Category: Trust

Trust is the primary key to building good relationships with individuals that we come in contact with, including staff, peers, clients, and families. Trust between team members and within any team environment is crucial to what makes dissimilar between group individuals working together in service of their objectives and a high-performing team. A lot of published studies show and explain that trust between management and employees is the most valued determinant of job satisfaction.

First, I must develop a good culture of trust within a team, and this will take time and effort. It is important to me as a senior care assistant to develop the right environment when supporting the staff to build and develop trust, to do this I must model behavior and demonstrate my commitment to my team and organization. To support and develop good trust culture within my team I will use some methods. For example, I must be open for regular communication, and self-disclosure to tell a bit more about the real me (hobbies, interests), get to know individuals personally, encourage debate, and develop a feedback culture.

In my workplace, I fully trust my team, and the best is always expected from them as I would most likely not be disappointed. If trust and respect are portrayed from the start, then it is most likely that my team will follow this and vice versa with the same respect and trust. To continue, I also do my best to persuade independence and encourage it in my team. I would also be disrespected and most likely disliked if I did not encourage them to do their best for a successful outcome and micromanaged every move made. From my team’s perspective, they would feel that I have no trust in them and so they would, in turn, distrust me.

Furthermore, my method for good relationships is always to have respect for others and respect will be granted in turn, so I treat my team in the way that I would like to be treated. Thus I must institute an interactive work relationship from the very start, and in doing so, a positive attitude must be displayed all of the time. I always like to see the best in the team and encourage them to become successful and achieve success professionally and personally. This helps establish a relationship with staff that is strong and trustworthy.

Lastly, to be an excellent senior care assistant, I provide my team with accolades and constructive feedback. Within doing this, it establishes the work bond/relationship between us, and commitment and loyalty are set between my team as they would feel that I am legitimate and trustworthy. To conclude, as a senior care assistant, it is my role and responsibility to form trust between my team, management, and other professionals. This is succeeded by trusting others, encouraging staff to be independent, respecting others, also offering accolades and constructive feedback. When all of this is done, I will be able to acknowledge that trustworthy attributes are displayed and that they trust me.

It is quite challenging to build trust within a physical team. Can you imagine how much more challenging it is to do the same with a remote team? So, how do you build trust in a team? Comparing a remote team to a long-distance relationship it takes working through many challenges to develop the same intimacy as a normal relationship. Organizations are now embracing remote and virtual teams. These teams allow an organization to gain the best talents by eliminating geographical barriers.

As the manager of a remote team, it is your duty to build a working environment the workers can trust you and where you can count on them. But how do you do this effectively? You only need to keep your team stays connected while working from home. You can achieve this through constant communication with the goal of building trust in the team. What better way to connect with your employees than allowing some non-work-related activities to take place within the team? Throw in some fun with Let Roam’s Virtual Game Nights. You can invite your employees to engage in the trivia contest. This gives you a perfect opportunity to find common interests within the team.

Importance of Trust in Remote Teams

Trust is key in any workplace. Employers need to trust their employees to perform their work diligently, and employees need to trust that they will get compensation for performing their duties. Below are a few reasons trust is important in an organization.

• Encourages workers to voice their concerns-employees need to feel that they are in control of their own careers. If not, they lose trust in the organization. A study by Watson Wyatt shows that organizations with a high level of trust surpassed those with a low trust level by 286%, with reference to the total return to the businesses. It is therefore important for leaders to empower their workers with information. They also need to allow the employees to be part of some decisions in the workplace. Leaders, especially in a remote workplace setting, should avoid one-way communication.
• Promotes teamwork and collaboration-trust is one of the primary determinants of how employees work together on a project. Poor communication among employees is one reason behind poor collaboration in the workplace. Team leaders should foster peer-to-peer communication in the workplace in order to build trust among employees. One way to do this is by encouraging open and honest communication in the organization.
• Promotes quick decision-making- when trust is mutual between the employer and employees, the decision-making process is easy and fast. This is because leaders can trust employees to make their own decisions.
• Decreases stress in the workplace-stress is linked to poor productivity and creativity in the workplace. To eliminate stress, leaders need to emphasize more on building trust in their organizations. They need to come up with effective communication strategies in order to reduce the level of stress within the organizations.

Trust is the pillar of any organization’s success. For a remote team to grow and be productive, employers need to promote a culture of trust. Here are a few tips to help an employer foster trust in a remote team.

1. Promote Transparency

As mentioned earlier, it is essential to share information openly with the team members. Managers should be a good example to the team by being transparent. They should ensure an easy flow of team information like work schedules, task statuses, and project progress. The following channels will help team members to share ideas with each other.

• Synchronous channels- mostly used for urgent cases. Remote employees use these channels for urgent questions and requests. They include video calls, live chats, virtual meetings, and phone calls.
• Asynchronous channels-these are channels that encourage open-minded communication. They include text messaging, social media messaging, etc. the channels have slow response times.

A mix of both communication options ensures that coworkers in a remote team have a way to stay connected, irrespective of the communication style used. An employer should insist on frequent communication in the team, to make sure everyone agrees on work issues. This way, team members will be more connected and able to build trust.

2. Create Unity in the Team

Managing a team of remote workers is not an effortless task. But it is a necessity if you want your business to thrive. One of the best ways is by creating unity in your team. Make all employees, regardless of their position, feel like an important part of the team. Employees give their best when they feel important in a team. The unity will create swift trust where people can trust each other even when they are strangers. As a team leader, you should be able to identify the skills and capabilities of your team members. In this case, everyone concentrates on their skill abilities, resulting in incredible work productivity.

3. Set Clear Goals and Objectives

Another great way to build trust in a team is to set goals, purposes, and priorities. The leaders share them with the other members. In addition, every person on the team should know the scope of work and their responsibility. Besides increasing productivity, this will keep the employees motivated.

Team managers must be clear on how employees should communicate their work. Some managers may want to know the progress on a daily basis, others on a weekly basis, and others on a monthly basis. Sharing the preferred schedule gives the worker something to work from and makes them know when and how to tell their managers they need help.

