Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust

Sitkin, Sim B.; Roth, Nancy L.

doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367

Cited by 1,218 publications

(914 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

868

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Or, as Falk and Fischbacher (2006, p. 310) put it, "Distributive consequences of an action alone trigger reciprocal actions." Therefore, some have raised the issue that instrumental trust is not trust at all, or that it could be seen as trust at its narrowest bandwidth (Luhmann 2000;Sitkin and Roth 1993). As instrumental trust requires controllable behavior and definable outcomes (for contingent claim contracts, see Heide and John 1988), this mechanism is confronted with organizational failure in the case of complex cooperative arrangements.…”

Section: Trust In the Context Of Cooperative Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, nonprofit scholars have increasingly studied the phenomenon of social enterprises which has become a generic term describing a wider reorientation among third sector organizations. The emergence of social enterprises has also led to a dynamic of hybridization and broadening in the cooperative sector, similar to an earlier dynamic of "economization", but this time on the other end of the organizational spectrum. This paper aims at developing a finegrained conceptual understanding of how this organizational dynamic is shaped in terms of member coordination, thus contributing to a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of different organizational forms of cooperatives. Specifically, to highlight the difference to traditional member-focused cooperatives, the paper introduces the term third-party-focused cooperatives for those social enterprises which emphasize economic goals as well as control and ownership by a particular community (typically place-based). The key result of the paper is that with the shift from member-to community-focus in cooperatives, the main coordination mechanism becomes one of norm-based trust on the basis of generalized reciprocity. In contrast to traditional maxim-based trust member coordination on the basis of relation-specific reciprocity, this enables third-party-focused cooperatives to mobilize bridging and linking social capital, facilitating collective action aimed towards the community interest. The findings suggest that this identity shift requires a mutual re-positioning between the cooperative and the nonprofit sector, in terms of umbrellas as well as regulatory and legislative bodies.

show abstract

Section: Trust In the Context Of Cooperative Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…You talk about the ethical use of samples, but to a certain degree I think in that situation you'd automatically assume that […] I'd trust that they, you know it would be done ethically (T20) Participants' accounts frequently identified research as involving collectivities or coalitions of individuals, organisations and institutions that they perceived to have a high degree of what Sitkin and Roth (1993) term 'value congruity'. Expectations of moral conduct by other members of the collectivity were fundamental to their decisions of participants to cooperate by making their own investment in the coalition.…”

Section: Organisational and Professional Credentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies

Dixon‐Woods

Tarrant

2009

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we distinguish decisions about cooperation from decisions about research participation. We offer an empirical and theoretical exploration of why people in three different UK-based medical research projects chose to cooperate. Data analysis of the accounts of 128 participants across the three studies was based on the constant comparative method.Participants' cooperation was engaged by a perception that they would be contributing to the 'public good', but they also wanted to justify their decision as sensible and safe. Critical to their cooperation was their belief that researchers would fulfil their side of the cooperative bargain, by not exposing participants to risks of harm or exploitation. Although participants were generally unaware of the details of the regulatory regime for research, they demonstrated a generalised reliance on regulation as a feature of everyday life that would provide a safe context for cooperation. In their assessment of particular projects, participants made judgements about whether to cooperate based on more specific cues, which acted as signs to assure them that researchers shared their cooperative intentions. These cues included organisational and professional credentials, the role identities and perceived trustworthiness of those involved in recruiting to research, and visible signs of reasonable practice mandated by regulatory systems. Thus participants drew on their understandings of an institutional field that was much broader than that of research alone. We propose that the social organisation of research is fundamental to the judgements people make about cooperation with research. Cooperation may be a more useful way of thinking about how people come to engage in collaboratively oriented actions such as research participation, rather than currently dominant individualistic models. Attention to the institutional context of research is critical to understanding what makes cooperation possible, and has important implications for the design of regulatory regimes for research.3

show abstract

“…Sitkin and Roth (1993) contend that these processes address only the component of trust related to reliability and do not address the value similarity component of trust. As Rousseau and others (1998) pointed out, negative experiences in the process can exacerbate distrust.…”

Section: The Concept Of Trust In Natural Resources Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Trust in Natural Resource Management Within Local Communities: A Case Study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie

Davenport

Leahy

Anderson

et al. 2007

Environmental Management

194

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities neighboring federally protected natural areas regularly weigh the costs and benefits of the administering agency's programs and policies. While most agencies integrate public opinion into decision making, efforts to standardize and formalize public involvement have left many local communities feeling marginalized, spurring acrimony and opposition. A significant body of research has examined barriers to effective public participation as well as strategies for relationship building in planning processes; many of which point to trust as a key factor. Trust is especially tenuous in local communities. This paper explores perceptions of trust, expectations for management, as well as constraints to building trust. In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 community members and USDA Forest Service personnel at the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in northeastern Illinois. The interviews revealed that trust is perceived as important to effective management. Distinct expectations for management outcomes and processes emerged, including the values, knowledge, and capacity demonstrated in management decisions and actions and opportunities provided for communication, collaboration, and cooperation within the agency-community relationship. The case study identified several constraints to building trust, including competing values, knowledge gaps, limited community engagement, and staff turnover.

show abstract

Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust

Cited by 1,218 publications

References 71 publications

Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives

Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives

Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies

Building Trust in Natural Resource Management Within Local Communities: A Case Study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About