1 / 11

Why Should I Trust You? Predictors of Interpersonal Trust in a Knowledge Transfer Context

Why Should I Trust You? Predictors of Interpersonal Trust in a Knowledge Transfer Context. Daniel Z. Levin Rutgers University Rob Cross University of Virginia Lisa C. Abrams IBM Institute for Knowledge-based Organizations. Theoretical Background.

jaden
Download Presentation

Why Should I Trust You? Predictors of Interpersonal Trust in a Knowledge Transfer Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why Should I Trust You?Predictors of Interpersonal Trust in a Knowledge Transfer Context Daniel Z. LevinRutgers University Rob Cross University of Virginia Lisa C. AbramsIBM Institute for Knowledge-based Organizations

  2. Theoretical Background • Knowledge creation and transfer are critical for organizations (Argote 1999; Kogut & Zander 1992, 1996; Spender 1996) • Relationships—especially trust—are key to the success of knowledge transfer (Levin, Cross, & Abrams 2002; Tsai & Ghoshal 1998; Uzzi 1997) • Yet only limited systematic empirical work on predictors of interpersonal trust, in general and especially in this context

  3. Research Question:What Factors Predict a Knowledge Seeker’s Trust in the Benevolence and Competence of a Knowledge Source?

  4. A Multi-Level Approach:3 Categories of Trust Predictors “Alter” “Ego” Relationship Knowledge Seeker Source Source Source Source

  5. Survey Methods • Two-stage, critical-incident, egocentric network survey • Three companies: U.S. drug co., Canadian oil & gas co., U.K. bank • 127 respondents reported on 4 relationships (n=508), response rate=48% • Controls: formal structure; seeker’s own expertise • Hierarchical linear modeling for nested data

  6. Competence Shared Vision Shared Language Unavailable Source Discreet Source Younger Seeker Interaction Effect Benevolence Strong Ties Shared Vision Shared Language Discreet Source Receptive Source Younger Seeker Hi-Tenure Seeker Significant Predictors of Trust vs.

  7. Competence Shared Vision Shared Language Unavailable Source Discreet Source Younger Seeker + Interaction Effect Benevolence Strong Ties Shared Vision Shared Language Discreet Source Receptive Source Younger Seeker Hi-Tenure Seeker Variables in All 3 Categories Were Statistically Significant

  8. (1) Benevolence-based Trust Was Easier to Predict than Competence-based Trust • In terms of the number of significant predictors • In terms of the variance accounted for • R-squared for benevolence = .66 • R-squared for competence = .48

  9. (2) Trust Is Not Set in Stone… Malleable features: • Discreet source • Shared vision • Shared language Stable and visible features: • Formal structure • Homophily(same age & gender) Big Effect X No Effect

  10. (3) …But Attitudes in the Trust Realm May Solidify Over Time • Knowledge seekers evaluate alter’s behavior to find “clues for competence” • Clues = discreet & busy (i.e., unavailable) • Interaction effect for division tenure: The more tenure that knowledge seekers have… the more they rely on the “clues for competence”

  11. Contribution… • …to practice:Building trust is a feasible and inexpensive way to improve the flow of knowledge • …to social network and trust lit.:Theoretical benefits to examining different types of trust • …to org. learning and knowledge lit.:Better understanding of factors underlying the success of trust and knowledge transfer

More Related