Abstract

On the one hand, in today’s competitive world customer loyalty has been introduced as a critical issue for the growth and survival of firms, in which the profitability of firms increases as a result of Positive Word-of-Mouth (PWOM) of loyal customers. On the other hand, research has shown that, in addition to the features of goods and services, observing the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) increases the loyalty and PWOM of customers. In this research, we investigated the issue that how the similarity of bank values ​​with customers and the bank’s ethical standards affect the commitment of the bank to CSR that ultimately leads to customer loyalty and PWOM. Also, we examined the effect of the bank’s social responsibility on customer loyalty and PWOM on the basis of the mediator role of customer trust and satisfaction. The Partial Least Square (PLS) approach of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the data (n = 300). The results showed that the bank values relevance ​​with the customer and the bank’s ethical standards have a positive effect on the bank’s commitment to CSR; commitment of the bank to CSR has a positive effect on customer trust and satisfaction; customer trust has a positive effect on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and PWOM; customer satisfaction has a positive effect on customer loyalty and customer loyalty has a positive effect on customer PWOM. Also, customer trust and satisfaction are the mediators of the effect of customer perception about the commitment of the bank to CSR on customer loyalty, and trust mediates the effect of customer perception about the commitment of the bank to CSR on customers’ PWOM.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Trust, Satisfaction, Loyalty, Positive Word-of-Mouth (PWOM), Banking

1. Introduction

Banks at the core of the service industry offer a wide range of competitive technology-based services and benefits to meet the changing needs of customers. Accordingly, the nature of customer relationships has changed in banking services. Banks revise their attitude toward customer satisfaction and optimize the quality and performance of services because of the highly competitive and rapidly changing environment in that have to operate in (Arasli et al., 2005). In this regard, researchers are proposing a solution to the banks, called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Social responsibility has become an important task of a business and requires extensive attention from managers (Melo & Galan, 2011). The challenges and opportunities that arise from observing or disregarding CSR cannot be ignored at all. These challenges include different aspects of CSR such as the environment, safety, corporate governance, human resource management, human rights, and consumer rights. Corporations have to address more social, environmental, and economic issues as well as legal activities because of the increasing expectations. Today’s modern firms focus not only on social responsibility but also find it as one of the key management tools (Bielak et al., 2007). Proponents of CSR believe that businesses should be involved in CSR because people are strongly advocating it. In other words, people believe that businesses should feel more responsible for their employees, the community, and other shareholders, in addition to pursuing profits, even if it is necessary to sacrifice a part of their profit to better address these issues (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Another argument from CSR advocates is that, on the one hand, the firm’s commitment to CSR not only has a positive effect on corporate financial performance (Fayad et al., 2017) but also has a positive effect on customer loyalty and PWOM (Al Jarah & Emeagwali, 2017). Similarly, banking research has shown that the bank’s commitment to CSR has a positive effect on the financial performance of the bank (Lu et al., 2014; Xiong et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016); It also has a positive effect on customer loyalty (Arıkan & Güner, 2013) and PWOM (Khan et al., 2015). On the other hand, CSR makes customers trust the firm and be satisfied (Fatma et al., 2016; Mombeuil & Fotiadis, 2017; Park et al., 2017). Similarly, in banking research, it has been shown that CSR has a positive effect on customer trust (Khan et al., 2015; Fatma & Rahman, 2016) and customer satisfaction (Bravo et al., 2009; Salmones et al., 2009; He & Li, 2011). CSR has high benefits for banks which are also corporates, but in the first step, customers should be able to understand that the bank is committed to its CSR. According to Park et al. (2017), customer perceptions of the ethical standards and values relevant to the firm are two factors that prove that the firm is committed to its CSR.

Customer loyalty leads to lower costs of attracting new customers, increasing the efficiency of service to old customers, and increasing revenues as a result of repeated purchases and customer visits (Kumar & Shah, 2004). In other words, customer loyalty as a competitive asset for an organization increases profits by reducing costs and increasing revenues. She/he has significant effects on business survival, profits, and development, and also paves the way for a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage (Chen, 2015). Loyalty has high benefits for the banks, but in the first step, banks should be aware of what makes customer loyalty. In research in banking, it has been shown that customer trust leads to customer satisfaction (Dehghan et al., 2012) and customer trust and satisfaction create customer loyalty (Amin et al. 2013; Dehghan et al., 2012; Kingshott et al., 2018).

Since some people believe that WOM is one of the most efficient and effective advertising methods, it has great importance for marketers. WOM also is described as a very powerful tool in promoting the product, so that brings unknown and unidentified products quickly in the path of reputation (Dye, 2000). Therefore, the customers with more Positive-Word-of-Mouth (PWOM), the firms with more profits. The question is: what causes the customer PWOM? Banking research has shown that customer trust (Khan et al., 2015), customer satisfaction (Casaló et al., 2008; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017; Ladhari et al., 2011) and customer loyalty (Mukherjee, 2018) play an important role in the formation of customer PWOM. Finally, it should be noted that WOM is generally considered to be more important in the service industry than production. Since service evaluation before purchase is difficult, its features compel customers to pay attention to others’ opinions in evaluating before making a purchase. As a result, perceived risk is usually higher in services than goods. Therefore, service customers may have more trust in WOM in purchasing decisions (Wirtz & Chew, 2002).

This research examines the bank values ethical standards’ relevance ​​with customers as two main factors of the bank’s commitment to social responsibility from the customer’s point of view. Also, we anticipate that the bank values and ethical standards relevant ​​to customers will make the customer understand that the bank is committed to its social responsibility; therefore, leading to customer trust and satisfaction happen and are likely to have customer loyalty and PWOM in results.

2. Literature and hypotheses

2.1. Values relevance

Enterprises should seek to maintain current customers and establish long-term and profitable relationships with them. The main point of customer preservation is that it should satisfy the customer by providing better value for them (Kotler & Armstrong, 2009). Consequently, a concept called ‘Relationship Marketing’ was created to provide long-term relationships with customers and profit for corporates by providing better value for them. Kotler & Armstrong (2009) defines relationship marketing to create, maintain, and strengthen a strong relationship with customers and other interest groups. Sin et al. (2005) considered relationship marketing as a structure with six key factors that include: communication, trust, empathy, reciprocity, bonding, and shared value. Kotler & Armstrong, (2009) know ethical values ​​as the criterion for assessing others’ activities. Park et al. (2017) state that since each person has their own values ​​and rules, customer awareness and assessment of CSR are largely determined by them. Therefore, it seems that customer perception of the value’s relevance ​​with firm values ​​has a positive effect on customer perception of a firm commitment to CSR. Similarly, we predict that the bank as an enterprise can demonstrate to customers that it is committed to doing its social responsibility by creating common values ​​with its customers. Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

• H1. The customer perception of the value’s relevance ​​with the bank has a positive effect on the customer perception of the bank’s commitment to CSR.

