Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T21:01:01.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Creating more trusting and trustworthy organizations: exploring the foundations and benefits of presumptive trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

By
Roderick Kramer
Edited by
Jared D. Harris ,
Brian Moriarty  and
Andrew C. Wicks
Roderick Kramer
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Jared D. Harris
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Brian Moriarty
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Andrew C. Wicks
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access

Summary

Executive summary

The situation

Low trust has become virtually a default assumption, especially when it comes to the public’s expectations regarding the fundamental trustworthiness of American business and its leaders.

Key questions

What precisely can be done to remedy this low trust in business? How can it be “fixed”? Who should do it and how might they go about doing it? How does contemporary trust theory and research move us toward any useful answers to these important questions?

New knowledge

Presumptive trust – trust that is taken for granted – is one of the bedrocks of the high trust organization. It is only when trust has a solid, secure, and virtually taken-for-granted quality that it operates at maximum effectiveness and durability.

Four key types of expectations are critical to presumptive trust in organizational settings: (1) identity-based expectations; (2) role-based expectations; (3) rule-based expectations; and (4) leader-based expectations.

Key lessons

Trust works best when it has acquired an almost tacit or taken-for-granted quality.

The constructive role that leaders play in setting positive expectations regarding the general level of trust and trustworthiness within their organizations is key to the emergence and maintenance of presumptive trust.

In situations where the costs of misplaced trust are high, too much presumptive trust can create potential vulnerabilities and risks.

