Swift trust theory

Last updated

Swift trust is a form of trust occurring in temporary organizational structures, which can include quick starting groups or teams. It was first explored by Debra Meyerson and colleagues in 1996. In swift trust theory, a group or team assumes trust initially, and later verifies and adjusts trust beliefs accordingly. [1]

Contents

Traditionally, trust has been examined in the context of long-term relationships. The establishment of trust has been thought to rely largely on the history of a group and the interactions between members. This traditional view of trust generally assumes that trust builds over time. However, this view is becoming problematic with the increase in globalization, change in technologies, and an increased reliance on temporary teams by organizations. Meyerson et al. propose that swift trust provides the necessary, initial, cognitive confidence for a temporary team to interact as if trust were present. However, swift trust requires an individual to verify that a team can manage vulnerabilities and expectations. [1]

Trust in teams

Researchers study trust at the group or team level because of trust's relationship to overall group performance. High levels of trust are related to increased positive attitudes toward the organization, increased attitudinal commitment to the group, and team satisfaction. [2] Trust is also related to higher levels of autonomy in the team. [3] Therefore, it is interesting that groups that are short lived, and do not experience traditional forms of trust building, are still able to experience the benefits of trust within the group.

Conventional models of trust

The trust literature distinguishes two antecedents of trust: trustworthiness and trust propensity. Trustworthiness is the ability, benevolence, and integrity of a trustee, and trust propensity is a dispositional willingness to rely on others. [4] Traditional forms of trust formation center on the "unique effects of ability, benevolence, and integrity on trust; the mediating role of trust in explaining the relationships between trustworthiness, trust propensity, and behavioral outcomes" (p. 917). [4] There are three dimensions of trustworthiness that have significant, unique relationships with trust (ability, benevolence, and integrity). These trustworthiness dimensions reflect both cognition-based and affect-based sources of trust. Of course, trust often still requires a leap beyond the expectations that ability, benevolence, and integrity can create. Trust propensity may then play a role in driving that leap. [4]

This categorization of antecedents of trust is partially relevant, but not a sufficient explanation for the formation of swift trust. Situations that arise that would require a form of swift trust may be unable to foster the antecedents necessary for traditional trust formation. Integrity and ability would not have adequate time to establish themselves in a swift starting group setting. However, benevolence as an antecedent may be helpful in the explanation of swift trust in that it is a more affective acknowledgment of mutual concern inherent in the relationship. [4] Additionally, higher levels of trust propensity might foster greater levels of trust in a situation that would require swift trust.

Conventional models of time-dependent trust

Deterrence-based trust occurs when an individual fears punishment; as a result, the individual holds true to his or her responsibilities. In knowledge-based trust, some knowledge is known of the trustee and this allows the trustor to understand and predict the trustee's actions. Identification-based trust allows for one member to act as an agent for another member because they identify with each other based on their common goals and shared values. [5]

There is also an institutional, or impersonal, form of trust, which, according to Luhmann (1979), [6] is based on the norms of an institution rather than emotional bonds or past history between members. For example, institutional trust is what allows seeming strangers to engage in contracts, due to the faith in the legal system.

However, both the interpersonal and impersonal forms of trust assume that the relationship will have some longevity. Benefits that a team gains from being trustful tend to be long term, and conversely, the benefits of acting in an untrustful manner are generally short term. [7] Because both the impersonal and interpersonal forms for trust assume some sort of longevity, swift trust addresses the ability of a temporary team to form and maintain high levels of trust.

In organizations

Given the fact that temporary work teams are frequently utilized in an organization, it is necessary to understand how trust is being formed within these teams. Generally, trust is assumed to build over time, with a trustor updating beliefs about the trust-related attributes of the trustee. [8] [9]

Swift trust is an explanation of trust development in these temporary, nonconventional teams. Swift trust is "a unique form of collective perception and relating that is capable of managing issues of vulnerability, uncertainty, risk, and expectations". [1] : 167  Instead of trust being an evidence-driven information process, swift trust is created from category-driven processes. Because a temporary group is under time constraints, the group only has time for quick categorization of team members. This can result in groupings based on surface characteristics like tone of voice or style of dress. [10]

Meyerson et al. propose that a temporary team interacts as if trust were present, but then must verify that the team can manage expectations. In other words, because time is limited, the team assumes trust initially, and later verifies and adjusts trust beliefs accordingly. Although swift trust can still be a strong form of trust, it is conditional and in need of reinforcement and calibration by actions. [1]

