1972_ Zand_Trust and Managerial Problem Solving

7/26/2019 1972_ Zand_Trust and Managerial Problem Solving

1/12

aleE Zand

This paper presents

a

model of trust and its interaction with information flow,

influence, and control, and reports on an experiment based on the model to test

several hypotheses about problem-solving effectiveness. The subjects were man-

agers and the independent variable was the individual manager s initial level of

trust. G roups of business executives were given identical factual information about

a difficult manufacturing-marketing policy problem; half the groups were briefed

to expect trusting behavior, the other half

to

expect untrusting behavior. There

were highly significant differences in effectiveness between the high-trust groups

and the low-trust groups

in

the clarification

of

goals, the reality

of

information

exchanged, the scope of search for solutions, and the comm itment of managers to

implement solutions. The findings indicate that shared trust or lack of trust ap-

parently are a significant determinant of m anagerial problem-solving effectiveness.^

There is increasing researeh eyidenee that INTRODU TION

is a salient faetor inde termining the j ^ ^ . (^gg^ f ^ ^ j ^ ^ effeetiye

ofman y relationships, such as helping relationship, one participa nt (coun-

andchild (Baldwm selor, therapist, help er) behaye d in ways tha

al, 1945), psychotherapist and elient deyelop ed trust and the other experienc ed an

53; Seeman , 1954 ), and mem bers i^^.êase in trust, and concluded tha t the de -

and êlopmentoftrust is a crucia l initial factor

.^^^^

neeessary co ntinuing eleme nt

in

such

ofexpression, ^relationship. H e summ arized extensiye re

istrust eyokes interperson al rejec- .^^^ch in which an increase in trust app eare d

on and arouses defensive beha vior (G ibb , ^^ ^^ eausalK- related to mo re rap id intellec-

^

tual deyelopment, increased originality,

in-

Du ring the past fifteen years ma n)' man - c e a se d em otional stabilit)% increased' seH-

to

programs,

ôj^^j.^

^nd deereased physiological arousa

ously called sen sitivity tra ining (Bra d- ô defend against threa t.

et al, 1964 ), grid laboratories (Blake j h ^ ig,,gi f^^^.tin arelatio nsh ip affeets

or

group workshops

he

degree

of

defensiveness. Gibb (1961 )

n and Bennis, 1965 ), to improve their f^^nd tha t m em bers of small groups tha

indeveloping trust and thus, presuma- developed a "defensive elimate," had diffi

It has ûlty eoncentrating onmessages, perceiv ed

to show a direet j e mo tives, values, and emotionsof other

and managerial i^^s aeeurately, and increased the distortion

in a wo rking organization ^f messages. Oth er studies suggest tha t some

and Campbell , 1968;House, interpersonal trust is required for effeetiy

is aneedtoclarify the problem solying in a group. Parloffand

for assertions abou t trust Ha ndlo n (1966 ) found tha t intensiye, pe


2/12

230 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

in problem-solving effectiveness. They found information he provides will be low in ac

that groups penalized for poor ideas and ad- racy, comprehensiveness, and timeliness; a

monished to produce only good ideas while therefore have low congruence with real

working on early problems produced poorer He will also resist or deflect the attempts

solutions to later problems when these restric- others to exert influence. He will be sus

tions were removed than groups that were cious of their views, and not receptive

not penahzed and admonished during their their proposals of goals, their suggestions

earlv problem assignments. reaching goals, and their definition of crite

This paper: (1) analyzes the concept of and methods for evaluating progress.

trust, (2) presents a model of the interaction though he rejects the influence of others,

of trust and problem-solving behavior, and will expect them to accept his views. Fma

(3) reports the results of an experiment that one who does not trust will try to mmm

attempted to test several hvpotheses derived his dependence on others. He will feel

from the model. cannot rely on them to abide by agreeme

and will try to impose controls on their

N LYSIS OF C O N C E P T

havior when coordination is necessary

Trusting behavior, following Deutsch attain common goals, but will resist and

(1962), is defined here as consisting of alarmed at their attempts to control

actions that (a) increase one s vulnerability, behavior.

(b) to another whose behavior is not under When others encounter low-trust behav

one s control, (c) in a situation in which the initially they will hesitate to reveal mtor

penaltv (disutilitv) one suffers if the other tion, reject influence, and evade control. T

abuses that vulnerabihty is greater than the short cycle feedback will reinforce the o

benefit (utility) one gains if the other does inator s low trust, and unless there

not abuse that vulnerability. For example, a changes in behavior, the relationship

parent is exhibiting trusting behavior in stabiHze at a low level of trust,

hiring a babv sitter so he can see a movie. All of this behavior, following from a

The action significantly increases his vulner- of trust, will be deleterious to informa

abilit^ since he cannot control the baby exchange, to reciprocity of influenc>e an

sitte/s behavior after leaving the house. If the exercise of self-control, and w ill dimm

the baby sitter abuses that vulnerability, the the effectiveness of joint problem-sol

penalt\^ mav be a tragedy that may adversely efforts.

affect the rest of his Hfe; if the baby sitter To the objective uncertainty mherent

does not abuse that vulnerability, the benefit problem, for example, unavailable facts

will be the pleasure of seeing a movie. Thus unknown causal relationships between

trust as the term wiU be used in this paper, tions and results, low trust will add s

is not a global feeling of warmth or affection, uncertainty- that

is

uncertainty^ introduce

but the conscious regulation of one s dcpen- individuals wdthholding or distorting rele

dence on another that will vary with the task, information and concepts,

the situation, and the other person. Persons lacking trust attempting to so

problem jointly will attempt to minim

MO EL their vulnerability. There will be an incr

The following model, based on Cibb, in the likelihood of misunderstanding or

(1964) conceptualizes the transforming of interpretation. The social uncertainty

one s inner state of trust (or mistrust) into duced by their low trust will increase

behavior that is trusting (or mistrusting) probability that underlying problems ma

through (1) information, (2) influence, and undetected or be avoided, and that inap

(3) control. priate solutions may be more difficu


3/12

and PROBLEM SOLVING

231

, comprehensive, aecu rate, and timely dance w ith agreem ents, an d therefore wdl

less fear th at the ir exposure yyill be

have less need to impose controls on others

(see Figure 1). Consequently they will con-

tribute to a decrease in social uncertainty

and be less likely to misinterpret the inten-

tions and the beha\dor of others. As a result

endence because of confidenee tha t underlying problems are mo re likely to be

s will control their behavior in accor- identified and examined, and solutions more

TRUST

Increase one s

vulnerabilit)

to others whose

behavior one

cannot control

\

CONTROL

Accept more inter-

dependence with others.

Impose less procedure

to c>ontrol others.

Greater confidence

others will do what

they agree to.

Greater commitment to

do what one agreed to.

INFORMATION

Disclose more

accm-ate, rele-

vant, and

complete data

about the prob-

lem, one s

thoughts and

one s feelings.

INFLUENCE

Accept more influence

from others in

selection of goals,

choice of methods,

evaluation of progress. 1, Initial level of

trust predisposes

information flow,

influence, and

control.


4/12

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

likely to be appropriate, creative, and long-

range.

Hypotheses

It

is not assumed here that trust alone will

solve a technical problem; it is assumed that

group members collectively have adequate

knowledge, experience, and creativity to de-

fine and solve a complex problem. It is also

assumed that it is possible to increase or de-

crease trust in members of a problem-solving

group.

On the basis of the model described, the

following differences can be predicted in the

problem-solving behavior of groups with

high and low trust.

An increase in trust will increase the ex-

change of accurate, comprehensive, and

timely information. Problem-solving groups

with high trust will:

Hypothesis 1 Exchange relevant ideas and

feelings more openly.

Hypothesis 2

Develop greater clarification

of goals and problems.

Hypothesis 3

Search more extensively

alternative courses of acti

HypotJiesis 4 Have greater influence

solutions.

Finally, an increase in trust will incre

willingness to control one's own behavi

will increase confidence in the reliability

others, and will decrease efforts to control

behavior of others, all of which will c

tribute to increased satisfaction and moti

tion. Hence, problem-solving groups w

high trust will:

Hypothesis 5

Be more satisfied with th

problem-solving efforts.

Hypothesis 6 Have greater motivation

implement conclusions.

Hypothesis 7 See themselves as closer a

more of a team.

Hypothesis 8 Ha ve less desire to leave th

group to join another.

ynamics of Trust

Trust takes form in the interaction of t

(or more) people, and the dynamics of t

interaction is illustrated in Figure 2.

P's intention s &

expectations

Not

trusting

O

iintrustwortliv

P's belmvior

Restricts information

Resists

influence

Seeks

to impose controls

P's conclusion

O\s behavior confiiTns

P's expectation and

justifiesP s lack of trust

P s

perceptir

O s behavior seen as

untiTJSting

O's perception

P's b(>havior seen as

untrusting

O's conclusion

P's behavior confirms

O's expectations and

justifies O's lack of tiust

O's behavior

Restricts information

Resists

influence

Seeks

to impose controls

O's intentions 6c

expectations

Not trusting

P

untnistwortlu '

F I G U R E 2 . A M O D E L O F T H E I N T E R A C T I O N O F T W O P E R S O N S W I T H S I M I L A R I N T E N T I O N S A N D

P E C T A T I O N S REGARDING TRUST


5/12

and PROBLEM SOLVINC 233

t to control O. (3 ) Assume O also laeks trust, but this study did not focus on a tes

