The Concept of Trust

In order to increase our understanding of the essential role of trust in the management of knowledge and information in organizations, we will try to clarify its content. Trust is a multidimensional concept by nature. Therefore, it is a difficult concept to define. McAllister (cited here in Scott, 2000) identified a difference between cognition-based and affect-based trust. Cognition-based trust is a rational view of trust and is associated with competence, ability, responsibility, integrity, credibility, reliability, and dependability. Affect-based trust has more emotional connotations and is related to issues like care, concern, benevolence, altruism, commitment, mutual respect, etc. Further, we can identify the distinction between calculative and non-calculative trust. Calculative trust is based on the weights of the costs and benefits of certain actions, and on a view of man as a rational actor. Non-calculative trust, in turn, is based on values and norms (see e.g., Lane, 1998; Nooteboom, 2002).

Trust has been considered by researchers from various disciplines in their respective contexts and related to individual expectation, interpersonal and inter-organizational relations, economic transactions, and social structures (Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 1998; Lane, 1998; Nooteboom, 2002). This multidisciplinary nature of the concept of trust makes it still harder to define. However, the following basic features that are partly overlapping can be summarized:

1. Trust is based on expectations and interactions.

2. Trust is manifested in people's behavioral patterns.

3. Trust makes a difference.

The fairly common understanding of trust is that trust is based on expectations of other people's willingness and ability to fulfil our needs and wishes (see e.g., Fukuyama, 1995; Lagerspetz, 1996; Shaw, 1997; Lane, 1998; Nooteboom, 2002). This indicates that trust develops through interactions when we learn to understand other people's expectations. Because of this phenomenon, trust is particularly critical in situations where we depend on each other, and therefore more critical between two partners than two strangers. Relationships between partners are more significant, but also more vulnerable than relationships between strangers, and trust is more significant for long-term relationships than for short ones.

The interactive aspect of trust is fairly strongly emphasized, especially in management literature, both in intra-organizational and inter-organizational relations. For example, Fukuyama (1995) defined trust as "… the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community" (p. 26). Similarly, Shaw (1997) defined trust as "... a belief that those on whom we depend will meet our expectation of them." Researchers from other disciplines share this view of trust as related to expectations. Lagerspetz (1996), who has studied trust from the philosophical perspective, ended with a similar definition and described trust as "...a tacit demand not to betray the expectations of those who trust us."

Because trust is based on other people's expectations, an understanding of these expectations is essential for building a trusting relationship. This presupposes similar or related worldviews and shared meanings. The role of shared meanings and shared values as the basis of trust has been stated by many researchers, for example by Fukuyama (1995). Common values give a frame of reference to social norms that create predictability and trustworthiness. This can be called normative trust or value-or norm-based trust. Lane (1998), however, challenges the concept of normative trust by stating: "To posit common values and norms as the sole basis of trust is as one-sided as the notion of calculative trust. Empirical work tells us that trust can be built even between people from different cultural backgrounds or between individuals who share no values beyond their narrow business goals. To insist on common socialization in a solidary community to generate and police the common values underpinning trust would make trust an extremely scarce commodity in advanced society" (p. 8). Because trust is needed, and should be built even in the absence of common values and norms, it is obvious that shared meanings must be created, at least at some level to be able to build trust. As Hardy et al. (1998) claim: "Trust is therefore an intersubjective 'reality' that cannot exist, regardless of the good intentions of partners, unless the symbols used to signal trustworthiness have meaning for all parties" (p. 70).

The second very often indicated comprehension is that trust is manifested in people's behavioral patterns, and that the honesty and predictability of behavior will build a strong basis for trust (see e.g., Shaw, 1997; Lane, 1998; Ciancutti & Steding, 2000). Although trust is intangible and related to many abstract matters, both cognition-based and affect-based, such as beliefs, expectations, credibility, mutual respect, etc., the behavioral pattern of trust has also often been described. Trust imposes a concrete form on people's behavior, how they treat each other, and how they communicate. The communicative foundation of trust was emphasized by Hardy et al. (1998) who conceptualised trust as a communicative, sense-making process that bridges gaps between disparate groups. They claimed that in an inter-organizational relationship, trust grows out of a communication process in which shared meanings develop to provide the necessary foundation for non-opportunistic behavior.

The behavioral pattern of trust was also described by Iivonen and Harisalo (1997), who defined trust as expectations and acts of members of the community towards each other. They emphasized that trust is more than expectations, and it emerges as a result of everyday experiences in a work community or elsewhere. Their empirical study provided good examples of the signs of trust as behavior. The findings showed that trust was understood by the employees as a chance to work independently and take responsibility for their own work, a chance to tackle challenging and demanding tasks, as well as managers' support to employees' careers, and managers' habit of asking employees' opinion and giving feedback (Iivonen & Harisalo, 1997). (See also Iivonen, 1999; Iivonen & Huotari, 2000.)

The third often repeated common understanding is that trust makes a difference. Trust has been described as a social phenomenon. As such, it has several advantages, for example, in promoting open exchange of information and knowledge and learning, enabling interactions between people and between organizations, reducing transaction costs, facilitating economic activities and information technological solutions, and enabling work and collaboration both within and among organizations. (See Sydow, 1998; Ciancutti & Steding, 2000; Scott, 2000; Nooteboom, 2002.) Lane (1998) emphasised trust as a highly desirable property, especially in knowledge-intensive business. According to Lane, the number and variety of exchange relations and the increased complexity and uncertainty of the business environment cannot be handled without the presence of interpersonal and/or inter-organizational trust. Therefore, he took the view that the growth of knowledge-intensive products, the information-based mode of production, and the necessity of sharing often sensitive information, have made trust a highly desirable property.

Trust does not, however, make a difference only in an economic sense, but also affects the well-being of the work community. Iivonen and Harisalo (1997) described trust as a safety net of the work community which helps people to tolerate uncertainty, but also produces commitment and internalised accountability. Harisalo and Miettinen (1995) paid attention to the capability of trust to produce more trust. To be able to produce evidence of the advantage of trust, trust has been often characterised as the opposite of mistrust, and the advantages of trust have been made visible by describing the situation where trust is lacking. The ability of trust to make a difference both at personal and organizational levels is based on the phenomenon that trust provides a way to cope with risk and uncertainty (Lane, 1998). Even in circumstances where learned trust does not occur because of the limited history of working together, there is the option of "swift trust," which coincides with risk, and produces clear advantages (see Davenport & McLaughlin, 2004). We claim that because the difference between trusted and mistrusted situations is obvious, trust should be closely related to organizational development.