2.2. Ethical standards

Corporations must have ‘ethical marketing policies’. These policies are guidelines that everyone in the firm is required to comply with. These policies should include relations with distributors, advertising standards, customer service, pricing, product genesis development, and general ethical standards (Kotler & Armstrong, 2009). Similarly, Islam et al. (2013) state that, according to ethical principles, the observance of the values, norms, and beliefs of people in the society should be included in the instructions of the firms. According to Park et al. (2017), firms should explain and upgrade their ethical standards by actively communicating with their customers, usually through statements, because such a connection has a positive effect on the overall ethical context of the firm. On the other hand, Linthicum et al. (2010) defined CSR as a firm’s sustainable commitment to ethical behaviors and participation in economic development while caring about the development of the career of employees, their families, and social organizations and institutions. Therefore, customer perception of the firm’s ethical standards has a positive effect on customer perception of corporate commitment to social responsibility (Park et al., 2017). Similarly, we anticipate that the bank, as an enterprise, can prove to customers that it is committed to doing its social responsibility by adopting, announcing, and implementing ethical codes. Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

• H2. Customer perception of the bank’s ethical standards has a positive effect on customer perception of the bank’s commitment to CSR.

2.3. Commitment to CSR

Customer social responsibility (CSR) means the commitment of an enterprise to the community and those stakeholders that influence the politics, policies, and activities of the firm (Hsu, 2012). According to Carroll (1979), CSR consists of four dimensions: economic (making a profit), legal (complying with the law), ethical (being ethical), and precautionary (being a good member of society). The main motivation for firms to implement CSR is its huge potential profitability, and it comes when the commitment of a firm to CSR is perceived by its stakeholders (Perez & del Bosque, 2014). Activities that are perceived as CSRs have a positive effect on the firm on society (Wagner et al., 2009) and lead to a positive attitude in customers toward the firm (McDonald & Lai, 2011; Sheikh & Beise Zee, 2011; Chung et al., 2015) and its products (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Also, Mombeuil & Fotiadis (2017) say CSR perceptions have a positive effect on the quality of service. Generally, customer satisfaction is created when emotional and functional perceived value is accompanied by a positive previous experience (Polo Pena et al., 2013). Therefore, if customers understand the commitment of the firm to CSR, they will be satisfied (Fatma et al., 2016; Mombeuil & Fotiadis, 2017; Park et al., 2017; Khosroshahi et al., 2019). In research in the field of banking, the results indicate that the customer’s perception of CSR has a positive effect on her/his satisfaction (Bravo et al., 2009; Salmones et al., 2009; He & Li, 2011). Similarly, the perception that a firm is ethically responsible is a stimulant of trustworthiness (Pivato, 2008; Martinez & Del Bosque, 2013). It is logical for firms to create a belief in customers that they never lied and adhere to their commitments. Trust in a firm can be seen when customers believe that the organization is trusted and claims honestly (Radvieciene & Dzemyda, 2014). So, if customers understand the commitment of the firm to CSR, they will trust the firm (Choi & La, 2013; Fatma et al., 2016; Mombeuil & Fotiadis, 2017; Park et al., 2017). Results of research in banking also indicate that the customer’s perception of CSR has a positive effect on her/his trust (Khan et al., 2015; Fatma & Rahman, 2016). Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

• H3. Customer perception of the bank’s commitment to CSR has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
• H4. Customer perception of the bank’s commitment to CSR has a positive effect on customer trust.

2.4. Trust

Trust is the belief that the word or the promise of the partner is believable and trusted, and she/he will execute the partnership that is promised in the working relationship (Oly Ndubisi, 2007). Purwanto (2010) considers customer trust as a refinement of perceived past experiences and performances, the image and features of the corporate, the willingness to tolerate the risk of trust, and a sense of safety and trust in the services of the corporate. Trust is essentially considered as a convenient mechanism to reduce the risk of interactions by increasing the expectation of positive outcomes and perceived assurance of the behavior of trust holders (Wu, 2013). Trust is a two-way feeling that neither party removes the agreement between the parties. In other words, trust reflects the trustworthiness of a partner of interaction in fulfilling its obligations leading to positive outcomes (Radvieciene & Dzemyda, 2014). Johnson & Grayson (2005), proposed ‘cognitive’ and ’emotional’ dimensions for trust, based on the social psychology literature. The cognitive dimension of trust is the customer’s confidence or the desire to trust in the deservingness and reliability of the service provider. The emotional dimension of trust is the certainty of a person to the partner based on the feelings that she/he carries through his/her care and attention. Therefore, customer trust in the firm will create its satisfaction (Martinez & del Bosque, 2013; Fatma et al., 2016; Park et al., 2017). The result of research in banking showed that customer trust has a positive effect on satisfaction (Dehghan et al., 2012). Since, trust encourages the customer to continue the relationship with the provider (Akbar, 2013), and given that customer, trust plays a crucial role in re-purchasing (Han & Hyun, 2015; Chen et al., 2019), customer trust leads to loyalty (Amin et al., 2013; Kim & Ham, 2016; Park et al., 2017; Song et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2015). In research in the field of banking, the results indicate that customer trust has a positive effect on his/her loyalty (Amin et al., 2013; Dehghan et al., 2012; Kingshott et al., 2018). Meanwhile, customer trust makes it possible for them to share positive and beneficial experiences about the firm with friends and relatives (Gremler et al., 2001), so customer trust in the firm creates his/her willingness to PWOM (Gremler et al., 2001; Ranaweera & Prabhu, 2003; Harris & Khatami, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2009). The result of another research in banking indicates that customer trust has a positive effect on her/his PWOM (Khan et al., 2015). Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

• H5. Customer trust has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
• H6. Customer trust has a positive effect on customer loyalty.
• H7. Customer trust has a positive effect on customer PWOM.

2.5. Satisfaction

According to Kotler (2000), satisfaction is a pleasant or unpleasant person’s feeling that results from a subjective comparison of product performance with her/his expectations. As explicitly stated in this definition, satisfaction is related to product performance and customer expectations. Kotler also states that customers find their expectations provided so they are satisfied; if their provided expectations are below the limit, there is disapproval and leads to dissatisfaction; if the goods and services appear to be in the expectations, the customer is satisfied, and if the performance of goods and services outstrips expectations, the customer is pleased or, in other words, is delighted. Therefore, the perception of quality has significant effects on satisfaction (Van Vuuren et al., 2012; Loureiro et al., 2012) and the previous positive experience (Pena et al., 2013). Also, other factors affecting satisfaction include corporate responsibility policies and price image (Lombart & Louis, 2014), demographic characteristics (gender and age) (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017), and customer complaints management (Johnson et al., 2001). Caro & Garcia (2007) states that satisfaction results from a cognitive and an emotional part of the evaluation of a consumption process, both of which are important and essential for the modeling of consumer behavior. Customers’ positive evaluation of the overall experience of consumption increases their levels of satisfaction and willingness/readiness to re-purchase (Han & Hyun, 2015). Therefore, customer satisfaction leads to loyalty (Casaló et al., 2008; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017; Song et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2015). The result of research in the field of banking indicates that customer satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty (Ladhari et al., 2011; Dehghan et al. 2012; Amin et al., 2013). Also, satisfied customers are likely to talk to others about their good experiences (Jamal & Naser, 2002). According to Bougie et al. (2003), customers who are satisfied with the organization transfer their positive experiences to others, thus promoting the organization. Reputation and credibility from the point of view of others are the sources of public trust and reduce the cost of customer attraction. This is especially important for service providers. Therefore, customer satisfaction is a predictor of PWOM (Casaló et al., 2008; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017; Harris & Khatami, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2009). In research in the field of banking, the results indicate that customer satisfaction has a positive effect on PWOM (Casaló et al., 2008; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017; Ladhari et al., 2011). Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

• H8. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on customer loyalty.
• H9. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on customer PWOM.

2.6. Loyalty

Chen (2015) defines ‘customer loyalty’ as the loyal attitude and behavior of a customer toward a particular service company, despite offering different service options from competitors on the market. Loyalty is a sense of feeling of belonging to employees, services, or products of a firm; this feeling has a direct impact on customer behavior (Radaviciene & Dzemyda, 2014). Several positive benefits arise from loyal customer behavior: less search for options, greater stability despite rival’s efforts, greater neglect of small enterprise mistakes, and ultimately PWOM (Chen, 2015). PWOM means sharing potential positive experiences of a product or service in informal communication between a customer and a potential customer (Ennew et al., 2000). Therefore, it can be considered the power of WOM, because, first, WOM is more reliable than corporate-owned information resources; second, WOM is a real relationship and is the same as the conversion process between individuals, and third individuals share their experiences with goods, services, and brands with others, leads to reducing risk for potential customers (Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003). It can be seen that customer loyalty has a positive effect on PWOM in the result of a recent study in banking (Mukherjee, 2018). Therefore, the loyalty of customers is the predictor of their PWOM (Ennew et al., 2000; Chen, 2015; Harris & Khatami, 2017). Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

• H10. Customer loyalty has a positive effect on customer PWOM.

Trust and satisfaction are the main mediators of this research. Previous studies have shown that customer perception of a firm commitment to CSR has an effect on customer loyalty (e.g., Martinez & del Bosque, 2013; Fatma et al., 2016; Kim & Ham, 2016) and customer PWOM by the mediator role of trust (e.g., Hong & Rim, 2010; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Khan et al., 2015); therefore, it is expected that this relationship will be true in the bank as an economic enterprise. Previous studies have also shown that customer perceptions of a firm commitment to CSR have an effect on customer loyalty (e.g., Martinez & del Bosque, 2013; Pérez & del Bosque, 2015; Chang & Yeh, 2017) and customer PWOM by the mediator role of satisfaction (e.g., Walsh & Bartikowski, 2013; Su et al., 2017); therefore, this relationship is also expected to apply to the bank as an economic enterprise. Based on these findings, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

• H11. Customer trust is the mediator of the effect of customer perception of the commitment of the bank to CSR on customer loyalty.
• H12. Customer satisfaction is the mediator of the effect of customer perception of the commitment of the bank to CSR on customer loyalty.
• H13. Customer trust is the mediator of the effect of customer perception of the commitment of the bank to CSR on customer PWOM.
• H14. Customer satisfaction is the mediator of the effect of customer perception of the commitment of the bank to CSR on customer PWOM.

3. Method

Questionnaires from valid studies were adapted to measure individuals’ perceptions of their value relevance with the bank, people’s perceptions of the ethical standards of the bank, people’s perception of bank commitment to CSR, customer trust, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and customer PWOM. The validity of the questionnaire items was reviewed by four management professors. Table 1 shows the complete list of questionnaire items in this study. We used a 7-point Likert scale to measure items in the questionnaire (from 1 = ‘complete disagree’ to 7 = ‘complete agree’) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach by smart PLS software V3 to investigate research hypotheses. Researchers have mentioned many reasons for using this method, including that it is the best tool for analyzing research with the complex relationships between variables, small sample size, and abnormal distribution (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). Customers of branches of Mellat bank in Guilan province (one of the largest banks in Iran) were the statistical population of this research. The statistical community was chosen because the banks generally participate significantly in CSR programs due to positive financial outcomes. Also, the largest banks are pursuing CSR significantly more than smaller ones (Cornett et al., 2016). In general, in models that are examined by the SEM method, the sample size is more than 200 (Barrett, 2007; Joreskog, 2004). According to Bartlett et al. (2001), in the SEM method, the sample size can be set somewhere between 5 and 15for per question. Therefore, according to the number of items in this study (25 items), the sample size was estimated between 125 and 375. Finally, 350 questionnaires were distributed in 10 branches. A total of 300 valid questionnaires were received. 60.9% were female and 39.1% were male.

In an increasingly networked world, the concept of collaboration has taken on increased precedence. However, over the years this topic has been studied widely inter-organizationally but few empirical studies have focused on this concept as it relates to collaboration among employees within an organization (Whitford, Lee, Yun, & Su Jung, 2010; Campbell, 2016). In examining collaborative relationships among people in general, the literature has showed that trust is one of the most important factors that affects collaborative relationships (Pallot, Bergman, Kuhnle, Pawar, & Riedel, 2010). The current study aims to examine the association of interpersonal trust with collaboration among co-workers and the mediating role of interpersonal trust in the relationship between trusting beliefs and collaboration among co-workers. This research is important as the nature of work has changed, such that collaboration is a key element to productivity in the workplace (Whitford et al., 2010; Child, 2001). Theorists, Tariq, Habib, Siddique, and Khan (2011) have expressed that ideally, organizations strive to be a unit where they can learn can transform themselves. However, in order for this to be achieved, the ability of employees to work collaboratively is a critical factor (Tariq et al., 2011).

