Studying trust in the leader by co-produced autoethnography: an organizational esthetics approach

Päivi Kosonen (Business School, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland)
Mirjami Ikonen (Business School, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland)

Journal of Organizational Ethnography

ISSN: 2046-6749

Article publication date: 21 February 2022

Issue publication date: 4 April 2023

1312

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims at examining the prospects and possibilities of autoethnography in trust research. The focus of this study is on trust-building in a management team from an esthetic leadership perspective. The empirical context of the study is the organization of higher education during a funding reform.

Design/methodology/approach

This study adopted a qualitative research strategy with co-produced autoethnographic methods. The data comprised the researcher's diary, field notes and written texts from informants. Autoethnographic methods were applied in data gathering; more precisely, the data were collected by the moving observing method of shadowing and complemented with the management team's written texts reporting their feelings. The data were analyzed by constructing autoethnographic vignettes and a critical frame story.

Findings

The findings of the study contribute to the methodological discussion of autoethnographic research when studying a complex phenomenon such as trust-building. The findings suggest that the role of authenticity in trust-building may vary depending on the esthetic leadership style. Furthermore, the findings contribute to the esthetic leadership theory by a proposal of esthetic reassurance as intentional leader-embodied communication aiming to reinforce follower trust in a leader.

Originality/value

Co-produced autoethnography is applied in studying trust-building. Furthermore, this paper provides an inside view of the meaning of esthetics in leader-follower relationships in higher education organizations.

Keywords

Citation

Kosonen, P. and Ikonen, M. (2023), "Studying trust in the leader by co-produced autoethnography: an organizational esthetics approach", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-04-2021-0020

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Päivi Kosonen and Mirjami Ikonen

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of the method of co-produced autoethnography in organizational trust research and further, examine leader-embodied trust-building within a management team during difficult financial times. The focus of our study is to deepen the understanding of the meaning of esthetic leadership in trust-building. The context of this study is an organization of higher education (HE) during a funding reform. Trust in a crisis is also a crisis of trust (Möllering, 2013, p. 299). When a person is likely to sense that their feeling of safety is somehow threatened, e.g. when the employing organization that they depend on is undergoing a crisis, they are likely to engage in controlling and defensive behavior (McAllister, 1995; Zand, 1972). The flow of both positive and negative emotions among the people involved in a trust relationship is fueled by organizational engagement practices (Sloan and Oliver, 2013, p. 1862). If the untrusting nature and atmosphere of an organizational crisis appear as controlling and monitoring behavior on the part of the leader, it may engage the followers in negative and defensive behavior, since leaders may unintentionally define organizational reality through engagement with followers (Sloan and Oliver, 2013; McAllister, 1995; Kramer, 1999, p. 589). During the crisis, all eyes of the followers turn to the leader of the organization, and the management team as the leader's deployed representatives within the organization. The organization's ability to maintain a normal level of functionality during a crisis is crucial, and hence the focus of the current paper is on a leader's ability to support and strengthen the trust of the management team members through embodied leadership. By embodied leadership, we refer to the focus from leadership competencies to leaderful practices (Fisher and Robbins, 2015) at the HE organization of the study.

Trust and trusting behaviors are distinct but intertwined (Zhu et al., 2021). The definition of trust (a willingness to be vulnerable and a belief) includes the cognitive, affective and behavioral components of trust (Mishra, 1996). Mayer et al. (1995) developed a model of organizational trust according to which several characteristics of both parties lead to trust. Early trust researchers such as Rotter (1967, p. 651) have defined interpersonal trust as an “expectancy by an individual that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”.

Among scholars, trust is often referred to as one's positive expectations of the likelihood of a desirable action being performed by the other party. For example, Klaussner (2012) states that positive expectations are an important condition for trust to develop. Expectancies (future orientation of trust) or beliefs (critical role of perceptions about the other party in trust) regarding the trustworthiness of the other party emerge in a variety of trust definitions. Expectations in the definitions of trust are related to the positive expectations of trustworthiness (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). Emotional components of trust may dominate in interpersonal relationships (Schilke et al., 2021).

The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party is based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of their ability to control that other party (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). An individual takes the risk of being vulnerable in anticipation of a positive expectation of the intentions and actions of another (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Rousseau et al., 1998). The vulnerability may also entail admitting one's weaknesses and acknowledging one's own mistakes, although this is not to say that competence is irrelevant, even if the vulnerability is more about taking risks. The notion of willingness to be vulnerable and the suspension of uncertainty are positioned at the heart of the concept of trust (Möllering, 2006), and in this study, we rely on this definition.

In this study, we have adopted a qualitative approach with co-produced autoethnographic methods. We propose that novel qualitative methods are required to acquire a more holistic and situated understanding of trust-building in real life. If ethnography is the approach that provides “thick descriptions” of how cultural reality is constructed (Geertz, 1973), autoethnography has the same objective by using the researcher's own experiences as primary data (Chang, 2013). Doing autoethnographic research as a collaborative action implies the juxtaposed co-construction of the story told on the part of the researchers (Ellis, 2007). Drawing from this methodology, in the current paper we aim to deepen our understanding of the question: How does the leader build trust within the management team through esthetic leadership?

Co-produced autoethnography – living in the context

In the field

Due to the multifaceted nature of trust, we chose in the current study to follow a qualitative research strategy implementing autoethnographic methods. Our study has features of personal narratives as well as co-constructed narratives (Ellis et al., 2011) Sometimes individual experiences become the starting point of research (Silverman, 2017), and that was the case in this study. During data gathering (2014), the first author Päivi had the opportunity to observe leader communication and related situations as the subject of study in her employer university. Päivi started to study the lived realities of her home organization and thus, the nature of this study is recognized as at-home ethnography or insider ethnography (Alvesson, 2009; Vickers, 2019). Furthermore, this study has features of co-produced autoethnography (Kempster et al., 2008) because the analysis and interpretation of autoethnographic vignettes were performed by two authors. The second author Mirjami has the role of co-constructor (Ellis, 2007). The relationship between the authors is between a doctoral candidate Päivi and a dissertation supervisor Mirjami. The authors together have had numerous discussions about the data during the research process that took several years; therefore, Mirjami could contribute to a co-produced analysis together with Päivi. This has been accomplished by critically reflecting on the data through a shared understanding of the context: both of us have worked in HE organizations for several years or even decades, which supports our understanding of the context of this study. An autoethnographic approach is a constructive approach based on personal experience allowing researchers to focus on producing meaningful, accessible and evocative research (Pitard, 2016). Autoethnography provides both the process of the study and its product (Ellis et al., 2011).

For academics, implementing autoethnographic research of phenomena in HE organizations is a reasoned choice due to natural access (Sambrook and Herrmann, 2018). The context of this study is an organization of HE during a severe funding reform that pushed the organization into a financial crisis. The target organization of the study, a Finnish University of Applied Sciences, faced a historically new situation. Due to the large-scale crisis in the global economy in 2008, the sector of HE has faced a completely new situation in which legislators have rocked the foundations of the system relating to ownership, financing and administration (Kosonen et al., 2015).

The data of the current paper were collected in 2014 by Päivi using a combination of multiple methods and it consists of one primary and two complementary data. The data of the study are summarized in Table 1. The moving observing method, shadowing, was used to produce the primary data by following the management team in real-life situations. Shadowing as a research method belongs to the family of the following methods along with interviews, observation and different types of participant observation (McDonald and Simpson, 2014). Czarniawska (2007) describes shadowing as different from other types of observation in that it is a moving method of observation. Shadowing allows the observer to see and experience more and create a dynamic relationship with the person being shadowed (Czarniawska, 2007). The method was chosen for its advantages in collecting authentic esthetic data. The method of shadowing was used in this study to observe leader non-verbal behavior within the management team. The management team consisted of 12 divisional and administrational directors. The shadowing was not participatory, but the researcher (Päivi) moved with the leader during the shadowing period of two days. The organization allowed Päivi to make field notes on the shadowing process, but no recordings were permitted. Field notes were transcribed and formed descriptive vignettes during the analysis, together with complementary data to describe the findings.

The field notes in this study were written with a focus on describing the movement and activities of the leader and management team in addition to speech. Here's an example of diary entry:

[The leader] holds doors open for everyone [management team members], is very interested in everything, touches everything, but gives room for others and stays in the background. We move to another building. In a meeting room [the leader] is positioned at the end of the table and [the leader] leans his face in his hands before talking […]

The researcher's diaries were used to complement the shadowing data as the first complementary data. The period for data collection covered six months in 2014 from obtaining a research permit to completing the shadowing process. For ethnographic research, this is a rather short time (Vickers, 2019). The insider role Päivi ensured a pre-understanding of the organization and thus enabled a shorter period of data collection without loss of depth. The management team that was observed alongside the leader was asked to report their perceptions of the organization, the leader and especially communication within the organization in the form of written texts. Six members of the management team wrote texts for the second complementary data of this study.

After the field

The data of this article is more a story, a continuum of events, than very consistently collected traditional research data. The methodological approach of the article is new to trust research: the method of shadowing has no prior role in empirical trust research. The method of analysis was chosen to describe the research setting in the best possible way. The findings of the analysis in this article are reported as autoethnographic vignettes. Based on a qualitative approach, descriptive vignettes are used to illustrate trust-building in different situational contexts (Yeo, 2020). In autoethnography, the results of the study are a part of the story, and hence we have chosen to report our findings as a two-layered story reflecting both the data and the research process.

The purpose of the vignette's method is generally defined as providing entry points to possibly complex research questions, as vignettes selectively stimulate elements of the research topic under examination (Kandemir and Budd, 2018). In autoethnographic studies, the meaning of vignettes is to describe the researcher-generated anecdotal data (Pitard, 2016), since the observations and perceptions might otherwise be difficult to communicate. As a method of reporting, the descriptive vignettes can be used as a narrative form of presenting research findings (Erickson, 2012) as a verbal illustration of the phenomenon. Barter and Renold (1999) state that the main reasons for using vignettes in social research are to allow actions in context to be explored, to clarify people's judgments and to provide a less personal and less threatening way of exploring sensitive topics. In this study, the data were collected by Päivi who then wrote the three vignettes. The writing acts as a process of analysis combining, the data and the vignettes as a product to report the findings of the study.

The collaboration of authors in the analysis process of the data is reported in this paper as a frame story. The discussions between the authors during and after data gathering produce an additional layer of analysis to our study by connecting the findings with a wider context of HE. Furthermore, the co-produced discussions reflect and evaluate the chosen methodology in studying organizational trust. Using a research approach such as autoethnography highlights the role of the researcher as an interpreter. In our study, Päivi's insider observations and interpretation are further developed in collaboration with Mirjami by telling the story and reflecting it in a wider context than Päivi's home organization. Our study also recognizes the co-production of the story with the informants. The informants (the leader and the members of the management team) were able to tell their side of the story during shadowing and especially through their written texts. The methodological choices of this study allow two levels of analysis. The process of analysis is summarized in the following Figure 1.

We report the findings of our study in the following chapter in the form of three vignettes: “a wise leader”, “suspicious peers” and “like herding cats”. The vignettes are framed and interpreted through relevant theoretical background as well as by the reflective discussions of us authors in our roles as a PhD student and her supervisor.

Leadership as experience–embodied trust-building

A wise leader

Päivi: “So, the data gathering for my dissertation has taken a new turn. The original purpose was to focus solely on financial communication within higher education on the part of the leader. However, observation has shown that the emotions connected to the finance-based challenges within the organization are far too interesting and meaningful to bypass. People appeared to be worried about what was going on. I had a meeting with my supervisor to discuss how the data gathering was proceeding and we ended up having a conversation about the prevailing sense of vulnerability in higher education. ‘It feels like in my university we go from crisis to crisis …’ Cuts in public funding, an increase in student intake or the leap to online teaching during the current pandemic are recent examples of distressing situations within our industry. ‘Who do we look at when we are trying to make sense of a new situation at work? We look at the leader. Why do not you try to see the leader through the eyes of his followers in your study and see what you can find out?’ Mirjami asked.”

Our study builds on the theories of trust-building and esthetic leadership. We describe leader non-verbal behavior during a financial crisis, and how trust appears within the HE organization management team. Non-verbal leader behavior lacks a single established definition (Ladkin and Taylor, 2010). Schmid Mast and Darioly (2014, p. 74) define non-verbal behavior to be “any behavior other than speech content”. They suggest that in a leadership context, non-verbal communication might be even more important than verbal communication.

Päivi: “I was permitted to shadow the leader of my home organization for a few days, and I focused on seeing him through the eyes of his management team as my supervisor suggested:”

I begin at a meeting of the board of directors of the organization. The leader sits at the end of a long table where the management team members are gathered. The discussion seems to be very vivid and open; the atmosphere is relaxed even though some of the topics are not easy. The organization is going through the changes necessitated by national regulatory reform. Financial perspectives come up frequently, and after the meeting, the members are asked to write texts describing their feelings and perceptions of the communication in the meeting, information shared with them and their perception of the organization as an employer at that moment and in the future. The writings indicated a firm belief in the organization, a wise leader and a determined board of directors that trust each other in times of trouble:

I believe that [target University of Applied Sciences (UAS)] will be strengthened, condensed, maybe slightly reduced in size, but remain an independent UAS in the province. In line with the strategy, we work strongly with our partners and we manage with our closeness to working life and our quality. We graduate as skilled students who value their UAS. Our international operations, especially in the direction of neighboring country, are developing. Our research, development and innovation operations will be strengthened and become even more strategic.

The moment reported in the vignette above seems to signal firm trust within the management team in the turbulent situation, rather than the vulnerability which was the first feeling of us authors. The relationship of the concepts sheds a light on this finding.

The existing conceptualizations acknowledge the relation of esthetics to charismatic and transformational leadership as well as authenticity (Ladkin, 2008, 2018; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010; Hansen et al., 2007). Whereas Hansen et al. (2007) lean toward sensory knowledge and shared emotion based on the definition of esthetics, Ladkin (2008, p. 2018) takes on the more descriptive approach of esthetics meaning a beautiful, good and embodied way of leadership. Esthetic sensibility in leader behavior seems to work as a means to strengthen follower emotional engagement and leads to the empathetic engagement required for ethical caring between a leader and followers (Ladkin, 2018). Authenticity is seen to operate esthetically (Ladkin, 2008); hence followers get a sense of a leader's trustworthiness in a sensory knowledge or even intuitive way (Hansen et al., 2007). Embodied leadership seems to be contradictory (Ladkin and Taylor, 2010): acting authentically would entail the leader showing emotions and bodily reactions, which might not fit the role of leader in all situations. The focus of an authentic leader is on the importance of the altruistic, self-directive and genuine position of one's role as a leader, the key features that were missing in the previous leadership theories (Avolio et al., 2009). Open authenticity in leader behavior could lead to confusion among followers looking for guidance (Häkkinen, 2012). For example, emotional outbursts can cause an unconditional trust to change to conditional trust or even distrust (Jones and George, 1998). The data of this study aroused our interest in leader authenticity in trust-building because certain features of the above-mentioned contradiction were evident.

Suspicious peers

Päivi: “I need to call Mirjami. I'm overwhelmed and feel a bit hurt. I had thought that researching my home university would be a good and appreciated thing. That it would provide new information about the organization to the leaders and help the organization to develop, but something happened that disturbed my ideal thinking. I'm almost on the verge of tears and luckily, she answers the phone: ‘they do not want me to do my dissertation!’ She calmly asks what has happened and I talk about my day …”

I am observing at a staff meeting of one of the departments of the organization. The directors of all the departments are members of the management team and are aware of the access which the leader of the organization has granted me at all of the staff meetings to observe and to collect the same kind of texts as they wrote. In this meeting, the director of the department introduces me and encourages the staff to write down their perceptions in the texts. I keep thinking about what has happened after the observation of the management team. It was difficult for me to attend all the meetings, and the directors had an email discussion about whether I could attend via an e-conference solution. They prohibited this. One of them was reluctant even to allow recordings of any type. Some took a long time to arrange the meeting or even to answer emails concerning the research. Some emails never got replies. One of the directors kept asking the staff if everyone was okay with the observing. In some way, the access to the organization which the leader had granted me had crashed into a wall of control by the department directors. After the observations, there is a random discussion at a coffee break about my research and an opportunity to attend a conference to present a paper. One of the directors is present and asks: “And exactly what are you going to say about us there?”

Päivi: “We are still talking on the phone. I am calm and we discuss the nuances of trust in my experiences in the fieldwork. It seems that the management team members trust the leader in his position to lead the organization, but do not trust him at all for giving me access to observe the organization and do the research. ‘Can we trust and distrust people at the same time?’ I ask. ‘This seems like a perfect example of the coexistence of these concepts’ my supervisor replies. I'm really worried about how I am ever going to be able to analyze these data because of the feelings of hurt this situation has raised. ‘Use this experience as a tool of analysis: what does this behavior of the management team tell you about the trust they have in their leader and their organization?’ Mirjami asks.”

