Public Trust and Organizational Change

  • Sławomir J. Magala


Public trust is either an attribute of a relationship, a property of an individual personality, or an attribute of socialization (a cultural rule). These three conceptualizations of trust overlap when oligarchs and populists make and break the elites. Populations should trust their hopes that upward mobility towards the elite status is possible, which will generate enough commitment to the reproduction of social order. To sustain belief in meritocracy, populations should also trust that the elites deserve their elite status. Trust in academic professionals as the acknowledged, legitimized experts in producing knowledge is a litmus paper of social trust. The quality of academic credentials—of bachelor, master, and doctorate degrees—should be trusted, as they are thought to stimulate the evolution of complex societies.


Trust Cultural rule Meritocracy Academic professionals 


  1. Achen, C., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists. Why elections do not produce responsive governments. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, C. K. (2011). Pragmatic democracy. Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. D’Iribarne, Ph. (2015). La logique de l’honneur. Gestion des enterprises et traditions nationales. Paris: le Seuil.Google Scholar
  4. Eggers, D. (2014). The circle. New York/London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fukuyama, F. (2014, June 6). At the end of history still stands democracy. The Wall Street Journal, p. 2.Google Scholar
  7. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work related-values. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Innerarity, D. (2013). The democracy of knowledge. Bloomsbury Academic: London/New York.Google Scholar
  9. Islam, G. (2015). Practitioners as theorists: Para-ethnography and the collaborative study of contemporary organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural differences in a globalizing world. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  12. Noble, D. P. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, R. D., & Feldstein, L. M. (2003). Better together. Restoring the American community. New York/London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  14. Sennett, R. (2012). Together. The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London/New York: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, G. (2016). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust; a sociological theory. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sławomir J. Magala
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Erasmus University Rotterdam (em.)RotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Jagiellonian UniversityCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations