Managing trust in public organisations Concepts and contradictions Researcher: Peter Oomsels Promotor: Prof. Dr. Geert Bouckaert

This presentation 1.Trust research and public administration 2.Objectives of our research 3.Dimensions and logics of ‘administrational trust’ 4.Integration: a consolidated conceptual matrix 5.Discussing contradictions: towards a theoretical model 6.Conclusion: lessons for trust research 7.Contact

1. Trust research and public administration Surge in trust literature in the 1990’s and 2000’s. –But largely decoupled and dispersed: a “conceptual morass” –Political science, economics, sociology, psychology Trust and public administration Central topic in Public Administration reform discourse –But not a central topic in Public Administration research

Research in some journals –Mainly citizen trust in administration –Trust between organisations sometimes considered as a variable in some research on governance and coordination. 1. Trust research and public administration Trust in title Relevance Social sciences8.506 Public administration (general)320 Public Money Management19Trust funds and organisational trust Public Administration review18Mainly citizen trust in government IRAS15Mainly citizen trust in government Administration and Society12Both citizen trust in government and organisational trust Journal of Social Policy12Mainly citizen trust in government Local government studies8Trust between organisations, political trust JPART7Trust between organisations, citizen trust in government

2. Objectives of our research Specific focus on “administrational” trust: trust of administrations Research question: How can trust play a role for public management? –How can we describe, map and assess administrational trust? –How does administrational trust interact with structures and processes of governance? –How can we manage administrational trust?

2. Objectives of our research Specific focus on “administrational” trust: trust of administrations Research question: How can trust play a role for public management? –How can we describe, map and assess administrational trust? –How does administrational trust interact with structures and processes of governance? –How can we manage administrational trust? This paper

3. Dimensions and logics of administrational trust Trust often operationalised as –Expectation of trustworthiness: assessment of performance –Willingness to be vulnerable to other’s actions: passive trust attitude –Cooperative behaviour: active trust behaviour But rarely used in combination in research: Administrational trust: –A ‘social fact’ characterised by organisational behaviour in a transaction, inspired by a willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of an actor in the face of risk and uncertainty

Expectation: trustworthiness Positive expectation about future behaviour, based on assessment of –Ability –Benevolence –Integrity Conceptualised as assessment of administrative performance (Hood 1991): –Sigma –Theta –Lambda Lambda dimension of performance is specifically ‘public’  trustworthiness dimension of ‘compliance’

3. Dimensions and logics of administrational trust Three perspectives on the essential logic of trust (Rousseau et al, 1998) –Calculus-based: Trust is a rational choice (f.i. Hardin 2002) –Relation-based: Trust goes beyond rationality (f.i. Brathwaite and Levi 1998; Luhmann 1979, 1988) –Institution-based: “depersonalised” (f.i. Bachmann 2011, Luhmann 1979, Cook 2005)

Behaviour: active trust Trust is often seen as means to reduce control bureaucracy and transaction cost of government –But it can only do so if it becomes enacted Observable choices by an actor in an interpersonal context –Hierarchy-type mechanisms –Market-type mechanisms –Network-type mechanisms Feedback effect of enacted trust (Ostrom and Walker 2003) Conceptualised as a characteristic of the relation

4. Integration: a consolidated conceptual matrix Theoretical logics of trust InstitutionalCalculusRelational Operational dimensions of trust Performance LambdaSigmaTheta Assessment (Trustworthiness) Compliance Ability Integrity and benevolence Attitude (‘Passive trust’) Institution based Calculus based Relation based Behaviour (‘Active trust’) Hierarchy- inspired Market- inspired Network- inspired

5. Discussing contradictions: towards a theoretical model Logic of consequences or appropriateness? Transformative but not deterministic: time + institutions The eye of the beholder? Performance, trustworthiness and trust Results or processes? Problems of causality  Different implications for research and management of trust

6. Conclusion: lessons for trust research Theoretical framework: –Multidimensional and transformative framework –starting from action-centered institutionalist perspective –as starting point of analysis of administrational trust –to provide practically relevant insights for using trust as an instrument for public sector governance –and overcome contradictions that appear in reform discourse. Research approach: Multi-method approach in order to examine causal mechanisms –Quantitative mapping: find relationships –Qualitative cases: examine causality

7. Contact Peter Oomsels Public Management Institute KU Leuven Funded by: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen