CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 697Knowledge Management and SharingTeam Dynamics and PerformanceInnovation and Knowledge Management

Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks

Abrams, Lisa C., Cross, Rob, Lesser, Eric, Levin, Daniel Z.·2003·Academy of Management Perspectives
DOI 10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Executive Overview In many organizations, informal networks are the primary means by which employees find information, solve complex problems, and learn how to do their work. Two forms of interpersonal trust—trust in a person's competence and in a person's benevolence—enable effective knowledge creation and sharing in these networks. Yet, though conceptually appealing, trust is an elusive concept that is often difficult for managers to influence. We conducted interviews in 20 organizations to identify ways in which interpersonal trust in a knowledge-sharing context develops. Based on this work, we summarize behaviors (e.g., discretion, consistency, collaboration) and practices (e.g., building shared vision, ensuring transparency in decision-making, holding people accountable for trust) for managers interested in promoting trust (and thereby knowledge creation and sharing) within their own organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/ame.2003.11851845

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trust acts as a facilitator and promotes interpersonal relationships prompting people to seek and give help leading to a more collaborative culture.

    “Trust acts as a facilitator and promotes interpersonal relationships prompting people to seek and give help leading to a more collaborative culture (Russ et al., 1998;Abrams et al., 2003;Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006).”

    From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Abrams et al., 2003

  • In a trusting environment, individuals are more willing to take a risk by sharing information and cooperating with their team members, thereby creating a sense of collaboration.

    “In a trusting environment, individuals are more willing to take a risk by sharing information and co-operating with their team members (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995) thereby creating a sense of collaboration (Russ et al., 1998;Abrams et al., 2003;Hattori & Lapidus, 2004).”

    From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Abrams et al., 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z.
ORCID
Levin, Daniel Z.
Venue
Academy of Management Perspectives
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2003-11
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
64-77
ISSN
  • 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-4529
DOI
10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
OpenAlex
W2140409087
Cited by
697
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 40
FWCI
64.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Perspectives (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
interpersonal trust, knowledge sharing networks, informal networks, competence trust, knowledge production, trust building, organizational management practices, transparency in decision-making, shared vision, accountability, collaboration, discretion, consistency

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