Content area
Full Text
Reciprocity within organizations. Karin Sanders and Birgit Schyns
Introduction
The organisational and management literature on trust is now extensive, and includes several key articles (e.g. [54] Mayer et al. , 1995; [70] Robinson, 1996; [83] Whitener, 1997; [47] Kramer, 1999), four significant compendiums of papers ([34] Gambetta, 1988; [46] Kramer and Tyler, 1996; [48] Lane and Bachmann, 1998; [65] Nooteboom and Six, 2003), and several dedicated journal editions (including Academy of Management Review , 1998, Vol. 23, No. 3; Organization Studies , 2001, Vol. 22, No. 2; Organization Science , 2003, Vol. 14, No. 1; International Journal of Human Resource Management , 2003, Vol. 14, No. 1, and Personnel Review , 2003, Vol. 32, No. 5).
Despite this resurgence of interest the treatment of trust remains extremely "fragmented" ([57] McEvily et al. , 2003, p. 91). Firstly, there are three broad strands in the literature. Our focus here is exclusively with trust within organisations (i.e. as an intra-organisational phenomenon, such as between employees and supervisors/managers, or among co-workers). The other two strands deal with trust between organisations (i.e. an inter-organisational phenomenon), and trust between organisations and their customers (i.e. a marketing concern). Secondly, competing conceptualisations and definitions have emerged and the precise nature of trust remains contested. This is in part due to the different perspectives and academic disciplines informing empirical studies and theorising on the subject (for an overview see [73] Rousseau et al. , 1998). It is also a consequence of most scholars regarding trust as a multi-dimensional construct ([15] Butler, 1991). Put simply, opinions continue to differ on which dimensions are essential.
Several measures of intra-organisational trust are also available. Such a range of possible operationalisations may reflect the multi-disciplinary interest in trust, and its multi-dimensional nature, but it also hints at continuing dissatisfaction with the existing set of measures, an impression strengthened by the fact that there has been very little in the way of repeat testing of the instruments that we do have. Since our knowledge of a construct can only be as good as the measures we use to examine it, it is essential to evaluate the "validity" of these instruments (e.g. [75] Schriesheim et al. , 1993) - not only for their statistical performance, but perhaps more...