As previously mentioned, trust is not always time-dependent. One of the ways researchers examine the interaction between trust and time is through the classic prisoner's dilemma experiments. In these experiments, many participants were willing to share money with a stranger in the hope that he or she would also share his or her money, allowing both participants to split the money equally. The results indicated that participants were more likely to share their earnings with a fellow participant rather than steal from them. Given that these participants had no prior interaction, it is interesting to examine the trust between them. These prisoner's dilemma experiments highly relate to swift trust theory because in both instances trust is present almost immediately, despite the lack of prior interaction between the individuals. [11]

Components

Swift trust has both cognitive and normative (i.e., ideal or standard) components. The cognitive components of swift trust involve early trusting beliefs, while the normative components reinforce this trust. Meyerson et al. explain the normative components as providing "social proofs" and "fail-safe mechanisms" that can regulate trust and "avoid exaggerated confidence". [1] [12]

Cognitive components

The cognitive components of swift trust relate to collective perceptions of the group that are immediately apparent and are based on expectations related to social identities and self-categorizations. [1] [13] When individual group members are not able to rely on prior interactions with other team members, they rely on these social or self-categories to promote favorable in-group beliefs and actions that foster early trusting behavior. These early trusting beliefs tend to be self reinforcing in that individuals focus on information that validates their trusting beliefs while contrary evidence may go unnoticed. [11]

Normative components

While cognitive components of swift trust are important for the start-up of the team, they may not be sufficient for maintaining trust, especially in the face of high uncertainty and in electronic contexts like virtual teams. [12] Therefore, many believe that normative action components are necessary components in swift trust. According to Meyerson et al., [1] swift trust erodes with "deviations from or violations of group norms and presumptions about competent...behavior" of the team (p. 190). Crisp and Jarvenpaa [12] propose that the normative influence on swift trust may be much more important than originally theorized by Meyerson et al. Norms promote adaptive behavior by providing guidelines for what is considered acceptable in a group or team. [14] Normative actions build on early trusting beliefs and help increase confidence in the team's abilities and can help the team overcome obstacles. By setting norms and mutually agreed upon standards, and acting in accordance, the team reinforces the social attraction to the group. Normative actions also promote positive attributions of other group member's behavior. [12]

Normative and cognitive components interact in swift trust by working in conjunction with one another. Cognitive components continue to interrelate with normative actions, complementing one another, not replacing one another. For example, if teams have low early trusting beliefs, strong normative actions may be seen as controlling and inhibiting rather than coordinating and helpful. [12]

Some researchers have noted that because many temporary teams are geographically separated or have members from different cultures and social systems, accepted norms could vary significantly. [12] In fact, in a study by Postmes, Spears, and Lea, (2000), [15] normative influences emerged over time, not through preconceived rules. In essence, interaction over time defined appropriate group behavior, not preconceived norms. While norms may provide a source for influencing behavior, it is the normative actions that provide the mechanisms for explaining the nature of normative influence. [16]

Swift trust in different work teams

Swift trust has been studied in a variety of work groups, like global virtual teams (GVT) and swift starting action teams (STATs). As of 2013, a contract-based, temporary workforce is becoming the norm rather than the exception. This shift is seen in many organizations' reliance on ad-hoc, non-traditional teams. [12]

Swift trust in global virtual teams

A virtual team, as defined by Kristof et al. 1995, [17] is "a self-managed knowledge work team, with distributed expertise, that forms and disbands to address a specific organizational goal." These teams generally have limited communication due to large time and space differences and rely largely on electronic communication. [7] Swift trust is critical to virtual teams when there is limited or no time to build interpersonal relationships. Trust is based on an early assumption that the given team is trustworthy, but this assumption is verified through actions around the joint task, scheduling, and monitoring. [12] Trust plays a critical role in organizational dynamics, especially within Global Virtual Teams (GVTs). In such teams, where members may be geographically dispersed and have diverse cultural backgrounds, trust becomes essential for fostering effective communication, collaboration, and overall team performance. [18] Trust in GVTs is built on a foundation of transparent communication, empathy, consistency, inclusivity, accountability, and integrity. Effective leaders in GVTs embody these attributes and actively work to cultivate trust among team members, recognizing its critical importance in driving collaboration and achieving organizational success in a virtual environment. [19]




