A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF FALLING INTO TRUST: AN EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP By Suzanne Carol Hbert

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX 2006

UMI Number: 3232328

Copyright 2006 by Hebert, Suzanne Carol All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3232328 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF FALLING INTO TRUST: AN EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP By Suzanne Carol Hbert February 2006

ii

2006 by Suzanne C. Hbert ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABSTRACT Leaders of telecommunications organizations struggle to establish and maintain a trusting culture amidst constant job and role changes, global competition, corporate globalization (Wishard, 2005), layoffs, corporate reengineering (Marques et al., 2005), technological advancement (Wishard), and most notably corporate leadership's unethical behavior (van Wert, 2004). The decline in corporate wellness indicates an increase in employee mistrust and commitment (Simon, 2002), and statistics specific to the telecommunications industry are startling. "Mental and emotional health is the fastest growing component of health insurance for many companies" (Wishard, p. 445). The implications of mistrust in the work environment not only affect the employees but also affect the corporate bottomline as seen in the absent, less productive employees, and in corporate healthcare costs (Marques et al.). This phenomenological study utilized the modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996) with structured and taped interviews to explore the lived experiences of employees at a major telecommunications company with regard to the phenomenon of falling into trust in a business context. Despite what some referred to as personal trust as opposed to workplace trust, through each coresearchers intense struggle make the differentiation, some were brought to what Thorne (2003) would refer to as the aha moment, a moment of illumination where each coresearcher came to the conclusion that trust is trust (CR 1-15). It does not matter where it occurs when one reflects upon having fallen into trust.

iv DEDICATION

To my mother, Carol A. Hbert and my brother, James Matthew the two pillars in my life. In memory of Beatrice Mogk, Memre Anna Hbert, William Mogk, Jackie Hopkins, Jean Mogk, Pepre Ernest Hbert, Roger Hbert, and Brandy.

v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are so many people who have contributed to me reaching my goals, and to so many I owe thanks. Dr. Lloyd Williams, my deepest gratitude to your inspirational questions, guidance, honest and forthright feedback. I am so thankful to have had the opportunity to work with you through this creative process. I send you my deepest gratitude for your dedication, commitment, and unselfish support to your students and to the process of others growth and development. Dr. Rhonda Waters, your sense of humor, cutting clarity, sensibility, voice of reason and ability to find humor in the midst of chaos. Thank you for your stirring questions, realistic approach, and levity along the way. And, Dr. Merv Cadwallader, not only a calming force, but another individual who understood my thoughts and helped me make them come to life. Your warmth, wealth of knowledge, and ability to put information forth in digestible chunks, I appreciate your calming presence. How fortunate I was to work with a committee committed to my success. To Dr. Sandy Kolberg, you had faith in the topic from the start. Thank you for your encouragement, insights, and early direction. To Team LMNOP, Yolanda Glenn, Cathy Gonzalez, and Kevin Hunt, how lucky I was to meet you all and walk this path with my friends. I thank you all for your support and encouragement. Cathy, I will cherish and chuckle at the insanity we endured during our last residency. Maurice, what a friend you have been. Thank you for walking the path with me and for the kind encouraging words along the way. I honestly do not think I could have done it without you. I would like to acknowledge those individuals, friends, family, and teachers who have contributed to my life in ways they might never know. First and foremost, to the

vi strong women in my life who never allowed the word cant into my vocabulary: my mother, Carol A. Hbert, (I learned those symbols up on the wall, and then some), my grandmother Beatrice Mogk; my Memre Anna Hbert; my fifth grade teacher, Marian Mohan; Janet Brodeur-Allaire, Dr. Katherine Millstein, Lori Tirrochi, and last but not least, a woman who shed light on my soul and guided me in discovering not only myself but my path, Ellen Kane. Dr. John van Pruitt, a man with a sense of humor that heals, balanced with earnestness and simplicity. Mr. Fleury, Mr. Gariepy, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Plante, Mrs. Papellian, Mrs. Dion, Mrs. Concannon, Mrs. Cook (I still have the teddy bear you made me 29 years ago), Mr. Dalpe, Senora Mills, Mr. Suffoletto, Mrs. Borkowski, Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Mohan, Mrs. Kilburn, Mr. Rook (to the memory of laughter you inspired), Mr. Vangel, and the entire Bellingham School Systems staff, your faith in my abilities has endured and inspired a lifetime of hope. True examples of relationships where falling into trust spawned growth, health, and a future with endless possibilities. There are no words that could come close to conveying my deepest gratitude to each and every one of you. To my friend Martha, connected always you were there from the beginning, my my brother James, Karie, Breezy, and Ryan, and brother Roger, Susan, Ally, and Kelsi, connected from coast to coast. To my friends who noticed my absence, provided encouragement and constructive feedback, humor, and lots of prodding to finish the task. Penza and McTague, need I say anymore. I am grateful for the managers that have guided and encouraged me along the way. Thank you to Cheryl and Cathy, for being so supportive and sharing in this great endeavor, and to Paul C. for starting the ball rolling.

vii And last but not least, to Eli, no words can express my gratitude. I am where I am today because of your faith in my abilities and the opportunities you have provided me. Thank you for your encouragement, support, and devotion.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2 Influence of Current Events..........................................................................................3 Gibbs Contribution to Trust ........................................................................................5 Bubers I-Thou..............................................................................................................7 Falling into Trust ..........................................................................................................7 Leadership, Trust, and Telecom ...................................................................................9 Transformational Leadership........................................................................................9 Mistrust .......................................................................................................................10 Personal Trust .............................................................................................................13 Organizational Trust ...................................................................................................13 Leadership Trust .........................................................................................................14 Dialogue and Transformation .....................................................................................15 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................18 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................19 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................20 Significance of the Study to Leadership ............................................................................20 Nature of the Study ............................................................................................................23 Reason for Purposeful Sampling ................................................................................25 Research Questions............................................................................................................26

ix Theoretical Framework......................................................................................................27 Trust Openness Realizing Interdepending - TORI Theory.........................................27 Bubers I-Thou............................................................................................................28 Transformational Leadership Theory .........................................................................30 Social Capital Theory .................................................................................................30 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................33 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................38 Scope..................................................................................................................................39 Limitations .........................................................................................................................39 Delimitations......................................................................................................................40 Summary ............................................................................................................................40 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................42 Key Word Search and Survey of Literature Sources .........................................................42 Peer Reviewed Articles...............................................................................................42 Commercial Readings.................................................................................................43 World Wide Web........................................................................................................43 Historical Perspective on Trust..........................................................................................43 Literature Review...............................................................................................................45 Epistemology .....................................................................................................................46 Historical Influences on Knowing ..............................................................................47 Post-Modern Influences on Knowing.........................................................................49 Linguistic Influences on Knowing: The Metaphor.....................................................51 Scientific and Political Influence on Knowing...........................................................52

x Trust ...................................................................................................................................53 Gibbs TORI Theory: Trust is Personal......................................................................54 People Issues Are Organizational Issues ...........................................................................56 Leadership Responsibility ..........................................................................................57 Management ...............................................................................................................58 Mistrust---Falling Out of Trust...................................................................................59 Transformational Leadership .............................................................................................60 Leadership, Trust, and the Organization.....................................................................61 Dialogue.............................................................................................................................61 Leadership Trust ................................................................................................................61 Trust: A Multi-Cultural Perspective ..................................................................................61 Mutual Dialogue .........................................................................................................61 Emunah .......................................................................................................................61 Kami ...........................................................................................................................61 Musubi ........................................................................................................................61 Interconnections and Trust .........................................................................................61 Leadership and Trust..........................................................................................................61 Summary ............................................................................................................................61 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................61 Leadership versus Management .................................................................................61 Bubers I-It versus I-Thou ..........................................................................................61 Transaction versus Transformation ............................................................................61 Issues of Transactional versus Transformative Leadership Modalities......................61

xi Trust versus Mistrust ..................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................61 Nature and Sources of Data ...............................................................................................61 Research Design.................................................................................................................61 Phenomenology..................................................................................................................61 Coresearchers Lived Experiences .............................................................................61 Appropriateness of Design.................................................................................................61 Quantitative Methodology ..........................................................................................61 Qualitative Phenomenological Methodology .............................................................61 Van Kaam Methodology.............................................................................................61 Phenomenology as Philosophy ...................................................................................61 Research Questions............................................................................................................61 Population ..........................................................................................................................61 Informed Consent and Confidentiality...............................................................................61 Sampling Frame .................................................................................................................61 Geographic Location..........................................................................................................61 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................61 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................61 Reliability and Validity......................................................................................................61 Reliability ...................................................................................................................61 Validity .......................................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA......................................61 Interview Questions ....................................................................................................61

xii Data Collection ...........................................................................................................61 The Interview Process.................................................................................................61 The Coding Process ....................................................................................................61 Findings Analysis of Data..................................................................................................61 Horizonalization - Phase 1..........................................................................................61 Horizonalization Phase 2 .........................................................................................61 Reduction and Elimination .........................................................................................61 Cluster and Validation of Textural Descriptors..........................................................61 Structural Discussion of Questions 2 & 3...................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 4, 5, and 6.................................................61 Structural Discussion of 4, 5, and 6............................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 7.................................................................61 Structural Discussion of Question 7 ...........................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Discussion of Question 8 ..........................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 9.................................................................61 Structural Discussion of Question 9 ...........................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 10 and 11..................................................61 Clustering and Validating of Questions 11 and 12.....................................................61 Structural Discussion of Question 12 & 13 ................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 14...............................................................61 Structural Discussion of Question 14 .........................................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 15...............................................................61 Clustering and Thematizing (Major Themes).................................................................61

xiii Textural and Structural Analyses of Themes.....................................................................61 Falling into Trust: The Structural Description............................................................61 Composite Description of the Employee Narrative....................................................61 Summary ............................................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................61 The Employee Perspective on the Central Research Questions ........................................61 Initial Definition of Trust............................................................................................61 Workplace Trust .........................................................................................................61 Personal Reflections on Central Research Questions ........................................................61 Concluding Revelations for Leadership.............................................................................61 Recommendations..............................................................................................................61 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................61 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE.........................................61 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTIONS ...............................................................61 APPENDIX D: TABLES...................................................................................................61

xiv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Bubers Interpretation of Relations Through Trust............................... 61 Table 2 Participant Demographics..................................................................... 61 Table 3 Horizonalization Phase Two............................................................... 61 Table 4 Reduction and Elimination Questions 2 and 3 ................................... 61 Table 5 Reduction and Elimination Questions 4, 5, and 6 .............................. 61 Table 6 Reduction and Elimination Question 7............................................... 61 Table 7 Reduction and Elimination Question 8............................................... 61 Table 8 Reduction and Elimination Question 9............................................... 61 Table 9 Reduction and Elimination Questions 10 and 11 ............................... 61 Table 10 Reduction and Elimination Questions 12 and 13 ............................. 61 Table 11 Cluster and Validation of Questions 2 and 3....................................... 61 Table 12 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 4, 5, & 6............................. 61 Table 13 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 7 .......................................... 61 Table 14 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 9 .......................................... 61 Table 15 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 10 & 11.............................. 61 Table 16 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 12 & 13.............................. 61 Table 17 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 14 ........................................ 61 Table 18 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 15 ........................................ 61 Table 19 Trust is Bi-directional.......................................................................... 61 Table 20 Falling into Trust Takes Time.............................................................. 61 Table 21 Trust is about Sharing, Open and Honest Communication ................. 61 Table 22 Trust is Walking the Talk ..................................................................... 61

xv Table 23 Trust Occurs for the Greater Good ..................................................... 61 Table 24 Trust Occurs in the Team Environment............................................... 61 Table 25 Trust Occurs with Clarity of the Vision and Mission .......................... 61 Table 26 Trust is Trust........................................................................................ 61 Table 27 Trust is a Phenomenological or Unusual Event .................................. 61 Table 28 ProQuest Key Word Searches.............................................................. 61 Table 29 World Wide Web Key Word Searches.................................................. 61

xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Modified van Kaam Method (Moustakas, 1996). ............................... 61 Figure 2. Timeline of falling into trust................................................................ 61

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Effective leaders exercise skills and behaviors that can facilitate transformation without imposing forced transactions. Leaders who trust the intentions of employees to successfully complete projects in a creative manner (transform) may need to travel the continuum of leadership methodologies in order to achieve organizational goals. Any attempt to control employee behaviors as a means to avoid the collapse of the corporate mission (transact) could stifle motivation and hinder progress. A trusting transformational environment can instill confidence in employees (Weymes, 2005), encourage motivation (Adebayo, 2005), and inspire new traditions to meet group goals (Goleman, 2000). A gap exists in the literature regarding knowledge of how leaders encourage a transformative trusting work environment. According to Misztal (2001), a gap exists in the literature about the concept of trust; there seems to be neither a common definition of the term nor an analysis of the concept that could explain how leaders in organizations facilitate trust and how employees perceive trust. Trust is a difficult term to define as people often assume that the concept of trust is commonly understood (Williams, 2002). For the purpose of this research, employeeleadership trust was defined using an extrapolation of Gibbs (1991) and Perry and Mankins (2004) definitions in which trust is the open sharing of internal values with others to create interdependent exchanges that enhance personal and professional relationships. In the context of this definition, some employees have stated that leaders who are seen as credible - embodied by truthfulness, certainty of promises, reliability, and openness in approach - are also likely to be seen as meriting trust (Perry & Mankin, p. 278). Trust assumes a relationship between self and colleagues, leadership, structures,

2 policies, procedures, ability, and even the self within the workplace (Joni, 2005). The intent of this research was to clarify how trust and falling into trust (FIT) were perceived by employees in the workplace in an effort to broaden leaderships understanding of the phenomenon and add to the leadership literature. Background of the Problem The central theme of trust is not only one of philosophy's oldest issues (Wiland, 2004, p. 372), but it is also a personal philosophy of life (Gibb, 1991) in which human beings attempt to determine whom they can trust. Trust is a binding force that assists in creating social order (Ashkanasy, 2005; Kaarst-Brown, Nicholson, von Dran, & Stanton, 2004; Smith, 2005). Trust is also a significant factor in all human relationships and a catalyst for adaptation in a chaotic changing world (Handy, 1995, 1998; Gibb). Trust and the quest to understand trust is not a new endeavor; much of the Platonic dialogues conveyed Socrates' struggle to determine "whom, if anyone, you can trust to teach you how to live" (Wiland, 2004, p. 372). Today, the telecommunications business (telecom) exemplifies an industry that is experiencing the stress of exponential growth and change, i.e., globalization, creation of new technologies, and uncertainty (Wishard, 2005). The issue compounding the uncertainty in telecom is the impact on corporate morale resulting from reduction in workforce, retiree and employee benefits, and offshoring. According to Wishard, globalization is far more than integration of economics and finance. The essence of globalization is the individual's expanding awareness of other peoples, cultures and religions as a result of technological advances in communications and travel (p. 442).

3 The rapid growth of the telecommunications industry is affecting the psychological well-being not only of the employees but also the organization. The impact of mistrust, growth, and development of new products in the telecommunications sector provides the impetus for understanding how instability negatively affects trust in a chaotic and changing world. Where environments continue to evolve as a result of changing priorities and market demands, ineffective leadership strategies continually erode the concept of trust among employees. For example, McGee (2005) observed that fast changing technologies are impacting job security (p. 40). When job security and security in the workforce wane, mistrust in the workforce could develop. The phenomenon of trust erosion and the lack of clarity regarding the dynamics of trust building create the context for exploration of the phenomenon of falling into trust as the focal point of this study. Influence of Current Events The perceived and documented social injustices to the employees of companies such as Enron may have influenced the perceptions of other employees in the telecommunications industry. Cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them (Bass, 1990, p. 52). Understanding trust from the employees perspective may empower leaders to become better leaders. Bass also noted that the greater the socioeconomic injustice in the society, the more distorted the realities of leadership (p. 3). Wren (1995) suggested, Leadership is a complex phenomenon, involving the constant interaction of three essential elements: the leader, the followers, and the surrounding situation or context. An effective leader must know something about each,

4 and how they interact (p. 125). Research into the leadership phenomenon might provide an opportunity for leaders in the telecommunications industry to develop a broader perspective of their employees and their environment. Because organizations are becoming more and more complex in the use of technology and communications, leadership and corporate strategic changes occur frequently. The difficulty lies in understanding corporate direction amidst such frequent change. According to a survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management and Career Journal (Claburn, 2005), Up to 34% of employees believe the reason that employers engage in these practices [employee tracking systems] is because management doesn't trust them" ( 4). An employee tracking system is similar to a time punch of years past or a card swipe an employee uses to document the start and end of a workday. In technological format, time tracking captures time utilized throughout the day. Utilization can include time spent in training, specific customer interactions, engineer solutions creation, lab time, meeting time, and training delivery. Tracking mechanisms and tracking software of employee utilization allow for an assessment of tasks and an opportunity to outsource the less technical tasks to more cost effective regions. Some tracking methods such as tracking web usage and email keywords are passive whereas others are active, requiring the engineer or employee to track the work done throughout the day. Hurst, Payla, and Mills (2005) explained, When management gives a speech encouraging people to perform their time tracking, the audience may nod in agreement but will do only what is necessary. After all, they understand the real requirements and the real consequences. They have quickly learned (through the inadequate use of consequences) that the true

5 net gain comes from a specific set of requirements and nothing else. Secondarily, since management verbally reported that time tracking was a prerequisite for recognition and reward, employees come to ignore almost all exhortations of management (remember mistrust?) because management was not forthcoming with the consequences promised for the behaviors they specified as important. (p. 26) As a result, the employee tracking mechanisms are contributing to employee mistrust. The findings from this research might further the understanding of how employees define and achieve falling into trust in the virtual and global organization. Additionally, the research might help expand the literature concerning the discussion and exploration of human relationships within the organizational environment. Gibbs Contribution to Trust Gibbs (1991) germinal work in the area of trust, leadership, and the development of the Trust, Openness, Realization, Interdependence (TORI) theory must be discussed as his work is timeless and applicable to leadership theory. Gibb started his work in 1967 and continued it through the early 90s. Gibbs work is referenced in scholarly literature as recently as 2004 (Hultman, 2004; Institute of Management and Administration (IOMA), 2004; Karathanos & Hillis, 2002; Moon, 1999; Sussman, 1991). Trust, according to Gibb, is derived from the German word Trost, meaning comfort (p. 5), and implies instinctive, unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something. . . . Trust can be and often is instinctive; unstrategized and freely given (p. 5). According to Bennis (as cited in Gibb, 1991), Gibbs work made a significant contribution to the understanding of the concept of trust in organizations. Gibb

6 emphasized that trust is among the key critical factors facing all human institutions today (p. i). In his germinal work, Trust: A New Vision of Human Relationships for Business, Education, Family, and Personal Trust, Gibb depicted trust as a window through which all things can be understood and a personal theory that people use to anticipate, predict, and avoid stressful situations. Gibb identified trust as an important element in the workplace, an internal regulator, and a driving force behind every decision when he stated, Trust level is not a simple act of will, an act of rational choice, or matter of understanding or insight (p. 222). Irrespective of definitions, the concept of trust is central to all management and employee decision-making processes. Jonis (2005) most recent article illustrated the following three aspects of trust: (a) personal trust, (b) expertise trust, and (c) structural trust (p. 17). A common element across all types of trust is the process of arriving at or falling into trust. There are several types of trust that can occur: (a) process trust, (b) organizational trust, (c) structural trust (Gibb, 1991; Misztal, 2001), and (d) personal trust (Joni). This research provided an opportunity to determine what elements are vital to the facilitation of successful falling into trust, whether it be personal (colleague to colleague or leader to follower), structural (the processes and procedures), or organizational (corporate mission and vision). Gibbs (1991) TORI theory can be applied to the categories and aspects of trust that are defined in the literature: (a) organizational trust, (b) structural trust, (c) leadership trust, (d) personal trust, and (e) expertise trust by assessing the presence of trust, openness, realizing, and interdependence in each type of trust. All are examples of an effort to further elucidate the different ways in which trust occurs according to context.

7 Falling into trust or arriving at a place of trust appears to be the common element present across all types of trust. Bubers I-Thou Within the leadership literature, the researcher explored the I-Thou relationship (Buber, 1996) between leaders and employees, also referred to as a dialogue (Friedman, 2002) between empirical and phenomenological studies. This qualitative phenomenological research study contributed to the leadership literature by exploring the lived experiences of employees of a major telecommunications company with regard to the phenomenon of falling into trust in a business environment. Friedman stated: To be fully real the I-thou relation must be mutual (p. 70). To provide the broadest possible view, understanding how an organization facilitates trust and the moments of falling into trust must be discussed from both the leaderships perspective and the employees perspective. In an effort to understand the complexity of trust, the researcher examined moving from trust as a concept to efforts at categorizing it (Misztal, 2001). Falling into Trust Central to this study was an understanding of the nature of trust and the process of falling into trust (FIT). Trust assumes a level of understanding as well as a bridging of vulnerabilities and agreed upon expectations (Misztal, 2001) so that people can embrace new experiences and multiple changes. The process of falling into trust needs further understanding in order to create a framework for building trust among people in the workplace, especially in a complex social environment where expectations and vulnerabilities amidst constant change occur. Despite the many definitions of trust and because of the expressed need for trust in organizations, leaders desirous of developing a

8 practice of transformational leadership benefit from understanding how employees arrive at a trusting place. Without that understanding, exploring effective and sustained change might remain unclear. The phenomenon of falling into trust is presented in limited fashion in the leadership or management literature. Understanding the literatures depiction of falling into trust might assist in identifying the concept of arriving at a trusting place with regard to any aspect of trust. Falling into trust in a business environment is defined as structural in nature, and it means knowing that policies and procedures are the rules and that communications are corporate consistencies (Joni, 2005). Leaders falling into trust are more personal and display faith in the organizational structure, faith in the employees, and faith in their own abilities to lead through example. These behaviors represent a starting point for this phenomenological exploration. Falling into trust, for the purpose of this study, was defined as the experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons (i.e., employee and manager, employee and colleague, and employee and organization) where there is an incidence of energy that generates a harmonious experience of joining together or I-Thou (Buber, 1996; Friedman, 2002). The occurrence of falling into trust is viewed as participation in genuine conversation between men of different kinds of conviction (Friedman, p.143), which is what Buber refers to as dialogue. The occurrence of falling into trust can be compared to Bubers I-Thou experience in which two persons overlap and experience instant synchronicity that leaves them wishing for the experience to occur again (Buber; Friedman).

