Communication has frequently received attention in studies on trust. One question that has remained unanswered is, How is organizational trust communicated? Consistent with the view of organizations as discursive entities, research presented here examines discursive qualities of trust and attempts to provide an understanding of the manner in which organizational trust is communicated. Research presented in this article includes the results of two studies conducted in two different parts of the country: a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States and a regional center in the south. Findings reveal that against the background of a continuous discursive and interactional flow, trust is communicated as a speech act characterized by the world-to-words direction of fit. Findings have implications for both theory and practice.
ArendtH. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
ArgyrisC. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
ArgyrisC. (1995). Knowledge when used in practice tests theory: The case of applied communication research. In CissnaK. N. (Ed.), Applied communication in the 21st century (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Aristotle. (1980). The Nicomachean ethics (RossDavid, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
ArnettR. C.ArnesonP. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community, hope, and interpersonal relationships. Albany: State University of New York Press.
6.
AustinJ. (1975). How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BarkerR. T.CamarataM. R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 35(4). Retrieved from http://web2.infotyrac.galegroup.com/itw/informark/
8.
BerryL. L. (1996). Retailers with a future. Marketing Management, 5, 39–46.
9.
BhattacharyaR.DevinneyT. M.PillutlaM. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23, 459–472.
10.
BokS. (1978). Lying. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
11.
BuberM. (1965). The knowledge of man. London: G. Allen & Unwin.
12.
BurkeK. (1989). Dramatism. In GoldenJ. L.BerquistG. F.ColemanW. E. (Eds.), The rhetoric of Western thought (pp. 341–350). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
13.
ButlerJ. K.CantrellS. R. (1994). Communication factors and trust: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 74, 33–34.
14.
CaldwellC.ClaphamS. E. (2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 349–364.
15.
CharmazK. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 109–126). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
16.
CharmazK. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1167–1172.
17.
CharmazK. (2001). The logic of grounded theory. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations (2nd ed., pp. 335–352). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
18.
ChenitzW. C.SwansonJ. M. (1986). From practice to grounded theory: Qualitative research in nursing. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
ChildJ. (2001). Trust—The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 274–288.
20.
CollinsS. E. (2001). Knowing nursing error: Understanding nursing error through nurses’ error experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.
21.
CoorenF. (2000). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22.
CoorenF. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–393.
23.
CufaudeJ. (1999). Creating organizational trust. Association Management, 51(7), 26–34.
24.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26.
25.
GarbarinoE.JohnsonM. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70–87.
26.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
GilbertJ. A.TangT. L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, 321–338.
28.
GlaserB. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
29.
GlaserB. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
30.
GlaserB.StraussM. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
31.
GovindarajanV.GuptaA. K. (2001, Summer). Building an effective global business team. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42, 63–71.
32.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
33.
GrantD.KeenoyT.OswickC. (1998). Organizational discourse of diversity, dichotomy, and multidisciplinarity. In GrantD.KeenoyT.OswickC. (Eds.), Discourse and organization. London: Sage.
34.
GrantD.KeenoyT.OswickC. (2001). Organizational discourse: Key contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31, 5–24.
35.
GrunigL.GrunigJ.DozierD. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
GubaE.LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
HardinR. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In CookK. S. (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3–39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
HeracleousL.BarrettM. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.
39.
HeracleousL.HendryJ. (2000). Discourse and the study of organization: Towards a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53, 251–286.
40.
HeracleousL.MarshakR. I. (2004). Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 57, 1285–1312.
41.
HosmerL. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379–403.
42.
HutchinsonS. A. (1992). Nurses who violate the nurse practice act: Transformation of professional identity. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 24, 133–139.
43.
JonesG. R.GeorgeJ. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-548.
44.
JosephE. E.WinstonB. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(1/2), 6–23.
45.
KanterD. L.MirvisP. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
46.
KeytonJ. (2001). Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers. London: Mayfield.
47.
KingN. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In CasselC.SymonG. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 14-36). London: Sage.
48.
KodishS. (2006). The paradoxes of leadership: The contribution of Aristotle. Leadership, 2, 451–468.
49.
