Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations

Boateng, Kofi A.; Boateng-Coffie, Rosemary; Hayford, Prosper Kwamena Article Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Boateng, Kofi A.; Boateng-Coffie, Rosemary; Hayford, Prosper Kwamena (2024) : Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2376051 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326418 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations Kofi A. Boateng, Rosemary Boateng-Coffie & Prosper Kwamena Hayford To cite this article: Kofi A. Boateng, Rosemary Boateng-Coffie & Prosper Kwamena Hayford (2024) Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2376051, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2376051 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2376051 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 24 Jul 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 749 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | Review aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2376051 Theoretical reconceptualisation of the dynamics of trust within and between organisations Kofi a. Boatenga, Rosemary Boateng-coffieb and Prosper Kwamena Hayfordc aDepartment of supply Chain and information systems, Knust school of Business, Knust, Kumasi, ghana; bDepartment of Human Resource and organisational Development, Knust school of Business, Knust, Kumasi, ghana; cDepartment of Computer information sciences and Mathematics, university of san Carlos, Cebu City, Philipines ABSTRACT today’s business and commercial undertaking have taken on a dimension that defies the traditional rules of conducting business. trust, is influential in changing the pattern of work in business strategizing within and between organisations. issues of complexity and uncertainty are increasingly becoming the norm both within and between organisational interactions. in this regard trust is crucially needed to strengthen the bond of relationships between a firm’s employees and a company’s strategic partners to realise the maximum possible co-operation in a mutually fulfilling manner. the present essay places trust in wider organizational perspective with a consideration of its dynamics in both within and between organisations. the challenge lies on how organisations formulate policies and put in structural mechanisms to sustain the relationships that go a long way to engender trust both within and between an organisation’s trading partners. the intranet and extranet constitute one such technological invention that is spearheading intraorganisational and interorganisational networks. the analysis is primarily situated within this context to bring out the divergent matters that come to the fore when trust is activated within and between organisations. this paper looks at trust from various theoretical standpoints and discusses the many implications of its presence, inadequacy or absence in both intraorganisational and interorganisational networks. the paper concludes with suggestions for examining trust in future research in the subject area. Background “…trust which undergirds our everyday lives is a pure social construction which answers to our need for security by seeming to be a fact when it is always a projected assumption” (lewis & weigert, 1981). “But it is impossible to go through life without trust; that is to be imprisoned in the worst cell of all, oneself” – graham greene in The Ministry of Fear trust within (intra) and between (inter) organisations continues to be a significant aspect of contemporary organizational sociology, not least, because it establishes the basis of rapport (van voorhis, 2022) and assumes the lifeblood for the many manifestations of its functions (Frei & Morriss, 2020). trust within organizations could be meaningful for encouraging innovation while trust between organisations could be the reason for mutual collaboration. Both intra and interorganizational trust reinforce the application of shared symbolic representation of meaning for operational orientation and philosophy of mutual co-existence. From the viewpoint of hypothesis, at the breakdown of trust, either within or between organisations, suspicion becomes strife, sensible communication suffers and consequently productivity could take a hit. all these can irredeemably undercut the operational effectiveness and productive efficiency of the organization. the crucial nature of trust in intra-organisational and interorganizational endeavours can hardly ever © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Kofi a Boateng [email protected]/fiboa[email protected]om Department of supply Chain and information systems, Knust school of Business, Knust, Kumasi, ghana https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2376051 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 February 2022 Revised 4 March 2024 accepted 1 July 2024 KEYWORDS trust; digital trust; inter organisational trust; familiarity; organisation; trust dimensions; intraorganisational trust REVIEWING EDITOR Huifen (Helen) cai, Middlesex University Business School, United Kingdom SUBJECTS Philosophy of Mind; Social Psychology; work & Organizational Psychology 2 K. a. BOateng etal. be taken for granted. Self-functional groups or teams need trust to ensure the attainment of innovative approaches to work in bringing about meaningful performance (akkaya & apostu, 2023). the standalone era that characterised initial computing systems usually demanded that data is input into a computer in a mechanical format via punch cards, magnetic tapes and other forms of storage devices. the 1990s witnessed the period of client server networking which meant that computers were electronically linked with one another in some kind of a communication network for both inter and intraorganisational endeavours. nowadays, improvements in information communications technology (ict) have culminated in the expansion of computer networks (vrasidas, 2000) paving the means for penetrative intraorganisational and interorganisational network connectivity (Fountain, 2001). ict-generated complexity has entered into the ways people and organisations interact in the course of conducting their business and organising their professional work on daily basis (Fountain, 2001) on both internal and external network organisational boundaries. Hence, the centrality of trust in social discourse in both intraorganisational and interorganisational settings is reflected in the reciprocity of its faithfulness (Simmel, 1900). the advent of the internet and the many possibilities of wide area network interconnectivity it offers have made it promising for firms to link to one another within the context of mutual sharing of information and knowledge. these networks span across the immediate territories of organisations and are inspired by strategic and economic factors. the consequence has been the coming into being of new organisational forms (Drucker, 1998). the purpose is to demonstrate reasonable response to the crucial need and challenge of aligning with the current trends of the ever-changing business milieu occasioned by incessant customer needs and technological revolution and innovation. current developments in the business environment are witnessing emerging, vibrant, innovative organisational structures, changing the configuration of organisations both internally and externally. among them are the virtual, ad hocracy, matrix, network and teleworking organisational management structure with teams and information technology infrastructures distributed across wide geographic networks. advanced technologies are being explored and exploited to facilitate online information exchange, collaboration, coordination, cooperation, and communication between interorganisational and intraorganisational members, groups and partners in a shared sense of mission and purpose to realise the overall stated objectives of the respective organisations. and one of the most crucial ingredients that facilitates these exchanges is trust. the preoccupation of the present study considers and examines trust from diverse epistemological standpoints, particularly trust within and between organisations, with discussions of their repercussions about its absence, presence or inadequacy in business practice. the legitimacy and significance of this attempt is supported by the very point of this conceptual lacuna in the trust literature. Methodological direction the methodological processes connected with this purely theoretical endeavour takes on the form of the literature review method which involves an elaborate critique of the dominant and mainstream literature of the subject at hand. going through this process necessitated a comprehensive search on google Scholar and other leading journal articles and allied scholarly outlets on the subject. afterwards, a period of sifting process that coincided with key conceptual blocks constituting the research title was undertaken. On this occasion, the search for the relevant and related literature included such phrases as ‘inter organizational trust’, ‘trust in organisations’, ‘intraorgnisational trust’ as well as ‘trust between organisations’. Drawing on the resultant body of literature returned by the searches, thematic synthesizing was carried out to formulate the headings and subheadings of the essay. in the end, this process facilitates the analysing, sorting diverse literature so as to classify the needed characteristics of the relevant and related materials (lin, 2009). Trust explained trust is not a modern concept. in fact, events that took place in the seventeenth century Hudson Bay company tell volumes that not much has changed since that time in terms of trust. Rich (1948) reveals that trust was seen then in such issues as “prudence, faithfulness, honesty, diligence, good behaviour, cOgent BUSineSS & ManageMent 3 integrity, reputation, justice, ability, courage, conduct, fidelity, and local knowledge”. contemporary literature supports this measured observation as trust is illuminated in such notions as reputation, integrity, honesty and competence; all to a larger or lesser extent captured in the following seminal work (Kramer & tyler, 1996; Mayer etal., 1995; Mcallister, 1995). in a related development, Shapiro (1987) demonstrates the point that trust has been implied as a conceptual representation of faith, security, confidence, anticipation, reliance, emotional property among others. indeed, trust has received considerable attention in such disciplines as experimental psychology (Rotter, 1971, 1980), philosophy, sociology (garfinkel, 1963; goffman, 1971), economics (williamson, 1993; Zucker, 1986) and political science (Harding, 1991). accordingly, many descriptions have been attributed to the concept of trust. Some are as confusing as they are contradictory (Barber, 1983; carnevale & wechsler, 1992a). Many authors have, in an attempt not to fall into this same category, decided to stay neutral by avoiding a definition for the word ‘trust’. indeed, it is quite difficult to arrive at a common definition for trust due to its multidimensional notion (Hosmer, 1995; Sako, 1998). generally speaking, trust has been imputed varied definitions in different ways by different scholars, a situation better known as homonymy. Homonymy denotes one description that includes several constructs (Smith, 1990). the problematic nature of homonymy in explaining trust parallels