9 Leadership, Trust, and Telecom The lack of regulation in the telecommunications industry has been a catalyst for growth, opportunity for new and innovative business, and leadership possibilities. From 1995 to 2005 the telecommunications industry experienced growth and a subsequent crash. Leadership in telecommunications has faced difficult times (Stephenson, 2004) and the creation of new telecommunications regulations, financial regulations, and government regulations. The level of freedom that existed for new leaders in the early telecommunications days no longer exists, particularly in the wake of the poor leadership decisions of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. Technological advancement, immense decisions disregarding the human impact and a merger of human and artificial intelligence (Wishard, 2005, p. 442) are moving the industry toward an age that Wishard referred to as post-humanism. Trust is a primary element of leadership (Gibb, 1991). Employees sense their need for trust in the leaderships intentions, vision, and mission to ensure their ability to move forward with strategies and approaches that are outside their normal comfort zones (Misztal, 2004). Leaders who lead through transactions, or what Hill (2003) referred to as I am the boss mentality, do not leave room for negotiation (p. 98). Unilateral decisionmaking has a negative impact on human capital by disempowering employees and breaking communication (Martin). Leaders who lead by change and transformation provide necessary elements in an industry that thrives on innovation and change. Transformational Leadership The telecommunications industry is a transforming technology that affects human life, doubling its rate of change every decade (Wishard, 2005). This is seen in the

10 evolution of the many new communication devices that exist in almost every American home (computers, digital cable, wireless LANS, etc). Transformation and innovation are necessary to the telecommunications field. Transformational leadership seems in alignment with the needs of the industry since leaders who transform allow necessary changes and lead for the successful implementation of these changes (Cowperthwaite & Holm, 2005). Leaders in the telecommunications industry have the responsibility to keep the business involved in the latest change by incorporating the newest technologies such as Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), web conferencing, web trainings, electronic signatures, knowledge management structures, and elaborate ticketing systems. Transformational leaders are respectful, trustworthy, inspirational, and must challenge followers with new ideas and approaches (Turner & Mller, 2005, p. 51) to continue to move forward in a growing industry. In the telecommunications volatile high-risk environment, it would seem appropriate to incorporate trust in order to encourage creative risk-taking (Bruce, 2005; Driver, 2002; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Leaders in the industry might benefit from understanding how trust is engendered in an effort to support a high-risk environment with a fast pace of change. Mistrust The concept of trust and the facilitation of falling into trust as experienced in the workplace need further exploration. Trust is an element of the foundation of transformative organizations and high-performance workplaces (Joni, 2005; Ketz de Vries, 2005; Sikorska-Simmons, 2005; Spence-Laschinger & Finnegan, 2005). Despite evidence that trust between managers and employees is necessary, a lack of trust is

11 common in organizations. The abhorrent behavior of leadership in the cases of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, are examples of deceit and dishonor (Myron, 2004) where scandalous behavior spawned a deep mistrust in the employees and the stakeholders. Consumers and employees felt victimized by such deceitful behavior (Myron). Employees lost confidence and fell out of trust with leadership, colleagues, and the organizations in which they are employees. Perceived leadership deception and corporate betrayal has infused a climate of mistrust in employees and consumers (Myron; Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). The implication of deception in the workplace could be a devastating but most relevant factor in falling into trust. Mistrust, according to Hultman (2004), is believing others do not have your best interests at heart (p. 103). Hultman also discussed systemic mistrust to which corporations are susceptible. Systemic mistrust, according to Hultman, is a shared set of beliefs that you cannot generally count on others to be consistent and/or sincere, triggering fear and apprehension (p. 103). For example, many corporations have incorporated pay for performance that provides summative bonuses to individuals who have met corporate goals, at the end of the year. As a result of these explicit agreements, employees acquire the perception that they are a part of the corporate structure. When agreements are broken, mistrust develops. When agreements are not fulfilled in the corporate arena, mistrust generates fear (Gibb, 1991; Hultman, 2004), lack of motivation, and a decline in democratic trust (Misztal, 2001). According to Stephenson (2004) and Marques, Dhiman, and King (2005), downsizing, reengineering, accounting scandals, lawsuits, layoffs, and offshoring between the years 1995 and 2005 have created a high level of systemic mistrust.

12 Hultman believed that systemic mistrust is untreatable, which is cause for concern. Systemic mistrust is becoming pandemic (Stephenson). As a result, some employees, stockholders, and consumers are experiencing vulnerability. The result of systemic mistrust is speculation regarding the motivations of business leaders, their truthfulness and integrity, and the drawing of damaging conclusions (Fairlamb, Matlack, & Ihlwan, 2002; Misztal; Stephenson). Gibb stated that trust and fear are keys to understanding persona and social systems (p. 7). Trust is an essential element of transformation and trust is a wholizing force (p. 7), so it is imperative to understand trusts complex existence within the organizational environment (Gibb). Organizations are social institutions because employees are social beings (Othman & Hashim, 2004). Companies configure day-to-day activities in an effort to assist employees in understanding the corporate structure, which assists in creating what Othman and Hashim referred to as corporate memory. Because of good communications and clear performance expectations, the perceived company structure directs a consistent set of behaviors and expectations by which a company can measure itself or can influence or convey a consistent set of performance expectations (Whitmeyer, Webster, & Rashotte, 2005). However, how communication, corporate structure, policies, and procedures affect the phenomenon of falling into trust requires further understanding. Trust is a necessary element in transformational leadership (Goleman, 2000; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005). Identification and exploration of trust between employees and leaders are imperatives for organizational success because, as Grefen (2004) stated, Trust caters to peoples basic need to predict, understand, and try to control their social

13 environment and, in doing so, to foresee what other people will do and how their own actions will affect the behavior of others (p. 265). Personal Trust Trust does not exist until trust becomes personal (Gibb, 1991). Trust implies comfort, and an instinctive, unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something whether it is other people or the self (Gibb, p. 5). When individuals suffer from lack of trust in the workplace and in their private lives, they have access to mediators such as lawyers, human resources, rabbis, and priests who protect them from harm. In organizations, there are rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that intend to protect and provide employees with a reference to safety (Stidvent, 2005). Although policies and procedures intend to protect employees, they sometimes create barriers between employees and prevent trust and safety. Organizations have roles that help define hierarchy, level of power, function, and responsibility. Gibb (1991) described a role free environment where role expectation and role perception do not preoccupy colleagues and leadership and where trust, vision, and passion drive behavior so that each individual feels like an owner; these are illustrations of moments of personal trust and possible barriers to personal trust within the organizational environment. Organizational rules will take the place of vision and mission (Covey, 2004, p. 112). Organizational Trust For the purpose of this study, organizational trust was defined as trust experienced by managers and employees in the organization as a whole, including the structure, the process, and the people. Organizations are a culmination of people and processes, are

14 social in nature, and each individual supports and helps create the purpose of the organization (Whitmeyer et al., 2005). This is seen in the instances of more relational and people-focused investigations of the Hawthorne studies conducted after the Second World War (Greenall, 2004) and the creation of a hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1998; Shafritz & Ott, 1996). The Hawthorne studies and Maslows focus on the hierarchy of needs opened a new perspective on people and how they relate to their work. There has been some discussion in the literature regarding organizations as social in nature (Adamy & Heinecke, 2005, p. 240). The Hawthorne studies (Mason, 2005) revealed that employees were motivated and expressed loyalty to the company simply because the organization was paying attention to their daily activities. Feelings and free will were what Mason referred to as properties of human entities that intertwined with human performance in the workplace (p. 77). This research provided an opportunity to understand the underpinnings of organizations as social structures and the connections that hold organizations together (Ashkanasy, 2005; Kaarst-Brown et al., 2004; Mason, 2005; Smith, 2005). Trust in the organization, its mission, and values may be as easy as the leaders ability to crystallize these concepts in a language that can be understood and heard by the people they lead. Trust in the individuals leading the vision and mission may be a precursor to a successful organization. Falling into trust is a necessary element that needs further exploration when applied to organizational and leadership theory. Leadership Trust Leadership trust is a form of personal trust (Gibb, 1991; Joni, 2005). Successful employees are motivated by leadership (Hanley, 2004) and must trust the motivations of

15 leadership (Hanley; Jazzar, 2005). According to Gibb, not many employees have experienced leadership other than from their managers; most employees try to imagine a work environment where leadership participates wholly, personally, and emotionally. When employees trust their leaders, the result is a powerful sense of community (Gibb, p. 98) and the willingness to go the extra mile and work toward a common goal. Leadership is an outcome of the social cognitive processes that people use to label others (Yan & Hunt, 2005, p. 50). A gap exists in the literature not only about the workplace with regard to leadership participation but also with regard to the exploration of how leaders facilitate falling into trust within the workplace. A Proquest and EBSCOhost article search for scholarly journals on employees perspective on leadership and "employee perspective on trust" provided no entries. This absence of studies indicated a lack of appreciative inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Whitney, as cited in Egan & Lancaster, 2005) within the leadership literature with regard to employee perspective on trust. Cooperrider and Whitney explained that AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system's capability to heighten positive potential (as cited in Egan & Lancaster, p. 32). The fact that there is limited discussion with employees in the leadership literature may be an indication that leaders or managers incorporate little employee input within the workplace. Dialogue and Transformation According to Friedman (2002), philosopher Martin Buber dedicated his life to the interaction with others in an attempt to find truth through dialogue. Dialogue, according to Friedman, is genuine conversation . . . between two persons, but it also occurs occasionally in a dialogue of several voices (p. 101). Genuine conversation, or the

16 Bubers dialogue to which Friedman referred, might be a key element of trust in which individuals discuss notions of common concern or share personal information so as to further anothers understanding of how one might view the world. Friedman discussed dialogue in the workplace and stated, No factory and no office is so abandoned by creation that a creative glance could not fly up from one working-place to another, from desk to desk, a sober and brotherly glance which guarantees the reality of creation which [sic] is happening quantum satis. (p. 101) Quantum satis, according to Friedman, is a moment in time where individuals feel fulfilled, never alone, where employees meet one another as persons, and where a leader of business steps before another. As an individual, he can meet him not as a number with a human mask but as a person (Buber as cited in Friedman, p. 101). Discussions by Buber (1996), Covey (2004), Friedman (2002), Mason (2005), and Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers (2004b), revealed that there is a need for connections between people, especially in organizations. Inherent in organizations is a series of connections (Mason) where employees join for a common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). These series of connections create a system of function for the manufacturing of a product or for interpersonal relationships while the organization moves toward its goal (Mason). In this study, the researcher intended to examine the connections between people, how these connections become trusting, and how they transform organizations. The components of transformational leadership might indicate that trust is a part of that leadership style and enhances transformative organizational efforts. The

17 components of transformational leadership allow for systemic revitalization and transformative changes in a dynamic environment. According to Adebayo (2005), Articulating a vision, which is the ability of the leader to articulate and inspire others; high performance expectation, which refers to leader expectations for excellence and quality on the part of the followers; intellectual stimulation, that is, the ability of a leader to offer challenges to followers and the need for a better way of performance; fostering collaboration, which is the ability to promote trust and cooperation; individualized consideration, i.e. the ability of leaders to give personal attention and treat each employee individually; and providing an appropriate model by setting an example for employees to follow. (p. 113) Transformation cannot occur unless fairness and reciprocity exist (Adebayo), and trust facilitates reciprocity (Boslego, 2005; Gibb, 1991). Adding employees perspective to the leadership literature added a new perspective to levels of reciprocity with. Mason (2004) stated, Transformational change is more closely linked with leadership and transactional change is more closely associated with management. Organization transformation requires a change leader who personally identifies with the change that is needed (p. 62). Transformational leadership has been shown to positively influence employee performance and financial gains (Adebayo, 2005). According to Adebayo, researchers have linked positive influence to positive personal exchanges between people and perceived fair treatment. In order for transformational change to occur, leaders need to be involved in order to understand the employees they lead and promote an adaptive and changing environment. Great effort has been made over time to overcome the lack of

18 understanding with regard to trust, as seen in Gibbs lifetime commitment to studying the concept of trust and the most recent writings of the Russel Sage Foundation Series on Trust. This study provided an opportunity to explore employees perspective on the phenomenon of falling into trust. The void in the literature suggests that there is a need to interact with employees and to understand them, in order to bring to the conscious mind a valuable employee perspective on leadership. This type of exploration should include discussions with employees to elicit their perceptions of leaders who encourage transformational organizational change through trust and those who rely mostly on the more familiar transactional leadership modalities. Employees perceptions of successful leadership styles are of paramount importance to successful leadership. Accessing employees perspectives on successful leadership could provide a verbal mirror or feedback loop for reflection. Statement of the Problem Leaders of telecommunications organizations struggle to reestablish and maintain a trusting culture amidst constant job and role changes, global competition, corporate globalization (Wishard, 2005), layoffs, corporate reengineering (Marques et al., 2005), technological advancement (Wishard), and most notably corporate leadership's unethical behavior (van Wert, 2004). The decline in corporate wellness indicates an increase in employee mistrust and commitment (Simon, 2002), and statistics specific to the telecommunications industry are startling. Mistrust is the great hidden tax (Covey, p. 162). Covey added, There is nothing as fast as the speed of trust . . . . It is the glue that holds organizations, cultures and relationships together (p. 162). Hester (2003) expressed

19 a similar view: If we are dominated by mistrust we cannot attend or interpret adequately, we cannot act accountably, and we will rupture, not strengthen the solidarity of the community or communities we live in. Mistrust paralyzes action and faith in leadership, it freezes commitment and the leaders faith in employees is lost (p. 92.) The implications of mistrust in the work environment not only affect the employees but also affect the corporate profits as seen in the absent, less productive employees, and in corporate healthcare costs (Marques et al.). Researching the occurrence of falling into trust in the workplace might reduce expenditures and increase overall organizational transformation. Leaders agreed that "trust plays a central role in employment relationships" (Simon, 2002, p. 18). This phenomenological research study with a focus on the thematic awareness of falling into trust among leaders and followers possibly revealed new approaches in leadership theory development so that leaders might revisit their approaches to managing and leading in today's work environment. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to contribute to the leadership literature by exploring the lived experiences of employees of a major telecommunications company with regard to the phenomenon of falling into trust in a business environment. The researcher used a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996) with structured and taped interviews analyzed through NVivo software. A purposeful sampling method led to the selection of 20 telecommunications employees with a background in data switching, 5E switching (everyday voice phones), Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), and wireless technologies. These participants were in positions

20 no higher than vice president from six global regions, 26 countries, and 13 American states. For the purpose of this study, the central phenomenon of falling into trust was defined as an experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons in which there is an incidence of being with that generates a harmonious experience of joining together. Significance of the Study The voice and perspectives of employees make a contribution to leadership literature. Employees are an organizations most valuable asset. The concept of trust between employees and leaders is critical for successful leadership guidance of actions and interactions of employees in the workplace. The word trust is used frequently and freely within the leadership literature, but the actual understanding of how falling into trust occurs or is perceived remains elusive. This implies that there is a gap in the leadership literature with regard to how experiencing trust and falling into trust impact the work environment. Knowledge of employees perspectives about the meaning and nature of trust and falling into trust is limited, and understanding the employee-leader relationship regarding trust is critical because of the transformative needs of the telecommunications industry. Managers are seeking new strategies and models to manage the transformation process occurring in Corporate America (Cuffe, 2005, p. 41). Significance of the Study to Leadership A vast body of literature exists on the topic of leadership through the assessments of perceived great leaders and from self-proclaimed great leaders, but there is little if any leadership literature written from the employees perspective. The intent of all phenomenological research is to make heard the unheard voice and to expand, add value,

21 and redefine standards of assessment (Pistrang, Picciotto, & Barker, 2001). Members, leaders, and followers, are the persons who empower leaders to lead. The employees would seem a proper voice to hear on what makes great leadership great. The intent of this study was to make the following three significant contributions to leadership research: (a) to present employees perspectives on the elements of falling into trust, (b) to further elucidate the actual process of falling into trust, and (c) to complement the leadership literature by providing the employees voice. According to Gibb (1991), exploration of connection and community within the work environment is an area that needs further exploration in leadership and organizational theory literature because leaderships ability to facilitate falling into trust may be found to be a necessary element of corporate leadership. This phenomenological research study added to the field of leadership because the results provided a more thorough understanding of (a) employee and leadership trust, (b) influence on management and employee behaviors, (c) impact on organizational performance, and (d) perceptions about trust through the exploration of the lived experiences of the employees. This research provided an alternate and unique perspective for leaders to consider when they attempt to engage the employee base amidst the chaotic, stressful, and ever-changing work environment. Gibb (1991) and Buber (1996) are significant contributors to the fundamentals of human relations. Gibb and Buber incorporated trust into the complex dimensions of human relations and applied the concepts to organizational leadership theory. Gibb incorporated human elements of trust with organizational needs while Buber developed a method of identifying ways of relating: I-Thou (person to person), I-It (person to person

22 as object), and I-I (narcissism in which no one is worthy except the self). How employees relate and how employees develop trust may be germane to how leaders develop trust in the workplace. In an effort to motivate and generate followership, leaders must be able to communicate. The ability to lead, inspire, and guide others is an example of social competencies (Goleman, 2000). If falling into trust is a social competency, leaders can benefit from understanding the intricacies of that process. Demonstrating the connection between followership and leadership is a leaders primary responsibility (Heisselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard, 1997). Thus, this research provided a new opportunity for an expanded and more thorough understanding of leadership and trust and possibly also provided an opportunity for a new leadership style to emerge. In the virtual global telecommunications environment, the ability to share and transfer knowledge is an essential driver of the business. Numerous researchers (Argyris, 1993; Gibb, 1991; Kramer & Cook, 2005; Schein, 1996) have found trust can improve knowledge sharing, growth, and development of organizations. With a strong level of knowledge sharing, the opportunity for creating an optimum learning environment within the telecommunications industry is essential to staying on the leading edge of technological advancement and innovation. Trust in leadership, leadership direction, and leadership decisions, assists in the growth and development of an organization and its employees (Kramer & Cook). Telecommunications is an industry that experiences constant technological advancement, so it can greatly benefit from understanding how falling into trust is facilitated within the work environment.

23 Nature of the Study The researcher used a qualitative phenomenological approach to reveal the lived experiences of each participant who became a coresearcher. The modified van Kaam phenomenological methodology by Moustakas (1996) used in this study focused on the lived experiences and explanations put forth by the coresearchers as opposed to emphasizing the subjective interpretation of the researcher. The phenomenological design identified perceived phenomena within the workplace. The researcher utilized digitally taped interviews and NVivo qualitative data analysis software designed to code, link, shape, and model the data derived from the interviews. NVivo software assisted in assessing and clarifying patterns in themes derived from the lived experiences of 20 employees in a major global telecommunications company. The researcher determined that the coresearchers were individual contributors, managers, and directors who did not hold a vice president level position or above and who were recruited within six North American region states and 26 countries. The themes explored were dictated by the emergence of categories with regard to the tenets of Gibbs TORI theory: openness, respect, and interdependence. The units of measurement were drawn from the consistent emerging themes that are referred to as nodes within the NVivo software. The nodes are considered markers for specific categories identified from general to specific and considered interchangeable with codes (Brazeley & Richards, 2005; Gibbs, 2002). Relations can be found in codes either in a hierarchical fashion or in matrix form (Brazeley & Richards). Once the nodes were

24 identified, they were categorized, assigned applicable attributes, analyzed, and reported as findings. The focus of this study was organizational relationships in which falling into trust occurs. The understanding of what allows for a peak transaction between persons allowing for peak transformative experiences within the workplace was explored. The research sought to add to the body of knowledge about the falling into trust phenomenon and how it relates to transformational and values-based leadership theory. The research explored the manifestations of falling into trust within the organizational context of a major telecommunications company through the use of a purposeful sampling of individuals who identified themselves as having fallen into trust. Since reality is socially constructed, a series of important steps must be followed in order to capture these social constructions. The following steps were taken, based on Moustakas (1996) recommendations: 1. Personal judgment was set aside as to the definition and personal understanding of falling into trust. Epoche (Moustakas) refers to a process in which researchers must bracket themselves from the rest of the world and suspend personal judgment or bias (Koch, 1995). This function might also be referred to as an empathic connection, Adopting an informed not-knowing stance . . . treats that knowledge as partial and perspectival. The not-knowing portion of this stance emphasizes the skills necessary for learning about perspectives held by persons other than us (Keenan, 2004, p. 543). 2. A purposeful sample of 20 coresearchers was taken and the participants were identified as having experienced falling into trust.

