Collaborating in the Absence of Trust? What Collaborative Governance Theory and Practice Can Learn From the Literatures of Conflict Resolution,Psychology,and Law

Abstract

Trust is often touted as both an element of success and an outcome of interest in collaboration research, usually without defining the term or acknowledging the possibility of collaborating when trust is diminished or absent. This article broadens our theoretical understanding of the concept of trust, and the ability to collaborate in the absence of trust, by looking at it through the lenses of conflict resolution, psychology, and law. The disciplines examined in this article emphasize diverse approaches to examining trust on the interpersonal, interorganizational, and regime levels. While agreeing that trust is an asset, these disciplines also offer practical strategies for collaborating when trust is diminished or absent. Drawing on the theory and literature of conflict resolution, psychology, and law, we offer the following definition of collaborative trust: Collaborative trust is an individual perception that is the product of one’s assessments, experiences, and dispositions, in which one believes, and is willing to act on, the words, actions, and decisions of others. This can include a reliance on principles, rules, norms, and decision-making procedures that articulate collective expectations.

Keywords

collaborative governance trust

Contemporary governance illustrates a paradigm shift regarding the ways in which individuals and organizations work together to produce public value. No longer is working within traditional organizational structures and systems sufficient for solving complex transboundary challenges, “the most vexing of public problems” (Agranoff, 2003). Reliance on hierarchy, command-and-control, and “silo” problem-solving often does not fit the challenge of addressing societal priorities that cross boundaries and jurisdictions (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Bingham & O’Leary, 2006; Goldsmith & Kettl, 2009; Kamarck, 2003; O’Leary & Bingham, 2009). These contemporary governance arrangements require new approaches to problem solving, namely, boundary-spanning leadership and collaboration (Linden, 2010; Salamon, 2002). We define collaboration as “[w]orking across boundaries and in multi-organizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved—or easily solved—by single organizations or jurisdictions. Collaboration can include the public.” (O’Leary, Gerard, & Bingham, 2006, building on Agranoff & McGuire, 2004, p. 1).

Effectiveness in these contexts, it is said, rests not on traditional authority structures and systems, but on the foundations of relationships and trust (Bardach, 1998; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Gazley, 2008). Trust is repeatedly asserted to be a foundational element for collaborative effectiveness (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Thomson & Perry, 2006). The concept of trust in this context, however, can be vague and ill-defined with little specificity or explanation. The assumption of the necessity of trust and the lack of specificity surrounding this concept complicates the discussion of how best to assess, build, and enhance trust among partners, and to otherwise successfully collaborate.

Despite an unclear understanding of the concept of trust, it is often suggested that the job of public managers is to develop it. Managers are required to build relationships and integrate incentives (or disincentives) for participation in collaborative arrangements in the absence of—or as a complement to—hierarchy and command-and-control structures (Milward & Provan, 2006; Romzek, LeRoux, Johnston, Kempf, & Piatak, 2014). Trust, then, becomes a key ingredient of collective action and commitment, it is said. The focus on trust, argue Grey and Garsten (2001), reflects the “unstitching” of traditional organizational forms and places new demands on collaborative partners.

Two contemporary empirical studies illustrate how building trust is typically deemed an essential task for public managers. First, Koski (2013) assessed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) partnership planning model, which requires DHS managers to cultivate relationships with regulators and operators to protect critical infrastructure and resources. DHS managers must pursue this goal despite “little ability of DHS to compel action” (p. 327). As a result, Koski identifies the establishment of trust between DHS and their partners as a key component of the model used to secure the country’s resources from natural and human-induced dangers. Second, Ysa, Sierra, and Esteve (2014) investigated 119 urban revitalization networks and demonstrated that successful outcomes are influenced not only by network structure but by network management strategies, which in turn influence the level of trust within the network. They concluded that managers exercise more influence in these complex contexts than previously thought, in part because the choice of managerial strategy can influence trust.

Building on the interdisciplinary nature of the public administration and management field, our article offers theoretical insights to help build the collective understanding of trust in collaborative settings by examining literature from three other streams of research: conflict resolution, psychology, and law. Although a variety of other scholarly literatures, such as business administration and organizational behavior, may also delve into the issue of trust, our analysis is limited to these three disciplines not only to provide practical boundaries on this research, but also because they address three intersecting perspectives important to collaboration: the individual, group, and system levels of trust (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Figure 1). Although these literatures at times overlap and/or draw from similar sources, our article makes an effort to focus on the unique lessons that can be derived from each. Most importantly, our article demonstrates that these literatures challenge a fundamental assumption of public management literature that trust is essential for the success of collaboration.

Figure 1.

Three perspectives of trust in collaborative settings.

The first section of this article highlights what is already known from, and assumed in, the public administration and management literatures about trust. More importantly, it also identifies what remains to be known about trust. The second section addresses these gaps and assumptions by seeking to identify and apply theoretical insights from the conflict resolution, psychology, and law literatures on the intersecting levels of trust. The final section summarizes what scholars of collaboration can learn from the disciplines of conflict resolution, psychology, and law, particularly as it relates to collaborating in absence of trust.

What We Know (and Do Not Know) About Trust in Collaborative Arrangements

In the context of collaborative arrangements, trust has been viewed as a necessary component (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006; Bryson et al., 2015; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Bryson et al. (2006) describe trust as the “essence of collaboration” and as the “lubricant and the glue” that “facilitate the work of collaboration and . . . hold the collaboration together” (pp. 47-48). In addition, being trustworthy has been found to be an important part of a collaborator’s preferred individual attributes (O’Leary, Choi, & Gerard, 2012).

Edelenbos and Klijn (2007) maintain that trust “is the answer for coping with complexity in decision-making networks,” but it “has to be developed in a world where at least some of the natural sources for trust such as tradition, societal bounds, and family kin seem to be diminishing in importance. . .” (p. 26). They assert that trust is necessary because all uncertainties cannot be managed through “hierarchical power, direct surveillance, or detailed contracts” (p. 26). In the context of collaboration, trust is one of the primary paradoxical features of that arrangement as “mechanisms designed to enhance trust are based on assumptions of mistrust,” (Connelly, Zhang, & Faerman, 2008, p. 24). Nonetheless, in the collaboration literature, a clear definition of trust is lacking.

Definitional Issues

There is a lack of specificity about what trust means in collaboration research. This is partially because scholars are building on a long-standing tradition in which researchers in public management have not agreed on a definition. To understand current research on trust and collaboration, a quick examination of the historical treatment of trust is needed. In short, scholars have either described trust in a manner that suggests the definition is simply understood (see, for example, Blau, 1964) or indicate that trust has a series of delineated characteristics (see, for example, Bennis & Nanus, 1997).

