Excerpt from
Values-based Indicators for Sustainable Development:
DRAFT handbook for Civil Society Organisations
On
Values: Understanding Trust
Trust/Trustworthiness
Understanding Trust/ Trustworthiness: CSO Perspectives
Trust/trustworthiness emerged as one of the most important values. The meaning of
trust/trustworthiness emerging from interviews, group discussions, and CSO documents is
aligned with meanings conveyed in the literature. It is a value closely associated with
integrity, another value that emerged as one of the most important values for the CSOs. In
particular, demonstrating integrity can lead to the formation of trust. The meaning and
practice of trust/trustworthiness, and associated indicators derived from the CSO data, have
been categorized into four main themes for further consideration.
There is still some overlap among the indicators. The categorisation is not definite and serves
for easier orientation and as an inspiration for future work. The process of refining indicators
and developing other indicators will be ongoing through the life of the project and will
involve seeking guidance from the literature. The following is a summary of the primary
dimensions of trust/trustworthiness as identified by the CSOs.
The following are four categories where trustworthiness and trust are of particular importance
to the CSOs.
Perception and presence of trust
Trustworthiness is also characterised by ethical behaviour and practices. This can include
governance structures characterised by participation, democracy, justice, equity and equality.
This can also include the absence of anti-social practices such as corruption. Corruption can
include unethical behaviours such as lying, stealing, money-laundering, bribery, advancing
private interests, and conflicts of interest. Trustworthy organisations have in place codes of
conduct which clearly outline the standards of ethical behaviour and policies and procedures
that it implements to eliminate corruption and to discipline violations of any codes. Some
organisations do not have a code of conduct, however strong norms of integrity,
trustworthiness and honesty exist in the culture of the organisation making corruption
unlikely. Confidentiality and independence of review processes is important to protect
individuals who report violations, who need guidance on how to implement a code of ethics,
and those against who reports are made, particularly as many reports are unfounded.
Atmosphere of trust
An atmosphere of trust is important for people to feel they can be honest, openly
communicate with one another, learn and reflect. An atmosphere of trust is where people are
treated with respect, where there is no back-biting, and people feel they can be honest and
open without reprisal. Each of these is also important for building trust.
Building and maintaining trust
Trust is built through relationships, often long term. Honesty, integrity, openness, respect and
commitment are important contributors to building long term, trusting relationships.
Relationships built on trust often lead to collaboration and ongoing activity between parties.
Open dialogue, honesty, communication, and transparency are also important factors in
building trust, particularly where trust is lacking. Open internal communication is often
characterised by the open sharing of opinions and feedback between different levels of an
organisation. External communication is characterised by honesty and fairness. Trust is also
built through consistency in delivering on commitments made. This may be termed
reliability. This is applicable in all contexts. Monitoring and honestly reporting the
achievement, or not, of commitments made is important to building and maintaining trust. It
shows the willingness to take responsibility and to be made accountable. An important aspect
of this is the willingness to work to reverse or rectify mistakes and or the consequences of
poor decisions.
Living ethical principles
Trustworthiness is proven through the practice of integrity, where there is a constant striving
to put espoused values and principles into practice; doing this can inspire others to also do the
same.
Connection to other values
Trustworthiness is associated in the CSO interviews with a range of values, some of which
are described above. It is connected with the values of justice, fairness, law, democracy,
meeting needs of personal security, integrity, honesty, respect, love, communication,
dialogue, relationships, long term view, understanding, diversity, unity in diversity, tolerance,
cooperation, communication, commitment, responsibility, good will, unity in diversity,
meaningful work, encouragement, support, inspiration, being an example, courage,
persistence, consistency, continuity, freedom, independence, autonomy, flexibility,
adaptability, reliability, acceptance, recognition of difference, openness, transparency,
confidentiality, accountability, conflict resolution, and accuracy.
Understanding Trust: Academic Literature
The initial review of literature has shown that ‘trust’ is a concept that has been extensively
studied across a wide variety of academic fields and is often referred to as a multidimensional
and multi-disciplinary concept. The multidimensional nature of the concept has implications
for the development of assessment tools for ESDInds in assessing whether someone or
something is deemed trustworthy, as different people use different criteria for assessment.
One EBBF interviewee noted that with any value there are many dimensions and criteria that
people use to assess whether a value is in place. He stated that when trying to establish
interpersonal trust within a team, the team members need to be clear about each other’s
criteria in order to build the foundations of trusting working relationships (Stuart, EBBF
Member, Europe, face-to-face interview, 6 June 2009). This element of dimensionality will
need to be considered carefully in the ongoing development of assessment tools for valuesbased indicators.
