Mechanisms, factors and processes for the development of trust

Over successive years, research has identified two schools of thought around the processes for the development of trust (Thorgren et al., 2011). The first of these sees trustors in a passive mode, taking into account such factors as the expertise and competence of trustees, coupled with their own propensity to trust. Conversely the second regards trustors in a more proactive role in creating or repairing trust

based on actions and strategies they pursue. Coupled with these theories, Huxham and Vangen (2000) explained the concept of the ‘virtuous circle’ in which activities and actions develop the trust building process and the will of parties to take risks through potentially more challenging and risky joint ventures. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Diagram to illustrate ‘Virtuous Circle’ as prescribed by Jones and George (1998)

Notwithstanding the former arguments, Doney et al. (1998) approached the problem in a very different way. Their studies considered that it is the pathways to trust themselves that will influence its quality/intensity and the extent to which trustors will put themselves at risk. They referred to five alternative cognitive trust building

processed as calculative, prediction, intentionality, capability and transference. These are shown with their respective descriptions and characteristics in Table 3.3. This certainly represents an interesting phenomenon and perhaps it demonstrates that different individuals will place greater emphasis on one process than another according to their own values and beliefs.

Activities and actions

Generation of trust

Potentially more challenging and risky joint ventures

Table 3.3 Trust building processes, description and characteristics based on Doney et al. (1998)

Trust building

process Description and characteristics

Calculative Deterrence based and associated with fearing the consequences of doing otherwise

Prediction Based on the ability to forecast and predict the behaviour of the other party and consequently linked to expectation

Intentionality Based on perceptions of the intentions of the other party

Capability Based on assessments of the other parties ability to perform and meet their obligations

Transference Where trust is transferred from a known ‘trusted’ entity to an unknown one. Being members of a professional institution is an example where institutions are third parties transferring trust to their members

There are further alternative views that various forms of trust, including knowledge- based and calculative-based, which start low and develop with time (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995; Williamson, 1993). However, an opposing view from McKnight et al. (1998) appears to be completely contradictory and is predicated on the belief that initial high trust levels can be generated on first meetings between individuals. They explained this willingness or tendency as ‘disposition to trust’ based on trusting intentions, with those individuals of high dispositions generating high levels of initial trust. Perhaps what can be demonstrated from these two very different schools of thought is that personality and trusting beliefs can strongly influence the complex trust building process. Mayer et al. (1995) described such beliefs and tendencies as ‘trust propensities’ will affect individuals’ likelihood of trusting others.

There is an argument, presented by Gill and Butler (1996), that continual reliance on the terms of contracts in partnering could severely hamper the development of trust between partners. Support for this comes from Morgan and Hunt (1994) who opined that nurturing and developing cooperation and integration mechanisms over the longer term, without reference to contractual requirements, greatly increases

partners’ trust in one another. It would appear, however, that this is an open area for debate in the literature. Wong and Cheung (2004), for instance, presented a

completely contradictory argument that system-based trust can be generated through well considered legal agreements designed to protect the parties in the

event of disputes. Such agreements, they outlined, need to include contract terms that are perceived by both parties as being fair and reasonable, and contractual duties should be regularly reviewed. Clearly this illustrates a disparity of opinions in this area. Taking a closer look at the debate, one could infer that reference to

contractual undertakings could actually present positive influences on trust. Perhaps this would only apply where there are perceived motives of intentions to unpin

relationships in such cases rather than regarded as a contractual tool to gain advantage over the other party.

Some have considered that previous dealings and relationships will foster the right environment for trust building processes to operate within. Based on this premise, ‘relational reputation’ as described by Branzei et al. (2007) may be a trust enhancing factor where trustors and trustees have prior experience of each other. More recently Harris and Lyon (2013) have supported a similar argument and explain that the processes and mechanisms of building trust can be best encouraged through existing relationships or where project teams are brought together by mutually trusted intermediaries.

Many studies have been conducted which have focused more on the mechanisms for maintaining trust once established rather than the initial creation and

development processes. One example of such research includes Doney et al. (2005) who found that social interaction and loyalty commitment will facilitate longevity of relationships. In closer examination of this theory within a construction industry context, in-depth mechanisms for evaluating such factors could have a practical application for select suitable partners. Lu and Yan (2007) supported this argument and suggested that the means of undertaking such evaluations could take the form of presentations, questionnaires and interviews. Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, few would dispute that establishing and maintaining trust amongst construction partnering individuals and organisations can be daunting. Wong et al. (2005) carried out extensive research to cover this particular dilemma and found that the problem is mainly attributable to large one off bespoke projects, formation of project teams as ‘temporary organisations’ and the fragmented nature of projects. One could interpret from these arguments that there are significant risks for

risks be greatest where there are already low levels of confidence between partners, leading to the development of suspicion. Accordingly, it could have an extremely detrimental effect on working relationships. Alternatively, Bhattacharya and Devinney (1998) argued that high levels of partner confidence will reduce the level of

uncertainty and raise expectations of their predictability in terms of performance and behaviour. In such cases it would clearly lessen the likelihood of trust breaking down and therein lower the respective risks for partnering.