Examples of the latter approach include Golembiewski and McConkie (1975), who list the central features of trust as (a) reliance on an event, process, or person; (b) expectations about outcomes; and (c) the implication that something is being risked in expectation of a gain. In contrast, Bennis and Nanus (1997) suggest that trust is based on predictability and constancy. Thomas (1998) provides an even broader statement, describing trust as a complex, multifaceted concept that has “cognitive, emotional and behavioral components that operate at both the interpersonal and institutional levels” (p. 167).

More recently, Edelenbos and Klijn (2007) and Klijn, Edelenbos, and Steijn (2010) assert that trust includes three dominant characteristics: vulnerability, risk, and expectations, but Nyhan (2000) includes fairness, confidence, risk taking in his definition of trust. Lamothe and Lamothe (2012) attempt to summarize these myriad characteristics by asserting that trust is “a range of attributes such as dependability, credibility, faithfulness, and information sharing, as well as the expectation of cooperation between exchange partners” (p. 868).

Pautz and Wamsley (2012) contend that part of the difficulty associated with defining trust rests with the multitude of voices involved: “Although increasing attention has been given to the concept, a universally accepted definition remains elusive, in part because many different academic disciplines have explored trust” (p. 861), they argue. But, is trust in the public setting uniquely different? Banister and Connolly (2011) say yes. Although they define trust generally as the “willingness of a party to expose itself to the possibility of being exploited by another party,” they suggest that in the case of citizens’ trust in government, it more likely relates to personal risk and competence of government “to do something right or to do the right thing” (p. 139). This morass of varying definitions is problematic because of the conclusions that trust is so significant to effective collaboration.

Trust on Three Levels

The public management literature suggests that trust is important on interpersonal, interorganizational, and systems levels. Although these levels are not always explicitly identified or considered as part of the trust dynamic, Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) argue that our understanding of collaboration, including the building of trust, requires an emphasis on the “structure or relationships between individuals, groups, and organizations” (p. 21). Although interactions at these three levels are not always mutually exclusive, they provide important insights for understanding the role and need for trust in collaborations.

For instance, early sociological studies provided the field of public administration and management with a basis for understanding the importance of trust between individuals. Blau (1964) posits that the basis of all social structures is social exchange between individuals. This social exchange, which he explains as qualitatively different than a simple economic exchange, requires trust. Also, interpersonal trust is thought to affect organizational health (Bennis & Nanus, 1997). Gould-Williams (2003) asserts that trust in the workplace “is a critical factor leading to enhanced organizational performance” (p. 29); and Albrecht and Travaglione (2003) find that trust affects commitment, cynicism toward change, and turnover.

Trust is also identified as important in the context of inter- or extra-organizational relationships (Chisholm, 1989; Ostrom, 1990). Chisholm (1989) identifies the norm of reciprocity as important in large multi-organizational coordination efforts in which interdependence is required to make decisions. In other words, trust promotes informal coordination among individuals in different agencies (Chisholm, 1989). At the local government level, trust has been considered a part of a “dynamic interplay of interests” that together produce “the critical attributes of cooperation: a trusting orientation toward collaborative and power-sharing problem solving to pursue interdependent interests and needs to achieve mutual and area-wide benefits,” (Visser, 2002, p. 57). Trust also contributes to accountability among partners (Romzek et al., 2014). In both traditional and nontraditional organizational settings, including horizontal networks, the expected consequences of trust are increased productivity and organizational commitment (Nyhan, 2000).

Finally, on a systems level, trust has been identified as essential to success. Ostrom (1990) has demonstrated that trust established through the development of social norms and mutual monitoring is essential for effective collective management of common pool resources. Such resulting organizations can be successful in sharing resources fairly without the imposition of government policies or privatization to distribute or safeguard resources. Within governmental regimes, trust is said to be ultimately “central to legitimate democratic government, to the formation of public policy, and to its implementation,” (Ruscio, 1996, p. 462). Studies also show that satisfaction with government and trust in government are positively correlated (Kampen, Van de Walle, & Bouckaert, 2006).

Other lessons about trust can be gleaned from the public management literature about trust on these three levels. These insights are summarized in Table 1. Yet, an explicit acknowledgment of the importance of trust on these three levels, with an accompanying research agenda, is generally lacking in the public management literature.

Table 1.

Lessons Learned About Trust on the Individual, Group and Regime Levels.

Level	What we know
Individual/interpersonal	• Building trust requires time and investment (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001, 2004; Forrer, Kee, Newcomer, & Boyer, 2010; McGregor, 1960; Romzek, LeRoux, Johnston, Kempf, & Piatak, 2014; Van Slyke, 2009) • Trustworthiness must be demonstrated (Bennis & Nanus, 1997; Denhardt & Campbell, 2006) • The process of building interpersonal trust is iterative, requiring repeated interactions that either reinforce or undermine trust (Bennis & Nanus, 1997; Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Ostrom, 1990) • Actions such as reciprocal favors (Blau, 1964); repeated illustrations of integrity (Denhardt & Campbell, 2006); participation and feedback (Nyhan, 2000); and procedural justice (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003) build trust • Communication processes are essential (Albrecht & Travaglione; Pitts, 2005)
Group/intra- and extra-organizational	• Institutional aspects affect trust (Christensen & Laegreid, 2005) • Partners may not always fully trust each other (Crosby & Bryson, 2010)
Systems/regime	• The meaning and impact of trust (or lack thereof) is dependent on a society’s values (Ruscio, 1996) • Systems-level trust can be illustrated in citizens’ trust (or distrust) in government (Berman, 1997; Cooper, Knotts, & Brennan, 2008; D’Agostino & Kloby, 2011; Daley & Vasu, 1998; Grönlund & Setälä, 2012; Heintzman & Marson, 2005; Kim, 2005, 2010; Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003; Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005) or public managers’ trust in citizens (Yang, 2005, 2006) • Monitoring of compliance with trust norms is required (McGregor, 1960; Ostrom, 1990)

Furthermore, in one of the most downloaded public management articles of 2011 and 2012, Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) argue, in part relying on a synthesis of literature and research from conflict resolution, that trust is the sine qua non of collaboration. Specifically, the authors conclude that trust is one of many elements that may influence the success of collaborations. “Trust generates mutual understanding, which in turn generates legitimacy and finally commitment,” they write, citing Bardach (1998), Ring and van de Ven (1994), and Thomson and Perry (2006). “Trust enables people to go beyond their own personal, institutional, and jurisdictional frames of reference and perspectives toward understanding other peoples’ interests, needs, values, and constraints” (p. 14).

Insights Into the Concept of Trust From Conflict Resolution, Psychology, and Law

Just as collaboration studies benefit from the application of various disciplinary lenses (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 12), we seek to study trust and whether it is a necessary precondition to collaboration from an interdisciplinary perspective. Collaboration dynamics affect outcomes. Specifically, these dynamics include individual and group-level actions that contribute to shared motivation, principled engagement, and joint capacity for action. Thus, attention to individual and group level forces, particularly by way of the conflict management and psychology literatures, is meaningful. Furthermore, collaboration exists within the context of an external system, which the law literature helps us understand. More importantly, these three literatures help us understand collaboration dynamics as they relate to the existence or absence of trust.