(4 ) pereeiyes P s initial beh ayio r as of the spiral reinforcement mo del. Th e aim o

ly untrusting, an d (5 ) concludes he this study was to examine the relation be

righ t to expeet P to be untru stw orth y; twee n trus t and problem-solying effectiyenes

6 ) he will feel justified in his mistrust as formu lated in the eigh t hypothese s,

f P. Sinee (7 ) P sees O s beh avior as un - To test the hypotheses deriyed from the

he (8 ) will b e confirmed in h is mo del, the research was designed so th at half

tial expectation that O wo uld not be trust- of the experime ntal groups started work on a

and (2) P will beh aye with less trust business-managem ent problem with a me nta

wh en he entered . set toward low trust and half with a men ta

The interaetion will eontinue around the set towa rd high trust. M ental set, as used

indu cing O an d P to beh ay e with less here , ineludes intentions as to one s beh ayior

ess trust un til they arriye at an e quilib- expectations as to the beha yior of others, feel

um leyel of low tru st, eaeh atte m ptin g to ings such as anxiety^ or diseomfort, and cogni

yuln erability and to maximize tiye frame used to interp ret eyents and form

s control of the other. In the proeess the pereep tions. In this researeh trust was no

eetiyeness of pro blem solying will dec rease , exam ined as a personalit)^ ya riab le; that is

er interaetion has continu ed, each will an element of indiyidu al cha racter, bu t as an

nd to hold more firmly to his entering indueed attitude, one that the indiyidua

iefs. Th ey will no t hay e a reliable basis for eould alter in a situation in which he w as led

or sharing inffuenee, an d the mu- to intend and to expect trust (or m istru st)

resistan ce to inffuenee will arouse feel- from others as he atte m pte d to solye a

s of frustration in both . If they hay e a problem . Beeause trust as a person ality trai

hne , each wdll attem pt to impose con- was not releyant, and to ayoid alerting th e

ols on the other. If P is O s organ izational subjects to the issue of trust, no prior me a

or, he may com ma nd O s com pliance, sures we re taken of the subjects attitu de

will reinforce O s mistrust. Usually, by tow ard trust.

Subjects

Because of their high potentia

ll be lower than the initial leyel. for top man ageme nt, upp er-midd le m anagers

Cib b (1964 ) offers supp ort for the dyn a- from all functions and pro du ct diyisions of a

cs of this interaetion . In obserying small large, internation al electronics com pany we r

beh ayior he noted th at the defensiye periodically seleeted by their superiors, afte

f a listener genera ted cues whieh discussion with the corpo rate person nel staff

ntly inereased t he defensiveness of to attend an off-site, four week, in-residence

e comm unicator, resulting, if unehecked, in program in man agem ent developm ent given

circular pa ttern of esealating defensiyeness. seyeral times a year tha t accep ted sixteen

The p atte rn of spiral reinforcemen t illus- m anage rs at a time. Eig ht m anag ers in each

ed in Figure 2 wou ld operate eonstrue- program, were randomly chosen to be sub

yely if it is assumed tha t bo th P and O en- jeets and distribu ted into two problem

the relationsh ip with trust in the other, solying groups, each with four m em bers. Th

b (1964) obseryed that wh en defensiye- remaining eight m anagers were obseryers

ss was reduce d, memb ers were better able eaeh was randomly assigned to a group with

o eoncen trate on the content and me aning of four m embers and each group ob seryed on

message, beeam e more problem o riented, problem-solying group. Da ta were gathered

w ere less eonc erned abo ut imposing con- in eight program s proyid ing a total of sixty

ols on each other s behay ior. four subjeets in sixteen prob lem-solying

groups and fifty-nine obseryers (fiye pro

M THO

grams were short one manager) in sixtee


6/12

234 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

ment, which was designed asalearning event to resign. Furth erm ore, he wastold t

embeddedinthe program . expansion wasnot feasible becauseitwo

Problem Thecentral problems involved redu ce short-term profits, take more tha

(1) developingastrategy toincrease short- yeartobuildandstartupa new plant,a

term profits without undermining long-term theboard wasnot likely toapproveth

growth

of a

medium-sized electronics com- nancing,

so as a

first step toward increas

pany with very lowreturn on inve stme nt, profits,he would haveto announce his d

ou tda ted ma nufa cturing facilities, w hose sion against expansion. Thevice preside

labor force hadbeen cut 25percent and ha d no know ledge of the president's dilem

whosetopmanagem ent personnelhadbeen when they started their thirty-minute pr

changed andreorganized twoyears before, lem-solving m eeting.

