By Gabriele Bammer.
Trust is regarded as essential for effective teamwork and stakeholder engagement, so how can we better understand trust? How can that understanding underpin more effective action in establishing trust and in remedying loss of trust?
I use ideas about trust developed by Piotr Sztompka (1999) to reflect on trust in teamwork and in stakeholder engagement in research projects. Stakeholder engagement is divided into two broad types:
- engagement with those affected by the problem being researched, and
- engagement with those in a position to act on the problem; they are often decision makers.
Sztompka provides a useful definition of trust (p. 25) as:
“a bet about the future contingent actions of others.”
Trust consists of beliefs or specific expectations about others which influence how we act, what Sztompka calls “commitment through action” (p. 26).
Based on Sztompka’s work, it is useful to think about three kinds of trust, along with the beliefs and commitments that they involve:
- anticipatory trust
- responsive trust
- evocative trust.
Anticipatory trust
In anticipatory trust, the focus is on what those being trusted routinely do or should do. Our actions, as those doing the trusting, are based on the expectation (or bet) that the actions that others “carry out anyway will be favourable to my interests, needs, and expectations” (p. 27).
In teamwork, the bet underpinning our own research in the team and project is that the research conducted by other team members is of high quality and useful to the project, for example that someone included on the team for particular disciplinary or technical skills will perform them as expected. The bet is also that team members will abide by accepted team processes, such as participating in team meetings, and ethical standards regarding the conduct of research, such as appropriately recognising the contributions of others.
In engagement with stakeholders who are affected by the problem, the bet is that those involved in the research, who will only be a sub-set of the whole group, will be able to accurately represent the wider group of stakeholders in informing the research.
In engagement with stakeholders who are decision makers acting on the problem, the expectation is that they will draw on the research to make good decisions about the problem, as well as potentially inform the research about issues that it would be useful to have insights into.
Responsive trust
In responsive trust, the focus is on handing over control of an object or activity, with the consent of those taking control. The expectation is that those taking control will respond to my act of trust by living up to an obligation to take “responsible care” (p. 27).
In teamwork, examples include:
- providing an opportunity for a team member to speak on behalf of the project, with the expectation that they would prepare well and do their best
- giving someone access to a valuable piece of equipment, with the expectation that they know how to use it (and will say if they don’t) and will take appropriate care
- allocating additional funding to a subproject, with the expectation that the subproject would be undertaken to benefit the project overall, rather than the sub-team’s special interests.
In stakeholder engagement, examples include:
- making an opportunity for stakeholders affected by the problem to meet with decision-makers, with the expectation that they will present a well thought-through position in line with the project goals and findings
- giving stakeholders confidential information, with the expectation that the confidential nature will be respected
- providing funding for a stakeholder-led activity, with the expectation that the activity will be well-organised and appropriately conducted.
Evocative trust
In evocative trust, the focus is on strengthening bonds by using trust “intentionally to evoke trust” (p. 28). It involves exhibiting trust “on the belief that the other person will reciprocate with trust towards ourselves” (p. 28).
In both teamwork and stakeholder engagement, it is the expectation that others will reciprocate our anticipatory and responsive trust, with their own anticipatory and responsive trust.
In teamwork, it is a bet that other team members will, for example:
- expect and respect our disciplinary and other competence, without checking up on or micro-managing us
- provide opportunities for us to represent the project
- fairly consider requests for additional funding.
In stakeholder engagement, it is a bet that stakeholders will, for example:
- raise any questions or concerns about the research in a respectful way
- provide insights into any confidential information that they hold
- make available opportunities that could benefit the project, such as access to a hard-to-reach population or openings to brief more powerful decision makers.
Implications of better understanding trust
As may already be evident, and as Sztompka is at pains to point out, trust is always related to risk. Risk varies by degree and stakes, with degree being the chances that expectations will be met and stakes being how bad the consequences are, if they are not met.
Sztompka suggests that it is useful to think about acts of trust as either “prudent” or “imprudent” bets (p. 33).
Understanding the three kinds of trust outlined above helps to tease out the kinds of risks that are being taken, as well as the kinds of evidence that may make the risks taken more prudent. For example:
- evidence about a team member’s or stakeholder’s competence can inform risks associated with anticipatory trust
- reputation or previous experience of someone’s reliability can inform risks associated with responsive trust
- behaviours towards us can inform risks associated with evocative trust.
These examples also illustrate that the kinds of evidence that inform risks – and therefore prudent decisions – about one kind of trust are not necessarily helpful in assessing the risks associated with other kinds of trust. For example, competence may be useful for anticipatory trust, but not for responsive or evocative trust.
Further, in situations where trust has been broken, understanding the kind of trust that has been broken can affect the risk assessment about other kinds of trust. For example, even if reciprocal trust has been broken, anticipatory trust may still be a safe bet.
Understanding instances of broken trust is often usefully coupled with an assessment of whether our actions in trusting the other person were prudent or imprudent. For example:
- expecting someone with quantitative skills to undertake qualitative research well would probably be an imprudent act of anticipatory trust, and
- giving an inexperienced person an opportunity to make a major presentation may turn out to be an imprudent act of reciprocal trust.
What’s your experience been with trust? Are Sztompka’s ideas about trust as a bet, the three kinds of trust, and prudent and imprudent risk taking useful?
Reference
P. Sztompka (1999) Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (2023-25).
Thanks Gabriele for this insightful way of interpreting Sztompka in the context of trust building processes in research teamwork. As Jacques Boulet has commented, you have drawn out the relational quality of trust building. I would tweak slightly your statement that trust implies that representatives “accurately represent the wider group of stakeholders in informing the research””. I would rather say – FAIRLY represent the wider group of stakeholders – this is also because there may be different positions that need to be fairly accounted for and it is impossible to decide what an accurate representation may mean. Not everyone may agree with whether a representation is accurate (there is no way of checking this independently of intersubjective dialogue which takes into account different positions). So I would replace the word accurately with the word fairly – as it means we try to indicate that we have been fair (in dialogue with others) this is what develops trust. I liked very much your category of evocative trust – this points to its being created (evoked) in the process of the teamwork (and points to its relational quality in action). I also agree that this can be self-reinforcing (depending on how others respond to us, we respond accordingly). This has been an interesting post to read – including seeing others’ way of engaging with your post. Thanks!
Thanks Norma, I agree that “fairly” represent is better than “accurately” represent. I also agree that the comments have enriched the post!
Thank you for your insightful article on Trust! It has generated a fabulous discussion.
Clearly, there are many different ways to think about how the act of trusting and/or betraying – and the framework you provide in relating trusting to ‘bets’ is intriguing. The outcomes of our individual bets are likely to be self-reinforcing. If my ‘bet’ pays off, and I am rewarded for having made it, my trust is likely to increase in that domain. Likewise, if diminished in some way, that is likely to lend itself making ‘safe bets’.
Lots to think about!
Thanks for the comment – that’s an useful expansion of the idea of bets!
Thank you Gabriele
What a meaty, provocative and useful article that puts explicit language to what seemed to be tacit awareness. I would add that there seems to be a trust, if not trusting, of one’s own limits and capabilities that affects the use of trust, in other words, a relationship between self trust and team trust.
Jack–is that game the one that tries to build structured conversations? I have seen a dated copy of a briefing that refers to gaming a typical IBIS conversation.
Jim
Good point – thanks!
Dear Gabriele,
Thank you for highlighting the importance of trust in teamwork and stakeholder engagement. Another approach to assessing trust is that of Dr Mika Vanhala, which forms the basis of Stephen Bounds’ TrustRadar Diagnostic, https://www.realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/OpenKM-Diagnostic-TrustRadar-1.0.pdf However, I find Vanhala’s approach and the Diagnostic to be quite linear, whereas Sztompka’s approach better reflects human behaviour. What Sztompka describes as our decision-making in regard to how we make prudent or imprudent decisions in regard to acts of trust is I suggest an automatic human behaviour, but understanding it in the way Sztompka puts forward allows us to be conscious of that behaviour providing the opportunity to better regulate it. The Diagnostic could potentially be evolved to also incorporate Sztompka’s approach.
I also see significant parallels between trust behaviors and knowledge hiding behaviors, for example as discussed in https://realkm.com/2024/09/05/which-theories-help-us-to-understand-knowledge-hiding/ and https://realkm.com/2021/06/11/the-psychology-behind-knowledge-hiding-in-organisations/ Research exploring these parallels could yield useful insights.
In regard to broken trust, I’ve found that this is sadly an all too common experience of stakeholders in natural resource management (NRM) where governments and other organisations have used approaches at the tokenism or nonparticipation end of Arnstein’s ladder https://web.archive.org/web/20160703005533/https://www.participatorymethods.org/sites/participatorymethods.org/files/Arnstein%20ladder%201969.pdf
Restoration of this broken trust requires a genuine apology, as Shawn Callahan discusses in https://www.anecdote.com/2007/02/re-establishing-trust-requires-apology/
Bruce Boyes.
Thanks for all that – it’s a really useful expansion and there are great possibilities for synergy as you point out. And indeed much more could and should be said about broken trust. Chris Cvitanovic and Rebecca Shellock have some useful things to say in an earlier i2Inisghts contribution about trust at the science-policy interface: https://i2insights.org/2021/07/27/trust-at-science-policy-interface/
I have a strong sense that ‘trust’ suffers from having been understood as solely a ‘personal’ often psychological sentiment or attitude rather than describing a relational-situational quality; the clearest example of this is when – especially in couple or other one-on-one relationships one ‘partner’ is accusingly asked ‘why don’t you trust me?’ assuming that (usually ‘her’) distrust is a psychological trait or failure… The more appropriate answer is, of course, that the relationship/’situationship’ is not trust-worthy… worthy of trust’ … To which the sociological distinctions offered in Stompka (and in Gabriele’s elaborations) offer useful dimensions… But the shift from the ‘personal/individual’ as the most important ‘agent’ in understanding the ‘social’ and the ‘relational’ and hence ‘trust’ may sound too counter-intuitive in our individualistic culture…
Many thanks for that perspective. It opens up some useful discussion and thinking points!
Very useful! We are crafting a sensemaking game called SenseCraft which strives to elevate trust in the context of deep conversations about complex, frequently contested issues. This post helps. Thank you.
Look forward to hearing more about Sensecraft! You might want to check out Sztompka’s book, as it is more wide-ranging than what is covered in my short post. He draws together all the sociological theory to that date, although that’s now 25+ years ago!