Lessons From Conflict Resolution

In his classic work, The Evolution of Cooperation (1984), political scientist Robert Axelrod, developed a theory that when faced with the choice of cooperation or betrayal, cooperation is always a better long-term strategy, and, in fact, is favored by evolution. Based on the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma game, Axelrod showed, in part, that cooperation can, and should, occur even in the absence of trust. Hundreds of computer programs demonstrate this theory. Axelrod’s work has been inspirational to the field of conflict resolution, particularly research in the area of collaboration.

Defining trust in the conflict resolution literature

Like the field of public management, the field of conflict resolution borrows definitions, theories, and ideas from other fields. There is a plethora of definitions of trust in the conflict resolution literature, reflecting the abundance of definitions in the organizational and allied social sciences (see, for example, Bigley & Pearce, 1998). Yet one element of the definition of trust that is commonly used in this literature relates to an individual’s dependence on others’ representations: “a person’s capacity to depend on or place confidence in the truthfulness or accuracy of another’s statements or behavior” (Moore, 2014, p. 277). Put another way, trust is “an individual’s belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another” (McAllister, 1995, p. 25; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998, p. 440). Lewicki (2014) writes that there are three components backing up this definition: an individual’s chronic disposition toward trust, situational parameters, and the history of the relationship.

Theoretical insights about trust in the conflict resolution literature

Understanding trust requires an interdisciplinary approach

Conflict resolution researchers Lewicki and Bunker (1996) sort the conflict resolution research on trust into three derivative categories: those originating from personality theorists, those originating from social psychologists, and those originating from sociologists and economists. These disciplines that inform the conflict resolution research each reflect different theoretical assumptions concerning trust. From the field of psychology come personality theorists who research individual personality differences and how early childhood experiences mold one’s willingness to trust. The theoretical assumption is that the degree to which an individual is trusting largely stems from one’s early psychosocial development (Worchel, 1979).

From the field of social psychology comes theories that focus on transactions between and among human beings at the interpersonal level that both create and destroy trust. Trust in this tradition is thought of as “expectations of the other party in a transaction, risks associated with assuming and acting on such expectations, and contextual factors that either enhance or inhibit development and maintenance of the relationship” (Lewicki, 2014: 104).

From the fields of sociology and economics come conflict resolution theories that focus on trust as an institutionalized phenomenon. Institutional trust is conceptualized as “the belief that future interactions will continue, based on explicit or implicit rules and norms” (Lewicki, 2014: 104, citing Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). A common theoretical assumption is that higher levels of trust toward, within and among institutions will yield positive benefits (such as reduced conflict, but even as tangible as enhanced supplier performance Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998).

Differentiating trust and distrust

A common theoretical assumption in this subset of the conflict resolution literature is that trust and distrust between individuals are fundamentally different (Lewicki, 2014). Although trust can be defined in terms of “confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct,” distrust can be defined as “confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct” (Lewicki et al., 1998). Most relationships—working and personal—are not 100% trust or distrust, but contain elements of both (Lewicki, 2014). In the work world, this is partially because there is a spectrum of working relationships from “all business” to those which combine business and personal (e.g., dinner with a colleague). In arguably, the most well-respected work on trust in the field of conflict resolution, Lewicki (2014) presents a matrix that demonstrates 16 different combinations of trust and distrust, based on four key concepts (Table 2):

Calculus-based trust (CBT) is a confident positive expectation regarding another’s conduct. It is grounded in impersonal transactions, and the overall anticipated benefits to be derived from the relationship are assumed to outweigh any anticipated costs.

Calculus-based distrust (CBD) is defined as confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct. It is also grounded in impersonal transactions, and the overall anticipated costs to be derived from the relationship are assumed to outweigh the anticipated benefits.

Identification-based trust (IBT) is defined as confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct. It is grounded in perceived compatibility of values, common goals, and positive emotional attachment to the other.

Identification-based distrust (IBD) is defined as confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct, grounded in perceived incompatibility of values, dissimilar goals, and negative emotional attachment to the other (p. 104).

Table 2.

Trust and Distrust: Major Combinations (Spectrum of Working and Personal Relationships–Alone and Combined).

Type	CBT	CBD	IBT	IBD	Brief description of relationship
1	Low	Low	Low	Low	Arm’s-length relationship
2	High	Low	Low	Low	High CBT, good working relationship
3	Low	High	Low	Low	High CBD, working relationship characterized by caution
4	Low	Low	High	Low	“Instant good chemistry” with the other based on strong perceived value compatibility but limited experience (few bands and low bandwidth)
5	Low	Low	Low	High	“Instant bad chemistry” with the other based on strong perceived value incompatibility but limited experience (few bands and low bandwidth)
6	High	Low	High	Low	Classic “high trust” relationship, based on strong elements of CBT and IBT
7	Low	High	Low	High	Classic “high distrust” relationship based on strong elements of CBD and IBD
8	High	High	Low	Low	“Complex professional relationship”; strong number of CBT and CBD elements, limited experience on identification-based elements
9	Low	Low	High	High	“Love-hate relationship”; high passion and ambivalence, characterized by strong positive and strong negative attraction to each other; limited experience on calculus-based elements
10	High	Low	Low	High	“A necessary service provider”; strong CBT but also strong IBD; maintain an arm’s length relationship to benefit from the CBT aspects but minimize the IBD elements
11	Low	High	High	Low	“I love you, but you’re a flake”; strong CBD (which makes us cautious) but also strong IBT (which attracts us to the other)
12	Low	High	High	High	Dominant love–hate relationship, with additional elements of CBD and few elements of CBT
13	High	Low	High	High	Dominant love–hate relationship, with additional elements of CBT and few elements of CBD
14	High	High	Low	High	Dominant high-distrust relationship, although there are some elements of CBT possible; “very distrusting, but bounded trusting transactions are possible”
15	High	High	High	Low	Dominant high-trust relationship, although there are some elements of CBD; “very trusting but takes precautions”
16	High	High	High	High	Rich, complex, highly ambivalent relationship; lots of trust and distrust along all dimensions of the relationship

Source. Adapted from Lewicki (2014, p. 106), Synthesis of Conflict Resolution Research.

Note. CBT = calculus-based trust; CBD = calculus-based distrust; IBT = identification-based trust; IBD = identification-based distrust.

Levels of trust and distrust can change with new experiences

According to the conflict resolution literature, if collaboration starts with diminished trust in whole or in part, there are ways that trust can be built incrementally over time. These concrete and practical suggestions for individuals include the following:

Be consistent in statements that you make (Moore, 2014);

Make minor concessions that demonstrate good faith efforts to accommodate the needs of other collaborators (Fisher & Ury, 1978). Examples include meeting at a time or place that is convenient for the other collaborators;

Show a willingness to be in a minor or temporary subservient position to demonstrate a willingness to place your well-being into the hands of other collaborators (Pruitt, 1981);

Ask other collaborators for help (Fisher & Ury, 1978);

Demonstrate a genuine interest in helping other collaborators reach their goals and objectives while reaching your own goals and objectives (Zartman & Berman, 1982);

Give a fellow collaborator an earlier return of benefits than had been previously expected (Zartman & Berman, 1982);

Allow clauses in collaborative agreements that will yield punishment or costs if you do not follow through on your promises (Zartman & Berman, 1982);

Do not make promises that are unrealistic or unbelievable (Zartman & Berman, 1982);

Make agreements incremental so that success can be measured along the way (Fisher & Ury, 1978; Zartman & Berman, 1982);

Demonstrate that you understand other collaborators’ concerns, even if you do not agree with those concerns (Moore, 2014).

Research questions on trust in the conflict resolution literature

Questions about trust permeate much of the conflict resolution research literature. This research is both theoretical and applied. Questions pertinent to the immediate discussion include the following: What is the impact of trust or the lack of trust on collaborative process? Are there steps that can be taken to build trust in the process even though individuals initially do not trust each other? What is the impact of trust or the lack of trust on agreements? Is it more likely that an agreement will “stick” if there is trust? Or if there is a relative absence of trust, will that nudge the parties to pay more attention to the wording of agreements (such as incentives and penalties) thus catalyzing better crafted documents that last? Along this line, it is important to point out the stream of applied research that indicates that “trust can be a trap” (Fisher, 1991, p. 124):

Behaving in a way that makes oneself worthy of trust is highly useful and likely to be well rewarded. But the more one trusts the other side, the greater the incentive one provides for behavior that will prove such trust to have been misplaced. . . Other things being equal, the less that an agreement depends on trust, the more likely it is to be implemented.

This in part means that there should be some external source of enforcement, or that the agreement should be written so that each side has to do something before it gets what it wants.

Another pertinent applied research question inspired by the conflict resolution literature is, what if the parties don’t trust each other, but collaboration will be attempted anyway (such as in mandated collaboration)? The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution recommends steps that one can take to protect oneself in a collaborative process in which distrust outweighs trust, recommending that collaborators insist on informed and good faith commitment by all parties at the table; balanced representation including affected/concerned interests; group autonomy so that participants develop and govern the process; transparency and across-the-board access to relevant information; accountability of stakeholders to participate directly, fully, and in good faith; timeliness; and implementation of agreements (O’Leary, Amsler, & Kopell, 2005). Other normative advice for collaborators gleaned from the conflict resolution literature includes agree explicitly on expectations, deadlines, and penalties for noncompliance; agree on procedures for monitoring (e.g., joint monitoring) and verify the other’s actions; develop other ways to have your needs met; develop your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA); let the other party know how his or her performance is perceived by others; base trust on risk analysis, not moral judgment (of whether someone is a good or bad person; Fisher & Brown, 1988).

Recommendations for the collaboration research agenda from conflict resolution

Public management can learn a lot about trust from the conflict resolution literature about trust on the individual level. First, dependence and interdependence between individuals is an important dimension to consider when defining trust. Second, the relationship between trust and distrust is important to understand. Lewicki’s (2014) matrix outlining the 16 different combinations of trust and distrust is an important conceptual tool. Much of the public management literature talks about the absence or presence of trust as if they are absolutes, without acknowledging that trust and distrust are fundamentally different, and without discussing the various gradients of trust. Lewicki’s research urges us to be more sophisticated in our analyses. Furthermore, the absence of trust does not necessary mean the presence of distrust. The absence of trust might mean that there is a blank slate and might yield opportunities to build trust.

Third, as Axelrod (1984) maintained, one definitely can negotiate and collaborate in the absence of trust, yet trust usually is an asset. When trust is weak or lacking, the conflict resolution literature offers us concrete steps to take to build trust when collaborating. Conflict resolution research cautions us to analyze the degrees of distrust and trust and recommends certain steps that need to be followed to protect one’s self under these circumstances.

Lessons From Psychology

The psychology literature offers a rich body of work that considers the concept of trust from multiple perspectives. Specifically, outside of the psychological literatures that contribute to conflict resolution addressed above, trust is most readily associated with the study of social psychology, or the examination of group behavior and social relationships. Social psychology focuses on the ways in which people perceive and interact with others. As noted by Gefen (2013), the psychology scholarship underscores trust as a “central part of human decision making” as it relates to assessing relationships with known others, group members, as well as society at large. While the collective contributions on this topic are both valuable and varied, they together indicate the importance of understanding “the meaning of trust, its applicability, and how to build it” (p. viii). Furthermore, these contributions provide insights on the ways in which collaboration may proceed in the absence of trust.

Defining trust in the psychology literature

Although multiple definitions of trust exist in the psychology literature, and trust has been recognized as a “complex, multidimensional construct” that is “difficult to operationalize, measure, and interpret” (Simpson, 2007b, p. 264), there is some conceptual agreement across definitions. Specifically, a common focus is on trust as a psychological state that involves a measure of vulnerability or risk. For example, consider the following similar definitions of trust:

A willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectation (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).

A psychological state comprising intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Gillespie & Mann, 2004).

A psychological state that “entails a state of perceived vulnerability or risk that is derived from individuals’ uncertainty regarding the motives, intentions, and prospective actions of others on whom they depend” (Kramer, 1999, p. 571).

Together, these definitions emphasize that trust is a mind-set marked by an individual’s willingness to accept uncertainty while maintaining positive expectations of others.

Theoretical insights about trust from the psychology literature

Individual characteristics and actions affect trust in relationships

As discussed above, psychology is an important foundation for understanding conflict resolution. Thus, it is not surprising that in a review of the psychology literature with the goal of identifying core principles of interpersonal trust, four key principles were identified (Simpson, 2007a) based on individual characteristics and interactions, similar to those emphasized in the conflict resolution literature. These principles are, first, individuals engage in diagnostic situations to determine whether their level of trust in a partner is warranted. Second, these diagnostic situations occur naturally and unintentionally during everyday life. Third, individual differences, including levels of self-esteem, affect the growth or decline of trust over time. Fourth, trust in relationships must be understood by considering the dispositions and actions of both relationship partners.

The body of work on relational trust in the psychology literature is based on an element of faith in a specific individual and the belief that he or she acts in fairness and honesty (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). The Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) and Emotional Trust Scale (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982) were developed to assess this type of trust. Although the study of relational trust can help explain the decision to trust a known partner, its assumptions do not neatly translate to contexts in which partners are unfamiliar with one another, as may be the case in collaborative arrangements.

