Organizational trust: How to study it
Trust is at the base of any type of relationship. This fact has made it an important center of analysis for the different disciplines, since each branch of science has tried to give a different perspective, such as economics, psychology, sociology, among others. Various authors have tried to conceptualize trust, and explain their causes and consistent.
Although great advances have been made in their study, Li comments that there are several reasons why this advance has not been successful that it could have been. In the first place, it should be noted that there is no single definition for what is confidence as a construct, and although there is, the interpretation that occurs through the world has great cultural differences. Therefore, one of the first challenges in the study of trust, and more specifically, organizational confidence, is to find a way to define it that can be accepted by the vast majority of the population and operationalized in the same way transculturally. Although it is not common, certain authors and Knack, 2001 cited do study or, at least, refer to these cultural differences that could affect the interpretation that occurs of the concept of trust. For example, Huff and Kelly study how confidence develops at the organizational level, comparing 7 nations where society is considered more individualistic as opposed to others where the collective is what predominates.
Continuing with the idea mentioned above that there is no single definition highly accepted throughout the world, when it was achieved, instruments should be defined with which to be able to measure it reliably and validly, while reapplicable. However, the instruments that have been used so far fail to achieve high replicability, even if they have high measures in reliability and validity or are robust measures. These same authors told 129 unique instruments, among the 141 articles that they reviewed for the meta-analysis they made in 2011, so it would be logical to think that today there will be even more than these these. An example would be the adaptation made to Acosta, Salanova and Llorens and later Acosta, Salanova, Llorens and Torrente (2015), based on the study that these same authors made in 2012.Salanova, Llorens, Acosta and Torrente (right here) which leads us to reflect, is the same construct being measured?Is this well defined? Are truly valid instruments? While these questions are of high relevance for the study of trust, they will not be the center of attention of this work.
It should be added that these instruments measure that aspect (s) for the (the) that are designed in isolation. In fact, Bachman criticizes that the different authors when they develop ideas about trust, do so leaving aside the context;This being a big mistake, since trust is specific to domain.
In addition in organizations, above all, it is significantly relevant to study trust, since in them we find contexts where interdependence between the parties is long and stable, also due to their great importance for work teams and other organizational activities. In turn, in these relationships there is usually a lot at stake, since, for example, the economic stability of the employee can depend on them or the consequences they have in the objectives marked by the organization, or directly on the worker at different levels(Social, productivity …). It is also thanks to trust, that it is possible to create the commitment in the workplace, either with the institution or among the workers, both horizontally (among colleagues) and vertical (employees and supervisors). For example, Suarez, Caballero, and Sánchez, in a study with a sample of 214 Chilean workers, show that trust is essential for cooperation in work teams. Something relevant, since today there is a notable increase in collective work as opposed to the individual.
During my experience in practices I have been able to verify this fact. When there is trust, whether horizontally among co -workers, or vertically with the supervisor, the work was done, on the one hand, more enjoyable, since it was done in an environment of acceptance and tranquility. On the other hand, when there was no trust – whether horizontal or vertical – the work was done under pressure (added, in addition to the pressure of the time in which they work in this type of organizations), so it was unpleasant and a feeling ofsuspicion prevailed.
Leave feedback