Trust and Symbolic Exchange

Haas, David F.; Deseran, Forrest A.

doi:10.2307/3033857

Cited by 121 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By individualizing employment conditions according to their workers' personal needs, employers provide individuals a special contribution, often involving symbolic and social-emotional elements (e.g., trust, appreciation, personalization; Blau, 1964;Haas & Deseran, 1981). In this manner, i-deals provide a basis for reciprocity between workers and the organization, with the negotiating supervisor usually acting as an agent of the latter (Gouldner, 1960;Levinson, 1965).…”

Section: The Aftermath Of I-dealsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals.

Hornung¹,

Rousseau²,

Glaser³

2008

Journal of Applied Psychology

343

487

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of 887 employees in a German government agency assessed the antecedents and consequences of idiosyncratic arrangements individual workers negotiated with their supervisors. Work arrangements promoting the individualization of employment conditions, such as part-time work and telecommuting, were positively related to the negotiation of idiosyncratic deals ("i-deals"). Worker personal initiative also had a positive effect on i-deal negotiation. Two types of i-deals were studied: flexibility in hours of work and developmental opportunities. Flexibility i-deals were negatively related and developmental i-deals positively related to work-family conflict and working unpaid overtime. Developmental i-deals were also positively related to increased performance expectations and affective organizational commitment, while flexibility i-deals were unrelated to either.

show abstract

Section: The Aftermath Of I-dealsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals.

Hornung¹,

Rousseau²,

Glaser³

2008

Journal of Applied Psychology

343

487

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Institutionalized trust, then, allows organizational actors to bring to bear their agency and creativity in constructing symbolic expressions with which they can engage in "symbolic exchange" (Haas & Deseran, 1981) to signal their trust and/or trustworthiness to others. We can thus conceive of institutionalized trust as symbolically mediated.…”

Section: The Reproduction Of Institutionalized Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trusting organizations: The institutionalization of trust in interorganizational relationships

Kroeger

2011

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on interorganizational trust has stressed the need to develop a deeper understanding of the multi-level nature of this construct. This article focuses on trust on different analytical levels in an interorganizational context, and on the hitherto underspecified connections between these. Based on an institutionalization approach, it revisits the classic question: (how) can organizations trust each other? To do so, we consider organizations as objects of trust and reappraise the transferral from interpersonal to interorganizational trust in "facework" (Giddens, 1990). We also examine the conflicts and struggles of trust and power that can arise from this process between boundary spanners and their organizational constituents. Next, we consider organizations as subjects of trust in interorganizational relationships. We detail the institutionalization of trust and its reproduction on an organizational level, and how it can be transmitted to new generations of organizational actors, creating path-dependent histories of trust which are truly interorganizational. Taking up the theme of trust and power, we analyze ways in which the institutionalization of trust can entail that of power, too, and examine the implications of this from a critical point of view.We conclude that in interorganizational trust, both the subject and object of trust move across analytical levels, and further, that this movement demonstrates the significance of the organization as a distinct entity that can be both trusted and trusting.

show abstract

“…Trust, therefore, can be considered as the reflected trustworthiness of the trustees and their trustworthiness that is subjectively entertained in the judgment of the trustors (Sztompka, 1999). The potential partners then have the burden of not only creating trust but also maintaining it and this process involves the duty of presenting themselves as trustworthy persons (Haas & Deseran, 1981). This corresponds to Goffman's (1959) presentation of the self theory, which proposes that people are constantly engaged in managing and controlling the impressions they make on others to attain their goals.…”

Section: Trust As An Expectationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and information privacy concerns in electronic government

Beldad¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust and Symbolic Exchange

Cited by 121 publications

References 17 publications

Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals.

Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals.

Trusting organizations: The institutionalization of trust in interorganizational relationships

Trust and information privacy concerns in electronic government

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About