Trust? Trusting the Internet Collective over Individuals and Institutions

A new generation of people have been raised in an environment where the fundamentals of trust

between individuals and institutions are breaking down. Despite this downward trend people seem to trust the collective opinions of others on the Internet and use this information to make personal choices in their lives. The trust factor may be eroding but it isn't too late for people to consider its what this means for business and society.

A general survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago and analyzed in the Washington Post offers some interesting data on whether people can be trusted (Badger, 2015).  Since 1979 the idea of  "You Can't be Too Careful" has move from approximately 49% to around 68% while the idea of "Most People Can be Trusted" moved from approximately 45% to approximately 30%.

People trust other people  and institutions less than they did in the past. They are skeptical of the motives of others and don't believe that people act in manners that are beneficial to others. A type of selfish skepticism makes its way into the 18-24 year old population that reflects the reality of their lives and how they view the world. For them...everything is in transition.

It is hard to blame them. Considering the partisan nature of politics, scandals in the VA, the rise of identity theft,  broken homes , inability to rise through the ranks, aggressive police, poor government policies and cost of living the young Generation Y is feeling what has been a natural part of the lives of Generation X. They are only recently seeing a world where recession doesn't sit over their futures like a dark cloud hampering their hopes for the future.

This doesn't mean that they don't trust anyone. They have embraced technology, Internet, and their own value systems as a default method of navigating their lives. They trust the collective response of people who use products, rate them, and leave comments. They diligently scan over forums and purchasing outlets like Amazon to determine if their next purchase will be worthwhile.

For example, a person looking for a restaurant to eat at may search online for their particular taste. They could look for spicy Thia, seafood, etc... within a 5 mile radius of their home. Furthermore, they can see the price, menu, comments, and overall ranking of the establishment. The next click on their search criteria could include a cross reference of locality and ranking.

It makes sense doesn't it? You want something to eat or buy a product so you tern to product review. You have certain criteria and search out that criteria based upon the tens, hundreds, or thousands of people who had something to say about it. If you are going to eat somewhere or buy a product then it make sense to do that to the ones that are ranked highly.

 For society this means that trust in not a given and must be earned. People will rate and rank the services based upon their personal experience and this will impact how many people will use that service in the future. As people offer their collective input they will naturally be able to improve, break, or discard services.  It doesn't make much difference if it is a company, product, or a government office as opinions have a way of self-confirming.

As the world globalizes the product and service evaluations could be from anywhere. The opinions and how people evaluate products/services can be from any locality in the world and will form a collective international identity. The more people act and interact with other from around the world the more likely they will share similarities of perspective. Companies will not only need to look at their products from a local perspective but also an international perspective.

Businesses and institutions will need to concern themselves with these ranking systems and make amends to service failures. There have been numerous instances of conflicts between companies and customers based upon these rankings. Ultimately, it will be the collective impression of the masses that win out. Companies will need to improve upon their offerings and create greater competitiveness in their ranks to woo over the masses.

Badger, E. (April 16, 2015). Who millennials trust, and don’t trust, is driving the new economy. Washington Post. Retrieved http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/16/who-millennials-trust-and-dont-trust-is-driving-the-new-economy/

Global Team Performance Improvements through the Development of Trust

Modified from Sarker, et. al (2011)

Business enhancement requires a level of thinking beyond the concrete efficiencies we have enhanced through statistical turnip twisting over the past few decades. Some have argued that future gains from efficiency will be much harder to realize. The next era may possibly be based on the use of virtual networks that enhance the fuzzy nature of human performance to new levels that not only create new layers of efficiency but also higher levels of output. Research conducted by Sarker, et. al (2011) indicates that trust within communication networks can increase team performance.

Trust is an important aspect of business success and social development. People are longing for more trust as a result of an extra emphasis on collaboration and changes in interconnectivity of technology (McEvily, et. al., 2003). As exchanges occur in a virtual world people are seeking higher levels of trust in their cultural exchanges. They want to be sure that people they are communicating with have some level of concern over their needs.

This trust is needed even more so when people do not have a shared history, are geographically separated, do not share a previous social context, and interact primarily through electronic media (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). As such communication becomes more common across the world and through multinational corporations the development of the trust factor may lead to higher levels of performance.

The ability of trust to impact communication and performance is not well defined. Some believe that trust interacts with communication to enhance performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Other researchers have put forward the argument that it is more of an additive role alongside communication (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Whether trust enhances or simply adds to performance is a significant debate of performance. 

If trust enhances performance, it takes on a more useful role and can be considered a beneficial trait that further develops performance. If trust is more additive, it means that it is a supplemental additive to a communication strategy but is not necessarily a performance enhancer. It is something to use in addition to other activities but doesn’t change, influence, or enhance those factors. 

Performance is a level of motivation and effectiveness that relies in part on other group members. People do not act in isolation but do so in the context of other individuals within their social networks (Wellman, et. al., 2003). They seek to understand the implications of their behavior in relation to others. These implications are based upon cues and the meaning of the performance in relation patterns to others within their networks (Galaskiewicz & Wasserman, 1994). Trust is earned by the leader but also given by others.

The concept of trust in leadership and communication is an important one in order to create influence. Trust can be defined as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based upon the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer & Davis, 1995).  The parties should feel that their leader will be consistent in his/her patterns and promises regardless of whether or not that leader is being watched.

A trust that they will do what they say they will do as well as what they have done in the past. It is a trust of the future. For example, if a leader has a particular pattern of behavior and people follow that leader based upon their actions they would expect that the leader will continue to do what they say they will do. When the leader professes something different than what they are doing the trust disappears and is slowly replaced by doubt. This doubt can lead to lower performance of team members who may no longer believe their efforts will be fruitful because of hijacked intentions.

Furthermore, such team trust is influenced by the perception that members will not be injured or be taken advantage of. Collective trust is based upon the belief that leaders will continue with commitments, be honest during discussions, and will avoid taking undue advantage of their members (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996). When such elements of trust are together they can influence a higher level of team performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Such team members do not have a problem putting forward effort if they are relatively sure of the results of such efforts.

The researchers Sarker et. al. (2011) sought to understand the effect of communication and trust on performance within globally distributed teams.  They used data from globally distributed teams working on systems analysis and development projects. The teams included U.S. with Norway and U.S. with Denmark to capture conceptual linkages between communication, trust, and individual performance.

Results:

-There were regional differences in performance. Scandinavians had higher performance than U.S. members. U.S. and Norway teams had higher performance than U.S. and Denmark teams.

-Gender had an influence on the success of teams with males performing at a higher level.  

-Trust had a significant impact on performance outcomes. 

-Communication centrality (importance in network) had an impact on trust centrality.

-Communication centrality (importance in communication network) had a significant effect on performance. 

-Trust centrality (center of trust) had an impact on overall performance.

Business Analysis:

Trust is a practical aspect of communication. It is difficult to encourage others to complete tasks and raise themselves to higher levels of performance unless there is a level of trust in relationships with leadership. The gaining of a leadership position rests in the ability to put oneself in the center of importance and information networks. Those leaders who achieve a level of power can either enhance team performance or lower its ability based upon the level of integrity and congruence between words and action. When people believe that these actions and words match together they will be more motivated to complete their work tasks with the knowledge that they are not being taken advantage of and their work is moving in the right direction. The study did not indicate this concept but the cultural factors that allow people to share a level of similarity in perception may influence performance. If the leaders and followers are unable to understand each others perspective that trust will be more difficult to gain and would require more communication, blending of networks, and congruence between action and words. To change patterns means to change perception.

Cummings, L. & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Dirks, K. & Ferrin, D. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organizational Science, 12 (4).

Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1994).  Introduction advances in the social and behavioral

sciences from social network analysis. In S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz (eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jarvenpass, S. & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organizational Science, 10 (6).

Mayer, R.,  Davis, J., and Schoorman, D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 2, (3)

 McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. (2003). Introduction to special issue on trust in an organizational context, Organizational Science, 14 (1).

Wellman, B, et. al. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8 ( 3).

Sarker, S., Ahuja, M. Sarker, S. & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The Role of Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1).

Leadership Communication Abilities Leads to Trust and Performance

Communication between employee and employers can have a compelling impact on the nature of business and the overall success of employee trust. Through these positive relationships between managers and employees higher levels of shared interest and commitment to organizational principles can be formed. The development of such benefits rests in how managers communicate their expectations and the openness of the employee to hearing those messages.

Managerial communication can take the form of downward, horizontal, or upward momentum through both formal and informal communication methods (Bell and Martin, 2008). The openness to share ideas, needs, and values allows for a stronger depth of mutual experiences. It is through these relationships and shared experiences that organizations can develop higher levels of positive affectivity toward the business imperatives.

Such concepts are set in the underlining premises of the employee and management group understandings.  Communication is the lifeblood of employee and organizational performance. According to Katz and Kahn (1966) it is communication that is fundamental to the forming of any group, organization, or society. A group is based upon the trust of shared understandings that define collective action and its benefits to the organization.

Before effective communication can be developed it should be understood that the authority to communicate does not necessarily rely in the person doing the talking. According to Barnard (1968) the authority of the communication doesn’t lay in with the person of authority but with the person who is being addressed.  People make the fundamental choice to give or take the authority away from their manager (Drucker, 1974). Testy labor issues are often a result of internal noise that blocks alternative and positive messages of managers.

It is the personal management style of the person in authority that can help limit the distracting aspects of this internal noise and variance of perspective. The success or failure of transferring attitudes and values is a byproduct of the leadership style that seeks the ability to foster the change (Appelbaum, Berke, Taylor & Vazquez, 2008). Such leaders are seen as positive, humanistic, empathetic, and have a wider range of concern beyond oneself. It is through this genuine positive approach that employee begin to see the managers issues, concerns, and messages as worth listening to, interpreting, and implementing.

The advantages of creating trust through positive communication approaches cannot be underestimated. The loyalty that can be fostered through open communication has been known to increase productivity across an organization by 11% (Mayfield, 2002). This financial incentive should prompt organizational leaders to consider the positive benefits of training their management team in developing positive relationships that further strengthen underlining premises of positive group behavior that leads to higher overall performance.

Appelbaum, S., Berke, J., Taylor, J., & Vazquez, A. (2008). The role of leadership during large scale organizational transitions: Lessons from six empirical studies. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(1), 16-24.

Barnard, C. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bell, R. & Martin, J. (2008). The promise of managerial communication as a field of research. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 5(2), 125-142.

Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities and practices. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2002). Leader Communication Strategies Critical Paths to Improving Employee Commitment. American Business Review, 20(2), 89-93.