A pragmatic contribution for a more reflexive institution-based trust

Abstract

This paper presents a philosophical reflection on the concept of trust in order to promote a pragmatic reflexivity in institutionalist theory. The objective of this article isto indicate why the best way to deal with trust issues is to reflexively balance their rational and routine origins. Understood as an individualist effort for the rationalaction theory, such reflexive requirement nevertheless asks for a complex interrogationof the nature of the intersubjectivity at stake. To fully understand the sources and themechanisms of institution-based trust requires taking into account the peculiar bondthat actors have with their own institutional framing as a condition of stability of their common-sense world. People rely on institutions to interact on daily basis andreflexivity is the mechanism that operates the equilibrium between individual reasonand institutional routine. Neoinstitutionalist approaches in organisational theory areoften understood as having integrated such modality. W... This paper presents a philosophical reflection on the concept of trust in order to promote a pragmatic reflexivity in institutionalist theory. The objective of this article is to indicate why the best way to deal with trust issues is to reflexively balance their rational and routine origins. Understood as an individualist effort for the rational action theory, such reflexive requirement nevertheless asks for a complex interrogation of the nature of the intersubjectivity at stake. To fully understand the sources and the mechanisms of institution-based trust requires taking into account the peculiar bond that actors have with their own institutional framing as a condition of stability of their common-sense world. People rely on institutions to interact on daily basis and reflexivity is the mechanism that operates the equilibrium between individual reason and institutional routine. Neoinstitutionalist approaches in organisational theory are often understood as having integrated such modality. We believe on the contrary that they have not sufficiently taken into account the reflexive requirement where a pragmatic understanding of institutional trust does. Our contribution calls then for a research methodology based on scientific humility and for the definition of pluralist and experimental collective action principles.

Un-Paradoxing Privacy: Considering Hopeful Trust

“…The data generally supports Draper's observation of 'resignation' to some degree of privacy violation [27], and Hull's thesis that the inability to make meaningful choices about their privacy habituates users into thinking perhaps privacy doesn't matter so much [49]: In the interviews, participants provide 'accountably sufficient' [44] justifications for their actions through reference to what they present as a shared 'common-sense world' [95] in which users routinely give away more than they are strictly comfortable with-there being no privacy online (see also Phelan, Lampe and Resnik [82])-and in which it makes little practical sense to concern oneself with this state of affairs. For example, while P4 said of term 9, 'I don't really agree with that,' she added, 'But I know it will happen.'…”

Looking ‘Beyond the Factory Gates’: Towards more Pluralist and Radical Approaches to Intraorganizational Trust Research

“…Several authors in recent years have expressed concerns about the taken-for-granted nature of the benefits of trust and have acknowledged the problematic nature of trust and/or its institutional embeddedness (Bachmann, 2001;Child & Rodrigues, 2004;Gargiulo & Ertug, 2006;Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 1998;Schoorman, Mayer & Davis 2007;Lewicki, Tomlinson & Gillespie 2006;Möllering, 2001;Timming, 2009;Mishra & Mishra, 2013;Skinner, Dietz & Weibel, 2014;Six, 2014), or argued that to distrust rather than trust might be a wiser alternative strategy for employees in some organizations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). While acknowledging the importance of these contributions, we problematize the notion of intra-organizational trust further by questioning the assumptions underpinning much trust research and conclude with some proposals for further research.…”

The time for transition: Future trust research

“…Chang et al, 2016;Gausdal, 2012;Hall & Symon, 2012;Luo & Yeh, 2012;Nielsen, 2011); philosophy (e.g. Frederiksen, 2014;Isaeva et al, 2015;Li, 2012b;Six, 2014); education (e.g. Graso, Jiang, Probst, & Benson, 2014;Gunnarson & Loxbo, 2012); law (e.g.…”