Global trust develops out of individual experiences

Global, or generalized, trust reflects expectations that individuals have toward people overall (Rotter, 1967) and relies on an assumption of goodness in others (Rotter, 1971). This form of trust, which is important in group or collaborative settings, has been assessed using such instruments as the Philosophies of Human Nature Scale (Wrightsman, 1964) and the General Social Survey (as well as the related International Social Survey Program) using the following question: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” Like relational trust, a person’s level of global trust, or trust in people in general, is assumed to be the product of individual experiences and dispositions.

For example, the psychology research finds that women tend to exhibit more generalized trust as do people in long-term relationships (Couch & Jones, 1997). Agnostics and atheists are less likely to trust others and low socioeconomic status is also related to a decrease in trust (Rotter, 1971). Although these findings should not be considered universal in their explanatory power, they do speak to the importance of understanding the ways in which individual experiences and views may affect interactions with—and expectations of—others.

Overall, survey trends indicate decreasing levels of global trust over time. For instance, Morgan’s (2014) review of the General Social Survey data reveals that the percentage of American respondents who agreed that “most people can be trusted” dropped from 46% at the survey’s start in 1972 to approximately 32% four decades later. These findings support the contemporary interest in understanding and building trust, particularly when trust may not be assumed from the start.

Leadership and trust influence group performance

Psychology scholars have asked the following: how does leadership style impact team trust (Gillespie & Mann, 2004) and how does trust influence group performance (Dirks, 1999)? The research reveals interesting results for collaboration scholars and practitioners. To begin, while trust in leaders can have a significant effect on team performance, trust in other members of the team is not necessarily a predictor of performance (Dirks, 2000). This finding indicates that collaborators can effectively work together even if they do not fully trust one another. In addition, groups with higher levels of trust did not necessarily have better performance than groups with lower levels of trust (Dirks, 1999). This suggests that lack of trust is not an absolute barrier to performance.

Research questions on trust from the psychology literature

In addition to exploring questions related to relational and global trust, psychology scholars have worked to address an overarching question: how best to measure trust? As noted above, surveys are one of the key ways that psychologists assess trust. In addition to the instruments mentioned above, a variety of other survey tools examine interpersonal trust, including the Interpersonal Trust Scale (Rotter, 1967), Trust Test (Tedeschi, Hiester, & Gahagan, 1969), and Trust Inventory (Couch, Adams, & Jones, 1996). However, this approach to measurement is questioned and scholars asked, can we trust surveys on trust? Miller and Mitamura (2003) identify several problematic issues with surveys on trust, including single item measurement, ambiguous wording, and the potential for cross-cultural misinterpretation. These issues matter to researchers because influential studies draw upon the results of trust surveys and also influence future work.

To address these concerns, psychologists developed additional ways to assess trust. Specifically, “trust games” explore research questions under experimental conditions (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995; Deutsch, 1958). The goals of these efforts are to identify the antecedents and outcomes of trust. For example, research reveals that trust is related to positive outcomes including an increase in task performance, improved citizenship behavior, and a decrease in counterproductive behavior (Colquitt et al., 2007). Such research can provide insights in how individuals in different group settings can relate to each other.

Similar to the conflict resolution literature, the psychology research also addresses questions related to the absence of trust. Work in this discipline asks, what are the individual roots of distrust? What are the interpersonal implications of distrust? The research reveals that distrust may emerge from individual categorization and perceived differentiation, which can “create a climate of presumptive distrust” (Kramer, 1999, p. 588). Distrust can be damaging in the long term because it can prevent people from engaging with each other and can also lead to behaviors that perpetuate distrust among partners (Gambetta, 1990, p. 234).

Recommendations for the collaborative research agenda from psychology literature

Psychology scholars consider the ways in which individual-level trust influences behavior in team or group settings. This body of work has valuable applications for collaborative contexts in several ways. First, understanding the fact that vulnerability is part of the trust dynamic between groups provides insight into why trust can be difficult to develop in collaborative settings. Second, this literature connects individual experiences and the development of global trust with leadership and group performance, which can help bridge public management scholars’ examination of the relationship between individual and interorganizational trust. Third, this body of research explores issues of measurement using surveys and experimental game methods, both of which collaboration research could borrow and learn from. Each of these lessons and methods are relevant for understanding trust in collaborative settings.

Lessons From Law

As found in other streams of literature, legal scholars acknowledge that trust, in both a legal and relational context, is a desirable characteristic and an asset (Blair & Stout, 2001; Ribstein, 2001). Nevertheless, the law does not require the presence of “trust” in order for two or more parties to conduct business or interact. Instead, when considering the law as a system or regime—defined here as a set of “principles, rules, norms, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge” (Krasner, 1983, p. 2) or the “particular mode of, or system for, public decision making in which cross-boundary collaboration represents the prevailing pattern of behavior and activity” (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 6)—trust in the rule of law itself seems to be the most important prerequisite for collaboration.

Defining trust in the legal literature

Legal scholars define trust on a number of dimensions. Although it is impractical to dissect every usage of trust within the domain of legal scholarship, here we will focus only on few subdisciplines of the law. Most commonly, scholars describe trust in terms of human relationships where individual levels of power are at stake. Blair and Stout (2001), for example, define trust as having three distinct characteristics. First, they assert that trust requires at least two actors—“the actor who trusts and the actor who is trusted” (p. 1745). Second, for “trust” to exist, the trusting actor must give the trusted actor the upper hand by putting the trusted actor in a position which she or he could “tak[e] advantage of the trusting actor’s vulnerability” (p. 1746). Finally, the trusting actor must have a genuine “belief or expectation” that the trusted actor will act in accordance with the afforded level of trust (p. 1746). Chung (2008) similarly describes “trust” as “a state of mind that enables its possessor to be willing to make herself vulnerable to another despite a positive risk that the other will act in a way that can harm the truster” (p. 44).

When considering trust on an individual level, trust has been broken down into dichotomous types: as either affective trust versus cognitive trust or as generalized trust versus specific trust (Colombo, 2010). Affective trust is “grounded primarily in emotion . . . and constitutes a general, optimistic disposition that the subject of one’s trust will behave honorably and appropriately” (Colombo, 2010, p. 835). In comparison, cognitive trust describes the “reliance and voluntary exposure to vulnerability stemming from . . . a cost-benefit analysis of trusting someone” (Colombo, 2010, p. 836; internal citations omitted). On the contrary, generalized trust “refers to trust of a moral nature: trust in the character, integrity, and honesty of the subject in question” (p. 838), while specific trust “refers to trust of a technical nature: trust in the capability of the subject in question to satisfactorily deliver upon a specific promise, good, or service” (p. 839).

Despite this particularity, Cross (2005) argues that while “it is easy to think of trust as an individual matter . . . [t]his view can be misleading” (p. 1504). Rather, trust often occurs on a societal or institutional level where individuals are “often willing to trust only to the extent that trust can be fostered by institutions” (Jarvenpaa & Tiller, 2001, p. 673). Stated differently, for individuals to trust, institutional features must be in place to ensure trustworthy behavior.

Theoretical insights about trust from the legal literature

Trust and law as substitutes or complements

Conventional legal scholarship operates from a baseline assumption that the market and legal regime provide sufficient inducements for individuals and entities to work together, even in the absence of trust (cf. Blair & Stout, 2001). Accordingly, the law provides a regulatory (and sometimes punitive) system in which individuals must abide by certain rules, contractual agreements, and other arms-length transactions (cf. Blair & Stout, 2001; Cross, 2005; Hill & O’Hara, 2006; Ribstein, 2001). Although it is clear from legal research that trust is an asset, but not an imperative, there is an ongoing debate among contemporary scholars regarding the relationship between law and trust and whether the law acts as a complement of trust or undermines trust (Blair & Stout, 2001; Cross, 2005; Ribstein, 2001).

On one hand, some scholars argue that the existence of law—specifically legal sanctions and punishments—can, although justifiably, “undermine trust [particularly, affective and generalized trust], and therefore serve as a substitute rather than a complement” to trust (Ribstein, 2001, p. 576). Indeed, where informal trust relationships exist, the law can “transform” those relationships “to something formalized, strictly circumscribed, and explicitly based upon law (such as a detailed contract)” (Colombo, 2010, p. 850). One possibility is that the law “crowd[s] out” trust and possibly “institutionalize[s]” distrust (Colombo, 2010, p. 850). For example, where there is increased regulation imposed by the law, such as imposed tax codes and criminal sanctions, the ability to trust is inhibited (Ribstein, 2001). In other words, these conditions prevent parties from “behav[ing] according to [naturally-arising] trust and trustworthiness norms” (p. 582). Stated differently, where trust is the only foundation of a relationship, the primary downside is the risk of “disappointment.” In contrast, where the law acts a substitute for trust, the risks are greater and costlier (e.g., litigation and/or criminal sanctions; Ribstein, 2001, p. 577).

Similarly, Blair and Stout (2001) tout the importance of trust as an asset even in the context of arms-length agreements. However, they argue that “trust highlights the limits of law by explaining how cooperative patterns of behavior [exist] . . . even when external incentives, such as legal sanctions are unavailable or ineffective” (p. 1736).

Although Cross (2005) agrees that law and trust are not “antagonistic but tend to go together,” he states that “the law can help create trustworthy behavior, which in turn can increase both cognitive and affective societal trust” (p. 1457). Comparatively, Bellia (2002) states, in the context of contractual agreements, “where trust is low, the parties can enhance it by specifying their rights and obligations in minute detail” (p. 35; see also Frankel & Gordon, 2001). Furthermore, Paris (1995) provides that “legal rules . . . serve as a backstop for grounds of trust” (p. 43). She argues that it can be costly and inefficient to monitor trust relationships; thus, legal rules reduce transaction costs by providing safeguards that trust cannot.

Trust in the system of law is important

Legal scholars also argue that trust in the rule of law itself is important as well.¹ Indeed, Tyler (1998) asserts that trust is a key component of governance. In the legal context, judges, police, and other authority figures rely on the “voluntary compliance” of citizens to obey rules and regulations. Tyler (1991, 1998) argues that people obey the law, not because they agree with the law, but because they trust in the legitimacy and fairness of the system and the authorities who issue directives. Similarly, Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, and Quinton (2010) found that where citizens view police departments as being trustworthy, they are also more likely to view such departments as legitimate. Importantly, research also shows that trust can be fortified by a perception of a fair application of procedures and sanctions.

Research questions about trust from the legal literature

The majority of scholars analyzing the relationship between trust and the law seek to determine the role of trust in the realms of contract, corporate, or property law (Blair & Stout, 2001; Ribstein, 2001). While the law helps explain “external” inducements for cooperation, trust and trustworthiness help explain motivations that may be more “internal” (Blair & Stout, 2001). Indeed, it is clear from the research that the law acts as an “enforcer,” ensuring individuals and entities abide by agreements and work together (Frankel & Gordon, 2001, p. 324). On the contrary, trust also plays a beneficial role where there are fiduciary duties of loyalty and care because it “permits transactions to go forward on the basis of a handshake rather than a complex formal contract” (Blair & Stout, 2001, p. 1757). As a result, the most relevant questions in legal scholarship regarding law and trust ask how the two concepts interact with each other (Blair & Stout, 2001; Colombo, 2010; Cross, 2005; Ribstein, 2001): Do law and trust work together to help explain certain relational phenomena? Does the presence of law help build trust between parties where there is an absence of trust? Or does the law undermine trust by fostering distrust between individuals and groups?

Recommendations for the collaboration research agenda from legal research

There are three primary takeaways from the legal literature that could strengthen collaboration research at the systems or regime level as it relates to trust. First, the role of power and vulnerability to another’s power is an important consideration when it comes to defining trust or the lack thereof. Furthermore, the role of institutions that contribute to balancing power between individuals should not be overlooked.

Second, the legal literature teaches us that law-like mechanisms may be used to fill the gap where trust is lacking. In the case of collaborations, system-level principles, rules, and norms, as well as mandates and sanctions, can be put in place to act as safeguards where trust is weak. Here, collaborations can be mandated and/or individual collaborators can specify promises and expectations in contract-like agreements. However, special care should be taken in situations where strong forms of trust already exist. Such law-like mechanisms may not be needed in those cases and may even undermine the trust that exists.

The third lesson provides that governing rules and principles in a collaboration can strengthen the ability and likelihood that parties collaborate where the rules (and sanctions) are perceived to be fair and consistent (Paris, 1995). Here, even if individual collaborators do not trust each other, they should find the collaborative governance regime to be trustworthy and legitimate (Tyler, 1991).

Putting It All Together: Yes, Virginia, You May Collaborate in the Absence of Trust

In 2006, Bingham and O’Leary wrote of the problem of “parallel play” in collaboration research where researchers in diverse disciplines explore the phenomenon of collaboration, but are not aware of each other’s existence, do not read each other’s work, or pay attention to each other’s theories. This problem continues today and is nowhere more obvious than in the treatment of the concept of “trust” in the collaboration literature. As this article has demonstrated, there is much that the collaboration research community can learn from the disciplines of conflict resolution, psychology, and law, especially as it informs theory about trust on the interpersonal, interorganizational, and system levels. Despite the fact that each of these disciplines agree, generally, that trust is an asset and that trust building is desirable, each discipline has different ways of viewing trust, including using different definitions, building on different theoretical assumptions, and asking different types of research questions.

Public management scholars have struggled with arriving at a useful definition of trust, all the while emphasizing its importance. Drawing on the theory and literature of conflict resolution, psychology, and law, we offer the following definition of collaborative trust: Collaborative trust is an individual perception that is the product of one’s assessments, experiences, and dispositions, in which one believes, and is willing to act on, the words, actions, and decisions of others. This can include a reliance on principles, rules, norms, and decision-making procedures that articulate collective expectations. This definition reflects the requirement that one individual depend on another, emphasized in conflict resolution literature, that individuals and groups be vulnerable to one another (Chung, 2008), highlighted in the psychology literature, but also suggests the ability to reduce transaction costs (Ribstein, 2001) if experiences demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness, noted in the legal literature.

Bringing these streams of literature together, we see that there are distinct assumptions about trust that are directly applicable to collaboration research. Scholars across the three disciplines agree that trust is an asset, a preferred antecedent, and a desired ingredient. At the same time, these literatures point out that collaboration can indeed be successful in a situation of diminished trust, even in the absence of trust.

The conflict resolution literature emphasizes that trust between individuals can be built deliberately through iterative strategies. Furthermore, trust is not a unitary concept: there are degrees of trust. To this end, Lewicki’s (2014) combinations of trust and distrust may help further collaboration research in this area. Tied in with this, and also important is the idea that the lack of trust is not the same as distrust. According to this literature, parties to a collaboration can distrust each other, but trust the process in which they are engaged. Hence, it is possible to collaborate in the absence of trust. Whether such a collaboration is costlier and whether outcomes are equally satisfactory to all parties as might be in a collaboration with trust is a matter for further research.

The psychology literature reminds us of the value of understanding the role of individuals within group settings. According to work from this discipline, trust is a product of individual assessments, experiences, and dispositions. Understanding relational and global trust is important, as is understanding the ways in which individual levels of trust affect group-level behavior and outcomes. While this literature addresses the potential negative impacts of distrust, research reveals that trust in other members of a team is not necessarily a predictor of performance.

The legal literature emphasizes the idea that it is possible to collaborate in the absence of trust, and law and trust can act as meaningful complements to each other where trust relationships are weak or not possible. Here, there are limits to the protection law can provide and may yield complications such as high monitoring costs. Like the discipline of conflict resolution, the discipline of law also maintains that trust can be fortified by a perception of a fair application of procedures and sanctions (procedural justice).

Taken together, these insights illustrate the ways in which trust has been defined and examined across disciplines. The resulting theoretical boundary-spanning lessons not only demonstrate the importance of understanding trust, but they also serve to question some fundamental existing assumptions about trust in the collaboration literature. Clearly, one may collaborate in the absence of trust, and it is time for public administration theory to embrace this idea to build more robust theory and practice concerning collaborative governance.

Footnotes

*Authors’ Note

Authors’ names are alphabetical; all work was equal.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Robin Kempf

Author Biographies

Heather Getha-Taylor is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas. Her research and teaching interests focus on collaborative governance, public service leadership, and human resource management.

Misty J. Grayer is a Limited Term Assistant Professor of Public Administration at Kennesaw State University. Her research and teaching interests focus on law and public management, collaborative governance, organizational behavior, and public policy.

Robin J. Kempf is an Assistant Professor in the Public Management Department of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the City University of New York. Her research interests focus on government accountability, institutional development, and organizational behavior.

Rosemary O’Leary is Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor and Director of the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas. Her research interests focus on collaborative governance, leadership, environmental policy, and law.

References

Agranoff

(2003). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

Agranoff

McGuire

(2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 295-326.

Agranoff

McGuire

(2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Albrecht

Travaglione

(2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 76-92.

Ansell

Gash

(2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.

Axelrod

R. M.

(1984). The evolution of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaborataion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bannister

Connolly

(2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 137-147.

Bardach

(1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Bellia

A. J.

Jr. (2002). Promises, trust, and contract law. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 47, 25-40.

10.

Bennis

W. G.

Nanus

(1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper Business.

11.

Berg

Dickhaut

McCabe

(1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-142.

12.

Berman

E. M.

(1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57, 105-112.

13.

Bigley

G. A.

Pearce

J. L.

(1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405-421.

14.

Bingham

L. B.

O’Leary

(2006). Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: Missing questions, missing connections. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 161-167.

15.

Blair

M. M.

Stout

L. A.

(2001). Symposium norms and corporate law: Trust, trustworthiness, and the behavioral foundations of corporate law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149, 1735-1810.

16.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wilson.

17.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M.

(2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.

18.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M.

(2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75, 647-663.

19.

Chisholm

(1989). Coordination without hierarchy: Informal structures in multiorganizational systems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

20.

Christensen

Lægreid

(2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28, 487-511.

21.

Chung

J. J.

(2008). Promissory estoppel and the protection of interpersonal trust. Cleveland State Law Review, 56, 37-82.

22.

Colombo

R. J.

(2010). Trust and the reform of securities regulation. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 38, 829-878.

23.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

LePine

J. A.

(2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927.

24.

Connelly

D. R.

Zhang

Faerman

(2008). The paradoxical nature of collaboration. In Bingham

L. B.

O’Leary

(Eds.) Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 17-35). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

25.

Cooper

C. A.

Knotts

H. G.

Brennan

K. M.

(2008). The importance of trust in government for public administration: The case of zoning. Public Administration Review, 68, 459-468.

26.

Couch

L. L.

Adams

J. M.

Jones

W. H.

(1996). The assessment of trust orientation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 305-323.

27.

Couch

L. L.

Jones

W. H.

(1997). Measuring levels of trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 319-336.

28.

Crosby

B. C.

Bryson

J. M.

(2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211-230.

29.

Cross

F. B.

(2005). Law and trust. The Georgetown Law Journal, 93, 1457-1546.

30.

D’Agostino

M. J.

Kloby

(2011). Building community capacity to engage government: Reflections of nonprofit leaders on post-Katrina New Orleans. Administration & Society, 43, 749-769.

31.

Daley

D. M.

Vasu

M. L.

(1998). Fostering organizational trust in North Carolina: The pivotal role of administrators and political leaders. Administration & Society, 30, 62-84.

32.

Denhardt

J. V.

Campbell

K. B.

(2006). The role of democratic values in transformational leadership. Administration & Society, 38, 556-572.

33.

Deutsch

(1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.

34.

Dirks

K. T.

(1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.

35.

Dirks

K. T.

(2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004-1012.

36.

Edelenbos

Klijn

E.-H.

(2007). Trust in complex decision-making networks: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration & Society, 39, 25-50.

37.

Emerson

Nabatchi

(2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

38.

Emerson

Nabatchi

Balogh

(2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.

39.

Fisher

(1991). Beyond yes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Program on Negotiation.

40.

Fisher

Brown

(1988). Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to yes. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

41.

Fisher

Ury

(1978). International mediation, a working guide: Ideas for the practitioner. International Peace Academy.

42.

Forrer

Kee

J. E.

Newcomer

K. E.

Boyer

(2010). Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70, 475-484.

43.

Frankel

Gordon

W. J.

(2001). Introduction. Boston University Law Review, 81, 321-327.

44.

Gambetta

(1990). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

45.