the story of the six blind men and an elephant (lewicki & Bunker, 1995). each blind man perceived the elephant in a different light; for instance, the tail may be taken for a rope, the side as a huge wall, the leg as a giant tree, etc., depending on the angle of touch and feel. in the process, they each lose sight of the bigger picture of the nature of the animal. looking at trust this way opens the Pandora’s Box of its conceptualization, giving rise to the sometimes, confusing notion of the word. ipso facto, frustrations are rife among scholars as to a common definition of trust. Some observe trust as a “confusing potpourri” (S. P. Shapiro, 1987), “conceptual confusion” (lewis & weigert, 1985), “conceptual morass” (Barber, 1983; carnevale & wechsler, 1992b), yet still others even go to the extent of asserting trust as an “elusive” concept (gambetta, 1988). in a related development, a UK military position on trust is system “whose integrity cannot be assured by external observation of its behaviour while in operation” (anderson, 2001), while economists imply legal connotations in trust (alchian & Demsetz, 1972). Psychologists employ a separate approach and view trust in broad terms that denote a comprehensive belief of an individual; that is, the degree to which a pledge by another person could be securely relied upon (J. B. Rotter, 1971). Sociologists however suggest trust has a strong influence, as it is grounded in social context that possesses the capability to manufacture social capital (Fountain, 2001) and regulate economic activities in a buyer-seller relationship (granovetter, 1985). trust can also assume a different dimension that simultaneously incorporates a non-human component expressed by giddens (1990) as “confidence in the reliability of a person, or system, regarding a set of outcomes or events”. this supports the view that in some cases the technology itself is perceived and regarded as an object of trust (Shankar et al., 2002). in spite of all these epistemological differences on the explanation of trust, the oftenencountered meaning in the literature is the one provided thus: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). For instance, the following studies (Bhattacharya et al., 1998; Brown et al., 2004; Das & teng, 1998; Huff & Kelley, 2003; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, 2004; Jones & george, 1998; lewicki et al., 1998; Zolin et al., 2004) have all made reference to the above definition in addressing the issue of trust from various epistemological and ontological positions. a claim is not being made here, however, to corroborate the quoted as the generally accepted working definition on trust. the argument, nonetheless, is to point to the direction on how the literature has dealt with trust over the years. Generating trust given the idea that trust is not automatic, it stands to reason, then, that trust comes about by means of depending on the availability of information about a person, object or institution to be trusted (nooteboom, 2002). in other words, trust involves, and revolves around, the use of a person’s volition; 4 K. a. BOateng etal. that is the willingness to trust, inspired by a certain amount of information in directing the path of one’s trust in a particular person or system. goffman (1971), however, portrays a relatively parallel view, arguing that trust emanates from unplanned interaction. trust is formed when two entities – by wilful agreement – behaviourally decide to be interdependent on each other (Berscheid, 1985; Brehm, 1992), and each in turn takes due cognisance and fulfil the conditions governing their mutual interdependence (Berscheid & graziano, 1979). trust is then considered key in oiling the relationship that sustains the interdependence between and among people and institutions (a. K. Mishra, 1993; thompson, 1967). it could hardly ever be possible to have full knowledge in terms of information about the object of trust. were this the case, action could be taken with the highest degree of certainty; leaving no room for trust to build up in the first place. in view of this to make a claim of trusting somebody 100%, is superfluous and redundant, and at best, “contradictory in terms” (nooteboom, 2003). the reverse situation also holds true for the generation of trust. thus, in a situation of absolute ignorance there cannot be any possible grounds for trust; the only option under this instance is to gamble, suggest lewis and weigert (1985). inadequate information in terms of the current circumstances of the parties in time inevitably signals the need to produce and maintain trust in distributed operations (O’leary et al., 2002). Zand (1972) found that dearth of trust is inimical to information exchange which is instrumental in reducing the effectiveness of managers in finding common ground in problem-solving endeavours. the inclination of a person to trust is a reflection on their subjective trait, though the possibility of this could be informed by the trust structure prevailing in a particular society or culture (Fukuyama, 1995). Organisations find their day-to-day business and social activities functioning alongside or within these societies. it should be pointed out that organisational cultures are different from one another; and this has its own peculiar way of informing and influencing the development and maintenance of trust. For employees and strategic partners to work together in a harmonious rapport, trust is essentially crucial. Scant level of trust could lead to the unwillingness of one party to share information coupled with the risk of opportunistic tendencies likely to surface among trading partners and organisational members. By opportunistic behaviour, williamson (1985) seeks to identify a situation of employing guile to achieve self-seeking ends. instances of opportunistic behavior find manifestations in misleading information, inadequate information, and failure to honour one’s side of the bargain (D. P. Mishra etal., 1998). granovetter (1985) directs his contribution to the discourse on trust in a radically different direction; focusing on social relations as the driving force behind the production of trust in economic life. granovetter however admits that, social relationships could not necessarily be an assurance for averting malfeasance and conflict; on the contrary, reveals granovetter, they inspire their occurrence. granovetter marshals three reasons to back this fascinating observation. First, the closer the relationship, the more vulnerable the position of the person who trusts in another becomes; emphasising the acknowledged concept of “you always hurt the one you love”. Secondly, the level of internal trust prevailing among teams offers an obvious opportunity for them to engage in all sorts of shady deals; “honour among thieves” readily comes to mind in this context. lastly, the wider the extent of a social network occasioned by trust, the greater the degree of damage resulting from malfeasance and fraud when trust breaks down. it is relatively easy to glean from the forgoing that risk is attached to trust just as much the same way as bile is attached to the liver (Bhattacharya et al., 1998; currall & Judge, 1995; lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). no wonder trust is considered as a decision under risk. Risk in trust finds expression in one of two ways. First, that trust occurs in an environment of limited information; highlighting the concept of bounded rationality against the backdrop of cognitive restriction (Simon, 1957). lastly, that trust involves one party being vulnerable to the potential abuse of another. it is this risky aspect of trust that potentially introduces complexity into the picture. luhmann (1979) argues for the case that trust reduces complexity or uncertainty. the complexityreduction component of trust, triggers the possibility, or even the probability, of raising the level of cooperation (Misztal, 1996). Providing the enabling environment for “social interactions to proceed on simple and confident basis where, in the absence of trust, the monstrous complexity posed by contingent futures would again return to paralyse action” (Simmel, 1964). Drawing on this, luhmann (1979) could not be far from right in cautioning that the alternative to trust is to court “chaos and paralysing fear”. cOgent BUSineSS & ManageMent 5 Mechanics of intra and inter-organisational trust it is the fundamental assumption of this paper that trust within and between organisations can be understood from two primary standpoints – time and familiarity. the time dimension underscores the duration it takes trust to develop within two separate entities, while familiarity identifies the with which distinct bodies come to know each other as a result of repeated interactions that obtain between them as a result of continuous mutual engagements that characterise their commercial relationships, as trust constitutes a fundamental setting of their daily interaction (Misztal, 2001). The time dimension of trust trust has a functional relationship with time; in other words, the level of trust rises with the maturity of a relationship; ‘trust is developed over time as individuals gain confidence in the reliability of others through a series of interactions’ (Fountain, 2001 p. 72). gounaris (2005) for instance argues in this regard that with time, marketers shift their focus from transaction towards maintaining a sustainable relationship with customers as way of retaining the latter’s trust in the former’s products or services. this casts a reflection on Fine and Holyfield’s claim (Fine & Holyfield, 1996) that trust changes over time as members gain knowledge of an organisation. they argue that initially organisation seeks to act as validating the trust of new members. the organisation’s position then turns to an “arena in which trusting relations are enacted and organisational interaction serves as its own reward” (p. 29). it is along this line of reasoning that Ba and Pavlou (2002) put forward the idea that trust acts as a catalyst for raising buyer-seller expectations in their commercial relationship. the same opinion resonates with the social capital literature (Putnam, 2000,). Fukuyama (1995) therefore submits that trust constitutes one of the most key expressions of social capital; for this lies in its ability to stimulate an impulsive social interaction in the course of time. it should be noted that trust holds a potential promise for building enduring social networks and relationships both within and between institutions. a country’s prosperity is contingent on its global competitiveness which is reflected by the degree of trust prevailing in the society in a given period. in view of this Huff and Kelley (2003) contend that the association of trust with certain cultures is key to their gaining of competitive advantage on the global market. trust could also play an influential role in initiating industrial decline (Kern, 1988), and could also be implicated in the determination of the political destiny of a national entity. avegerou etal. (2005) attest to the chief role trust played in the citizenry’s response to, and subsequent trust in, large-scale e-government ict initiatives in two latin american countries, namely, Brazil and chile. technological systems have the tendency to blunt the sharpness of trust (Kramer, 1999). Zuboff provides us with some kind of insights