25 3. Data Collection: a. Data were collected from 20 structured taped interviews. b. All coresearchers were asked the same questions. c. Notes were taken to capture any body language that could not be captured by the recording. 4. Data Analysis: a. Horizonalization or bracketing (Moustakas). b. Data reduction into like and unlike clusters, themes, and validation. c. Textural and structural descriptions. d. Examination of possible meaning. e. Presentation of findings. The process of research methodology and data analysis is further reviewed in chapter 3. Moustakas systematic research methodology was followed to ensure rigor in the research. Reason for Purposeful Sampling A purposeful sampling method was utilized in order to identify 20 individuals who identified themselves as having had the experience of falling into trust with leaders in a global telecommunications organization. The purposeful sampling method was chosen in order to capture a sample of the population of interest, a population that is suffering in terms of loyalty indexes and trust in leadership (Furness, 2005; Perry & Mankin, 2004). According to Covey (2004), in a study of 23,000 workers, only 20% trusted their organization. With the recent misgivings of mismanagement of money and unethical

26 behavior in major telecommunications companies, it is important to assist leaders in becoming better students of humanist approaches to leadership. Chapter 3 further explains the elements of phenomenological research. The researcher asked open-ended questions and captured, transcribed, and assessed the taped interviews with the use of NVivo qualitative data analysis software that ascertained themes regarding the understanding of followership or the definition of falling into trust. The software queried the data, based on Moustakas (1996) modified van Kaam method of analysis, to explicate the lived experiences of the employees regarding the experience of falling into trust as the phenomenon was consciously experienced. Research Questions The research questions for this qualitative phenomenological research study have a primary purpose of discovering the essence of the phenomenon of falling into trust (FIT) through the exploration of the lived experiences of 20 employees of a major telecommunications company. Four questions were central to the research: 1. How do employees describe the experience of falling into trust? 2. How does the experience of falling into trust impact the employee within the organizational environment? 3. How does the experience or lack of experience of falling into trust influence the employees perception of organizational leadership? 4. Should the employees perception of leadership be less than effective in creating trust, how do employees describe its impact on organizational and personal performance?

27 Theoretical Framework Several theoretical approaches capture the essence and complexity of trust and the actual occurrence of falling into trust such as Gibbs (1991) TORI theory, Bubers (1996) dialogic theory of the occurrence of I-Thou, and transformational leadership tenets. This research study was based on Gibbs TORI (Trust, Openness, Realization, and Interdependence) theory that represents his basic tenets of trust. Gibbs theory was related to how Buber perceived the relation or relatedness between two people who are experiencing trust as a dialogue, utilizing the specific concept of I-Thou as defined by Friedman (2002) and Buber. Finally, the researcher included a discussion of how systems rely upon social relations to motivate and complete day-to-day work by reviewing social capital theory and its primary element of trust (Fram, 2004). Trust Openness Realizing Interdepending - TORI Theory In this study, the researcher utilized a process of discovery using Bubers (1996) I-Thou formulation of how individuals relate to the world and Gibbs TORI theory. The four TORI theory elements as defined by Gibb (1991) were (T) Trust, (O) Openness, (R) Realization, and (I) Interdependence. Each TORI element facilitates the process of discovering the experience of withness (Friedman, 2002) or the proposed falling into trust phenomenon studied. The 20 self-selected coresearchers who believed that they have had the experience of falling into trust had to be open in sharing their understanding of the experience and to realize it while in the presence of the researcher. The data obtained from the coresearchers interviews were combined to discover, explore, unfold, and convey the experience of falling into trust. TORI theory provides an opportunity to explore any

28 human phenomenon. The researcher must trust the self and the merit of the topic to conduct the research (T). The exchange between coresearchers must be open and trusting without judgment (O). The coresearchers participating in an open and trusting environment might facilitate the creative juices in discovering, realizing, and actualizing the experience of withness in discussing the research topic (R). The co researchers are interdependent upon one another to discover, explore, define, and document the experience of falling into trust (I). Bubers I-Thou Buber (1996) explored the experience of I-positions that are used to illustrate the way in which humans can relate to the world (Cooper, 2003). Human beings oscillate between these states depending on circumstances and on the other with whom they interact, be it another person, a project, nature, or any thing. I-Thou is similar to the Zulu experience of simunye (Hlongwane, 2003), the Shinto experience of musubi (Boyd & Williams, 2005), or the Chinese business encounter of guanxi (Law, Wong, Wang, & Wang, 2000; Newmeyer, 2005). This formula is based in Taoism that seeks nature and quietism, rather than forcing to get what you want. . . . The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, the way to use life is to do everything through being (Bynner, 1962, p. 48) (Venizia, 2005, p. 202). Understanding how employees within organizations relate to each other and how transformative moments or transformative relationships are crafted can assist in understanding how leaders and employees could cultivate the transformative environment. Organizations, leaders, managers, and also employees often take for granted their relationships and base them solely on the basis that the only obligation is to

29 exchange money for services. Occurrences of complex connections and the understanding of these complexity or levels of connection may assist in understanding the subtle moments that facilitate falling into trust. There are moments when beings see one another as objects, and moments when they see one another as a reflection of themselves, connecting in reciprocity. The latter is what Buber (1996) referred to as I-It relating, seeing another human as an object and nothing touches our being (Rechtman, 2001, p. 80). Individuals who work around us are sometimes perceived as Its, mere objects for our use (Boyd &Williams, 2005; Buber, 1996; Friedman, 2002). The fact that the I-thou experience was being brought forth within this research treated the phenomenon that Buber would refer to as It. The experience of I-thou as it is experienced and reflected upon is an it, reduced to an object of the research, very similarly to researching the phenomenon of falling into trust. Studying the phenomenon of falling into trust turns it into an object of research. However, the experience is difficult to put into appropriate words, and Bubers I-Thou then loses the very essence of its existence. Schuster (2004) believed that I-Thou is a complex encounter that would be referred to as an entrance into Bubers (1996) dialogue and an experience of wholeness with another if it occurred in conversation (Schuster). When the I-Thou phenomenon occurs between two humans within the workplace, the experience can be transformative (Boyd & Williams, 2005; Friedman, 2002). Understanding the I-Thou encounter (dialogue or falling into trust) can occur when an employee and leader communicate in a union, a necessary relationship, not one as husband and wife or as father and son, but as Bubers essential We. I-Thou is the essential We in which two individuals or even a group

30 of people exist, talk, and relate to one another, moving away and out of detachment but toward a deep and meaningful dialogue that cannot exist in separation. I can only become I in relation to You (Buber). Bubers essential We becomes We when fear is relieved in trust, the defenses are released, and openness occurs (Gibb, 1991) Transformational Leadership Theory Another critical theory for this research was transformational theory. Transformational leaders meet people as people and wish to encourage the growth and development of employees thus leading to organizational transformation. Transformational leaders do not exhibit command and control, rewards, and discipline. Transformational leadership has been shown by multiple studies in multiple environments to improve motivation, productivity, and necessary lasting change (Adebayo, 2005). Transforming leadership . . . changes some of those who follow into people whom others may follow in time (Wren, 1995, p. 103). Burns (1978) opined that transforming leadership promotes integrity, authenticity, and moral resolve thus creating long-term bonds to meet shared goals between leaders and followers. Transforming leadership can be defined as leadership [that] occurs when one or more person engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise on another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, p. 20). Change, people, transformation, and organizations are elements that exist in parallel. Organizations are made of social beings, and transformation means deep and lasting change. Social Capital Theory Much of the organizational focus and goal regarding outcomes is related to capitalism where profits rule. Because organizational profits are a primary driver, it is

31 important to understand organizational capital and its many types (Akdere, 2005). Trust and falling into trust are precursors to healthy human relating (Handy, 2000). People relate to one another in families, communities, societies, and within the workplace. Since leaders in organizations are being driven into the knowledge industry, the knowledge must pass through levels of relating, networks, and knowledge networks that the telecommunications industry has referred to as knowledge transfers when information passes between employees. Akdere (2005) stated, from the business standpoint, social capital refers to many resourcesinformation, ideas, business opportunities, financial capital, power, emotional support, goodwill, trust, and cooperationavailable to us in and through personal and business networks (p. 3). Organizations are complex social networks (Akdere). In order for employees to be social in a healthy and effective manner, social capital must exist, and trust is a primary element of social capital (Akdere). Another important consideration is human capital as a primary functioning element of the knowledge organization (Akdere, 2005). In the transformative environment, the transformational leader catalyzes conventional social exchanges, stimulating subordinates to surpass initial performance goals and self-interests (Wang et al., 2005, p. 422). Wang et al. further contended that transformational leadership encourages and is successful at leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships. LMX, according to Wang et al. develop[s] through three sequential stages, "stranger," "acquaintance," and "partner," each of which relies successively less on instrumental transactional exchange and more on social exchanges (p.423). The social exchanges that Wang et al. referred to are examples of social capital that is instrumental in transforming organizations.

32 Social capital theory offers insight into how relationships influence change within the organizational context. How social capital affects loyalty, motivation, and trust in those who lead within the workplace is critical (Akdere, 2005; Subramamaniam & Youndt, 2005). A primary element that motivates behavior in any social setting is trust (Akdere). How an organization facilitates the social human capital of trust and falling into trust within the workplace might prove to be a necessary organizational leadership consideration. Social capital should be considered a focal point of any organizational infrastructure thus improving leaderships ability to influence positive change and improvement of innovative capacities (Subramamaniam & Youndt). In order to generate change, there must be a connection between the people and the organization in the form of an alignment or alliance between followers and leaders. Gibb (1991) illustrated the following areas as tenets for organizational change and the facilitation of trust through what he referred to as mini theories: freedom of flow, process of trusting, cognitive-perceptual clarity, self-care, open systems, focused energy. Freedom of flow was referred to as an alignment or internal and external congruency. The process of trusting, according to Gibb, allows for occurrences to happen without controls, second guessing, or micromanaging. Cognitive-perceptual clarity is the presentation of a clear mission and goal (Gibb). In the organizational environment, selfcare and open systems refers to the notion of nurture through sharing of feelings. Focused energy, according to Gibb, encompasses the positive energies harnessed to support the overall organizational mission. OToole (1996) stated, To the extent that followers embrace needed change, leaders can be said to be effective. Thus a sine qua non of effective leadership is the

33 ability to overcome resistance to change among followers (p. 158). Change is the driver of transformational leadership (Wang et al., 2005). The telecommunications industry is driven by the demand for more reliable, faster, uncomplicated, more comprehensive ways of communicating; the knowledge worker age has arrived and has reduced industrial workforce by 90% (Covey, 2004). Faster reliable communications demands require constant change and, as a result, local, regional, and national markets have become global (Covey). The phenomenon of trust and its symbolic under and overtones are at the root of every human decision. According to Wren (1995), The larger topic of which leadership is a subtopic is the accomplishment of group purpose, which is furthered not only by effective leaders but also by innovators, entrepreneurs and thinkers; by the availability of resources; by questions of morale and social cohesion. (p. 4) Group purpose is the intent of all organizations existence (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Definition of Terms Some specialized terminology was included in this study. The following are definitions of these terms: Alignment: A process or experience of bridging the gaps in order to create a whole. In the case of alignment in the organizational context, it means bringing together the components of a whole, as prescribed by organizations or individuals, into close cooperation (Williams, 2002).

34 Chemistry: Chemistry is an occurrence between people, a bridge, thin line, domain, or continuum between people, intrapersonal, interpsychic, or interpersonal, where the internal life of one meets with another (Crastnopol, 2002). Connection: The element that binds two or more people together, a joining in purpose or intention; it could be a perceived or felt experience. Employee: The employee is the task worker, the merchant, wage earner, salaried worker, tradesman, professional worker, organizational worker, blue-collar worker or white-collar worker, or basically any worker who is not self-employed (Jacques, 1996). Expertise Trust: Over time, leaders become keen to good information and individuals with appropriate skill levels who can be aligned with suitable positions (Joni, 2005). Falling Into Trust: Falling into trust is the process of arriving at trust, an experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons where there is an incidence of energy that generates a harmonious experience of joining together. Many times, this moment is instantly perceived when two persons overlap. Guanxi: Guanxi has the virtue of being observable. Transactions involving guanxi are distinguishable from other exchanges because they involve "ganqing," sentimentality or fellow feeling, so "practices of guanxi production" are really acts of generating ganqing, and we may contrast these with the cold, impersonal contractual relationships of the market that are defined by "ganqing avoidance (Newmeyer, 2005, pp. 80-81). Horizonalization: Horizonalization is a phenomenological technique used to bring lived experiences to awareness through expression and the capturing of the expressions. Horizonal is the extraction of significant statements from transcribed interviews where

35 lived experiences are put to paper. These statements are then transformed into clusters of meanings according to how each statement falls under phenomenological concepts. Finally, these transformations are tied together to make a general description of the experience, both the textural description of what was experienced and the structural description regarding how the phenomenon was experienced (Creswell, 1998; MerleauPonty, 2004; Moustakas, 1996). I-I: is a world of one. It speaks to a person who lives in the world of narcissism, and you will not be heard. Buber (1996) stated, Those who dwell inside have no consuming interest. They are not devoted to possessions, even if they prize some; not to people, even if they like some; not to any project, even if they have some (p. 11). There is no It, there is no Thou in the world of the I-I. You are not found interesting at all (Buber, p.11). I-Thou: Bubers essential We, a relationship. Friedman (2002) stated, We only come about when independent people have come together in essential relation and directness . . . and only through it can man escape from the impersonal one of the nameless, faceless crowd. A man is truly saved from the one not only by separation but only by being bound up in genuine communion. (p. 246) In the workplace, this could be seen as a harmonious moment, possibly in the creation or development of a most advanced product, an epiphany of relation within the context of creativity. I-It: In contrast to I-Thou, I-It is planned, purposeful, linear, directed, not mutual, a relation in which one relates to the other only indirectly a nonmutually, knowing and using the other (Friedman, 2002, p. 354). In the workplace, this could be seen as driven

36 toward a goal at all costs, notwithstanding the impact on those unknowing (i.e., the Enron debacle). Leadership: Staying in alignment of the purpose of this paper, leadership as defined by Yan and Hunt (2005) is an outcome of the social cognitive processes that people use to label others (p. 50). Leadership Trust: Leadership trust is a moment in which leaders who are seen as credible - embodied by truthfulness, certainty of promises, reliability, and openness in approach - are also likely to be seen as meriting trust (Perry & Mankin, 2004, p. 278). Moment of Presence: Moment of presence is an extraordinary moment where the fire of creation burns and enters the world through us (Senge et al., 2004a, p. 240). In the context of the workplace, this could be experienced as a tenet of falling into trust. NVivo Software: NVivo software is developed to code and analyze reported experiences with regard to the phenomenon being studied. The software codes the taped interviews and develops categories from the code. Organizational Congruence: A state of being in agreement or an alignment of views. In the case of organizational congruency, an employees values, beliefs, and purpose are in alignment with those of the company. According to del Castillo and Yaez (2004), congruence is the idea that organizational congruence is the result of the synergy of personal congruences. To make this notion work, companies must define themselves to clearly establish a culture of preferred values that can be adopted by all employees (p. 48). Organizational Trust: Gilbert and Tang (1998) defined organizational trust as the belief that an employer will be honest, straightforward, and follow through with

37 commitments. Additionally, there is faith that leadership will execute organizational decisions that will benefit the employees. Personal Trust: In the context of the workplace, personal trust is seen as a sense of reciprocity or the level that indicates confidence in the integrity and values of ones colleagues. This is the type of trust evidenced by the knowledge that people will keep their word and get their jobs done so that leaders can do theirs effectively (Joni, 2005, p. 17). Phenomenology: Phenomenology is the study of essences, conscious perceptions and experiences, an exploration of lived experiences regarding the concept of a phenomenon (Creswell, 1998). Phenomenology is the study of individual experiences within the context of the self (Hegel; 2005; Merleau-Ponty, 2004; Moustakas, 1996). Phenomenology reviews the themes of lived experiences that emerge and establish a foundation for future generalizations (Moustakas). Structural Trust: Structural trust is the consistent processes and cultural expectations that influence or guide patterns of behavior within an organization, including but not limited to supervision, team meetings, communications, job functionality, and expectancy of payment for services (Joni, 2005). The structure may even be perceived as hierarchical or bureaucratic, union or conservative versus liberal, or time versus product driven initiatives. Synergy: A connection between two entities where the process between those two entities is operating on a level that was higher and totally different from the normal, rational, linear plane (Jaworski, 1998, pp. 54-55). This oneness is a form of collective

38 intelligence, "an evolving phenomenon that occurs when individuals work together in mutually enhancing ways toward a common goal" (Curley, 1998, p. 70). Telecommunications: Telecommunications is the transmission of information such as voice, text, pictures, video, or any other data type, by hardwire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other. Trust: According to Gibb (1991) trust (derived from the German word Trost, meaning comfort) implies instinctive, unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something. . . . Trust can be and often is instinctive; unstrategized and freely given (p. 5). Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders take into consideration ethics, morals, values, trust, integrity, purpose, and honesty in an effort to influence change. Transformational leaders seek to release human potential and creativity in order to shift organizational direction and spawn innovation thus exceeding achievement expectations (Bass, 1990; Hosmer, 2003; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005). Transforming leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (Wren, 1995, p. 101). Assumptions This research was based on the following significant assumptions: (a) All people at one time or another have experienced a sense of chemistry, connectedness, and synergy with at least one other individual in the workplace that has influenced the occurrence of falling into trust; (b) the participants will be honest in their presentation of their lived experiences; and (c) employees and leaders can fall into trust.

39 Scope The scope of the research was narrow in that there were 20 coresearchers for the purpose of creating a manageable platform of data to analyze. The coresearchers were from one major global telecommunications company where the research intended to clarify the phenomenon of falling into trust. The companys headquarters are in the North American Region and company sites spanning more than 28 countries. The study aimed at adding to the limited body of leadership literature addressing the employees perspective on trust between leaders and followers. Limitations There were a number of limitations to this study. The number of participants was limited due to time constraints. The study was further limited to one company, and it excluded individuals in management positions at the vice president level and above. The researcher focused on examining the perceptions of the employees, so the perspective of executive leadership is not included in this study and is a limitation. Despite the use of electronic theme definitions through the use of NVivo software, the true understanding of what people are attempting to convey depended on the researchers interpretation. First, the interviews were taped and transcribed word for word into Rich Text Format (RTF) that was plugged into NVivo and imported into a project. Attributes were assigned for each document imported based on age, years of service, and job role. After the documents had received attributes, the commentary captured in the transcriptions was coded, linked, and shaped into emerging themes (Bazeley & Richards, 2005). As a result of the emerging themes, nodes and node trees were created, and clarification of the emerging concepts allowed further analysis. Built

40 into the software is a way to validate the concepts that have emerged as well as present a cogent detailed understanding and insight into the phenomenon being studied (Brazeley & Richards). Because the interviewer is an instrument in the study who listens, interprets, and assesses meaning (Brazeley & Richards, 2005; Gibbs, 2002), it is important for the researcher to be aware of personal biases (Moustakas, 1996) and of potentially asking leading questions. In an effort to limit her biases, the researcher returned to each interviewee to assess interpretations, determine the level of accuracy, and allow the interviewees to add insight at that time. Delimitations The research conducted was limited by the following factors: (a) the coresearch group came from a subset of a global telecommunications company, (b) each coresearcher did not hold a leadership position and was an individual contributor with no direct reports, (c) the study focused on the phenomenon of falling into trust from an employee perspective, (d) only those individuals who have identified themselves as having had the experience of falling into trust were included in the study, and (e) this study was limited in its focus on the elements of trust and how it is experienced by the employee. Summary Chapter 1 introduced a context for exploration of the phenomenon of falling into trust with colleagues and perceived leaders within the workplace from the employees perspective, an underrepresented area in leadership literature (Barker & Pistrang, 2005). The intent of this qualitative research study was in alignment with the intent of qualitative

41 work, according to Barker and Pistrang, to provide a forum for employees to participate within the leadership literature as conversational partners. As a result of this partnership between employees and the leadership literature, leaders might expand their perspective on the complicated aspects of trust and the experience of falling into trust within the work environment from the employees perspective. This addition to leadership knowledge provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to gain from the research activity regarding organizational leadership, in this case, leaders, employees, and future researchers (Barker & Pistrang). Chapter 2 provided a historical overview of trust and how trust is conveyed from the employees point of view within the literature. Chapter 2 will focus on the literature relevant to the employee-leader relationship of falling into trust. Chapter 2 provided a historical overview of trust and how trust is conveyed from the employees point of view within the literature. Chapter 2 will focus on the literature relevant to the employee-leader relationship of falling into trust.

42 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 1 explained the purpose of this phenomenological study as an opportunity to explore and further elucidate the phenomenon of falling into trust through the exploration of the lived experiences of employees in a global telecommunications company. Trust has been considered an essential element in all human interactions (Handy, 2000) and more recently, an essential element of organizational functioning and employee motivation (Drucker, 2005; Hanley, 2004; Perry & Mankin, 2004; SpenceLaschinger & Finegan, 2005). Key Word Search and Survey of Literature Sources The research pertaining to trust, leadership, epistemology, and philosophical literature reviewed within this study was a compilation of peer reviewed articles, scholarly journals, scholarly texts, and commercial readings. The majority was published within the last five years. Most notably are the works of Buber (1996), the original IThou work Ich und Du in 1923, and Gibbs most recent version of TORI trust theory published in 1996. Each has withstood the test of time. Established scholarly manuscripts and books that pertain to organizational leadership and time-honored historical philosophical books were also used to lay the foundation for a complex and elusive topic. Appendix D, Table 1 contains a register of the key words utilized to capture literature germane to the subject of falling into trust and how it relates to organizational leadership issues. Peer Reviewed Articles Of 16 key word searches reviewing the relationship of leadership and I-Thou, trust, management, mistrust, connection, synergy, and employee trust, there was a return

43 of 22, 634 articles. After the Enron scandal at the end of 2001 through May 2005, there were a total of 9,466 peer-reviewed articles over a period of four and a half years related to leadership, trust, and I-Thou connections. The number of peer-reviewed articles increased through 2003 with a drop in 2004, and by the middle of May, there were only 609 articles. Commercial Readings Commercial readings with associations to leadership, trust, I-Thou, organizational leadership, and synergistic leadership were generated from a search of Barnes and Noble (bn.com) and amazon.com, both retail and online bookstores, and returned a total of 2668 books on related topics. World Wide Web The World Wide Web has become increasingly informative with the development of search engines such as the most popular Google. As scholarly peer-reviewed articles are available through scholarly databases, the Google search engine works with a page ranking technology that allows for returns on searches, bringing up pages with multiple links to other web pages. The Google search returned over 32,600 references to leadership, I-Thou, trust, and synergistic leadership. Historical Perspective on Trust Trust having been a topic of exploration since the earliest documented texts by philosophers, a study focusing on clarification of the actual phenomenon of falling into trust was relevant. However, in 2005, the research did clarify on what falling into trust means. Boslego (2005) and Gibb (1996) agreed that the elements of trust are not clear. Boslego stated,

44 A precise definition of social trust is difficult to pin down, but it has been encapsulated as an ongoing motivation or impetus for social relations that forms a basis for interaction. Social trust can entail perceived honesty, objectivity, consistency, competence, and fairness, all of which foster relationships between individuals that must be maintained by the sustained fulfillment of these standards. (p. 28) In much of his dialogues, Plato pondered the motivations of the dominant political and religious structures of his time (Mara, 2001; Wiland, 2004). Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates also displayed considerable concern with virtue, morality, and honor amidst an uncertain world. The only certainty, according to Aristotle, is how one responds to the world. According to Handy (2000), not much has changed since the time of the Greek philosophers in that the only certainty is uncertainty. Furthering the understanding of the nature and phenomenon of falling into trust might be the path to understanding how falling into trust might be facilitated. Understanding the phenomenon might result in a more productive work environment. Leaders who are able to facilitate this type of phenomenon within the workplace might be able to create a more secure working environment. An example of this type of working relationship is seen in the field of psychology and social work in which each relationship strives toward a safe, trusting rapport between individuals called the working alliance with trust and respect as the foundation of all relationships (Kets de Vries, 2005). This study was an exploration of trust as seen in the leadership and management literature and how it is facilitated in the global organization. More specifically, the focus of the literature review was on trust and the phenomenon of falling into trust as seen in

45 the literature. The literature review further focused how trust relates to leadership within the context of the global organization. The information was gathered from online library sources and scholarly manuscripts in the areas of management theory, organizational theory, leadership theory, and epistemology. The first section of this literature review covered the complexity of how human beings come to know truths about the world, the epistemological underpinnings of trust, and metaphors for trust. This is an essential concept to review due to the complexity of the various concepts of trust in addition to the complex ways in which people come to know that they have fallen into trust. The second section discussed the tenets of trust and TORI theory. The third section reviewed the many variations of trust and trust as it pertains to organizational leadership. In conclusion, the final section expanded upon the variations of trust from a multicultural perspective in an effort to capture nuances of falling into trust otherwise not captured in western thinking, which might further clarify the phenomenon of falling into trust. Literature Review Trust is used frequently within the management and leadership literature, as seen in the literature search returns on trust and leadership and trust and management. The phenomenon of falling into trust is not adequately identified or explored in the scholarly leadership or management literature. Although trust enters the management and leadership literature consistently, the phenomenon of falling into trust within the organizational context needs further exploration.

46 The literature review focused on the following areas in an effort to illuminate how it is that we come to understand trust and falling into trust in the context of the work environment: 1. Epistemology: how it is we come to know. 2. Trust as it relates to the work environment. 3. Multi-cultural definitions of falling into trust. 4. Transformational leadership and the element of trust. Epistemology Knowledge as defined by Moser and Vander Nat (1995) is belief of a special kind, belief satisfying certain conditions (p. 4). Time, technology, people, planets, ideas, and even organizations are all what Plato called forms. Platos perception of forms, as discussed in Moser and Vander Nat, was similar to Hillmans (1996) perception of fate, predetermined, unchanging, and eternal. Epistemologists and scientists have been studying the form of reality for centuries, but the nature of reality is elusive, and it continues to be an object of learning, growth, and development in the area of understanding how it is humans come to know and find meaning and understanding. The rationalists Descartes and Plato utilized reason in order to realize knowledge (Moser & Vander Nat, 1995). The need for coming to know is the reason why epistemology and science exist. How individuals come to know is as personal and complex a process as falling into trust. People have different learning styles, capacities, and socio-cultural experiences that influence their understanding of the world around them (Morgan, 1998). Understanding is inclusive of belief, opinion, and perception,

47 leading individuals down very different paths in the discovery of truth (Moser & Vander Nat). Historical Influences on Knowing Management theorists, leadership theorists, organizational theorists, and all epistemologists are specialized in the area each has chosen. They all influence history through their research, attempting to understand, clarify, and influence the greater body of knowledge in their area of specialization. As philosophers and scientists attempt to understand how humans come to know, epistemologists in the area of management, leadership, and organizational theory attempt to find new paradigms and new theories to assist in coming to know. How cultures and even organizations come to consensus on topics of common concern is also a very complex phenomenon. LaZara (2002) saw consensus as statements [that] are not simply about the knowing subject (traditional subjectivism) nor about some object that transcends the minds of the knowers (traditional objectivism), but rather about objects that are constructed by minds according to universals shared by all knowers (inter-subjectivism). ( 5) Management theorists, organizational theorists, and leadership theorists all are looking for ways to define and understand reality according to the theories, paradigms, and shared rules designated by the discipline (Kuhn, 1996). The scientific method is in agreement with Platos idea of forms being unchanging when forms are broken down to their simplest structure, and the conclusions of the research method is logical and mathematical (Kuhn). Trust and the phenomenon of falling into trust within the

48 workplace must be explored further in an effort to refine its structure into comprehensible elements. Epistemology and philosophy vacillate between the scientific method of coming to know and the more amorphous position of social construction and psychological notions of coming to know. When considering trust in this analysis, it is a consideration that falling into trust may be a social construction, and when falling into trust has occurred, it may be an individual psychological experience. Gazzaniga (1998), a renowned neurologist, proposed that the designer of reality is an interpreter. Gazziniga stated, This one device creates the illusion that we are in charge of our actions, and it does so by interpreting our past (p. xiii). This stance is very scientific in nature since the brain is a dynamic computing device that is largely rule driven; it stores information by manipulating the value of simple arithmetic variables (Gazziniga, p. 35). Piaget experimented in a more nebulous area of coming to know from the belief set that we are participants in our own creation of reality. Piaget, along with Thomas Aquinas and Kant, believed that human beings were active participants in the construction of reality (Moser & Vander Nat, 1995) and that perception is in the eye of the beholder in the moment. Thomas Aquinas position (as cited in Moser and Vander Nat) was that the objects of intellectual knowledge are necessary and always the same. But all material realities are changeable and not always the same. Therefore the soul through the intellect cannot know material things (p. 94). Kant perceived the construction of meaning through the utilization of a priori knowledge, which gave credit to the utilization of intuition, perception, and understanding in the construction of knowledge (Moser & Vander Nat, 1995). These are

49 important considerations when analyzing the phenomenon of falling into trust. Although the philosophical viewpoints vary somewhat, they illustrate that what one believes to know today, one might not know tomorrow because tomorrow it might no longer be true. Socrates recommended, admit to knowing nothing in order to be much the wiser for knowing [you] know . . . nothing (Oliver, 1997, p. 17). Post-Modern Influences on Knowing When thinking of the postmodern paradigm, the purview consists of how the world in its entirety assists in the construction of reality. Currently, residing in a world where information can be accessed in moments in the home via television, news flashes, radio, and most recently the World Wide Web, global current events can be communicated or obtained within moments (Drucker, 2005). There may be implications regarding the occurrence of trust in this shifting and expanding environment of knowledge creation and materialization. Drucker, while a guest on the PBS/NPR radio program, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, said, We are in an information society. Anybody with a PC certainly, and that means today anybody has direct access to all the information in the world. And is beginning to learn to use it (Broadcast, August 2, 2005). Today, the world and the individuals having access to this abundance of information produce viewpoints and perceptions blended in the construction of a reality that amends itself continuously (Sarup, 1993). Adaptation is constant, reality construction is constant, and the destruction and reconstruction of reality is constant. The field of marketing, for example, exists because of its ability to repeatedly recreate reality in the mind of the consumer.

50 Each one of the forms described by Plato, perception, beliefs, opinions, and their complex subtleties, assist in constructing reality (Moser & Vander Nat, 1995; Sarup, 1993). Time and technology continue to evolve with those who create new technology. The evolution of time and of progress is happening at such a fast pace that people have difficulty staying current. The need for innovation in the areas of epistemic endeavors is great. Factors that might contribute to this need are increased availability of information to the masses, competition that spans the globe, a customer base that also crosses continents, and the availability of information being at the customers fingertips (Drucker, 2005). These factors allow well-informed consumers to utilize the global marketplace to their advantage. The market is saturated with change and opportunity. Important questions arise such as whether the market can educate itself as well as its consumers and whether the marketplace can adapt as the consumer base demands change. Drucker (2005) shared his concerns on PBS radio: I think anybody that is not uneasy about the direction is blind and deaf. The belief in progress, which we inherited in the 18th century, is gone. The belief in the all powerful, all wise government which we inherited from World War I is gone. The belief in a western dominated world is going. The new world is emerging with China and India at the nose stretch of the imagination. (n.p.) Ultimately, those who can get educated and adapt quickly enough will stay in business. The businesses that are able to stay in close proximity with their competitors in terms of the most advanced technologies and meeting their customers needs will stay successful (Handy, 1995). It is of utmost importance that organizations realize adaptation is necessary and paradigms must be current (Handy). According to Kuhn (1996),

51 When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well. . . . Nevertheless, paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research engagement differently. (p. 111) The problem in actualizing change often lies in the fact that many organizations operate on theoretical foundations that are no longer useful or malleable enough to adapt to current demands (Hatch, 1997). Organizations are structures or worlds run by leaders who are faced with the need for diversification of thought with regard to theory, people, and the paradigms that many organizations continue to attempt to fortify, sustain, and benefit from. There is a need for a phenomenological paradigm shift regarding the way organizational leaders view the worlds in which they work. It is calling for us to relinquish our habitual patterns of selfpreoccupied function in favor of conscious alignment with the larger purposes of the whole (the implicate order) (Gagne, 1995, p. 54). The challenge organizations face is finding the flexibility to adapt and change as the demand and need for growth and development occur. Linguistic Influences on Knowing: The Metaphor Metaphors are a complex usage of language that assist in conveying a level of meaning that is usually inferred thus making it a more complex form of language. Trust

52 could be considered a universal linguistic metaphor for joining, believing, having confidence, and using a method of determining reliability. The use of metaphor can clarify the use of the more subjective forms of language such as ideas couched in words or more simplified sentences (Bourdieu, 2001; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Morgan, 1998). The meaning behind much of language carries a great deal of assumption, and metaphor can bring a new level of clarity as ordinary words convey what we know already; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh (Lakoff & Johnson, p. 190). Leaders compel change, especially in a post-modern world where all that is solid melts into the air, all that is holy is profaned (Karl Marx as cited in Anderson, 1995, p. 69), through influential thought, paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1996), and creative metaphor (Hatch, 1997). Because postmodernism is a part of current events and postmodernists attempt to clarify self-limiting belief systems, attitudes, and values, the researcher has utilized metaphor to assist in the clarification and explanation of a sound and adaptable organizational theory in terms of organizations ability to facilitate the phenomenon of falling into trust. As Handy (1998), Sarup (1993), and Anderson (1995) discussed, times are uncertain, and this uncertainty is partially due to the postmodern ideals. There is something about post-modern ideas with their talk of socially constructed reality that can have a dizzying, vertiginous effect the feeling of having no place left to stand, nothing in which to believe in (Anderson, p. 69), and the inability to focus on what is important in the moment. Scientific and Political Influence on Knowing Throughout history, science and the influential scientists participating in the creation of the scientific culture, created together acceptable scientific paradigms.

53 Painstaking efforts have gone into formulating acceptable standards of evaluation (Garvin, 2001). As in every field, science seeks to legitimize the processes and discoveries presented. Scientists, therefore, are those working within the arena of science as knowledge producers and validators (Garvin, p. 444). Society has taken on the role of validating knowledge and the individuals who hold knowledge through strictures of policies and requirements of licensure. This phenomenon of legitimization is seen not only in science but also in the demand to legitimize all fields through certifications to provide communities with a perception of safety (Garvin). Policy makers legitimize fields of practice, scientists legitimize findings, and the layperson finds comfort in these functions. Society demands certainty and science. Considering the many shortcomings of science and authoritative figures (i.e., medical misjudgments like Bextra, Vioxx, and organizational debacles like Enron and WorldCom), the social order is beginning to come into question when scientific and iconic privilege is seen as taking advantage of the general population. This relationship has begun to change, however, as the professional discourse of science is accused of being elitist and inaccessible. Nonscientists mistrust of science is on the rise and science is being increasingly devalued (Garvin, p. 447). As the global population becomes smarter with the broader knowledge accessible, iconic experts are questioned. Mistrust and misleadership is on the rise (Drucker, 2005; Garvin). Trust Writers such as Boyd and Williams (2005), Hardin (2002), Ketz de Vries (2005), Kramer and Cook (2004), Laschinger and Finegan (2005), McCauley, Moxley, and Van Velsor (1998), OToole (1996), Payne and Clarke (2004), Perry and Mankin (2004), Joni

54 (2005), Senge et al. (2004a, 2004b), Skinner and Spurgeon (2005), Wheatley (1994, 2002), and Williams (2002) all examined closely the concepts of trust, synergy, and how leadership fosters these elements in the workplace. Most of the literature suggested that there is some relationship between trust, the success of leadership, and the success of organizations. A rapidly growing body of literature recognizes that trust plays a central role in employment relationships (Simon, 2002, p. 18). These authors brought elements of trust and complex relational models of leadership to the forefront thus supporting the notion that leadership and economic success do not exist in a vacuum. According to Hwang (2005), Economic behavior . . . is necessarily embedded in social and temporal contexts (p. 559). This suggested that relationships influence economics since a growing body of literature suggests that, in addition to intertemporal dynamics, interpersonal dynamics influence a wide range of significant economic phenomena (Hwang, p. 559). How leaders lead and how leaders engender trust can affect the bottom line; furthermore, the growing interest in the concept of trust within the literature communicated a need to recognize and further understand trust and the facilitation of those moments of falling into trust within the organizational backdrop. Gibbs TORI Theory: Trust is Personal Trust and fear, according to Gibb (1991) are keys to understanding persons and social systems. They are primary and catalytic factors in all human living (p.4). Gibb developed a theory about trust that exemplifies the catalytic process that members of collaborative groups must partake in to be successful. Personal fear and the observation of fear in others are compelling elements in Gibbs structure of TORI theory.

55 According to Al-Kazemi (1998), Fear, which is unresolved trust, is the greatest inhibitor of growth (p. 74). Gibb has been studying trust and the high trust environment since 1964 as seen in his work Climate and Trust Formation. The following list reviews Gibbs tenets of his TORI trust level theory, designed for both personal and group development. TORI is an acronym for four processes posited as central to all personal, group, and organizational growth and development. As Gibb proposed, these processes are: 1. [T] Trust: A sense of security and inclusion within the organization such that the employee is able to express creativity, diversity, and fellowship within the organization. 2. [O] Openness: The clear, direct, and honest communication of information within the organization. There is little secrecy, distortion, or compartmentalization of organizational information. 3. [R] Self-Actualization/Realization: Employees are encouraged and motivated to take a more personal involvement with their work. Employees develop their potential as human beings and derive personal satisfaction from work while contributing to the larger goals of the organization. 4. [I] Interdependence: This is the movement away from reliance upon traditional managerial hierarchies, towards informality, cooperation, power sharing and consensual decision-making. (p. 73). It is important to note that relationship or interconnectedness is inherent in trust. There must be some connection between persons to generate the occurrence of trust because trust is personal. According to Gibb (1991),

56 To be personal is to be open to, to be aware of, and to focus upon this relationship, this interbeing, this unique happeningthis event that has the potential of nourishing us both; this new organism that emerges, takes life, and can become so magical. (p. 28) People Issues Are Organizational Issues The misnomer regarding the necessity of separating the personal self from the professional self seems almost magical. When one places trust in another, it is personal. The professional and personal selves reside within the same individual. Each is the same person. Organizations cannot exist without people, and people must exist in relation to one another. In order for healthy organizations to exist, it would seem appropriate for the healthy, fully integrated self to be present within the workplace. Gibb (1996) reflected: When I trust myself, trust you, and trust the process, my behavior becomes personal, regardless of other factors in the situation. Trust is the catalyst. With it all things are possible. I can be as personal as I wish. It is possible to make small steps, within my fear/trust level, and create satisfying and self-rewarding experiences by being personal. I find that when I am being authentically personal, the results are positive and fulfilling. It is when I am playing games and not really being who I am, that I create my problems and dissatisfaction. (p. 35) According to Gibb, there is a direct relationship between being personal in the workplace and productivity. Gibb also stated that survival relies on all of us being more personal. Trust is a personal process, perceived by each individual interacting with others, the environment, and circumstances. Trust, according to Gibb, is a multidirectional process of growth and a key to societal change . . . in all forms of

57 energy and being is an inner-outer process it proceeds from within the being, from the center, moving outward toward interdependence (p. 258). Leadership Responsibility Gibb (1996) argued, There is a break from traditional leadership modalities and a break from traditional thinking on leadership responsibility, a paradigm shift from linear bureaucratic type organizations to more people/employee focused organizations. Bureaucratic organizations are based on Punishment, retribution, power, control, obedience, and rebellion . . . But new consciousness levels bring higher levels of trust, lessening our need for defense and increasing our dissatisfaction with a world of power, punishment, and coercion. Nurturing, participative sharing, communication in depth, and shared search for freedom occur more frequently. (p. 241) In an effort to assist employees in feeling a level of dedication, commitment, and motivation in the workplace, leaders must assist followers in finding meaning in the dayto-day responsibilities of the workplace. According to Marques et al. (2005), Finding "meaning" in the workplace is strongly linked to experiencing respect, understanding, honesty, encouragement, trust, kindness, peace and harmony, interconnectedness, and acceptance. These are all themes that generate a sense of meaning, but also a sense of purpose, significance, and fulfillment among workers. (p. 86) Gibb agreed with others when he suggested that leaders exist only in relation to those individuals they lead. What creates trust, in the end, is the leaders manifest

58 respect for the followers (OToole, 1996, p. 9). OTooles discussions of the many elements of leadership such as attitude, philosophy, respect, trust, inclusion, sharing, and friendship are a clear consideration of what he termed basic natural rights (p. 39). Ultimately, it is a leaders responsibility to engender and encourage a climate of trust in the workplace (Marques et al., 2005, p. 89). Telecommunications is a highly competitive industry, so it is important for organizations to consider how to attract dedicated and qualified talent. High salaries are not the only incentive for potential employees. According to McLaughlin (as cited in Marques et al.), the best talent seeks out organizations that reflect their inner values and provide opportunities for personal development (p. 89). Management Trust in management is considered another tenet of successful organizations (Weber & Weber, 2001). Weber and Weber described trust in management as a psychological contract, and trust can be seen in employee behavior and attitude as a result of this contract. Weber and Weber defined the psychological contract as based on the messages an employee receives regarding organizational expectations and employee perception of desired managerial actions (p. 292). The corollary, according to Gibb (1998), is that good managers manage trust and create high trust environments where collaborative efforts allow for innovation. In order to meet the needs of a changing environment and encourage change amidst chaos, TORI theory comes directly into play from a managers standpoint. Managers must be 1. Emotionally available and willing to trust themselves in their position and the individuals they work with (T);