Presumptive trust, without actual trustworthiness, would be a hollow achievement and potentially sets the stage for costly abuses of the public’s trust.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Public Trust in Business , pp. 203 - 235
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bacharach, M., and Gambetta, D. (2001), ‘Trust in signs.’ In Cook, K. S. (ed.), Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 148–184.Google Scholar
Baier, A. (1986), ‘Trust and anti-trust.’ Ethics, 96, 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Bohnet, I., and Huck, S. (2004), ‘Repetition and reputation: implications for trust and trustworthiness when institutions change.’ American Economic Association Proceedings, 94, 362–366.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. and Bonacich, P. (1970), ‘The development of trust and mistrust in mixed-motives games.’ Sociometry, 33, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1981), ‘Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust.’ In Brewer, M. B. and Collins, B. E. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1996), ‘In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination.’ In Messick, D. M. and Tenbrunsel, A (eds.), Behavioral Research and Business Ethics. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (2008), ‘Depersonalized trust and in-group cooperation.’ In Krueger, J. I. (ed.), Rationality and Social Responsibility: Essays in Honor of Robyn Mason Dawes. New York: Psychology Press, 215–232.Google Scholar
Brockner, J. and Bianchi, E. C. (2012), ‘Breaking the vicious cycle of low trust in decision-making authorities: it’s what they do and how they do it.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Pittinsky, T. L. (eds.), Restoring Trust in Organizations and Leaders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging Answers. New York: Oxford University Press, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothers, D. (1995), Falling Backwards: An Exploration of Trust and Self-experience. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Catmull, E. (2008), ‘How Pixar fosters collective creativity.’ Harvard Business Review, 86, 65–72.Google Scholar
Center for Public Leadership (2009), National Leadership Index 2009: A National Study of Confidence in Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990), ‘A focus theory of normative conduct.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S., Kramer, R. M., Thom, D. H., Stepanikova, , Mollborn, S. B., and Cooper, R. M. (2004), ‘Trust and distrust in physician-patient relationships: Antecedents and consequences.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Cook, K. S. (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. New York: Russell Sage, 65–98.Google Scholar
Cook, K. S., Levi, M., and Hardin, R. (2009), Whom Can We Trust: How Groups, Networks, and Institutions Make Trust Possible. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Davis, J., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Tan, H. (2000), ‘The trusted general manager and business unit performance: empirical evidence of a competitive advantage.’ Strategic Management Journal, 21, 543–576.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1994), House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dirks, K. T. (2000), ‘Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2002), ‘Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirks, K. T. (2006), ‘Three fundamental questions regarding trust in leaders.’ In Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Trust Research. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 15–28.Google Scholar
Dirks, K. T. and Skarlicki, D. P. (2004), ‘Trust in leaders: existing research and emerging issues.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Cook, K. S. (eds.), Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 21–40.Google Scholar
Edelman and Associates (2009), Trust Barometer: The Tenth Global Opinion Leader Survey. New York: Edelman and Associates.Google Scholar
Edelman and Associates (2012), Trust Barometer: The 2012 Global Opinion Leaders Study. New York: Edelman and Associates.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. (2004), ‘Managing images of trustworthiness.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Cook, K. S. (eds.), Trust and Distrust In Organizations: Dilemmas And Approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, vol. VII, 275–291.Google Scholar
Farrell, H. (2009), ‘Institutions and midlevel explanations of trust.’ In Cook, K. S., Levi, M., and Hardin, R. (eds.), Whom Can We Trust? How Groups, Networks, and Institutions Make Trust Possible. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 127–148.Google Scholar
Fine, G. and Holyfield, L. (1996), ‘Secrecy, trust and dangerous leisure: generating group cohesion in voluntary organizations.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. F., Cuddy, A. J., and Glick, P. (2007), ‘Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, S. F., Cuddy, , Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002), ‘A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth follow from perceived status and competition.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., and Platow, M. (2009), ‘Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations.’ Psychological Science, 20, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankel, T. (2006). Trust and Honesty: America’s Business Culture at a Crossroad. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S., and Stutzer, A. (2007), Economics and Psychology: A Promising New Cross-Disciplinary Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gambetta, D. (1988), ‘Can we trust trust?’ In (ed.) Gambetta, D., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships. Cambridge: Blackwell, 213–237.Google Scholar
Gillespie, N., Hurley, R., Dietz, G., and Bachmann, R. (2012), ‘Restoring institutional trust after the global financial crisis: a systemic approach.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Pittinsky, T. L. (eds.), Restoring Trust in Organizations and Leaders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging Answers. New York: Oxford University Press, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, A. M. and Sumanth, J. J. (2009), ‘Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 927–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackman, J. R. (2002), Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. (2005), Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Knez, M. and Camerer, C. (1994), ‘Creating expectational assets in the laboratory: coordination in “weakest link” games.’ Strategic Management Journal, 15, 101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., Fehr, E. (2005), ‘Oxytocin increases trust in humans.’ Nature, 435, 673–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, R. M. (1991), ‘Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: the role of categorization processes.’ In Cummings, L. L. and Staw, B. M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, vol. XIII, 191–228.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1994), ‘The sinister attribution error: paranoid cognition and collective distrust in groups and organizations.’ Motivation and Emotion, 18, 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1996), ‘Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. M. (eds.), Trust In Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 216–245.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1998), ‘Paranoid cognition in social systems.’ Personality and social psychology review, 2, 251–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, R. M. (1999), ‘Trust and distrust in organizations.’ Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, R. M. (2002), ‘When paranoia makes sense.’ Harvard Business Review, 80, 62–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Kramer, R. M. (2003), ‘The virtues of prudent trust.’ In Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (eds.), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organizational Studies. New York: Blackwell, 339–356.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (2005), ‘A failure to communicate: 9/11 and the tragedy of the informational commons.’ Special issue titled ‘Organizational perspectives on the 9/11 Commission Report,’ International Journal of Public Management, 8, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (2008), ‘Presidential leadership and group folly: re-appraising the role of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs decisions.’ In Hoyt, C. L., Goethals, G. R., and Forsythe, D. R. (eds.), Leadership at the Cross-Roads. Westport, CT: Praeger, vol. I, 230–249.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (2009), ‘Rethinking trust.’ Harvard Business Review, 87, 68–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Kramer, R. M. and Brewer, M. B. (1984), ‘Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Brewer, M. B. (1986), ‘Social group identity and the emergence of cooperation in resource conservation dilemmas.’ In Wilke, H., Rutte, C., and Messick, D. (eds.), Experimental Studies of Social Dilemmas. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 46–61.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Lewicki, R. J. (2010), Repairing and enhancing trust: approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. In Walsh, J. P. and Brief, A. P. (eds.), Academy of Management Annals. New York: Routledge, vol. IV, 245–278.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Pittinsky, T. L. (2012), Restoring Trust in Organizations and Leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. (1996), Trust in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (1998), Trust within and between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1996), ‘Trust in relationships: a model of trust development and decline.’ In Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (eds.), Trust in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 114–139.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1995), ‘Trust in relationships: a model of trust development and decline.’ In Bunker, B. B. and Rubin, J. Z. (eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J., and Polin, B. (2012), ‘The art of the apology: the structure and effectiveness of apologies in trust repair.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Pittinsky, T. L. (eds.), Restoring Trust in Organizations and Leaders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging Answers. New York: Oxford University Press, 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. D. and Weigert, A. (1985), ‘Trust as a social reality.’ Social Forces, 63, 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindskold, S. (1978), ‘Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects of conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation.’ Psychology Bulletin, 85, 772–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorsch, J. W., Berlowitz, L., and Zelleke, A. (2005), Restoring Trust in American Business. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lount, R. B. (2010), ‘The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 420–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAllister, D. J. (1995), ‘Affect- and cognition- based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.Google Scholar
McEvily, B., Weber, R. A., Bicchieri, C., and Ho, V. T. (2006), ‘Can groups be trusted? An experimental study of trust in collective entities.’ In Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Trust ResearchNorthampton, MA: Elgar, 52–67.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schorrman, F. D. (1995), ‘An integrative model of organizational trust.’ Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D. M. and Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1996), Codes of conduct: Behavioral Research into Business Ethics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E and Lui, L. (1983), ‘Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. and Kramer, R. M. (1996), ‘Swift trust and temporary groups.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Miller, G. J. (1992), Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platow, M., McClintock, C. G., and Liebrand, W. (1990), ‘Predicting intergroup fairness and in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm.’ European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, N. O. and Ambady, N. (2008), ‘First impressions: peeking at the neural underpinnings.’ In Ambady, N. and Skowronski, J. J. (eds.), First Impressions. New York: Guilford, 35–56.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., and Cherakin, L. (1992), ‘Business on a handshake.’ Negotiations Journal, 8, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, B. H. and Tuchinsky, M. (1996), ‘Micro-OB and the network organization.’ In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (eds.), Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tanis, M. and Postmes, T. (2005), ‘A social identity approach to trust: interpersonal perception, group membership, and trusting behavior.’ European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., and Murnighan, J. K. (2005), ‘Normal acts of irrational trust: motivated attributions and the trust development process.’ In Staw, B. M. and Kramer, R. M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. New York: Elsevier Press, vol. XXVI, 75–102.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T and Yamagishi, M. (1994), ‘Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan.’ Motivation and Emotions, 18, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., and Y Kiyonari, T. (1999), ‘Bounded generalized reciprocity: in-group boasting and in-group favoritism.’ Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161–197.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T. and Kiyonari, T. (2000), ‘The group as the container of generalized reciprocity.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuki, M., Maddux, M., Brewer, M. B., and Takemura, K. (2005), ‘Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group- based trust.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zak, P. (2012), The Moral Molecule: The Sources of Love and Prosperity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. G. (1986). ‘Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920.’ In B. M Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×