F. David Schoorman’s research while affiliated with Purdue University West Lafayette and other places

The current measures of Propensity to Trust in the literature have suffered from reliability and validity issues as well as a lack of evidence of invariance across cultures. To address these concerns, we conducted three studies to develop a propensity to trust measure that possesses strong psychometric qualities and cross-cultural invariance. In study 1, we created potential new items and estimated content validity of each item in a sample of students. In study 2, we collected data from 2786 working adults in 30 countries and used these data to test the factor loadings, reliability, and invariance of the new scale across 6 GLOBE clusters. This process created a 5-item propensity to trust measure that has a Cronbach alpha greater than 0.70 for each GLOBE cluster. Tests of invariance indicate configural invariance and strong support for metric invariance. We reclassified the data by the cultural variable of “tightness” or “looseness” as defined by Gelfand et al. (2011) for 9 of the countries in this study and found our scale had configural invariance as well as metric and scalar invariance. In study 3, we examined the convergent and discriminant validity and found evidence supporting the construct validity of the new scale. This is the first measure of propensity to trust that has been demonstrated to be culturally invariant. With a rapidly growing body of research being conducted across international cultures, this would be an important development for the field.

We review research on the topic of trust repair, which has proceeded over the past four decades using three different philosophical mechanisms that provide the bases through which trust is restored by multiple repair tactics. We base our definition of trust repair on the view that trust is “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another.” We define trust repair as any increase in trust above the post-transgression level and complete repair as an increase in trust to the pre-transgression level. We provide an overview of the research designs incorporated in the trust-repair literature and make recommendations and cautions in measuring trust repair. We then summarize the emergence of the different mechanisms behind trust repair, namely, attributional, social equilibrium, and structural mechanisms, and review literature on the related verbal and behavioral repair tactics that can be employed after a transgression. We also provide a review on the process of trust repair, that is, the different stages that unfold to repair trust. We conclude by suggesting that future research should explore trust repair not only from an isolated tactics perspective but also from a broader pathway perspective. Finally, as trust repair occurs over time, future research should also explore the role of differing perceptions of time in the trust-repair process.

A client's trust in the coach is essential for a well-functioning coaching interaction. This trust depends on the coach's trustworthiness in terms of ability, integrity, and benevolence. In three mixed-method studies, we investigated how these components of trustworthiness were established by the coach asking inexperienced (N1 = 42) and experienced (N2 = 29) coaches as well as clients (N3 = 24). An inductive qualitative content analysis revealed a range of approaches to establish trustworthiness that varied depending on the coach's experience: Inexperienced coaches (Study 1) and clients of inexperienced coaches (Study 3) focused most on the coach's ability, whereas experienced coaches (Study 2) focused most on the coach's benevolence. As the client's autonomy need is important in coaching, questions about the need (Study 2) and its fulfilment (Study 3) were added and it was hypothesised that communicating benevolence is autonomy need supportive. The results revealed that when a coach perceived a higher client autonomy need they focused more on communicating benevolence (Study 2). In accordance, when the client reported that the coach communicated more benevolence they felt more autonomy need fulfilment (Study 3). Thus, communicating benevolence can support the client's autonomy need.

Several authors have suggested that trust is important to empowerment. This research develops the theoretical relationship between empowerment and trust. Trust, defined as a willingness to be vulnerable, was found to contribute to managers’ taking greater risks in their relationships with their employees through increased delegation of authority. Results show strong support that trust for an employee is a function of the employee’s perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity, as well as the manager’s propensity to trust.

The theoretical foundations of this chapter are based on the work of Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) and Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007) (see Fig. 2.1). First, we briefl y review the competing defi nitions of trust that have been widely adopted in the past 20 years. Next, we examine the implications of the choice of defi nition, and fi nally we will review some of the constructs used to represent trust across a number of disciplines. In doing so we view these constructs from the lens of the Mayer et al. (1995) defi nition.

To be effective, organizations must facilitate knowledge transfer between employees. Mentoring has long been viewed as a vehicle for effective knowledge transfer. The authors break new ground in examining the role of trust as a moderator of the relationship between mentoring and knowledge transfer. Results of a study conducted among employees of a hospital who indicated they had mentors show main effects for both mentoring and trust as well as a significant interaction effect. Implications of these findings for knowledge transfer are discussed.