Revisiting the Foundations of Organizational Distrust

Guo, Shiau-Ling; Lumineau, Fabrice; Lewicki, Roy J.

doi:10.1561/3400000001

Cited by 73 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The theoretical arguments that trust and distrust can be seen as two separate phenomena and that absence of trust does not necessarily mean existence of distrust (Lewicki et al, 1998) have also been supported by a few empirical studies (Bijlsma-Frankema et al, 2015;Guo et al, 2017). For example, in an experimental study with 49 business school students, Komiak and Benbasat (2008) found that building trust and creating distrust are fundamentally distinct and separate processes.…”

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 91%

“…Moreover, this paper builds upon an emerging body of literature suggesting that trust and distrust are two distinct phenomena, with different benefits and drawbacks (Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, & Weibel, 2015;Cho, 2006;Dimoka, 2010;Engelke, Hase, & Wintterlin, 2019;Guo, Lumineau, & Lewicki, 2017;Lewicki et al, 1998;Lumineau, 2017;McKnight & Chervany, 2001;Saunders, Dietz, & Thornhill, 2014). Challenging the traditional view that trust and distrust are the opposite ends of a continuum (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007), this emerging stream of research suggest that trust and distrust coexist and can be experienced simultaneously (Guo et al, 2017). Distrust, which is based on, 'confident negative expectations regarding another's conduct' (Lewicki et al, 1998, p. 439), is suggested to help firms and individuals in dealing with uncertainty but in a different way than trust.…”

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distrust, which is based on, 'confident negative expectations regarding another's conduct' (Lewicki et al, 1998, p. 439), is suggested to help firms and individuals in dealing with uncertainty but in a different way than trust. Whereas trust relates to hope and faith in the partner, distrust is rooted in value incongruence (Connelly, Miller, & Devers, 2012) and facilitates uncertainty management by prescribing vigilance and scepticism, stimulating alertness, encouraging information seeking from alternative sources, and by supporting constructive suspicion (Guo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the importance of trust in the light of coopetitive interactions, i.e. simultaneously cooperating and competing. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. Whilst coopetition research has mentioned the important role of trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the tensions, risks, and uncertainties involved. The purpose of this paper is to identify limitations and gaps in the extant literature on trust in coopetition, bring promising research opportunities into light, and create an agenda for future research focused on the roles of both trust and distrust in coopetition. By means of a systematic literature review, we find that the importance of trust in different phases of coopetition has been acknowledged by prior research, yet deeper explanations of how, when, and why different aspects of trust and distrust matter to coopetition are missing. A normative view on trust prevails and the potential fruitfulness of distrust is neglected. Based on these limitations, an agenda including six promising research avenues is constructed.

show abstract

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insights From the Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Substantial attention has been paid to the sources of trust, as reviewed below; however, it is highly questionable whether we can generalize from the sources of trust to the sources of distrust. An emerging consensus among scholars suggests that distrust is a construct in its own right, which is separate from the construct of trust (3,7). Indeed, the absence of trust does not necessarily signify distrust, and vice versa (8,9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This view implies that distrust and trust correspond to a negative valence and a positive valence, respectively, and are thus to be understood as separate constructs (21). Indeed, more and more scholars view distrust and trust as distinct constructs with unique antecedents and consequences (7,31).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust is heritable, whereas distrust is not

Reimann

Schilke

Cook

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do people distrust others in social exchange? To what degree, if at all, is distrust subject to genetic influences, and thus possibly heritable, and to what degree is it nurtured by families and immediate peers who encourage young people to be vigilant and suspicious of others? Answering these questions could provide fundamental clues about the sources of individual differences in the disposition to distrust, including how they may differ from the sources of individual differences in the disposition to trust. In this article, we report the results of a study of monozygotic and dizygotic female twins who were asked to decide either how much of a counterpart player's monetary endowment they wanted to take from their counterpart (i.e., distrust) or how much of their own monetary endowment they wanted to send to their counterpart (i.e., trust). Our results demonstrate that although the disposition to trust is explained to some extent by heritability but not by shared socialization, the disposition to distrust is explained by shared socialization but not by heritability. The sources of distrust are therefore distinct from the sources of trust in many ways.

show abstract

Relationship Conflict, Low Goodwill Trust, Innovation Propensity—and Help? How to Encourage Helping Behaviours Even in Conflict‐laden Work Settings

Clercq

Pereira

2022

Can J Adm Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To unpack the link between employees' relationship conflict and helping behaviours, this study postulates a mediating role of the extent to which employees exhibit low goodwill trust in co‐workers and a moderating role of their innovation propensity. As the findings confirm, emotion‐laden conflict compromises employees' propensities to assist co‐workers because they believe that they cannot count on co‐workers’ goodwill, which, as we theorize, is informed by their desire to protect their self‐esteem. The extent to which employees derive joy from generating novel ideas subdues this process. This study points to a notable mechanism (low goodwill trust) by which emotion‐based tensions translate into low voluntarism and how this process is disrupted by an intrinsic motivation for innovation.

show abstract

Revisiting the Foundations of Organizational Distrust

Cited by 73 publications

References 14 publications

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Trust is heritable, whereas distrust is not

Relationship Conflict, Low Goodwill Trust, Innovation Propensity—and Help? How to Encourage Helping Behaviours Even in Conflict‐laden Work Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About