|
Trust is one of the most important criteria for successful partnerships. Thus, trust creation is one of the most important meta-skills that a person or a company can possess in a turbulent business environment. The recognition and support for trust building demands further clarification and operationalization of the concept. In the following, we summarize the core elements of trust and their descriptions:
In the context of technology partnership formation, capability consists of technological capability, business capability and the meta-capability to cooperate. Capability is a necessary but passive component for trust in technology partnership formation.
Goodwill implies a more abstract, but a very important, component of trust in technology partnerships. It has been defined as the "partner's moral responsibility and positive intentions toward the other" (Blomqvist, 1997). Also Tyler (1996, 2001) and Sako (1998) have highlighted the trustee's intentions as a source of experienced trustworthiness. Experienced goodwill is a necessary and active component for trust in technology partnership formation.
Along time, when the relationship is developing, the actual behavior, e.g., that the trustee fulfills the positive intentions, enhances trustworthiness (Bidault, 2000; Lazarec & Lorenz, 1998b). The capability and goodwill dimensions of trust become visible in the behavioral signals of trustworthiness.
Self-reference means a system's capability of autonomy and dependency. Self-reference is demonstrated by the system's ability to define its own existence, the basic idea for being and doing, values, principles and goals, as well as the ability to form double contingent relationships and run a dialogue (St hle, 1998). Thus, the word "reference" in the concept self-reference means the system's ability to use others as a reference to self. At an individual level, this means that a person can make meaningful choices, he or she has a direction and behaves accordingly (with integrity). Through self-reference the system becomes aware of its identity and capabilities in relation to others.
In this chapter we have formed the basic components and definition of trust on the basis of literature and interviews of practitioners in partnerships. These sources brought up four main components of trust, which we will now reflect back to the literature with an attempt to also connect the issues with operative methods for building trust.
The means for trust building have not been widely explored, yet they clearly have managerial implications. In this sub-chapter we will summarize the potential sources of trust and the operational signs and signals for trust creation (see also Blomqvist, 2002). Tables 2 to 5 present these ideas. The sources of trust are organized according to our conceptualization of trust: capability, self-reference, goodwill and behavior. They have been derived from previous research by the authors listed in the second column. In the third column the authors of this chapter give the potential operational signs and signals for the various components of trust as illustrative examples.
In Table 2 the signs and signals indicating the capability dimension of trust are given as examples.
CAPABILITY: | ||
---|---|---|
TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY, BUSINESS CAPABILITY AND THE META-CAPABILITY TO COOPERATE | ||
Sources | Author | Signs & Signals |
Technological capability | Sako, 1994, 1998 | References of difficult projects |
Business capability | O'Brien, 1995 | Prizes for outstanding technology |
Meta-capability to cooperate | Sanner, 1996 Mishra, 1996 Sydow, 1998 Miles et al., 2000 | First-to-market technologies Third party screening (attracted partners) Symbols, e.g., education, memberships Realistic judgment, soundness of vision Professionalism Clear strategy and a business plan Partner strategy Partner program and partner managers Partnering mindset instead of NIH Internal information on status and purpose of partnership |
Reputation | Zucker, 1986 Granovetter, 1992 Larson, 1992 Barney & Hansen, 1994 Hovi, 1995 Creed & Miles, 1996 Teece, 1997 Sydow, 1987 | References Well-known partners, board members, etc. Trusted third party introduction Reputation as a competent actor Reputation of management within the corporation: incentives and punishment |
In Table 3 the self-reference component of trust is elaborated and the relevant authors, as well as the signals and signs enhancing trust, are given.
SELF-REFERENCE: | ||
---|---|---|
CLARITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY | ||
Sources | Author | Signs & Signals |
Double contingency, i.e., ability to connect to other actors in the system and accept the mutual interdependency | Luhmann, 1995 Sydow, 1998 St hle, 1998 Das & Teng, 1998 | Negotiation style (win-win) Choice of boundary-spanners (with experience/ understanding from both worlds) Project champions, interdependence at project level Self-confidence and corporate identity Equity as a sense of fairness (input/output) |
Equity | Contracts | |
Ability to understand difference and appreciate complementarity | Luhmann, 1979, 1995 St hle, 1998 | Internal analysis of own competencies and evaluation of needed complementarity Positive attitude to cooperation |
Receptiveness of organizational culture | Dodgson, 1993 Sydow, 1998 | |
Security and stability | Erikson, 1950 | Consistency of values and behavior |
Integrity | Creed & Miles, 1996 Sydow, 1998 | Consistency of boundary-spanners and organization, organizational social control and sanctions |
Table 4 illustrates the goodwill component of trust. Several authors refer to various antecedents for this component of trust.