Based on the dynamic nature of organizations today, the global economy has a high need for collaboration (Child, 2001; Holton, 2001). Over the years, the concept of collaboration has been of increasing importance in organizations, as companies are recognizing the value of collaboration since it has led to improved organizational performance (Whitford, Lee, Yun, & Su Jung, 2010) and helps companies to have a competitive advantage (Vangen & Huxham, 2003). As a result of the increasing recognition of collaboration and trust, managers are giving more attention to the concept of trust in order to achieve organizational effectiveness and maximize the contribution of employees (McCauley & Kuhnert,1992; Child, 2001). The impact of trust is becoming even more significant as according to O’Hara- Deveraux and Johansen (1991), in a technologically advanced world, trust has a larger impact than technology on the relationships between workers. It’s regarded as the glue within the organization and is the keystone in business relationships (Humphries &Wilding 2004; O’Hara- Deveraux & Johansen 1991). Trust is a necessity for collaborative relationships (Holton, 2001). The findings from this study will help inform interventions to increase interpersonal trust within organizations and ultimately drive intra-organizational collaboration.

This study argues that interpersonal trust will influence collaboration among coworkers. Interpersonal trust is influenced by perceptions of benevolence, competence, and reliability. Therefore, the perceptions of benevolence, competence, and reliability will have an effect on collaboration among coworkers through interpersonal trust.

The concept of collaboration is emerging, and organizations are prudently pursuing methods directed toward their employees effectively collaborating with each other (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002). The goals and outcomes of an organization cannot be achieved individually. As such, employees and work groups within an organization are often involved in collaborative behaviors (Whitford et al., 2010). Given the complex nature of organizations, collaboration among employees can be viewed as a valuable tool that can help to amalgamate different operational functions and processes within the organization (Cross et al., 2002; Chien, Wan, Chen, 2012). Particularly, in large organizations, collaboration has been found as a tool that improves internal processes and increases the efficiency of the organization (The Economic Intelligence Unit, 2008; Chien et al., 2012; Whitford et al., 2010). However, in order to achieve collaboration among employees within an organization, trust, which is an important constituent in all human relationships (Child, 2001) is an essential ingredient and forms the foundation of collaboration (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Tariq et al., 2011). Mutual understanding between individuals proves to be a powerful factor in determining the success of collaboration (Child, 2001). The concept of trust among employees is of particular importance because it is considered a requirement for social behaviors (Gefen, 2000; Casimir, Lee, & Loon, 2012). Trust tasks play a key role in organizational performance and enable voluntary cooperation (Casimir et al., 2012; Lee, Stajkovic, & Cho, 2011). If a particular organization is seeking to increase collaboration among its employees, researchers have theorized that interpersonal trust will have a direct effect on the collaborative process (Tariq et al., 2011). Other empirical studies have supported this claim (Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Tschanen-Moran, 2001).

Collaboration

Collaboration is a collective process that aids groups in accomplishing goals more effectively as opposed to individuals carrying out actions individually. It fosters communication, shared knowledge, resources, and information (Whitford et al., 2010). The collaborative process creates a certain level of interdependency among individuals as they strive to arrive at decisions together (Gray& Wood, 1991). It involves the development of a model that entails a large degree of combined planning, coordinating, joint decision-making, combined implementation, and joint evaluation between individuals or organizations (Arduin, Goldstein, & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2013; Vangen & Huxham, 2003; Hord, 1986). As a result of the collective nature of the collaborative process, each of the collaborative parties will be able to grow beyond their own abilities and learn from a wide knowledge base by building on the combined skills, competencies, and ideas generated within the group (Arduin et al., 2013). Importantly, the multifaceted dynamic nature of the collaborative process will produce challenges. As such, the collaborative process will require the commitment of the individual members to actively nurture the collaborative process (Vangen & Huxham, 2003).

Collaboration versus Cooperation

It is important to highlight the difference between collaboration and cooperation. Both are similar concepts, however, they produce different results. Cooperation presumes that two or more parties, each with separate and autonomous programs, have attained a mutual agreement to work together in order to make a particular task successful. However, their work does not advance beyond this level. Rochelle and Teasley (1995) describe cooperative work as the division of a task among individuals, where each person is responsible for a specific task. While collaboration on the other hand involves individuals committing to solve problems through coordinated efforts (Rochelle & Teasley, 1995). In other words, cooperation can be achieved by each person completing their assigned task, while collaboration has key features such as sharing, synchronicity, partnership, and interdependency which produce outcomes that involve integrating others’ perspectives (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; Roschelle & Teasley,1995).

In contemporary organizations, there are continuing changes. As such, the workplace environment is characterized by a high level of interdependency between employees (Han & Harms, 2010; Chien et al., 2012). This requires teamwork which has become increasingly popular in organizations (Han &Harms, 2010; Holton, 2001). As a result of this increased reliance on each other, interpersonal trust is believed to facilitate the collaborative process (Mayer et al., 1995). The extent to which individuals will effectively collaborate and not merely cooperate can be influenced significantly by the degree of trust between individuals. A lack of trust has been found to be the most significant barrier to collaboration (Pallot, Bergmann, Kuhnle, Pawar & Riedel, 2010). In order for companies to gain a competitive advantage, it is critical for the organization to be able to establish as well as nurture trust among the collaborative participants (Vangen, Huxham, 2003).

Trust

The literature suggests that trust is a fundamental ingredient for collaboration in organizations (Costigan, Ilter & Berman 1998). Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) have defined trust as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another. Another popularly cited definition of trust by Mayer et al. (1995) defines trust as:

“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to 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 the other party.” (p. 712)

Based on this definition (Mayer et al., 1995), trust among coworkers refers to the degree to which an employee shows a propensity to be vulnerable to the actions of fellow coworkers whose behavior and actions the person cannot control (Tan &Lim, 2009). Coworkers refer to members of an organization who hold approximately equal power levels within an organization and who interact daily at work (Tan &Lim, 2009). These popular definitions of trust from various researchers contain key aspects that are common. These common elements include a combination of trusting dispositions, cognition, vulnerability, willingness, intentions, and confidence in the actions of others (McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002; Usoro, Sharratt, Tsui, & Shekhar, 2007). Trust can exist both in interpersonal and impersonal forms within an organization (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003; Hassan & Semercioz, 2010). This paper will focus on the personal form and utilizes the definition of trust used by Mayer et al. (1995).

