Moments of trust: temporal and spatial factors of trust in organizations

Abstract

Different forms of trust in the contemporary organizational settings of virtual organizations and time management (e.g., just‐in‐time, lean production, and total quality management) are discussed in conjunction with some Greek philosophical notions of human action, namely theoria/episteme, poiesis/techne, and praxis/phronesis, together with the two notions of time, chronos/kairos and their spatial counterparts, chora/topos. It is suggested that time management concepts in production line settings are frequently based upon asymmetric power‐relations and rigid time‐control making most forms of organizational trust instrumental and/or weak. Virtual organization settings, on the other hand, are more likely to contain trust that appears to be fragile and temporal, and in demand of communication based on right moments to act judiciously.

Phronesis in administration and organizations: A literature review and future research agenda

“…Some works adopt brief concepts that do not establish a connection between phronesis and an ethical framework, such as virtue ethics. Although the Aristotelian phronesis‐moral virtues association is cited (Beadle & Könyöt, 2006; Bredillet, Tywoniak, & Dwivedula, 2015a, 2015b; Carter, Mayes, Eagle, & Dahl, 2017; Francis, 1994; Rämö, 2004) the relationship between phronesis and moral virtue is not investigated, neither the unity of virtues (Annas, 2011; van Zyl, 2019). However, some articles associate phronesis with the virtues of responsibility (Clark, 2007; Green, 2009; Rämö, 2011), techné (Phillips & Hall, 2013), and courage (Morrell & Brammer, 2016).…”

“…Adding all citations, the authors that appear the most (cited at least 100 times) are Aristotle 620 Some of the 48 articles are based on an Aristotelian perspective to approach phronesis (Bessant, 2009;Bredillet et al, 2015b;Cairns & As-Saber, 2017;Carter et al, 2017;Majdik & Keith, 2011;Morrell & Brammer, 2016;Nyberg, 2008;Phillips & Hall, 2013;Queiroz, 2015;Rämö, 1999Rämö, , 2004aRämö, , 2004bRoos, 2017;Salminen-Karlsson & Wallgren, 2008;Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014a, 2014bStatler, Roos, & Victor, 2007). Also, Bredillet et al (2015a), Bredillet et al (2015b) build on the work of the Aristotelian philosopher Eikeland (2008).…”

“…TA B L E 1 (Continued) (chora and topos), respectively, are discussed in studies carried out by Rämö (1999Rämö ( , 2004aRämö ( , 2004b. Nonaka and Toyama (2007) discuss the Japanese conception for "place," (called ba), which is defined as a shared context in motion.…”

Structure and Its Reliability and Validity of Employees’ Trust in Organizational Safety

“…Jones and George (1998) divided trust into conditional trust and unconditional trust. Trust also can be divided into three dimensions: good faith, integrity and ability (Rämö, 2004). Chathoth et al (2011) thought that organizational trust consisted of three aspects: integrity, commitment and dependability.…”

Toward projectified environmental governance?

“…Projectification has close parallels with the proliferation of market-based policy instruments within the EG discourse. Because of their short life span, there is a sense that projects are well-equipped to bring resources to bear when and where needed, or in a 'just-in-time' manner, compared to more permanent organizations (Rämö, 2004). In line with the logic of markets, project forms are seen as efficient and effective mechanisms for accessing and integrating relevant information and resources.…”