Page 107 -

96 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

judgements can also be driven by contextual cues such as the reputation of the
institution that the person works for or the status of the professional group to
which they belong. This type of trust can therefore develop much more swiftly
but it is also likely to be more fragile since if the trustee does not quickly dem-
onstrate the competences which were expected, the trust breaks down.
Commitment trust: This trust stems from the contractual agreements between
the parties. In this case, the trust is developed on an institutional basis. Each party
is expected to gain mutual benefit out of the relationship, and so can be relied
on to be committed to deliver according to the details of the contract. While the
contract itself embodies formal obligations on the part of the signatories, the
important element as regards risk and uncertainty is that it allows those involved
to believe that those others with whom they are working will demonstrate com-
mitment trust; that is, that others can be trusted to put in the effort necessary to
complete the joint work. This commitment trust means that only rarely will the
contract itself be used to settle conflicts between the parties. Indeed, resorting
to ‘the contract’ would be a sign that the commitment trust had broken down.
This type of trust probably falls in between the first two in terms of how resilient
it is. It is more resilient than competence-based trust because the contractual
agreement underpinning commitment trust will still encourage a continuation
of the alliance even if those involved stop respecting each other’s abilities (they
know they can resort to ‘the contract’ if all else fails). However, it is not likely to
be as resilient as goodwill or companion trust. Partners that fail to demonstrate
their commitment by delivering their share of the work on one contract are
likely to be dropped from any future joint collaboration.
These different types of trust can all influence the ability of those involved in
a team to create knowledge. For example, imagine that you have been put in a
team to undertake a college assignment on where you have to identify oppor-
tunities in your own college for reducing waste and improving sustainability of
operations. You have never worked with any member of the team before, but
you have heard, through a friend, that one of your team members – Colin –
always tries to dominate, even though he is not very clever, always wanting oth-
ers to do the actual work; another team member – Jenny – so you have heard,
is simply not very nice and will always try to undermine colleagues if provided
with the opportunity; and finally, you have heard that the fourth team mem-
ber – Scott – is not really interested in getting the degree because he is going to
work in the family business where his qualifications simply will not be relevant.
It is not hard to imagine that this team is not going to be very successful, lack-
ing all three types of trust across different members. Nevertheless, perhaps the
four of you decide to go to a bar after a not-very-successful first meeting. You
have a few drinks and start to talk to each other. You learn from Colin that he
really disliked the experience of a former class team assignment that he was
involved in (the one your friend was also in) because none of his peers were
willing to make any decisions; he therefore found that he had to be more pushy
than he would ordinarily like to be and also try not to do all the work himself
but delegate so that the others contributed at least something. You learn from

6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 96
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 96 6/5/09 7:00:26 AM