Trust Building

In their BI Essay, Roy Lewicki and Edward Tomlinson define trust as "an individual's belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another." They go on to say

The need for trust arises from our interdependence with others. We often depend on other people to help us obtain, or at least not to frustrate, the outcomes we value (and they on us). As our interests with others are intertwined, we also must recognize that there is an element of risk involved insofar as we often encounter situations in which we cannot compel the cooperation we seek. Therefore, trust can be very valuable in social interactions.

Trust has been identified as a key element of successful conflict resolution (including negotiation and mediation). This is not surprising insofar as trust is associated with enhanced cooperation, information sharing, and problem solving.

Lewicki and Tomlinson make the distinction between "calculus-based trust" (CBT) and "identification-based trust" (IBT). CBT is developed first at the early stages of a relationship.  With CBT, 

an individual will carefully calculate how the other party is likely to behave in a given situation depending on the rewards for being trustworthy and the deterrents against untrustworthy behavior. ... CBT is a largely cognitively-driven trust phenomenon, grounded in judgments of the trustees predictability and reliability.

However, as the parties come to a deeper understanding of each other through repeated interactions, they may become aware of shared values and goals. This allows trust to grow to a higher and qualitatively different level. When trust evolves to the highest level, it is said to function as identification-based trust (IBT). At this stage trust has been built to the point that the parties have internalized each other's desires and intentions. They understand what the other party really cares about so completely that each party is able to act as an agent for the other. Trust at this advanced stage is also enhanced by a strong emotional bond between the parties, based on a sense of shared goals and values. So, in contrast to CBT, IBT is a more emotionally-driven phenomenon, grounded in perceptions of interpersonal care and concern, and mutual need satisfaction.

In destructive conflicts, both kinds of trust are easy to lose (though IBT may be more resilient than CBT), and hard to regain. Lewicki and Tomlinson point out that rebuilding trust is more difficult than building trust in the first place.

After trust has been damaged, there are two key considerations for the victim: (1) dealing with the stress the violation imposed on the relationship, and (2) determining if future violations will occur. 

I would add a third consideration: the party who has been violated needs to consider whether they are likely to benefit from seeking to rebuild trust with the other, or whether the risks outweigh the likely benefits.

Since it is more superficial, CBT is often easier to repair than IBT. With a CBT violation, the parties need to focus on the impact of the violation, and the offender needs to remedy any harms caused.  Apology can also help rebuild trust, although the offender also needs to convince the other that they are not only sorry for the trust violation, but that it also will not happen again. IBT is harder to repair, as it reflects more deeply on the relationship between the parties.  The violated party may decide that they completely misread the nature of their relationship, and that the other side is not the person that they thought they were.  Repair must take concerted effort by both sides, and may take considerable time. 

Details of what needs to be done and how by each party can be found in the Lewicki/Tomlinson readings and the other links below.