59 2. Able to communicate effortlessly but performed with clarity (O); 3. Motivated to change and able to motivate others to change in an effort to innovate (R); and 4. Reliant upon those whom they manage, and those who are managed must be able to faithfully rely upon managers (I) (Gibb). The relationship must be present and exist in both directions. Mistrust---Falling Out of Trust Falling out of trust is mistrust in leadership about all possible organizational issues, and it occurs for many reasons. Mistrust in the experts who run organizations has become a growing issue. Frequent moves between business units, layoffs, improper management of books, management relationships based on power and control (McGeeCooper, 2005), and significant changes in the way employees communicate (Handy, 1995) all are potential contributors to mistrust within the workplace. Simon (2002) explained, If employees believe that their managers are unwilling to present them with unvarnished representations of their actual values, they can easily infer that their managers do not trust them enough to tell the truth. When employees perceive that their managers do not trust them. (p. 21) Furthermore, improper management of financial books has cast a cloud over the most successful of organizations. These behaviors affect not only employees living within the organization but the community, the investors, and society. Leaders are referred to often as leaders merely by their position. The influence of this type of leadership in high management positions is far reaching, possibly without the

60 leaders knowledge. The employees voice might assist in understanding their perspective on the influences and actions that cause mistrust in the workplace. This is one way in which leaders can reflect upon the actions taken and incorporate feedback in an effort to facilitate a more trusting work environment. Gibb (1996) listed the ills of organizational mistrust: 1. Alienation, hostility, 2. Apathy, passivity, 3. Disrespect for authority rebellion, unrest, 4. Powerlessness, impotence suspicion, distrust, 5. Ebbing of morals and standards loneliness, depression, 6. Tension, bodily ills, 7. Deception, dishonesty, 8. Regimentation, depersonalization plasticity, superficiality, and 9. Manipulation, covert strategy - greed, selfishness. (p. 178) Transformational Leadership Many organizations are trying to design workflows that are more productive and flexible and that meet the demand for a constantly changing environment (Arnold, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001). Organizational adaptation and transformation are the keys to keeping up with that demand (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership has been seen as a motivating and creative force encouraging employees to go the extra mile (Arnold et al.; Bass). Transformational leadership has also been found to lead to higher levels of organizational commitment and is associated with business unit performance (Arnold et

61 al.). At an individual level, transformational leadership has positive effects on subordinates' satisfaction with leadership and trust in leadership (Arnold et al., p. 315). This illustrates an inclusion of the metaphysical or psychological aspects within the leadership literature. This extended view, in turn, allows for future development of more expansive leadership paradigms. The psychologically-oriented tenets of leadership challenge organizational archetypes and show a gradual lean toward a significant paradigm shift in organizational leadership literature. History continues to influence perspective on what is proper in leadership and organizational theory. The classical school dominated organization theory into the 1930s and remains highly influential today (Merkle, 1980). Over the years, classical organization theory expanded and matured. Its basic tenets and assumptions, however, which were rooted in the industrial revolution of the 1700s and the professions of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering and economics, have never changed. (Shafritz & Ott, 1996, p. 28) Despite the evolution of transformational leadership paradigms in the literature, there is still resistance in the actual performance regarding transformative paradigms in the workplace. Casey (2004) stated, The modern bureaucratic organization epitomizes the systematic, methodical, rational-legal instrumentality of industrial society. Its central task is to stand steadfast against contrary forces of unreason, disorder and disorganization (p. 60). Leaders generate trust through being candid, showing that they care, being willing to meet face-to-face, showing that they are competent, and walking their talk (Speares & Lawrence, 2002). It is the leaders role to engender trust. According to Ciulla (2001), "In business and diplomacy the first transactions between agents set the tone for developing

62 trust" (p. 318). Lastly, by connecting with the entire human being rather than simply with outputs, "the transformational leader . . . seeks to satisfy the follower's higher order growth needs, transform the followers' self interest into collective concerns and overall engages the full person" (Kanungo, 2001, p. 258). Leadership, Trust, and the Organization Eighty-four percent of United States organizations are undergoing some significant change in an effort to meet customer demands or to compete in the global marketplace (Weber & Weber, 2001). Individuals who are creating and innovating within the technology-based industry are not necessarily the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), but actual employees. Weber and Weber also stated that an organizational environment where employees have previously been involved in planning or implementing changes can help reduce resistance to new change efforts and also encourage employee commitment to change (p. 291). In contrast to the industrial worker of times past, the knowledge worker of today is substantially many times more knowledgeable than the CEO (Watts, 2001). Watts stated that CEOs could be change agents and assume many roles such as leader, monitor, entrepreneur, or liaison, depending upon what is to be accomplished. This is a much broader view of the leadership needs of today. A good leader must be flexible, knowledgeable, and self-reflective in an effort to accommodate the needs for the directive of the moment; this is the essence of transformative open leadership. The concept of trust is used liberally in the management and leadership literature, and it is referred to frequently as if there were a universal definition of the term. However, rarely is trust clearly and commonly defined. Trust, according to Gibb (1991),

63 implies instinctive, unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something (p. 5). In the organizational context, that something could be people, process, or structure. Handy (1995) suggested that trust in the virtual organization is a delicate balance since a person can only know 50 people fairly well. Large organizations are not therefore incompatible with the principle of trust, but they have to be made up of relatively constant, smaller groupings (Handy, p. 44). Great leaders are the persons that employees trust, rely upon, and believe in to guide a company and its employees to the future. Leaders and employees are interrelated, and they cannot exist without one another. Leaders engender trust by maintaining a level of positive influence through honest and open dialogue. Dialogue From Bubers (1996) perspective, the manner in which humans relate or participate in dialogue is threefold, I-Thou, I-It, and outside of Bubers scope is I-I (Friedman, 2002; Buber). How humans relate to their surroundings is encompassed in these three simple ways. First is I-Thou, a relationship of mutuality, a reciprocal exchange of energy and communication, and a true dialogue between two people (Buber). In the context of a workplace, an I-Thou relationship could take place in mentorship, in a supervisory/ employee relationship, and even colleague to colleague where learning, growth, and a mutual experience of an evolving authentic self takes place (Senge et al., 2004a; Senge et al., 2004b, Williams, 2002). It is a synergy between two people that is inspiring, tender, and mutually liberating (Buber). I-It is referred to as a relation in which one relates to the other only indirectly and nonmutually, knowing and using the other (Friedman, 2002, p. 354). I exists

64 amongst things. Man desires tangible, visible results i.e., materialism. It is a way of living in the world without You (Buber, 1996). Buber stated, He perceives the being that surrounds him, plain things and beings as things; he perceives what happens around him, plain processes and actions as processes, things that consist of qualities and processes that consist of moments . . . an ordered world. (p. 82) I-I is a world of one. Speak to a person who lives in the world of narcissism, and You will not be heard. Buber (1996) stated, Those who dwell inside have no consuming interest. They are not devoted to possessions, even if they prize some; not to people, even if they like some; not to any project, even if they have some (p. 11). There is no It, there is no Thou in the world of the I-I. You are not found interesting at all (Buber, p.11). There is no personal regard for anything outside of the self or the I. The I in leadership can consult Thou, It, or I. How leadership relates to the world is through inclusion in an effort to motivate and create hope for the future, but it is outside of I. I relate to my work because my work is not done without my doing it. In the case of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco CEOs, as portrayed by the media, the I is untouchable, a primary decision-maker who must base its decisions on what works best for it; it represents the narcissistic I-I, and no one else in the world participates in the dialogue except I (see Table 1). Although these concepts seem complex, humans can easily choose to transact with one another in meaningful transformative interactions; they can treat one another with respect or treat one another as objects of complete insignificance. Insignificance may be a feeling that is common among employees amidst the magnitude of change. If

65 one feels insignificant or easily replaced, the level of trust might also be insignificant. A manager stated: Place your hand in a bucket of water. Note that your hand takes up space. Now remove your hand. What happens to the space? It fills (personal communication, July 23, 2002). This statement reflects a state of affairs in the telecommunications field. Fostering trust in an environment of insignificance might be an impossible task. Table 1 Bubers Interpretation of Relations Through Trust I Thou/Dialogue Leadership trust Collegial Trust Management Trust Ben and Jerrys Southwest Airlines Community Oriented Transformational Leadership Theory I-It Trust in Process Structural Trust Role Trust Leadership Trust Collegial Trust Management Trust Transactional Leadership Great Man Theory I-I Trust in self Enron WorldCom Tyco Charismatic Leadership

Fundamentally, trust is an intricate process as demonstrated in the definition of trust, the complexity of human nature, and the modification of human nature through the rules of the workplace. These factors influence how people relate to one another thereby showing necessary antecedents to transformative change and dialogue. Unfortunately,

66 western language does not capture the antecedents in a way that makes it familiar and universally agreed upon. Trust: A Multi-Cultural Perspective Leaders are faced with the struggle to establish and maintain a trusting culture amidst restructuring, force management programs (FMP), early retirements, and offshoring. The leadership literature is reflective of a paradigmatic shift to a more relationship-based leadership modality as seen in transformational and steward leadership theories. These relational models are lacking a thorough exploration of the major tenets of a theory of trust and how employees experience it within the workplace. Perry and Mankin (2004) stated: Trust is an important part of this relationship; particularly employees' trust in the organization. It is purported that levels of trust reflect employee loyalty and hence influence a myriad of organizational issues ranging from turnover to pilfering to successful organizational change. Yet trust remains somewhat ambiguous. (p. 277) The ambiguity of trust leads to questions regarding the essence of trust and the path that leads to trust. There are spheres, theories, religions, and cultures that delve into the intricacies of the complex ways in which individuals can relate. In some cases, the descriptions are translations of how people communicate within the workplace such as in guanxi (Law et al., 2000). Powerful moments of communicating have been described as mutual dialogue (Buber, 1996), emunah (Friedman, 2002), or kami (Boyd & Williams, 2005).

67 There is no one word that captures the effortless moments of connection between people, and western-focused literature is left with long explanations regarding the notion of this phenomenological synergy that leaves the phenomenon modestly explained and largely misunderstood. Language, culture, and myth explain the world, each in its own way. In different cultures, different orders rule. For example, religion and societal norms create their own dominant discourse. Mutual Dialogue Buber was driven by religion, which led him to want to encounter people as Thou, as some opportunity for enlightenment. His story is of a man who spent time with people to establish a bridge between him and all others he encountered. This was his mission. He wanted to participate in genuine conversation, and most especially of genuine conversation between men of different kinds of convictions (Friedman, 2002, p. 143). Buber enjoyed mutual conversation, the creation of the essential We in which two people transform, change, and learn as a result of the interaction between one another. Humans can only exist in relation to other humans. I cannot exist without We, and We cannot exist without I. We are essential to one another. Organizations many times practice the art of what Buber would refer to as depersonalization or propaganda, which seeks to win the individual over for a cause (Friedman, 2002, p. 144). Many times managers behavior leads to this disconnection in an effort to meet an organizational need or a socially dictated need, and it in turn compromises the workforce. This type of behavior needs to be readily identified in an effort to ward it off.

68 Emunah Emunah carries some religious overtones, but it captures the essential We that Buber discussed where dialogue occurs. In Emunah, true dialogue occurs between the person and the soul. Emunah brings together the wholeness of the Single One, the direction of the man of true decision, and the relation with the concrete of the dialogical man (Friedman, 2002, p. 111). Buber referred to it as the the sphere of the between (Friedman, p. 112) where two people reside on a very tight thin string, a delicate but intense place, the narrow ridge, who lives with others yet never give up his personal responsibility nor allows his commitment to the group to stand in the way of his direct relationship to Thou (pp. 112-113). This narrow ridge is where the connection resides and trust occurs. What is yet unclear is how humans arrive at the ridge. Kami Kami are considered human beings who have a creative and joining force (Boyd & Williams, 2005). In Shinto, great leaders can possess this joining force, and they are then referred to as musufa. Kami is considered to be unusual and superior aspects of both nature and humanity are given the name kami - a spectacular waterfall, a particular tree that has an imposing presence, or a great leader who inspires others-and are "conceived of as possessing awesome potency, "namely musufa (Boyd & Williams, p. 35). Musubi, on the other hand, is a form of Kami where morality lies and where human responsibility ties into Kami, and the musubi process itself is perceived as involving both disruptive and corrective powers (Boyd & Williams, p. 36). There are conversations of this deep level of connection between people with terms directly associated to the experience. A theme discovered by Marques et al.s

69 (2005) research found that interconnectedness is an important element of human experience and existence. This interconnectedness is an existential experience that provides an important sense of belonging, joining in a way that provides meaning and fulfillment (Marques et al.). Musubi Buber (1996) expanded his influence into Eastern literature in the culture of Shinto. Bubers notion of I-Thou (as cited in Boyd & Williams, 2005) is relevant to Eastern thought as seen in the following definition of Musubi: Musubi, in Shinto terms, the nature of an I-Thou encounter is one of joining and bonding together in a more extended sense. It is a full participation in the creative combining vitality of musubi itself. . . . There is a sense of joining with everything and with everyone - neighbors, friends, parents, ancestors, children, and descendents---as well as a bonding with a myriad of kami surrounding ones own being. (p. 43) There is a deep sense of connection in the Shinto culture, so much so that it is part of the language, readily identified even at the deeper levels, and very much like the many words for all types of snow as termed by the Eskimo. Interconnections and Trust The phenomenon or interconnectedness of falling into trust with another human being is a connection between two entities where the process between them is operating on a level that was higher and totally different from the normal, rational, linear plane (Jaworski, 1998, pp. 54-55). This phenomenological research study explored the lived experiences of employees in a telecommunications company to expand the leadership

70 literature with regard to the intricacies of the process of falling into trust. Trust is an emerging issue in leadership literature. The existence of trust is an essential element in all healthy human relationships (Gibb, 1991; Handy, 2001). Relationships are an essential component in the success of any organization (Marques et al., 2005). Since effective leadership is also an essential element of any successful organization, it is imperative for leaders to understand trust and its influence on organizational success. Old leadership paradigms are riddled with retaliation, domination, and isolation (McKenzie, 2005, p. 205). This trend toward a culture of isolation impedes creativity and denies not only a basic human need but also a basic human right (Handy; McKenzie; OToole, 1996). Covey (2004) ascertained two very important points with regard to organizations and trusting relationships in a study of 23,000 employees: Only 20 percent [of employees] fully trusted the organization they work for [and] only 13 percent have hightrust, highly cooperative working relationships with other groups or departments (p. 3). The voice of the employee is not heard in organizational and leadership literature (Gibb, 1991). The lived experiences of employees within organizations are often discounted as expressions of meaningful information (Williams, 2002, p. 5). This absence of discussion regarding organizations and the employees perceptions of the concept of trust represents the creation of a limited voice in leadership and organizational theory. There is a great deal of discussion about trust in leadership literature, but it is difficult to understand how to establish and maintain a foundation of trust in any organization without hearing the actual voice of the organization, the voice that comes from the employees. There is a gap in discourse between the leadership perspective and the employees perspective with regard to the understanding of the use of

71 trust and the experience of falling into trust in the organizational environment. There is a need for genuine dialogue with the employee to further expand the voice and dialogue of organizational and leadership theory. Leadership and Trust Trust is the foundation for healthy human relationships (Erikson, 1993; Handy, 2001). Gibb (1991) suggested, When trust is high, relative to fear, people and people systems function well (p. 7). According to Wang et al. (2005), leaders and followers have two types of exchanges: task orientation or social exchange. In task orientation, the leader-follower exchange is based upon completing tasks, meeting quotas, transacting with each other as objects and means to an end. On the other hand, leaders and followers can participate in what Wang et al. referred to as social exchange, "an affective bonding accompanied by largely unstated mutual expectations of reciprocity" (p. 423). Task-oriented leadership achieves results through a controlling and directive style whereas the transformational leader achieves results through a social exchange based on interpersonal relationships (Turner & Mller, 2005). According to Kanungo (2001), transactional leadership is more concerned with the routine maintenance activities of allocating resources, monitoring, and directing followers to achieve tasks and organizational goals. A transformational leader, on the other hand, is more concerned with developing a vision that informs and expresses the organizations mission. (p. 257) Relationships based on trust motivate and sustain loyalty in the workplace. Some organizations have the ability to sustain themselves through innovation and adaptation.

72 Others have difficulty operating in an environment in constant flux. Some organizations change easily; other organizations struggle to change. Some organizations change reluctantly and adapt only when they are forced to do so. Other organizations seek change as a means of creative reinvention to preserve and enhance their ability to grow and maintain fluency in their specific domains (Mason, 2004, p. 59). How leaders facilitate falling into trust may impact how transformation occurs. Organizational management and leadership literature often utilize the phenomenon of trust as if universally understood. If organizations are to adapt and change, the concept of trust must be clearly understood in the organizational context since trust has been shown to facilitate creativity and learning (Hosmer, 1995; Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). Trust has been referred to as a primary element of social capital (Boslego, 2005; Farquhar, Michael, & Wiggins, 2005). Although an enormous amount of thinking and writing has addressed issues pertaining to the leader, much less attention has been paid to followers. This seems a rather puzzling oversight (Wren, 1995, p. 183). The objective of this research was not only to expand upon the leadership literature by exploring the phenomenon of trust and falling into trust but to also explore the phenomenon as experienced in one of the worlds major employment markets, telecommunications. Trust is a significant factor in the effectiveness of social systems, and it is seen as a precursor to a stable and cooperative environment (Carnevale, 1993; Gibb, 1996). Understanding the intricacies of the experience of having fallen into trust might help leaders facilitate a more trusting organizational environment particularly in the wake of the most recent failings in the telecommunications industry.

73 Economists have not only recognized that the telecommunications industry is expanding its economic potential (Persaud, 2001) but also noted that the Internet has increased the scope of innovation by lowering information and distribution costs (p.2). The World Wide Web and other data technologies allow for the sharing of knowledge in real time. Change and innovation occur in globally affordable information systems provided by the telecommunications industry (Persaud). Because of the myriad of telecommunication improvements and global affordability, change and innovation can occur at exponential rates. This makes it important to notice and not take for granted the ways in which telecom leadership has the potential to make significant changes in the way people communicate. Large global organizations are often the first microcosms to experience the effects, positive or negative, of these advancements (Paswan, 2005). Leaders of global telecommunications businesses are challenged to understand that they not only function as managers but also as catalysts, sometimes unknowingly leading society into a new era. Telecommunications leaders are changing the way humans relate to one another, and there is a need to understand the complexities of trust as a primary source of social capital (Farquhar et al.; Michael & Wiggins, 2005). Employees working in a volatile uncertain environment such as telecommunications may provide fertile ground for exploring how falling into trust is experienced amidst the stress of constant change. Trust is a form of social, organizational, and leadership capital, and the researcher sought to explore and further elucidate the lived experience of falling into trust as experienced by 20 employees of a major global telecommunications company, spanning six business units, six states, and 29 countries. Gibb (1991), Hosmer (1995), and Hosmer

74 and Kiewitz (2005) expressed that the use of trust in leadership literature is prominent but that a thorough understanding of how to define, obtain, and sustain trust is lacking. Organizations are social institutions. Considering the concept of socialization, trust can be considered a primary source of organizational and leadership capital. Social capital, according to Farquhar et al. (2005) is sense of trust, shared norms and values, and interconnectedness (p. 596). Humans in organizations relate to colleagues and daily objectives in two ways: (a) as objects (It), or (b) at a meeting place of reciprocity and equal exchange (Thou). The workplace consists of many objects: projects, email, voicemail, meetings, meeting notices, policies, procedures, and schedules. The world outside of work is made of much of the same: emails, snail mail, schedules, commitments, community projects, family, familial commitments, and daily objectives of house cleaning. The I can select to relate to any of these life commitments as objects of interaction or opportunities for transformation. Ultimately, how the I relates to the world is a primary developmental task (King, 2005). Erikson (1993) devised eight steps of developmental tasks that encompass how individuals learn to relate to the world. I is the self that relates to Thou or It. Bubers (1996) I-Thou experience is a moment in time when the I (one individual or the self) relates to Thou (another person), not as an object (It) but in mutuality (Friedman, 2002). In western philosophy, terminology similar to Bubers IThou exists in the terms Guanxi and Musubi, and it is used primarily in the context of the workplace. Keller and Kronstedt (2005) explained Guanxi:

75 In Chinese (Confucian-based) societies, it is said that connections-guanxi-are more important than what you know. While Americans often state that "it not what you know, but who you know," the Chinese definition of this oft-stated axiom is far more profound and sets up an exquisite comparison between American and Chinese definitions. There is a common belief among Asians that to be successful in Confucian societies, guanxi, or proper connections, are more frequently crucial than product, price, place, etc. Basically, there are three spheres in Chinese society; at the center are the family, the extended family, and nonfamily members who provide special services to the family. The more distant the sphere, the weaker the connection and fewer responsibilities one has to assume to maintain the reputation ("face") of an associate. (p. 60-76) Boyd and Williams (2005) explained that, Musubi, in Shinto terms, the nature of an I-Thou encounter is one of joining, and bonding together in a more extended sense. That is, it is a full participation in the creative combining vitality of musubi itself. . . . There is a sense of joining with everything and with everyoneneighbors, friends, parents, ancestors, children, and descendentsas well as a bonding with a myriad of kami surrounding ones own being. (p. 43) Buber (1996) referred to this connecting moment of relating as dialogue. This dialogue is the essence of authentic human interconnectedness, as Buber showed classically in his prose poem, I and Thou (as cited in Santmire, 2005, p. 512). The word dialogue implies a level of communication where two people meet in trust, which allows for the opportunity of authentic transformation.

