … and you know if there were folks that were down the road with some information related to this it certainly would have been more beneficial to engage [the student] in a discussion and present some related data ... And that's something we probably could encourage more of our students to do more of ….
Person #2: Absolutely ….

At this point in the meeting, a discussion ensued about how video-conferencing technology may have limited information dissemination and exchange among students and how students forget to copy their advisors when exchanging information via e-mail. Future activities focusing on sharing data and equipment are also discussed. These activities will help monitor and constrain activities. Affective distrust regarding work plans still exists, however, as evidenced in the following exchange:

Person #1: Beyond the details of the science, … we need to be very specific and accountable regarding our projection of plans. You know we're really going to be challenged going forward with the [Center] about strategic planning and coordination of activities…For example there's nothing in the annual report we turned in a month or two ago that says anything about the work that [your student has] worked on.
Person #2: Well, you see I went and looked at that annual report and [this topic area] is unbelievably sketchy … I think this happens throughout the Center; ... in terms of future plans … there's almost nothing.
Person #1: We need to be a little more clear … but there's nothing in [your sections] related to this on accomplishments or future plans …

As previously, the response to challenges regarding intentions is formal in nature. Person #2 cites formal documentation as a justification for his actions. Subsequently, he states the work will not continue, although in doing so places some blame on the student as well as reiterate that his intentions and motivations are not to harm, but to help.

Person #2: So really [my student] doesn't plan to stay focused on this. His plan, and the other thing too, is that as his advisor I kind of feel like I have limited, I can suggest things, but it was sort of his idea …
Person #1: I understand you, we can't control where the students' curiosity takes them. That often gets me in trouble with companies when it looks like I've influenced the direction and I've tried to stay out of the way and the kid naturally goes there. That sort of things happen all the time and we don't want to do anything to inhibit that.
Person #2: And I tried really hard to look through and read the [Center's] documentation so that I know what everybody is doing … I really had the impression your interest was [something else.] ... The goal of the Center has got to be synergism. It's got to be helping each other.
Person #3: I agree.
…
Person #1: Well I think everyone agrees these are good conversations and healthy to continue to build the trust among all the [Center members] and I thank everyone for participating.

Although the work relationship and collaboration among the meeting participants will continue, some affective distrust lingered as evidenced by the following conversation that occurred among Person #1 and #4 (who also participated in the meeting) immediately following:

Person #1: You sort of get a sense that [Person #2] was prepared for this discussion, because he looked up [the Center documentation] and knew about the plans and said it was shoddy … I'm still perplexed by that one phone call that hung up [earlier in the meeting.] … I think it's clearly on his radar to be more sensitive to it. I'm sort of curious about what led him to be prepared, and I imagine my e-mails certainly would have led to that discussion, especially if he were sensitive to the issue.
…
Person #1: Regarding his visit with my lab, I will hand select the people he'll speak with and it will be the topics that are obvious within the Center.
…
Person #4: Yeah, just a comment … Everything we've heard is that he's trying to be on the up and up, and maybe he was just at the borderline and so I don't think we need to treat him like he can't be trusted.
Person #1: I agree.
Person #4: So long as we have the ground rules straight and make sure that we all are clear on where he's going with it and be able to collaborate.

In this situation, no evidence of cognitive distrust emerged. That is, no one questioned anyone's research competence or research quality. In general, two groups of scientists working on the same topic may not be an issue for many scientists if the competence of the other group is thought to be inferior.

Although cognitive distrust did not exist, affective distrust did. It was managed through a discussion that identified issues and perceptions. Specific data was presented and good will was expressed to counter perceptions. Solutions included changes in work plans, and information and equipment sharing were agreed to. Competitive collaboration is occurring. Affective distrust was reduced or accommodated, but did not disappear.