Toward a Geocentric Framework of Trust: An Application to Organizational Trust

Abstract

Integrating the typologies of trust dimensions and trust ideal-types with the new typologies of trust forms and trust bases, I propose a geocentric framework of trust in general and of organizational trust in particular. The typology of trust forms is built on the dimension of spatial strength to address the content of trust building from weak trust to strong trust and on the dimension of temporal stage to address the process of trust building from initial trust to mature trust. The typology of trust bases is built on the dimension of trust sources to address the bases of trust building from depersonalized sources to personalized sources and on the dimension of trust domains to address the bases of trust building from dyad domains to network domains. Together with its three pillars (trust-building mechanisms, leadership and trust-as-choice), the central theme of trust building connects all four trust typologies toward a geocentric framework that integrates and transcends the cultural values of the East and the West. This framework bears a special implication for theorizing about transaction cost and transaction value as a duality for interorganizational alliance.

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses

“…Indeed, there is considerable evidence that institutional trust operates quite differently in Western and Eastern institutions (e.g., Cole & Cohn, 2016;Inoguchi, Mikami, & Fujii, 2007;Peng, 2014;Tan & Tambyah, 2011). Such research, examined in conjunction with theoretical work aimed at fostering an integrated understanding of Eastern and Western properties of trust (Li, 2008), and of the role of context for trust more generally (CamposCastillo et al, 2016), offers promising directions for trust research. Altogether, given that we only touched upon four contexts and samples out of potentially thousands, much work remains to understand when and why the factor structure of trust-relevant constructs may differ.…”

A Dynamic Typology of Informal Institutions: Learning from the Case of Guanxi

“…In a Chinese context, this paradox is explained by an ancient, indigenous Chinese philosophy of yin yang (Chen, 2002;Li, 1998Li, , 2008) and a central theme in Taoism. According to the yin yang view, a phenomenon has two opposing elements that are dependent on each other in order to be complete.…”

“…However, whereas the paradox-scholars generally perceive the amalgamation of contradictory elements a 'paradox' that appears absurd, irrational or illogical; the yin yang worldview has potential to provide an answer and contribute to the debate by 'synthesizing' the connection between contradictions (Chen, 2002(Chen, , 2008Li, 2008). Helmke and Levitsky (2004) place the activities of rural Chinese temples and lineage associations to achieve a better distribution of goods (classifiable as guanxi) into the category of substitutive informal institutions.…”

Balancing Formality and Informality in Business Exchanges as a Duality: A Comparative Case Study of Returnee and Local Entrepreneurs in China

“…In other words, the formality-informality link is both conflicting and complementary in all aspects and at all times because, like all pairs of opposite elements, it should be taken as a duality (defined as opposites-in-unity for partial synergy and partial tradeoff, or 相生相克 in Chinese) in need of holistic and dynamic balances. This fundamental insight is rooted in the Yin-Yang balance (Fang, 2012;Jing & Van de Ven, 2014;Li, 2008Li, , 2012aLi, , 2012bLi, , 2014.…”