to support this claim. Her path-breaking work captures a complaint made by a manager at the installation of a surveillance system: “if i didn’t have the Overview System, i would walk around and talk to people more. i would make more phone calls and digress, like asking someone about their family. i would be more interested in what people were thinking about what stresses they were under. when i managed in another plant without it, i had a better feeling of the human dynamics. now we have all the data, but we don’t know why. the systems can’t give you the heartbeat of the plant; it puts you out of touch” (Zuboff, 1998 p. 326). the fundamental impact of trust in the social dynamics of human life is too palpable to escape careful observation. luhmann (1979) and gambetta (1988) remind us of the lingering repercussions of trust in a given society; simple or complex; with a suggestion by Möllering (2001) that trust is “one of the most important synthetic forces within society”. to this end, we pattern our actions as though we are in a privileged position to be aware of the trends of future events. luhmann (1979) tersely reminds us that: “Rather than being just an inference from the past, trust goes beyond the information it receives and risks defining the future. the complexity of a future world is reduced by the act of trust. in trusting one engages in action as though there were only certain possibilities in the future”. Familiarity-enabled trust information generation and gathering processes take place within the framework of shared understanding and cooperation, against the background of mutuality of reinforced expectations and 6 K. a. BOateng etal. reciprocity (Scott, 1999). this adds a cognitive dimension to trust; implying the familiarity of the trusting party with the selective processes that precede the point at which one deposits their trust in a system or person. emphasising the effectiveness of familiarity for the assurance of trust and its subsequent maintenance, Handy (1995) reasons “trust needs touch”. this arm’s length perspective on trust reinforces the notion of close proximity for both the object and subject in trust development relationships. For it is the closeness the strikes the chord of taken-forgrantedness in building fomenting trust environment necessary for mutual admiration to keep one another’s side of the bargain to forestall the occurrence of suspicion and doubt that always remain existential threat to strong any endeavours of trust. trusting relationships usually formed within this context precludes all connections with mediated objects or platforms. in other words, with regard to trust driven by considerations of familiarity, direct interactions with the parties with no affordance provided by proxy systems or systems of technological representations assures the growth and development of mutual continuous engagement with one another. given the contemporary account facilitated by labyrinth of technological devices, both movable or stationary, trust development in respect of this scenario of ‘…touch’ as advanced by Handy is diminishing in popularity, as one does not have to be necessarily present with the other party before entrusting trust-building mechanisms to the wisdom of systems. The digital-led trust One of the principal means of initiating trust by digital means is through the intranet. intranet refers to an in-house network that runs on software modelled on internet technology even though it is meant for intraorganisational interaction (laudon & laudon, 2014). intranet technology appears to be cost effective and time-saving in linking the various aspects of organisations over the years. it suits both virtual and non-virtual organisations in the dissemination of information on company-wide strategies, policies, rules, regulations, communication, news and service. the networks created by intranet service provide the needed link for coordinating distributed intraorganisational endeavours and unifying the collaborative efforts on real-time basis. the networks span across functional, organisational territories and stretch to cover interorganisational boundaries thus providing the potential for increased trust within and between organisations (lai, 2001). with the intranet many avenues could be opened for appreciable seamless integration of wide organisational communication-enhancing mechanisms. trust could be developed in this regard as a necessary device for stimulating intra and inter organisational performance and communication. this bears a linear relationship with organisational efficiency, effectiveness, productivity, business process improvement; all of which could have direct implications on cost minimisation (lai, 2001). the intranet has potential in delayering the structures of organisations, and possibly shortens the channel of communication to guarantee prompt response to queries and people’s grievances, essential for decision making, especially in emergency circumstances. the ease with which messages flow through and across digital organisational channels facilitate relatively quicker access to information as communication gaps get smaller; whiles promoting the spirit of teamwork in the production and maintenance of trust. For intranet to effectively sustain significant level of trust there should be regular and periodic monitoring in terms of appraisal and evaluation. the aim is to solicit users’ views, opinions, perceptions and constructive criticisms to serve as a baseline and yardstick for future upgrade. this could be institutionalised as part of organisational culture and strategising to raise users’ trust levels in the intranet use. the increased dependence of the online business environment on