Impersonal trust within the organization

What, How, and Why?

Notes on the doctoral dissertation of Mika Vanhala (ISBN 978-952-265-150-1) by Stephen Bounds

Trust

“A psychological state [to accept] vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or

behavior of another”

Trust

Two key conditions: acceptance of risk dependence on the trusted party

Trust is a belief or expectation resulting from exhibited behaviour and choices by the trusted and trusting parties

Organizational trust

Two dimensions:

Interpersonal trustImpersonal trust

Traditional view, particularly in HRM, only focused on interpersonal trust

Interpersonal trust

Is a result of people: performing in a way that meets others’

expectations signalling the intention to continue

meeting those expectations

“[Expectation based on] interaction[s] between individuals within a particular

relationship”

Interpersonal trust

Lateral trustTrust relations among peers or equals

Vertical trustTrust relations between employees and their superiors

3 dimensions of interpersonal trust

Trust in competenceTrust that a person will solve problems and deliver desired outcomes because of their skills, abilities, and characteristics

3 dimensions of interpersonal trust

Trust in benevolenceTrust that a person has good intentions and will demonstrate concern for the welfare of others

3 dimensions of interpersonal trust

Trust in reliabilityTrust that a person will hold to principles you find acceptable, eg in practice that their actions match their words

Impersonal trust

Is a result of roles, systems and reputation

“The individual employee’s expectation about the employer organization’s

capability and fairness”

2 dimensions of impersonal trust

Trust in top managementTrust that the stated vision, strategy, decision-making processes, roles and HRM practices will result in “actions that are beneficial or at least not detrimental to them”

2 dimensions of impersonal trust

Trust in structuresTrust that the organisation’s “roles, rules, and structured organizational [relationships]” are ordered properly, and operating normally and reliably

Trust dimensions

Figure 1. Vanhala, 2011. The structure of organizational trust

Modern view of organisation

Resource-based viewResource

refers to any organisational strength assets capabilities processes organizational attributes information and knowledge

Types of resources

Physical capital

Human (individual)

capital

Organisational capital

plant experience structure

equipment judgement system dynamics

technology intelligence social networks

location

Figure 2. Vanhala, 2011. Classes of resources within an organisation

Resources to seek

All sustainable sources of competitive advantage or high performance according to VRIN criteria

V = add value to organisationR = rare or unique among

competitors I = imperfectly imitableN = not substitutable

Why HR matters

“An organization’s HRM practices are signals of its concern about its employees …

Employees interpret the intentions behind the various

HRM practices at their workplace … and reciprocate in kind.”

Why HR Matters

High impersonal trust is a critical component of organisational capital

A direct factor in employee willingness to “demonstrate proactive effort and greater commitment and loyalty” to the organisation

Outcomes rather than intent matters; ‘lip service’ will be harshly evaluated

Vanhala’s box

Figure 3. Vanhala, 2011. Vanhala’s box showing how to measure impersonal trust

Not just a hypothesis!

The construct of impersonal trust and the contributions of HRM practices to building this trust have been empirically validated by Vanhala through scientific experiments as separate from interpersonal trust

Key findings

HRM practices investigated Learning and development Communication Performance Evaluation and Rewards Career Opportunities Participation Job Design

Key findings

Career opportunity factors contributed the most to variance in impersonal trust (89.6%)

Participation factors explained the least (44.1%)

Other measures fell in-between

Key findings

Career opportunity factors contributed the most to variance in impersonal trust (89.6%)

Participation factors explained the least (44.1%)

Other measures fell in-between

For more information

Vanhala M (2011). Impersonal trust within the organization: what, how and why?, Lappeenranta 2011, Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 445

Vanhala M, Puumalainen K and Blomqvist K (2011). Impersonal trust - the development of the construct and the scale. Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, 485-513.

Vanhala M (2011). Validation of the Impersonal Trust Scale. Revised and further submitted version. Under review for a journal. Earlier version presented at the 27th EGOS Colloquium, Gothenburg, Sweden, July 6-9, 2011. 

For more information

Vanhala M, and Ahteela R (2011). The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational trust. Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 8, 869-888.

Vanhala M, and Dietz G (2010). HRM, impersonal trust and performance. Revised and further submitted version. Under review for a journal. Earlier version presented at the 13th Irish Academy of Management Conference, Cork, Ireland, September 1-3, 2010.