Trust capital

Trust attracts a growing attention of scientists from different branches of knowledge. That it happens, is reflected in growing number of definitions and theories devoted to this topic. Below table shows this trend in numbers: Table. Number of trust definitions in different time periods.[1]

According to Castelfranchi and Falcone, definitions of trust are based on five interrelated factors which are:

• The construct that is conceived as expectation, belief, willingness and attitude,
• The trustee, which are organizations, companies, groups and teams, workers and sellers and many others, due to their variety, there are three types of trust: personal, inter-organizational and institutional,
• Actions and behaviors, that are considered as a behavioral aspect of trust,
• Results and outputs, that are understood in terms of predictability of the trustee who is given trust from the trustor,
• The risk is inevitably linked with trust, where there is trust, risk must also manifest its influence on the course of action in such situations (where trust is also present).[2]

While above authors categorize trust into three types, Gerbasi and Latusek mention two of them, of which:

• “Thick” trust that is given to family members, due to constant and repeated interactions since birth,
• “thin” trust, that is given to others, and is more prone to risk, that related to negative results and outputs of actions and behaviors.[3]

The difference between them revolves around their applicability. “Thick” trust cannot be applied in organizations and in economies in general, since larger groups of people that are not related by strong bonds of kinship, cannot offer such trusts of people other than their relatives. This is why “thin” trust and risk that accompanies it, are factors influencing economies and companies, and therefore should be perceived in macro-scale. Apart from above authors, it should be said that trust is a source of informal authority, that is more important than formal authority (coming from formal position within organization). Trust comes as a feature of national character and organizational cultures. According to World Values Survey, trust measured among nations shows that its computed value differs, depending on what nation was asked about trust issues (questions about trust to family members, neighbors, people known personally, persons met for the first time, and persons of different nationalities). Level of trust may be one of key factors of organizational culture, and therefore, a one that determines organizational efficiency.[4]

Level of trust within companies determines how much trust capital they have. Trust capital is a topic undertaken by many researchers. It should be separated from financial capital, that can be bought by the means of money, and other exchangeable and valuable resources. Trust capital is not a subject to buy/sell transactions. It is related to the Putnam's theory of social capital that is built up of: trust, networks, and mutuality norms.[5] Trust also “empowers and enables cooperation and decision-making, engenders the atmosphere of openness and transparency, enhances communication, and motivates and joins people together”.[6] This is why trust capital is considered as a strategic resource of companies, especially for those which are based on knowledge (trust basically facilitates knowledge sharing).[7] Trust capital is a compound of:

• Reliability capital, that is received from others,
• Trustfulness capital, that is given to others.

They supplement each other and multiply their compounded effect, meaning the trust capital. The effect of trust capital is reduced by the impact of distrust capital, which is an opposite to trust capital.[8]

Trust capital plays significant role in economy, and companies understood as a whole, but it should be also distinguished in knowledge-intensive companies, that rely on project team-based work. It is worth mentioning that where there is lack of trust, it is replaced by contracts. Project team-based work is too dynamic and fast, to be regulated by contract practices. This is why trust should play a greater role than contracts.[9] Trust is a strategic resource in knowledge companies, since this companies function in environments featured by risk and uncertainty.[10] Jemielniak in interviews discovered that there is a great amount of distrust in the line between web programmers and managers, and between IT specialists and their clients. The reasons why this happens can be associated with lack of communication and social skills of IT specialists (“IT specialists are different than other people […] “Even, when it comes to make oneself understood. […] I often seen guys really specific at what they do, brainy, but unable to explain something in a clear way, to show how this or that solution works”).[11] Also it is magnified by stereotypes that are located among individuals, and distributed within groups. This enhances negative effects of group distrust.