The following four fields include work focused on measuring and evaluating trust.
Psychology: There are two areas in the field of psychology where trust has been studied (i)
Cognitive psychology (ii) organisational psychology. In organisational psychology, there are
three levels of focus: interpersonal interactions, group interactions and organisational
interactions. Most work on trust has been carried out in the field of interpersonal interactions
within organisations and has been evaluated through two traditions. The first tradition is
behavioural studies, which focus on ‘trust’ as a rational choice behaviour that can be
observed and accounted for. The second tradition is psychological studies, which look at the
complexities of interpersonal elements of trust, and uses experimental methods to
complement observation. This work is likely to be very informative to the ESDInds project.
Social Sciences: Social capital studies looks at trust as a positive element in social networks,
and studies on social prejudice, which look at the correlation between implicit and explicit
beliefs and behaviours. These studies may be useful, particularly for CSOs where building
and maintaining long term relationships is critical to the success of their work.
Political Sciences: There are three main areas of work: good governance, quality of life
studies and institutional ethics. Studies on trust have been increasing in this area of
investigation. This stems from an increasing awareness of the positive effects of trust on
administrative performance, public relations, as well as improving social cohesion and citizen
satisfaction (Boukaert and van de Walle 2003). This area of work may inform assessment of
this value, but may also contribute ideas in assessing the value of social justice.
Business and management studies: Business studies scholars have been driven by similar
motives as political scientists since trust is increasingly linked to organisational performance
and satisfaction. Trust also forms an important part of studies in corporate ethics and
responsibility – it is considered as a catalyst for many of the key ethical business concepts
such as accountability, responsibility, transparency, responsiveness, efficiency, etc.
There are also different objects and subjects of trust. Trust can be on an individual, group,
organisational or societal level both for the one that trusts and the trusted. A number of the
pieces of literature reviewed examine the multidimensional nature of trust, and most focus on
one dimension according to the context of their investigation. The following three points
bring out three useful elements that will need to be considered when thinking about
developing assessment tools for trust, and informative when considering the dimensions of
other values which become the focus ESDInds:
Content of trust – what are the qualities or characteristics of trust? These characteristics
can apply to an individual, organisation or institution and may vary depending on the context
and whether the entity is the trust-or or the trust-ed. Generally, they relate to concepts such as
competence, integrity, consistency, discreetness, fairness, promise, fulfilment, loyalty,
availability, openness, benevolence or predictability (Dietz and Den Hartog 2006, p. 560).
Some studies provide frameworks that explain a common method of establishing these
content elements, thinking about such a framework could be useful (Currall and Judger 1995;
Zheng, Hall et al. 2002; Serva, Fuller et al. 2005; Burns, Mearns et al. 2006; Dennis and
Winston 2008).
Source of trust belief – am I trusted or trusting, and why? Most studies focus on an
individual’s perception of trust, i.e. the trustworthiness given to a corresponding individual.
However, there are a series of different decision-based processes that are often amalgamated
into one conceptualisation of trust belief. For example, someone can trust another person
without that other person trusting in return, or there could be a reciprocal trust belief; these
two scenarios will be seen as identical if one only looks at the first trust belief but these might
have very different implications in terms of the presence and outcomes of trust in a
relationship or organisation. A careful identification of the sources of trust belief is important
in this respect (Dietz and Den Hartog 2006).
Driver of trust – what is guiding the belief of trust? Here there are two main angles of
approach: (i) trust seen as a rational choice and driven by perception and decision-making
processes that affect visible individual behaviour – this premise backs measurements of trust
behaviours which can be used in order to define the presence or different levels of trust; (ii)
trust as a relational value that changes according to circumstances, through time, and depends
on interpersonal relationships – these interpersonal relationships can also be embedded within
institutional and organisational structures, meaning an evaluation of relational trust must also
take them into account (Fine and Holyfield 1996; Dietz and Den Hartog 2006; Choudhury
2008).
Degrees of trust – how much trust and how does it change over time? Changes in trust have
not been widely evaluated experimentally, although theoretical frameworks have been
developed. This is important as changes in trust over time can affect the content of trust as
well as its drivers – for instance, trust is more likely to be increasingly dependent on
interpersonal relationships over time than a predictable behavioural reaction (Lewicki,
Tomlinson et al. 2006).