icts has given birth to a new trust dilemma in intra-organizational and inter-organizational interactions, though trust is considered nowadays as the mainstay of the digital world (Keen, 2000). the complexity of our modern world makes the issue of trust ever more crucial (child, 2001). the reason stems from the observation that the development of trust is sometimes contingent on shared context (McKnight et al., 2002), joint interpretive cognition of social norms and interdependence (Rousseau et al., 1998), and common experiences (Bradach & eccles, 1989), that collocated people are normally assumed to have by default. cOgent BUSineSS & ManageMent 7 a firm’s ability to generate trust through its internal structures and between its external trade alliances could be helpful in fostering competitive advantage (lane, 1998) by the instrumentality of digital networks in intranets and extranets or the internet itself. trust is seen to promote dependability, efficient product planning and the enhancement of quality management in internal business processes. the effect could presumably be the just-intime delivery, good quality goods and services production thereby leading to efficient customer satisfaction. therefore, trust is necessary for the establishment of interorganisational networks characterized by varied cultural practices and beliefs systems operating in competitively global, commercial environment where market uncertainties are high, product life is transient and unpredictability is the norm (lane, 1998). Perspectives of trust within organisations trust relationships within an institution can be described as intra-organisation trust. Such trust stands for the hopeful anticipation of mutual confidence that employees within an organisation share amongst themselves depending on their job definition, interpersonal rapport and mutuality (Schockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). arguing from a sociological standpoint, organisational trust is contingent on the shared understanding and cooperation of the members of the organisation. the predisposition of individuals in an organisation to repose trust in one another and the business counterparts could be encouraging in raising the trust level in one another. in a situation where members’ preparedness to trust one another is pretty much alert since the conditions within the same organisational environment provides familiar context, the degree of intra-organisational trust could be enhanced. to this end members are able to trust each other irrespective of their group orientation; ‘in-group’ or ‘out-group’ (Huff & Kelley, 2003). Drawing on Hofstede (1980) these features are more visible in individualist cultures than they are in collectivist societies. Organisations that demonstrate a high level of trust within its structural set-up are more likely to be successful, adapt to changing situations pretty much quicker, giving more room for innovation to flourish; the same cannot be said of firms that are deficient in trust (Schockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). trust constitutes a significant chunk of an organisation’s social capital, and hence a possible derivation of priceless advantage (Fountain, 2001). the spirit of trust within an organisation produces information exchange and sharing, collaborative efforts, mutual cooperation, commitment and participatory communication that play dominant role in organisational strategising. in this vein intraorganisational trust can be thought to enhance teamwork and sharpen organisational performance in the interest of the stated objectives of the enterprise (Jones & george, 1998). a situation like this makes organisations respond swiftly to their challenging and dynamic business environments and demonstrate their legitimacy and raison d’etre. employee satisfaction receives a boost, thereby raising their confidence level and sense of commitment (Flaherty & Pappas, 2000) to the cause of the organisation. individuals in the organisation could be confident in taking risks in the hope that they have the trust of their colleagues to break new grounds. intraorganisational trust is also effective in ensuring that individuals feel secure, which in turn engenders self-assurance that could mean less resistance to organisational change in critical times. this contrasts sharply with an environment where the prevailing situation is one of inadequacy of internal trust. in this case, individuals do not feel challenged to initiate productive moves for the benefit of the organisation. this may translate into less security with the potential of diminishing the trust level. Subsequently, members are likely to take relatively longer time to integrate their efforts and align their interests with the organisational philosophy. academics have advanced the thought that trust is vital for intraorganisational efficiency, effectiveness and enhanced team performance (golembiewski & Mcconkie, 1975; Porter & lilly, 1996). trust has been acknowledged as having diverse frames depending on the structure of the organisation. interpersonal trust is recognised as an essential variable to the different kinds of organisational structure. One of the prominent components of intraorganisation relationships is interpersonal trust. Mcallister (1995) suggests that interpersonal trust illustrates the extent to which an individual is prepared to depend on the actions, remarks, thoughts and decisions of another party. interpersonal trust pervades through the many divisions of organisational life reflecting in the way members’ trust brings about reciprocal support, timely feedback and effective information sharing. Mcallister (1995) delineates two key forms of interpersonal