**3.4. The Lewicki and Bunker model of interpersonal trust**

In order to further understand the level of trust in an organization, [33] model of interpersonal was examined in this section. Lewicki & Bunker's model of interpersonal trust advanced the view that trust is sequentially achieved at three different levels where, once trust has been established at one level, it moves to the next level [32]. According to [33], these three levels of trust are calculus-based; knowledge-based; and identification-based. At the calculus-based level, parties fear punishment, but also anticipate the rewards from preserving trust; in other words, trust is based on the calculation of costs and benefits. In this stage, if the benefits are more than the costs then the parties tend to show trust to each other. At the knowledge-based level, trust develops over time from permanent contact or interaction between two or more parties. This second level of trust is attained between two or more parties when there is sufficient information about each party's behavior. Hence, knowledge-based trust depends on acceptance of each party behavior and ability to predict behavior of each other rather than deterrence [33]. At the identification-based level, trust is 'inherent on identification with each other's desires and intentions' [33]. At this stage, parties know each other so well and they may anticipate the reactions of each other; thus, they can act for the one another (**Figure 1**).

Furthermore, the model of interpersonal trust believes that the transition from one stage to another is a reflection of paradigm shift. For example, the transition from knowledge-based trust to identification-based trust is activated by a shift 'from extending one's knowledge about the other to a more personal identification with the other' [32]. This explanation suggests that in order to build trust in a potential partner, one must first establish his/her trustworthiness (and, in the case of organizations, the trustworthiness of translates from superiors to single subordinate and, at the end, of the whole workers). Satisfying this condition is very important, however, it is not a complete way of securing or granting one's trust. Basically, in work organizations trust must be built on a chain of personal characteristics (such as loyalty, predictability, accessibility, availability, integrity, consistency of behavior, openness, compe-

Organizational Trust as a Conflict Management Tool in Contemporary Work Organizations

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73092

43

tence, fairness, benevolence, the ability to keep promises) of the other parties [1, 34].

of trust between or across organizational levels or units.

**4.1. Contract failure perspective of organizational trust**

**4. Theoretical perspectives**

this section.

Within work relations, managers or superior staffs perform significant role in determining the level of trust and the precise behaviors within given departments. This essentially so because managers or superior staffs begin most vertical exchanges and the degree of trust or mistrust that is perceived in their actions could be reciprocated by the subordinates [35]. More so, workplace compensation and control systems which are key determinants of trust or mistrust within departments or organization as a whole are designed by the managers. As fact, evidence abound that managers control the stream of certain types of information and the chances to disseminate or not to disseminate information in certain ways within the organization [36, 37]. Also, the arrangements of strategy, structure, and internal mechanisms to form the overall operating logic and resource allocation and governance tools of the organization are primarily designed by managers [38]. All of these conditions invariable influence the level

Literature has shown that there are numerous theoretical approaches on organizational trust [32, 39, 40]. Out of the theories that have been developed by scholars to facilitate better understanding of organizational trust, three main approaches (contract failure theory in economics, the concept of trust in cognitive sociology, and the study of social capital) are paraphrased in

Among the most influential theoretical perspectives for understanding organizational trust is the economic theory of contract failure (TCF). Theory of contract failure was strategically built on the assumption that trust is very important in satisfying contractual obligations by the actors in work organizations. TCF shares the same theoretical soundness with rational choice by emphasizing the fact that employees and employers are actors who are motivated by their own self-interests, and the benefits they are likely to derive from working together for the production of goods and services [41, 42]. The working together of these actors contributes to the growth of market economies and reduction of societal uncertainty. TCF sees trust as the engine that sustains harmonious relationship, team work and partnership among the actors (employees and

Arising from the illustration above, it can be observed that each stage of trust depends on one another and that the higher stage depicts an expectation that a trust relationship will continue in the future. Also, each stage triggers the next stage through action characteristically of its nature. For instance, calculus-based trust is driven by the need to gather information about the other party in order to make a realistic decision on how to act or relate with each other. This information afterwards serves as the foundation for knowledge-based trust. When knowledge based trust is eventually construct parties continuously strive to learn about each other behavior, intention and motivation. As this learning process increases, so does the identification of one party with the other party advances. More so, when identification with each other becomes the source of relationship between two or more parties, transition from knowledge-based trust to identification-based trust has occurred.

**Figure 1.** Stages of trust development in an organization adapted from Lewicki and Bunker [32] and Lewicki et al. [3] with modification.

Furthermore, the model of interpersonal trust believes that the transition from one stage to another is a reflection of paradigm shift. For example, the transition from knowledge-based trust to identification-based trust is activated by a shift 'from extending one's knowledge about the other to a more personal identification with the other' [32]. This explanation suggests that in order to build trust in a potential partner, one must first establish his/her trustworthiness (and, in the case of organizations, the trustworthiness of translates from superiors to single subordinate and, at the end, of the whole workers). Satisfying this condition is very important, however, it is not a complete way of securing or granting one's trust. Basically, in work organizations trust must be built on a chain of personal characteristics (such as loyalty, predictability, accessibility, availability, integrity, consistency of behavior, openness, competence, fairness, benevolence, the ability to keep promises) of the other parties [1, 34].

Within work relations, managers or superior staffs perform significant role in determining the level of trust and the precise behaviors within given departments. This essentially so because managers or superior staffs begin most vertical exchanges and the degree of trust or mistrust that is perceived in their actions could be reciprocated by the subordinates [35]. More so, workplace compensation and control systems which are key determinants of trust or mistrust within departments or organization as a whole are designed by the managers. As fact, evidence abound that managers control the stream of certain types of information and the chances to disseminate or not to disseminate information in certain ways within the organization [36, 37]. Also, the arrangements of strategy, structure, and internal mechanisms to form the overall operating logic and resource allocation and governance tools of the organization are primarily designed by managers [38]. All of these conditions invariable influence the level of trust between or across organizational levels or units.