KorsgaardM. A.BrodtS. E.WhitenerE. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 312–319.
50.
KwonI. G.SuhT. (2005). Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: A path analysis. Supply Chain Management, 10, 26–33.
51.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
52.
LewickiR. J.McAllisterD. J.BiesR. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–458.
53.
LewisJ. D. (1999). Trusted partners: How companies build mutual trust and win together. New York: Free Press.
54.
LindsleyS. L. (1999). Communication and the “Mexican way”: Stability and trust as core symbols in maquiladoras. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 1-31.
55.
LuhmannN. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
56.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanD. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
57.
McKnightD. H.ChoudhuryV.KacmarC. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 297–323.
58.
McKnightH. D.CummingsL. L.ChervanyN. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.
59.
MishraJ.MorrisseyM. A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management, 19, 443-463.
60.
MorrowJ. L.HansenM. H.PearsonA. W. (2004). The cognitive and affective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 48–64.
61.
NooteboomB. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
62.
NooteboomB. (2003). The trust process. In NooteboomB.SixF. (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development (pp. 16-36). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
63.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
PålshaugenO. (1998). The end of organizational theory? Language as a tool in action research and organizational development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65.
ParkheA. (1998a). Understanding trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 33, 219–240.
66.
ParkheA. (1998b). Building trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 33, 417–437.
67.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
QuintanillaK.Frazier CanoN.IvyD. K. (2004). The defining of menopause. In BuzzanellP. M.SterkH.TurnerL. H. (Eds.), Gender in applied communication contexts (pp. 99–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
ReichheldF. F.SchefterP. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web. Harvard Business Review, 78, 105–113.
70.
ReynoldsL. (1997). The trust effect: Creating the high trust, high performance organization. London: Nicholas Brealey.
71.
RosaldoM. Z. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11, 203–237.
72.
SearleJ. (1965). What is a speech act? In BlackM. (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221–239). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
73.
SearleJ. (2002). Speech acts, mind, and social reality. In GrewendorfG.MeggleG. (Eds.), Speech acts, mind, and social reality (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
74.
SeiboldD. R. (1995). Theoria and praxis: Means and ends in applied communication research. In CissnaK. N. (Ed.), Applied communication in the 21st century (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
SirdeshmukhD.SinghJ.SabolB. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in Relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15–37.
76.
ShapiroD.SheppardB. H.CheraskinL. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8, 365–377.
77.
ShawR. B. (1997). Trust in the balance: Building successful organizations on results, integrity, and concern. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
78.
SilvermanD. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.
79.
SixF. (2003). The dynamics of trust and trouble. In NooteboomB.SixF. (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development (pp. 196–222). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
80.
SmithB. (1990). Towards a history of speech act theory. In BurkhardtA. (Ed.), Speech acts, meanings, and intentions: Critical approaches to the philosophy of John R. Searle. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
81.
SolomonR. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
82.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 173–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF. (1997). What makes communication “organizational”? How the many voices of a collectivity become one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 409–438.
85.
TaylorJ. R.RobichaudD. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11, 395–413.
86.
ThomlisonD. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In LedinghamJ. A.BruningS. D. (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management (pp. 177–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
87.
TompkinsP.Wanca-ThibaultM. (2001). Organizational communication: Prelude and prospect. In JablinF.PutnamL. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. xvii–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88.
TsoukasH.CummingsS. (1997). Marginalization and recovery: The emergence of Aristotelian themes in organization studies. Organization Studies, 18, 655–683.
89.
TurnerB. A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: One way of organizing the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15, 225–247.
90.
VandervekenD. (2002). Searle on meaning and action. In GrewendorfG.MeggleG. (Eds.), Speech acts, mind, and social reality (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
91.
WeaverR. M. (1948). Ideas have consequences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
92.
WeaverR. M. (1970). Language is sermonic: Richard M. Weaver on the nature of rhetoric. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
93.
WebberA. (1993). What’s so new about the New Economy?Harvard Business Review, 71, 24–42.
94.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
95.
WestwoodR.LinsteadS. (Eds.). (2001). The language of organization. London: Sage.
96.
WicksA. C.BermanS. L.JonesT. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24, 99–131.