Swift trust in swift starting action teams

Swift starting action teams (STATs) are highly independent teams composed of skilled individuals who work together to quickly and effectively complete a demanding, complex, time-pressured, and high-stakes project. These individuals have no prior experience with one another and must perform their task almost immediately upon formation. Traditional theories of trust formation do not adequately explain how trust forms in STATs, given that there is no prior experience with team members to establish trust and the team must work immediately. Like GVTs, researchers believe that STATs also utilize swift trust. Swift trust provides a basis for explaining how STATs are able to have trust within the team. [20]

Criticisms

Swift trust theory is not without its criticisms. Swift trust is fragile and cannot be sustained without subsequent communication. Jarvenpaa and Leidner note that it is necessary but not sufficient for the communication of trustworthiness. [21] Additionally, some researchers have suggested that swift trust as theorized by Meyerson et al. [1] is not a true form of trust, but rather a substitution of trust. It is suggested that swift trust is simply a risk management strategy. Furthermore, swift trust might inhibit actual trust building between the trustor and trustee. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

A social norm is a shared standard of acceptable behavior by a group. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. This quality can apply to an ability, as in a rational animal, to a psychological process, like reasoning, to mental states, such as beliefs and intentions, or to persons who possess these other forms of rationality. A thing that lacks rationality is either arational, if it is outside the domain of rational evaluation, or irrational, if it belongs to this domain but does not fulfill its standards.

A role is a set of connected behaviors, rights, obligations, beliefs, and norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation. It is an expected or free or continuously changing behavior and may have a given individual social status or social position. It is vital to both functionalist and interactionist understandings of society. Social role theory posits the following about social behavior:

  1. The division of labour in society takes the form of the interaction among heterogeneous specialized positions, we call roles.
  2. Social roles included appropriate and permitted forms of behavior and actions that recur in a group, guided by social norms, which are commonly known and hence determine the expectations for appropriate behavior in these roles, which further explains the position of a person in the society.
  3. Roles are occupied by individuals, who are called actors.
  4. When individuals approve of a social role, they will incur costs to conform to role norms, and will also incur costs to punish those who violate role norms.
  5. Changed conditions can render a social role outdated or illegitimate, in which case social pressures are likely to lead to role change.
  6. The anticipation of rewards and punishments, as well as the satisfaction of behaving pro-socially, account for why agents conform to role requirements.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social group</span> Two or more humans who interact with one another

In the social sciences, a social group is defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group. The system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group or between social groups is known as group dynamics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Team building</span> Term for activities used to enhance social relations and define roles within teams

Team building is a collective term for various types of activities used to enhance social relations and define roles within teams, often involving collaborative tasks. It is distinct from team training, which is designed by a combination of business managers, learning and development/OD and an HR Business Partner to improve the efficiency, rather than interpersonal relations.

In philosophy of mind and cognitive science, folk psychology, or commonsense psychology, is a human capacity to explain and predict the behavior and mental state of other people. Processes and items encountered in daily life such as pain, pleasure, excitement, and anxiety use common linguistic terms as opposed to technical or scientific jargon. Folk psychology allows for an insight into social interactions and communication, thus stretching the importance of connection and how it is experienced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

A prescriptive or normative statement is one that evaluates certain kinds of words, decisions, or actions as either correct or incorrect, or one that sets out guidelines for what a person "should" do.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social structure</span> Sociological classification of human societies according to their social characteristics

In the social sciences, social structure is the aggregate of patterned social arrangements in society that are both emergent from and determinant of the actions of individuals. Likewise, society is believed to be grouped into structurally related groups or sets of roles, with different functions, meanings, or purposes. Examples of social structure include family, religion, law, economy, and class. It contrasts with "social system", which refers to the parent structure in which these various structures are embedded. Thus, social structures significantly influence larger systems, such as economic systems, legal systems, political systems, cultural systems, etc. Social structure can also be said to be the framework upon which a society is established. It determines the norms and patterns of relations between the various institutions of the society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Credibility</span> Believability of a source or message

Credibility comprises the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Credibility dates back to Aristotle theory of Rhetoric. Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every situation. He divided the means of persuasion into three categories, namely Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which he believed have the capacity to influence the receiver of a message. According to Aristotle, the term "Ethos" deals with the character of the speaker. The intent of the speaker is to appear credible. In fact, the speaker's ethos is a rhetorical strategy employed by an orator whose purpose is to "inspire trust in his audience". Credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message. Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trust (social science)</span> Assumption of and reliance on the honesty of another party

Trust is the belief that another person will do what is expected. It brings with it a willingness for one party to become vulnerable to another party, on the presumption that the trustee will act in ways that benefit the trustor. In addition, the trustor does not have control over the actions of the trustee. Scholars distinguish between generalized trust, which is the extension of trust to a relatively large circle of unfamiliar others, and particularized trust, which is contingent on a specific situation or a specific relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of planned behavior</span> Theory that links behaviour

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of reasoned action</span> Psychological theory

The theory of reasoned action aims to explain the relationship between attitudes and behaviors within human action. It is mainly used to predict how individuals will behave based on their pre-existing attitudes and behavioral intentions. An individual's decision to engage in a particular behavior is based on the outcomes the individual expects will come as a result of performing the behavior. Developed by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen in 1967, the theory derived from previous research in social psychology, persuasion models, and attitude theories. Fishbein's theories suggested a relationship between attitude and behaviors. However, critics estimated that attitude theories were not proving to be good indicators of human behavior. The TRA was later revised and expanded by the two theorists in the following decades to overcome any discrepancies in the A–B relationship with the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and reasoned action approach (RAA). The theory is also used in communication discourse as a theory of understanding.

In ethics and social sciences, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining which actions are best to do or what way is best to live, or to describe the significance of different actions. Value systems are proscriptive and prescriptive beliefs; they affect the ethical behavior of a person or are the basis of their intentional activities. Often primary values are strong and secondary values are suitable for changes. What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases, or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good".

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

Counterproductive norms are group norms that prevent a group, organization, or other collective entities from performing or accomplishing its originally stated function by working oppositely to how they were initially intended. Group norms are typically enforced to facilitate group survival, to make group member behaviour predictable, to help avoid embarrassing interpersonal interactions, or to clarify distinctive aspects of the group’s identity. Counterproductive norms exist despite the fact that they cause opposite outcomes of the intended prosocial functions.

The social identity model of deindividuation effects is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication.

Organizational identification (OI) is a term used in management studies and organizational psychology. The term refers to the propensity of a member of an organization to identify with that organization. OI has been distinguished from "affective organizational commitment". Measures of an individual's OI have been developed, based on questionnaires.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity is sometimes a product of group communication. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or from direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or when watching television, even if alone.

Cross-cultural psychology attempts to understand how individuals of different cultures interact with each other. Along these lines, cross-cultural leadership has developed as a way to understand leaders who work in the newly globalized market. Today's international organizations require leaders who can adjust to different environments quickly and work with partners and employees of other cultures. It cannot be assumed that a manager who is successful in one country will be successful in another.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  2. ↑ Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel review, 32 (5), 605-622.
  3. ↑ Langfred, C. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management journal, 47 (3), 385.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
  5. ↑ Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., Charaskin, L. (1992). "Business on a Handshake," Negotiation Journal, 8, 365-77 doi : 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1992.tb00679.x
  6. ↑ Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.
  7. 1 2 Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250-264.doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0028
  8. ↑ Bhattacharya, A. (1998). Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes. The Academy of Management review, 23 (3), 459–472
  9. ↑ Mayer, R. C., Davis, J., H., & Schoorman, D. F., An integrative model of trust. The Academy of Management review, 20 (3), 459-472
  10. 1 2 Kohler, T., Cortina, J. M., Salas, E., & Garven, A. J., (2011). Trust in temporary work groups. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Management and Marketing, The University of Melbourne.
  11. 1 2 McKnight, D. H. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. (Special Topic Forum on Trust in and Between Organizations). The Academy of Management review, 23 (3), 473.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Crisp, C. B. & Jarvenpaa, S.L., (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams trusting beliefs and normative actions. Journal of personnel psychology, 12 (1), 45-56.
  13. ↑ Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management review, 25 (1), 121–140.
  14. ↑ Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  15. ↑ Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341–371.
  16. ↑ Ehrhart, M.G., & Naumann, S.E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (6), 960–974.
  17. ↑ Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. Beyerlein, M. M., Johnshon, D. A., Beyerlein, S. T., eds. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Work in Teams, Vol. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 229–253.
  18. ↑ 4. Wengel, J. (2023)
  19. ↑ 4. Wengel, J. (2023)
  20. ↑ Wildman, J. L. (2012). Trust Development in Swift Starting Action Teams: A Multilevel Framework. Group & organization management, 37 (2), 137–170.
  21. ↑ Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (4), 1–36.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.