Interpersonal Trust

A large body of work has explored organizational trust. (An exemplary monograph has been edited by Tyler and Kramer, 1996.) There is, thus, no single definition of trust. Marsh (1994) suggests that this lack of definition has led to confusion about the concept, despite the fact that the concept is seemingly so basic. This view is also echoed by Dibben (2000), who states that the everyday use of the term "has brought about confusion as to what the true meaning is" (p. 6). This confusion may have arisen because of the range of constructs that are encompassed by the concept and the numerous fields in which the concept is widely used, such as organizational behavior, philosophy and computer science. The chapter does not attempt to derive a high level framework from this broad corpus. It takes a narrower, low-level path through the more restricted subset of material on situated, interpersonal, and swift trust.

Within this subset, there is no consensus, however. Much work on interpersonal trust is based on cognitive psychology, focusing on an individual's disposition to trust and to be trusted. The 'interpersonal' dimension is invoked when judgments require mutual assessment by two or more individuals. A number of metrics have been designed to support assessments and analysis (see Rotter, 1967, 1971, 1980a, 1980b). But, there is some evidence that dispositional trust can be over-ruled by the exigencies of a given situation, a point we return to below. Many analysts state that trust emerges over time and is based on cumulative experience; this may span a lifetime. This "basic" trust is the psychological disposition or personality trait of an individual to be trusting or not (Dibben, 2000, p. 7). Interpersonal trust is defined as an expectancy based on the experience of an individual or group that another individual or group can be relied upon. This is reciprocal. When and if the positions are reversed, the situation remains one of interpersonal trust. But, there is also evidence that a form of interpersonal trust ("swift trust") can sustain interactions where time is short — a second point that we return to later in the text.

Though there is no single definition of interpersonal trust, there is, however, agreement about the situations where it is important: these involve both dependency and uncertainty. As Castelfranchi and Pedone (1999) note, "If one is not required to depend on the other, one does not need to trust the other" (p. 37). Some analysts suggest that interdependence is an essential trust-related feature because expectations about another's trustworthiness only become relevant when the completion of one's own consequential activities depend on the prior actions or ongoing cooperation of another person. Others suggest that uncertainty is due to the fact that the behaviour of the other party is not under one's control, which means that the other party acts freely. Individuals do not act as expected in all situations and, "although one may trust an individual on the whole, one may not do so in certain situations and under certain circumstances" (Dibben, 2000).

To account for the situational dimension of trust in the context of business partnerships, managers may thus wish to explore not only the general trustworthiness of candidates (their disposition), but also their trustworthiness in relation to projects and other business opportunities that are at hand. Interpersonal trust in this context will be contingent on a number of factors that are specific to the circumstances. These may include: calculation of the potential costs and benefits of interaction with relevant others; confidence levels in relation to predictability of others' future behavior; identification with others based on the alignment of each other's own desires and intentions. In other words, trust is an outcome of mutually understood purposes, values and work practices. It is based not on personal character traits, but on interpersonal judgments about interactions in a given situation. Dibben has explored this approach to understanding trust in an extensive empirical study of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. His analysis draws much of its strength from typologies of trust and situations that illustrate the importance of alignment (of interests, skills, reputation) and provide a systematic framework for making judgments about levels of alignment. Table 1 provides an indicative typology of situations and trust based on Dibben's work.

Table 1: Situations and Trust Types after Dibben (2002)

Situation	Description	Basis of trust
Situation 1	People asking for financial support to start up a new business	Trust in the intermediary brings trust in you, which shows that trust is transitive; an example of a recommendation process
Situation 2	Business people asking for professional advice to specialists (a solicitor, an accountant)	Trust in specialists is based on qualification/title based competence, record of tasks executed accordingly. Trust here can also be based on experience sharing, which brings empathy, and on signs of motivation (financial interest, contribution)
Situation 3	Business recruiting new employees for a specific job	Trust in potential new employees is based on competence, recommendation/reputation, reinforced by track record of working relationships
Situation 4	Business person dealing with his/her bank manager	Trust in the bank manager is based on track record, quality of relationship
Situation 5	Business person needing advice from other business persons	Trust in other business persons is based on level of experience in the same area, quality of relationship, presentation style
Situation 6	Working relationships between a business person and professionals working in other businesses	Trust in the professionals is based on experience of working together and having a common track record. It is limited to the area of expertise of the professionals. Collaboration to the work process also plays a role
Situation 7	Investment from other companies in a business	Trust in the investing companies is based on knowledge of their interests and of their usual ways of negotiating investments
Situation 8	Start a new business with a team issued from a prior business	Trust from customers, suppliers, investors, etc., is based on credit transitivity: the credit attributed to the original company passes to the new one in terms of expertise, competence, reliability, etc.

Situations consist of actors, goals and activities and each of these may be described by means of attributes. Potential collaborators (actors) can reflect on these attributes and make assessments about their confidence in each other by ranking attributes in relation to the different goals and activities that characterise different situations. This process may be described as qualified typification. This process supports attempts to handle trust as a form of tacit knowledge that may be made explicit, and thus made manageable.