Seminar Plan

1
(No Transcript)
2
Seminar Plan

• Overview of debates concerning trust and mistrust

• Relationship between organisational justice and
  trust and mistrust considered

• Relationship explored using data

• Relationship conceptualised as TMA triangle

• Conclusions drawn on trust and mistrust and
  suggestions made for further research

3
Introduction trust and mistrust

trust
mistrust
favourable expectations (psychological
state) willingness to become vulnerable
(expectations)
more recent debate

• separate but linkeddimensions (Lewicki)
• can be both

however extent and reasons for this are unclear
4
introduction organisational justice
recent research has argued

perceptions of outcomes
means to consider trust and mistrust reactions
perceptions of methods
perceptions of treatments
5
Trust definition
favourable expectations willingness to
becomevulnerable a multidimensional construct
being not only a psychological state based on
perceptions and on perceived motives and
intentions of others, but also a manifestation of
behaviour towards these others (Costa, 2003
608)
Individuals behaviours therefore part of trust
asthey enable observation, learning making
judgements
6
Trust definition 2
favourable expectations based on
interpretationsof reality
recognise information is imperfect
corresponding leap of faith to vulnerability
(Moellering, 2001)
Mistrust leap is likely to occur earlier as isit
is established more easily(Burt Knez, 1996)
7
Mistrust/Distrust definition
Many researchers consider are polar opposites
Both mistrust and distrust used
Common parlance used interchangably
OED defines both as lack of trust
Despite definition may be distinct constructs
(Stikin Roth1993 Sitkin and Stickel, 1996)
8
Trust Mistrust separate but linked
reason to expect treatedfavourablyno reason to
expect treatedunfavourablywillingness to
becomevulnerable
reason to expect treatedfavourablyreason to
expect treatedunfavourablywillingness and
unwillingnessto become vulnerable
High trust
no reason to expect treatedfavourablyno reason
to expect treatedunfavourablyambivalence about
becomingvulnerable
no reason to expect treatedfavourablyreason to
expect treatedunfavourablyunwillingness to
becomevulnerable
Low trust
Low mistrust
High mistrust
9
Organisational justice and trust
Organisational justice
Trust
perceptions of fairnesscategorises
employeesviews about their andothers treatment
importance ofexpectationsbased upon
perceptionsand perceived motives
OJ allows trust and mistrust to be considered
asresponses to multi dimensional relationships
andindividuals to hold seemingly contradictory
views
10
Distributive justice implications for trust
Distributive justice
Trust
OutcomeSubjective assessmentReferent
standardsHappens once
Importance of treatmentSubjective
assessment Relative to others
11
Procedural justice implications for trust
Procedural justice
Trust
Process fairness Subjective assessment
Belief not being deceived Subjective assessment
Integrity in ensuring fair and consistentapplicat
ion (Folger Cropenzano 1998 Brockner Siegel
1996)
12
Informational justice implications for trust
Informational justice
Trust
Consistency of info.with perceived
reality Subjective assessment
Impact on the ongoingnature of trustSubjective
assessment
13
Interpersonal justice implications for trust
Interpersonal justice
Trust
Sensitivity,benevolence andsupport Subjective
assessment
Importance of inter-personal treatment
indevelopment of trustSubjective assessment
N.B. Distinct from outcomes, process or info.
14
Justice the role of organisation
Supervisors/managers discretion can impacton
perceptions of justice (Whitener,et al.,
1998) Level within organisation will impact
uponperceptions of justice (Schminke et al.,
2002) Interpersonal relationships likely to
impact onperceptions of justice
has implications for trust and mistrust
15
Method context
UK public sector organisation employees
reactionsto strategic change
Social Services
Newcounty
Education
Strategic planning
Police
Support services
Traffic
Libraries
Road building and maintenance
16
Method data collection
Senior Managers (3)Professionals andMiddle
Managers (15) Administrative andTechnical
Employees(10)
Structured cardsort of possibleemotions
Drawn from across the5 Directorates
In depthinterview
17
Method structured card sort (1)
40 emotions derived from psychology and
stressliterature
draw on experience validity -means for
exploring allows simultaneous trust and mistrust
your feelings in relation to the change
inNewcounty in the past year
18
Method structure card sort (2)
Do not feel
Feel to someextent
Feel to someextent
Feel strongly
Feel strongly
Most strongly
19
Method Interview
Grounded in respondents own categorisation Comme
nced with 3 most strongly felt emotionsDiscussed
relative position of trusting and mistrustful
Ive noticed that you categorised can we
talk about this
20
Method relationship between data and analysis
Establish relativeimportance of emotions
Card sort
Generate categorisationof trust and mistrust
Contextualise feelingsof trust and mistrust
In depth interviews
Explore and make sense of trust/mistrust
relnships
OJ theory
21
Categorisation of trust and mistrust
Mistrustful
feel to some extent
feelstrongly
feel most strongly
not felt
feel most strongly
1
feel strongly
7
1
Trusting
feel to some extent
1
8
1
3
not felt
6
22
The Trust-Mistrust-Absence Triangle
Trust
trustingat leastto someextent
both trusting and mistrustful
mistrusting at least to some extent
neither
Mistrust
Absence
23
Overview of findings
Trusting at least to some extent majority
positive about change focus at Directorate/Team
level and impact on work
Mistrustful at least to some extent spoke about
change negatively or with mixed feelings cited
external factors
Neither trusting nor mistrustful mixed
feelings positive about team, negative about lack
of control
Both trusting and mistrustful varied explanations
24
Trusting but not mistrustful (1)
Strongly trusting justified in terms of
interpersonal and informational aspects
They management let people know whats
happening,consult and get issues out in the
open. Administrator, strongly trusting
I have not been lied to I do get answers when I
ask and these are not evasive, so I have trust
in the line managers I have for this reason.
the officers do not hold back in Newcounty.
This includes when the message is not a good
one. Manager strongly trusting
I have great trust in my line manager and
superiors because they help me Manager, strongly
trusting
25
Trusting but not mistrustful (2)
Less strongly trusting more circumspect, often
with no concrete evidence
Im given a lot of information about things. I
assume and trust the things Im told are right.
Administrator
Sometimes I feel there is an ulterior motive in
decisions which is not communicated. This has
not affected me personally, but real reasons are
not always being given hence to some extent
Middle manager
26
Trusting but not mistrustful (3)
Only a minority justified feelings in
procedural or distributive terms
Procedures used to arrive at decisions were at
themercy of councillors who were chasing
voters ratherthan real needs Professional
recognised that outcomes such as local govt
reform were outside Newcountys control We have
to work within the Governments parameters of
what were getting and within this try and do our
best Senior manager
27
Mistrustful but not trusting
Feelings justified principally in terms
of distributive outcomes including for
people served Mistrustful within wider context of
LG reform
The organisation plays a tokenistic game with
Government set targets etc so whose needs are we
meeting? is it ticking boxes, or is it really
meeting the needs of those who need help?
Professional
28
Neither trusting nor mistrustful
Emphasised factors which constrained trust and
mistrust
Mistrust constrained bysensitivity of treatment
line manager support support by colleagues
Trust constrained by inconsistent
messages inconsistent procedures
29
Both trusting and mistrustful
explained feelings of trust in similar ways
to those who felt only trusting explained
feelings of mistrust in similar ways to those who
felt only mistrustful
had contradictory ideas about justness of
different facets of change different foci of
trust and mistrust meant could holdwhat appeared
to be opposing views
30
Discussion (1)

