For: Dr.

Piers Steel

MGST 797 : Directed Graduate Study, Meta-Analysis

Trust in Groups

Does it really meta?

Lesley Hayes
UCID 320135

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

Group trust is a construct in many theoretical and empirical papers. This research x xxxx

Trust has been defined and conceptualized in thousands of theoretical and empirical papers in the last hundred years. For many disciplines, trust is a fundamental concept, but the multi-faceted nature of a construct like trust can reduce theoretical foundations to an ambiguous mush. Trusts underlying assumptions span the calculative rational man perspective from economics , as an institutional viewpoint that underpins our democratic system of government, to the socially embedded relationships of sociology and internal cognitive processes and risk taking attitudes of psychologists . Authors agree that confusion reigns within this realm, at all levels. A myriad of definitions, perspectives and scales have been proposed and defended. Few have been adopted. What is trust? How can we measure it? Is it best understood as a dynamic or static concept? As a global attitude or specific cognitive process? As it is initiated, demonstrated or destroyed? Is it a cause, an effect or a moderator? Can it be measured at the individual and group level? Are self-reports from the perspective of the trustor more useful than an observable outcome? Philosophers, economists, anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists borrow from, yet vehemently disagree with, each other. Two papers published in 1995 (Mayer et.al.) and 1998 (Rousseau et.al.) provide useful distinctions and clarifications at the individual level. Mayer et.al. defined three related components: (a) the trustee, (b) the trustor and the relationship between them, (c) trust. Their integrative model grounds the innate psychological, sociological and anthropological perspective of a trustees propensity to trust, within a social context of norms and structures supported by a trustor, who demonstrates personal characteristics of trustworthiness such as integrity, competence and benevolence. Trust is thus the willingness of a trustor to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee, based on the expectation that the trustee will perform a particular action. With a slight of hand, these distinct dyadic

MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 2

EO Forum Group Initial Survey Findings

Lesley Hayes

connections are expanded to the group level by Rousseau et.al. Trust involves simultaneously individual processes, group dynamics and organizational or institutional contingencies . They proposed that trust was a meso concept, integrating micro-level, internal, specific psychological processes and macro-level, generalized institutional norms. Group Trust Mayers work to provide clarity to the complexity of trust at the individual level has gained widespread acceptance, but the construct of group trust remains murky. First defined as cooperation within groups its measures and theories have always relied on individual dyadic trust relationships. I could not find evidence, measures or strong theoretical arguments that validate the trust construct at a group level. After an exhaustive search of the literature in 5 fields; psychology, organizational behavior, anthropology, sociology and economics, I found no research that empirically documented a group trusting an individual, nor an individual trusting a group. Trust often happens between people who are contained in a group, and group norms or structure can provide a credible threat to discourage trust breaking. Group trust might therefore be most usefully defined and understood as an influence on an individuals trust. Individual actors demonstrating trust for individual other(s), within a specific group context. A defining goal for social psychologists is to study the group and the individual, but many theories, including those advanced in the trust field do not clearly delineate between constructs that operate at both levels. A standard process is to conduct group analysis on the mean of individual scores within a group, and then use statistical processes to correct for group effects on the individual data. . These types of statistical manipulations assume the measures are ratio or at the very least interval data. But perhaps an expression of trust is nominal data. I trust you to return the key I lend you, and you trust me to pass on a message but does that make trust in our group a 2? If I trust you not to tell my boss I lied about my degree on my resume and you trust me not to expose your rude behavior to a client does that make our group trust a 4?

MGST 792 Does it really meta?

Page 3

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

A 2002 meta-analysis by Dirks & Ferrin clarified the empirical relationships between trust in a leader, trust in co-workers and team based outcomes. Their findings, as well as other work that distinguished between leaders and their teams found the strongest correlations to group outcomes with trust in the leader. They confirmed the findings from a number of studies and asserted that trust in teammates had no effect on team performance, while trust in leadership had a substantial effect Perhaps these team members trust that the group they work with will accomplish team based outcomes, requiring trust in the competency, reliability and dependability of their team. But is it really the whole team that must be trusted, or do I just need to trust that our leader will ensure the key members of the team perform when required? Leaders are a primary determinant (and judge) of group success and although group trust scales often contain questions framed in terms of the entire team, the primary measures are of trust in the leader. Some authors argue that a fundamental cognitive error, that of attributing behavior to a person rather than the situation , causes team members to mistakenly attribute trust to a leader rather than the group . This cognitive attribution error, however, is that humans tend to see particular situations as being about themselves, rather than that we see general situations as being centered on another specific human. I was disappointed to not find enough studies to complement the 2007 work by Colquitt et.al. that investigated the relationships between individual trust processes on team based outcomes. The research that I am doing is with groups who strive toward individual outcomes. These groups are not as leader dominated, and rely on a different balance of trust facets than an organizational team does. The 1982 Interpersonal Trust Scale measured four distinct factors of trust; (a) general trust, (b) emotional trust keeping confidences and secrets, freedom of criticism and embarrassment etc., (c) reliableness keeping promises and commitments, and (d) dependability confidence that others will help when needed. Teams require reliability and dependability, groups where members disclose potentially damaging or embarrassing information rely on emotional trust. Colquitt et.al.s model in their meta-analysis of

MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 4

EO Forum Group Initial Survey Findings

Lesley Hayes

teams, built on Mayers definition of trust, found the highest correlation between ability (r=.39) and trust, benevolence (r=.26) and lowest was integrity (r=.15). Since research with T-Groups abruptly diminished in the mid 1970s, the field of organizational behavior has dominated group research, focused on work-based teams. Minimal empirical research exists, certainly not enough for a credible meta-analysis, that measures the antecedents and expressions of trust that support individual outcomes within group processes. Similar to the team literature, where team trust and performance is powerfully influenced by a single dyad, trust in these groups, I propose, is strongly determined by the lowest level of dyadic trust within the group. In the case of a team, if I trust that the leader is competent, then I believe that they have set attainable goals, and that they will put together and motivate a team that will achieve those goals. Operationalized as ability, benevolence and integrity, I trust that the leader has the power, ability, motivation and desire to drive to success. In the case of participation in a group where I will expose my personal and business challenges, including my fears and doubts, then I must trust that each individual in the group will not use this information against me or my firm in the future. A leader cannot control future individual behaviors, nor do organizational structures or deterrents provide protection. Trust in these group settings is less an expression of group trust, I postulate, but rather a series of individual discrete choices, such as disclosure of a particular fact, based on the group members judgment of the least trustworthy person in the room. When actors participate within a specific group (whether family, firm or social group) a socialization process may impact an actors propensity to trust within that group, but observable instances of that trust remain specific individual behaviors. Aggregating individual trust expressions to a group average does not create a valid group construct of trust. The following ritual, conducted at the beginning of an entrepreneurial mastermind style group meeting, illustrates this dynamic.
Each meeting begins with an elegant ritual. After a

confidentiality commitment, each group member extends their

MGST 792 Does it really meta?

Page 5

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

right arm out over the table, making a closed fist.

In an

improvised dance of glances, each member regards the others, making and holding direct eye contact with every other individual member. At the count of three, all change their outstretched fist into a symbol of either thumbs up, I am clear with each of you or thumbs down I have an unexpressed concern or question about one of you. The moderator invites any thumbs down members to speak, sharing their anger, concern or question with the room and a short discussion clears the air. The ritual is repeated until all thumbs point
1

skyward. Only then is the group trust, between the members, strong enough for the meeting to start.

Social capital is often equated with trust. This fields struggle for an empirically testable group construct is a parallel challenge. It also attempts a questionable shift from the individual to group level for theory and analysis with all measures and observations firmly remaining at the individual level. Colemans definition of social capital, explained in its own chapter in his seminal2 work Foundations of a Social Theory finds that it is a capital asset for the individual lodged neither in individuals nor in physical implements of production embodied in the relations among persons. Boix and Posner condense Colemans chapter-long exploration of the construct to a succinct phrase. Social capital is, at its core, a set of institutionalized expectations that other social actors will reciprocate co-operative overtures. Just like its very close neighbor, trust, social capital is often viewed as a group or institution level construct, yet only observable at the individual level. Network diagrams that aggregate these relationships that form social capital at a group level, must retain individual connections between actors, as relationship capital is not a commodity, unlike its financial cousin, money. Stolle explains social capitals disconnect as occurring through mechanisms not yet clearly understood, the development of interpersonal trust and cooperative experience between members tends to be generalized to the society as a whole . I believe a reason we dont clearly understand these
1

The described clearing round has been observed through the authors work with Entrepreneurs Organization Forum groups in North America. 2 As of December 11, 2010 at Google Scholar, this reference has been cited over 12,000 times. MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 6

EO Forum Group Initial Survey Findings

Lesley Hayes

mechanisms is that they are again nominal data, rather than ratio or interval and thus dont lend themselves to aggregation or statistical manipulation. Trust Antecedents Trustworthiness Propensity to Trust Trust Behaviors SITS

Dynamic trust model

Hypothesis 1: There is a direct positive relation between level of trust in a forum group and members satisfaction with their group. Trust is well researched within business contexts (Butler, 1991) as well as in many other social sciences. Trust is recognized as an important antecedent to strong group process and individual self-disclosure. Trust in EO Forum groups is created by agreement to absolute confidentiality, and should be positively related to the dependent variable member satisfaction. Methods

Population and Sample

This research was conducted with the intention to conduct a metaanalysis to investigate the relationship between group trust and individual learning outcomes. Although there was an explosion of theoretical and documentary work conducted in the 1960s and 1970s on such topics as T-groups, sensitivity groups, learning groups and other group activities whose outcome was individual growth, rather than the common group outcome, a group goal or result. Threats to Validity

MGST 792 Does it really meta?

Page 7

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

Overall Findings The six original hypotheses were tested with the global group level aggregate data, as well as with the five regional group level data sets, and two individual level chapter data sets. The individual data sets are from Houston, Texas (138 EO members) and one from Calgary, Alberta (119 EO members). the correlation table for the key variables identified in this analysis.

MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 8

Table 1: Correlations & Sig of Selected Variables

Q1

Q5

Q6

Q4

Q7

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q16

Q17

Q21

Q19

Commitment

Q1 Attendance Q5 Coaching Q6 Prepared

1 .356 .436 .324 .352 .137 .145 .394 .180 .295 .148 .305 .280 1 . 877 . 556 . 599 . 637 . 463 . 487 . 296 . 334 . 334 . 194 . 330 1 . 574 . 648 . 637 . 322 . 542 . 370 . 355 . 355 . 187 . 430 1 . 557 . 650 . 587 . 746 . 701 . 721 . 721 . 439 . 548 1 . 736 . 364 . 683 . 569 . 539 . 539 . 466 . 482 1 . 587 . 608 . 523 . 565 . 330 . 377 . 436 1 . 503 . 396 . 496 . 647 . 546 . 326 1 . 830 . 689 . 521 . 539 . 670 1 . 708 . 657 . 728 . 731 1 . 579 . 535 . 563 1 . 829 . 510 1 . 501 1

Group Process

Q4 Updates Q7 Listening Q9 Exp. Share

Cohesion

Q 10 Know others Q11 Depth Q12 Open Q 13 Judgement

Trust

Q 16 Confidential Q17 Trust

Leadership

Q21 Mod. Sensitive

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

Dep. Variable

Q19 Needs Met

.356

. 391

. 406

. 575

. 643

. 501

. 560

. 805

. 767

. 565

. 580

. 585

. 762

NOTE: All Pearson Correlations reported in this table are sig .000, 2-tailed and n=385

MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 2

Conclusions Further Research I believe that the world of small group research would benefit from additional case studies and survey data. EO offers 4 different 4 hour training programs which emphasize different aspects of EO forum group structures and practices. Follow up research could be conducted with

Trust in Groups

Lesley Hayes

References:

Boix, C, & Posner, DN. (1998). Social capital: Explaining its origins and effects on government performance. British Journal of Political Science, 28(04), 686-693. Brown, J. (1986). Evaluation of self and others; self-enhancement biases in social judgement. Social Cognition, 4, 343-353. Coleman, JS. (1994). Foundations of social theory: Belknap Press. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of conflict resolution, 2(4), 265-279. Dirks, KT, & Ferrin, DL. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-627. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Johnson-George, C, & Swap, WC. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1306-1317. Kenny, DA, & Voie, LL. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 339-348. Kramer, RM. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and emotion, 18(2), 199-230. Lind, EA, & Tyler, TR. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice: Springer Us. Mayer, RC, Davis, JH, & Schoorman, FD. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. McAllister, DJ. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. Rotter, JB. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust1. Journal of personality, 35(4), 651-665.

MGST 797 Does it really meta?

Page 20

EO Forum Group Initial Survey Findings

Lesley Hayes

Rousseau, DM, Sitkin, SB, Burt, RS, & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19(3), 497-525. Williamson, O.E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 34, 453 - 502.

MGST 792 Does it really meta?

Page 21