Interpersonal Trust. Interpersonal trust has been defined as the extent to which a person is confident in and willing to act based on observation of the other person’s behavior. (McAllister,1995). Scholars have described interpersonal trust as having both cognitive as well as affective components. The cognitive component is based on inferences of competence, and reliability while the affective component is based on an emotional investment (Costigan et al., 1998; McAllister, 1995). Mayer et al. (1995) highlight three widely used attributes that the trustor perceives the trustee to possess. These three are benevolence, integrity, and ability. Such attributes form the trusting beliefs which the trustor uses to form a perception and level of confidence in the trustee (McKnight et al., 2002; Mayer et al., 1995). These three attributes – benevolence, ability, and integrity will serve as a direct basis on which trust is formed. Researchers who have examined trust have theorized that the beliefs will affect the interactions and behavior of the person holding the beliefs (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995). The literature has also shown that the attributes of benevolence, reliability, and competence are the most widely used trusting beliefs (McKnight et al., 2002). Other researchers have discussed additional trusting beliefs, however, this study will only focus on competence, reliability, and benevolence.

These three trusting beliefs encapsulate both the cognitive and affective components of interpersonal trust. Competence and reliability are cognitive assessments of the trustee, while benevolence has a large affective component. Benevolence involves emotional bonds between individuals which entails the perception that one has about others being concerned for their welfare (Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995). Benevolence refers to “the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric motive” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 718). It signifies a personal orientation of the trustee to the trustor, (Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, 2000). Competence-based trust has been titled “ability” by Mayer et.al (1995), however, the two concepts as defined are viewed as synonymous (Usoro et al., 2007; Hassan & Semercioz, 2010; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998) state that competence or ability-based trust exists when an individual believes that another party has knowledge and expertise in relation to a specific domain. Reliability-based trust has been titled “integrity” (Mayer et al, 1995). However, based on the definition, these two concepts are also viewed as synonymous (Usoro et al., 2007). Mayer et al. (1995) define integrity as “the trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.” (p. 719). It focuses on the issues of consistency of the individual’s actions with his/her words, credible views about the trustee from other parties, as well as a belief related to the trustee’s sense of fairness (Hassan & Semercioz, 2010). In essence, interpersonal trust among coworkers is based on the extent to which coworkers are more likely to trust each other given their individual beliefs of benevolence, reliability, and competence of other employees. The trusting beliefs that significantly affect as well as form the basis of interpersonal trust are each believed to have an effect on collaboration among employees within the organization.

The diagram below indicates that interpersonal trust among coworkers will be determined by the employees’ perception of the three different trusting beliefs (benevolence, competence, and reliability). Research by Tan and Tan (2000), Butler and Cantrell (1984), and Krot and Lewicka (2012) found that these trusting beliefs were significantly related to trust. Trust symbolizes a relevant aspect of the organizational climate. It forms the core of collaboration (Tariq et al., 2011). There is a greater predisposition for employees to collaborate when trust characterizes their relationship (Costigan et.al., 1998; Mayer et al., 1995) as it creates an environment that is more conducive to collaboration (Tariq et al., 2011). The collaborative environment is one that consists of a trusting relationship as it gives rise to shared decision-making, creative ideas, problem-solving, increased communication, and interdependency among employees (Tariq et al., 2011). Despite the scant literature on the relationship between interpersonal trust and collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2001), researchers (Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Paul & McDaniel, 2004) have found several dimensions of interpersonal trust to have a positive effect on collaboration. Tschannen-Moran (2001) found that interpersonal trust had a positive effect on different collaborating parties within an elementary school as well as helped to improve their organization’s goals. Paul and McDaniel (2004) also supported the positive effect of interpersonal trust on the collaborative relationship among healthcare professionals. Interpersonal trust in their study improved the performance, aided in complexity reduction, and improved the efficiency of healthcare professionals as they worked in a high-risk environment with patients.

Without an established level of perception of trust, there will be a lack of authenticity in the relationships (Tschanen- Moran 2001). Employees will not be willing to invest their time and energy or share responsibility as these activities require trust (Child, 2001). Similarly, employees will not be willing to cultivate their efforts in achieving the organization’s goals, and shared decision-making, or participate in the level of interdependency with each other (Mishra &Morrissey, 1990). Researchers have suggested that trust enables cooperative behavior, reduces interpersonal conflict, and promotes knowledge sharing (Song, Kim, & Kolb, 2009), all of which are critical elements of collaboration (Martin-Rodriguez, Beaulieu, D’Amor & Ferrada-Videla, 2005; Tariq et al., 2011).

Association of Trusting Beliefs with Interpersonal Trust and Collaboration

The trusting beliefs, which are the perceptions of the attributes that an individual may possess, form the basis of interpersonal trust (Mayer et al., 1995). This means that the belief that an employee may have of another coworker will influence the extent he/she may be willing to be vulnerable to the other party (Mayer et al., 1995). Workers within a company will be witness to other employees’ benevolence, reliability, and competence which will affect their behavior and actions toward the collaborative relationship (Tschanen- Moran, 2001). Notably, an employee may trust an individual based on the perception of a trusting belief X but not necessarily based on trusting belief Y (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Tan & Lim, 2009). For example, one may trust another person based on their perception of benevolence but not necessarily trust the same person in terms of their perception of competence. Each trusting belief will have a different effect on the trusting relationship. Employees will garner a certain reputation over time through interactions with each other. Whether a cognitive or an affective assessment is done about each other’s trusting beliefs it will influence how each individual approaches the other collaborative party (Tschanen-Moran, 2001). Previous research did not examine the relationship between trusting beliefs and collaboration directly, nor the mediating role that interpersonal trust played between them. However, research by Aurifeille and Medlin (2009) found that trust formed between companies based on benevolence had a significant impact on inter-firm relationships. In their study, it was found that the management of a company perceived another company to have their best interest in mind affected the perception of the relationship performance. Managers were more willing to take a risk and engage in business with a partner company based on the perception of benevolence that was formed about the other firm through their previous relationships. As such, in the current study, it was hypothesized that interpersonal trust will mediate the relationship between benevolence and collaboration as well as possibly other trusting beliefs (reliability and competence). In the current context, the relationships were between coworkers as opposed to between firms. However, benevolence-based trust was a key ingredient as it related to relationship performance, it directly influences one’s disposition to trust and determines if the management would participate in a collaborative relationship.

