Transcript Why Should I Trust You?

Why Should I Trust You?
Predictors of Interpersonal Trust in a
Knowledge Transfer Context
Daniel Z. Levin
Rutgers University
Rob Cross
University of Virginia
Lisa C. Abrams
IBM Institute for Knowledge-based Organizations
Theoretical Background
• Knowledge creation and transfer are critical
for organizations (Argote 1999; Kogut & Zander
1992, 1996; Spender 1996)
• Relationships—especially trust—are key to
the success of knowledge transfer (Levin,
Cross, & Abrams 2002; Tsai & Ghoshal 1998; Uzzi 1997)
• Yet only limited systematic empirical work
on predictors of interpersonal trust, in
general and especially in this context
Research Question:
What Factors Predict a Knowledge
Seeker’s Trust in the Benevolence and
Competence of a Knowledge Source?
A Multi-Level Approach:
3 Categories of Trust Predictors
“Alter”
“Ego”
Relationship
Knowledge
Seeker
Source
Source
Source
Source
Survey Methods
• Two-stage, critical-incident, egocentric
network survey
• Three companies: U.S. drug co., Canadian
oil & gas co., U.K. bank
• 127 respondents reported on 4 relationships
(n=508), response rate=48%
• Controls: formal structure; seeker’s own
expertise
• Hierarchical linear modeling for nested data
Significant Predictors of Trust
Benevolence
Competence
Strong Ties
Shared Vision
Shared Language
Discreet Source
Receptive Source
Younger Seeker
Hi-Tenure Seeker
Shared Vision
Shared Language
Unavailable Source
Discreet Source
Younger Seeker
Interaction Effect
vs.
Variables in All 3 Categories
Were Statistically Significant
Benevolence
Strong Ties
Shared Vision
Shared Language
Discreet Source
Receptive Source
Younger Seeker
Hi-Tenure Seeker
Competence
Shared Vision
Shared Language
Unavailable Source
Discreet Source
Younger Seeker
+ Interaction Effect
(1) Benevolence-based Trust Was
Easier to Predict than
Competence-based Trust
• In terms of the number of significant
predictors
• In terms of the variance accounted for
– R-squared for benevolence = .66
– R-squared for competence = .48
(2) Trust Is Not Set in Stone…
Malleable features:
– Discreet source
– Shared vision
– Shared language
X
Big Effect
Stable and visible features:
– Formal structure
– Homophily
(same age & gender)
No Effect
(3) …But Attitudes in the Trust
Realm May Solidify Over Time
• Knowledge seekers evaluate alter’s behavior
to find “clues for competence”
• Clues = discreet & busy (i.e., unavailable)
• Interaction effect for division tenure:
The more tenure that knowledge
seekers have… the more they rely
on the “clues for competence”
Contribution…
• …to practice:
Building trust is a feasible and inexpensive
way to improve the flow of knowledge
• …to social network and trust lit.:
Theoretical benefits to examining different
types of trust
• …to org. learning and knowledge lit.:
Better understanding of factors underlying
the success of trust and knowledge transfer