Organizational Trust And National Culture And Trust

Organizational trust is impacted by the reality that there has been eroding confidence levels in multiple stratas of society. In addition, this erosion in confidence has been evidenced by waning trust hinted at by Furedi (1997), who suggests that “human beings appear to have lost faith in themselves”. This erosion in confidence extends to society in general, and plays out in the operations of organizations.

Erosion of trust in organizations leads to fear and delays in progress. Public opinion, as informed and influence by the diligent watch dog behaviour of the mass media, does not help organizations in overcoming such hurdles.

The mass media has been a faithful watch dog in matters of distrust in society, and in organizations. For example, in Jamaica, several organizations, some of which are fully or partially owned or operated by the government, have been involved in scandals, which ultimately, touch on matters of trust. One recent case is that of PetroJam, which situation is still unfolding.

In recent decades the business landscape has been increasingly experienced a general “culture of fear” ( Leicester text, p 87) as it relates to things like technological and scientific developments, for example. This culture of fear or distrust is fuelled by the mass media and is associated with risk, according to Furedi (1997). Hacking, scamming and identity theft, for example, have made some organizations hesitant to acquire new technology or update and improve current technology.The mass media frenzy, has not only “produced a general distrust of science and scientific claims”(p.87 Leicester text) but it has also encouraged a “ tendency of mistrust…technological developments”.

In contemplating this matter, therefore, of the multiple conceptualizations on the subject of defining trust, Rousseau et al (1988) argued that this task of defining trust is closely linked to levels of analysis. This view point is supported by (Anheir & Kendall, 2002, p. xx) since “the concept of organizational trust has been approached and defined varyingly, depending on the interests of the scholars and their disciplinary foci( Anheier and Kendall, 2002 p. xx) Rousseau et al further contend that whether at the micro level (individual or group), the macro level (institution and cultural) or meso level (multiple or integrated), the level of analysis is largely dependent on the research question(s). (Purdue, Relative Predictability).

Related Studies on Trust (integrity, benevolence, competence and predictability)

In assessing the relationship between national culture and trust, in respect of benevolence, competence and integrity, Kushinikov suggests that three trusting beliefs exist in a community. These he suggests are labelled benevolence belief, integrity belief and competence belief.

In his study he seems to share the view of McKnight et al (2002), that benevolence belief and the corresponding trust implications anticipate that treatment of each other will not be done manipulatively nor opportunistically. This is deemed to be evident in the welfare of others being of great trust import since that enhances a general disposition to be trusting. The selected institution which operates in a framework towards external and internal community building through its outreach efforts (in counselling, student aid etc), might be well served to know its status in this area.

The aforementioned researchers have also summarized that generalized competence belief is not only a component for trust disposition but is based on the belief that people in portfolios have the requisite competence or ability (skills and characteristics) to do for other people what needs to be done (McKnight & Chervany, 1996; McKnight et al, 2002). Noticeably, this work did not include an emphasis on predictability. But its stance on integrity is indicative of the anticipation that team members adhere to a set of principles that others find acceptable, and thus one of the three face factors of perceived trustworthiness of a trustee (Kuvshinikoo & Timothy 2012…)

The works of Peking university researchers Peng and Xie as well as Blaine G Robins have weighed in on the subject of these trust dimensions. Although less extensively based on the demographics of this paper, these two works, and that of Gill, underscore that these trust drivers are fundamental and somewhat non-negotiable.

Robbins’ work mainly highlights the need for predictability in institutional quality in respect of generalized trust. Implicit in this undertaking is that, along with the predictability component is competence, which is so expected in educational intuitions such as the one selected. His research concludes that “generalized trust and institutional quality form a positive reciprocal relationship, where the connection is stronger from generalized trust to institutional quality” ( Robbins, 2011 Abstract). This is hardly surprising since institutional quality and benchmarking are undoubtedly inter-related for a service company as the one selected and which offers an educational product. Educational offerings rely on accreditation to be credible and so implicit in that would be to heed the caution that “service benchmarking is particularly more difficult than product benchmarking”, and that the emphasis placed on benchmarking can be a significant indicator of trust (Leicester text on Benchmarking Motwani and Sower 2006, p. 131).

An example of the nature of service benchmarking as it relates to trust was observed in the article “Benchmarking in Student Affairs by Robert E Mosier and Gary J Schwarzmueller, p.104).The Student Services Division of Oregon State did research, it titled “the benchmarking project” in the 1990s. The Division compared itself to similar divisions in eight other universities. In considering areas such as admissions and recruitment, the comparative data received confirmed how effective Oregon State was in relation to other educational institutions in its category, in maintaining high levels of trust in their recruitment and admissions processes could be trusted. (Alstete, 1995).