PROCESS DYNAMICS OF TRUST DEVELOPMENT Exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context Savolainen, T. and Ikonen, Mirjami University of Eastern Finland Business School Trust within Organizations Research Group Referencing this paper: Savolainen, T. & Ikonen, M. 2016 “Process dynamics of trust development: Exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context”. In S. Jagd and L. Fuglsang (eds.) Trust, Organizations and Social Interaction: Studying Trust as Process within and between Organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing. Ch. 12, pp 231-256. 1. INTRODUCTION Within organization and management research, the research on intra-organizational trust in workplace relationships has proliferated during the last ten years. Trust, facilitating social coordination and collaboration, belongs to fundamental social processes in organizations. This paper aims to advance current theoretical discussion and empirical research on intraorganizational processes of trust by focusing on the dynamics of trust development process in the team context. The purpose is to meet the existing needs for more dynamic conceptualization of the process and its emergence by employing a qualitative approach to studying trust. Development of trust is seen as a relational, stage-wise and process-oriented phenomenon characterized by collaborative dynamic interaction between organizational actors, for example, leaders, followers, and team members. In work relationships, some of the main forms of interaction that characterize trust-building involve communication, knowledge sharing and collaborative actions (e.g., Burke et al., 2007). This study aims to elaborate and advance a process approach for studying trust development in inter-personal work relationships examining the aspects of emergence in trust-building process in a team context. As enrichment of methodological diversity has been called for in recent years in the field (Lewicki et al., 2006; Möllering, 2006), it is our intent to illustrate dynamics and forms of emergence of the development process through qualitative interview data from two teams. We do not intend to be exhaustive in this paper (within the scope of a single article). However, as qualitative empirical research on intra-organizational trust development in work relationships, from a process perspective in particular, is largely unexamined and needs more attention (Schilke & Cook, 2013), we aim to explore and add to the current knowledge of trust as a dynamic multiple process between individuals and within dyads and groups by focusing on studying interactions and activity of workplace trust in the team context. No doubt, the research problem and setting are highly complex, but it does not mean that the research is not worth pursuing. Empirical investigation endeavors also to produce findings, ideas and insights on a process view of trust at the micro-level processes for further research. 1 The theoretical framework of the study draws upon the current theoretical discussion and models of trust development – mainly on dimensional and stage-based models (Lewicki et al., 2006; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Dietz & den Hartog, 2006). The study suggests a way to study trust development as a process and an emergence of process. The empirical study is conducted within two teams: a sports team consisting of hired coaches and members and another team with a leader and members of a multi-professional team in a third-sector work organization. Furthermore, metaphors are used in a theory-constructive way in the analysis and description of the empirical findings. The innovative and generative power of metaphors is utilized in theorizing about the empirical findings (Boyd, 1993; Knudsen, 2003). 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Concept and nature of trust Trust plays multiple roles within organizations (Möllering et al., 2004; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012), enabling more open interpersonal communication at different levels of organizations. Trust has been identified as one of the most frequently examined constructs in the organizational literature lately (Burke et al., 2007). Trust is seen as an essential element of intra- and inter-organizational social systems. It contributes to information and knowledge sharing in various types of relationships between actors (Savolainen, 2008). Different conceptualizations and levels of trust exist in interpersonal relations: for example, trust among peers, among team members, between supervisors and subordinates, and at managerial and organizational levels (Möllering, 2006). In our knowledge era, trust is also important as a human-intellectual, intangible asset and skill in workplaces and has influence on innovative organizational culture (Anderson et al., 2014; Savolainen & Lopez-Fresno, 2013). Trust generates social capital, affects organizational climate and fosters organizational learning (e.g., Lewicki et al., 2006). In the literature, trust is acknowledged to be a relational phenomenon and is seen evolving gradually over time in interactions between trustor and trustee (Mayer et al., 1995). Inter-personal, relational view of trust While different definitions of the nature of trust in interpersonal relations exist, ambiguous and complex issues related to the context and dynamics of relationships are not well understood (Atkinson, 2004). Early trust researchers Deutsch (1962) and Rotter (1967) refer to trust-related behavior in relationships (dyadic and group) which comprises of a person’s beliefs and expectations on how the trustee’s behavior or, more specifically, how the word, promise, verbal or written statement can be relied upon. Mayer et. al (1995:712) define trust involving vulnerability and inability to control the other party. Pertaining trust in relationships the Mayer et al.'s model contains the factors of trust formation in a relational context between trustor and trustee but the model works unidirectionally. Therefore, it does not involve the dynamic and reciprocal nature of interaction in relationships, and, hence, process-orientation, which is the focus of this study. Recent studies of reciprocal trust formation have looked at dyadic relationships (see e.g., Brower et al.; 2000; Savolainen, 2 2009; Ikonen, 2013), yet the dynamics and processes of trust development in inter-personal work relationships remain largely unexamined even though trust at the individual level can predict several outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and job performance (Lewicki et al., 2006:992, Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). As we study trust-building in reciprocal interaction process within a team the LeaderMember Exchange theory, LMX, (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) adds to our conceptual understanding of trust as a process in team relationships. The LMX model is about ‘leadership making’ between dyad partners developing relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995. Thus, LMX provides more in-depth understanding of trust in the team leader-member relationship. The leader develops a one-to-one exchange relationship over time with each follower, and both parties bring some value to it (Yukl, 2010). Process perspective on studying trust development Prior trust research has presented some perspectives and models on which to draw in developing a process-oriented approach. To early theoretical models of trust development belongs Zand’s (1972) spiral model of reinforcing trust, which describes strengthening trust by interactions in a process based on actors’ expectations and actions. The recent and widelyknown models are based on stage-wise development of trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; 1996). According to Lewicki and Bunker (1996), trust develops in three stages and bases of trust: calculus-, knowledge- and identification-based trust. The models appear as progressive in nature, with a tendency of linear development. They are proposing, for example, that the better the other party is known the deeper the relationship between the parties