and 2) obtaining commitment to implement

Induction

of

conditions

of

trust

The ind

such a program despite strong man agerial tion of thetwolevels of trust wasacc

disappointment because expectations ofim- plishedbyoperatingonthe following en

mediate investment forexpansion andmod- ing beliefs of subjects: 1) the

emization would not be met. The situation,a competence of others, 2) norms onin

variation

of

one

described

by

Maier

et al

ducing information and new ideas,

3)

no

(1959),

involved four executive roles: presi- onattem ptstoinfluence ma nag ers outsid

dent and vice presidentsforma rketing , man - one's prim ary responsibility, 4) likelih

ufacturing , and personn el. Subjects we re ran- tha t others w ould abuse trusting behav

domly assigned totheroles. and 5)competitivenessorcollaborativen

Procedure All subjects and observers were forrewards.

givenawTitten descriptionofthe production. Inahigh-trust group,a manager's ente

marketing, financial,

and

perso nne l difficul- m en tal

set

toward trust w as shaped

by

tiesofthe company. following para grap h, which followed

In thepresenceoftheobservers, subjects factual information inthe role statemen

were told they were

to

conduct

a

m ee ting you have learned from your experiences du

lasting thirty minutesmthe president

oihce ^ê past two years that you can trust tbe

to mak e app ropriate ma nagem ent decisions, membersoftop management. You and the o

Ostensibly, they wêreto dem onstrate their topmanagers openly express your differe

decision-making competence tothe ir fellow andyour feelings ofencouragement or of

managers,theobservers. appointment. You andtheothers shareall

Each subject was then givenanad di tiona l vant information andfreely explore ideas

w ritten statem ent with factual and attitud inal feelings that maybe in oroutof your def

information relevanttohis function. He had responsibil^y. The resulthasbeena high l

1 1 J r .1 1 r . of give and take and mutual coniidence m

no knowledgeortherole lnrorm ation given , , _ j V-T,.

4U

u- .. T-u

u ^

i. 1 J

others support

and

ability,

to other subjects. The subjects privately read

^

and absorbed this problem information

for

Subjects

in

low-trust groupshad

a

sim

twenty-five minutessothere wouldbemini- paragraph in their role information,

mal needtorefertoitduring the meeting. worded to induceadecreaseintrust.

Treatments Subjects were randomly as- The reward system wasoperated o

signed tooneoftwogroup conditions: an information placed only in the presid

entering mental set toward highorlow trust, statement. In thehigh-trust condition,

The factual data about production, market- president wasled to see hisrelation t

ing, finance,and so onwas identicalinboth vice presidents as collaborative. His

conditions,and allvice presidents we re led statem ent said that although the Bo

to expect tha t the president wou ld annou nce decision considered

you

specifically, s

approvalof a long-stu died plan t expansion, yôu app ointed thecurrent topmanagem

In both conditions the presiden t's state- team it is likely that the Board willgo


7/12

Zand:PROBLEM SOLVING 235

as potentially competitive. His role in Table 1, with the chi-square value for each

said that since the board's ultima- item.

m pertained to him, it was possible that The subjects' rating of level of trust con

might appoint one of the vice presidents firms that the induction of high and low trus

his successor. The vice presidents in both was successful (

p

< .001) after one-half hou

ditions were given no information about of problem discussion. This result, although

on to the president was not a direet test of the spiral reinforcemen

competitive or collaborative. model, does offer support for it.

All subjeets were told that "whenever in- Since the observers used only their per

ation is incomplete, introduce whatever sonal standards for their ratings, it is note

ets and experiences seem reasonable under worthy that they had little difficulty recog

circumstances." nizing the behavior indicative of low or high

Observers.

In addition to reading the writ- ^

P ^

, ,. ,

general description of the company's ^he hypotheses about differences between

s, before observing the problem- groups with high or low trust were confinned

the

observers were told

of

^>\*^^f ,^P ^ t

ft^^ ^^

o^^ ^'

m^

for seeking P


8/12

6

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

TA BL E 1. FREQ UEN CY OF RESPONSE TO EACH ITE M BY SUBJECTS AND OBSERVERS UNDER

HIGH TRUST AND LOW TRUST WITH CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES

1.

2 .

3 .

4.

5.

6.

Y_

8.

9.

Item

Trust

Openness about feelings

Clarification of

problems and goals

Search

Influence

Satisfaction

Motivation to imple-

ment conclusions

Closeness as a team

Desire to take a job

in another company

* p < .001 for all X values

p < .001 for all X- values

Subjects

Condition

High

Response trust

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

Much

Little

in this

in this

30

2

31

1

24

8

21

11

29

3

28

4

30

2

27

5

8

24

Low

trust

9

23

15

17

10

22

6

26

6

26

2 5

10

22

9

23

22

10

column,

column except item 2 for

28.1

26.4

10.8

13.8

30.8

25.6

26.6

19.1

10.8

which p

Documents

1972_ Zand_Trust and Managerial Problem Solving