Reposted from the Symphony Orchestra Institute.
Trust is a central ingredient in human relationships, and thus, in organizational dynamics.
At its root, trust is interpersonal; it exists in some state between two people. Within a group, interpersonal connections multiply exponentially. Even within small groups—whether families, teams, or small organizations—these connections become multifold, complex, and interdependent. Within symphony organizations, the quality of a wide range of interpersonal relationships—especially between and among formal leaders and their close colleagues—depends significantly on the degree of trust that exists in these relationships. The aggregate status of “organizational trust,” in turn, strongly influences the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the institution.
So, what is “trust”? A dictionary definition would include these meanings:
- confidence in, or reliance on, some quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a statement;
- accepting, or giving credit to, without investigation or evidence;
- the confident expectation of something.
Various other shades of meaning have been put forth:
- the willingness to be vulnerable under conditions of risk and interdependence (1);
- confident positive expectations regarding another’s . . . words, actions, and decisions (2);
- an absence of, or reduction in, the need to monitor others’ behavior, to formalize procedures, or to create completely specified contracts (6).
Symphony organizations operate in a relatively unpredictable external environment, and have complex and risky internal dynamics. Some authors have noted that interpersonal trust comes into play especially in environments which are uncertain and risky (3). Trust is associated with the expectations and predictability of human behavior, which can be influenced by the stress of environmental conditions. The degree of trust between people can vary as to importance and strength, and can depend on the situation. Lastly, the likelihood of positive outcomes affects trust. So trust comes in degrees, and can be fragile!
Along these lines, two scholars have categorized trust as conditional or unconditional (4):
Conditional trust is a state of trust in which both parties are willing to transact with each other, as long as each behaves appropriately, uses a similar interpretive scheme to define the situation, and can take the role of the other. In conditional trust, attitudes of one party toward the other are favorable enough to support future interactions; sufficient positive affect and a relative lack of negative affect reinforce these attitudes.
Unconditional trust . . . characterizes an experience of trust that starts when individuals abandon the “pretense” of suspending belief, because shared values now structure the social situation and become the primary vehicle through which those individuals experience trust. With unconditional trust each party’s trustworthiness is now assured, based on confidence in the other’s values that is backed up by empirical evidence derived from repeated behavioral interactions—knowledge of which is contained in each individual’s attitude toward the other . . . when unconditional trust is present, relationships become significant and often involve a sense of mutual identification . . . .
These authors go on to outline some of the organizational benefits of unconditional trust (4):
When unconditional trust exists—in which shared values create a common bond . . people begin to feel that they are not mere coworkers or . . . acquaintances but colleagues, friends, or team members . . . . The existence of unconditional trust can fundamentally change the quality of the exchange relationship and convert a group into a team. With teamwork what one person does is determined by what all others are doing, and the parties must be constantly alert to the ways others are behaving in order to be able to respond appropriately.
[When] unconditional trust exists, parties’ shared values determine their behavioral expectations as they invest in their relationship and look more to the future than the present when deciding how to behave. Shared values and positive moods and emotions are manifested in interpersonal cooperation and teamwork and the strong desires of team members to contribute to the common good. Cooperative acts themselves often make people feel good and stimulate others to act in a similar fashion, reinforcing shared values and positive attitudes and affect.
How is trust created in an organization? Most people would agree that managerial behavior can have a considerable impact on the condition of trust within an organization. Some believe that it is management’s responsibility to take a leadership role in the development of trusting relationships (5):
To establish trust through the reciprocal exchange of social benefits, someone must make the first move. From the manager’s perspective, initiating involves exchanging in trustworthy behavior preemptively, perhaps before the subordinate has demonstrated his or her worthiness. Managers may be reluctant to do so, preferring instead to impose tight control or monitor behavior. To reap the organizational benefits of trust, however, managers must be encouraged to make the first move. Initiating this process, then, is the challenge to, and arguably the responsibility of, management.
To build trust, “it takes time, effort, and considerable resources,” and the establishment of a proper environment (4):
The development of trust . . . is a function of an organization’s ability to create the setting within which trust can develop over time. Does the work environment and context promote positive attitudes and positive moods and emotions? Does the organizational culture endorse and encourage the expression of the values underlying trust? Are individuals given the opportunity to explore shared values? Does the organization’s structure provide the appropriate set of task and reporting relationships that facilitates the development of positive attitudes and moods?
We can see, now, that the advancement of interpersonal and intraorganizational trust is inextricably a part of positive organization change and development within a symphony institution.
In a future discussion, we will review the impact of “group membership” on interpersonal and intraorganizational trust. As we will note, the separateness and distinctiveness of the main constituencies within a symphony organization—the board, staff, orchestra, and volunteer groups—add a unique challenge to the development of trust and organization change within these institutions.
The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 23, No. 3, July 1998. The Academy of Management, Pace University, P.O. Box 3020, 235 Elm Road, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020. ISSN: 0363-7425.
(1) Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Bitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer. Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust, p. 395.
(2) Lewicki, Rot J., Daniel J. McAllister, and Robert J. Bies. Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities, p. 439.
(3) Bhattacharya, Rajeev, Timothy M. Devinney, and Madan M. Pillutla. A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes, pp. 461-462.
(4) Jones, Gareth R. and Jennifer M. George. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork, pp. 531-546.
(5) Whitener, Ellen M., Susan E. Brodt, M. Audrey Korsgaard, and Jon M. Werner. Managers as Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behavior, p. 514.
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, July 2001. The Academy of Management, Pace University, P.O. Box 3020, 235 Elm Road, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020. ISSN: 0363-7425.
(6) Williams, Michele. In Whom We Trust: Group Membership as an Affective Context for Trust Development.