Developing and Maintaining Trust Within Organizations: Tech One Global in Nepal

(1)

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES

Department of Business and Economics Studies

Developing and Maintaining Trust

Within Organizations:

Tech One Global in Nepal

Benjamin Odei Appiah

Ravi Maharjan

June, 2020

Student Thesis, Master Degree (One Year),15 Credits Business Administration

Master Programme in Business Administration (MBA): Business Management 60 Credits Master Thesis in Business Administration 15 Credits

Supervisor: Maria Fregidou-Malama Examiner: Ehsanul Huda Chowdhury

(2)

(3)

II

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study aims to ascertain how firms develop and maintain trust and the

influences trust have in organizations.

Method: This study was conducted through a qualitative research method with an

inductive approach by using semi‐structured in‐depth interviews. Interviews were gathered from employees of an IT company in Nepal, Tech One Global Nepal Pvt Ltd. Furthermore, the content analysis method was used for the analysis of data collated.

Findings and Conclusion: Trust is mainly gained through the combinatory effort of the

trustor and the trustee. The six cues identified to develop trust within an organization include; communication, accountability, commitment, consistency, transparency, and confidentiality. To maintain trust, it is of the essence for parties to endeavor to improve on the factors which contributed to its development. It is also imperative systems, processes, corporate culture, and an enhanced level of communication that tracks and instills an attitude of excellence into the staff of organizations are promoted. Trust safeguards the operational and market performance of an organization and ensures a business is sustained into the future. Where there is a lack of trust, there would be a tendency for increased staff turnover and the virtual collapse of businesses.

Contribution of the Study: This study contributes to the literature on organizational trust

by differentiating developing trust from maintaining trust since developed trust has the tendency of converting to distrust if measures are not instituted to retain it. To this end, this study provides new theoretical insights by identifying additional factors, including accountability, transparency, and confidentiality required to develop trust. The study further adds to academic studies by recognizing enhancement in communication and the establishment of a corporate culture that instills an attitude of excellence in staff as a key means to maintain trust in organizations. Maintenance of trust which has been deserted in preceding studies is critical for individuals, organizations, and societies to maximize the benefits of trust. This study offers unique recommendations for businesses to improve their performances as it explicitly combines practical experiences with theories on trust. We created a model that is justified based on state-of-the-art concepts of trust

Reflections on the study and Suggestions for Future Research: This study was

conducted with a single IT company but can be enhanced when its scope is extended to cover different countries across different industries and cultures. Moreover, the study includes only the perspective of employees of the company. We believe that broader researches could be steered by including the perspectives of customers of organizations, partner organizations with whom companies collaborate with, and features of corporate products that enhance trust.

(4)

III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all who supported and contributed to the process of writing this thesis paper by filling the gap between what we knew and what we did not know. More especially, we would like to thank our supervisor, Professor Maria Fregidou-Malama, and our examiner Professor Ehsanul Huda Chowdhury for providing us valuable guidance and support throughout the study. We would also like to thank Professor Daniella Fjellström for her constructive criticisms and motivations offered throughout this period. We are also grateful to our fellow students for their comments and feedback during the seminars. Thank you all for sharing your time and knowledge with us which helped to enhance our study.

Moreover, we want to thank the Assistant General Manager and employees of Tech One Global Nepal Pvt Ltd, for dedicating their valuable time, experience, and information toward the course of this project. We appreciate their cooperation and support that aided the successful conduct of this study.

Special thanks go to the Swedish Institute for their sponsorship to Benjamin Odei Appiah throughout the Masters of Business Administration Program at the University of Gavle. This sponsorship provided the exposure and brought us together to accomplish this thesis. This publication was produced during the scholarship period 2019/2020. We are very grateful for this wonderful support and exposure.

Lastly, we would like to sincerely thank our family and friends for their support and encouragement throughout this Masters in Business Administration Program.

Benjamin Odei Appiah and Ravi Maharjan Students of University of Gavle, Sweden

(5)

IV

2.2.3. Commitment-Trust Theory ... 17 2.2.4. Cognitive Theory ... 18 2.3. Consequences of Trust ... 18 2.4. Conceptual Framework ... 20 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 23 3.1. Philosophical Stance ... 23 3.1.1. Ontology ... 23 3.1.2. Epistemology ... 24 3.2. Research Design ... 25 3.3. Unit of Analysis ... 26 3.4. Research Approaches ... 27 3.5. Operationalization ... 28 3.6. Selection of Company ... 30 3.7. Selection of Participants ... 30

3.8. Interview Schedule and Data Collection ... 31

3.9. Analysis Method ... 32

3.10. Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Validity ... 35

3.11. Ethical consideration ... 38

3.12. Summary of Research Process and Methodology ... 39

4. EMPIRICAL STUDY ... 41

4.1. Trust in the IT Industry ... 41

4.2. Building and Maintaining Trust ... 42

4.2.1. Interpersonal Trust ... 42

4.2.2. Organizational Trust ... 43

4.2.3. Interorganizational Trust ... 46

4.2.4. Challenges for Building and Maintaining Trust ... 46

4.3. Factors Influencing Building and Maintaining Trust ... 48

4.4. Impact of Trust ... 50

4.4.1. The positive impact of trust ... 50

(6)

V

4.5. Summary of Findings ... 54

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 56

5.1. Trust in the IT Business ... 56

5.2. Building Trust within an Organization ... 57

5.2.1. Working Environment that Augments Building Trust ... 57

5.2.2. Challenges Encountered while Building Trust ... 58

5.2.3. Role of Employees in Building Trust ... 59

5.2.4. Role of Management in Building Trust ... 60

5.2.5. Building Trust through Face-To-Face versus Digital Tools Communications ... 60

5.3. Maintaining Trust within an Organization ... 61

5.3.1. Maintaining Trust with Employees ... 62

5.3.2. Maintaining Trust with Customers ... 62

5.3.3. Maintaining Trust with Other Organization or Parties ... 64

5.4. Impact of Trust ... 64

5.5. Summary of Influence of Trust and Model ... 65

6. CONCLUSION ... 70

6.1. Trust within Organizations ... 70

6.2. Answers to the research questions ... 70

6.3. Theoretical Contributions ... 72

6.4. Practical Contributions ... 73

6.5. Societal Contribution ... 74

6.6. Reflections on the Study and Suggestions for Future Research ... 74

REFERENCES ... 76

APPENDICES ... 84

Appendix 1 ... 84

Letter to the company ... 84

Appendix 2 ... 85

(7)

