Skip to main content

Trust in Organizations: The Significance and Measurement of Trust in Corporate Actors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

For organizations, the trust of their stakeholders is of enormous significance because it is the basis on which organizations are able to achieve their objectives in the long run in a modern, differentiated society. The public perception of organizations and their products also depends heavily on the assessment of their trustworthiness. It is therefore all the more surprising that questions concerning what stakeholder trust in organizations actually is and how it can be measured have so far only been sparsely addressed in communication science. In the present contribution, trust in organizations is conceptualized with reference to sociological theories of trust, among other ideas. According to these theories, trust is a mechanism that makes the risk perceived by stakeholders in their relationships with organizations tolerable. Following the model by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, which originates from organizational psychology, trust in organizations is significantly based on their perceived trustworthiness. The empirical analysis of the factors of the perceived trustworthiness of organizations is performed with reference to the example of political parties and non-governmental organizations. The results illustrate the significance of organizational trustworthiness for the relevant organizations and provide valuable implications for organizational practice. The contribution also sheds light on the methodological challenges associated with measuring the trustworthiness of organizations and looks at the resultant challenges for interdisciplinary trust research.

The following observations are primarily based on the studies by Wiencierz (2016) and by Wiencierz et al. (2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Luhmann (2005, pp. 13–14, translated from the German) provides the following definition of organizations: “We can describe as being organized those social systems which link membership to specific conditions, that is, which make entrance and exit dependent on conditions. It is assumed that the behavioral requirements of the system and the behavioral motives of the members can vary independently of each other but can, under certain circumstances, be linked together to form relatively long-lasting constellations. With the help of such membership rules […] it becomes possible, in spite of voluntarily chosen and shifting membership, to reproduce highly artificial modes of behavior over a relatively long stretch of time.”

  2. 2.

    Kohring (2004, pp. 122–123) stresses that the focus of an empirical examination of trust must be placed on the expectations of the trustors and not on the preconditions. According to this view, trust describes a relation between social actors and not an assessment of certain (learnable) characteristics of the object of trust by the trustor. In this contribution, the characteristics of the object of trust will nevertheless be taken into consideration because the expectations have to be formed by the stakeholders beforehand and the possible actions of the object of trust have to be anticipated accordingly. Anticipation of the possible actions of the object of trust is, however, only possible if its characteristics are assessed at a previous stage.

  3. 3.

    Giddens (1991, p. 83) uses the concept of the “calculation” of benefits and risks in this context. This concept was replaced by that of assessment in order to avoid the impression of describing a theory of trust that is based on rational choice theory.

  4. 4.

    However, direct contact with access points is not always necessary or possible in order to be able to assess the trustworthiness of an abstract system or in order to be able to form trust in that system. For these purposes, information from the mass media and from personal contacts can also be taken into account (Coleman 1990, pp. 180–185; Giddens 1991, pp. 90–91).

  5. 5.

    With the exception of the derivation of perceived trustworthiness, the findings of the studies in this contribution are not demonstrated with figures. Detailed accounts of the specific analyses are provided in the publications by Wiencierz (2016) and by Wiencierz et al. (2015).

References

  • Aurier, P., & N’Goala, G. (2010). The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 303–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D., Coelho, P. S., & Machás, A. (2004). The role of communication and trust in explaining customer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1272–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbalet, J. (2009). A characterization of trust, and its consequences. Theory and Society, 38(4), 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J. (2002). Vertrauen und die performative Konstruktion von Märkten [Trust and the performative construction of markets]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beldad, A., Snip, B., & van Hoof, J. (2014). Generosity the second time around: Determinants of individuals’ repeat donation intention. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 144–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A. (2002). Vertrauensbildung in Mehrebenensystemen [Trust-building in multi-level systems]. In R. Schmalz-Bruns & R. Zintl (Eds.), Politisches Vertrauen. Soziale Grundlagen reflexiver Kooperation [Political Trust] (pp. 275–291). Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, V., & Levi, M. (1998). Introduction. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, H. J. (2007). The public’s trust in nonprofit organizations: The role of relationship marketing and management. California Management Review, 49(4), 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Cook, B. (2011). Social and political trust. In G. Delanty & S. P. Turner (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of contemporary social and political theory (pp. 236–247). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1962). Coproation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1962 (pp. 275–318). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einwiller, S., Herrmann, A., & Ingenhoff, D. (2005). Vertrauen durch Reputation—Grundmodell und empirische Befunde im E-Business [Trust through reputation—Basic model and empirical findings in e-business]. Marketing Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis (Marketing ZFP), 1, 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenegger, M. (2005). Reputation in der Mediengesellschaft. Konstitution—Issues Monitoring—Issues Management [Reputation in media society. Constitution—Issues Monitoring—Issues Management]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenegger, M., & Imhof, K. (2008). The true, the good and the beautiful: Reputation management in the media society. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & S. Krishnamurthy (Eds.), Public relations research. European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 125–146). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endruweit, G. (1981). Organisationssoziologie [Organizational sociology]. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, K., Johnson, D., & Chen, D.-F. R. (2008). Is firm trust essential in a trusted environment? How trust in the business context influences customers. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 45(2), 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffjann, O. (2011). Public relations in society. A new approach to the difficult relationships between PR and its environment. Central European Journal of Communication, 4(1), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhne, B. (2006). Vertrauen oder Misstrauen? Wie stehen die Ostdeutschen 15 Jahre nach der Wiedervereinigung zu ihrem politischen System? [Trust or mistrust]. Marburg: Tectum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for PR. http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships. Accessed 12 Mar 2015.