76 These authentic moments provide fertile ground for adaptability that is considered a necessary component to facilitate exchanges in a vastly changing world. Leaders within the telecommunications industry are charged with leading large groups of people through considerable change. Leadership has been studied from many scholarly perspectives. As described in Bass (1990), Handy (2005), Hersey, Blanchard, and Dewey (2000), and Sergiovanni (1992), leadership finds many spheres: (a) education, (b) organizations, (c) business, (d) management, and (e) leadership. Trust is also used freely in all arenas of leadership literature, many times assuming a common worldview of the concept. Trust is propounded to reduce conflict (Lin & Chu, 2005) and to be essential to healthy human relationships (Handy, 2001). A high-trust environment is key to successful corporate culture, and a culture of trust eliminates personal agendas (Hanley, 2004). Trust is social and organizational capital (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005). Organizational leaders need to be aware and understand how to obtain that capital. According to Kankanhalli et al., Generalized trust has been viewed as a key factor that provides a context for cooperation (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) and effective knowledge exchange (p. 117). The telecommunications industry is in a constant state of change. It is a primary example of an industry that must adopt a learning and transformative environment in order to be successful. In a global society, telecommunications are a primary source of the infrastructure that supports social capital gains. Trust is a primary form of social capital, so there is a need to better understand the implications of trust, its utilization, and its fostering in a global environment. Trust and falling into trust should be a primary leadership concern. The phenomenon of falling into trust and the concept of trust are alluded to in other cultures

77 and other philosophical and theoretical areas outside of leadership. This research provided an opportunity to close the gap in leadership literature with regard to employees perspective by providing an opportunity for discourse with employees regarding their perception of trust in the organizational environment. Employees were engaged as conversational partners, and they had an opportunity to share their perspective and give a voice to the community to encourage leaders to be effective leaders. Summary Chapter 2 presented a review of the various connotations of the word trust as it is understood by different areas of research literature. Organizations continue to create order in their definitions of roles, sectoring business units into silos, bureaucratic structures, project planning, graphs, charts, strategic metrics, tactical metrics, and operational metrics, all in an effort to measure a chaotic and unpredictable world in a linear way. This reductionist approach of parts and proliferation of separations has characterized not just organizations, but everything in the world during the past three hundred years (Wheatley, 1994, p. 27). When considering employees, colleagues, and leaders, one can question existing as a silo. Employees, colleagues, and leaders cannot exist in a vacuum since each exists only in relation to the other. Leaders cannot lead without those willing to follow. Employees cannot exist without leadership. The leader/employee relationship is the essence of I-Thou. The I relies upon the Thou in both directions. It is what Friedman (2002) referred to as Bubers essential We. According to Erikson (1993), individuals who share cultures, communities, and even economic pursuits are inducted a very young age into a line of thinking in which the

78 basics of right and wrong are delineated. As a result of this socialization in stages, it is believed that identity development occurs. Erikson developed a compelling model for human identity development in which trust versus mistrust is depicted as a primary developmental milestone: (a) basic trust versus mistrust, (b) autonomy versus shame, (c) initiative versus guilt, (d) industry versus inferiority, (e) identity versus role confusion, (f) intimacy versus isolation, (g) generativity versus stagnation, and (h) ego integrity versus despair (p. 273). Each of these stages could apply to individuals within organizations that represent societies. From Eriksons perspective, individuals within organizations could be unknowingly suffering from an identity crisis. Employees lacking initiative can be viewed by high levels of management as malingerers or poor performers. However, Erikson looked at external and internal environmental contributions to such assessments. Some individuals who were perceived as having an identity crisis after World War II were said to be shell-shocked and traumatized by the uncertainty and unpredictable nature of their environment. Others were seen as having a struggle of an internal nature, caused by an incomplete level of resolution needed for individual mental health (Erikson). It is relevant to study how identity development applies to the chaotic telecommunications environment, employee stress, motivation, and commitment. Looking at trust as opposed to mistrust, according to Erikson (1993), it is a stage of consistency, continuity, and sameness . . . remembered and anticipated sensations and images that are firmly correlated with the outer population of familiar and predictable things in people. On the other hand, Handy (1998) maintained that the only thing that is certain is uncertainty, and in the telecommunications industry, success is predicated upon constant

79 product development, expansion, and change. The implications of this regular upheaval within the industry may have a significant impact upon the employees healthy identity within the organization. Just as a developing child who is deprived of nutrition will not reach their physical or mental potential, failure to receive emotional and spiritual nurturing will stunt psychological growth (King, 2005. p. 59). The health of the organizational environment may influence the drivers of an organization and, in turn, may be a factor in how well employees function. Conclusion Organizations can drive their employees by fear or through the excitement of innovation. Organizations can transact or transform, manage or lead, control or cultivate. If one prefers motivation through fear, one cannot cultivate innovation since fear immobilizes. Newness and the unknown can themselves generate fear, for the unknown is what people fear most. Creativity and new ideas in a fear-based environment do not engender trust or innovation. Historically, transactions have been known as the steps individuals take to create a product, service, or personal results. Historically, businesses have made money through the reduction of transactions. The transactions dominating the workforce revolve more around knowledge and the passage of information. Employees are trapped in a fear-based environment because the focus of management and leaders is on the number of transactions. In many situations, the transactional process has been feardriven because of punishment for not meeting quotas, for example, and all the goals that are based on manufacturing paradigms.

80 Leadership versus Management Leaders inspire, motivate, and encourage innovation while managers focus on task completion. Managers are perceived to do things right while leaders are perceived to do the right thing. Employees feel that they have choices when led but not when they are being managed. Managers live under the illusion of control while leaders allow values and vision, and mutual goals drive behavior (Predpall, 1994). Bubers I-It versus I-Thou Colleagues can choose to transact with one another as objects or means to an end, or they can transact with one another with the intent of transformation. Managers become leaders when the choice is to transform. Leadership is management in the I-Thou where trust and mutuality exist. When power and control dominate the transaction, management exists in the I-It. Transaction versus Transformation When individuals experience transformation, deep personal realization and change occur. Transformational leadership integrates a persons emotions with intention and motivation. There is an alignment between an individuals feelings (internal drivers, belief sets) and action (I-Thou), and the exchange is personal (Gibb, 1996). Transaction, on the other hand, is task completion motivated by fear (I-It). Issues of Transactional versus Transformative Leadership Modalities Management (I-It) is impersonal and leaves a gap between colleagues. Managers (I-I) treat others as objects (I-It). There is no mutuality, and employees are objectified. Humans do not like to be treated as objects. Science treats research as I-It relationships with the objects under study. Phenomenology treats the objects being studied as part of

81 the larger community in which they exist (I-Thou) and does not intend to understand objects separate from the environment in which they reside. These are two independent ways of viewing the world and, in terms of management and leaders, each views the world and what motivates employees differently. Leaders who want to transform, according to Buber (1996), speak in a way that others can hear, and hear in a way that allows for dialogue. Leaders who practice public but personal dialogue might pave the way for a transition from a transactional environment based on task orientation to a transformative environment based on growth and innovation. Trust versus Mistrust What would seem a consistent struggle for many major telecommunications employees is the struggle to understand trust versus mistrust. Eriksons (1993) explanation of trust versus mistrust is a personal and proper balance of these two emotions through an experience with some degree of consistency. As a result, there is hope and a belief that the future holds promise. Now, in the wake of globalization, increased complexity, and changing organizational, economic, and political structures, organizations have had to make significant employee cuts and transfer work to cost competitive regions (Ramanujan & Jane, 2006). It is no longer realistic to expect a history of long-term employment, bonus packages, and retirement packages, and the change is directly tied to the concept of trust. Compensation strategies impact internal and external sociological structures (Vallario, 2005). Companies that participated in these types of compensation structures and later took these compensatory packages away might have contributed to organizational mistrust when this behavior is long-term, consistent, and expeditious.

82 Transactional analysis in business or psychology leads toward fear-based motivation rather than the concept of trust. To transact in order to become I-Thou or trustdriven, one must adopt a different modality such as a transformational process. The focus of study in this research is to understand the experience and the concept of knowing the process of falling into trust.

83 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to contribute to the leadership literature by exploring the lived experiences of employees at a major telecommunications company with regard to the phenomenon of falling into trust in a business context. The researcher used a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996) with structured and taped interviews. Through the purposeful sampling method, 20 telecommunications employees agreed to participate in the study. Each coresearcher had a background in Data communications (data packets), 5E switching (everyday voice phones), Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), and wireless technologies, and they were in positions not higher than Vice President in six global regions, 26 countries, and 13 American states. The data obtained from the interviews were analyzed with NVivo software. For the purpose of this study, the central phenomenon of falling into trust was defined as an experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons in which there is an incidence of being with that generates a harmonious experience of joining together. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions that were digitally taped, professionally transcribed, and assessed through NVivo qualitative data analysis software to ascertain themes regarding the understanding of followership or the definition of falling into trust. Qualitative research studies have been undertaken in increasing numbers to explore the metaphysical realm of leadership. The purpose of this study was to expand upon the literature by exploring and revealing the lived experiences of employees falling into trust. This study provided another perspective on an element of human interaction that has been discussed extensively in psychology, sociology, social

84 work, and nursing and that leadership literature had yet to develop. In this study, the researcher sought to define the employees metaphysical experience of falling into trust in a global telecommunications company. The intent was to capture the experiences in the context of a global corporation that might reveal critical insights and might influence the direction of leadership in the industry, propelling the success of the telecom industry in the culmination of organizational trust and the utilization and motivation of human capital to benefit organizations and society. The experience of being drawn to another human being is a pivotal point in most if not all relationships. The element of human interaction in organizations can benefit from further explanation and understanding. The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological research study, using a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996) with structured and taped interviews analyzed with NVivo software, was to explore the lived experiences of the participants, referred to as coresearchers, regarding the phenomenon of falling into trust in the business world. For the purpose of this study, the central phenomenon of falling into trust was defined as the experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons in which there is an incidence of withness (Friedman, 2002) that generates a harmonious experience of joining. Falling into trust in business is defined as structural in nature, knowing that the policies, procedures, and communications are corporate consistencies. Falling into trust for leaders is personal in nature and is defined as faith in the organizational structure, faith in the employees, and faith in ones own abilities to lead through example. All three definitions constitute the baseline for the phenomenological exploration.

85 Nature and Sources of Data The researcher captured the lived experiences of 20 coresearchers employed by a major global telecommunications company and sought to make sense of these experiences as they were captured in each interview. All coresearchers conveyed their belief that they had had the experience of falling into trust within the work environment. The coresearchers were asked 15 open-ended questions regarding their understanding of the experience of falling into trust within the workplace. The qualification for each coresearcher to participate in the research was to respond yes to the question: Have you experienced trusting relationships in your current workplace? This is considered a form of self-selection or what Leedy & Omrood (2001) referred to as purposeful sampling. In purposeful sampling, individuals are chosen for the purpose of illuminating the elements of a specific phenomenon, and they personally convey through the validation process that they had the experience. Each coresearcher who was identified as having fallen into trust participated in an in-depth taped interview that was subsequently transcribed. In order to understand the phenomenon of falling into trust, the taped interviews were assessed, coded, and analyzed in order to extract the essential meaning of falling into trust. Exploring the lived experiences of employees through the assessment of text captured from the interviews provided an opportunity for a deeper understanding of falling into trust. Since lived experiences were the focal point of the research, it was important to utilize a research method that was in alignment with the intent of the study. The intent was to uncover the essence of falling into trust, and this phenomenological inquiry had

86 the specific intent of uncovering this essence. Van Manen (as cited in Van Manen 1990) noted, When a phenomenologist asks for the essence of a phenomenon, - a lived experience - then the phenomenological inquiry is not unlike an artistic endeavor, a creative attempt to somehow capture a certain phenomenon of life in a linguistic description that is both holistic and analytical, evocative and precise, unique and universal, powerful and eloquent. (p.6) By using this approach, the researcher provided an opportunity to capture the lived experiences through engendering trust with each participant and guiding the coresearchers to the time and place where the phenomenon occurred. Research Design This qualitative phenomenological study, utilizing a modified van Kaam method and analysis of the interviews of 20 self-identified coresearchers, employed the NVivo qualitative data analysis software to ascertain themes regarding the understanding of followership or the explanation of falling into trust. The modified van Kaam methodology, as defined by Moustakas (1996) focused on the lived experiences and explanations put forth by the coresearchers as opposed to the subjective interpretation of the individual conducting the research. The purpose of utilizing the phenomenological approach was to identify phenomena within the environment where they are perceived, in this case the workplace. The research sought to further illuminate knowledge regarding the phenomenon being explored, falling into trust, rather than interpreting its meaning. The van Kaam method as described by Moustakas (1996) was used to correctly analyze the data collected. It includes the following steps:

87 1. Horizonalization a grouping of the lived experiences. 2. Reduction and elimination determination of relevance of statements and their elimination if they do not meet one of two criteria: a. Can the expression be understood? b. Can it be labeled? 3. Identification of applicable themes and clusters. 4. Identification of eliminated themes and cluster. 5. Validation. 6. Construction of meaning from the thematic clusters. Phenomenology Phenomenology seeks to unearth the origins of the world through observing one partys perception of another human being or entity. The phenomenological approach is relational in nature and seeks to unearth the origins of the world. Perception, sensation, interpretation, conception, judgment, reflection are what Merleau-Ponty (2004) would consider units of experience. All that is known is based on subjective experience culminating into a worldview. Living consists of holistic experiences whereas the scientific world is made of discrete entities. The loudest and most powerful voices, politically or financially, attempt to profess order and certainty. If leadership is to be successful, it must hear the voice of the people it leads. Data from the followers experiences are subjective in nature, but the researcher uncovered common and consistent themes in them.

88 Coresearchers Lived Experiences The coresearchers articulated their experiences, uncovered the intricacies of the phenomenon being discussed, and illustrated how life and reality are based on life experiences and the perception of these experiences. Perceptions filter information to which human beings are exposed and that they internalize on a daily basis through conversation, readings, television, education, politics, and family. Perceptions also assess assumptions that affect how human beings derive meaning and understanding from everyday phenomena. Heidegger (1982) believed that phenomenological approaches are dialectic and based on perceptions. Phenomena become an assumed part of the subjective collective consciousness until one takes the time to hear the voice that is not dominant through a deconstruction of the concept of interest, in this case leadership. Hearing the voice of those who remain usually unheard allows for a new and broadened perspective. Oiler-Boyd (2001) suggested, Perception is original awareness of the appearance of phenomena in experience. It is defined as access to truth, the foundation of all knowledge. Perception gives one access to experience of the world as it is given prior to any analysis of it. Phenomenology recognizes that meanings are given in perception and modified in analysis. (pp. 96-97) It is through perception that what is known comes to be known. Thinking and perceiving are accepted ways of coming to know. Perception, according to MerleauPonty (2004) is what constitutes knowledge. The phenomenological research method used for this study allowed for the lived experience and perceptions of falling into trust

89 from the employees perspective to be captured and assessed in an effort to find common themes. Appropriateness of Design Consideration for appropriateness of design and data analysis was present from the beginning of the research. Analysis began with the design choice, the details of data collection, and an understanding of the different forms of data. The choice of the phenomenological approach was appropriate for uncovering phenomena (Moustakas, 1996). Any phenomenon was illuminated through the process of capturing the first-hand description from individuals who had had a first-hand experience of falling into trust. Phenomenological approaches are based on a paradigm of personal knowledge and subjectivity, as the method emphasizes the importance of the lived experience and the personal interpretation of that lived experience (Creswell, 1998; Moustakas, 1996). Phenomenological methodology allows for gathering and interpreting the subjective experience, gaining insights into people's motivations and actions, and simplifying conventional and empirical wisdom. The voice of the employee is generally unheard in organizational and leadership literature (Gibb, 1991). The researcher used the phenomenological approach in this study to capture the lived experiences of employees and illuminate the essence of falling into trust. The intent of qualitative research is to explore, discover, and explain new phenomena. Qualitative analysis provides the opportunity to bring to light new knowledge through inductive thinking (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Qualitative methodology provides an opportunity to assess and build reality. The constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist

90 epistemology (knower respondent cocreate understandings), and a naturalistic set of methodological procedures (in the natural world) (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 35). The lived experiences of employees are a natural human phenomenon, often discounted as expressions of meaningful information (Williams, 2002, p. 5). The qualitative research methodology gave voice to the organizational underclass (Denzin & Lincoln). Quantitative Methodology Quantitative methodology, in contrast to qualitative research methodology, attempts to separate the data from the context. Quantitative data analysis involves organizing, categorizing, interpreting, identifying, synthesizing, and generalizing the data findings in a deductive approach (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). The focus of this research was the organizational context, the connection between the employees experience of trust and the workplace. A quantitative methodology in which data are pulled out of their context would not have suited the aim of this research. For this study, the concerns that motivate the participants are woven into their experiences as they have lived them within the organizational context. The qualitative approach allowed the employees to speak for themselves, relying on their knowledge and first-hand experience in order to expand upon the leadership literature. Standard statistics are mathematical tools or mechanisms used in research that in some instances describe the quasi-world rather than the real world (Francis & Simon, 2001). While some mathematical expressions prove meaningless in empirical terms, they can prove useful as methods of analysis (Triola, 2001). The purpose of statistics is to collect, organize, and analyze data (from a sample), interpret the results and try to make predictions (about a population) (Francis & Simon, p. 65).

91 Quantitative methodology was considered inappropriate for this study. It is not suited to studying a phenomenon about which little is known, since it does not allow for an in-depth inquiry into individuals' experiences and the meaning structures that align with these experiences. Consistent with the aims of this study, the end result of phenomenological research is not effective theory with which to explain reality but rather "plausible insights that bring us in more direct contact with the world" (van Manen, 1990, p. 9). Qualitative Phenomenological Methodology The phenomenological approach transcends science through the provision of the context and actual experience that empiricists attempt to extract. Husserl (as cited in Moustakas, 1996) stated phenomenology is the science of science since it alone investigates that which all other science simply take for granted or ignore, the very essence of their own objects (p. 46). The qualitative researcher often seeks to form new ideas (reconstructing) while continuing to recognize that present paradigms exist. Describing the most beautiful place ever experienced using only numbers would not convey the depth and breadth of the experience. The aim is to study how human phenomena are experienced in consciousness, cognition, or perceptions as well as how they may be valued or appreciated aesthetically. Phenomenology seeks to discover how individuals construct meaning and value while including the contextual element. Through meaning and value, motivation is derived (Frankl, 1994; Hillman, 1997). The qualitative approach to research studies unravels or explores certain phenomena about which there are no certainties but numerous strata or layers of data that may become visible as the study is conducted (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Qualitative

92 research design gives the user a real-life approach by studying a particular phenomenon and touching the pulse of the association between the researcher and that phenomenon. Qualitative research is about creating knowledge that has a practical application, continual learning that affects the direction of the research, and interacting with people in real-world settings (Breacher, 2005, p. 90). Qualitative research takes into account the complexities of real life situations and events. Creswell (2003) defined the qualitative approach to research as one in which the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives or advocacy/ participatory perspectives or both (p. 18). In other words, researchers are examining a certain phenomenon and all the dimensions and layers that exist within that particular phenomenon (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). The qualitative approach is designed to take information in its rarest form in order to discover common motifs while including context, giving a voice to otherwise unheard populations, empowering the underrepresented in the literature, promoting social justice while respecting diversity and the complex contexts where diversity resides (Pistrang et al., 2005). Unlike the quantitative study, qualitative research is a very in-depth and time-consuming approach because of the high volume of information retrieved. The qualitative approach does not confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis stated but sheds new light on the phenomena studied. This, in turn, often requires further studying and research. In this study, the qualitative phenomenological approach was appropriate to capture the human experience in its entirety within its inductive, deductive, workplace, and personal/historical contexts (Moustakas, 1996). There is a notion that quantitative research provides an unprecedented level of objectivity. It assumes that reality can be

93 assessed in an objective fashion thus removing the human element and eliminating bias (Creswell, 2003). Current leadership literature is limited in terms of measuring the lived experiences of employees. The focus is primarily on the leader or the elements of successful leadership. This study was an opportunity to add to the literature of leadership and management and expand its bounds of understanding from the perspective of the employee. Unfortunately, the lived experiences of employees within organizations are often discounted as expressions of meaningful information (Williams, 2002, p. 5). Employees have been predominantly utilized as a means to an end. With the world and organizations changing at exponential rates, employees are well informed, and they can find other employment opportunities almost as quickly. Crastnopol (2002) postulated that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will: he must in all his actions always be viewed as an end. . . . Rational beings are called persons because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves. . . . This is the way in which a man necessarily conceives his own existence. But it is also the way in which every other rational being conceives his existence. . . . Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end. (p. 311) This qualitative phenomenological study, utilizing a modified van Kaam method and analysis of the conversations of employees through the use of the NVivo qualitative data analysis software, sought to ascertain themes regarding the understanding

94 of followership or the definition of the leader-follower connection in the falling into trust phenomenon. The commitment of this phenomenological qualitative research study was to provide a forum for organizational followership to participate as conversational partners (Rorty, 1979) in the evolution of leadership theory, with a particular focus on the phenomenon of the falling into trust. Van Kaam Methodology The modified van Kaam method is a qualitative methodology chosen as the appropriate method for this study because it values the meaning of events experienced and described by human beings and explores the descriptions of experience. Van Kaam (1966) defined his methodology as a method in psychology [that] seeks to disclose and elucidate the phenomena of behavior as they manifest themselves in the perceived immediacy" (p. 15). Phenomenology as Philosophy Phenomenological research is a qualitative methodology in which the researcher collects the essence of human experience concerning a phenomenon, as described by the participants in a study. Understanding the lived experiences characterizes phenomenology as a philosophy as well as a method (Creswell, 2003, p. 15). The unique characteristic of this method is its ability to capture an essence as it exists rather than possibly distort findings through experimental methods and statistical findings that tend to be linear. The critical method of observation implies the use of the phenomenological method. This method leads, ideally, to the type of descriptions and classification of phenomena which can be affirmed by experts in the same field (Moustakas, 1996, p.