VI

List of Tables

Table 1 – Theoretical Links to Developing and Maintaining Trust ... 21

Table 2 - Operationalization of Interview Questions Link with Themes and Theories ... 29

Table 3 - Information of Participants and Interviews Conducted ... 31

Table 4 – Summary of Empirical Findings linking with Themes ... 55

(8)

VII

List of Figures

Fig.1 – Disposition of The Study ... 9

Fig. 2 – Building and Maintaining Trust in Organization ... 22

Fig. 3 - Initial Analysis Map Showing Seven Themes ... 34

Fig. 4 - Final Analysis Map Showing Four Themes ... 35

Fig. 5 - Research Process ... 40

(9)

VIII

ABBREVIATIONS

B2B – Business-To-Business B2C – Business-To-Customer BPO- Business Process Outsource GDP- Gross Domestic Products

ISO - International Standards Organization IT – Information Technology

(10)

1 1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter comprises of eight sections. We present a historical and current overview of the concepts of trust in relation to business and beyond by providing a background and preceding studies on the subject. This is further narrowed down to the relevance of the subject in IT companies. By virtue of the research gap identified, we have been able to accordingly deduce, the motivation, aim, delimitation, and disposition of this study.

1.1. Background of Study

Appropriately defining what trust entails will serve as a guide to businesses to work towards its development and maintenance. Definitions of concepts are essential in ascertaining the operational measures required and appropriately estimating key variables involved (Cao, 2015). To this effect, defining trust is important in identifying what it entails, the boundaries, and valid measurements required for this study. This will aid in enhancing the theory development and empirical research on trust (Neal et al., 2016). However, there presently seems not to be an agreed consensus on the definition of trust. Thus, an agreed definition of trust, particularly across various disciplines and researches, can still be deemed as elusive (Hupcey et al., 2001; Neal et al., 2016).

As a result, trust is viewed differently among various fields including psychology, sociology, medicine, information technology (IT), and business. In psychology, trust is deemed to be emanating from past experiences gathered over a period (Hupcey et al., 2001). This suggests that trust is learned and not necessarily an inherent personal trait. This tends to affect individuals’ emotional and affective assessments of relationships they build or establish (Strauß, 2017). In sociology, trust is deemed part of relationships established between individuals and institutions (Hupcey et al., 2001). It is also believed to influence personality traits and social experiences but can however not be measured or operationalized (Strauß, 2017). In medicine, trust is associated with the expectation the public has, with regards to they been served most proficiently by health professionals. Moreover, the expectation is also with regard to their welfare, withheld with the highest priority by these professionals (Hupcey et al., 2001). In relation to IT, particularly software outsourcing, trust is deemed to be the positive expectation that exists between clients and vendors. This is further linked to their rational interest with regards to maintaining their relationship whiles bearing in mind the risk associated with those expectations (Babar et al., 2007). In business, trust is linked to the interests of one toward

(11)

2

the benefits of the other. It is mostly manifested in the form of legal agreements between or among firms or individuals, with the expectation of reducing threat in any form (Neal et al., 2016). This is likely more apparent in a fluid sector like the IT industry.

From these concepts, trust can be deemed to be personal or impersonal. Personal in the sense that it involves individuals. However, where institutions come into the scene, then impersonal trust is seen to exist. Moreover, they convey an idea of dependence or interdependence created between the trustor (subject) and the trustee (object). Furthermore, it can be ascertained that there seem to exist some antecedents, boundaries, attributes, and outcomes required for trust to be instituted or established (Hupcey et al., 2001). However, it is more likely these tend to vary across disciplines that recognize the influence of trust. This is mainly due to the varied perspectives to which each of these disciplines has toward trust.

Today, most of the businesses are operating through mutual understanding and relationship. If there is no relationship, then that business cannot be sustained over a long-term period (Østergaard, 2015). To develop and maintain the relationship as well as for the success of any business operation, trust is considered as an essential factor. Because it makes the relationships smooth, which forms the linking mechanisms of coordination, like gears, clutch, turn the wheels of the business (Bachmann and Zaheer, 2006). Be it a business-to-business (B2B), or a business to customer (B2C), the essence of trust in business relationships and transaction still holds. The level of trust required among business stakeholders have further been deepened with the influx of digital technologies (Babar et al., 2007). IT as identified by Gartner Newsrooms (2019) is no longer just a digital platform but engines that drive businesses. Farrell (2003) also recognizes that firms stand to improve their financial performance when trust is increased. To this effect, it is imperative businesses strive to undertake initiatives that seek to develop and maintain the high level of trust required of their stakeholders to make them loyal to the company.

McKnight et al. (1998), state that trust forms in the initial stage of a relationship. This stage is also considered as important because various transactions are done at this stage and there would be uncertainty and doubt, so parties would require to have the right level of trust between each other, in order to continue with the relationship. This will allow both parties to derive the ultimate benefits expected from this relationship and exchanges

(12)

3

that might transpire among the parties (McKnight et al., 1998). Once trust is perceived, then the relationship evolves over time with interactions, communication, and negotiations between the parties (Kwan et al., 2015). With the right level of trust, both parties can be assured that their interests will be catered for by the other. To some extent, where there is a high level of trust, there is likely to be a buffer against negative experiences, such that a level of negative experiences tends to be forgiven by a party (Esterik-Plasmeijer and Raaij, 2016). So, to attain a healthy and positive relationship, it is essential to improve the level of trust between parties from low to high levels while dealing with each other (Karlsen et al., 2008).

Once the level of trust is higher, then it will be less time consuming and therefore implies less cost for monitoring activities (Bijlsma and Koopman, 2003). Also, the level of trust is improved, if previous expectations of parties are fulfilled and there are chances of fulfilling future expectations as well. So, organizations need to consider that built trust is affected by past experiences and fulfilled expectations, and if these are positive for all parties, it will provide opportunities for more future businesses (Bijlsma and Koopman, 2003).

1.2. Knowledge on Trust and Relationship Development

As identified by Ben-Gal et al. (2015), the service industry can be deemed delicate mainly as a result of its intangibility. Trust is deemed important, particularly where service to a client requires the cumulative efforts of different personnel. They identified that feedback from clients is urgent to this industry. They assert relationships built on trust are very important but challenging to modern firms, particularly, service firms. They further identify trust as critical with regards to inter-organizational collaboration considering its positive impacts on organizations.