A depiction of the trust process – (Dietz and Den Hartog 2006, p. 564)
A simple definition from Wikipedia outlines that:
“Trustworthiness is a moral value considered to be a virtue. A trustworthy person is
someone in whom we can place our trust and rest assured that the trust will not be
betrayed. A person can prove his trustworthiness by fulfilling an assigned responsibility and as an extension of that, to not let down our expectations. The responsibility can be
either material, such as delivering a mail package on time, or it can be a non-material
such as keeping an important secret to himself. A trustworthy person is someone that we
can put our worries and secrets into and know they won't come out. In order for one to
trust another, their worth and integrity must be constantly proven over time.” (Wikipedia,
accessed 4 October 2009)
[See also the Transparency Literature Review, some references included here]
Connection to other values
Trust is connected to a large number of values in the literature, but these apply to different
aspects of trust. For the sake of simplification, we can divide these into three broad categories
– please note that certain values apply to more than one category, these might correspond to
values that have more general connections to trust:
1. Values associated with the object inspiring trust – person, organisation or institution –
in other words, the values associated with trustworthiness: perceived honesty, ability,
benevolence, integrity, confidence, predictability, assurance, transparency,
accountability, efficiency, discretion, cohesion (Dietz and Den Hartog 2006, p. 560;
Lewicki, Tomlinson et al. 2006; Choudhury 2008; Terwel, Harinick et al. 2009).
2. Values associated with the individual who trusts – either in belief of action – or the
context that enables trust to be enacted. These include hope, faith, assurance,
initiative, low distrust, participation, certainty and congruency (Bouckaert and van de
Walle 2003; Lewicki, Tomlinson et al. 2006; Choudhury 2008).
3. A number of values are associated with the outcome of trust and include cohesion,
participation, transparency, satisfaction, impartiality, efficiency (Fine and Holyfield
1996; Bouckaert and van de Walle 2003; Choudhury 2008).
References
Bouckaert, G. and S. van de Walle (2003). "Comparing measures of citizen trust and user
satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction
indicators." International Review of Administrative Science 69: 329-343.
Burns, C., K. Mearns, et al. (2006). "Explicit and Implicit Trust Within Safety Culture." Risk
Analysis 26(5): 1139-1150.
Choudhury, E. (2008). "Trust in Administration: An Integrative Approach to Optimal Trust."
Administration & Society 40(6): 586-620.
Currall, S. and T. Judge (1995). "Measuring Trust between Organizational Boundary Role
Persons." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(2): 151-170.
Dennis, R. and B. E. Winston (2008). "A factor analysis of Page and Wong's servant
leadership instrument." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 24(8): 455-459.
Dietz, G. and D. N. Den Hartog (2006). "Measuring trust inside organisations." Personnel
Review 35(5): 557-588.
Fine, G. A. and L. Holyfield (1996). "Secrecy, Trust, and Dangerous Leisure: Generating
Group Cohesion in Voluntary Organizations." Social Psychology Quarterly 59(1): 22-38.
Francis, D., D. Knowles, et al. (2007). Employee Trust. Brighton, CENTRIM - University of
Brighton: 1-44.
IFI Transparency Resource (2009). Indicators. Bank Information Centre and freedominfo.org:
Washington DC [online] URL: http://www.ifitransparencyresource.org/en/Indicators.aspx
(Accessed 24/08/09)
Kaptein, M. (2008). "Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of
organizations: the corporate ethical virtues model." Journal of Organizational Behavior 29:
923-947.
Lewicki, R. J., E. C. Tomlinson, et al. (2006). "Models of Interpersonal Trust Development:
Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions." Journal of
Management 32(6): 991-1022.
Rawlins, B. (2009). "Give the Emperor a Mirror: Toward Developing a Stakeholder
Measurement of Organizational Transparency." Journal of Public Relations Research 21(1):
71-99.
Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer (2000). "Public Participation Methods: A Framework for
Evaluation." Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3-29.
Serva, M. A., M. A. Fuller, et al. (2005). "The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal study
of interacting teams." Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 625-648.
Terwel, B. W., F. Harinck, et al. (2009). "How organizational motives and communications
affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage." Journal
of Environmental Psychology 29: 290-299.
Transparency International (2002). Corruption Fighter's Tool Kit: Civil Society Experiences
and Emerging Strategies. J. Berns. Otto-Suhr-Allee, Transparency International.
