Mutual Trust Case Study

4.2 Mutual Trust The next kind of trust is mutual trust. This is when two entities’ trust in one another converges. The levels of trust may not always be equal from the beginning of the relationship, but at some point later on it does even out. Using Audi and Michelin again as an example, let us say that Audi really trusts in Michelin from the start but Michelin does not share that same feeling. But six months down the road, Michelin comes to realize that Audi is in fact trustworthy and their trust level comes to meet Audi’s, converging at a higher point now. Korsgaard et al. goes on to say that “the role of shared context is largely presumed to be uniform and to have uniform effects on individuals” (57). This can be loosely translated to

Van der Vegt, and Eric Molleman, task dependence was a large factor in how trust would be given and returned. If two companies are just as dependent on each other, then trust will be pretty equal. If one is more dependent on the other, then trust will be asymmetric. This can be related to the amount of power that one has. How dependent someone will be on another corresponds to how much power one holds in a relationship. If one has more power, the other will be more dependent on them, creating an imbalance, and vice versa. The article discussed a power disadvantage and a power advantage. A power disadvantage is when someone is less dependent on another while the other is very dependent on them. With this, the one with more power will be able to have much more control, hence being disadvantageous to the less powerful. The power struggle in this type of situation would lead to less trust between the two because the less powerful would not feel taken advantage of. A power advantage is when less attention is shown to the less powerful. With this advantage, the less powerful will not necessarily be controlled but they will not necessarily be acknowledged for their actions. Without gaining the recognition of being a trustworthy entity or having trustworthy qualities, the less powerful will not feel a need to make an effort to continue the trust. Furthermore, the more powerful does not feel the need to make an effort to notice the trustworthiness, therefore being the originators of the asymmetry. In this study, power played a large role in determining trust