in the course of time. To be more exact, the stage-based models may not represent ‘genuine’ process models from the point of view of organization and management research, as they do not involve the main elements used in the process studies such as time, dynamics (interaction), context (environment), tensions and contradictions that drive development (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995, Langley, et.al, 2013, Pettigrew, 1990), and emergence of a process. However, the prior models of trust development provide this study with ideas and advice representing ‘the initial seeds sown’ for increasing our understanding of process-orientation. When abstract issues and concepts such as trust development are empirically studied, the focus is on evolving phenomena.The current trust research needs to reveal, more deeply, the dynamics of trust development. For this, a process approach to examine social interaction processes is needed (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; cf. Langley et al., 2013, Savolainen, 2011b). Yet, the process view on trust development has scarcely been discussed or empirically explored (Schilke & Cook, 2013; Savolainen, 2011b). Process studies in the organization and management field focus attention on how and why things develop, emerge, grow, or terminate over time (Langley et.al, 2013). Characterizing elements in process studies In organization and management research and specifically in organizational change, the process perspective has been discussed and process theory developed over the two decades since the publication of a widely quoted work by Van de Ven (1992) and the study of Van 3 de Ven and Poole (1995), the work of Pettigrew (e.g., 1990) also contributing to the issue. Following Langley et al., (2013:1) on the nature of process studies in organization and management, (they) “take time seriously, illuminate the role of tensions and contradictions in driving patterns of change, and show how interactions across levels contribute to change. They may also reveal the dynamic activity underlying the maintenance and reproduction of stability.” The main characterizing features are temporality, (time), dynamics (interaction), and context. Time is a fundamental feature in studying processes (Langley et al., 2013). Time and timing have played more or less visible role in organizations and management, and in the entire organizational world temporal lens have been used through ages. Recently, time has captured the focus of attention in organization studies, with emerging alternative views of time (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). Time in human activity – of organizations in particular – may not be considered explicitly or is considered in a limited fashion as ‘clock-based’ (chronological, quantitative, independent of man, measurable and objective) rather than ‘event-based’ (qualitative, constructed, not of measurement but of human activity and opportunity, and shaped by actors) (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). Besides the fundamental dichotomy of objective-subjective in time, an alternative third view of time was suggested recently by Orlikowski & Yates (2002:686) as “experienced in organizational life through a process of temporal structures and structuring that characterize people's everyday engagement in the world”. Temporal structures are understood as both shaping and being shaped by ongoing human action, and, more generally, simultaneously enabling and constraining. By recognizing the view of time and its influence on shaping human workplace practices, process view and study of social processes may increase and deepen our understanding of the dynamics of trust development in interactions and activity of workplace actors and within their relationships. The process approach, thus, adds to scientific knowledge beyond what is produced in dominantly quantitative, static, and generalizationsoriented research (Langley et al., 2013, cf. Lewicki, et.al, 2006). The second characterizing feature is interaction. Trust can be seen as an interactive, ongoing process over time (Jagd, 2010). In trust development, interactions between people occur via compatible words and actions (Mishra, 1996:268; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) and via an active role played by actors when undergoing social change, gradual growth, contradictions, failure or restoration of trust (Langley et al., 2013; Möllering, 2006). Concept of active trust captures actors’ involvement and something about the nature of trust development as a continuous building process in dynamically changing contexts, which is the third feature when studying processes. Even the early work by Zand (1972) refers to a process view, with a spiral dynamically reinforcing trust. A few quite recent empirical findings of explorative studies on the nature of trust development process show that the process is complex – appearing in rather multiple or diverse forms, not merely progressive in nature; instead, it seems that the process emerges as a kind of diverging pattern, as a kind of ‘wavelike’ move forward and backward (Laaksonen 2010; Ikonen & Savolainen, 2010; Savolainen 2011a; Ikonen, 2013). 4 Studying emergence of development process Emergence has typically been assumed to be a process which is too complex to be studied directly, and thus has hardly been directly examined. The dynamics of emergence has been scarcely considered so far, while, in quantitative research, emergence has been measured as a static rather than dynamic phenomenon. In this paper, we take the challenge of attempting to capture some aspects of the dynamics of emergence in team trust-building process. As Kozlowski and Klein (2000:55) define it: “A phenomenon, say trust, is emergent when it originates in the cognition, affect, behaviors, or other characteristics of individuals, is amplified by their interactions, and manifests as a higher level, collective phenomenon”. Trust is emergent, as it originates in affect and cognition by individuals and is amplified by their interactions manifesting at multilevel, as dyadic, group and organization level phenomenon. Emergence as a multilevel process has received limited research attention among micro-level organizational processes, due to scarce conceptualizing available and being a highly complex subject to be studied. Kozlowski & Chao (2012), discussing and studying emergence as a bottom-up, micro- and multilevel process and illustrating it in team phenomena (cognition and cohesion) attempt to advance a more dynamic, process-oriented conceptualization. According to them, three issues have received little attention: emergence is dynamic, it manifests in different idealized forms and can vary in form over time; emergence is considered manifested in certain forms: convergent, homogeneous and composition phenomena; individual interactions in teams potentially create shared perceptions that form into common understanding (homogeneous, composition emergence) while different perceptions in team, fragment (heterogeneous, divergent, compilation emergence) (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012). Dynamic processes of convergence or divergence are inherent in both the composition and compilation forms of emergence. Compilation forms of emergence, as dynamic processes, have been very scarcely explored. Yet, forces for differentiation may prevail and need attention in organizations. This suggests a complementing move from agent-based to human actors (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Studying trust in team context Teams are widely spread and rooted in practice when organizing and performing work: “Teams are complex dynamic systems, exist in a context, develop as members interact over time, and develop and adapt as situational demands unfold” (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006:78). Group level is a highly interesting one for studying the trust development process. Relational dynamics within a team emerges from dynamic individual interaction, between members and with the team leader. Teams are the crucial test for emergent phenomena in organizations (Kozlowski, 2012a). They situate at the crossroads of ‘authentic emergence’ which means that they are rooted at the micro level, where individual level processes interact, intersect and manifest over time as collective team qualities and are influenced by the higher (macro) level context (Hackman, 2003). We believe a team is a fertile entity and level for studying trustbuilding as a dynamic, emergent process. According to Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006:80; cf. Gehman et al., 2013), teams are embedded in a multilevel system, having individual, team 5 and organizational level aspects; they focus on task-relevant processes and involve temporal dynamics with episodic tasks and developments. Team processes as emergent phenomena unfold in a proximal task- or social context where teams are involved while also being a part of a larger organization system or environmental context. While the importance of trust at a group level in teams has been recognized (Costa et al., 2001:226), trust research has largely been carried out at the individual level (Serva et al., 2005:626). Yet, both levels are relevant. The team leader is expected to build trust in team members (peers) as well as dyadic relationships between the leader and the members. Studying trust in a team requires acquiring and increasing knowledge of the dynamics of multi-level and multi-form relationships. In team behavior and action in trust-building, emergence is manifested in collaboration. Bedwell et al. (2012) define collaboration as ‘‘an evolving process whereby two or more social entities actively and reciprocally engage in joint activities aimed at achieving at least one shared goal’’ (p. 130). Collaboration involves key elements of emergence: process-oriented (dynamic exchanges that influence and are influenced by individual actors involved); multi-level (manifested at group level and influenced by individual and dyadic level interactions of actors); and temporally sensitive (requiring time to develop) (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Lewicki et al. (1998) discuss the key role trust plays as a foundation for effective collaboration, and they offer multiple motives that shape collaborative behavior. The authors discuss a ‘new’ view of relationships that are multifaceted and multiplex. They point out that the varied views individuals hold of each other may be temporary and transitional. This means that the state of balance and consistency in relationships at the cognitional level of actors vary and affect relationships. In work relationships, organization members need to develop the capacity to know when, in what respects and in what ways to trust or be trusted (or when to possibly control others or protect oneself). In previous team research, a shared common vision is seen to facilitate leaders and team members to focus on a common goal (Gillespie & Mann, 2004:602.) Trust has important effects on behavioral outcomes such as higher level cooperation (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Lewicki et al., 1998). Cohesion of the group impacts more strongly on performance in sports teams than in other working teams (Mach, 2010). As to sports teams, Dirks (2000) found that trust in the leader has a significant effect on team performance, but at the same time trust in team mates has no effect at all. Sport teams are often hierarchically ordered and directly managed. Dirks (2000) presents self-directed work teams as a possible example where a member is more reliant on peers than on the leader who may or may not be officially named. Thus, trust involves multi-role behaviors that affect intra-group level relationships. Trust is seen as a necessary requirement for team cohesion and functioning relationships (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012; Burke et al., 2006; Brower et al., 2009; Savolainen, 2008). In summary, in the empirical study, individuals, dyads and group are the analysis levels for studying the process dynamics and emergence (forms/types) in trust-building. At the team level, trust shapes collaborative behavior manifested in individual and dyadic interaction and 6 involving and collaboration in relationships. These need to be studied to identify and understand the team’s multi-level, events, episodes, activities, communication, knowledge and emotions sharing, negotiation, to mention the most important of them. Suggesting a framework We suggest a conceptual, analytical framework (Figure 12.1) based on the idea of synthesizing the two models (Stage-based and LMX) explained above. As the prior models involve some dynamics and process-orientation, assuming progression in development (cf. Van de Ven & Poole, 1995) we suggest a framework that is to make the dynamic perspective on trust as a process and emergence of trust development potentially ‘studiable’ and understandable with supporting qualitative methodology (Savolainen, 2011b). The framework is supported by recent qualitative empirical findings (e.g., Ikonen & Savolainen, 2010; Ikonen, 2013). These findings tentatively suggest that the process of trust development may emerge in a multiple pattern (and not in a linear or merely progressive form) and appear in varying forms of developments (‘rich’, diverse and multi-directional by nature). The conclusions, tentative as they may be, are also supported by recent theoretical discussion meant to advance research designs for capturing the dynamics of emergence (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2013). In qualitative studies, analytic frameworks are used. These frameworks comprise of linked theoretical concepts and views used to understand the underlying process, (i.e., a sequence of events, episodes, interactions or constructs and how they relate - in this case, the dynamic phenomenon of emergence in the team trust-building process. 7 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION Relational interpersonal trust, LMX theory, stage-based models of trust, team behaviour Trust in intra-org. work relationships Micro-level interaction process Individuals and group Process perspective Nature and characteristics of the process approach EMERGENCE OF THE TRUST DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Ontology and data Process of trust development Emergence: dynamics and forms METHODOLOGY EMPIRICAL RESEARCH Team context Not-for-profit organizations Two teams Illustrative data Interpretive study Retrospective data Qualitative methods Interviews Figure 12.1 Framework for studying the emergence of the trust development process 3. METHODOLOGY Adopting a qualitative approach Trust research has moved into a more empirical direction in the recent years. As quantitative methodology has dominated in empirical studies, methodological diversity and a qualitative approach and techniques in particular have been called for as complementary methods (Möllering et al., 2004; Lewicki et al., 2006; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012) “to meaningfully capture changes and dynamics in trust development over time” (Lewicki et al., 2006:1015, see also Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Langley et al., 2013). The empirical research on interpersonal trust development in work relationships in general, and in process perspective in particular, is at an early stage. The reason for scarce research lies in a highly complex research problem. The study attempts to meet the challenge, filling in the methodological gap 8 by choosing a qualitative approach. There are two main reasons for this: due to scarce qualitative empirical research on the dynamic process, a perspective on trust development exists for developing theoretical concepts and for the topic; and there is a need for studying process perspective by empirical qualitative studies, as process studies by in-depth qualitative approach better unfold dynamics and patterns of processes (Savolainen, 2011b). So far, Atkinson’s work (2004) represents a rare example among the explorative, qualitative empirical studies of trust in the work relationships focusing on the top management level peers. Other examples of qualitative studies in progress can be found in the context of the Nordic trust research network (Ikonen, 2013; Häkkinen, 2012; Savolainen, 2013; 2009; Savolainen & Lopez-Fresno, 2013; Savolainen et al., 2014). Emergent design in the tradition of qualitative research suggest a process that is not predetermined, that is, the process is not finalized at the outset but often begins with guiding questions (Miles et al., 2014). Analysis of data and its interpretation is important in order to describe and gain understanding of the perceptions of individuals and group studied in reallife situations. Ontologically, interpretive research assumes that organizations are socially constructed realities. Trust development is clearly a social process (cf. Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Therefore, the reality where trust is built can be investigated from multiple points of view, one not excluding the other. Following a social constructionist epistemology, we consider individuals’ perceptions (expressions) as socially constructed and representing only one ‘truth’ that cannot be regarded as the ultimate truth. From the process perspective, when the dynamics of trust development are in focus, the questions of how and why trust develops the way it does are used as typical questions in process studies. They contribute to producing contextual know-how knowledge of the underlying patterns or constructs of process developments (Langley et al., 2013, Savolainen, 1997) instead of know-what produced in quantitative studies. Our focus is on exploring collaborative team behaviour and actions and illustrating how dynamic interaction between team members emerges in trust-building. At a meta-theoretical level, differing approaches to examine emergence are suggested by Kozlowski and Klein (2000). Positioning our approach in respect to the studying emergence the study represents qualitative- indirect approach. It should be also noticed that this study is contextual and contexts (environment) and their differences have influence on what kinds of processes emerge and how (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012, Savolainen, 1997) and, thus, what unfolds. Retrospective data is collected, analysed and interpreted for making an inference about the process of emergence after it has occurred, but the process is implicit and assumed since direct, real time assessing is not possible. Retrospective data involves past events and episodes, etc. We partly use also real-time data containing interviewees’ perceptions of ‘the present day’,.i.e., at the time of interviewing. Qualitative research tends to develop and yield a holistic understanding of an emergent phenomenon. Description is rich and interpretive meant for theory building, but tends to be challenging in replication and generalization. Despite of challenges, qualitative research has been the primary methodology for studying emergent phenomena to understanding process dynamics and emergence that which correlational and experimental methods can reveal in a limited way (Kozlowski et al., 2013). 9 Data collection and analysis In the study explorative in nature, the empirical qualitative data and its analysis may play an illustrative role (cf. Orlikowski & Yates, 2002), as in this study. It means that the interview data and its interpretation in the form of ‘thick’ written description of findings are used to illuminate the development of process and its emergence in the micro-level interaction process of trust-building. In other words, we aim to analyse data, produce description using interview excerpts (quotes) and making interpretations to identify ‘patterns’ of process of trust development in the team. We attempt to capture dynamic aspects of emergence unfolding in the process. This very purpose of illustration through the interview data of two teams is related to the issue of ‘thick’ or ’thin’, i.e., the amount of the data needed and the amount gathered in the study. While two teams are involved and some of the team members are interviewed, the amount of data is considered to fulfil the purpose of this descriptive study in contributing to new empirical findings. We also aim to present findings, ideas and insights for the benefit of further research. It is noteworthy that it is not our purpose to generalize findings but instead produce contextual, know-how knowledge from real life team case. The data were gathered from a sports team and a team of professionals in the third sector organizations by in-depth thematic and open-ended face-to-face interviews. There were eight in-depth interviews of informants of whom six were team members (players and professionals) and two leaders (a coach and a team leader). The sports team, remaining anonymous in the study, represents a common ball-game team at the highest national league level. As the sports team members are hired employees, a trust-building situation is assumed to be similar to that in the context of a work organization. The sports team comprised 13 members and two coaches, who lead the team. The access was gained on the basis of prior knowledge of and contact and familiarity with the team (Laaksonen, 2010). These circumstances facilitated building of trust between the researcher and informants selected for the study (Lyon et al., 2012). In the professional team, the data was gathered from the team members and the leader in a not-for-profit organization that provides social services organized in multi-professional teams. Each team had the performance level set, as future funding opportunities for new projects would depend on the achieved performance. A thematic in-depth interview method was selected as the most appropriate for gaining the interviewees’ views (expressions, experiences, beliefs, feelings) of how trust is built. As trust may be a delicate matter for the informants, an informant-centred procedure allows the researcher to listen to expressions concerning unanticipated but closely related issues which would be particularly important to informants. Typically, for a qualitative study, the how and why (and ‘when’) types of questions were presented to the informants to find out about trustbuilding process-related behaviours and actions. As to temporality and time in the process study, interviews contain mainly retrospective but also real-time data explained above. This allows us to analyze data by sequencing of events and organize it in a temporal order. The interviews were collected on the organizational sites, and the duration of the eight interviews (leaders and team members) varied between 45 and 75 minutes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then translated from Finnish into English. 10 Data is analysed holistically in qualitative research. During the analysis, the attention was paid to essential issues and details based on the ideas and concepts in the analytic theoretical framework (Figure1) and on the research questions. Thematic content analysis was used as a method of analysis. In the analysis of the interviews, we concentrated on the interviewees’ perceptions (expressions of interaction: i.e., experiences, feelings, beliefs) and expressions of activities and events. This method enables us to capture meanings in a particular situation while allowing us to understand the perspective of trust-building as a process. Typically, in a qualitative research with interpretive and constructionist assumptions, several possible interpretations of the same data may be produced, but all the interpretations are potentially meaningful (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The focus in the analysis, from a process-ontological perspective, is on the process and dynamics of developments. Thus, the interest in the data analysis when exploring unfolding processes is to look at the ‘flowing’ (move): i.e., team interaction, activity and events as processes where actors, chains of activity and events in continuous and mutually interacting flux (Langley et al., 2013). This facilitates analysis in unfolding emerging development of trust. An in-depth process type of data gathered from a series of events and activities is challenging due simply to a high volume of words. Thus, in analyzing interview data, a mass of information exists and may create the sensation of ‘drowning in’ (Langley, 1999). Therefore, the handling of data requires proper coding, organizing and thematizing the interview material. The analysis in the process study means recognizing and identifying ‘logic’ patterns behind the trust-building process by looking at the unfolding dynamics of their emergence. In the analysis, this requires ‘under the surface’, in-depth investigation and understanding of data, interpretation of data and making a ‘thick’ description of it. While developments (principally activities, events and interactions) may be more or less complex, the final aim is to reveal how the process of development emerges. 4. KEY FINDINGS On the basis of the data, findings of the key elements and process features are illustrated by the telling metaphors of Seed & Shell, Sprout and Growing plant. The quotes of the interviews are used to illustrate the findings and to help the reader to find the link between the interviewee’s expression and the researchers’ interpretation of the data. Initially, trust is tentatively created in the beginning of a relationship. At first, the individuals do not know each other; their interaction frequency is low, and a tendency to be in a ‘distance’ and searching for a contact appears. Information is rarely shared, and communication is fairly poor. The metaphor describing these interactions activities is considered to be that of seed & shell that contains all opportunities (potential) for growth. Trust does start from some kind of feeling of being off the stage, when everyone is looking around and making observations and forming opinions of others and of what they can do. (Player) 11 Well, in the beginning usually it’s like people looking around and seeing what they and other people think they are and what they can do. (Player) The metaphor of ‘seed’ is used to describe the fragile nature of initial trust. A seed shows a delicate nature of early trust-building where sensitivity and courage are needed for taking steps forward. Initial trust-building within teams involves knowledge sharing to get to know the fellow team members, forming a general impression, or, if known early enough, deepening the knowledge about the team members. When feeling themselves as distant outsiders only observing the events, activities, and people, individuals may behave defensively, protect themselves and remain in their ‘shells’. When this occurs, tensions, paradoxes and contradictions are implicit (cf. Langley et al., 2013). In both teams, individuals showed a tendency to protect their emotions as they were ‘still in the shell.’ This is manifested in decreasing interaction by remaining more formal. Individuals do not come out of the shell, as they are not courageous enough to overcome suspicions and take the risk to be betrayed (cf. the leap of faith, Möllering, 2006). However, as members in the team get to know each other better, emergence of trust is formed by time and interaction. A metaphor which describes this is sprout. Opening-up is described in the cited interviews as follows: Trust-building definitely takes time. To me it’s obvious, because you just can’t have trust overnight. (Coach) In my opinion, you should be able to talk about the stuff openly. Especially if the other person is sorry. Or of course it can also happen that you don’t see that and cause harm by carelessness. (Player) What I have found a good thing among us is that people do dare to say aloud what they think in our team. --- We have made strong progress in these issues as a team. (Team leader) Individuals, like a plant, open the shell, i.e., they let others come closer, their personality and character become more recognizable, and interaction will be less formal. Due to this more flexible and open sharing of information, the individual members feel safe and are courageous enough to share more at the personal level; individuals are more active and willing to deepen their relationships, and they require a certain level of commitment from the other person. …”We were somehow forced to express ourselves aloud, and the space was given for that. Everyone had to talk aloud about their thoughts. It was a kind of wakeup. By this, I don't mean a launcher or initiator itself, but we got some embryos, you know, for a new culture of discussion in our organization.” (Team member) The quote above describes how trust-building is initiated in interaction by mutual 12 understanding and shared information. Here the leaders and team members communicate on a regular basis without avoiding disagreeable issues. Discussing and sharing thoughts more openly than in the beginning can be seen as an emergence of strengthening trust. In addition, common procedures, instructions and behavioural rules are formed and shared, indicating how work is to be done rigorously and carefully. Moreover, work-related issues of developing ‘rules of the game’, i.e., common ways for performing tasks rigorously and carefully, come under spotlight. Within a team, trust-building seems to include this type of interaction (talking) and activity. Opening-up may manifest as a diverging ‘pattern’ of development in the way described in the quote below: “I have to admit that it is easier to build deeper trust with some team members, just through experience from the beginning. You have to work harder with the younger ones to get info on their motives and skills. Some in the team are “old hands”, and you just can trust them.” (Coach) Based on the interviews, team members and their leader influence, as individuals, dyads, and as a group, the formation of trust in relationships in their particular ways and forms that differ between new team members and ‘old hands’ (cf. Kozlowski & Chao, 2012 on team cohesion.) Furthermore, trust-building seems to be influenced also by self-confidence and sense of equality. These may also be shared and spread, emerging at the team level as quoted below: “Self-esteem must be right: you can’t be too insecure. Insecurity spreads to others.” (Player) “In a team, you need to feel equal in order to develop and maintain trusting relationships. It does not necessarily mean equal salary; it is more important how you get along with each other and what attitude you have got.” (Player) Opening-up as a team seems to include types of interaction shown in the quotes above. The role of trust seems to be important in motivation and team relationships. In moving forward, the individuals become willing, courageous and ready to develop trusting relationships. They are more in contact with each other, and interaction becomes more open while communication is less formal and more personal. Dyads are loyal to and willing to help each other by giving feedback, which builds up trust and a higher level of commitment. Notwithstanding backward moves may appear, e.g., through different challenges encountered. The sports team’s performance during that particular season did not meet the expectations, and in the other team a large organisational change was in progress. The interviews revealed issues that may put trust to the test in the team's leader-member relationships. This was expressed in the data as follows. “It’s too bad, but there are disappointments with some players. It’s obvious that if the coach doesn’t trust the players and the players don’t trust each other, it is manifested in something – in this case, in the results. No trust, no potential for 13 results. This means trust in general, like trust in the team organization and each player.” (Coach) “When you start to work for a common goal, different personalities are the issue that affects the team a lot. In a situation where no-one agrees or even tries to listen, it is extremely hard to express your own opinions.” (Coach) “Well, I think it has been different in our team – I’m not saying easier... but anyway – to start. We didn’t have the kinds of strong tensions as at the [name] department had. So, it has been clearer for me, you know somehow to get… but on the other hand, these tensions within the organization can’t be there without affecting the whole organization.” (Team member) In our interpretation, the following interactions describe emerging tensions manifested in critical words, lack of appreciation, self-centeredness, and negative feelings. However, the quote below suggest that, after testing, trust–like a plant–can grow and become stronger than trust that has never been tested, at least to some extent. “The process of trusting may also involve a kind of ‘downward spiralling’. The best way to describe this is as ‘splashes and calms’. Trust may stay stable or go down a little. Sometimes it is ‘the downs’, in fact, that strengthen trust.” (Coach) “Trust doesn’t always just move forward, I think. You know, sometimes bad experiences strain trust for a time, but in the long run they may be the ones that make it stronger.” (Player) In our interpretation, the quotes above reveal the dynamics of emergence in trust-building process. These are shown in the data as a downward spiral as well as splashes and calms and manifested both at individual and dyadic levels as well as at collective team level where it is manifested as a tentative notion. When a trusting relationship dynamically develops ‘becoming growing’ (cf. Langley et al., 2013 who use this applicable concept, not explicitly with trust but a process approach), it deepens more likely into an emerging ‘opening up pattern’ in the trust-building process. It may also occur that a trusting relationship will not grow but remain stable. To summarize, the initial trust-building (shell) and opening-up (seed) emerge in the process involving initiative and collaborative actions, time, interaction (talk), self-esteem, know-how and experience, and ‘control’ of fellow team members. Descriptions of the findings with supporting quotes, as shown above, create understanding of how trust is built in the teams and enable us to discuss the dynamics and unfolding forms of emergence in the process (described later metaphorically in Figure 2). Dynamics of trust-building process in the team unfold as ‘the growing plant.’ The plant and emergence as growth is manifested first, in initial trust-building, the time or moments of breaking ‘the shell’ characterize the situation – it is the beginning where team members and the leader/coach learn to know each other; second, by ‘opening up’, i.e., ‘becoming growing’ through increasing interaction, collaborative activity (‘training for play’ sessions) and richer communication. 14 In the findings, the paradox and the kind of contradiction between change and stability appear in the very first steps of trust-building process where both protection or defensive behaviour and willingness to proceed with courage emerge. When discussing a process approach Langley et al. (2013) consider paradoxes, tensions, dialectics and contradictions as implicit emerging driving patterns in the unfolding of processes and changes in their qualities. Dynamics of trust-building unfold as both suspicions and risk-taking calculations and appears as ‘dawning’ moments for trusting relationships to begin to sprout. This submetaphor (process pattern) shows a tendency of stability in moving into a growing ‘mode’. When the individuals express desire to grow and take risks, relationships may ripen and grow into ‘fruitful’ relationships. Further, the dynamics of trust development process unfolds as tensions between the episodes of ‘splashes and calms’ occur. These are manifested, for example, in backward spirals in trusting, tentatively related to ‘in-depth’, i.e., intensity, of development. More interestingly, each of the members is perceived to affect the nature of dynamics and the process which ‘takes’ or follows its own pace and intensity in progressing or regressing (down- and backward spirals). The question is how fast and at what intensity growth ‘becomes’ (changes of growth or declines occur). Illustrated as the plant metaphor, plants may be cut down to grow better afterwards; withering leaves and flower buds may exist at the same time describing the pace and intensity of growth. As to the temporality in the process, interestingly for some time the process may remain stable in ‘getting to know’ or it may remain in a stranger but stable level in knowing about the peer or leader. If the potential for growing is not seen in the ‘opening up’, it means that trust in relationships will not begin to sprout. Thus, in this case trust is not created nor strengthened, even though time and effort have been invested into its building by the trust team members. In summary, the dynamics of the process in teams’ trust-building emerge in multiple developments of stability, progress (sprout/growth) and backward spiral within individual and dyad team relationships. The dynamics of emergence in the process unfolds as forward and backward motion in development which reflects and tentatively suggests a diverging pattern or form of emergence (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012). Process features, patterns and dynamics of emergence are illustrated in Figure 12.2 with the help of ‘the plant metaphor’. 15 • PROGRESS – The growing plant • • • • Emergence as growth Forward motion • – • OPENING UP – Sprout • • • • • Growth, stability or backward motion • • • • • • • INITIATION – Seed Breaking the shell Protection/defence – ad • • • Growth – progressions in trust development Forward motion Dynamics: variation – intensity and direction of developments (growth or decline) Backward motion may occur Some degree of team-level influences on emergence Process: tensions as patterns of growth Emergence: diverging form Trusting relationships sprout and are born – growth potential – open communication, interaction Process characterized by ‘splashes and calms’ Non-progressive development (backward spiral) Backward motion may occur Process: tensions and contradictions as patterns of stability and growth Dyadic and individual-level influences on emergence Emergence: diverging form Making acquainted in team relationships Protection of the real self Still in the shell – intention of breaking Suspicions, sensitivity and courage Tensions: protection/defence vs. willingness to open up Process: paradox in trust initiation Individual- and group-level influences on emergence Emergence: ambiguous – converging or diverging Figure 12.2 Trust development process: dynamics and emergence in the team context, illustrated as the growing plant metaphor 16 Summary of the key findings. The dynamics of trust development unfolds in multiple developments. The shaping of the process appears as complex, multi-featured, multidirectional and diverging form rather than being a form of a linear type (Figure 2). The process pattern involves a kind of constant ‘flux’. Tensions, contradictions and paradox emerge and are related to the intensity (depth and pace) and direction (backward/forward) of developments in trust-building. Tensions between stability and growth appear in progressions of developments or in stagnating and even declining (backward) directional moves. The process pattern exhibits the paradox in the very first development steps in trustbuilding process, where both defensive protection and willingness to proceed seem to appear. Time and interaction play a role in the progressions and shaping of the process of ‘the growing plant’. In the shaping of the process, the ‘calm’, peaceful periods in trust development can be seen as a fruitful time for going deeper in forming trusting relationships. Active efforts and, on the other hand, more passive and stable time in the relationship dynamics appear. Trust development is voluntary and freedom-based in nature. Trust does not develop or strengthen by obligation or under pressure. Dynamics of trust seems to relate to the atmosphere, and team climate seems to play an important part. Functioning interpersonal relationships support trust-building in teams (Savolainen, 2008 on project group relationships). To summarize, trust development process can be described with the help of the plant metaphor with its three metaphoric features (‘branches’) of ‘Seed’, ‘Sprout’ and ‘Growing plant’. The seed, generating ‘the shell’, involves the dynamics of initial development and is manifested in protection and suspicions. This development may remain ‘in the shell’ or in the progression of building trust emerging as the ‘opening up’. In order to reach this fruitful ‘moment’, the shell state seems necessary for the team: initially, they have to get to know each other and grow in courage to go ahead while considering risks; occasionally, they might have to remain in a suspicious and/or defensive state. This way, if at all, the opening-up moment of building trust will be reached. Yet, it seems that non-progressive development may be in the driver's seat (low growth): stagnating, breaking off or even declining. An interesting paradox emerges in the process, featuring tensions between stability and growth, i.e., seed and sprout, emerging in suspicions vs. opening up. 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper contributes to process studies on trust development by exploring how the dynamics of development in trust-building process emerges and unfolds in a team. Applying the theorizing of studying processes and drawing on conceptualization of dynamics of emergence by Kozlowski et.al, (2013), Kozlowski & Chao (2012), and Kozlowski & Klein (2000) the empirical study has produced more in-depth findings and understanding of the emergence of trust development process in a team. The study makes a contribution to the current trust research in several ways: first, by adding to empirical process studies on intraorganizational trust development within workplace relationships; second, by developing and 17 suggesting a conceptual way for studying trust development empirically in a process perspective; third, by enriching methodological diversity with the use of a qualitative approach to explore the dynamics of trust development and emergence of the process; and fourth, by producing new empirical findings and insight into further research. The findings reveal how the process of trust development emerges by presenting features and patterns of the development process. The study provides tentative ‘sprouts’ of unfolding dynamics and forms of how the process emerges. Moreover, the process pattern of the trustbuilding process is suggested and illustrated through ‘the growing plant’ metaphor. The study increases our understanding of the complexity of the trust development process and of how to study the dynamics of its emergence. We like to emphasize that our illustrative exploration needs and deserves further consideration and scrutiny in continuing studies. As a practical implication, the findings reinforce the importance of training managers to help them understand their crucial role in leadership and in the process of trust development. For example, a team leader’s support and regular interaction from the very beginning could be one of the essential elements in trust-building. Limitations of study The study carried out targeted two teams in a non-profit sector with only a part of the team members involved, which is a limitation of the study. Further, when studying dynamics of emergence of the process indirectly and by qualitative methods, the underlying mechanisms actually cannot be scrutinized and, therefore, it is the interpretation of the researchers on which the reader has to rely. This is also related to the issue of construct validity (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012) and further concerns the retrospective, indirect type of study in question. By applying the above mentioned Kozlowski’s ideas and theorizing of emergence the purpose of this study is not to develop a more advanced theoretical model on emergence but rather make a contribution by producing new contextual empirical, richer and in-depth knowledge of the process of trust development by illuminating how process emerges in the team context. Moreover, qualitative data may bring practical challenges to studying emergence, i.e., what emerges from data and how. This may be influenced by several issues: e.g., access to its study and the phenomenon as such, as well as individual, interpersonal and contextual issues (proximate and external environment). The study makes a ‘rich’ description of trust-building process presenting findings of process dynamics but does not propose any substantive meaning as a higher level construct; it rather suggests a ‘configurational’ idea of a team level pattern in the trust-building process and emergence (Figure 2). In this contextual study, generalizations cannot be made, and more research is needed. A starting point for this study is explorative, and the data plays an illustrative role, meaning that the empirical data describes and illuminates a complex topic that has scarcely been studied empirically. This is a limitation justifying the amount of interview data used and our ‘playing’ with rich qualitative data. In further research, qualitative data need to be extended to also involve more multiple contexts. As this study produces contextual findings, contexts differ and, thus, have influence on what kinds of processes emerge and how (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012, Savolainen, 1997) and what unfolds. 18 Moreover, with the purpose of contributing to the empirical process studies of trust development, the study produces findings and insights that will be utilized in further research. The paper suggests that trust development from the process perspective needs to be studied empirically in various contexts and longitudinally at different levels of analysis. Employing qualitative methodology and methods would enrich and stimulate further research that needs to address the questions still remaining unanswered. References Atkinson, S. (2004), ‘Senior management relationships and trust: an exploratory study’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 571-587. Boyd, R. (1993) ‘Metaphor and theory change: what is “metaphor” a metaphor for?’, in: A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 481-533. Brower, H.H., S.W. Lester, M.A. Korsgaard and B.R. Dineen (2009), ‘A Closer Look at Trust Between Managers and Subordinates: Understanding the Effects of Both Trusting and Being Trusted on Subordinate Outcomes’, Journal of Management 35 (2), 327-347. Brower, H.H., F.D. Schoorman and H.H. Tan (2000), ‘A Model of Relational Leadership: The Integration of Trust and Leader-Member Exchange’, Leadership Quarterly 11 (2), 227-250. Burke, C.S., D.E. Sims, E.H. Lazzara and E. Salas (2007), ‘Trust in Leadership. A multi-level review and integration’, Leadership Quarterly 18, 606-632. Burke, C.S., K.C. Stagl, C. Klein, G.F. Goodwin, E. Salas and S.M. Halpin (2006), ‘What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis’, Leadership Quarterly 17, 288-307. Costa, A.C., R.A. Roe and T. Taillieu (2001), ‘Trust within teams: the relation with performance effectiveness’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10 (3), 225-244. Deutsch, M. (1962), ‘Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes’, reprinted in: R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (Eds.) 2008. Landmark Papers on Trust Vol I, 3-47. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Dietz, G. & D.N. Den Hartog (2006), ’Measuring trust inside organisations’, Personnel Review 35 (5), 557-588. Dirks, K.T. and D.L. Ferrin (2002), ‘Trust in Leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for organizational research’, Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 611-628. Dirks, K. T. (2000), ‘Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball’, Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 1004-1012. Eriksson, P. and A. Kovalainen (2008), Qualitative Methods Business Research. London: SAGE. Fulmer, C.A. and M.J. Gelfand (2012), ‘At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels’, Journal of Management 38 (4), 1167-1230. Gehman, J., L. Trevino and G. Garud (2013), ‘Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and Performance of Organizational Values Practices’, Academy of Management Journal, 84-112 Gillespie, N. and L. Mann (2004), ‘Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 19, 588-607. Graen, G.B. and M. Uhl-Bien (1995), ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multidomain perspective’, Leadership Quarterly 6 (2), 219-247. Hackman, J.R. (2003), ‘Learning more by crossing levels: evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 24, 905-922. 19 Häkkinen, S. (2012), Towards a trust-based model of leadership within the leader-member exchange theory framework. A qualitative study of leaders’ trustworthiness in SME context. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, 45. Ikonen, M. (2013), Trust Development and Dynamics at Dyadic Level. A Narrative Approach to Studying Processes of Interpersonal Trust in Leader-Follower Relationships. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, 53. Ikonen, M. and T. Savolainen (2010), ’Trust in team leadership: linearity or wavelike development?’, in: Proceedings of ISLC Conference, Lund University, Sweden. Jagd, S. (2010), ‘Balancing trust and control in organizations: towards a process perspective’, Society and Business Review 5 (3), 259-269. Knudsen, S. (2005), ‘Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: a study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code’, Public Understanding of Science 14, 373-392. Knudsen, S. (2003), ‘Scientific metaphors going public’, Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1247-1263. Kozlowski, S.W.J., G.T. Chao, J.A. Grand, M.T. Braun and G. Kuljanin, G. (2013), ‘Advancing Multilevel Research Design: Capturing the Dynamics of Emergence’, Organizational Research Methods 16 (4) 581-615. Kozlowski, S.W.J. and G.T. Chao (2012), ‘The Dynamics of Emergence: Cognition and Cohesion in Work Teams’, Managerial and Decision Economics 33, 335-354. Kozlowski S.W.J. and D.R. Ilgen (2006), ‘Enhancing Effectiveness of the Work Groups and Teams’, Psychological Science in Public Interest 7 (3), Michigan University, 1-48. Kozlowski S.W.J and K.J. Klein (2000), ‘A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes’, in: K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.) Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 3-90. Laaksonen, P. (2010), ’Luottamusprosessin luonne ja luottamuksen kehittyminen tiimissä – tapaustutkimus kolmannen sektorin organisaatiossa’ (The nature of the process of trust and development of trust in the team – a case study in a third sector organization), Master's Thesis, UEF, Department of Business. Langley, A., C. Smallman, H. Tsoukas and A.H. Van de Ven (2013), ‘Process Studies of Change in Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, and Flow’, Academy of Management Journal 56 (1), 1-13. Langley, A. (1999), ‘Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review’, 24 (4), 691-710. Lewicki, R.J. and B.B. Bunker (1996), ‘Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships’, in: R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations, 114-139. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE. Lewicki, R.J. and B.B. Bunker (1995), ‘Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline’, in B.B. Bunker and J.Z. Rubin (Eds.) Conflict, cooperation, and justice, 133-173. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lewicki, R.J., D.J. McAllister and R.J. Bies (1998), ‘Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities’, Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458. Lewicki, R.J., E.C. Tomlinson and N. Gillespie (2006), ‘Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions’, Journal of Management, 32 (6), 991-1022. Lyon, F., G. Möllering and M.N. Saunders (2012), ‘Introduction: the variety of methods for the multifaceted phenomenon of trust’, in F. Lyon, G. Möllering and M.N. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, 1-15. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Miles, M., M.A. Huberman and J. Saldana (2014), ‘Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook’, 3rd Ed., SAGE. 20 Mach, M., S. Dolan and S. Tzafrir (2010), ‘The differential effect of team members trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 771-794. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman (1995), ‘An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-734. McAllister, D.J. (1995), ‘Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. Mishra, N. (1996), ‘Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust’, in: R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in Organizations, 261-287. SAGE. Möllering, G., R. Bachmann and S.H. Lee (2004), ‘Introduction Understanding organizational trust – foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalisation’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 556-570. Möllering, G. (2006), ‘Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity’, Elsevier. Oxford, UK. Pettigrew, A. (1990), ‘Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice’, Organization Science, 1 (3), 267-292. Rotter, J. (1967), ‘A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust’, reprinted in: R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (Eds.) Landmark Papers on Trust. Vol I. 2008, 48-62. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Savolainen, T., P. Lopez-Fresno and M. Ikonen, M. (2014), ‘Trust-Communication Dyad in InterPersonal Workplace Relationships–Dynamics of Trust Deterioration and Breach’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12 (4), 232-240. Savolainen, T. and P. Lopez‐Fresno (2013), ‘Trust as Intangible Asset ‐ Enabling Intellectual Capital Development by Leadership for Vitality and Innovativeness’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 11 (3), 244‐255. Savolainen, T. (2011a), ‘Luottamusjohtajuus inhimillisen pääoman uudistamisessa’, (Leadership by trust in renewing human intellectual capital), in: A Puusa and H. Reijonen (Eds.) Aineeton pääoma organisaation voimavarana. UNIpress, 117-141. Savolainen, T. (2011b), ‘Inter-personal trust development between actors within organizations: From linearity to multiplicity’, discussion paper presented at the First Seminar of the Nordic Research Network on Trust within and between Organizations. UEF, Joensuu. http://trust.ruc.dk/internal Savolainen, T. (2008), ‘Sharing tacit knowledge in a project-based organization: Perspective of Trust’, in: J. Kujala and P. Iskanius (Eds.) Proceedings of the 13th ICPQR, International Conference on Productivity and Quality Research, Oulu, Finland. Savolainen, T. (1997), ‘Development of Quality-Oriented Management Ideology. A Longitudinal Case Study on the Permeation of Quality Ideology in Two Finnish Family-Owned Manufacturing Companies’, Research Series in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics, No. 37. University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Serva, M.A., Fuller, M.A. & Mayer, R.C. (2005), ‘The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal study of interacting teams’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625-648. Schilke, O. and K.S. Cook (2013), ‘A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships’, Strategic Organization, 11 (3), 281-303. Van de Ven, A. H. (1992), ‘Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note’, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169-188. Van de Ven, A.H. and M.S. Poole (1995), ‘Explaining development and change in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (3). Orlikowski, W.J. and J. Yates (2002), ‘It's About Time: An Enacted View of Time in Organizations’, Organization Science, 13 (6), 684-700. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006), ‘Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organization’, The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676. 21 Yukl, G. (2010), Leadership on Organizations. 10th ed. Prentice Hall. Zand, D. (1972), ‘Trust and managerial problem solving’, Reprinted in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (Eds.) 2008. Landmark Papers on Trust Vol. I, 3-47. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Zucker, L.G. (1986), ‘Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure’, in: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. Research in Organisational Behaviour 8, 53-111. 22