Emotions play a crucial role in leadership, relational processes and human interaction (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Ashkanasy and Daus, 2001), explicitly linked to specific events or circumstances, whereas moods are not so clearly tied to specific situations (Jones and George, 1998). For example, individuals in a positive mood are more likely to increase interpersonal trust based on situational cues (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012) and even incidental, separate emotions may affect interpersonal trust development (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005).

Prior trust research has recognized the coexistence of trust and distrust in relationships and organizations. Trust and distrust are dimensionally distinct constructs based on cognition, affect and intentions (Lewicki et al., 2006). In the mainstream of trust research, trust and distrust are conceptualized as separate but related constructs (Lewicki et al., 1998). Lewicki et al. (2006) also state that trust and distrust increase in depth and breadth, which is not explicitly considered to be the conceptualization of the co-existence of trust and distrust. We consider the coexistence of trust and distrust to be a possibility that “there may be simultaneous reasons for both trust and distrust of another within the same relationship” (Lewicki et al., 2006, p. 1002). The coexistence of trust and distrust may produce turns and shifts within relationships, both at dyadic and team levels. Unwelcome news may play a significant role in the development of distrust.

Reflecting on the prior distrust research, it seems that the management team members showed distrusting behavior toward me during data gathering. They embodied protective, refraining and controlling responses to the data gathering process even though the leader had granted a research permit and showed strong support for the study. The multi-faceted nature of trust seems to be manifested in our findings. Does the management team's distrusting behavior result from my actions as an insider researcher or the leader's behavior in this matter? Or from something not connected to the research at all? The leader gave the subordinate permission to participate in situations and discussions to which she would normally have no access. Was that the frightening event that pushed the management team toward distrusting behavior?

Competence-based trust is typically emphasized in work relationships. Trust within work relationships develops between actors depending on the nature and functionality of work relationships, e.g. management team or manager-subordinate relationships (Shrivastava et al., 2018). The process is complex, non-linear and non-straightforward, with more of a wave-like development (Savolainen and Ikonen, 2016; Ikonen et al., 2016) and therefore, novel methodological approaches are needed in studying trust in organizational contexts.

Like Herding Cats

Päivi: “My fieldwork and data gathering are done for my study. I'm writing an email to report my progress and feelings at the end of this part of my road to a PhD to my supervisor who is at a conference.

Dear Mirjami,

I thought I knew what I was going to find when I started the fieldwork, after all, is my home organization! But I could never have guessed what this journey would be like. The ups and the downs of fieldwork might have been even aggravated because it was an inside job, this observation. There was a plot twist at the end of the shadowing. I thought I had been looking at the leader as he is and as he is seen by his management team. But he revealed that he feels he must behave this way to be able to lead the team because it is ‘like herding cats’. I was so amazed by this turn of events that I need to take some time to figure out the meaning of an intentional change of behavior for the trust framework. I'm confused. Let's talk more when you return!

Best,

Päivi”

Non-verbal leader behavior aims at strengthening the followers' perceptions of themselves and the leader's support for them. Not necessarily authentic, it can be used as a tool of control by the leader. Hansen et al. (2007, pp. 550–557) discuss the roots of esthetics, in which authentic leadership appears to have a significant role. Followers do sense when a leader is true to him or herself, and implicitly trust the leader as being genuine (Hansen et al., 2007). Authenticity in leader behavior is said to result in heightened levels of trust, engagement, workplace well-being and a more follower-inclusive and caring organizational climate (Hansen et al., 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Jones and George, 1998; Gardner et al., 2005). Schmid Mast and Darioly (2014, p. 75) suggest that individuals in leadership positions express their power and authority not only verbally but also non-verbally to get their followers' attention and exert influence over them. Continuing this idea, Schmid Mast and Darioly (2014) points out that a leader non-verbal behavior is different according to a leader's expectations of the followers' performance, and that this is undetectable by followers. Remland et al. (1983) stated that when the leader's verbal and non-verbal cues are in contradiction, the followers are more likely to trust the leader's non-verbal cues. This has a clear connection to the esthetics introduced above, where felt meaning and follower perceptions of leader behavior form the base for the whole theoretical setting.

As a counterpart for esthetic leadership, Taylor (2018) introduces grotesque leadership. Grotesque is an esthetic category; hence it means that it is a name we give to our immediate felt experience of something (Taylor, 2018). The concept of grotesque leadership includes several consistent themes: it is a corporeal and affective response, it is connected to fear and anxiety, it is about alienation and estrangement, and it is fundamentally subversive. While studying trust-building in an organization in crisis, we pay attention to the critical aspect of grotesque leadership, how these leaders manage to both allay and increase the followers' fears; the balance of just the right amount of fear and anxiety seems to be critical (Taylor, 2018).

Below is the vignette written from the end of the shadowing process of this study. The leader Päivi was shadowing showed trusting behavior toward me as a researcher and revealed something which this very intimate research method enabled.

I am back with the board of directors; actually, I am shadowing the leader, but it naturally becomes shadowing the whole management team. They are evaluating some real estate property, having a walking meeting. The leader gives a lot of space for the directors; does not say much, lets others speak first, walks on the side of the group. If one did not know, it would be very difficult to spot which one is the leader. The directors have a lively discussion in which they all take part. Later that day, the leader had several meetings with different directors alone. In these meetings, the leader allows the director to lead and present their perceptions freely. The leader sits across the table from the director, holding his hands behind his head and looking at the ceiling, listening calmly, asking questions, if necessary, no domination in the way the leader acts. During one short break when we are just the two of us alone, the leader tells me that his behavior is chosen because: “This is like herding cats”.

We interpret from the data that trust is not merely a feeling or emotion, but rather, the role of affect is crucial in the process of trust development. Moods and emotions may both be a powerful foundation for trust in ongoing relationships and situations (Jones and George, 1998) as explicitly linked to events or circumstances, whereas moods are not so tied to specific situations as are emotions. During unconditional trust, the exchange relationship is based on shared values and described with positive affections and a sense of meaning (Jones and George, 1998). Further, even incidental, separate emotions may affect interpersonal trust development (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005).

Wright and Ehnert (2010) take the view that the rational choice perspective of trust negates emotion and social influences. Interestingly, emotions are often considered an outcome of trust, although they may also be viewed as antecedents. For example, emotion is considered an antecedent of trust because only a few investigations have focused on trust and affect (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). However, scholars appear to be unanimous about the importance of emotions in the trusting process. In this study, we have chosen the esthetic leadership perspective to shed more light on the process of trust and emotions in leadership.

To encapsulate our theoretical contribution to trust within leadership, trust-building is an essential skill for leaders and while the esthetic side of leadership is studied in the current paper, we focus on the esthetic, “sensory experience” of trust-building occurring in interaction within relationships. Esthetics in leadership relate to experienced meaning based on sensory perceptions but involve tacit knowledge rooted in emotion (Hansen et al., 2007). Tacit knowledge originates in everyday experiences and is understood in terms of professional intuition (Hansen et al., 2007). What is seen and heard, touched and smelled has an impact both on the cognition and emotions of an organizational actor. On the one hand, cognition-based trust expresses rationalism and knowledge (McAllister, 1995) and is based on an evaluation of personal characteristics, referring to beliefs about another's trustworthiness; relation-based affective trust refers to the role of emotions and the process of trust development (Lewicki et al., 2006). On the other hand, the effect felt toward the trustee plays a role in interpersonal trust (Lewicki et al., 2006).

Ethics of an autoethnography – protection of self and others

Carrying out research using autoethnographic data in its relational nature and particular characteristics raise some ethical considerations. “Researchers do not exist in isolation” (Ellis et al., 2011, p. 281). As humans, we are in constant co-existence with others. By sharing our experiences of lived lives we naturally include and expose the others of our lives in the narratives told (Ellis, 2007; Lapadat, 2017). Similarly, in autoethnographic studies, we expose ourselves and become perhaps more vulnerable than in other methodological approaches (Lee, 2018). The third ethical consideration linked to autoethnography is the reliability of the narrative; how to verify “the truth” from the narrative of the researcher's personal experiences? In this study, we tackled ethical considerations mostly using the multivocality suggested by Mizzi (2010): the plural voices of the others in both the vignettes and the written texts with the collaborative construction of the analysis by us authors. We suggest that the collaborative approach to autoethnographic research relieves the pressure and vulnerability of single-author autoethnographies. The public attention and interpretations of readers are shared (Ellis, 1999). On the topic of reliability, we see that our study benefits from the criteria of verisimilitude (Loh, 2013) as the sense of the story seeming “true” and “alive”. The quality of verisimilitude is thought to be important because it allows the reader to have a vicarious experience of being in a similar situation, and thereby to understand the feelings and perceptions of the participants in the study (Loh, 2013). This study received a research permit from the leader of the target organization. All the others knew they were being studied and, due to the multi-data strategy, were able to tell their side of the story.

Discussion and concluding thoughts

In this paper, we aimed to explore the use of the method of co-produced autoethnography in organizational trust research. The focus of this study is to deepen the understanding of the meaning of esthetic leadership in trust-building. Autoethnography, along with other social science methods, shares the assumption that a societal understanding can be gained from studying the experience of its members. However, autoethnography dramatically distinguishes itself from other objectivist or qualitative social science methods by blurring the boundary between the researcher and the researched (Chang, 2021). By the approach we have taken in this study, we aim for deepened societal understanding of the relations between esthetic leadership and trust-building in the rarely studied context of HE organization.

Studying trust-building using co-produced autoethnography

The methodological contribution of our study is that as a result of our methodological choices, the multi-level nature and nuances of trust became apparent. Hence, we suggest that methodologically, the autoethnographic approach supports studying esthetics and trust-building in organizational surroundings.

“Autoethnography creates powerful images, emotions, and understanding” (Dillow, 2009, p. 1346). Neurologically, man is constructed in such a way that we can mirror another person's experiences to ourselves (Sajaniemi and Krause, 2012). To understand each other deeply, we need to walk a moment in each other's shoes. At the heart of qualitative research is the idea of describing the phenomenon under study in-depth and vividly (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2016), and we find that in our study we achieve this by applying the autoethnographic and moving observation methods. In a qualitative research design implemented with insider perspective and following methods, the researcher is both the strength and the weakness of the study (Kosonen, 2019); when using shadowing as an observing method to study a delicate organizational phenomenon, the challenge is to see, hear and record all while not disturbing the authenticity of the moment. The researcher needs to take careful consideration of the method of recording to ensure high quality shadowing data, hence the target(s) of the study might feel that a moving following method is too invasive of their personal space and change their behavior, to the detriment of the data. The critique toward autoethnography as a method is focused on esthetics in writing and the balance of being scientific and/or artful enough (Ellis et al., 2011).

An autoethnographic approach to ethnographic research allows for higher quality and in-depth description and analysis of the phenomenon under investigation (Atkinson, 2006). The researcher who lives within the phenomenon under investigation is able, with his or her understanding, to bring to the autoethnographic analysis emotions and tones that would be overshadowed by mere observation (Atkinson, 2006, p. 401). The co-produced approach to autoethnographic research seems to promote qualitative analysis in which the researcher is the main “instrument” of interpretation. The insider role of the researcher in autoethnographic methods can be emotionally heavy, as was the case in this study. Co-produced analysis and the writing process provide a chance to reflect together on the researchers' emotions connected to the process. Perhaps this allows a clearer view of the findings through several pairs of eyes.

Formation of esthetic leadership

As discussed in previous chapters trust is seen as an uneven and fluid process (Wright and Ehnert, 2010), impressionistic trust may appear even though relationships mature with the frequency and duration of the interaction. Adopting these definitions of trust, we suggest that studying trust building within the esthetics of leadership contributes to the deeper understanding of the formation of esthetic leadership as well as of the role of leader authenticity in trust-building through esthetic leadership.

Our findings depict how the leader can build trust within a management team during a crisis. The findings show that by comprehensive communication, both verbal and non-verbal, during an organizational crisis, the leader can build and reinforce trust within the management team. The emotional state of the management team appears to remain strong and hopeful due to the intentional, both verbal and esthetic reassurance of the leader.

Wright and Ehnert (2010) take the view that the rational choice perspective of trust negates emotion and social influences. Interestingly, emotions are often considered to be an outcome of trust, although they may also be viewed as antecedents. For example, in their review, Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) consider emotion as an antecedent; as such underexplored, because only a few investigations have focused on trust and affect. However, scholars are unanimous about the important role of emotions in the trusting process, in building and maintaining trust. Trust is not merely a feeling or emotion, but rather, the role of affect is crucial in trust-building. Moods and emotions may be a powerful foundation for trust in ongoing relationships and situations (Jones and George, 1998) as explicitly linked to events or circumstances, although moods are not so tied to specific situations as are emotions. For example, individuals in a positive mood are more likely to increase interpersonal trust based on situational cues (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). Furthermore, even incidental, separate emotions may affect interpersonal trust development (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005). The issue with emotions is how managers handle them in workplace relationships, to what actions and deeds emotions lead. Usually, intense emotions are involved in these incidents of the feeling of mutual understanding and contradictions.

Schmid Mast and Darioly (2014, p. 75) suggest that individuals in leadership positions express their power and authority not only verbally but also non-verbally to capture their followers' attention and exert influence over them. Furthermore, they point out that leaders' non-verbal behavior is different according to the leader's expectations of the followers' performance, and that this is undetectable by followers. As an example, Remland et al. (1983) found in their study that leaders, who kept their distance, were leaning back, spoke in a firm voice, interrupted, did not look or smile at their followers and rather turned away from them, were perceived as non-supportive. Low initial expectations can lead to a vicious cycle of suspicion and ultimately hinder trust-building by breeding self-fulfilling prophecies with negative aspects rather than positives (Adobor, 2005). In the worst case, the behavior of the distrusted person is systematically interpreted in a way that confirms the distrust (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000). Misinterpretations occur in organizations wherever human beings are involved; however, distrust and suspicion do not provide a fruitful foundation for organizations to prosper.

Esthetic reassurance and authenticity

According to our findings, the leader provides non-verbal reassurance for the management team members by giving them a lot of physical space and allowing them to feel that they have unlimited support and faith in their leader, but it seems that the leader is not completely authentic, rather than his or her behavior is a chosen strategy. Further, the leader seems to have learned from previous experiences to behave intentionally in the presence of the management team to secure trust and cooperation within the group. Prior research on non-verbal reassurance in leadership seems to be scarce (Fryer, 2011; Habermas, 1984, 1987), and embodied reassurance in leadership is non-existent. Our findings on esthetic reassurance contribute to prior research (Ladkin, 2008, 2018; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010; Hansen et al., 2007) on the authenticity perspective; esthetic reassurance which the leader focuses on the management team via non-verbal behavior seems to strengthen management team trust toward the leader, although the leader specifically indicates that his behavior is intentional and not completely authentic on his side. Authenticity hence seems not to be necessary for the followers to find emotional engagement through leader non-verbal behavior.

Within this framework, the intentional lack of authenticity in leader behavior resonates with the concept of grotesque leadership (Taylor, 2018). Referring to the management team as “like herding cats” and confessing to somewhat manipulative behavior, the leader seems to be mocking the intellectualism of the management team members. Kosonen and Ikonen (2019) suggest that a leader can verbally engage and build trust in a crisis organization by “battle talk”, by creating a story of fighting against a mutual outside threat together. This seems to support the grotesque leadership theme of a balance of fear and anxiety (Taylor, 2018). The question might arise if the followers engage themselves in the crisis organization because of fear of losing their jobs rather than trust in their leader.

Concluding thoughts

The contextual contribution of this study is in the deepened understanding of trust-building and esthetic leadership in an organization of HE during financial disruption. The context of our study, an organization of higher education, has gained little attention in prior trust research (Karhapää, 2016; Karhapää and Savolainen, 2018). The unique setting of this study, the target organization facing funding reform, contributes to the conflicting theoretical discussions of research in HE leadership and funding for HE in western countries. Prior theoretical discussion on the above-mentioned themes focuses mostly on the public societal perspective. This study provides novel empirical evidence and contribution of the meaning of trust and leader trust-building during funding reform of HE focusing on the individual level effects of funding reforms of HE with a qualitative approach.

In conclusion, our study suggests that using autoethnographic methods in studying trust-building and esthetics provides novel insight and allows deeper and more versatile exploration of the phenomenon. Promising future research would be to use this methodological approach to further study emotional meanings between members of HE organizations, as well as to deepen our understanding of the individual implications of HE policy.

Mirjami: “Dear Päivi,

What unexpected experiences you've had in the field! I am amazed and can't believe how the management team behaved. It must have been overwhelming for you. I remember when you found and read Holman Jones et al.'s (2015) views and insights into doing autoethnographic research and told me that you wanted to learn this approach. It seems that in trust research and research on higher education, there is a call for this kind of qualitative research. Let's start the writing process as soon as I return to campus. Can't wait!

Kind regards,

Mirjami”

Figures

The process of analysis

Figure 1

The process of analysis

Data of the study

MethodDataNumber/Quantity
ShadowingField notestwo days
Autoethnographic observationResearcher's diariessix months
Participant perceptions/feelingsWritten textssix texts

References

Adobor, H. (2005), “Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interfirm alliances”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 330-337, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00077-8.

Alvesson, M. (2009), “At-home ethnography: struggling with closeness and closure”, in Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H. and Kamsteeg, F. (Eds), Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life, Sage, London, pp. 156-174.

Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C. (2001), “Emotion in the workplace: the new challenge for managers”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 76-86, doi: 10.5465/AME.2002.6640191.

Atkinson, P. (2006), “Rescuing autoethnography”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 400-440, available at: https://jce.sagepub.com/content/35/4/400.full.pdf.

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.

Barter, C. and Renold, E. (1999), The Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research, Social Research Update, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, available at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html.

Chang, H. (2013), “Individual and collaborative autoethnography as method”, in Adams, T.E., Jones, S.H. and Ellis, C. (Eds), 2013, Handbook of Autoethnography, Routledge.

Chang, H. (2021), “Individual and collaborative autoethnography for social science research”, in Adams, T.E., Jones, S.H. and Ellis, C. (Eds), 2021 Handbook of Autoethnography, 2nd ed., Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780429431760.

Czarniawska, B. (2007), Shadowing and Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.

Dillow, C. (2009), “Growing up: a journey toward theoretical understanding”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1338-1351, doi: 10.1177/1077800409339581.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.

Dunn, J.R. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2005), “Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 736-748, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736.

Ellis, C. (1999), “Heartful autoethnography”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 669-683, doi: 10.1177/104973299129122153.

Ellis, C. (2007), “Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in research with intimate others”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 599-616, doi: 10.1177/1077800406294947.

Ellis, C., Adams, T.E. and Bochner, A.P. (2011), “Autoethnography: an overview”, Historical Social Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 273-290.

Erickson, F. (2012), “Qualitative research methods for science education”, in Fraser, B., Tobin, K. and McRobbie, C. (Eds), Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 24, Springer, Dordrecht.

Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2016), Qualitative Methods in Business Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Fisher, K. and Robbins, C.R. (2015), “Embodied leadership: moving from leader competencies to leaderful practices”, Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-299, doi: 10.1177/1742715014522680.

Fryer, M. (2011), “Facilitative leadership: drawing on Jurgen Habermas' model of ideal speech to propose a less impositional way to lead”, Organization, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25-43, doi: 10.1177/1350508411401462.

Fulmer, C.A. and Gelfand, M.J. (2012), “At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38, pp. 1167-1230, doi: 10.1177/0149206312439327.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2005), “Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 343-372, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003.

Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, in Geertz, C. (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 30-39.

Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, Beacon Press, Boston MA.

Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Beacon Press, Boston MA.

Häkkinen, S. (2012), Towards a Trust-Based Model of Leadership within the Leader-Member Exchange Theory Framework: A Qualitative Study of Leaders’ Trustworthiness in the SME Context, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu.

Hansen, H., Ropo, A. and Sauer, E. (2007), “Aesthetic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 544-560, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.003.

Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (2015), “Coming to know Autoethnography more than method”, in Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (Eds), Handbook of Autoethnography, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 17-47.

Ikonen, M., Savolainen, T., Lopez-Fresnó, P. and Kohl, H. (2016), “Trust restoration in workplace relationships – multilevel analysis of (Mis)trusting”, in Bagnoli, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Intellectual Capital, (ECIC), Venice, Italy, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited (ACPI), Reading.

Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 531-546, doi: 10.2307/259293.

Kandemir, A. and Budd, R. (2018), “Using vignettes to explore reality and values with young people”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, doi: 10.17169/fqs-19.2.2914.

Karhapää, S. (2016), “Management change and trust development process in transformation of a university organization: a critical discourse analysis”, Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.

Karhapää, S. and Savolainen, T. (2018), “Trust development processes in intra-organisational relationships: a multi-level permeation of trust in a merging university”, Journal of Trust Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 166-191.

Kempster, S., Stewart, J. and Parry, K.W. (2008), “Exploring co-produced autoethnography”, Business papers 112.

Klaussner, S. (2012), “Trust and leadership: toward an interactive perspective”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 12, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2012.728766.

Kosonen, P. (2019), “The shadow of trust: the methodological choices of a case study on leader communication”, Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Management, Leadership, and Governance ECMLG 2019.

Kosonen, P. and Ikonen, M. (2019), “Trust building through discursive leadership: a communicative engagement perspective in higher education management”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1673903.

Kosonen, J., Miettinen, T. and Sutelaja Turtiainen, M.M. (2015), Ammattikorkeakoululaki, Helsingin Kamari Oy, Helsinki, Finnish.

Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 569-598, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569.

Ladkin, D. (2008), “Leading beautifully: how mastery, congruence and purpose create the aesthetic of embodied leadership practice”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-41, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.003.

Ladkin, D. (2018), “‘The aesthetic’ and its relationship to business ethics: philosophical underpinnings and implications for future research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 35-51, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2928-2.

Ladkin, D. and Taylor, S.S. (2010), “Enacting the ‘true self’: towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 64-74, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.005.

Lapadat, J. (2017), “Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 589-603, doi: 10.1177/1077800417704462.

Lee, C. (2018), “Culture, consent and confidentiality in workplace autoethnography”, Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 302-319, doi: 10.1108/JOE-06-2017-0032.

Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998), “Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 438-458, doi: 10.2307/259288.

Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C. and Gillespie, N. (2006), “Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 991-1022, doi: 10.1177/0149206306294405.

Loh, J. (2013), “Inquiry into issues of trustworthiness and quality in narrative studies: a perspective”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 18 No. 65, pp. 1-15, available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/loh65.pdf.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734, doi: 10.2307/258792.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59, doi: 10.2307/256727.

McDonald, S. and Simpson, B. (2014), “Shadowing research in organizations: the methodological debates”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-20, doi: 10.1108/QROM-02-2014-1204.

Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 261-287.

Mizzi, R. (2010), “Unraveling researcher subjectivity through multivocality in autoethnography”, Journal of Research Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 3, available at: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/201/185.

Möllering, G. (2013), “Process views of trusting and crisis”, in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (Eds), Handbook of Advances in Trust Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 285-305.

Möllering, G. (2006), Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity, 1st ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston.

Pitard, J. (2016), “Using vignettes within autoethnography to explore layers of cross-cultural awareness as a teacher”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, doi: 10.17169/fqs-17.1.2393.

Remland, M., Jacobson, C. and Jones, T. (1983), “Effects of psychological gender and sex-incongruent behaviour on evaluations of leadership”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 783-789, doi: 10.2466/pms.1983.57.3.783.

Rotter, J.B. (1967), “A new scale for measurement of interpersonal trust”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 651-665.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different at all: a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.

Sajaniemi, N. and Krause, C.M. (2012), “Oppimisen palapeli”, in Kujala, T., Krause, C., Sajaniemi, N., Silvén, M., Jaakkola, T. and Nyyssölä, K. (Eds), Aivot, Oppimisen Valmiudet ja koulunkäynti: neuro- ja kognitiotieteellinen näkökulma: tilannekatsaus tammikuu 2012, Opetushallitus, Finnish.

Sambrook, S. and Herrmann, A. (2018), “Organisational autoethnography: possibilities, politics and pitfalls”, Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 222-234, doi: 10.1108/JOE-10-2018-075.

Savolainen, T. and Ikonen, M. (2016), “Process dynamics of trust development: exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context”, in Jagd, S. and Fuglsang, L. (Eds), Studying Trust as Process within and between Organizations, Edward Elgar, pp. 231-256.

Schilke, O., Reimann, M. and Cook, K.S. (2021), “Trust in social relations”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 47, pp. 239-259, doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-082120-082850.

Schmid Mast, M. and Darioly, A. (2014), “Emotion recognition accuracy in hierarchical relationships”, Swiss Journal of Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 69-75, doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000124.

Shrivastava, P., Ikonen, M. and Savolainen, T. (2018), “Trust, leadership style and generational differences at work – a qualitative study of a three-generation workforce from two countries”, Nordic Journal of Business, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 257-276, available at: http://njb.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/3_Shrivastava_et_al.pdf.

Silverman, D. (2017), Doing Qualitative Research, 5th ed., Sage, Los Angeles.

Sloan, P. and Oliver, D. (2013), “Building trust in multi-stakeholder partnerships: critical emotional incidents and practices of engagement”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1835-1868, doi: 10.1177/0170840613495018.

Taylor, S. (2018), “Grotesque leadership: the aesthetics of the ‘mangled apricot hellbeast’”, Organizational Aesthetics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-17.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), “A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 547-593, doi: 10.3102/00346543070004547.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006), “Relational Leadership Theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 654-676, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007.

Vickers, D.A. (2019), “At-home ethnography: a method for practitioners”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 10-26, doi: 10.1108/QROM-02-2017-1492.

Wright, A. and Ehnert, I. (2010), “Making sense of trust across cultural contexts”, in Saunders, M.N.K., Skinner, D., Dietz, G., Gillespie, N. and Lewicki, R.J. (Eds), Organizational Trust. A Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 107-126.

Yeo, R.K. (2020), “Crossing knowledge boundaries: from team learning to knowledge teams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 700-737, doi: 10.1177/1046496420919929.

Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 229-239, doi: 10.2307/2393957.

Zhu, J.N., Lau, D.C. and Lam, L.W. (2021), “Trust me or us? A multilevel model of individual and team felt trust by supervisors”, in Understanding Trust in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective, pp. 121-142, doi: 10.4324/9780429449185-6.

Further reading

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. and Vohls, K.D. (2001), “Bad is stronger than good”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 323-370, doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.

Dietz, G. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2006), “Measuring trust inside organisations”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 557-588, doi: 10.1108/00483480610682299.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550, doi: 10.2307/258557.

Gargiulo, M. and Ertug, G. (2006), “The dark side of trust”, in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (Eds), Handbook of Trust Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 165-186.

George, J.M. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-1055, doi: 10.1177/0018726700538001.

Gillespie, N.A. and Mann, L. (2004), “Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 588-607, doi: 10.1108/02683940410551507.

Hartley, J. (2004), “Case study research”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage Publications, pp. 323-333.

Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (Eds), Landmark Papers on Trust, Vol. II, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 388-413.

Nooteboom, B. (2002), Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 344-354, doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24348410.

Serva, M.A., Fuller, M.A. and Mayer, R.C. (2005), “The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal study of interacting teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 625-648, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093885.

Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

Corresponding author

Päivi Kosonen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: paivi.kosonen@uef.fi

About the authors

Päivi Kosonen is a university teacher and PhD candidate at UEF Business School. Her current research combines what she is most enthusiastic of: trust and elements of social interaction in organizational environments, financial discourse and higher education.

Dr. Mirjami Ikonen is a senior lecturer at UEF Business School, University of Eastern Finland. Passionate about the processes of trusting in relationships and networks, her current research interests cover various aspects of leadership, organizational processes and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Before entering the academia, she worked as a quality manager in a plastic industry company. Mirjami's teaching expertise includes human resource management, trust, leadership and managerial work and qualitative research methods. She is interested in applying novel learning practices in her courses based on the pedagogy of inquiry learning.

Related articles