GOODWILL: | ||
---|---|---|
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND POSITIVE INTENTIONS TOWARD THE OTHER | ||
Sources | Author | Signs & Signals |
Reliability | Mishra, 1996 | Norms, such as keeping promises
|
Care and concern | O'Brien, 1995 Mishra, 1996 von Krogh, 2000 | Consideration for mutual needs Proactive information, interest and advice Social support |
Reciprocity | Creed & Miles, 1996 | Expressed values and norms for reciprocity |
Shared values | Jones & George, 1998 | Declaration of values, rules of the game |
Acceptable code of behavior | Sako, 1998 Fukyama, 1995 Doz & Hamel, 1998 | Workshops and training Charismatic leadership as an example Screening suitable individuals for boundary-spanners |
Social similarity | Zucker, 1986 | Choice of boundary-spanners |
Personal chemistry | Creed & Miles, 1996 Ladeg rd, 1997 | Training staff to understand diversity Informal meetings to increase mutual understanding and socialization |
Homophility of organizations | Oliver, 1997 | Similar status |
Same social sub-system | Sydow, 1998 | Socialization, personal interaction, blending cultures, shared norms and symbols |
Socialization and creating shared meanings | Zucker, 1986 Nonaka, 1996 Tyler & Kramer, 1996 Oliver, 1997 | Shared goals and visions Rituals and symbols Professional norms, shared rhetoric Career and clients |
Common identification | Hardy et al., 1998 Fukyama, 1995 | Informal meetings, inter-firm visits Training and education, workshops Group identity: kick-offs, celebrations Commonality in name, co-location Creation of joint products and goals Social support and recognition |
Management philosophy | Barney, 1991, 1996 | Values and norms |
Organizational culture | Barney & Hansen, 1994 O'Brien, 1995 Creed & Miles, 1996 Whitener et al., 1998 Sydow, 1998 Nonaka & Konno, 1998 Von Krogh, 2000 | Creation of environment for trust Consistency in partner management Behavioral integrity Leadership style e.g. delegation, rewards Mutual mental and physical place |
Goals and visions | Das & Teng, 1998 Sydow, 1998 | Convergence of goals and shared vision Joint goal setting process and clear communication of goals |
Organizational structure | Creed & Miles, 1996 | Clear organizational roles Possibility to identify decision-makers and key persons (visibility) |
Actual behavior is a crucial component of trust. In Table 5 the authors explain some sources for the behavioral component of trust.
BEHAVIOR: INTERACTION AND EXPERIENCE | ||
Sources | Author | Signs & Signals |
Information | O'Brien, 1995 Swan, 1985 Mishra, 1996 Das & Teng, 1998 | Sharing sensitive information Sharing future plans related to partner Open and prompt information (opinions) Both positive and negative aspects revealed |
Communication | Luhmann, 1979 | Proactive, open and prompt communication |
Common base of knowledge | Zucker, 1986 | Clearness and frequency of communication |
Shared meanings | Hardy et al., 1998 Sako, 1994 O'Brien, 1995 Mishra, 1996 Das & Teng, 1998 | Taking care of internal communication Organizational practices and processes to ensure regular communication |
Multiplexity of communication | Support, advice and emotions included | |
Sydow, 1998 | ||
Personal experience | Creed & Miles, 1996 | Face-to-face meetings |
Company visits, product testing | ||
Blomqvist, 1999 | Experience of the other company's context | |
Learning and understanding | Whitener et al., 1998 Jones & George, 1998 | Choice of boundary-spanners Continuous interaction Inter-firm workshops Informal social events |
Interfirm adaptation | Das & Teng, 1998 | Transfer of key personnel Wide organizational interface |
Commitment | Das & Teng, 1998 | Attention, expertise and funds |
Open commitment | Sako, 1998 Barney & Hansen, 1994 | Unilateral investments Incremental investments |
Shadow-of-the future | Axelrod, 1984 Sydow, 1998 | Credible commitments Expectations for future business |
The potential means for creating trusting conditions and building trust presented in Tables 2 to 5 are expected to also give useful advice for practicing managers.
|