Additionally, the trusting beliefs of benevolence, integrity and ability are also of salience in the relationship between coworkers (Tan, &Lim, 2009; Krot & Lewicka, 2012). These relationships are of salience as they form the informal networks within an organization (Tan & Lim, 2009) which are equally as important as the formal network of relationships that are formed between them. These beliefs will affect how employees relate to each other and the level of interdependency that is practiced (Mayer et al., 1995). An employee may trust his/her coworker but not trust his/her supervisor. Krot and Lewicka’s (2012) study on employees within a Polish company found that integrity is the most important trusting belief between coworkers while Tan and Lim (2009) found benevolence to be the most significant affecting the trusting relationship between coworkers from a Singapore insurance company.

The trusting belief that employees have about their coworkers within the organization, as well as top management, has an effect on their behavior. For example, Stevenson and Gilly, (1991) reported that there is a tendency for employees to communicate work-related ideas to their peers rather than to the formal people in authority who are assigned to that role. The findings from Stevenson and Gilly (1991) are substantiated by Whitford et al. (2010) who found that collaboration among coworkers had the largest effect on intra-organizational collaboration as opposed to collaboration between employees and their supervisors. As such, interpersonal trust among coworkers in particular is proposed to be of salience in the collaborative relationship. The attitudes and behaviors of employees are influenced by those they regard as similar to them (Tan & Lim, 2009). When trust exists among peers there is a proclivity towards working in teams (Kiffin-Petersenn & Cordery, 2003), which increases their level of commitment, and produces higher organizational support (Farris, Senner, & Butterfield, 1973). Employees’ higher levels of commitment propel them to be more productive. There is a certain level of emotional attachment which motivates employees to make meaningful contributions (Hanaysha, 2016). Such an environment has been theorized to stem collaboration when combined with increased levels of commitment, increased communication, knowledge sharing, and participation of employees in a harmonious fashion (Tariq et al., 2011; Luyet & Tamm, 2004; Campbell, 2016). Trust developed, based on the perceived attributes of an individual has also been positively correlated to other organizational outcomes such as knowledge-sharing behaviors. Several researchers have discussed trust as an important factor that is critical to collaboration (Whitford et al, 2010; Aram, Morgan, & Esbeck, 1971; Child, 2001).

In summary, collaboration among employees will occur at several levels within an organization. Collaboration among coworkers entails certain functions such as working towards common goals, knowledge sharing and sharing of resources (Whitford et al., 2010), support, and integration (Aram et al., 1971). Researchers have theorized that the perception that an employee has of other members of the organization based on their belief of competence, reliability, and benevolence, may affect other organizational outcomes that scholars have marked as pertinent factors that will affect collaboration. Studies (Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2001) have supported that interpersonal trust has a positive effect on collaboration. The relationships that exist within an organization will determine the subsistence of the organization (Whitford, et al., 2010).

Introduction

Trust is a sensitive subject for any humankind and would say even with animals, but it is a pity we do not know or understand their language. It is an important interpersonal link between any human relationship that a person holds or is part of, it may be professional or personal and if breached the relation may continue or discontinue. I personally consider trust paves the way to disappointment because it’s an expectation required or even demanded from a person depending on the position they hold at work or even in their life as an individual. Again, there is not really another subject that we may replace trust with, imagine if you do not have trust in your colleagues or your personal circle be it your friends or family. When examining or analyzing the nature of animals when it comes to trust, look at how the off-springs kinder expect the mother to nature and provide food(breastfeeding) for them and how the male figure is expected to be the shield of protection against danger. Let us look at humans now, employees trust that or expect the Management to provide a stationary and good working environment and with your personal circle what you expect of each person in your life. Let me share my knowledge on why trust is an important dynamic in relations.

Define Trust in the Workplace

Trust in the workplace follows or it gets the platform to be present if the place of work has a good and harmonious atmosphere. As an employee or employer, how do you know when the place of work has a positive atmosphere, well when you enjoy working with your co-workers and trusting the people you work for and with? Well, these factors will follow if you have job engagement with your job or work which refers to the individual’s involvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm portrayed in the work they are assigned to do (Robbins & Judge, 2018). bring forth these factors is mainly to build an understanding that it’s quite challenging to have trust in the workplace if the conditions are unfavorable. Trust in the workplace is a fundamental factor because we share the 24 hours of our lives at work meaning we have some sort of interaction and relation with the people we work for and with. Having trust in the workplace has benefits such as increasing productivity but primarily it builds unity amongst the external and internal stakeholders of the organization especially when it comes to the competitors (Towers, 2017).

Trust is non -negotiable

Teams are not just when a group of people with different skills and backgrounds are in one space working together but it entails individuals who are involved and willing to share their efforts and accomplishments. When any form of cohesiveness surfaces that automatically opens a platform for trust to take place. Before you can join any organization or team trust is the minimum requirement even for the company and the reason is that trust is a fundamental factor that holds and underpins a good cooperative and teamworking culture (Erdem, et al., 2003). Trust is non -negotiable in teams because firstly teams don’t perform well without the key factor of trust additionally since trust is defined as an expectation that an individual has on a certain person, there for both parties involved know what is expected of them, and what to expect in return. Trust opens loyalty on both sides as employees will have an organizational commitment and it enables the management to provide organizational support. Now when the conditions are favorable this will be even visible to the external stakeholders through the behavior and attitude the employees portray now most customers and potential investors will have loyalty to the organization because they have trust even if the company would face a financial crisis the company will survive and also their needs and demands will be met.

Leaders run to Trust Building

One of the traits that make an effective leader is “to be observant “/ be able to assess the atmosphere in the workplace amongst the workers. The majority of effective leaders influence and motivate their subordinates in a way that promotes cohesiveness or cooperation. According to (Reina, et al., 2017) leaders turn to trust building as it forms part of the essential steps that assist in achieving team engagement and collaboration that assist the organization to achieve its long and short-term goals. Trust building helps the organization to increase productivity and at the same time team members learn to trust into one’s individual abilities combined with the rest of the team members. Again, the other possible reason why leaders turn to trust building is that they can see when the team members are pulling in different directions in which a sense of enthusiasm, cooperation, and support amongst the employees is not present. Expectations often lead to disappointment and trust is an expectation but even, if it is a good core of relations, trust in the workplace deepens engagement, support, and motivation. The benefit that comes with trust building for the organization is that employees feel motivated to be part of the team and it prevents them from having exit responses. Exit response is one of the impacts of job dissatisfaction which is expressed through behavior directing in leaving the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2018).