• Only weak support for Lewicki et al.s model of
• trust, rather
• trust can be a single dimension
• mistrust can be a single dimension
• trust-mistrust can be polar opposites on a
  continuum
  mutually exclusive
• high trust-high mistrust unlikely to exist
• both trust and mistrust can be absent

can coexist
The T-M-A triangle provides a better
representation
31
Discussion (2)
Little support for trust based on leap of
faith, rather

• based on perceptions of what experienced, not
  projections
• perceptions were rationalised
• similar for mistrust (with corresponding leap)

32
Discussion (3)
Trusting explained through interpersonal
andinformational aspects of interactional justice
Mistrust explained through distributive
and procedural justice.
however wider organisational context
also important
33
Discussion -implications (4)

• For employers seeking to engender trust
• importance of continuing to provide information
  after the initial justification for a decision
• importance of line managers being sensitive to
  individual employees needs
• need to be mindful of influence of external
  environment

34
Further reading
Saunders MNK, Morrow TF and Thornhill, A (2007)
Trust and mistrust in organisations An
exploration using an organisational justice
framework European Journal of Work and
Organisational Psychology 17.4
(Forthcoming) Skinner D, Saunders MNK and
Duckett H (2007) Policies, promises and trust
Improving working lives in the NHS International
Journal of Public Sector Management 19.7
Saunders MNK and Thornhill A (2006)
Organisational justice, trustand the management
of change An exploration Personnel Review 34.3,
360-374 Thornhill A and Saunders MNK (2003)
Exploring employees reactions to strategic
change over time The utilisation of
an organisational justice perspective Irish
Journal of Management 24.1 66-86