95 12). This approach provided the opportunity to uncover new levels of understanding of the experience of falling into trust. Research Questions This qualitative phenomenological research study had the primary purpose of discovering the essence of the phenomenon of falling into trust through the use of the following research questions: 1. How do employees describe the experience of falling into trust? 2. How does the experience of falling into trust impact the employees within the organizational environment? 3. How does the experience or lack of experience of falling into trust influence the employees perception of organizational leadership? 4. Should the employees perception of leadership be perceived as less than effective in creating trust and how do employees describe its impact on organizational and personal performance? Population Interviews were conducted with 20 coresearchers who were employed by a major telecommunications company from 11 business units in six regions of the world, including up to six North American States, Canada, MEA, Europe, APAC, CALA, for a total of 28 countries. The study population consisted of remote technical support engineers, development engineers, managers, senior managers, operations support, and development engineers who worked for the global telecommunications company. The criterion for choosing participants was the individuals belief that they had fallen into trust within their work environment. The range of employment was from 5 to 40 years,

96 the age span from 29 to 60, and a nearly even split in terms of gender. All of this was dependent upon who completed the entire interview process and approved the transcription. Participants also ranged in title from senior manager to remote technical support engineer, a span of approximately five to six levels in the hiring hierarchy of the organization. Informed Consent and Confidentiality Each coresearcher received a form entitled Informed Consent explaining the nature and purpose of the study and an explanation of the coresearchers role (see Appendix A). All consent forms stayed in the researchers possession and were not shared with any other individual. The transcriptions will be kept on disc to ensure confidentiality. Additionally, the researcher took the Human Subjects Training online and successfully completed. Lastly, in order for the transcription to be accepted into the study, each coresearcher was asked to provide a signed Consent to Participate form and offered the opportunity to review the transcriptions (see Appendix A). Sampling Frame The researcher utilized a non-probability type sampling from a major telecommunications company. Non-probability sampling was used to fulfill the aim of the research to assist in defining the essence of the specific experience (Patton, 2002) of falling into trust. Non-probability sampling was appropriate because falling into trust is an elusive concept and the sample was held to 20 individuals who were self-selected in an effort to provide the most robust descriptors within the limit of time and number of individuals. The researcher only sought prospective participants who identified

97 themselves as having had the experience of falling into trust. This is referred to as selfselected sampling. The sampling was purposive in nature, so the individuals selected had to meet a specific set of criteria. The criteria for participation in this study were: (a) all coresearchers will work for a telecommunications company, (b) all coresearchers must be individual contributors with no direct reports, and (c) all coresearchers must believe they have had the experience of falling into trust demonstrated through their agreement of having had the experience. This is a form of self-selection. The advantage of a selfselecting sample was the ability to capture individuals who believed they had experienced the phenomenon being explored. The role of self-selection was to capture the most robust descriptions within the confines of time and number of participants. The intent of this type of sampling was to capture a population that could expand upon the knowledge of the specific phenomenon of falling into trust. The purpose of this study was to capture the lived experiences of employees who work in a major telecommunications company regarding the specific experience of falling into trust. In order to select a suitable sample, the researcher made a judgment based on a certain set of criteria. This type of sampling was self-selection in that each participant believed to have had the experience of falling into trust. After the global organization had received the request for participants and when employees had shown interest in participating, the researcher selected for an interview 20 individuals who were willing to read and identify with the following depicted experience: Have you ever sensed that you are drawn to a colleague in an intense fashion, where there is an intense level of resonation or connection, a quick union of

98 intent, and an occurrence of what some might call magic or synchronicity, which in turn creates an ease of flow in communication and sense of ease that enhances completion of the task at hand? When the prospective participants believed that they could identify with the experience described, they were considered as having fulfilled the main criterion for participation in the study and were selected to assist in the research process. The intent of the reading was to validate the belief in having had a falling into trust experience and to select these individuals in an effort to obtain a purposeful sample. Geographic Location The research was conducted from the North East Region of the United States, but the coresearchers locations span the globe. The self-selected participants resided in Germany, the United Kingdom, United States, France, Australia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, Iraq, Ireland, Poland, Spain, South Africa, China, Thailand, Switzerland, Poland, Portugal, Malayxia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuala, and Egypt. Each location conducts business according to the locations laws and ethics, and the business units are inclusive of development, services, supply chain networks, and call receipt functions. Despite the broad geographic distance, all participants were fluent in English. Data Collection The data collection consisted of interviews with participants, using 15 openended questions. These interviews were taped, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using the NVivo software to derive and cluster themes from the following questions: 1. What do you understand your role to be within your company?

99 2. Describe and discuss what trust means to you. 3. How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? 4. If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. 5. How would you define synergy in the workplace? 6. How would you define connection in the workplace? 7. How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? 8. If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had? 9. What led up to that experience? In other words, what were the events that led you to trust? 10. How does this connection or having fallen into trust impact your day-to-day work? 11. How does disconnection impact your day-to-day work? 12. What are the organizational rules, implicit or unwritten, that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? 13. What are the explicit organizational rules that facilitate trust in your organization? 14. Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what changes would you recommend? 15. In your opinion, how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust?

100 Each coresearcher interviewed had the opportunity to examine the transcribed conversations for accuracy and clarity prior to the interviews being assessed by the NVivo software. This further ensured that the capture of the interview was precise. Data Analysis In order to perform correct data analysis, researchers must utilize at least two important elements to create a strong methodology and data analysis, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Deductive reasoning, which is in alignment with quantitative methodology, utilizes an if-this-then that logic (Leedy & Ormrod, p. 34). Inductive reasoning, which is in alignment with qualitative methodology, utilizes specific instances or occurrences to draw conclusions about entire classes of objects or events (Leedy & Ormrod, p. 35). The researcher drew conclusions from the coded transcribed interviews. Consideration for appropriate data analysis should be present from the beginning of the research. Analysis begins with the design choice, the details of data collection, and understanding of the differing data forms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Given that the purpose of this study was to explore and describe the subjective experience of falling into trust, the phenomenological qualitative approach seemed to be most appropriate. Phenomenological methodology provides a way of capturing the essence of how the participants experience the phenomenon and allows them to articulate that experience from their personal perspective. In quantitative research, it is assumed that the researcher is an objective observer. In qualitative research, it is believed that the researcher has the opportunity to capture the essence of what is occurring through observation and immersion in the context of the study. In a quantitative study, the

101 researcher does not know what is to be discovered whereas in qualitative phenomenological study a particular phenomenon is the focus of interest. This research was a qualitative phenomenological study that followed Moustakas (1996) modified van Kaam methodology, a research methodology where perception is regarded as the primary source of knowledge, the source that cannot be doubted (p. 44). Normal perception, according to Merleau-Ponty (2004), is that kind of living system of meanings which makes the concrete essence of the object immediately recognizable, and allows its sensible properties to appear only through that essence (p. 151). The modified van Kaam method allowed the researcher to capture the essence that was directed toward the finding of truth with regard to the phenomenon of falling into trust (see Figure 1).

102

Qualitative Phenomenological Research Design

Identify 20 employees who have experienced Falling into Trust

Purposfull Sampling

Collection of Data Confirm accuracy of transcriptions of the taped interviews

Taped Interviews comprised of 13 of the same questions

Analysis of the Data

Horizontalization & Reduction/ Elimination

Identify Patterns of Falling Into Trust

Cluster and Validate

Of Each co-researcher

Define Textural Descriptions

Define Structural Descriptors

Composite Description of the Employee Narrative

Findings

Figure 1. Modified van Kaam Method (Moustakas, 1996). In order to capture as much detail as possible, each interview was taped and notes were taken to capture what the tape could not register in terms of body language. After the interviews were conducted, their content was rigorously analyzed with Moustakas modified van Kaam method:

103 1. Reduction (or bracketing) in which researchers must bracket themselves from the rest of the world and suspend personal judgment or bias (Koch, 1995). 2. Horizonalization in which each transcribed report is given equal value and each isolated element of the conversation is identified to determine which dominant themes appear across the interviews. In this stage, the dominant themes are not yet interpreted but identified and separated out. 3. Determination of the actual themes. Before this, the researcher must write down personal notions about the topic of interest in order to acknowledge those presuppositions. This in turn allows for the central themes to emerge as they exist, based on each unit of information, and be identified as central themes. 4. Identification and assessment of variant themes. Reliability and Validity Reliability The intent of qualitative research is to explore, discover, and explain new phenomena. Qualitative analysis provides the opportunity to bring to light new knowledge (induction). Qualitative methodology allows for the opportunity to construct reality. The constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower respondent co-create understandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 35). With the knowledge that multiple realities exist, reliability depends upon consistency of context, transferability, dependability, and confirmation. Terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability replace the usual positivist criteria of internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 35).

104 The intent of the qualitative method is to develop new knowledge, new paradigms, and new theory, allowing for future exploration and even further research inclusive of quantitative exploration (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). When new measurements are developed based on the qualitative explorations, there is opportunity to further validate the propositions of qualitative analysis. Extremely important considerations of qualitative analysis and reliability are the elements of place, time, social, interpersonal, and possible patterns of causation. If a researcher can recreate contexts that are similar, and the findings also show similarities, reliability is strong. When the findings can be transferred outside of place and time, and possibly sampling demographics, transferability becomes evident with further research (Denzin & Lincoln). The researcher addressed bias issues by identifying personal assumptions regarding the phenomenon of falling into trust. The researcher addressed personal bias through the identification of and journaling about these assumptions regarding personal beliefs and the phenomenon of falling into trust. Validity Validity, according to Leedy and Ormrod (2001), is the accuracy, meaningfulness, and credibility of the research project as a whole (p. 103). Validity in the case of qualitative research is very closely tied to reliability. This is seen in Leedy and Ormrods explanation of validity: credibility, dependability, confirmability, verification, and transferability be used instead of the term validity (p. 106). According to Leedy and Ormrod, strategies employed to ensure validity are: (a) extensive experience, (b) negative case analysis, (c) thick description, (d) feedback from peers or other researchers, and (e) respondent validation.

105 Credibility was assured by a follow-up conversation with each coresearcher to review transcriptions. This was achieved by returning to each coresearcher after completion of the interview in order to validate that emerging themes were consistent with the coresearchers intended portrayal of shared experiences. A typed copy of the transcript was made available for each coresearcher to review and provide feedback for potential changes. As a result, adjustments were incorporated. To reinforce consistency, reliability, and validity, the researcher used the same questions in all interviews. Validation of qualitative methodology also exists in the opportunity to adapt and adopt newly found ways to validate phenomena as they emerge. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) explained: I propose that the central imaginary for validity for postmodernist texts is not the triangle a rigid, fixed, two dimensional object. Rather the central imaginary is the crystal, which combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidimensionalities, and angles of approach. Crystals, grow, change and alter, but are not amorphous. Crystals are prisms that reflect externalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, arrays, casting off in different directions. What we see depends upon our angle of repose . . . Crystallization, without losing structure, deconstructs the traditional idea of validity. . . Paradoxically, we know more and doubt what we know. (pp. 279-280) The appropriateness of the methodology chosen for this study was in alignment with the wish to understand the human phenomenon of falling into trust, a possible intra-psychic site, where two individuals experience themselves as intertwined or connected for an

106 equivalent cause. In the context of organizational intention, the equivalent cause is the organizational mission. Summary The intent of the study was to explore the lived experiences of falling into trust as described by the employees. The research consisted of the utilization of data gathered from interviews of employees from a major global telecommunications company. The method consisted of the coding of the extrapolated data and the analysis of patterns and themes from the identified string of nodes. The researcher used Moustakas (1996) qualitative phenomenological method of thematic analysis modified by van Kaam to further the understanding of the phenomenon of falling into trust. As discussed in this chapter, the design allowed for themes to emerge and be assessed, clustered into meaningful concepts, and coupled with the chosen conceptual framework of Bubers I-Thou dialogue, transformational leadership, and social capital theory developed in the literature review. The use of coresearcher feedback, coding, and the use of NVivo software assisted in handling and analyzing the data in an attempt to examine and identify the phenomenon of falling into trust in the workplace. The researcher identified the theoretical underpinnings, method, analysis, benefits, and limitations to improve data integrity and the output of the research. The following chapters present the findings and subsequent conclusions.

107 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Chapter 4 reports the results of interviews conducted with 20 telecommunications employees regarding the phenomenon of falling into trust. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study, using a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996), was to gather, describe, assess, and present data resulting from the structured, taped, and transcribed interviews of individuals who were employed by a global telecommunications company. The tracking of the data analysis was conducted with NVivo software. For the purpose of this study, the central phenomenon of falling into trust was defined as an experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons in which there is an incidence of being with that generates a harmonious experience of joining. The intent of the study was to determine whether the phenomenon exists and, if it does, clarify how it is perceived. The research was conducted utilizing Moustakas (1996) modified van Kaam method of analysis. The following is a review of those steps: 1. Horizonalization: Listing and preliminary grouping. 2. Reduction and elimination. 3. Clustering and thematizing: primary themes, secondary themes, and patterns. 4. Validation. 5. Construct individual textural descriptions. 6. Structural descriptions. 7. Individual textural-structural descriptions. 8. Composite descriptions.

108 Interview Questions A structured interview format with a predetermined set of questions was used in all interviews. Fifteen open-ended questions were asked of all 20 participants. The researcher tested the questions with 10 volunteers before conducting the interviews to be certain that the questions were easy to comprehend. When necessary for clarity, the researcher refined the wording of the questions. Before asking the questions on the focus area, four types of demographic data were noted: (a) region, (b) state, (c) years of service, and (d) gender. The importance was conveyed that the questions were intended to elicit the coresearchers opinion, and that there were no right or wrong answers. Finally, the researcher explained that she, as interviewer, would not interrupt the coresearchers and insert her opinion while they were answering unless there was a need for clarification on either side. If clarifications were needed, they were made upon request. The researcher also conveyed that this was not an interactive interview but an interview focused on the coresearchers opinion and not the opinion of the individual conducting the interview. Each question had a specific purpose. Following each question, the intent behind the question was presented: 1. What do you understand your role to be within your company? Question 1 was utilized to gather basic information with regard to role within the company. The question was also utilized to provide an atmosphere of familiarity and comfort in which the coresearchers could share their expertise while minimizing possible anxiety caused by the interview process.

109 2. Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Question 2 was used to capture the coresearchers initial definition of trust untainted by other questions or ideas developed from other questions. 3. How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? 4. If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. 5. How would you define synergy in the workplace? 6. How would you define connection in the workplace? Questions 3 to 6 were utilized to further explore concepts the researcher believed to be associated with trust and the process of falling into trust. 7. How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? After the further exploration of trust and possible elements associated with trust, Question 7 was used to explore the coresearchers understanding of trust in the workplace in contrast to the experience of trust in general terms. 8. If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had it? Question 8 was a validation or assurance question to confirm that the coresearcher participating in the interview did, in fact, have the experience. When the researcher determined that the participant did not have the experience, the data were not transcribed and not included in the research.

110 9. What led up to that experience? In other words, what were the events that led you to trust? Question 9 was intended to further elucidate the elements that construct the process of falling into trust. 10. How does this connection or having fallen into trust impact your day-to-day work? 11. How does disconnection impact your day-to-day work? Questions 10 and 11 were utilized to ascertain the effect of trust or disconnection in the organizational environment. 12. What are the organizational rules, implicit or unwritten, that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? 13. What are the explicit or written organizational rules that facilitate trust in your organization? Questions 12 and 13 were utilized to understand organizational rules, both implicit (unstated) and explicit (rules, regulations, ethical statements, and corporate certifications), on the growth and development of trust. 14. Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what changes would you recommend? Question 14 was formulated to identify need areas, as perceived by employees, inclusive of possible areas mentioned in prior questions.

111 15. In your opinion, how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? Question 15 intended to provide an opportunity to reveal areas in which leaders were perceived to exercise some influence with regard to trust. Data Collection The data collection process consisted of qualifying participants as having had the experience of falling into trust, scheduling the interviews, conducting the interviews, transcribing the interviews within a 24-hour period, and coding and analyzing the interviews. There were 87 respondents to the request for coresearchers. From the 87 prospective participants, the researcher chose 30 to be interviewed in order to ensure that enough data would be available to recognize and identify emerging themes. Of the 30 interviews, 20 were chosen by location so as to capture a more global perspective of the phenomenon of falling into trust. Despite the wish to conduct all 87 interviews, time and cost were defining factors in the decision to complete 30. Of the 30 interviews, the first 20 were chosen to code and analyze. The study incorporated the views of a diverse participant base. The participants are not only diverse in terms of location, but in terms of role within the business. Table 2 provides the participant demographics. The Interview Process The interviews were conducted either in person or via teleconference based on the extensive locations across the globe. Before each interview, the researcher reminded each coresearcher that the interview was confidential, that it would be taped, and that a copy would be sent to each coresearcher for review and clarification if needed. Researcher also told each coresearcher that there were no right or wrong answers. The purpose of the

112 interviews was to capture each coresearchers opinions, perceptions, and ideas regarding the questions posed while illuminating the phenomenon of falling into trust in the workplace. Question 1 was used to capture logistical data (See Table 2), or what Brazeley and Richards (2005) and Gibbs (2002) would refer to as attributes that include location of the participant, years of service, hierarchical position, and gender. The age variable was eliminated from the data because more than half of the participants were unwilling to disclose their age, feeling that age was an identifier. Each interview lasted between 28 minutes and 1 hour and 18 minutes. The researcher took notes during each interview and kept them as journal entries in NVivo. The purpose of the notes was to capture any perceived nuance in the participants descriptions, body language, or tone of voice, and they were used for reflection after the interviews were conducted. All interviews were transcribed into a Word document within twenty-four hours and later sent to the appropriate coresearcher for validation. The Coding Process Upon receipt of an electronically signed validation statement by each coresearcher or a statement declining to review the data in the individual transcriptions, each Word document was converted to Rich Text Format and saved as an .rtf file to be imported into NVivo. Data analysis began at this juncture. The research conducted utilized Moustakas (1996) modified van Kaam methodology, listing the initial coding of passages, performing horizonalization, reduction and elimination, cluster and validation, composite description of employee narrative of invariant themes, and presentation of findings.