The Challenge of Building Trust

If having or building trust was not important, one wouldn’t have to go through the challenge of building trust but it is important as it prevents the relationship from being toxic and constantly having to look over your shoulder instead of looking at each other to move forward (Angela, 2019). A challenge that tags along with trust in the workplace is that first the environment is diverse, and trust is complex which has different meanings for different people. The culture of trust in the organization automatically requires the leader to lead by example in a sense of the working style, actions, and most behavior must portray trust. One of the reasons it’s hard to implement a culture of trust in the workplace is that it is a diverse space, therefore, that means a variety of expectations must be met and ensuring everyone feels included/included. For years we have been told that ‘you must earn my trust’ whereas, in the case of the workplace, it’s the wrong approach because it’s supposed to be the opposite ‘ give trust to your employees, and co-workers and look at how people will be motivated to produce.

Rebuild Trust

A compromised trust (broken trust) is the same as broken glass and it is hard fixing it but that does not mean it can be mended. Where there are people involved it’s a bond that personalities will clash and conflicts to surface. When such events occur, we do not dwell on them, but we find a way forward that will not open the platform for them to resurface. The first step is being “observant and understand” of what has occurred look at how employees are responding to the betrayal and understanding the response may be emotional or physical. Understanding what is important to them means making sure there is an acknowledgment of everyone’s views. People react differently to betrayal so, therefore, allow feelings to surface; the environment must be comfortable with no fear where there is no place of coercive power. Coercive power is when people are persuaded to conform or do something by force and by means of psychological, emotional, or physical threat (Ferriera & Groenewald, 2016). As a leader also you will need to get support, recognize where it is wrong, and not dwell on blaming yourself and blaming shifting game but take your focus on problem-solving. As you are in the process of getting support make sure your subordinates are not left behind dwelling on the blaming game but look forward together for solutions also ensure they recognize where they went wrong or got stuck (Reina & Reina, 2020). There are quite a few other strategies that Reina D. and Reina M. have shared “Rebuilding Trust in the Workplace” like forgiving yourself and taking accountability.

Sustain Trust

When you start trusting you are basically exposing yourself to the vulnerability of betrayal with expectations of not being betrayed. If you once asked yourself why you have to sustain trust it’s primarily because takes a huge amount of courage to trust and you give up control of what is valuable to you be it your heart, sharing your secrets, or sharing your work. You can sustain trust through honesty by giving constructive feedback and criticism when your co-worker asked for your perspective on a certain issue or an idea. This will help you to have openness to one’s view. Share your competency with team members and employees, especially in topics that you have adequate knowledge also combined with your abilities which promotes productivity, collaboration, and creativity.

Benefits of Trust

The benefits of having a culture of trust in the workplace are that first off it increases the productivity of the organization and this helps the organization in meeting deadlines on time or earlier. First, if the employees trust the people they work for and with, they feel comfortable and they produce a loyalty response combined with organizational commitment. The moral and integrity increase amongst the staff members. The company can be able to weather storms thrown up by external threats (Reina, et al., 2017). Trust allows team members to connect deeper on a human level and have relations that produce growth, and self-development which both parties benefit from. The ability to work effectively as a team other than as individuals that also brings creativity. Creativity gives the organization a competitive advantage as it will bring uniqueness to its product/ service. Again, as stated before, the behavior and attitude of employees portrayed rubbers off to the external stakeholders, so when there is trust, pride, and engagement, automatically external stakeholders (customers and potential investors) will have loyalty to the organization.

Culture of Trust

It is universally known that trust is the core of all relations and it is vital for the success of the relationship. If your long-term goal is to see your organization progress, then you must consider building a culture of trust. A higher level of trust to be in the organization require consistency and with a few of these strategies, you can be able to achieve it. Respect every employee and employer irrespective of their race or skin color but as humans and your respect for them must not be based on their opinions or cultural beliefs even political views. The treatment you dish out must not be based on the status of wealth or the position they hold in the organization and even personally, treat everyone fairly to avoid animosity and pretense. Effective communication between the management and employees can benefit both parties as that does help with self-development. Give credit where it’s due like feedback must be constructive and with your critics. Transparency and credit also form part of the mix.

Reflection about Trust

On a personal level, I do not believe trust should be there in any relationship I hold or am part of. The reason being I can disappoint you as a family, friend, and as colleague. If I betray you unintentionally there is no say if our relationship may continue or discontinue. I personally believe trust is another route that leads to disappointments, for instance, I remember when my mom would tell me she does not have money to buy toys or new clothes I would start questioning her love for me. The reason I start questioning it is that I had an expectation that she could not meet. As an individual can also disappoint me maybe I had a fitness goal and it was realistic, and I do not achieve it for me personally I feel disappointed. I must be realistic, yes, I need someone/people in my corner, and I need to be there for people as they will rely on me. With trust I expose part of myself to vulnerability and betrayal same with the other person, we are humans we are bound to make mistakes. That is why we end up having enemies or frenemies. For me do not have expectations because once trust is broken it’s hard to trust again and you will always second guess the person every time you notice a slight change in their behavior. As I am still growing am on the journey to figure out what can I replace trust within which I will not have expectations and the other person will not have expectations from me. I usually say I do not want to trust you or me and I do not want you to trust me. I prefer a person hurting me other than me hurting them, I have been told I must be selfish, but it does not work out because I hold back.

Bibliography

1. Angela, C., 2019. How To Build a Trust as a Leader, New Jersey: Forbes.
2. Erdem, F., Ozen, J. & Atsan , N., 2003. The relationship between trust and team performance. ResearchGAte, 52(7), pp. 337-340.
3. Ferriera, E. J. & Groenewald, D., 2016. Leading in the administrative function. In: K. Sarah, ed. Administrative Management. Cape Town : Juta, p. 389.
4. Reina , D. & Reina, M., 2020. Rebuilding Trust in the Workplace. Business Know-How, 22 February.
5. Reina, D., Reina, M. & Hudnut, D., 2017. Why Trust Is Critical to Team Success, San Diego: Center For Creative Leadership.
6. Robbins, S. p. & Judge, T. A., 2018. Impact of Job Dissatisfaction. In: The Essentials of Organizational Behaviour. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, p. 56.
7. Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A., 2018. Individual Differences. In: Essentials of Organizational Behavior 14th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, p. 51.
8. Towers, P., 2017. Task Pigeon. [Online] Available at: https://blog.taskpigeon.co/workplace-trust-trust-important-workplace/ [Accessed 26 August 2020].