TrustLAB: Translates – Translating scientific trust research for business and societal impact
Today we’re excited to introduce a new series of blog posts that give insight into some of the work being done by members of the TrustLAB at DCU Institute for Business and Society. In this series, we will be shining a light on scientific research articles published by TrustLAB scholars and considering how the knowledge they share can be used to support positive relationships in our organisations and society.
Our first post is from Dr Sian Kelly who gives an overview of her research on how managers and their direct reports navigate disruptions and threats to their relationship, ensuring that trust is protected and maintained.
Introduction:
In our article, we highlight that existing trusting relationships are not always plain sailing and must often navigate choppy waters. Specifically, we argue that managers and employees frequently experience disruptions that threaten to damage their trusting relationships. Yet research has mostly focused on events or experiences that result in trust being broken and overlooked disruptions that counterparts can work together to overcome and maintain their trusting relationships. Therefore, we do not have a clear understanding of what managers and employees can do to protect their trust during these frequent occurrences.
Methodology:
We conducted individual interviews with both parties in manager-employee trusting relationships (26 in total). Each party was asked about their relationships more broadly before the focus of the interview narrowed to trust maintenance. Participants were cued to reflect on a specific challenge that their relationship had overcome and were asked to describe how they had achieved this. Participants shared a broad range of examples of disruptions, e.g., one party offering the other unsolicited harsh feedback or adapting to working together online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Findings:
We found that existing trusting relationships could be maintained if both parties worked together to overcome the disruption. Unexpectedly, some counterparts reported that overcoming the disruption actually strengthened their trusting relationship. These different outcomes were determined by how counterparts dealt with the disruptions. Specifically, counterparts followed one of three pathways, with those who followed pathway one maintaining their trust and those who followed pathway two or three strengthening their trust. The pathways followed by counterparts were determined by two factors: the source of the disruption, i.e., whether one party caused the disruption or it was caused by a source outside the counterparts, and how the disruption made the parties feel. Regardless of the pathway being followed, all counterparts moved through three phases of a trust maintenance process: an assessment phase, an active maintenance phase, and an outcome phase. Each pathway is outlined below:
Pathway One: Pull Back to Move Forward. Counterparts who followed pathway one experienced a disruption that a party within the relationship was responsible for causing. In such cases, the individual who did not cause the disruption reported feeling angry or frustrated in response to the disruption. This manifested as this individual initially pulling away from their counterpart to make sense of the experience further before counterparts worked together in the active maintenance phase to overcome the relational disruption. This was achieved by counterparts creating a shared understanding of the experience, shifting their thinking about the disruption, and negotiating new ways of dealing with potential future disruptions. Counterparts following this pathway maintained their existing trusting relationships.
Pathway Two: Lean in and Strengthen. Counterparts who followed pathway two experienced a disruption that a party within the relationship was responsible for causing. In such cases, the individual who did not cause the disruption reported feeling upset or worried in response to the disruption. In such cases, counterparts came together immediately to overcome the disruption by creating a shared understanding of the experience, shifting their way of thinking about the disruption, and negotiating new ways of dealing with potential future disruptions. Counterparts following this pathway strengthened their existing trusting relationship. Therefore, the difference between pathways one and two is whether the counterparts initially pulled away from one another before working together to overcome the disruption facing their trusting relationship.
Pathway Three: Standing Strong Together. Counterparts who followed pathway three experienced a disruption that a source outside the relationship was responsible for causing. Regardless of the emotion felt by either party in response to the disruption, counterparts following pathway three approached one another to face the disruption together. The reason is that neither party was responsible for causing the relational disruption, and any negative emotions felt were not directed at one another. Counterparts following this pathway overcame the disruption by creating a shared understanding of the disruption and coming up with solutions together to solve the disruption. Counterparts following this pathway strengthened their existing trusting relationship.
Conclusion:
Our research provides important insights into interpersonal trust maintenance. We believe that trusting relationships will inevitably enter choppy waters and experience disruptions, particularly considering the changing and uncertain nature of today’s working world. Therefore, our article offers timely guidance for managers and employees to navigate these uncertain times and to protect their trusting relationships. We believe these insights are highly valuable to workers and organizations who act as important building blocks for an overall trusting society.
Read the full paper via the following link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01492063241311234
Author: Sian Kelly, Postdoctoral Researcher & Lecturer at Dublin City University Business School
Research Institute: Institute for Business & Society
Issue No: 1
SOCIAL CHANNELS
LATEST NEWS
