1998
DOI: 10.2307/259286
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Straining for Shared Meaning in Organization Science: Problems of Trust and Distrust

Abstract: We present a problem-centered organizing framework of trust, ln which prominent conceptualizations of trust and distrust from the organizational and allied social sciences are categorized based on the questions they attempt to answer. The framework we outline here is intended to complement earlier typologies by suggesting alternative strategies for employing the diverse trust literature, identifying questions that could be profitably addressed through interdisciplinary research efforts, anddistinguishing disag… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
165
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 229 publications
(169 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
3
165
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the fairness heuristics theory (Lind, 2001), individuals are especially in need of fairness information when they do not have direct information about whether they can trust others (Van den Bos et al, 1998a). In most situations, the subordinate-manager dyads are already familiar with each other (Bigley and Pearce, 1998) and have sufficient information to determine whether or not to trust the other party. When specific fairness-related events occur much less frequently, it is therefore more likely that employees will use a cognitive assessment of how trustworthy their leaders are rather than focusing on and evaluating particular episodes (i.e., whether the managers display interactional fairness at multiple times).…”
Section: Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the fairness heuristics theory (Lind, 2001), individuals are especially in need of fairness information when they do not have direct information about whether they can trust others (Van den Bos et al, 1998a). In most situations, the subordinate-manager dyads are already familiar with each other (Bigley and Pearce, 1998) and have sufficient information to determine whether or not to trust the other party. When specific fairness-related events occur much less frequently, it is therefore more likely that employees will use a cognitive assessment of how trustworthy their leaders are rather than focusing on and evaluating particular episodes (i.e., whether the managers display interactional fairness at multiple times).…”
Section: Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These three primary trust pathways capture an understanding of trust and distrust within people relationships (Bigley and Pearce, 1998;Lewicki et al, 1998;Woodward and Woodward, 2001). We can associate trust (high, low), no trust, and distrust (low, high) in the pathways with values that vary from +1 (the highest trust) to -1 (the highest distrust).…”
Section: Throughput Model and The Six Dominant Trust Pathwaysmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Given that these interactions take place on a human level, the issue of trust is fundamentally significant (Gad and Shane, 2014). To this end, the value of trust in human behaviour is widely acknowledged (Bigley and Pearce, 1998), and is ultimately considered to be the essential requirement that makes human interaction possible (Romahn and Hartman, 1999).…”
Section: Literature Review Trustmentioning
confidence: 99%