  • Ingenhoff, D., & Sommer, K. (2010). Spezifikation von formativen und reflektiven Konstrukten und Pfadmodellierung mittels Partial Least Squares zur Messung von Reputation [Specification of formative and reflective constructs and path modeling with Partial Least Squares for the measurement of reputation]. In J. Woelke, M. Maurer, & O. Jandura (Eds.), Forschungsmethoden für die Markt- und Organisationskommunikation [Research methods for market and organizational communication] (pp. 246–248). Cologne: Herbert von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organization-public relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, M., Möslein, K., & Wagner, M. (2000). Vertrauen und Reputation in Online-Anwendungen und virtuellen Gemeinschaften [Trust and reputation in online applications and virtual communities]. In M. Engelien & D. Naumann (Eds.), Virtuelle Organisation und Neue Medien. Dokumentation des Workshops GeNeMe2000—Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien—TU Dresden, 5. und 6. Oktober 2000 [Virtual organizations and new media] (pp. 69–84). Lohmar: Josef Eul-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohring, M. (2004). Vertrauen in Journalismus. Theorie und Empirie [Trust in journalism. Theoretical and empirical investigations]. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media—Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlen, R. (2008). Vertrauen in elektronischen Räumen [Trust in electronic spaces]. In D. Klumpp et al. (Eds.), Informationelles Vertrauen für die Informationsgesellschaft [Informational trust for the information society] (pp. 37–52) Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambright, K. T., Mischen, P. A., & Laramee, C. B. (2010). Building trust in public and nonprofit networks: Personal, dyadic, and third-party influences. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepsius, R. M. (1997). Vertrauen zu Institutionen [Trust in institutions]. In S. Hradil (Ed.), Differenz und Integration. Die Zukunft moderner Gesellschaften. Verhandlungen des 28. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Dresden 1996 [The future of modern societies] (pp. 283–293). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liehr, K., Peters, P., & Zerfaß, A. (2009). Reputationsmessung: Grundlagen und Verfahren (communicationcontrolling.de Dossier Nr. 1) [Reputation measurement: Background and procedure]. Berlin, Leipzig. http://www.communicationcontrolling.de/fileadmin/communicationcontrolling/pdf-dossiers/communicationcontrollingde_Dossier1_Reputationsmessung_April2009_o.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2015.

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: Two works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2005). Soziologische Aufklärung 2. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft. 5. Auflage [Sociological enlightenment 2]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in cyber-societies SE—3 (pp. 27–54). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, M. M. (2009). The effects of charity reputation on charitable giving. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2008). Inviting or avoiding deception through trust? Conceptual exploration of an ambivalent relationship. MPIfG Working Paper 08/1, Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nienaber, A. M., Hofeditz, M., & Romeike, P. D. (2015). Vulnerability and trust in leader-follower relationships. Personnel Review, 44(4), 567–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the public. Technology, risk, and society (pp. 175–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reputation Institute. (2015). The RepTrak® System. http://www.reputationinstitute.com/thoughtleadership/. Accessed 21 Jan 2015.

  • Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schichtmann, C. (2007). An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweer, M. K. W., & Thies, B. (2003). Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip [Trust as an organizational principle]. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisco, H. F. (2012). The ACORN story: An analysis of crisis response strategies in a nonprofit organization. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2009). Parties at the core of government. In R. J. Dalton & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 181–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. (2006). New perspectives on trust. American Journal of Sociology, 112(3), 905–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiencierz, C. (2016). Vertrauen in Parteien durch Gespräche über Wahlwerbung. Der Einfluss interpersonaler Kommunikation über Wahlwerbung auf das Vertrauen in politische Parteien [Trust in political parties by talking about electoral advertising] (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiencierz, C., Pöppel, K. G., & Röttger. (2015). Where does my money go? How online comments on a donation campaign influence the perceived trustworthiness of a nonprofit organization. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(2), 102–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Wiencierz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wiencierz, C., Röttger, U. (2016). Trust in Organizations: The Significance and Measurement of Trust in Corporate Actors. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics