Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Rational Order: Shifting the Meaning of Trust in Organizational Research

  • Theoretical / Philosophical Paper
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust is a key term in social sciences and organizational research. Trust as well is a term that originates from and speaks to our human relational experience. The first part of the paper explores trust as it is interpreted within contemporary sociology and organizational research, and systematically questions five basic assumptions underlying the interpretation of trust in organizational research. The last part of the paper reviews selected phenomenological methodological studies of trust in work life situations, in a quest for how experiential trust can emerge and be studied in professional organizations. We suggest looking for the “in-betweens” or spaces of possibilities within organizational structures, roles and tasks for emerging, experiential trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have chosen the term “organizational research” to characterize the different scientific contributions to organizational trust. Within the multidisciplinary field of organizational trust research and theory it is not obvious which term is the most appropriate, the different social science approaches emanating from psychology, sociology and economics are often highlighted (e.g., Bachmann 2011; Rousseau et al. 1998). But still “organizational science(s)” and “organizational research” are often used to term the academic and interdisciplinary field of research on professional, work life organizations (e.g., Kramer and Cook 2004a, b; Kramer 2006; Rousseau et al. 1998).

  2. We use the term “Other” with a capital O when our reflections refer directly to the philosophical analysis of Levinas (1998). Otherwise we do not use a capital O.

References

  • Aasland, D. G. (2009). Ethics and economy. After Levinas. Chesham: MGP Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, S. (2004). Senior management relationships and trust: an exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, R. (2011). Special forum essay. At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, R., Knights, D., & Sydow, J. (2001). Special issue: Trust and control in organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22 (whole issue).

  • Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus. International Sociology, 20(3), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. R. (2009). The phenomenology of trust: A Schutzian analysis of the social construction of knowledge by gynae-oncology patients. Health, Risk & Society, 11(5), 391–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. R., Alaszewski, A., Swift, T., & Nordin, A. (2011). Actions speak louder than words: the embodiment of trust by healthcare professionals in gynae-onocology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(2), 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. (1998). Trust and international strategic alliances: The case of Sino-foreign joint ventures. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Möllering, G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in the Chinese business environment. Organization Science, 14(1), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, T. H., & McMackin, J. F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust and transaction cost economics. Academy of Management Review, 21(7), 73–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S. (2001). Trust in society. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in management decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32, 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2001). Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22, 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, C. (2002). Methodological issues: The use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(1), 106–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, G. (2011). Special forum essay. Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other? Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, G., & Hartog, D. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35, 557–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey, W. (1985). Selected works. Wilhelm Dilthey. R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi (Eds.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Dinc, L., & Gastmans, C. (2013). Trust in nurse-patient relationships: A literature review. Nursing Ethics, 20(5), 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, F., Geare, A., & O’Kane, P. (2015). The changing dynamic of leading knowledge workers. The importance of skilled front-line managers. Employee Relations, 37(4), 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikeland, T. B. (2015). Emergent Trust in Work Life Relationships—How to approach the relational moment of trust. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5(3), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endress, M., & Pabst, A. (2013). Violence and shattered trust: Sociological considerations. Human Studies, 36, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G., & Holyfield, L. (1996). Secrecy, trust and dangerous leisure: Generating group cohesion in voluntary organizations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, L. A., Costley, C. L., & Brown, C. (2010). Spirals of distrust versus spirals of trust in retail customer service: Consumers as victims or allies. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking co-operative relations (pp. 158–175). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of and experiments with “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. Cognitive determinants (pp. 187–238). New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glückler, J., & Armbrüster, T. (2003). Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: The mechanisms of trust and network reputation. Organization Studies, 24, 269–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. S. (2008). Embodied trust within the perinatal nursing relationship. Midwifery, 24, 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, Q. (2014). “My love-hate relationship”: Ethical issues associated with nurses’ interactions with industry. Nursing Ethics, 21(5), 554–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics & Society, 21(4), 505–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3–39). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilliard, C., & O’Neill, M. (2010). Nurses’ emotional experience of caring for children with burns. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 2907–2915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, C. (2014). No one sees the fear. Becoming diseased before becoming Ill—being diagnosed with breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 37(3), 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (2006). The basic problems of phenomenology: From the lectures, winter semester, 1910–1911. Husserliana 8. I. Kern (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

  • Jackson, M. (1996). Introduction: Phenomenology, radical empiricism, and anthropological critique. In M. Jackson (Ed.), Things as they are. New directions in phenomenological anthropology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1948). Essays in pragmatism. New York, NY: Hafner Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (2006). Introduction. Organizational trust: Progress and promise in theory and research. In R. M. Kramer (Ed.), Organizational trust. A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.). (2004a). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004b). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C. (1998). Introduction: Theories and issues in the study of trust. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. (Eds.). (1998). Trust within and between organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Treweek, G. (2002). Trust in complementary medicine: The case of cranial osteopathy. The Sociological Review, 50(1), 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1998). Entre nous. Thinking-of-the-other. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (2007). Sociality and money. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(3), 203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. (2007). Toward an interdisciplinary conceptualization of trust: A typological approach. Management and Organization Review, 3, 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2011). Editorial essay. Toward a multi-frame integration of trust as holistic and dynamic: Ambiguity redefined as duality of diversity-in-unity. Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, B.-M., & Graneheim, U. H. (2015). Meanings of caring for people who self-harm as disclosed in narratives of dialectical behavior therapy professionals. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingis, A. (1994). The community of those who have nothing in common. Bloomingdale/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingis, A. (2004). Trust. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lögstrup, K. E. (1956/1971). The ethical demand. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

  • Lögstrup, K. E. (1972/1993). Norm og spontanitet. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

  • Lögstrup, K. E. (2008). Beyond the ethical demand. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: Two works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and perspectives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking co-operative relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Philips, N., & Hardy, C. (2001). When “silence = death”, keep talking: Trust, control and the discursive construction of identity in the Canadian HIV/AIDS treatment domain. Organization Studies, 22, 285–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Special issue on trust. Organization Science, 14 (whole issue).

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1958). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Creed, W. E. D. (1995). Organizational forms and managerial philosophies: A descriptive and analytical review. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 333–372). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok, E., & Chiu, P. C. (2004). Nurse-patient relationships in palliative care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(5), 475–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35, 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2005). The trust/control duality. An integrative perspective on positive expectations of others. International Sociology, 20(3), 283–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, E. J., & Lasiter, S. (2004). Markers of older widows’ trust of nonprofessional home-care helpers. Care Management Journals, 5(3), 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. I. (2001). Organization, trust and control: A realist analysis. Organization Studies, 22, 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Introduction to special topic forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saevi, T., & Eikeland, T. B. (2012). From where does trust come, and why is “from where” significant? Phenomenology & Practice, 6(1), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sako, M. (1992). Prices, quality and trust: Inter-firm relationships in Britain and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sako, M. (1998). Does trust improve business performance? In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations (pp. 88–117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. N. K., Skinner, D., Dietz, G., Gillespie, N., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Organizational trust: A cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1972). The phenomenology of the social world. London: Heinemann (First published 1932).

  • Sennett, R. (2001). Det fleksible mennesket. [The corrosion of character]. (V. Enebakk, Trans.). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. (Original version published 1998).

  • Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization Studies, 24(3), 463–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørhaug, T. (1996). Om ledelse. Makt og tillit i moderne organisering. [On leadership. Power and trust in modern organizing]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Strahorn, S., Gajendran, T., & Brewer, G. (2015). The influence of trust in traditional contracting: Investigating the “lived experience” of stakeholders. Construction Economics and Building, 15(2), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Manen, M. (2006). Researching lived experience. London, Ontario: The Althouse Press (Original version published 1990).

  • Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldenfels, B. (1990). Grenzen der Legitimierung und die Frage nach der Gewalt. In B. Waldenfels (Ed.), Der Stachel des Fremden. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1975). Makt og byråkrati. [Power and bureaucracy]. Oslo: Gyldendal. (Selected essays from Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1922, and Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 1922).

  • Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of organization. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, R., & Clegg, S. (2003). Trust: Organizational psychosis versus the virtues of trust. In R. Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 338–340). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(2), 453–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M.-L., & Tseng, F.-C. (2008). Interplay between physical and virtual settings for online interpersonal trust formation in knowledge-sharing practice. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaner, R. M. (2000). Power and hope in the clinical encounter: A meditation on vulnerability. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 3(3), 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Tone B. Eikeland

  2. NLA University College, Bergen, Norway

    Tone Saevi

Authors
  1. Tone B. Eikeland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tone Saevi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tone B. Eikeland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eikeland, T.B., Saevi, T. Beyond Rational Order: Shifting the Meaning of Trust in Organizational Research. Hum Stud 40, 603–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9428-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9428-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation