Trust Issues?: An explorative study about millennials understanding of trust at work

(1)

Trust issues?

An explorative study about millennials understanding

of trust at work

Master Thesis

Authors: Timmy Le Persson & Christopher

Amoako-Atta

Supervisor: Marianna Strzelecka Examiner: Mikael Lundgren Term: VT20

(2)

“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody

is to trust them.” – Ernest Hemingway

(3)

Abstract

Through demographic change, millennials now make up the most substantial part of the workforce. This is relevant as they are also a generation faced with prejudice. This thesis aims to explore how millennial followers are looking at trust in work relationships and how they perceive to establish trust in work relationships to increase understanding. The focus of this study is on millennial followers, as leadership literature is plentiful, and most millennials are and will always be followers. We examine the millennials’ understanding of trust and explore what issues they bring up when reflecting on trust at work. This thesis argues that millennials think of trust as relying on others when thinking of healthy relationships. They prefer knowledge-based relationships over calculus- and identity-based relationships. To build trust, millennials perceive that they use both task- and relationship-based trust-building together with interactions as based to earn and evolve trust. In relationships where there are trust issues, they change their understanding of trust and stick to task-based or calculus-based relationships. This study follows an interpretivist approach with an abductive structure. For data collection, in-depth interviews with 7 millennials from Sweden and Switzerland were conducted. To analyze a thematic approach to coding was employed. The emerging patterns are introduced in a thematic narrative to increase comprehensibility. The study provides insights into the millennial followers’ understanding of trust.

Key words

Trust, Millennials, Followers, Building Trust, Work Relationship, Work environment, Follower perspective

(4)

Acknowledgments

First, we would like to thank all the people, friends and family who helped us during the thesis and took their time to support us in the best way. A special thanks goes out to all our interview participants who took time and reflected on their thoughts and feelings about trust

in order to participate and add value to our work.

Secondly, we would like to thank our supervisor Marianna Strzelecka who guided us through the process of writing this thesis. Her feedback, insights and patience were crucial for the

writing process and fill us with gratefulness.

In addition, we want to thank Mikael Lundgren, our examiner, for commenting and advising us in the process and the seminars letting us improve our thesis.

Lastly, we would like to thank our classmates who supported and helped us by commenting and challenging us which aided us to reflect and improve the research.

Thank you! Tack tack!

(5)

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Interview guide ... 1

Appendix 2 – Coding memos ... 3

Appendix 3 – Coding data ... 4

List of Figures Figure 1 Mental model of trust adapted from Rundle et al., (2012) ... 21

Figure 2 Three Stages Model adapted from Lewicki and Bunker (1996) ... 22

Figure 3 Coding example ... 37

Figure 4 Coding example ... 38

Figure 5 Adapted model based on the three stages model ... 57

List of Tables Table 1 Sample ... 32

Table 2 Key results ... 54

(7)

1 Introduction

This chapter will present a general introduction and background of the topic and outline the focus of the study. Continuing by presenting the research problem, research question and research significance to conclude in the role of the authors and their interest in the subject.

1.1 Background

Looking back on earlier epochs, trust is a foundation of human relationships. A well-functioning society without trust is hard to imagine and as trust can be seen as the adhesive that holds the society together (Jaffe, 2018). Furthermore, trust is essential in society, because living a social life requires people to be able to rely on others in order to cooperate (Simpson, 2012). The mission of surviving through time together and trusting other members to do their part of the “deal” has been crucial. Misjudging the trustworthiness of others can potentially lead disappointments, not only to yourself but to numerous members of a group. Thus, trust is a prerequisite and the core for healthy relationships not only in private but also at work and professional relationships (Putnam, 2000; Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker, 1996; Covey & Merrill, 2006; Rundle et al., 2012; Saunders, 2012).

Behind every relationship, may it be with your spouse, friend, family, co-worker, manager or political party, there is a level of trust that must be considered. The brightest ideas might get rejected, not because the idea is bad, but because there is a lack of trust from their counterparts (Lüders, 2017). From followers to leaders who have grand visions for organizations and society, all must be able to trust in and create trust in their relationships. As, trust has been seen as the most problematic value for western managers for some time (Limerick & Cunnington, 1993). High trust can also help to reduce transaction costs, uncertainty, and the necessity to implement a provision for possibly opportunistic actions among groups (Limerick & Cunnington, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995). This is especially important for effective leadership, as the level of trust will determine if it is possible or not, to successfully lead their organization (Bennis & Nanus, 2005). Thus, for societies to become well-functioning and to strive, trust in other individuals is necessary (Luhmann, 1979; Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, 2000; Rundle et al. 2012). However, the emergence of digital communication has changed work and the work environment during past decades, especially visible now during times of COVID-19 to the point that the traditional ways of establishing trust through relationship-based or task-based trust-building (Meyer, 2014) may become harder to apply. These changes have an impact on everyday work. Relationships have

(8)

to be built in less time because people change jobs more frequently (Hamori, 2010). In addition, personal interactions are frequently replaced by digital alternatives like email and phone calls as remote working and decentralization become more common. Thus, the ability to effectively build trust within teams has become more important in the contemporary work environment.

The issue of trust in the work environment becomes especially relevant in the light of the millennial generation, which has entered the global labour market. Being labelled in different names as Echo-Boomers or Thumb Generation (Huntley, 2006), NetGeners (Tapscott, 2009), Nexters (Zemke et al., 2000) the millennials are currently holding the title as the largest generation of people employed in organizations all over the world (Pinzaru et al., 2016). As there exists no general consensus of the precise year of birth, the common date of birth used amongst scholars, reaches from the year 1977 up to 2000 (Huntley, 2006; Tapscott, 2009; Twenge et al., 2010; Pinzaru et al., 2016).

The upbringing of the millennials differentiates from earlier generations resulting in the millennials having different values (Twenge et al., 2010) and a number of unique characteristics compared to previous generations (Tapscott, 2009; Demaria, 2013). While the earlier generations are perhaps not as familiar with digital technology, the millennials are considered to be the digital natives. With access to digital technology and being a part of the fast-paced information society from a very young age, it has shaped their aspirations, needs and behaviors (Pinzaru et al., 2016).

On the other hand, with the opportunity to effortlessly connect themselves to distant parts of the world, the digital era has acted as a globalizing force that has flattened their worldview and eliminated distinct local characteristics (Tapscott, 2009). While digital technology has affected millennials to a great extent, they have also been under the influence of their family. The millennials have been raised to be competitive while simultaneously being taught to believe that they are better than others. All while their parents have been maintaining control in several aspects of their life, resulting in them creating high levels of self-trust, as well, the need to depend on others (Pinzaru et al., 2016). Furthermore, the millennials are argued to have a higher tendency of narcissistic traits such as high esteem, individualism, and unrealistic self-images (Alsop, 2008; Twenge, 2009; Pinzaru et al., 2016). Controversial to the narcissistic traits, the upbringing of an egalitarian society has made the millennials a generation who emphasizes the significance of sustainability, peace, and cultural diversity (Pinzaru et al., 2016).

(9)

As millennials are used to being offered several options, they tend to demand things to develop how they desire (Pinzaru et al., 2016). Thus, it is essential to understand how trust in work relationships is established, as millennials, furthermore, have been shown to not grant trust as willingly as previous generations (Rundle et al., 2012). A recent report in which over thirteen thousand millennials and three thousand Gen Zers are surveyed has shown that trust levels in millennials and Gen Z has dropped by a huge margin within just one year (Deloitte, 2019). The report goes on to list some of the reasons why millennials are thinking about quitting their current position in the next two years as they are dissatisfied with their current position. Reasons to leave employers are the lack of opportunities for learning and advancement and the feeling of not being appreciated (ibid). The high percentage of millennials that changed their job in the last two years, highlights a difference to the Boomer generation that are known to be loyal to their employees as they expect their employer also to be loyal to them, which is not the case for millennials anymore (Gibson et al., 2009).

When engaging in the subject of trust, the common individual may not hesitate to claim that they have knowledge concerning it. As people put trust in their family, friends, co-workers, managers, government etc. including it in all aspects of their everyday life, they assume to understand it. However, the actual meaning of trust is generally not reflected by people, often their understanding of trust is limited to when they are experiencing the betrayal or loss of it (Saunders, 2012). This is only a fraction of the underlying concept of trust. Positioning trust in the commonly used metaphor of an iceberg, the iceberg is floating in the water, and at the first glance, one may assume that he or she, has the complete view and comprehension of the trust. However, trust is complex, the concept has been researched by various researchers, as well in different fields, yet, there is still no single general definition that scholars can agree upon. The reason is that the perception of trust is highly diverse and affected by numerous variables e.g. social realities, researchers' lens and filter, culture, social context, and morality (Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker 1996; Rundle et al., 2012).

(10)

1.2 Research Problem

Organizations generally strive to increase their profits and improve their business strategies. While it may be one thing to discuss improving business relationships through communication, discussing trust is on a different level (Simpson, 2012). Discussing trust may question grounds and assumptions on which the whole relationship was built, thus also questioning the relationship and the trustworthiness of the other party (ibid.). Thus, trust is an essential companion of a good relationship.

Due to organizational trends e.g. increased reliance on teams and teamwork, digitalization, flexibility and change in employment relationships, the significance of trust has further increased (Shamir & Lapidot 2003). The organizational structure has moved from top-down structures to a more flattened structure (Hamori, 2010), paving way for more democratic approaches of interpersonal influence. Thus, the effectiveness of the managers revolves around their ability to establish trust in the relationships with their subordinates (Shamir & Lapidot 2003). A study from Schaubroeck et al., (2011) shows that cognition- and affect-based trust are mediators for leadership influence on team performance. Another study confirms that intra-team trust is crucial for intra-team performance highlighting the need for trust in work-related settings (De Jong et al., 2016).

In contrast to the increasing need for trust in the organizational context. The levels of trust from the people have been steadily decreasing, especially with the younger generations (Rundle et al., 2012). They view trust as an aspect that should be earned by their counterpart, else they will not provide it (ibid). As they are socialized into a mindset by adults and society, where they should be wary of strangers as they may have ill intentions (Davis et al., 2012). While the millennials are praised for their ambitions, teamwork, and the capability to work for the greater cause. They have also been ego massaged, raising them to the skies and making them feel more important rather than to expose their flaws. Thus, they are generally considered to be the most arrogant and narcissistic generation so far (Alsop 2008; Twenge, 2009). In addition, earlier years have contributed by the discourse and development of social policy being characterized and dominated by the rational choice model. Meaning that people act from a self-interest attitude, have difficulties in negotiating and creating relationships as it conflicts with their motivation to maximize their own personal winnings and reduce the losses in social interactions (Tyler & Kramer, 1996). However, the empirical research on millennials is fairly thin and

(11)

scattered, to the point where it often becomes contradictory and confusing (Deal et al., 2010). In addition, the primary studies on millennials have been conducted in the United States of America (Pinzaru et al., 2016), creating a lack of research in remaining countries. Thus, the study will focus on Sweden and Switzerland, as they have similar assumptions of how trust is built (Meyer, 2014) and lack further research.

As it would have been appealing to conduct a study of the leader’s perspective, we choose not to because the leader’s perspective in leadership theory and relations to followers have been extensively studied. Due to the glamorization of leaders, people seldomly raise the importance of followers, despite followership being the dominating force of our lives and organizations (Kelley, 1988). Thus, by observing the theoretical gap in earlier studies, we acknowledged the importance and relevance of followers. The study will, therefore, opt to research the phenomena from the follower’s perspective.

1.3 Research questions

To construct the set of research questions we relied on the gap-spotting technique to find relevant research questions (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2013). This includes reviewing relevant literature on the topic of trust and millennials and then identifying blind spots. The purpose of this review was firstly, to become more knowledgeable on the topic and secondly, to find a previously neglected area in trust research and then formulate relevant research questions based on the previous findings. This is also referred to as neglect-spotting (ibid.) which has revealed that there is a gap in researching millennials in the context of trust and work relationships. Most research focuses either on trust in the context of work or millennials in general. Especially the perspective of the follower, has been neglected as research is often focused on the more prestigious side of the leader (Kelley, 1992).

(12)

To address the gap, we decided on formulating an open question to address the topic in a way that lets us explore the different aspects of the phenomenon. Combining the different aspects of the question we formulated this as our first research question:

Research Question 1:

“How do millennials understand trust in work relationships?”

The proposed research question addresses a specific knowledge gap identified after a review of literature, while at the same time it leaves the question open enough to not delimit the scope of our results (Gioia et al., 2013).

The second question is similar to a sub-question and is built on the presumption that the first research question will provide general insights that can be refined and complemented by the second question. Thus, the question is formulated more specifically on the aspect of trust-building so that we can increase the practical relevance of the research and gain more insights into millennial work relationships. Based on our literature research and with the first question in mind we arrived at the following research question:

Research question 2:

“How do millennials establish trust in work relationships?”

With this specificity, we are not only looking for more practical contributions but also looking to make a contribution to trust and millennial research by describing how millennials perceive their trust-building actions and how they enact their understanding of trust in work. As this study is qualitative and based on conducting interviews, we will be limited in answering this question as it is based on the millennial’s perceptions and not our own observations of millennials building trust. Nevertheless, this study is looking to explore both these questions as we believe they are helpful in creating a new understanding of millennials and trust relationships at work.

(13)

1.4 Research significance

In this thesis, the authors explore how millennials make sense of trust in the work environment. There is a considerable amount of research on trust in different fields of study, like marketing, economics. Studies often focus on trust in different contexts e.g. trust in business-to-business (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018) however, there is a lack of research in the study of millennials and trust in the work setting. This is astonishing as millennials comprise the biggest part of the workforce (Eriksson, 2012). Building trust and thus also understanding trust is not only important for effective leadership (Benis & Nanus, 2005) but also for team- (Schaubroeck et al., 2011) and organizational performance (Gould-Williams, 2003). Thus, we believe it is essential to explore this topic as it might have implications on how we understand trust in work relationships and the importance of interpersonal trust of followers.

1.5 Delimitations

The researchers chose not to explore trust in the aspect of culture for several reasons. Firstly, the authors think that this would provide a comfortable way to explain findings or negative examples, as culture and subcultures may or may not be accountable for. Secondly, the topic of culture is very broad and together with the common understanding of trust we feared that this would lead to findings that are not only obvious but also irrelevant. Nonetheless, one might argue that we lightly touch the topic of culture through the aspect work environment, however, this is based on our trust framework introduced in Chapter 3.

Another delimitation is due to the choice of looking at the generation of millennials. As the generation’s definitions are in concise (see Section 2.2) and the concept of demographic cohorts might be questionable. We still chose to do so, in order to increase the focus of the study. Thus, emerging generational differences are discussed, however, cannot be separated from differences in age due to the qualitative design of the study.

(14)

1.6 Authors interest in trust and role in research

Both authors are in their late twenties while writing this and while both have previous work experience in different industries those were no source of dominating interests or topics. The authors thus reflected on their situation and analyzed that their current situation can be described by three different commonalities. We are both millennials, about to leave university behind us and transition into work. We were also in a situation in which we barely knew each other and had to trust that we would be able to write this thesis in a satisfactory way for both parties. This meant relying on each other for a temporary time through a common project, essentially creating a situation similar to that we sought to research. This inherent paradox, our mutual interest in the topic and the belief of not only uncovering valuable insights for ourselves but also for others lead us to choose this topic.

(15)

1.7 Thesis outline

In Chapter One we introduce the Background of the research problem, introduce the research problem and discuss the research significance, give a short reflection of the author’s interests in the topic and situate the topic within the research.

In Chapter Two the literature relevant to the area of study is presented to show how trust and millennials have been studied beforehand.

In Chapter Three the theoretical framework theories used to analyze the research topic are introduced. In this chapter, we firstly, introduce definitions of trust that guided our research and secondly introduce the two key trust models for this thesis.

In Chapter Four we elaborate on our methodology and where our approach to research and the data collection method and sample are described. The chapter concludes with a section on the limitations of the thesis. The study adopts a qualitative philosophy and the approach is abductive; the gathered empirical data consists of a non-probability sample of interviews.

In Chapter Five we state some of our empirical data and insights from the thematic analysis. Data about the seven respondents are presented in a thematic form making it easier for the reader to get an understanding of responses. We conclude the chapter by adding some visual and textual analysis.

In Chapter Six the concluding results are presented, practical and theoretical relevance are discussed and implications for future research are given.

(16)

2 Literature review

In this chapter, we review trust research in general, introducing cognitive and non-cognitive notions of trust. In the second part of the literature review, the focus is on millennials and their unique characteristics. In the third part, we review the research on follower and followership. In the last part, we focus on introducing research on trust in work and the work environment. We briefly look at trust research on an organizational level and team level, but the focus remains on trust on the individual level.

2.1 Current research on trust

Trust and the process of trusting another party is heavily researched in different fields such as social science, psychology, business with often very different concepts of trust (Blomqvist, 1997). To create a universal definition of trust is seen as unreasonable and not achievable thus we do not attempt to do so (Blomqvist, 1997). Even in business research, there is a conceptual confusion of the definitions of trust (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018). As different fields have other approaches to research this also leads to different forms of trust. In this thesis, we will not limit ourselves to business research but use those forms that are best suited for answering our research question.

As indicated above trust is a broad interdisciplinary topic such that there are many different definitions of trust. Nonetheless, most of the models can be divided into either the cognitive trust and the non-cognitive trust or the affective trust sides (Rundle et al., 2012; van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018). The cognitive view on trust is heavily influenced by Rotter’s (1971) social learning theories and the cognitive trait which is called the “locus of control” (ibid. p.79). Generally, cognitivism assumes that trust is a rational action where the individual is aware of the decision and takes it rationally considering one's accumulated knowledge and beliefs or in more simplified terms one could say that cognitivists belief in the reliability of others (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018). On the other hand, non-cognitivists think that the decision to trust is more subconscious, driven by emotion, instinct and attitudes (Jones, 1996). This is sometimes also referred to as affective trust. These are two extremes and neuroscience research suggest that trust decisions are not either purely cognitive or affective but are intertwined so that they cannot be separated completely (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018).

(17)

PytlikZillig and Kimbrough (2015) attempt to clarify the definitions and suggest that even though there are a lot of different notions of trust that researchers might rally behind either the definitions from Mayer et al. (1995) or Rousseau et al. (1998) as they identified those as most commonly referred to. They suggest that this process might find more consensus in the research of trust. They continue to argue that the differences in the definitions of trust are often found at the boundaries and set to distinguish trust from other constructs like calculativeness or honesty.

In the economical perspective, trust is considered in a cost-benefit decision in which granting trust is the alternative to control mechanisms (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018, Ireland & Webb, 2007). Another economical approach to trust is the transaction cost theory as high levels of trust can decrease transaction costs and vice-versa (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Furthermore, there are two subcategories of trust stemming from the combinations of either the economical or the behavioral perspective with the cognitive-psychological perspective of trust.

The two resulting subcategories are the psycho-economical perspective where the understanding of trust is one of credibility and assumed benevolence and the psycho-sociological approach in which trust is described by the willingness of the trustor to rely on another person in which the trustor has confidence (van Zeeland-van der Holst & Henseler, 2018). This is also in line with trust as a favorable expectation (Möllering, 2001). In this view, trust is understood as the prerequisite for cooperation, order, social capital, reduced social complexity and individual risk-taking behavior (ibid.). Another definition of the psycho-sociological perspective is where trust is characterized by a willingness of the trustor to rely on a trustee on which the trustor has confidence (Moorman et al., 1992).

Erin Meyer (2014) offers another approach to trust. While she does not offer an explicit definition of trust, she argues that the way trust is built fundamentally differs between cultures, as in some cultures trust is built through task-based interactions and in others through relationship-based. These are the two extremes of the dimensions and most countries lie somewhere between. This is somewhat similar to cognitive and affective trust, but it is framed through the mode of the trust generating activities. Meyer (2014) further states that Sweden and Switzerland are countries, where the trust between people is founded through tasks. Indicating that, to build and establish trust between individuals, one must provide pleasant results based on their work assignments.

(18)

Rundle et al. (2012) present a model in which they categorize cognitive and non-cognitive notions of trust on the base of trust. By the base of trust, they mean the evidence types on which trust is built upon. Cognitive decisions are made upon the trustworthiness of the trustee. Non-cognitive trust evolves or exists here the different evidence types cannot be separated, but rather are intertwined with each other. We will explore this model further in the theoretical framework.

2.2 Research on millennials

2.2.1 Definitions

The millennials are born approximately from the late ’70s to the late ’90s. However, there is currently no general consensus concerning the years of birth for the millennials, different scholars, use different age-spans. Twenge et al., (2010) suggest that the generation was born approximately between 1982 and 1999, while Kotler and Keller (2012) use the age-span between 1979 and 1994. Other scholars as Tapscott (2009) consider the cohort to be born between the year 1977 to 1997, while Hess (2019) describes that the generation is born between 1981 and 2000. Therefore, according to the previously mentioned scholars, the age of today's millennials ranges between approximately 43 years old to 20 years young. Thus, individuals in the age span may also be in different situations of life.However, to facilitate the understanding and reading process, the study will use the age range from 1982 to 1999 stated by Twenge et al. (2010).

While millennials are the used term throughout the study for the particular generation, it is not the only definition used by scholars. The millennials have amongst other names, been labelled as Generation Y (Why) (Tulgan, 2011), Generation Me (Tulgan, 2013) Nexters (Zemke et al., 2000) NetGeners (Tapscott, 2009), Echo-Boomers or Thumb Generation (Huntley, 2006). Underlining that there are different perspectives and interpretations of the controversial generation.

2.2.2 Background & Upbringing

The millennials are currently the largest generation worldwide in the workforce, with different characteristics and upbringing than earlier generations, this generation may reshape the way we work (Erickson, 2012). The millennials have been affected differently from past events e.g. recessions, compared to earlier generations, and the effects may remain and influence them for

(19)

a decade or more (Kahn, 2009). A large segment of the millennials has nevertheless experienced similar circumstances worldwide. The cohort has amongst other things, observed the results of terrorism, creating a sense of disruption, where something disastrous could happen to them at any place, at any time (Erickson, 2012). However, the most common factor, which a variety of scholars seem to agree upon, is the fact that millennials have been influenced greatly by digital technology (Huntley, 2006; Tapscott, 2009; Tulgan, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010; Erickson, 2012; Kottler & Keller, 2012). The millennials have been raised during the digital era with a continuous flow of information available due to the fact that globalization has played an important factor for the cohort. With the advance of social networking platforms e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn and Myspace, the millennials were able to instantly connect to other individuals in distant locations through text messages (Kottler & Keller, 2012). Furthermore, the unique way of communication through technology allowed them to interact with individuals in communities with the same interest as themselves, which may not have been possible before (Deal et al., 2010).

The digitalization has created a notion of where the millennials are considered to be the digital natives compared to earlier generations. As earlier generations did not have the digital technology available in the early stages of life they could, therefore, be considered as digital immigrants (Pinzaru et al., 2016). The millennials and the force of technology have made an inseparable connection between each other, to the point where it influences every aspect of their life, including the workplace (ibid).

Another significant aspect of the millennials and their upbringing which must be taken into consideration, is their family. The structure of the family has changed compared to the earlier generation, e.g. less frequent “two-parent” families, more women participating and getting employed in the labor market, the increase of dual-income households (Deal et al., 2010). A majority of the millennials have also been raised by parents who were used to accomplishment and success. As a result, many of them have been pressured into the same way of thinking (VanMeter et al., 2013). They have been nurtured to perceive themselves as better than others, while parents still maintained control in several aspects of their life (Pinzaru et al., 2016), creating an environment where they were greatly protected and spared from the harsh realities of dealing with conflicts (VanMeter et al., 2013). This has created a notion of entitlement, where they are used to being offered multiple alternatives to choose from and by being protected they

(20)

become familiar with having things develop in the way they aspire while also having the need to depend on others (Pinzaru et al., 2016).

2.2.3 Characteristics

Due to their background and upbringing, the generation of millennials is mentioned to have developed various unique characteristics and traits, related to both positive and negative elements. Naturally, there may also exist differences in characteristics in each individual due to the individual experiences, financial situation, background, religion and many more aspects (Erickson, 2012). However, the general illustration created by scholars, depicts the millennials as a paradoxical generation with a variety of individualistic characteristics while they at the same time are willing to work for the greater good of humanity (Pinzaru et al., 2016). These conflicting statements are also found in research conducted by Valentine and Powers (2013) where they state that the millennials may not be completely understood.

Millennials are more trustful, tolerant and well-travelled compared to the earlier generations (Valentine & Powers, 2013). The generation has shown higher levels of positive characteristics such as self-esteem, assertiveness (Twenge and Campbell, 2001), motivation, goal-oriented and optimistic (VanMeter et al., 2013), feeling that they can achieve almost anything. They are ambitious and have the skillset and willingness to work in teams to generate positive results and climb the ladder of the organization. However, high expectations have created a consequence where they feel pressured to succeed and believe that others should be flexible (VanMeter et al., 2013). They also value the importance of transparent information and being transparent since they themselves have experienced how large corporations have stated vague or altered facts concerning e.g. costs or plans, in contrary to the contemporary business, where most companies are being more transparent (Erickson, 2012).

On the other hand, millennials are often faced with prejudice as they are stereotyped to have narcissistic traits and to have seemingly unrealistic self-images of themselves (Twenge, 2009). Scholars label them to be arrogant (Alsop, 2008) disloyal, self-centered, not motivated and disrespectful (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). When encountering disagreements, millennials are prepared to leave their current employer if they feel that their expectations of the organization are not met. They may also be less prone to pursue friendships as their narcissistic traits may also be related to problems in close relations. In addition, they may also not rely on their work to create any opportunities to build relationships as they have the technology to always stay in

(21)

touch and maintain the relations with family and friends outside the work context (Twenge, 2010).

2.2.4 Millennials at work

The size and uniqueness of the millennial generation have made an impact on how organizations are taking measurements in engaging candidates and how they structure their work tasks for their employees. As millennials do not value the same things as previous generations concerning their occupation, they have different expectations regarding the work. They do not conform particularly well to hierarchies which have affected the way organizations built their strategies in e.g. recruiting and retaining employees (Pinzaru et al., 2016).

Millennials desire to have freedom and flexibility in their workplace. They do not see the significance of having a complete schedule of the work procedure. It derives from their understanding and ability, to rather than following a schedule on when to conduct tasks or assignments, they have become great at time-shifting, and have developed a sense to conduct tasks when it is deemed most convenient (Erickson, 2012). The generation does not desire to obtain positions with repetitive work tasks as they are easily bored and appreciate having diverse work assignments to keep them entertained. Key motivational drivers for the millennials are recognition, interaction and being comfortable. They like to be listened to, encouraged and allowed to make their own decisions, to further implement them and to receive any sort of feedback concerning the successful initiatives which they have undertaken (Pinzaru et al., 2016). They are not fond of strict rules and if necessary, they are willing to leave the organization and use their current employer as a launching platform to reach further in their career (ibid.).

In terms of rewards at work, the generation has lower desires to gain any social rewards, instead, they value leisure time (Twenge et al., 2010), which may be related to their need for freedom and flexibility. Thus, the millennials who work with the same people for a longer duration of time, may, as a result, prefer to spend their spare time in social activities with individuals outside of work context and work relationships (ibid.). With the demand for more leisure time, they have also put more pressure on employers and require a good work-life balance. It is also noticeably important to take into consideration that while they may have higher levels of narcissism and arrogance, they also have lower resistance to stress, compared to co-workers in other generations (Pinzaru et al., 2016).

(22)

The millennials are considered to have brought a perspective to the work context, where they have a higher level of tolerance and are prepared to listen to and understand the variety of truths that exist at their work. This derives from their upbringing where they were aware of different living conditions, opportunities, political standings and growing up with racial diversity. Unlike many of the earlier generations, a large part from millennials came to the understanding that there often exists more than one correct answer (Erickson, 2012). Diversity has played a part in strengthening their ability to adapt and be open to new creative ideas, also the willingness to challenge and defy the occurring status quo (Pinzaru et al., 2016). By communicating their perspectives on how things may work they will offer opportunities for innovation in how the business can be conducted for future work. Erickson (2012) explains that in order to advantageously utilize the skills of millennials, the organizations must disregard the belief of how things are done and work with them closely, to be open-minded and learn.

However, it is also argued that the increased levels of narcissism found in millennials may not affect their workplace. Instead, the reason for any effects is a lack of basic work skills (Deal et al., 2010). Furthermore, despite their individualistic characteristics, they still prefer to work in teams rather than being individualistic (Howe & Struss, 2000), creating a sense of contradiction related to the earlier descriptions of their persona.

2.3 Research on followership and followers

For this thesis, we adopt a simpler approach and use the definition of non-leader. However, we would still like to give some insights on followership research

Followership is arguably a new phenomenon, considering the heavily researched counterpart of the phenomena, namely leadership. The exploration of leadership reaches over two thousand years back, stretching from Plato’s articulation of the philosopher-king till contemporary research (Riggio et al., 2008). Arguably, the majority of scholars who have researched and investigated leadership, have primarily directed their focus on the leader (ibid.). Even when theorists may have considered followers in their theory, it was merely an aspect to better understand the leadership (Kelley, 2008). The justification roots its way from the common belief, that the leader is the fundament of leadership and to achieve a greater understanding of leadership, the leader should be studied accordingly (Kelley, 1992). This resulted in the

(23)

perspective of followers being cast into the shadows of the leader, not being shed any light of attention. It was not until the well-known sociologist Max Weber, expanded his research of leadership and strafed into the element of followers and their perspective, that followers were seen as a part of the leadership. Thus, the sociologist’s research arguably became the foundation for which the later scholars had the opportunity to further explore and develop the perspective of followership (Riggio et al., 2008).

The research steadily evolved from the impression that followers were a product of the leader, with limited power, authority and ability to influence their relationship (Kellerman, 2008) to an understanding of the co-creation and reliance of both counterparts (Alvesson et al., 2017). The perception of leaders and followers may, thus, have been reconstructed to a new understanding of which followers’ value, were recognized as equal to the leaders (ibid.). As leadership is socially constructed by both counterparts in relation to each other, it creates a relationship that requires participation and interaction between the leader and follower. Furthermore, the involvement and constructive behavior of both parties will strengthen numerous aspects of the relationship and create a more beneficial working environment (Alvesson et al., 2017; William; 2008; Dixon, 2008).

2.4 Trust and Millennials in the Workplace

In this part, we explore the relevant literature concerning the three pillars of this thesis to provide an understanding of the current state of the literature on trust, millennial followers and the workplace. While the majority of the literature does not cover the three topics combined, we paint a picture of the current state by combining different perspectives on the topic.

While the literature on millennials, in relation to trust at the workplace is scarce there are some articles that touch the topic. Lazányi, and Bilan (2017) focus on Generation Z, however, they highlight the importance of trust in the workplace:

“Trust within an organisation can be defined as an employee’s willingness to act on the basis

of the words, actions, and decisions of management and co-workers under uncertain conditions, while bearing the risks of his/her actions.“ (ibid. p.78-79).

(24)

This definition is concerned with the leader-follower trust relationship and ignores non-hierarchical trust relationships, it nonetheless highlights the importance of trust in the workplace and shows that trust at work is essential for follower- and leadership. Gould-Williams (2003) highlights that systemic workplace trust can help to increase commitment, job satisfaction and interpersonal trust can significantly increase organizational performance. The study claims that this is due to that enhancing influence on the working environment thus increasing employee well-being through positive interactions with coworkers (ibid.). However, there may be some doubts about the proposed model as a whole e.g. effort doesn’t show any influence on organizational performance.

Towards the end of their article Jerome et al., (2014, p.9) state: “Generation Y executives can develop confidence in their abilities from mentors in order to gain respect and earn the trust of subordinates.” and elaborate that millennials can earn the trust of their subordinates through confidence. This suggests that subordinates would trust a confident millennial leader more than a non-confident. However, the authors remain unclear if they mean millennials subordinates or if this is a general assumption. The picture of how millennials trust and its influences become clearer when looking at how team trust in the leader influences team performance.

As Schaubroeck et al., (2011) look into the mediating influence of trust on team performance. They specifically look at how the leader has to balance his behavior between servant leadership and transformational leadership, depending on if the team is in a stable or in a fast-changing environment. They posit that in a stable environment trust is best built through servant leadership leading to an increase in affect-based trust in the leader and on the other hand in an unstable environment cognition-based trust can be increased by transformational leadership. They posit that through this the leader can influence the team’s trust and through that team performance. This highlights the importance of the trust of the team members, who in their study could be but are not limited to millennials which has a crucial impact on the leadership influence (ibid.). Thus, making it crucial to understand trust in teams. Barnes (2009) goes in a similar direction and claims that millennials want to trust workplace leaders. Thus, essentially making it an expectation that should be fulfilled.

(25)

3 Theoretical Framework

In this Chapter we construct the analytical lens that we will use and apply to analyze our empirical data. The Chapter is structured by first introducing influential definitions of trust. In a second step we introduce the Mental Model of trust which consists of 18 sub-models and the three Stage Model of trust with the three stages: calculus-based trust, knowledge-based-trust and identification-based trust. These two models will be used for the initial coding for the empirical data. Lastly, we shortly introduce the concept of swift trust.

3.1 Definitions and Explanation of Key Terminology

Looking at various definitions of trust from different researchers show that not only the foci of the definitions are completely different but also the philosophy behind differs.

“To say ”A trusts B” means that A expects B will not exploit a vulnerability A has created for himself by taking action” (James 2002, p. 291).

Here trust is seen as a relationship between two unevenly matched parties. Through trust, B could exploit A leaving A to B’s mercy. This one-sided or asymmetric game is one of action and reaction common in game theory where this could be referred to as a sequential game. Understanding trust in such a way might be useful to analyze game-theoretical aspects of trust, however, for the purpose of this thesis, we will need to account for complexity in the definition. Different meanings socially constructed in groups or on an individual basis are essential to our understanding of trust.

This is just one example of a definition and as stated before there is no generally accepted definition of the concept of trust. As extensive research on trust did not allow us to find one where we could with certainty state: “This is trust!” We would like to state some of the quotes and definitions of trust that influenced and helped us reflect on trust while writing this thesis.

“Trust is not taking risk per se, but rather it is a willingness to take a risk” -

(26)

“To accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” - (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395).

“When you trust people, you have confidence in them – in their integrity and in their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them – of their integrity, their agenda, their

capabilities, or their track record. It’s that simple” (Covey & Merrill, 2006, p. 5).

Nonetheless, an attempt to find commonalities between different notions of trust was made by PytlikZillig and Kimbrough (2015) which lead to this:

“... trust involves a trustor (subject) and trustee (object) that are somehow interdependent; involves a situation containing risks for the trustor (which also implies the trustor has goals);

is experienced by the trustor as voluntary (implying autonomy, agency, and intrinsic motivation); and includes (or excludes) different types, forms, or sources of trust concepts, some of which may form the bases of others, and many of which involve or relate to positive

evaluations or expectations.” (PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2015, p.1).

While these commonalities can give a good first impression of what researchers mean when they speak of trust there are also a lot of differences, especially when considering the boundaries of trust (ibid.). The authors go on to state that researchers disagree on the following considerations: “types of relationships that must be in place for psychological or behavioral states to be truly considered trust; whether and the extent to which all trust conceptualizations necessitate risk, conscious consideration of risk, volition, and/or active choice by the trustor and trustee; the separability of risk and trust; the psychological versus behavioral nature of trust; the cognitive versus affective nature of trust; and the requirements for trust to stem from some bases but not others” (PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2015, p.1). The differences thus do not seem to be at the core of the conceptualizations of trust but on the boundaries.

3.2 The Mental Model of trust

Rundle et al., (2012) offer an approach to how trust is earned, evolves or exists. They argue that in their proposed Mental Model of Trust is either earned, emerges or it exists. They continue to show six evidence types that serve as trust-building factors. Those are appearance,

(27)

This Mental Model with its sub-models can be used to categorize different sources of trust and their conceptualizations.

Figure 1 Mental model of trust adapted from Rundle et al., (2012)

In Figure 1 there are three sample models shown to help illustrate the use of the model. The models shown are earned-through-performance, evolves-through-interaction and exists-through-no evidence.

3.3 Development of trust in work relationships - Three stage model

Lewicki and Benedict-Bunker (1996) present a transitional three-stage model of trust development in work relationships. The achievement of trust on one level, enables the development of trust on the following level. Thus, trust in work relationships develops and is established gradually as the parties move from one stage to another (Lewicki & Benedict- Bunker, 1996). The core of the model concerns how the dynamics of trust are different at each stage. The authors explain that “This is a fundamentally different perspective on trust from the view that the essence of trust cannot be captured by one single, “static” definition of its key

(28)

elements and attributes” (Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker, 1996 p. 118). The authors explain that trust is therefore seen as a complex and dynamic phenomenon, which adapts to various aspects in the initial and mature stages of a relationship. The model is built on the assumption that there exists no earlier history between the two parts, creating an entirely new relationship. Furthermore, the assumption of the absence of history will generate uncertainty of the relationship’s longevity and an uncertainty of revealing too much information at a considerably early stage, thus, making them vulnerable.

Figure 2 Three Stages Model adapted from Lewicki and Bunker (1996)

3.3.1 Calculus-based trust

The calculus-based trust is the first stage of the model, also known as deterrence-based trust by other scholars (Shapiro, et al., 1992), which the trust is viewed as a continuous market-oriented economic calculation. The value of the relationship is determined by weighing the outcomes from creating and sustaining it compared to the expense of preserving or damaging it. The two parties often abide by the calculus-based trust, by two principles. Firstly, the rewards of being trusting and trustworthy, secondly, by the risk of violating the trust. By being trusting or a trustworthy person, the reputation of being honest may increase, thus, creating opportunities that may not have existed otherwise. On the contrary, a violation of trust may sever a reputation through the violated parties’ network of colleagues and friends, creating an image of the other party being dishonest. Even though, people may not be genuinely honest, they may still invest heavily in building an image and reputation for being honest, as it is a valuable asset in general for a businessperson to acquire. Thus, they must weigh the consequences of short-term

(29)

opportunities which could damage the trust of the other party against the long-term outcomes of a good reputation. However, as the stage of calculus-based trust may consist of two equal principles, the value received through maintenance or the harm of violation, the latter is often the primary deciding factor, as it functions as a deterrence by creating a threat of punishment (Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker, 1996). In conclusion, the calculus-based trust is a fragile stage and can be seen as a process where progress is made slowly, with any actions of violation, sending them to the beginning.

3.3.2 Knowledge-based trust

The knowledge-based trust is the second stage, where trust is grounded in the other parts predictability, having the knowledge to anticipate the opposite part’s behavior and reactions. Rather than being affected by deterrence, the knowledge-based trust is based on information. By having a history of interactions and continuing them, the two parts will establish a general expectation of how the opposite part’s behavior is predictable and that they will act trustworthy (Lindskold, 1978; Rotter, 1971). The key process in the knowledge-based trust is to have regular communication and courtship (Shapiro, Sheppard & Cheraskin, 1992). By regular communication, both parties will exchange and receive an understanding of their counterpart’s preferences, wishes and how they approach different dilemmas and situations. Without any regular communication, they may slowly lose each other, the understanding to think alike and their capability to predict the other behavior will eventually disappear. The courtship concerns the aspects of the relationship development, through acquiring information and learning more about a potential partner. The courtship is therefore, performed by experiencing the counterpart in different emotional conditions, observing their behavior in social situations and investigating how others perceive the behavior. Thus, enabling individuals to gain sufficient information to evaluate and determine whether a relationship between the parties will be a good fit or not.

However, the knowledge-based trust is viewed as a stage with multiple dimensions. The first dimension concerns how information affects and increases the ability to predict the other. The greater information one part acquires, the greater probability to increase their ability to effectively predict them. The second dimension, concerns how the predictability improves trust, regardless of trustworthiness. For example, despite being untrustworthy, the ability to predict their behavior and their probability of violating trust, will, thus, improve the trust. The third and last dimension concerns how an accurate prediction requires the appropriate knowledge of the

(30)

other part, which is acquired through several and continuous interactions in multidimensional relationships (Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker 1996).

3.3.3 Identification-based trust

The third and last stage of the trust model described by Lewicki and Benedict-Bunker (1996) is the identification-based trust. The trust is grounded through the identification with the other party’s ambitions and intentions. By effectively understanding and acknowledging each one’s desires, trust is able to exist. The shared understanding of each other will enable them to effectively operate on their counterpart's behalf. The identification-based trust may allow one party to act as the others representative and substitute for the counterpart in interpersonal transactions (Deustch, 1949). Thus, the counterpart will be confident that their interests and desires will be followed, and any surveillance or supervision is not necessary. The real confirmation of the capability of identification-based trust, comes when the counterpart performs an action for them in a purely passionate manner, which they may have not done for themselves. For example, when standing up for their counterpart and defending them, in an altercation with someone outside their relationship, when they did not have the courage to do it themselves. However, it is essential to understand the other party's self-perception and ambitions and be aware not to exaggerate it, as it may be perceived as a lack of understanding, thus, resulting in a decrease of trust. Additionally, by acting for each other, they will not merely identify and understand each other, they will also develop the knowledge of what is significant to be conducted in order to sustain the others' trust. As the identification-based trust is built and strengthened by activities from the former stages, there exist additional activities related to identification-based trust. These activities are developing a collective identity, co-location in the same buildings, creating joint products or goals and committing to commonly shared values (Shapiro et al., 1992). In conclusion, the identification-based trust develops as both parties know the desires, preferences, choices of each other and share some of them. Ultimately, enabling them to behave, think, feel and respond like the other, and in some cases, adopting some of the other’s personality as their own (Lewicki & Benedict-Bunker 1996).

(31)

3.4 Concept of Swift trust

Meyerson et al. (1996) suggest a form of trust that is especially applicable in teams or groups that meet for a limited period of time or are of temporary form. While swift trust is conceptualized on the group/team level rather than on the individual level, it also applies on the individual level concept as trust is socially constructed by individuals as a group (Meyerson et al., 1996).

In the first step, the person (or group) assumes trust within the setting and then in a second step, proceeds to verify the trust and lastly if necessary, change or adopt new beliefs (Meyerson et al., 1996). In this concept trust is time-dependent, while it starts out at a higher level of trust it is possible that the trust after the verification will be lower or higher than at the beginning.

(32)

4 Methodology

In this chapter, we will present and explain our methodological choices made during the research. We will describe our assumptions, the research design, method and approach. Significant decisions will also be presented and explained regarding sampling, data collection, analysis. Furthermore, the chapter will also examine the research quality and ethical considerations. To lastly, conclude in a presentation of the work process and reflections of the researchers.

4.1 Research Philosophy of Social Constructivism

The research philosophy concerns the structure of which the research has established the assumptions and beliefs towards the development of knowledge (Saunders et al., 2016). In this thesis, we use the social constructivism paradigm which is one of several paradigms of the interpretivism axiom (Williamson, 2006; Galbin, 2014). The ontological assumption of the social constructivist philosophy of science is the existence of multiple social realities, which are subjective and socially constructed, rather than merely one objective reality (Saunders et al., 2016). Reality as a social construct is a product of culture and language and leads to a shared world view (Galbin, 2014). Meanings, realities depend on interpretations of the events that people experience thus social constructivism can be helpful in creating novel understandings that enrich current knowledge (Saunders et al., 2016). This is mostly done through narratives and stories or interpretations as theories and concepts are often perceived to be too simplistic (ibid.). This means that we actively acknowledge throughout our research that we and thus also the research outcome is value-bound as the researchers and their values influence the research.

The acknowledgment that “findings are unstable over time” (Webb & Weick, 1979, p.37) also means that the inherent subjectivity of this philosophy is now seen as a chance to learn from a situation (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). This goes well with the understanding of social constructivism that the way we see the world is a product of past interaction and negotiation between certain groups (Galbin, 2014). Also, we share the same belief as social constructivists that the goal of this study is not to generate universally valid and fixed knowledge but instead to broaden the perspective of what is possible in an appreciative setting (ibid.).

(33)

This all seems fitting related to the phenomena of trust, of which the interpretation and construction differ to an extent where the varieties of meanings are ambiguous. Past studies in trust research such as Lewis and Weigert (1985) and Meyerson et al. (1996) also relied on the social constructivism paradigm. The authors are key researchers in the field of sensemaking and trust. Considering these shared approaches to trust research and the theoretical applicability we decided to do likewise and adopt the social constructivism paradigm.

4.2 Research design and approach

The research design is a plan of the general routes the researchers intend to undertake in order to obtain information and answer the research question (Saunders et al., 2016). The purpose of a study may vary from explanatory, exploratory, descriptive, evaluative (Saunders et al., 2016). This study adopts an exploratory approach. In exploratory studies, the research question often starts with questions of “how” and “what”, thus, enquiring that it may seek to gain an understanding of the topic (Saunders et al., 2016). Therefore, the approach is fitting as the purpose of the research is to obtain an understanding of trust in relation to different variables and context of which the phenomena has not been researched sufficiently. Thus, as the exploratory research aims to contribute with new and valuable insights related to the phenomena, the choice of an abductive approach was implemented.

The abductive approach allows for the existing theory that may have been extensively researched in a specific context, to be modified and used in a different context where theory exists in far less amount (Saunders et al., 2016). Which correlates to the phenomena of trust, thus, we used the existing theoretical research gathered in our literature review, to build a preliminary theoretical framework in relation to the research questions and variables of millennials in work relationships. The abductive approach may also aim to explore the phenomenon and identify aspects and patterns to build theory, create a conceptual framework and evaluate it in further data collection (Saunders et al., 2016). Which was our intention, considering that we had created a preliminary theoretical framework, we proceeded to simultaneously gather empirical data and revisit the literature. To further analyze it, create patterns and generate an understanding of the phenomena to lastly modify our theoretical framework to answer the research questions.

(34)

The superiority of the abductive reasoning and one of the reasons why we choose the alternative lies within the possibility to alternate and maneuver between the inductive and the deductive approach (Saunders et. al., 2016). Enabling our research to take advantage of the beneficial segments of both approaches without limiting it to either of them. As the inductive approach may not possess the sufficient capability to create theory of merely empirical data, and the deductive approach may lack clearness in creating hypotheses to test (ibid) and limit observations of the research to solely the theoretical foundation (Hyde, 2000). Utilizing the abductive approach allows for a greater understanding and growth of theory, additionally, allowing our research to develop into a rich and solid foundation for further research. Also, as we intend to study the current state of the particular phenomenon in-depth. Rather than to study how the phenomenon develops and changes over a longer period of time, thus, we will adopt the cross-sectional strategy and discard the option of a longitudinal strategy.

4.2.1 Data collection

The general types of different data collection and analyzing methods are mainly divided into two alternatives, the quantitative method and the qualitative method. The methods may be used separately or as a mix (Saunders et al., 2016), with the former often being the most common choice by researchers. The qualitative method is used in the study, which is fitting as it is often associated with the interpretive philosophy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This is due to researchers seeking clarifications (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), understanding and making sense of the socially constructed meanings of the specified phenomena (Saunders et al., 2016).

Thus, as trust is considered a highly complex socially constructed phenomenon with ambiguous perspectives and meanings, the choice of a qualitative method was an appropriate alternative to implement for the research. The core of the qualitative research method is to create a meaningful illustration by identifying and making sense of the respondents’ words without jeopardizing the richness and height of it (Leung, 2015). Thus, using a qualitative method, allowed us as researchers to acquire a deeper understanding of the participants' meaning and the relationships between them. Accordingly, the qualitative method was deemed the superior alternative, due to the researchers being able to explore, understand and create patterns of various meanings and perceptions related to the contextual setting of millennial’s trust in work relationships. However, a disadvantage with using the qualitative method, may be that it is limited to a few participants, and is therefore argued to not have the same capability to become generalizable (Yin, 2015).