MANAGING TRUST AND DISTRUST IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS

As we have noted, trust and distrust develop as people gain knowledge of one another. One of the benefits of our model of relationships based on trust is its clear explanation of changes in relationships over time.

Actions That Build Calculus-Based Trust

People who are involved in relationships with high levels of CBT and low levels of IBT (such as relationship 2 in Table 4.1) may have relatively stable expecta­tions about these relationships. Initially, CBT may be based only on the other’s reputation for trustworthiness (Gabarro, 1978; Butler, 1991). Over time, CBT develops as we observe the other and identify certain behavior patterns over time. Previous research has demonstrated that effective business relationships are based on predictability (Jennings, 1971), reliability (McAllister, 1995), and consistency of behavior (Gabarro, 1978). In work relationships, then, CBT is enhanced if people (1) behave the same appropriate way consistently (at differ­ent times and in different situations), (2) meet stated deadlines, and (3) perform tasks and follow through with planned activities as promised.

In any context, if people act consistently and reliably, we are likely to see them as credible and trustworthy (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998). For exam­ple, students often want to be able to trust their faculty instructors. To the degree that faculty clearly announce their course requirements and grading criteria, use those standards consistently, follow the course outline clearly, and keep their promises, they enjoy a great deal of trust from students.

Emotions can also build trust. Happiness and gratitude can build trust, while anger decreases trust. The salience of the emotion’s cause and familiarity with the target moderate the relationship between emotions and trust (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005).

Strategies to Manage Calculus-Based Distrust

As we have noted, CBT and CBD are often founded on a cost-benefit analysis. If the costs of depending on someone’s behavior outweigh the benefits, we are typically inclined to either change or terminate the relationship. This may be feasible with personal friendships, but it is often not possible to leave profes­sional relationships, even when CBD is high.⁴ Consequently, it is necessary to manage CBD so that the parties can continue to work together.

There are several strategies for managing CBD:

• Agree explicitly on expectations as to what is to be done, on deadlines for completion, and on the penalties for failing to comply with them. This up-front commitment by the parties to a course of action and to the consequences for nonperformance sets explicit expectations for behavior that may reduce the fear parties have about the vulnerabilities associated with working together.

• Agree on procedures for monitoring and verifying the other’s actions. If we distrust someone, we seek ways to monitor what he does to ensure that future trust violations do not occur. Writing about disarmament during the Cold War, Osgood (1962) explicitly proposes unilateral steps that antagonistic parties can take to signal good faith and an intention to build trustworthiness.

• Cultivate alternative ways to have one’s needs met. When one distrusts another (and the other’s possible performance in the future), one tries to find ways to minimize future interaction or alternative ways to get needs met. Distrust can be managed by letting the other know that one has an alternative and is willing to invoke it if there are further trust violations.

• Increase the other’s awareness of how his own performance is perceived by others.

Actions That Build IBT

Research indicates that trust is enhanced if the parties spend time sharing per­sonal values, perceptions, motives, and goals (Gabarro, 1978). But specific time must be set aside for engaging in this activity. Parties in work relationships may do this in the course of working together, while parties in personal relationships explicitly devote time to these activities. In general, parties should engage in processes that permit them to share:

• Common group membership (Brewer and Kramer, 1986)

• Common interests

• Common goals and objectives

• Similar reactions to common situations

• Situations in which they stand for the same values and principles, thereby demonstrating integrity (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998)

For example, Kramer (2001), interpreting a stream of research on the impact of common group membership on identity and trust, argues that common group and organizational membership was sufficient to solidify trust, and in a way that went significantly beyond the ability of simple reputation or calculus-based considerations for trust development. Common group membership creates actions that also have expressive and symbolic meanings; “engaging in acts of trust thus provides organizational members with an opportunity to communi­cate to others the symbolic value they attach to their organizational identity.

Similarly, Rothman (1997) has proposed a four-step framework for resolving identity-based disputes. The second key step in the framework is resonance, or the process of reflexive reframing by which parties discover common values, concerns, interests, and needs. In Rothman’s framework, effective completion of the resonance step permits individuals to establish a basis of commonality (IBT) on which to build mutually acceptable solutions to managing their dis­pute. Moreover, studies in organizations have indicated that one component of managers’ trust in their subordinates is the degree to which employees demonstrate that they have the best interests of the manager or the organiza­tion (or both) at heart (Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis, 1996; Butler, 1995). If we believe that the other shares our concerns and goals, IBT is enhanced. IBT may also be increased if we observe the other reacting as we believe we would react in another context (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998); however, research on the connection between similarity and perceptions of trustworthiness has produced mixed results (Huston and Levinger, 1978).

It should be noted that IBT has a strong emotional component and is proba­bly largely affective in nature (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995, 1996; McAllister, 1995). Despite our attempt to think logically about our relationships, how we respond to others often depends on our idiosyncratic, personal reactions to aspects of the other’s physical self-presentation (Chaiken, 1986), the situation and circumstances under which we meet the person (Jones and Brehm, 1976), or even our mood at the time of the encounter. Consequently, we are likely to build IBT only with others who we feel legitimately share our goals, interests, perceptions, and values, and if we meet under circumstances that facilitate our learning of that similarity.

Strategies to Manage IBD

If we believe that another’s values, perceptions, and behaviors are damaging to our own, it is often difficult to maintain even a semblance of a working rela­tionship. However, if we anticipate that we will have a long-term relationship with someone that contains elements of IBD, and we believe we have limited alternatives, there are strategies for managing the encounter that offer oppor­tunities for both self-protection and attainment of mutual goals. One of the most important strategies is to develop sufficient CBT so that the parties can be com­fortable with the straightforward behavioral expectations that each has for the relationship.

As noted in the section on managing CBD, explicitly specifying and negotiat­ing expected behaviors may be necessary to provide both parties with a comfort zone sufficient to sustain their interaction. It may also be helpful for the actors to openly acknowledge the areas of their mutual distrust. By doing so, they can explicitly talk about areas where they distrust each other and establish safeguards that anticipate distrustful behaviors and afford protection against potential con­sequences (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998). Thus, for example, if the parties have strong disagreements about certain value-based issues (religious beliefs, politi­cal beliefs, personal values), they may be able to design ways to keep these issues from interfering with their ability to work together in more calculus-based transactions. If the costs and benefits of consistent action are clear to both par­ties, the groundwork for CBT may be established. This enables them to interact in future encounters with some confidence that despite deep-seated differences, they will not be fundamentally disadvantaged or harmed in the relationship.

It should be noted here that our working assumption is that the truster’s strong IBD is healthy and appropriate—that is, grounded in accurate percep­tions and judgments of the identity differences between the parties.

What Happens If Trust Is Violated?

Trust violations occur if we obtain information that does not conform to our expectations of behavior for the other. Note that trust violations can occur in both directions—that is, we can expect trusting behavior and encounter distrust, or we can expect distrusting behavior and encounter trust.⁵ If this disconfirming information is significant enough, or if it begins to occur regularly in ongoing encounters, we are likely to adjust our perceptions of trust dramatically and alter the type of relationship we have with the other (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996).6

It is likely that we have less emotional investment in relationships that are low in IBT and IBD. Thus, in those relationships violations of CBT are probably viewed as annoyances, although the associated costs of the loss may be emo­tionally troubling in the short term. We may need to adjust our behavior to deal with the other party differently, but the trust violations are not likely to affect our emotional well-being over the long term.

Research on the consequences of trust violations consistently shows that violations lead to a reduction in subsequent trust and cooperation (Deutsch, 1958; 1973; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Kramer, 1996). For example, employees’ trust in their employer declines when they perceive that their employer has violated the workplace psychological contract (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). More specifically, trust violations stifle mutual support and information sharing (Bies and Tripp, 1996), reduce the level of organizational citizenship behavior and job performance (Robinson, 1996), and may lead to low employee morale that affects relationships with customers (Berry, 1999). There is also some indication that when managers are low in behavioral integrity (the perceived alignment between their words and actions) it can actually affect the profitability of these organizations (Simons and McLean Parks, 2000).

When CBT is violated, the truster often pursues actions to repair or restore the violated trust.⁷ There has been a great deal of recent research on trust repair strategies; this research has yielded the following insights:

• After a trust violation, apologies are more effective than no apologies (Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki, 2004; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks, 2004).

• Apologies in which the violator takes responsibility for the violation are more effective than apologies in which the violator tries to place the blame elsewhere (Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki, 2004; Kim, Dirks, Cooper, and Ferrin, 2006).

• Apologies in which the violator is actually guilty, as revealed by subsequent evidence, are more effective than when the violator is eventually found not guilty (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks, 2004).

• Apologies that are conveyed with sincerity are more effective (Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki, 2004).

• Apologies are more effective when they are conveyed quickly after the violation has occurred, when the parties have had a past relationship that has been violation-free, and when the parties expect a violation-free relationship in the future (Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki, 2004).

Violations of CBT can thus be managed by making a quick, timely apology, taking personal responsibility for the trust violation, and communicating with sincerity. However, this approach may not work for all trust violations. Several recent studies have shown that this approach may work only when the trust violation is grounded in the actor’s perceived competence (their technical and interpersonal capability to perform a job). When the actor’s violation was grounded in his integrity (the actor’s principles or willingness to deliver on commitments), denials of culpability were actually more effective (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks, 2004). Similarly, when the actor had committed an integrity violation, apologies with an external causal attribution (placing the blame elsewhere) were more effective than violations where the actor took responsibility for the violation (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, and Ferrin, 2006). Finally, reticence—responding with silence and refusing to offer either apology or explanation—is less effective than offering apology or explanation for both forms of trust violation (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, and Dirks, 2005).

On the other hand, if relationships are established that are high in IBT, there is also a higher level of emotional investment. In these relationships, trust violations contain both an affective and a practical component. Once a shared identity has been established, any disconfirming trust violation can be viewed as a direct challenge to a person’s most central and cherished values (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995), and it may also represent conflict with the person’s psychologi­cal orientation (Deutsch, 1985). The parties are likely to feel upset, angry, violated, or even foolish, if loss of face is a result of trusting the other when trusting turned out to be inappropriate. In cases where IBT is violated, we argue that the situation must be addressed for a high-IBT relationship to continue. A number of studies have shown that when parties cannot or will not communi­cate about a major problem in their relationship, they are more likely to end the relationship than continue interacting (Courtright, Millar, Rogers, and Bagarozzi, 1990; Gottman, 1979; Putnam and Jones, 1982).

We envision three stages to the process of restoring IBT trust. First, the par­ties exchange information about the perceived trust violation (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996). They attempt to identify and understand the act that was perceived as a violation. Miscommunication and misunderstandings are often cleared up at this stage. A husband might accuse his wife of admiring another man at a party, perceiving this to be an uncharacteristic violation of the IBT he has for her and the integrity of their marriage. When the wife explains that she was merely admiring the man’s sweater and thinking of purchasing a similar one for her husband, it might transform the husband’s perception of an IBT trust violation. An explanation either that the act was not what he perceived it to be or that the motivation for the act was consistent with his expectations of his wife’s commitment to their relationship may be adequate to restore the IBT relationship. (Note, however, that if this pattern persists whenever the couple is out together, the wife’s explanation will cease to be adequate over time.)

Second, the victim must be willing to forgive, rather than to engage in other forms of reaction to trust betrayal. (See Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro and Hannon, 2002; McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen, 2000 for reviews.) Research reveals that the victim’s commitment to the relationship plays an important role. Commitment occurs as a result of high satisfaction with the relationship, increasing investments in the relationship by the victim, and the declining avail­ability or suitability of alternative relationships to meet important needs. When the victim is highly committed to the relationship (as measured by these indicators), he or she is far more willing to forgive than to experience negative feelings, make negative attributions to the violator, or engage in behaviors such as revenge or retaliation toward the violator (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon, 2002; Rusbult and Martz, 1995).

In the final communication stage, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a high-IBT relationship. They may affirm similar interests, goals, and actions (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998) and explicitly recommit to the relationship. They may also explicitly realign their psychological orientations (Deutsch, 1985). They may also discuss strategies to avoid similar misunderstandings, miscom­munications, or disconfirmations in the future.

However, when the parties either fail to reconcile the trust violation within their shared identity or are unable to do so, high-IBT relationships may be trans­formed to low IBT or even IBD. If the violation is largely inconsistent with the core beliefs and values of one of the partners, and if it cannot be adequately explained within the context of the current relationship, then the parties must elect to either renegotiate their shared identity or terminate the high-IBT relationship (Larson, 1993).

Naturally, not every IBT relationship is as all-encompassing as a marriage. But there are kinds of business and professional relationships where the same dynamics apply. One worker may take another into confidence and share strong dissatisfaction with the boss’s behavior, only to discover that the coworker has told the boss about the negative comments. A student may ask a favorite teacher to read some poetry that the student has written and later discover that the teacher published the poetry under his own name. Strategies of trust restoration neces­sarily differ with the kind of relationship the parties have (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, and Murnighan, 1996). It may also be that those who are heavily invested in high-IBT relationships are actually less sensitive to trust violations (Robinson, 1996). Thus, no model of trust restoration can explain the idiosyn­crasies of each individual relationship. Our intent is merely to explore the dynamics of trust restoration within the context of various kinds of relationship, to better understand the link between relationship and trust type.

Despite the generally negative effect associated with distrust, we should note that trust restoration is not always a desirable alternative. Distrust is necessary when people perceive a need to protect themselves or others from possible harm, or when other parties in the relationship are not well known (Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies, 1998). Some work teams also perform better in CBD situations, perhaps because each member takes more care to ensure that the partners perform as expected. This self-policing contributes to higher product quality.

Implications for Managing Conflict More Effectively

Some of what we have said about trust we have known for a long time, but other parts are quite new and somewhat speculative. They remain to be vali­dated through further research on how people develop and repair trust in their relationships. By way of summarizing this chapter, we would like to make some statements about trust and its implications for managing conflict.

1. The existence of trust between individuals makes conflict resolution easier and more effective. This point is obvious to anyone who has been in a conflict. A party who trusts another is likely to believe the other’s words, assume that the other will act out of good intentions, and probably look for productive ways to resolve a conflict should one occur. Conversely, if one distrusts another, one might disbelieve the other’s words, assume that the other is acting out of bad intentions, and defend oneself against the other or attempt to beat and conquer the other. As we have tried to indicate several times in this chapter, the level of trust or distrust in a relationship therefore definitively shapes emergent conflict dynamics.

2. Trust is often the first casualty in conflict. If trust makes conflict reso­lution easier and more effective, eruption of conflict usually injures trust and builds distrust. It does so because it violates the trust expec­tations, creates the perception of unreliability in the other party, and breaks promises that have been broken. Moreover, the conflict may serve to undermine the foundations of identification-based trust that may exist between the parties. Thus, as conflict escalates—for whatever reason or cause—it serves to decrease trust and increase distrust. The deeper the distrust that is developed, the more the parties focus on defending themselves against the other or attempting to win the conflict, which further serves to increase the focus on distrust and decrease actions that might rebuild trust.

3. Creating trust in a relationship is initially a matter of building calculus­based trust. Many of those writing on trust have suggested that one of the objectives in resolving a conflict is to “build trust.” Yet in spite of these glib recommendations, few authors are sufficiently detailed and descriptive of those actions required to actually do so. From our review of the literature and the research we have reported in this chapter, it is clear to us that to build trust a party must begin with those actions we outline in this chapter: act consistently and reliably, meet deadlines and commitments, and repeatedly do so over time or over several bands of activity in the relationship.

4. Relationships can be further strengthened if the parties are able to build identification-based trust. Strong calculus-based trust is critical to any stable relationship, but IBT (based on perceived common goals and purposes, common values, and common identity) is likely to strengthen the overall trust between the parties and enhance the ability of the relationship to withstand conflict that may be relationship frac­turing. If the parties perceive themselves as having strong common goals, values, and identities, they are motivated to sustain the relation­ship and find productive ways to resolve the conflict so that it does not damage the relationship.

5. Relationships characterized by calculus-based or identification-based distrust are likely to be conflict laden, and eruption of conflict within that relationship is likely to feed and encourage further distrust. At the calculus-based level, the actor finds the other’s behavior (at least) unreliable and unpredictable, and the other’s intentions and motiva­tions might be seen as intentionally malevolent in nature. At the identification-based level, the actor believes that he and the other are committed to dissimilar goals, values, and purposes and might thus attribute hostile motives and intentions to the other. Once such nega­tive expectations are created, actions by the other become negative self-fulfilling prophecies (I expect the worst of the other and his behav­ior confirms my worst fears), which often lead the conflict into greater scope, intensity, and even intractability.

6. As we have noted, most relationships are not purely trust and distrust but contain elements of both. As a result, we have positive and negative feelings about the other, which produces another level of conflict: an intrapsychic conflict often called ambivalence. States of ambivalence are characterized by elements of both trust and distrust for another; the internal conflict created by that ambivalence serves to undermine clear expectations of the other’s behavior and force the actor to scrutinize every action by the other to determine whether it should be counted in the trust or the distrust column. Ambivalent relationships are often finely grained and finely differentiated (Gabarro, 1978) because the actor is forced to determine the contexts in which the other can be trusted and those in which the other should be distrusted. As noted elsewhere (Thompson, Zanna, and Griffin, 1995; Lewicki and McAllis­ter, 1998), ambivalence can lead actors to become incapacitated in fur­ther action, or to modify strategies of influence with the other party. Thus, an actor’s internal conflict between trust and distrust probably also affects how he or she handles the interpersonal conflict between him- or herself and the other party. Because of the number of bands in the bandwidth of a relationship, and the ways in which trust and dis­trust can mix in any given relationship, we also argue that relationships holding varied degrees of ambivalence are far more common than rela­tionships characterized by “pure” high trust or high distrust.

7. Finally, it is possible to repair trust—although it is easier to write about the steps of such repair than to actually perform it. Effective trust repair is often a key part of effective conflict resolution. In the preced­ing section of this chapter, we talked about some of the steps that are necessary to repair trust.

However, as we noted, repairing trust may take a long time, because the parties have to reestablish reliability and dependability that can only occur over time. Therefore, although rebuilding trust may be necessary for effective con­flict resolution in the relationship over the long run, addressing and managing the distrust may be the most effective strategy for short-term containment of conflict. By managing distrust, as noted earlier, we engage in certain activities:

1. We explicitly address the behaviors that created the distrust. These may be actions of unreliability and undependability, harsh comments and criticism, or aggressive and antagonistic activities occurring as the conflict escalated.

2. If possible, each person responsible for a trust violation or act of distrust should apologize and give a full account of the reasons for the trust violation. Acknowledging responsibility for actions that created the trust violation, and expressing regret for harm or damage caused by the violation, is often a necessary step in reducing distrust.

3. We restate and renegotiate the expectations for the other’s conduct in the future. The parties have to articulate expectations about the behavior that needs to occur and commit to those behaviors in future interactions.

4. We agree on procedures for monitoring and verifying the designated actions, to ensure that commitments are being met.

5. We simultaneously create ways to minimize our vulnerability or depen­dence on the other party in areas where distrust has developed. This often occurs as the vulnerable parties find ways to ensure that they are no longer vulnerable to the other’s exploitation or identify alternative ways to have their needs met. If one person depends on another for a ride to work and the driver is consistently late or occasionally forgets, then even if the actor accepts the other’s apology and commitment

to be more reliable, the actor may also explore alternative ways to get to work.