Page 105 -

94 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

other’ simply because they are told to work together in a team. Understanding
the different types of trust that exist and the processes influencing trust devel-
opment is crucial for considering the strategies that are likely to be effective for
stimulating team knowledge creation.

>> DEFINITIONS OF TRUST

Trust is defined in different ways in the literature, although two issues seem
central: first, that trust is about dealing with risk and uncertainty; and second,
that trust is about accepting vulnerability. Luhmann (1988), for example, sees
trust as an attitudinal mechanism that allows individuals to subjectively assess
whether or not to expose themselves to situations where the possible damage
may outweigh the advantage. This attitude develops where individuals choose
to accept vulnerability to others. In other words, to trust someone there must
be a situation of uncertainty in which there is an element of perceived risk on
the trustee’s part: ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular
action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control
that other party’ (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). There are many sources of vulner-
ability that may be ‘at risk’ in collaborative situations, for example, reputation,
financial resources, self-esteem, conversations. Where tasks are interdependent
and there are goods or things that are valued, vulnerability and the need for
trust are higher. This will be precisely the situation in a knowledge-creating team
within an organization.
While we can have a generally agreed broad definition of trust, the literature
also makes it clear that there are different types of trust, based either on differ-
ent sources of trust or on different processes of trust development. For example,
Sako (1992) considers three different reasons for being able to develop trust,
that is, different reasons for being able to predict that another will behave in
a ‘mutually acceptable manner’: first, because of a contractual agreement that
binds the parties in the relationship; second, because of a belief in the compe-
tencies of those involved; and third, because of a belief in the goodwill of those
involved. This is very similar to the typology developed by Shapiro et al. (1992),
which distinguishes between deterrence-based trust, knowledge-based trust and
identification-based trust.
Other writers have concentrated on understanding how trust is developed
and maintained. In terms of development, Zucker (1986) depicts three cen-
tral mechanisms of trust production – process-based (i.e. based on reciprocal,
recurring exchange), characteristic-based (i.e. based on social similarity) and
institutional-based (i.e. based on expectations embedded in societal norms and
structures). In terms of maintenance, Ring and Van de Ven (1994) distinguish
between fragile (easily developed but easily broken) and resilient (hard-won
and less likely to break) trust. Similarly, Jones and George (1998) distinguish
between conditional and unconditional trust. Conditional trust is established at
the beginning of a social encounter as long as there are no obvious indications

6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 94 6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 94