Zheng, B., M. A. Hall, et al. (2002). "Development of a Scale to Measure Patients' Trust in
Health Insurers." Health Services Research 37(1): 185-200.
Summary of Value Themes
and Indicators
Trust/Trustworthiness
Perception and Presence of Trust
13. Individual/organisation/partner is trusted to fulfill their commitments.
14. Partners are trusted to satisfactorily deliver their commitments without the
need for formal agreements.
15. Trusted partners are given flexibility to do things differently within a
prescribed structure.
16. Staff feel that they are given freedom to develop and deliver their work in
the manner they feel is most appropriate, and that the organisation will
support them in doing so.
17. Flexible working arrangements are available to trusted staff to enable them
to complete their work in the manner they feel is most appropriate.
18. Stakeholders, the local community, partners trust the organisation and/or
project partner
19. Stakeholders, the community and partners trust the individuals they have
relationships with within an organisation
20. Individuals, colleagues, organisations, partners are perceived to be
trustworthy, truthful, honest, transparent, and respectful and practice
integrity in their interactions with others
21. Role of trustworthiness in an entity’s decision to purchase from/deal with
an organisation
22. Existence of collaborative, cooperative, trusting informal relationships
23. Partners trust that each shares a commitment and willingness to collaborate
for a similar vision
24. Degree to which the quality of the results from a project is due to the level
of cooperation, collaboration and trust
25. People are given large responsibilities that challenge them
26. Trust in peoples capacities leads to active participation
Atmosphere of Trust
1.
2.
3.
Trust supports the creation of a positive atmosphere
People treat each other with respect
Partners feel that different traditions, ideas, and approaches have been
respected.
4. Partners feel that their worth and value has been acknowledged.
5. Level of tolerance and appreciation of different genders, cultures and life
forms
6. People do not gossip or back-bite about their fellow employees,
subordinates, superiors, and partners.
7. Employees discuss honestly any concerns on work or personal issues
without reprisals and feel that they are listened to
8. People feel there is a safe space created where they can share their
feelings and opinions without fear of negative comments
9. People share personal challenges and issues openly and respectfully with
people in the organization
10. People tell the truth even if it is unpleasant
11. Team cooperation is related to the level of trust in the team
12. People feel that decision making and communication in the organisation
is trustworthy
Building and Maintaining Trust
Living Ethical Principles
27. Role of trustworthiness in the formation and maintenance of relationships
between partners
28. Trust between partners is built on strong personal relationships
29. Organisation maintains support, contact and commitment to partners
over the long term
30. Organisations do not ask partners to do things that they didn’t want to
do, or steer partners in a direction that they did not want to go.
31. Partnerships are not formed with ulterior motives
32. Where trust is lacking, partners take steps to initiate dialogue
33. Open dialogue exists between project partners
34. Differences are resolved through dialogue in a way that produces learning
and growth
35. Agreed upon commitments from projects involving cooperation are
fulfilled
36. Commitments and responsibilities agreed to are fulfilled
37. Commitments to provide funding or other support to partners are
adhered to
38. Goals are reviewed between committed parties to determine what has
and has not been achieved
39. Committed parties admit to and rectify mistakes and poor decisions when
made
40. Internal and external communications are transparent, fair, honest, and
accurate in representing the organisation
41. The organisation is transparent about the process and outcomes of
decision-making, openly sharing information with employees
42. Teams identify the criteria they use to assess trustworthiness of each
other
43. Presence and implementation of policies and procedures restricting and
disciplining practices of corruption
44. Disciplinary procedures exist to deal with dishonest employees
45. Truth-seeking, non-judgmental, confidential channels, which are trusted,
are in place for individuals/teams seeking guidance on the application of
ethics, reporting violations and examining violations of ethics
46. Parties are treated with impartiality
47. Presence of a policy outlining ethical obligations (eg. code of conduct)
48. Presence of law requiring transparency, accountability and no tolerance of
corruption in public and private institutions.
49. Steadfast commitment to ethical values despite temptations or costs
50. Desirable employees joined the organisation because they perceive it to
promote and live by ethical principles
51. Absence of anti-social and corrupt behaviours
52. Individuals/partners/organisation live the values they promote
53. Number of successful negotiations due to perceived trustworthiness and
integrity of the organisation
54. People strive to be honest and truthful towards the self – inside and
outside.
55. People strive to bring their lives and actions into accordance with ethical
values
56. Individuals are consistent in putting ethical values into practice
57. People/communities/ organisations / governments respect human rights
and promote them