Chen and Jai (2019), have indicated that the effect of trust on the consumer’s revisit or word of mouth is enormous. As such, if services performed fails to meet the expectation of the stakeholders involved, it is deemed as service failure. To that effect, trust is negatively affected and therefore requires to be rebuilt. This confirms what Østergaard (2015) identified as trust in the relationship. The author suggested that trust is not given or provided but perceived and it will be repeatedly tested over a time period at all levels.

(13)

4

If trust fails at any level, it may be a breach in the relationship between the parties and building again that trust becomes the only way to move ahead.

Moe and Smite (2008) identify that trust is essential for an organization because a lack of trust negatively impacts the organization in ways such as a decrease in productivity, quality, information exchange, feedback among others. As a result, it will require more attention and monitoring which will be consuming more time and increase costs. Barney and Hansen (1994) recognize the importance of building trust among organizations to enable them to gain the required level of competitive advantage and as well improve their performance. However, they identify the forms of trust to be weak, semi-strong, and strong forms of trust. Each has key conditions under which competitive advantage could be enhanced and maximized to the entities’ benefits.

Fregidou-Malama and Hyder (2015) also identify the essence of trust in attaining successful business relationships. They further believe trust to be exhibited at the individual, company, and country level. Effective integration of these levels of trust is necessary for the successful operation of businesses, particularly due to the dynamic nature of trust. Mandják et al. (2018) identify that perceived trust enhances the possibility of building a relationship in business. When trust is experienced by both parties and mutual trust exists, it helps the parties to continue that relationship further. As the level of trust increases, it automatically starts to maintain that built relationship.

1.3. Background of the research area

From the above studies, it can be identified that the essence of trust cannot be underestimated across all fields, professions, and relationships established, particularly in the service sectors. Thus, with service sectors such as IT, consultancy, hospitality, health, banking, etc., trust plays an essential role in enhancing the relationship between the service provider and clients (Ben-Gal et al., 2015). Success attained in the service sector, can mainly be attributed to the level of trust developed among stakeholders in the sector (Ben-Gal et al., 2015). This reflects the significance of trust and the role it plays in the technological industry.

Electronic commerce can be deemed to be on a surge, as the speed of light, such that, it is outpacing the human time required to build trust (Yousafzai et al., 2005). This has

(14)

5

resulted in the transition to digital virtual environments which supposedly implies, there is an increase in the reliance on digital assets by businesses. Moreover, a key influence on the commercial success of any business is with regard to dependability (security, reliability, and availability when needed) of their systems and products. This is more critical for (IT) companies especially (Jones et al., 2000). However, the demands for building trust with regards to electronic commerce or products are quite broader than the dependability requirements across many domains. Some of these requirements related to trust development in the sector include confidentiality, integrity, availability of information, identification of digital objects, prevention of unauthorized copying or use, traceability of digital objects, quality of digital products, risk management information and authentication of payment information (Jones et al., 2000).

In effect, trust has been identified as a key essence to firms and their respective stakeholders, who mainly operate electronic market platforms or directly involved in commerce related to technological advancements and innovations. Therefore, such firms must institute mechanisms to identify and trace these products (Du and Mao, 2018). This serves as a check to prevent unauthorized use or copying. By so doing, these entities tend to develop the trust between them and their suppliers. With regards, to a customer, these entities would need to manage associated risks and uncertainties on an ongoing and dynamic basis such, that users will identify their products as completely dependable (Du and Mao, 2018).

The IT sector in developing countries like Nepal, has difficulties in building and maintaining trust due to different challenges such as the adoption of new technologies, high probabilities of a security breach, unaware of phishing attack among others (Dey et al., 2009). Nepal is one of the developing countries in South Asia, with 7.1% economic growth in 2019. The country’s service sector accounted for 57%, agriculture of 24%, and rest 19% for retail trade, real state, among others of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (World Bank, 2020). There are no such strict regulatory and monitoring systems regarding the IT sector in developing countries like Nepal, compared to developed countries. Due to these, there are rising concerns relating lack of trust in the IT sector in most of these developing countries. Companies to this effect are implementing strategies geared toward improving trust within their organizations. These strategies relate to

(15)

6

employees, products, richness of information, providing help systems among others (Dey et al., 2009).

Trust has been revealed as an effective mechanism to mitigate uncertainty in the sector. Uncertainty has also been found to increase the transaction cost of clients and consequently discourages them from using such mediums or innovations (Du and Mao, 2018). This enhances the level of trust of their customers concerning them. In essence, the role that trust plays in these digital innovations is very crucial, such that vendors and their clients would require to understand its role in the establishment and maintenance of their relationships (Babar et al., 2007). This is particularly important bearing in mind, the transfer of economic activities from the physical world to digital networks (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013).

1.4. Motivation of the Study

In the service industry like the IT sector, trust is essential for continuing business relationships between the employees of service provider firms, clients, and the institutions themselves. IT is also a sensitive sector and to continue long term relationships, trust plays a vital role (Ben-Gal et al., 2015). As such, the essence of trust in IT companies and businesses, in general, is overwhelming. Hence, there is a need for these firms to be enlightened on how they could develop and maintain trust within their enterprises to enhance their propensity of continuing business into the unforeseeable future.

1.5. Problem Discussion

An evaluation of the studies conducted in relation to trust reveals that much work has been conducted with regards to, building or developing trust and its essence to individuals, businesses, communities and beyond (Barney and Hansen, 1994; Yousafzai et al., 2005; Fregidou-Malama and Hyder, 2015; Ben-Gal et al., 2015; Mandják et al., 2018; Chen and Jai, 2019). Marshall et al. (2005) for instance, recognize trust can be developed through three stages including, formation, implementation, and evolution stage. Identifying these antecedents to building or developing trust can be deemed to be relevant in fostering relationships. As identified by Friman et al. (2002) trust is deemed to be an antecedent of commitment, required for the sustenance of relationships.

(16)

7

However, it could be noticed that previous studies on trust do not effectively focus on how trust built or developed could be maintained. This is supported by Fachrunnisa and Hussain (2013) who further identified the absence of any methodological framework for maintaining trust. As such, it is imperative to pursue tasks that seek to develop and maintain trust in every business relationship initiated. This enhances the longevity of the relationship for the mutual benefit of all parties (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013).

According to Aydin and Ozer (2005), to gain trust; one party must believe that another party will perform actions that will result in positive outcomes, and consequently, quality should be perceived by clients as positive. Therefore, in building trust, the customer should not only perceive positive outcomes existing presently but also believe these positive outcomes will continue in the future in order to maintain the trust built.

To this effect, this study raised a critical concern with regards to how trust will be developed and maintained so that relationships established, will not be faded. This demands an in-depth analysis by researchers to provide businesses with guidance as to how to maintain the trust developed (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013). It can be ascertained that there have been varied perspectives as to how businesses can enhance the level of trust of their stakeholders to maintain relationships initiated. Therefore, this study endeavored to incorporate how businesses could develop and maintain trust both from a relational point of view and other key factors associated with the operation of an IT company.

1.6. Aim and Research Questions of the Study

This study aims to ascertain how organizations develop and maintain trust. Subsequently, the study ascertains the influences trust have in organizations.

A. How is trust developed and maintained in organizations? B. What influences does trust have in organizations?

1.7. Delimitation

This study focused on how trust could be developed and maintained in an IT company. This was pursued from the perspective of employees and it influences it could have in the organization. Thus, this study did not include developing and maintaining trust from the perspective of the firm’s products and customers. In effect, not every aspect of trust can

(17)

8

be covered in this study considering complexities associated with it. Furthermore, this investigation is made via a qualitative approach through the use of semi-structured interviews. However, our sample size is limited to one firm in the IT sector in Nepal, Tech One Global Nepal Pvt Ltd. More organizations could not be accessed mainly as a result of the limited time at our disposal coupled with the negative impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19).

1.8. Disposition

This study consists of six chapters, and will be presented in the following order:

Chapter 1 - Introduction: It consists of a background of the study, the background of the research area, knowledge on trust and relationship development, gap identified, motivation, the aim of the study, research questions, and delimitations.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review: Presents a few of the existing theories related to the main concepts and theoretical framework of this study.

Chapter 3 - Methodology: Explains the methods and methodology used for conducting the research, that is how data collection is conducted and further analyzed. Also, it explained why the method used is appropriate for the study and provides the trustworthiness, reliability, validity, and ethical considerations of the research.

Chapter 4 - Empirical Findings: Presents the data collected through the interviews conducted.

Chapter 5 - Analysis and Discussion: Presents the analysis through the collected data whiles aligning with theories and framework. Further discussions are made based on the findings and relate these with existing theories.

Chapter 6 - Conclusions: Presents the conclusion of the findings and discussions, as we provide answers to the research questions, contributions of the research, reflection of study, and suggestions for future studies or investigations.

At last, the reference list is provided with appendices including, a letter to the company, and a sample of an interview transcribed.

(18)

9

Fig.1 – Disposition of The Study

Source: Own Construction

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Background Knowledge

on Trust

Problem Discussion

Motivation, Aim and Research questions

Delimitation

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Existing Theories Theoretical Framework

Chapter 3 – Methodology

Research Design and Approach Data Collection and Analysis Trustworthiness, Validity and Reliability

Ethical Consideration

Chapter 4 – Emperical Findings

Trust in the

IT Industry

Building and Maintaining Trust

Factors Influencing Building and Maintaining

Trust

Impact of Trust

Chapter 5 – Analysis and Discussion

Trust in the IT

Industry

Building Trust Maintaining Trust Impact of Trust

Chapter 6 – Conclusion

Answer to Research Questions Contributions Reflection of Study Future Studies

(19)

10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter delves deeper into the theoretical foundations that make up how trust is initiated and subsequently built or developed. This is consequently followed by a conceptualization of how trust could be maintained. Finally, we present a model that summarizes these theories and conceptualizations.

2.1. Trust and Levels of Trust

Trust is considered as multidimensional that is made up of cognitive and affective dimensions (Chai and Dibb, 2013). The cognitive dimension takes into consideration the logical basis for trust. This can be related to the credentials, competence, expertise, and reliability of the trustee. This is as well supported by Kantsperger and Kunz (2010) who identified reliability, competence, credibility, and benevolence as the key components of trust. The affective dimension considers the emotional bond that exists between both parties. As a result, both parties are motivated to maintain their relationship in the quest to fulfilling the trust established between them (Chai and Dibb, 2013).

The essence of trust is recognized across multiple levels. This includes personal, group, organizational, and societal or country levels of trust (Neal et al., 2016). This was supported by Fregidou-Malama and Hyder (2015), who found trust to be built on three levels including country level, company level, and personal level. Moreover, the intensity, strength, and continuity of the relationship between and among individuals and organizations are determined by trust (Akar, 2018). Our study focused on trust at both the personal and organizational levels. These two levels of trust development and corresponding relationships are complementary and positively related although conceptually different (Zheng et al., 2017).

2.1.1. Interpersonal Trust

Searle et al. (2018), recognize that interpersonal trust takes into consideration the trust that an individual has towards another particular person. Recent studies have identified trust as a dyadic phenomenon. This, which turns to be different from a reciprocal trust can be identified as a process rather than a construct; where one party becomes the trustor and trustee at the same time, such that the trust of one of them either, influences the other and vice versa (Korsgaard et al., 2015).

(20)

11

Interpersonal trust has been identified to have positive impacts on the attitudinal and behavioral workplace outcomes. This can be linked to the fact that trust has been empirically proven, to be associated with a range of positive performance outcomes related to job, creativity, and proactive behavior (Searle et al., 2018). Therefore, an interpersonal relationship can be deemed to comprise the trustor, the trustee, and the relationship that exists between both. It also takes into consideration, the context in which both parties are embedded in. To this effect, the determinants of interpersonal trust can be categorized into trustor factors, trustee factors, relationship factors, and contextual factors (Searle et al., 2018).

Factors Influencing the Trustor’s Building of Trust

As identified, it can be said that the trustor’s propensity to trust has been known to expedite trust directly (Colquitt et al., 2007). Thus, everyone can be deemed to have a minimum level of trust that can influence such a person’s readiness to rely on the deeds or words of others (Heyns and Rothmann, 2015). As such, individuals with a high propensity to trust are in a state of eagerness to form a relationship prior to seeking information about the trustee (Searle et al., 2018). In addition, they are known to make a decision on their own without letting others do that for them. One thing to notice of an individual’s trust propensity is that it is not only a key driver of trust but has the potential to directly influence trusting outcomes (Zheng et al., 2017). However, an individual’s propensity to trust is subject to their experiences, personalities, and cultural background and socioeconomic status (Zheng et al., 2017). One’s propensity to trust has also been found to be positively correlated to the perceptions of the trustee’s trustworthiness. Trustworthiness has also been found to fully mediate the influence of a tendency to trust on outcomes of trust (Searle et al., 2018). This suggests that trustworthiness is a determinant and consequence of the propensity to trust, which eventually boosts the trust of an individual (Yakovleva et al., 2010). It is therefore in line with this that trustworthiness perceptions were referred to as cognitive, which converts trust propensity to the actual trust of other people (Frazier et al., 2013).

Factors Influencing the Trustee’s Building of Trust

Trust is deemed to be predicted by perceptions concerning the referent’s ability, benevolence, and integrity (Colquitt et al., 2007). Moreover, it is believed behaviors such

(21)

12

as been open, discrete, receptive among other organizational personal behaviors, positively influences the trustees perceived trustworthiness. This consequently improves interpersonal trust, particularly at the workplace (Searle et al., 2018). A worker in an organization is likely to elicit higher levels of trust because he/she is able to meet the positive expectations of external stakeholders as a result of his/her ability to be integrative, responsive and competent (Searle et al., 2018). It is also imperative to note that the trustee’s behavior could have mixed effects on trust. For instance, false statements told or issued with the core aim of benefitting others tend to improve benevolence-based trust but on the other hand, harm integrity-based trust (Levine and Schweitzer, 2015). In effect, work behaviors tend to indicate the trustworthiness of an individual.

Relationship Factors

There is a tendency for the degree of similarities that exist between a trustor and a trustee to influence the level of trust (Searle et al., 2018). The level of interpersonal trust was found to be higher as a result of the trustor and the trustee sharing similar culture and ethnicity (Searle et al., 2018). Furthermore, it has been identified that the objects, ideas, or people usually encountered, be it physically or socially in an environment, are positively evaluated (Kwan et al., 2015). This tends to suggest that all things being equal, there is a tendency for trust levels to be high when parties to the relationship interact frequently.

Moreover, it is believed the process of communication influences the trust established between the trustor and the trustee. This is why face-to-face negotiations are found to have a greater influence on the development of trust than online negotiations (Lu et al., 2017). Also, the communication medium used, tend to interact with the organizational context and time in influencing the trust of personnel (Hill et al., 2009). This is mainly as a result of the individual’s opportunity to gather extra information from others over time. This makes the difference between face-to-face and online communications in building trust decrease (Hill et al., 2009).

Contextual factors

These factors mainly take into consideration the fact that interpersonal trust relationships are entrenched in larger contexts including networks, organizational context, and the external organizational environment (Searle et al., 2018). From a social perspective,

(22)

13

studies have revealed that characteristics such as trust transferability and structural equivalence, promote interpersonal trust (Ferrin et al., 2008). Trust transferability has to do with the extent to which the trustor and the trustee tend to have a common trusted third party. However, structural equivalence takes into consideration the similarities that exist solely in the relationship between the trustor and the trustee but absent among others in the network (Ferrin et al., 2008).

With regard to the organizational context, interpersonal trust is primarily affected by reward structures. This is related to the fact that cooperative reward structures have been deemed to have a greater impact on interpersonal trust than competitive reward structures. This is mainly a result of cooperative reward structures been able to enhance achievement among two or more people other than an individual against the others (Hill et al., 2009). However, it is imperative to note that factors external to an organization can as well impact interpersonal trust.

2.1.2. Organizational Trust

Organizational trust has to do with the belief of employees toward supporting the organization and its leaders (Akar, 2018). Thus, employees tend to believe in the honesty of the organization with the expectation that the organization will not just personally benefit from them, but will demonstrate the attempts to fulfill their promises. Moye et al. (2005) affirm honesty and supportive relationships of staff of an organization, to be the key features of trust working environment. Studies have also revealed that attempts to build trust in organizations by managers entail key mechanisms for enhancing the effectiveness of the organization. In effect, building organizational trust leads to organizational effectiveness (Neal et al., 2016). Managers who tend to promote organizational trust, improve the levels of compliance and commitment to organizational goals, and willingness to demonstrate extra-role behaviors by employees (Neal et al., 2016). This suggests that in trust dominated organizations, there are a high tendency for an open and participatory environment and responsibilities to be exhibited by employees (Akar, 2018). Failure to build the required level of trust in organizations is likely to result in the neglect of opportunities to build cooperative relationships. This will consequently result in a substantial loss of value-enhancing opportunities that comes along with high organizational trust (Neal et al., 2016).

(23)

14

Managers are known to build trust in themselves as individuals and in the organization, they represent. They are identified to build trust through two main means; by implementing the cognitive and affective based factors to building trust (Neal et al., 2016). With cognitive-based factors, managers seek to understand that their actions and intentions benefit others in incalculable ways. By pursuing affective based factors, managers seek to demonstrate care and concern to their subordinates whiles establishing harmonies that ensure that members of the organization share common interests and motivations (Neal et al., 2016).

Another key area of organizational trust has to do with the level of trust that the systems of the organization stimulate (Hassan and Semerciöz, 2010). Thus, there is a belief that structures should be in place to enable stakeholders of the organization to anticipate a successful potential venture. This demands that safeguards in relation to regulations, guarantees, or contracts are in the best of shape to promote success in the organization. Heyns and Rothmann (2015) acknowledge the essence of organizational policies, procedures, and systems in developing trust. These explain that it is imperative the organizational environment is in proper order. These are most likely within attributes of competence, benevolence, and integrity of the management and the organization as a whole, in promoting organizational success (Hassan and Semerciöz, 2010). One key means of sustaining organizational success is by enhancing the operational excellence of that firm (Sony, 2019).

2.1.3. Inter-organizational Trust

Inter-organizational trust is deemed to be a mechanism that demonstrates the parties involved, willingness to accept vulnerability in the inter-organizational relationship (Searle et al., 2018). Studies in this perspective have shown trust to be a mechanism that eases concerns of opportunism and as a result enhances cooperation among partners (Searle et al., 2018). This is as a result of the trust each of the parties has in the other in fulfilling their scope of tasks assigned them in the relationship. It is believed that the fulfillment of positive expectations by partners enhances the level of confidence in the relationship built which consequently mitigates future concerns of parties been taken advantage of, by the others (Gulati and Nickerson, 2008). In effect, the ability to build inter-organizational trust demands partners to eliminate risks associated with cooperation,

(24)

15

effective use of opportunities, and disturbances that accompany the relationship established (Chrupała-Pniak et al., 2017).

It is imperative to ascertain the ways by which trust can be developed in an inter-organizational relationship, considering its benefits. It has been identified that possibility to obtain information, the flow of information, promptness, commitment, completeness, and correctness of documents received, and assessment of other organizations’ employee’s knowledge are key determinants of inter-organizational trust (Opolski et al., 2019). These are also recognized as essential to forming inter-organizational effectiveness among collaborating partners. Therefore, instituting these processes and practices tend to crystallize expectations and targets of the partnership, though workers turnover may be experienced by any of the partners (Gulati and Nickerson, 2008). Chrupała-Pniak et al. (2017) classify the determinants of inter-organizational trust into three groups. These groups include process-based, characteristics-based, and institutional. Process-based mainly considers the shared history and processes of the partners. These shared memories tend to confirm their credibility and capacity to fulfill expectations at hand. Characteristic based sourced considers the cultural proximity, shared values, and established social relationship of the partners. These in a way foster the identity and understanding of the partners involved. Formal confirmations in an organization in the form of contractual and relational mechanisms create safeguards for the partnership formed. These tend to legitimize the relationship established. In effect, developing trust within an inter-organizational relationship requires partners to possess trust-building competences. These competences consequently influence the efficiency and effectiveness of the relationship established, which in effect enhances the competitive advantages of the partnership. There are quite diverged views among scholars regarding how trust is formed within organizations. These views represent the theoretical basis by which such scholars propose models that suggest how organizations could implement best practices for developing and maintaining trust (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010).

2.2. Approaches for Building and Maintaining Trust

We restrict ourselves to four theoretical approaches in ascertaining how trust could be developed and maintained. These four theories include; Relational Signaling Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory, and Cognitive Theory. It is

(25)

16

expected that a review of these theories will result in identifying best practices for enhancing and sustaining trust within organizations.

2.2.1. Relational Signaling Theory

The Relational Signaling Theory was first proposed by Lindenberg (1988). This theory is based on two assumptions including firstly, the human behavior is goal-directed, as such, efforts made to explain this social phenomenon should be geared towards the goals of the parties involved. Secondly, it is assumed that human behavior is context-dependent (Six, 2007). With regards to goal-directedness, individuals are perceived to be rational, however, their rationality is bounded in the sense of the little information they possess. Moreover, it also considers their ability to utilize all this information at their disposal (Six, 2007). This demonstrates that individuals are sufficiently rational with regards to their resolve to pursue a goal (Six, 2007).

The second assumption underpinning this theory is that human behavior is context-dependent, based on the frame an individual is in. These frames are categorized into three main forms, comprising hedonic, gain, and normative frames. With the hedonic frame, an individual seeks to feel good or better now (Six, 2007). Thus, it is a very short-term goal aimed at the states of the individual. The gain frame is defined by the main goal of improving an individual’s resources. The resources can be identified to be material such as money or immaterial such as enhancing one’s competencies (Six, 2007). The normative frame is recognized when the main goal is directed towards acting appropriately. Both the hedonic and gain related goals can be known as self-interest because the ego of the individual in question is mainly concerned with his or her interest. However, the normative frame is other-directed (Six, 2007).

It has been identified that individuals are sensitive to the frames of people around them. Therefore, there is a high tendency for individuals to act from the normative frame if people around them do not act from any of the self-interested frames. Moreover, it has been determined that building trust emanates from the party’s ability to act based on a stable normative frame (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010). In effect, the parties’ quest to act from a stable normative frame becomes of a joint goal. Per this theory, a trustor seeks to identify two factors from the trustee as prove that the trustee is interested in maintaining the relationship. They include the behavior of the trustee that indicates competence to

(26)

17

perform in accordance with expectations and whether the behavior of trustee depicts one that is interested in maintaining the relationship into the future (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010). As a result, this theory has aided in the development of factors that organizations could be maximized to build and maintain trust.

2.2.2. Social Exchange Theory

Moreover, the social exchange theory as developed by Blau (1964) identifies an individual who voluntarily provides benefits to another which intends to invoke an obligation of the other party to respond by offering a benefit in return (Whitener et al., 1998). In effect, Blau (1964), identifies trust to be generated via two main means including the consistent discharge of obligation and through a steady growth in exchanges over time (Whitener et al., 1998). Therefore, the exchange carried out by both parties are for the mutual benefit of all. This explains employees and management of an organization can enhance the level of trust if they can work for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders within the organization (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010).

The theory further assumes that parties to this exchange, develop trust mainly by interacting with each other (Whitener et al., 1998). As such, the theory can be deemed to emphasize the exchange process which includes its development over time. It can be also ascertained that successful social exchanges largely affect the perception of the threat of non-reciprocation and trust (Whitener et al., 1998). To this effect, developing and maintaining trust between the parties would have to be by mutual consent to hold unto the level of trust attained into the future. However, in the absence of such mutual consent to hold unto the trust attained, the trust will be declined or virtually destroyed (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010).

2.2.3. Commitment-Trust Theory

The commitment-trust theory describes how relationships between the parties are established, developed, and maintained. Commitment plays a vital role to create and build trust and relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). All these variables are interlinked and influence each other. If there is a relationship between parties, then either of the parties expects the long-term commitment from the other party. When commitment and trust are together, then it enhances efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness which makes the relationship between two parties stronger. Once the relationship becomes stronger, then

(27)

18

the communication between the parties will be frequent which gradually increases confidence, reliability, and integrity between them (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). This stronger relationship further helps to develop and maintain that built trust between the parties.

2.2.4. Cognitive Theory

Trust is self-assessed or perceived but not provided or transferred, which is made using both conscious and subconscious processes (Hill and Erin, 2006). Different people have their thoughts and beliefs, and make an assessment of others according to that. Some people believe and trust others quickly. They also share information and encourage, motivate, and inspire their social group, colleagues, friends, etc. Whereas, some people do not trust others so easily and it might take a long time to believe and trust others. It will be even difficult for them to communicate and share information with others due to their low-level trust or distrust. But with the consistent repeat of communication and interaction over a time period, if it is positive then the relationship evolves into a high level of trust (Hill and Erin, 2006). Nelson et al. (2019) acknowledge the relevance of employees building trust mainly as a result of engaging in continuously open communication among themselves.

2.3. Consequences of Trust

With regards to positive word-of-mouth and repurchase intentions, trust followed by the satisfaction of customers is deemed to be the most relevant factor (Santos and Fernandes, 2008). If any failure occurs in trust, there could be a drastic consequence to the organization. There is a high tendency for consumers to pass favorable comments and possibly recommend companies to compatriots when the firms maintain a high trust level with them. Moreover, this can also foster the sustenance of a long-term business relationship that is established and engagement in future dealings. So, trust is considered as the key antecedent of repurchase and word-of-mouth communication and may take time to develop (Santos and Fernandes, 2008).

Establishing an adequate level of trust can neither be said to be simple nor rapid. It takes a relatively long period of time and as well an ongoing process (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013). To this effect, maintaining this adequate level of trust in order to sustain relationships can be quiet challenging. Thus, considering the fragility of trust in business

(28)

19

environments, the task of maintaining trust becomes a challenge for firms (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013). Moreover, building trust comes at a cost to parties involved, particularly businesses (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010). Therefore, it is imperative to maintain this built trust by parties in order to maximize the benefits in the relationship over a long period. Thus, despite the fragility of trust, businesses, in particular, must endeavor to build and maintain trust with the aim of improving their overall long-term performance (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010).

When trust is built in the organization, people tend to have positive expectations or outcomes from the activities pursued. So, in the case of loss outcomes, people perceive that their expectations are violated and consider it as unacceptable and unexpected outcomes (Ferdinand et al., 2012). But if there is a low level of trust, although people expected to receive a positive outcome, they accept the negative or loss outcomes (Ferdinand et al., 2012). This shows that when people have a high level of trust in the organization, then they pay more attention to the outcomes and consequences than having a low level of trust.

In trust-based relationships, customers provide feedback and responses which help firms to improve their product or service as well as inspires to innovate new products (Brockman and Morgan, 2003). This helps firms to improve their overall performance such as cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility, and focus on the long-term benefits for both parties. It will provide competitive advantages through enhancing competitiveness and reducing transaction costs for the company (Doney and Cannon, 1997). However, a firm often ignores the opportunities to work with less trusting partners who might be competent and beneficial to the business in various other ways (De Wever et al., 2005).

Trust between parties becomes important when there involves interdependency and consequently vulnerability. Trust reduces the threats from each other and smoothens the relationship for the long-term. Although there will be always a risk of misusing or abusing the accessed resources by other parties in the network, the firm takes a risk and exchange strategic resources due to the existing trust. Because of this, trust is considered as social capital for the firm (Mayer et al., 1995). Also, it depends upon the level of trust that firms take the risk to provide the full access of its resources to the other parties which helps further to develop and maintain that built trust.

(29)

20

Trust has a direct link with the relationship between two parties. It can control the strength of the relationship and if the level of trust changes then the strength of the relationship will become stronger or weaker according to the level of trust (De Wever et al., 2005). So, to make a strong or positive relationship, parties need to increase the level of trust from lower levels to higher levels while dealing with each other (Karlsen et al, 2008). Once the level of trust becomes high, the relationship between parties becomes strong which automatically helps to maintain that built trust for the long-term.

2.4. Conceptual Framework

Considering the literature and theories above, it can be ascertained that an adequate level of trust is required to promote an effective relationship. The decision to maintain trust is a bilateral decision between the parties in a relationship. In this situation, the stability of the relationship is not undermined in case the unplanned event happens. This is because members are able to negotiate solutions through those difficult times, hence the need to strategize to maintain the trust of an established relationship (Fachrunnisa et al., 2010). It is therefore imperative the trustee engages in predictable communication with the trustor. This means, there is a guaranteed level of availability by the trustee with regards to replying to a task communication from the trustor (Fachrunnisa and Hussain, 2013).

In effect, it is imperative for parties in a relationship to mutually enhance their level of commitment required to sustain trust between themselves. Considering the importance that comes along with exhibiting commitment in tasks and relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Moreover, its imperative organizational factors that seek to enhance the cognitive capabilities of firms or individuals, in maintaining trust is promoted. Closely linked to these are some factors enumerated by Babar et al. (2007), identified as significant factors that aid in maintaining the trust within a relationship including effective communication, cultural understanding, providing capabilities, contract conformance, managing expectations, and performance of staff.

In table 1 below, different factors such as relationship, communication, commitment, and consistency which influence the building and maintenance of trust are constructed through the theories discussed above. These factors derived, provide a framework, and are of the essence in ascertaining how organizational trust and relationship could be

(30)

21

promoted. This as well shows how these factors influence or impact building and maintaining trust within an organization.

Table 1 – Theoretical Links to Developing and Maintaining Trust

Construct Authors Relevant Theories Motivation

Relationships and Networks Lindenberg (1988); Six, (2007) Relational Signaling Theory

Identifying relational signals that help in building and maintaining relationships and trust. Communication, and Mutual Benefit Blau (1964); Whitener et al. (1998) Social Exchange Theory

Communication and Mutual consent holds the level of trust attained, transfer of knowledge.

Commitment Morgan and Hunt (1994)

Commitment-Trust Theory

How a relationship is built on commitment and trust.

Consistency Hill and Erin

(2006) Cognitive Theory

Identifying less subjective factors in developing and maintaining trust.

Source: Own Construction.

Fig 2 below, shows how different levels of trust impact an organization. Also, different factors that influence the development and maintenance of the trust within an organization and the consequences of trust in the organization are demonstrated in fig. 2. Building and maintaining trust within an organization has a high tendency of improving the overall performance, fulfill expectations and commitments within that organization. Failure to do this will result in a drastic decline in trust which might subsequently develop into distrust to the disadvantage of the organization.

(31)

22

Fig. 2 – Building and Maintaining Trust in Organizations

Key:

Influence on variables

- Variables Identified in Existing Theories

Source: Own Construction, adapted from Fregidou-Malama and Hyder (2015, p.532) Factors Influencing Building and Maintaining Trust - Communication - Relationship - Commitment - Consistency

Trust

Levels of Trust - Interpersonal trust - Organizational trust - Inter-organizational trust

Consequences of Trust on the Organization

- Negative Outcomes - Improve performance - Low Performance - Fulfill Expectation

- Fulfill Commitment Failure of

Trust

Positive Impact of Trust

(32)

23 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

An overall overview with regards to how this research is conducted is presented in this chapter. It comprises details of the paradigm of research used for this study, including the philosophical stance and research methods. The basis of choosing the methods and how the data has been collected is explained. Furthermore, this chapter provides an overview of how empirical data is further analyzed and gives indications of the trustworthiness, validity, and reliability of the used data.

3.1. Philosophical Stance

Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) postulate that most of the central discussions among philosophers are related to matters of ontology and epistemology. They further identified them as lying behind the scenes and are progressively less visible features in research projects.

3.1.1. Ontology

Both ontology and epistemology work hand in hand with the theoretical perspective of researchers in shaping the research questions of a study (Berryman, 2019). To this effect, Berryman (2019), identifies ontology to be a fundamental or basic belief of what researchers perceive to exist. Scotland (2012), also defines ontology to be a study of being. This suggests that assumptions are based on what the researcher considers to constitute reality. In effect, an understanding of what the researcher considers to be the nature of the truth and the world is established.

Our research ascertained how trust could be developed and maintained in an organization. As such, in relation to the ontological foundation of this study, we sought to question the essence of this organizational fact under investigation. As described by Moalusi (2020), this could be ascertained based on the researchers’ ability to identify whether the subject matter under study is of objective nature or subjective nature. In this regard, a researcher will be deemed to assume a realist ontological position if the subjective matter is identified to be of an objective nature. In effect, trust is considered to be real and can be objectively investigated such that, it will be deemed to exist, independent of human cognition. Such a position can be linked to positivism and quantitative research (Moalusi, 2020).

(33)

24

However, where the researcher considers the social world as subjective, it will denote a relativist position. Therefore, relativism is justified on the grounds of subjectivism and the presence of multiple realities. To this effect, the reality is vulnerable to the influence of varied contextual factors (Moalusi, 2020). Therefore, this study collated experiences of research participants which can be considered as relative. As such, there was a high tendency for the gathering of many experiences, based on the number of individuals who express them. In effect, a relativist ontological position was adopted for this study because we have considered the reality, which can be deemed to be subjective. This is particularly important considering the diverse perspectives to trust, across various researches done in this respect (Neal et al., 2016).

3.1.2. Epistemology

Based on the ontological assumptions that our research is founded on, the epistemological underpinnings were as well ascertained (Moalusi, 2020). Berryman (2019), identifies epistemology as the means of knowing. Thus, how a researcher, gets to know what he/she knows. Scotland (2012), also defines epistemology to mainly involve the nature and forms of knowledge. This suggests how researchers create, acquire, and communicate knowledge in the course of their study. In essence, epistemology provides the philosophical backing which authenticates knowledge and generates answers that are deemed to be valid, reliable, and representative (Sumner and Tribe, 2004). As such, epistemology provided our study with the required level of credibility because it offered appropriate approaches and frameworks to validate and justify answers to our research questions.

There are quite diverse philosophical assumptions concerning what constitutes knowledge. This in effect, influences researchers to pursue the subject matter in particular ways (Moalusi, 2020). As a result, Berryman (2019) categorizes this to either represent, positivism, or interpretivism (constructionism). With positivism, researchers identify the truth as to be separate from human consciousness. This suggests that there is a separation between what is known from the knower. Positivists in this regard seek to ask questions that can be quantified (Berryman, 2019). Interpretivism or constructivism recognizes the world differently from positivism, such that multiple truths are identified in relation to the phenomenon under study. It is further believed that truths are discovered mainly through social constructions, shared consciousness, and other social interactions

(34)

25

(Berryman, 2019). In effect, research questions are asked in order to understand the why and how of a phenomenon. This can be deemed to depict more of a qualitative study.

In sum, the positivist epistemology identifies knowledge to be it tangible, hard, and objective whereas the constructivist-interpretivist epistemologies identify knowledge to be intangible, softer, and subjective (Moalusi, 2020). Assuming the position of constructivist-epistemologies, we sought to occupy the participants of this study’s frame of reference in order to understand their level of subjectivity in relation to the subject matter. This is because we need to understand that their experiences take place from the inside other than the outside. In effect, our study of trust development and maintenance was undertaken on the premise that data was acquired based on the experiences of the staff of the company we studied.

3.2. Research Design

Abutabenjeh and Jaradat (2018), identified research design to be a blueprint that guides the entire research process by establishing how the study will move from the aim, questions, and results. It can be regarded as a comprehensive planning process relevant for collecting and analyzing data to improve the understanding of the research topic. Research design is therefore considered as a key model to conduct research effectively. To this effect, entire research has a high tendency of failing should its research design be flawed. Thus, it is necessary to consider how to conduct proper planning of collecting and analyzing data. Furthermore, it is imperative for researchers to critically elaborate their research question in an attempt to identify and address possible threats associated with developing and modifying theories used (Maxwell, 1941). To this effect, the researchers’ quest to conduct an in-depth study in relation to the identified gap would largely depend on the appropriateness of their research design that an effective and efficient study could be obtained. Based on the appropriateness of the research design, the research gaps noticed, can be critically observed, thereby influencing the overall success and meaningfulness of the research (Maxwell, 1941).

Mainly there are two types of research approaches in qualitative method; inductive and deductive approach. The deductive approach illustrates looking back at the data from the themes to determine if any additional information or more evidence can support each theme (Creswell, 2014). By choosing the inductive approach, we were offered the

(35)

26

opportunity to establish a comprehensive set of themes after our analysis work was conducted back and forth between the themes and the database (Creswell, 2014).

Lyon et al. (2012) identify that the inductive approach offers the opportunity for more open and less structured data methods for data collection. We used an inductive approach by using semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with content analysis as a research design for this study. By choosing an inductive approach to the study of trust development and maintenance, we were able to condense the transcribed interviews into a summary format (Liu, 2016). This consequently aided in the establishment of a link between the aims of the research and the summary findings. Subsequently, a model with regards to the structures of experiences was derived from the summary (Liu, 2016). Considering the fact that our report involves a single company, we needed to produce clear designs as recommended by Yin (2013). To this end, he suggested a research design should cover prepositions or main questions, unit of analysis, the linkage between data and prepositions, and processes for analyzing data collected. All of these were meant to build the rigor required for our study as well as enhancing the application of knowledge.

3.3. Unit of Analysis

The unit been studied, from where researchers collect data for their study is a research unit or unit of analysis. A unit might be individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, countries, or objects according to the aim of the study (Kumar, 2018). According to Babbie (2010), most researchers use a single unit of analysis to conduct their study. Because it is appropriate to adopt a single unit of analysis to reduce unnecessary elements and concentrate to fulfill the aim of the study. For example, the unit might be individuals or groups, but not both; groups or activities within the group, but not both depending upon the nature and aim of the study. Also, while conducting the research work, researchers should decide the research unit as per the aim of the study paper in order to fulfill the main purpose of the study. In other words, researchers should have knowledge of what type of data and from whom the data should be collected. Otherwise, the conclusion drawn by the researchers might be invalid (Kumar, 2018). For instance, if the study is conducted to examine the sales performance of the company, then the unit of analysis should be the management of the company or managers of the sales department but not all employees of the company. The knowledge and information provided by informants must meet the requirement to fulfill the purpose of the study. So, to obtain the best

Developing and Maintaining Trust Within Organizations: Tech One Global in Nepal

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES