The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?
Abstract
Prior research on organizational trust has not rigorously examined the context specificity of trust nor distinguished between the potentially varying dimensions along which different stakeholders base their trust. As a result, dominant conceptualizations of organizational trust are overly generalized. Building on existing research on organizational trust and stakeholder theory, we introduce a more nuanced perspective on the nature of organizational trust. We develop a framework that distinguishes between organizational stakeholders along two dimensions: depth of the relationship (deep or shallow) and locus (internal or external). The framework identifies which of six dimensions of trustworthiness (benevolence, integrity, managerial competence, technical competence, transparency, and identification) will be relevant to which stakeholder type. We test the predictions of our framework using original survey data from 1,298 respondents across four stakeholder groups from four different organizations. The results reveal that the relevant dimensions of trustworthiness vary systematically across different stakeholder types and provide strong support for the validity of the depth and locus dimensions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259373 · Cited by 7,111
An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Ganesan, S. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800201 · Cited by 6,741
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Cited by
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314525202 · Cited by 762
Kuhn, K. M., & Maleki, A. (2017) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0111 · Cited by 430
Figueroa-Armijos, M., Clark, B. B., & da Motta Veiga, S. P. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05166-2 · Cited by 164
Building resilience: a self-sustainable community approach to the triple bottom line
Aguiñaga, E., Henriques, I., Scheel, C., & Scheel, A. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.094 · Cited by 66
Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study
Fuoli, M., & Hart, C. (2018) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926518770264 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1087-1104
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2170759084
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 12.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