Gazley

(2008). Inter-sectoral collaboration and the motivation to collaborate: Toward an integrated theory. In Bingham

L.B.

O’Leary

(Eds.) Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 36-54). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

46.

Gefen

(2013). Psychology of trust: New research. New York, NY: Nova Science.

47.

Gillespie

N. A.

Mann

(2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588-607.

48.

Goldsmith

Kettl

D. F.

(2009). Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

49.

Golembiewski

R. T.

McConkie

M. L.

(1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. In Cooper

C. L.

(Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131-185). New York, NY: John Wiley.

50.

Gould-Williams

(2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 28-54.

51.

Grey

Garsten

(2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22, 229-250.

52.

Grönlund

Setälä

(2012). In honest officials we trust: Institutional confidence in Europe. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 523-542.

53.

Heintzman

Marson

(2005). People, service and trust: Is there a public sector service value chain? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 549-575.

54.

Hill

C. A.

O’Hara

E. A.

(2006). A cognitive theory of trust. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1717-1796.

55.

Hough

Jackson

Bradford

Myhill

Quinton

(2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4, 203-210.

56.

Jarvenpaa

Tiller

E. H.

(2001). Customer trust in virtual environments: A managerial perspective. Boston University Law Review, 81, 665-686.

57.

Johnson-George

Swap

W. C.

(1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1306-1317.

58.

Kamarck

E. C.

(2003). Applying 21st-century government to the challenge of homeland security. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

59.

Kampen

J. K.

Van de Walle

Bouckaert

(2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 29, 387-404.

60.

Kim

S. E.

(2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration & Society, 37, 611-635.

61.

Kim

S. E.

(2010). Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? Public Administration Review, 70, 801-810.

62.

Klijn

E.-H.

Edelenbos

Steijn

(2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration & Society, 42, 193-221.

63.

Koski

(2013). Does a partnership need partners? Assessing partnerships for critical infrastructure protection. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 327-342.

64.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

65.

Krasner

S. D.

(1983). International regimes. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

66.

Lamothe

(2012). To trust or not to trust? What matters in local government-vendor relationships? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 867-892.

67.

Larzelere

R. E.

Huston

T. L.

(1980). The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 595-604.

68.

Lewicki

R. J.

(2014). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In Morton

Coleman

P. T.

Marcus

E. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 104-106). New York, NY: John Wiley.

69.

Lewicki

R. J.

Bunker

B. B.

(1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In Trust in organizations: Chapter 7 in Kramer

R.M.

, and Tyler

T.M.

, eds. Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

70.

Lewicki

R. J.

McAllister

D. J.

Bies

R. J.

(1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.

71.

Linden

R. M.

(2010). Leading across boundaries: Creating collaborative agencies in a networked world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

72.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

73.

McGregor

(1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

74.

Miller

A. S.

Mitamura

(2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy? Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 62-70.

75.

Milward

H. B.

Provan

K. G.

(2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

76.

Moore

C. W.

(2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

77.

Morgan

(2014, May 20). The decline of trust in the United States: A look at the trend and what can be done about it. Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@monarchjogs/the-decline-of-trust-in-the-united-states-fb8ab719b82a

78.

Nyhan

R. C.

(2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30, 87-109.

79.

O’Leary

Amsler

Kopell

(2005). Environmental conflict resolution: Strategies for environmental grantmakers. Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

80.

O’Leary

Bingham

L. B.

(Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

81.

O’Leary

Choi

Gerard

(2012). The skill set of the successful collaborator. Public Administration Review, 72(Suppl. 1), S70-S83.

82.

O’Leary

Gerard

Bingham

(2006). Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 6-9.

83.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

84.

Paris

M. L.

(1995). Faults, fallacies, and the future of our criminal justice system: Trust, lies and interrogation. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 3, 147-435.

85.

Pautz

M. C.

Wamsley

C. S.

(2012). Pursuing trust in environmental regulatory interactions: The significance of inspectors’ interactions with the regulated community. Administration & Society, 44, 853-884.

86.

Pitts

D. W.

(2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 615-631.

87.

Provan

K. G.

Kenis

(2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229-252.

88.

Pruitt

D. G.

(1981). Negotiation behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.

89.

Rempel

J. K.

Holmes

J. G.

Zanna

M. P.

(1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.

90.

Ribstein

L. E.

(2001). Symposium trust relationships part 2 of 2: Law v. trust. Boston University Law Review, 81, 553-600.

91.

Ring

P. S.

van de Ven

A. H.

(1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 90-118.

92.

Romzek

B. S.

LeRoux

Johnston

Kempf

R. J.

Piatak

J. S.

(2014). Informal accountability in multisector service delivery collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 813-842.

93.

Rotter

J. B.

(1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.

94.

Rotter

J. B.

(1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.

95.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.

96.

Ruscio

K. P.

(1996). Trust, democracy, and public management: A theoretical argument. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 461-478.

97.

Salamon

L. M.

(2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

98.

Simpson

J. A.

(2007a). Foundations of interpersonal trust. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 587-607). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

99.

Simpson

J. A.

(2007b). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 264-268.

100.

Tedeschi

J. T.

Hiester

D. S.

Gahagan

J. P.

(1969). Trust and the prisoner’s dilemma game. The Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 43-50.

101.

Thomas

C. W.

(1998). Maintaining and restoring public trust in government agencies and their employees. Administration & Society, 30, 166-193.

102.

Thomson

A. M.

Perry

J. L.

(2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the Black box [Special Issue]. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.

103.

Tyler

T. R.

(1991). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

104.

Tyler

T. R.

(1998). Trust and democratic governance. Trust and Governance, 1, 269-294.

105.

Van de Walle

Bouckaert

(2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 891-913.

106.

Van de Walle

Van Roosbroek

Bouckaert

(2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74, 47-64.

107.

Van Slyke

D. M

. (2009). Collaboration and relational contracting. In O’Leary

Bingham

L.B.

(Eds.) The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 137-155). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

108.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2007). Citizens’ perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 285-305.

109.

Visser

J. A.

(2002). Understanding local government cooperation in urban regions: Toward a cultural model of interlocal relations. The American Review of Public Administration, 32, 40-65.

110.

Welch

E. W.

Hinnant

C. C.

Moon

M. J.

(2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with E-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 371-391.

111.

Worchel

(1979). Trust and distrust. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 174-187). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

112.

Wrightsman

L. S.

Jr. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychological Reports, 14, 743-751.

113.

Yang

(2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65, 273-285.

114.

Yang

(2006). Trust and citizen involvement decisions: Trust in citizens, trust in institutions, and propensity to trust. Administration & Society, 38, 573-595.

115.

Ysa

Sierra

Esteve

(2014). Determinants of network outcomes: The impact of management strategies. Public Administration, 92, 636-655.

116.

Zaheer

McEvily

Perrone

(1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141-159.

117.

Zartman

I. W.

Berman

M. R.

(1982). The practical negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.