Table 2 Participant Demographics Coresearcher CR 1 CR 2 CR 3 CR 4 CR 5 CR 6 CR 7 CR 8 CR 9 CR 10 CR 11 Country United States United States Germany United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Gender male male male female male female female male female male male Job/Role Engineer Business Operations Manager Finance DMTS Business Operations Finance DMTS Human Resources Manager CMTS Region North America North America UK North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America State Massachusetts Massachusetts Nuernberg Illinois Ohio Massachusetts Illinois Kentucky Colorado Massachusetts Illinois Years with Company 0-5 0-5 6 to 10 21-30 30+ 21-30 30+ 6 to 10 0-5 6 to 10 21-30

Table 2 (Continued) CR 12 CR 13 CR 14 CR 15 CR 16 CR 17 CR 18 CR 19 CR 20 United States United States United States United States Germany Australia United States Germany United States female male female Male Male male female male male Senior Manager Business Operations Service Manager Engineer Knowledge Management Marketing/Sales Business Operations Engineer Engineer North America North America North America North America United Kingdom Asia Pacific North America United Kingdom North America Illinois Illinois Maryland New Jersey Swindon Sydney Pennsylvania Swindon Ohio 6 to 10 6 to 10 6 to 10 11 to 20 6-10 6-10 11-20 6-10 11-20

115 Findings Analysis of Data Each section of the data analysis followed Moustakas (1996) modified van Kaam methodology. In order to maintain the anonymity of the coresearchers, each was assigned a number used as reference within the data analysis. For example, coresearchers numbered 1 to 5 were referred to as CR 1, CR 2, CR 3, CR 4, and CR 5 respectively when referring to a specific coresearchers responses. The findings were presented following Moustakas modified van Kaam method, explained more thoroughly in chapter 3. Horizonalization - Phase 1 Horizonalization is the process of identifying every statement, phrase, or concept that may be relevant to the phenomenon of falling into trust. After reflecting upon the transcription process and the rich descriptors that each transcription provided, the decision was made to have two sets of horizons, the first being the actual transcribed interviews, all within what Moustakas (1996) referred to as the experiential context (p. 91). Brazeley and Richards (2005) and Gibbs (2002) referred to these passages as coding at specific nodes. Reduction and elimination are performed next when the categorization of nodes or passages are collected into broader concepts or themes (Moustakas; Brazeley et al.). The categorization is an important aspect of the analysis and must capture the essence of the passages from the context of the interview from which it was collected (Brazeley & Richards), and it becomes the basis for considering the initial transcriptions in phase 1, horizonalization. If a participant used metaphor, jargon, or figures of speech, it was important to determine whether the context provided sufficient information to define the meaning

116 intended by these expressions. The use of verbal expressions in textural passages is important in capturing what Brazeley and Richards referred to as phenomenological experience and how it is expressed. The passages captured assisted in clarifying the nature of falling into trust, what the content and structure of peoples consciousness [is], and to convey the qualitative diversity of their experiences (Brazeley & Richards, p. 62). Each transcription was considered to have equal value, providing both context and content presented by each coresearcher. The transcriptions represented the first round of horizonalization units. To remove the context of the phrases as reported by each coresearcher would have conveyed that the researcher gave it little value. In the horizonalization of perception, every perception counts (Moustakas, 1996, p. 53). Each coresearcher described the phenomenon in numerous ways, and to remove context would have removed potential meaning (see Appendix B for Transcriptions). Horizonalization Phase 2 Horizonalization is the process of identifying and listing one or more discrete passages of transcribed conversation (see Table 3). Brazeley and Richards (2005) and Gibbs (2002) referred to these passages as coding at specific nodes. The coding was done across all 20 participants expressions without judging any phrase or statement with any more importance than any other. As Moustakas (1996) stated: Each horizon as it comes into our conscious experience is the grounding or condition of the phenomenon that gives it a distinctive character. We consider each of the horizons and the textural qualities that enable us to understand an experience. (p. 95)

117 Moustakas (1996) and Merleau-Ponty (2002) argued that perception creates truth. Determining truth through moments of reflection is a thought process presented in a rudimentary culmination of passion and belief. From that thought process comes individual truth (Merleau-Ponty). After importing the rich text format transcripts into NVivo, each transcribed interview was coded for elements that were presumed to apply to the phenomenon of falling into trust. Horizons are the unique themes that emerge from the text and are identified (coded as a node within NVivo), still with no weight of importance placed on any phrase. Moustakas referred to this as the epoche: In the Epoche, no position whatsoever is taken; every quality has equal value. Only what enters freshly into consciousness, only what appears as appearance, has any validity at all in contacting truth and reality. Nothing is determined in advance. Everything that appears is marked "with a horizon of undetermined determinability" (Husserl, 1997, p. 30) by the possibility of being seen and known in its essential nature and meaning. (p. 87) The epoche is the attempt to remove personally held beliefs, notions, or commonly held beliefs regarding the phenomenon being researched. Keeping an open mind and reviewing the data within the context in which it is presented, allows the data to exist as an entity in and of itself. The process of epoche has also been referred to as bracketing in which the self and ones personal interpretations are separated from the data being reviewed, allowing the phenomenon to become present in the rich descriptors provided by the coresearchers (Moustakas, 1996). Epoche can be considered a personal point of reference or the perceived personal experience that drove the initial interest in the research of the possible phenomenon as it

118 is experienced in the realm of the greater population. The researcher allowed individual experiences to be unique and to allow the phenomenon to be revealed within those experiences in some consistent way. The process was important because it facilitated an unobstructed exchange with the data that allowed the forthcoming of essences without imposing the meaning units during the analysis process. Because this topic has not been studied from an employees perspective, a step was added in the horizonalization to provide additional clarity of context and meaning. There were two horizonalization sets. The first set was the actual transcriptions of all 20 participants (see Appendix B). This was an added step in the horizonalization process because the research context was considered a primary element of the horizonal units. The second step was the phrases selected within the context that were specific to the question being reviewed. The second set of horizons presented were all the phrases coded as a single meaning unit. See Table 3 for a subset of the coded phrases. Table 3 Horizonalization Phase Two Scale up Common values, and common ideals 4-500 people Camaraderie Doesnt in fact care what is going on Dont believe it can happen A model for individual contributors Able to be honest Connections more an emotional feeling Confidentiality Dont feel like you are at work as much Disconnect takes a lot of time to overcome

119 Table 3 (Continued) About my interactions Consider opinion of lower levels Advancement of society Consistency is the ultimate goal After a while Consistent Do in a relatively small company Do more stuff Diversity and trust

Agree

Conversation

Doesnt in fact care what is going on

Alcoholic metaphor of management knowledge And why we are going there Avoid those people

Cost a lot of waste in productivity Creates a lot of dysfunction

Dont believe it can happen Dont feel like you are at work as much

Culture becomes institutionalized by policies and procedures

Dont feel like you are working

Beginning when I was a new hire Believe what you are told

Not the American way

Dont have to be everybodys friend

Decisions were made in the team

Dont think there are any

Better morale

Definition of trust

Team members build on each other

120 Table 3 (Continued) Between the colleague and customer Bringing in what they have as far as experience is concerned and knowledge Brought together to enhance value to the company Building of a relationship Difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time Building on what each one brings to the table Business conduct standards Directly communicated Difficult to acquire Engage people in an open dialogue Enjoy doing learning and accomplishing Call them cliques Disconnect takes a lot of time to overcome Can count on the workplace being there for me Cant write a rule Diversity and trust Ethics Discussed in the team Enjoyment Enjoyable Employees are directly involved in it Did not take decisions without asking Employee engagement surveys Developed a trust-based relationship Emotional connection Demonstrate by their actions Element of enjoyment

121 Table 3 (Continued) Care about their people Do in a relatively small company Accept other peoples differences Do more stuff Everybody builds on everybody else Everybody understands what the goal is

Reduction and Elimination Interviewing, transcribing, coding, reviewing transcriptions, and reviewing the coding were functions that allowed for an emergence of the meaning units to form in clusters or themes. When reviewing the questions presented to each coresearcher, there were clusters that were initially aligned with each interview question. Tables 5 through 11 provide an overview of the emerging themes captured by the interview questions through the reduction and elimination process. Horizonalization is the process of identifying and listing one or more discrete passages of transcribed conversation (see Table 3). Brazeley and Richards (2005) and Gibbs (2002) referred to these passages as coding at specific nodes. Reduction and elimination occurs next, in which nodes or passages are categorized into broader concepts or themes (Moustakas, 1996; Brazeley & Richards). Phenomenological reduction is the process of looking at the rich descriptions, phrases, and words regarding the phenomenon, and identifying the invariants. The researcher removed the invariant phrases, invariant words, or invariant descriptors (i.e. metaphors or examples) that were considered irrelevant to the process of falling into trust. Overlapping or repetitive statements were merged together into a node (Moustakas; Brazeley & Richards) in order not to lose count of invariants that were the same across coresearchers.

122 The categorization is an important aspect of the analysis and must capture the essence of the passages from the context of the interview from which it is collected (Brazeley & Richards, 2005). If a participant used metaphor, jargon, or figures of speech, it was important to determine whether the context provided sufficient information to define the meaning intended by these expressions. The use of verbal expressions in textural passages is important in capturing what Brazeley and Richards referred to as phenomenological experience and how it is expressed. The passages captured assisted in clarifying the nature of falling into trust and what the content and structure of peoples consciousness [is] and to convey the qualitative diversity of their experiences (Brazeley & Richards, p. 62). The researcher refined the reduction and elimination process by grouping the questions with the associated responses and aligning the consistent responses with a related overarching theme. Each excerpt was an essence of an experience conveyed by a coresearcher. "Phenomenology is a philosophy which puts essences back into existence, and does not expect to arrive at an understanding of man and the world from any starting point other than that of their 'facticity' " (Merleau-Ponty, 1967, p. 356). The overarching intent of a phenomenological study is to reduce the descriptors into the essential elements the transcriptions convey. For additional horizons represented by the transcriptions of the coresearchers expressions, see Appendix B. Each transcription was considered an important encapsulation of horizons in addition to each phrase that was coded as an individual horizon as seen in Table 3 above. The following tables 4 through 10 provide an overview of the emerging themes categorized by question.

123 Table 4 Reduction and Elimination Questions 2 and 3 2. Describe and discuss what trust means to you. 3. How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? Emerging Themes Trust is bi-directional Trust is about commonalities Trust is open, honest, and about sharing Trust is based upon a prior event or experience (observation) Trust is described as consistent (observation) Trust is walking the talk (observation) Trust occurs with time Examples of what trust is not CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 CR 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 CR 2, 4, 8, 13, 14 CR 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 CR 3, 6, 12 CR 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15 CR 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13

Table 5 Reduction and Elimination Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. 5. How would you define synergy in the workplace? 6. How would you define connection in the workplace? Emerging Themes Trust is bi-directional CR 10, 12 Coresearchers

124 Table 5 (Continued) Trust as comfort/enjoyable Trust is personal Trust is open and honest sharing Commonalities CR 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15 CR 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,10, 11, 12, 14, 15 Reciprocal/acceptance/unconditional A phenomenon/unusual event Outcomes/ for the greater good CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 CR 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14,15 Experiences one does not have to validate; proper follow through CR 5, 11, 15

Table 6 Reduction and Elimination Question 7 7. How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? Emerging Themes Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, Trust is trust 13, 14, 15 Work versus personal trust Trust is not a concern CR 8 CR 5, 14

125 Table 7 Reduction and Elimination Question 8 8. If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had? Emerging Themes Had the experience as discussed in earlier questions Coresearchers All coresearchers except 1 stated they had the experience with a manager. That individual transcription was eliminated.

Table 8 Reduction and Elimination Question 9 9. What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? Emerging Themes Time Observations, experiences, interactions The day I was hired, from the beginning Sharing, confiding, openness, openly Bi-directional, reciprocal Trust until burned Mutual understanding CR 6, 9,10 CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 CR 1, 2, 15 CR 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 CR 7, 8, 9 CR 4 CR 6, 8 Coresearchers

126 Table 9 Reduction and Elimination Questions 10 and 11 10. How does this connection or having fallen into trust impact your day-to-day work? 11. How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? Emerging Themes Positive Elements Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Comfortable/ have Fun Confident/ empowered Creative Enjoyable/ improved morale, rewarding Makes work easy, efficient, quality work Autonomous Know that you are supported Better customer service Improve learning Improved communication Bi-directional Negative Elements CR 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 CR 1, 7, 8,12, 10, 11, 13 CR 1 CR 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 11,12, 13 CR 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 CR 2, 3, 8, 11, 13 CR 1 CR 2, 7, 8 CR 2, 3, 7, 9, 13 CR 5, 10, 11 CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Unsure Unhappy/job dissatisfying CR 4, 6, 9 CR 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9

127 Table 9 (Continued) Apprehension/Self-Doubt/Double check work Cautious about sharing, avoid others Expend more time and energy resolving issues Complete disconnect/unable to communicate Animosity Time to determine intent, direction Must double check work of others (time) Not as productive Eats the emotional fabric of the organization and morale Putting in your time versus feeling invested All above contributing to dysfunction Trust is a critical element Bi-directional elements CR 2, 3, 4, 7, 13 CR 7 CR 2, 4, 5, 6 CR 5 CR 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 4, 6, 7, 9 CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 4, 6, 10, 11 CR 4, 7, 8,10 CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 10, 11, 13 CR 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 CR 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13

128 Table 10 Reduction and Elimination Questions 12 and 13 12. What are the organizational rules, implicit or unwritten, that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? 13. What are the explicit organizational rules that facilitate trust in your organization? Emerging themes Truth, honesty, openness Commitment/follow through Cant write a rule to do that Implied when you are in the office you work Fairness, Respect Coresearchers CR 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 CR 8, 10, 11 CR 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 CR 7, 9 CR 6, 10

Cluster and Validation of Textural Descriptors Cluster and validation is a process that allows for a thematic presentation of the invariant constituents (Moustakas, 1996). After reviewing the themes, patterns of relevance began to emerge regarding the topic of falling into trust. As the specific meaning units emerged, the units were clustered into predominant themes. Clustering was a process by which themes began to illuminate themselves through a consistent representation of particular meaning units across questions and coresearchers (Moustakas; Williams, 2002). Each meaning unit was comprised of a textural descriptor such as a phrase, statement, or sentence. 2. Describe and discuss what trust means to you. 3. How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace?

129 Table 11 Cluster and Validation of Questions 2 and 3 Emerging Themes/ Textural Descriptors Emerging Theme: Trust is bi-directional Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13

Textural Descriptors: Karma between people, reciprocal, relational Emerging Theme: Trust is about commonalities CR 3, 6, 12

Textural Descriptors: Mindset, vision, goals, roles, common plane, common ground common understanding, and common values Emerging Theme: Trust is open, honest, and about sharing Textural Descriptors: Honesty; share openly Emerging Theme: Trust is described as based upon a prior event or experience Textural Descriptors: Conversation;, discussion, observation which validates; acquired; earned; prior events, discussions of value systems, interactions Emerging Theme: Trust is described as consistent Dependable, predictable, confident(ial) Emerging Theme: Walk the Talk CR 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 CR 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 CR 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15

Textural Descriptors: Walk matches talk, actions speak louder than words, follow through, walk versus talk Emerging Theme: Trust occurs with time CR 2, 4, 8, 13, 14

130 Table 11 (Continued) Emerging Theme: Examples of what trust is not CR 3, 6, 8, 13, 14

Bad vibe, behavior different, inconsistent, poor integrity, no communication, no gaps in understanding, not based on lies, dont have to question intention, not idle friendliness, no apprehension

Structural Discussion of Questions 2 & 3 Each coresearcher was asked to discuss and define trust. All coresearchers initially assumed the question was referring to trust within the workplace, thus showing a wish to differentiate between the definitions of trust within the workplace versus trust occurring outside of the workplace. So as not to influence the responses, it was asked of each coresearcher to define trust as they experience trust when the wish to differentiate occurred. Walking the Talk and actions speaking louder than words were important factors in the definition of trust. There was a belief that the actions of an individual must be consistent with what is stated. There is a need, as Handy (2000) discussed, to observe individuals behavior as consistent, trust is not blind (p. 44). Coresearchers also discussed what trust was not. Defining the converse many times seemed easier to define than the actual question at times. Defining the converse may be a depiction of how little the phenomenon of falling into trust occurs for many individuals. Lack of trust was bundled into the experience of inconsistent behavior, lack of communication, and apprehension. Each negative element is an important factor for leadership to consider when watching for the more trusting environment.

131 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. 5. How would you define synergy in the workplace? 6. How would you define connection in the workplace? Table 12 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 4, 5, & 6 Emerging Themes Emerging Theme: Trust is bi-directional CR 10, 12 Coresearchers

Textural Descriptors: Two way street; give and take relationship; there isnt any obstacles in the way of me understanding them or understanding me. Emerging Theme: Trust as comfort/enjoyable CR 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15

Textural Descriptors: Wonderful relationship; great experience; I feel honored; comfort level; without fear; feeling or element of enjoyment; feeling comfortable; having a good time working with the other person; camaraderie; feel good about these connections; makes me feel good; enjoyable to know that youve reached that point; satisfaction; because it is important to me that my manager and I do have these times when we have really connected; feels like you have an ally in the work you are trying to do; I have to be comfortable thats a thing of trust; consistent; there is a comfortableness; internal contentment; felt good; element of contentment.

132 Table 12 (Continued) Emerging Theme: Trust is personal CR 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15

Textural Descriptors: Because the impact the executives have on any employee I feel affects me personally; I felt a great deal of trust and synergy with one particular manager who I felt took a personal interest in me; every one of us in the group has had some pretty severe personal problems, ill children, divorce situations, other personal issues that were impossible to keep from one another and there is a synergy that there; I dont know you have to deal with people through email or instant message. Which makes it much more personal, I think connection is personal; People have gotten to really know one another; feel comfortable having them in your home; we talked about coffee; taking the time to get to know about them; come to a knowing. Emerging Theme: Trust is Open and Honest Sharing Textural Descriptors: Open up and sharing their life, sharing passions, shared experiences, shared interests, in sync, I think connection is personal, willing to communicate and interact and trust, shared values, similar work ethics, willingness of other persons to listen, show they are just like you and I, support each other; blunt honesty; candid and clear feedback; respect; take work as valuable and add their value; sharing confidential information; share personal information, critical or sensitive information; share info about others to help understand them better; privy to a lot of confidential information; sharing of information or asking my opinion on things that dont normally come up in boss/subordinate relationships; you effect everyone; CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

133 Table 12 (Continued) combined efforts of everyone; able to argue back and forth and know that in no way is it going to affect your dealings. Emerging Theme: Commonalities CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14 15

Textural Descriptors: Common tasks, same goals, same effort, workplace connection, moment of trust, same type of job, shared values, shared ethics, shared understanding; thinking similar thoughts; whole goal is to get someplace else; work toward common goal; clarity of goals and experiences; know where they come from; shooting for the same result; offered suggestions and mentored me in a personal fashion; two people thinking similarly; synergy means ability to work toward a common goal; same page; having a manager who you have alignment with in terms of opinion on how something should be handled. Emerging Theme: Reciprocal/ Greater Good/Acceptance/Unconditional Textural Descriptors: Both parties have profit, learn or gain; ich und du; desire to mutually benefit everyone; synergy in the workplace as people working together to achieve something greater than could do alone; differ orgs are able to come to a place where they are willing to accept the work done by others; not make level a condition of conversation; unconditional; group of diverse people pull off an extraordinary event, unselfish. CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15

134 Table 12 (Continued) Emerging Theme: A phenomenon/unusual event Textural Descriptors: One of he most powerful experiences that people had; group of diverse people pull of an extraordinary event; it has only been one manager through my 31 year; career; it just works; know it can happen at any time; it is like combustion; ich und du; challenging to happen; flow; instant trusting relationship; instantly valued by others; did we have a connection there; trust is innate; what it feels like and looks like is a different kind of conversation; that pattern as it evolves has a very different feel; they have been intermittent little synergistic episodes where we seem to be on the same page, and mostly what I get out of that occurrence like that is a sense of shock; surprised at least surprised; people forming a bond that is beyond the simple ins and outs of the roles they are suppose to play; Maybe people are just thinking the same way; people have been working together for so long that they just develop the same habits and thinking patterns without having to be explicit need to spell every single thing out; Jets said got a receiver back that he had a strong connection with, which may carry over to the workplace. He described feeling as though there was some sort of level of mental awareness between the people that allows for some higher level of communication. CR 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15

135 Table 12 (Continued) Emerging Theme: Outcomes/ for the greater good Textural Descriptors: Easy to handle problems or breakdowns, enhances value, reach higher together than any one could alone; coming on common ground fancy word for teamwork, makes it easy to do my job, understanding, understands goal; a mental attitude; build on each other, viewpoints compliment each other; respect, understand how they think, understanding various people and functions; made me feel good; there isnt any obstacles in the way of me understanding them or understanding me; start them down a path and they know what to do; a combination of people and talents and approaches that generate output that exceeds what on paper you would expect the team to produce; members of a high performance team; producing a greater result; supervisors and employees can benefit despite all doing different types of jobs; when a group of people are doing whatever it is they are doing, and in so doing they make the jobs of others easier; a lot of pretty unnecessary information goes away; petty interactions you dont need; everyone can concentrate on building to be a more effective team environment. CR 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

136 Table 12 (Continued) Emerging Theme: Experiences one does not have to validate; proper follow through Textural Descriptors: Worked with in the past; gets into knowing; worked well with these folks; manager doesnt stop by to check up on me; they send me off to do my work; get somebody off my back; trust is innate; doing what I have asked somebody to do; doing have to worry about anything that is going to distract you from the task at hand; no need to watch your back. What 4, 5, and 6 are not: This is not my work; out for their own; step on peoples backs to get to the top; feeling subservient; not an email. CR 5, 11, 15

Structural Discussion of 4, 5, and 6 Bi-directionality appeared in the conversation with another coresearcher, adding to the notion that trust occurs in two directions, without barriers. One might infer that reciprocity, the act of following through, and unconditional acts could reinforce the sense of two-way levels of communication, inclusive of open and honest communication. Feiner (2004) discussed basic laws of trust and stated that, in order to be trusted, one must demonstrate trust, making it a two-way exchange. Feiner also stated, Demonstrating trust, elicits trust (p. 130). One has to perform the act, and the other has to perceive the act as reciprocal or unconditional. Open and honest communication, and a discussion of the experience of comfort when one is falling into trust might support the perception of acts that are unconditional or actions performed for what many coresearchers referred to as a greater good.

137 Another notable descriptor to comfort was the reference to falling into trust as a phenomenon or extraordinary event. Statements such as it has only been one manager through my 31-year career and it feels like and looks like it is a different kind of conversation indicate a feeling of surprise. Another reference was to combustion in which, as stated by one coresearcher, people forming a bond that is beyond the simple ins and outs of the roles they are supposed to play. When leaders engender trust, there is room for risk-taking, learning, and adapting to new roles. Deem and Deem (2004) stated, Leading is learning. Let go of your comfort zones: try new things, think in new ways, challenge yourself. Learning is about doing, not knowing (p. 46). According to Handy (1998), change is inevitable and, to many, it also feels dangerous. In the corporate world, staying current with the most advanced technology means having to change and, according to Bardwick (1995), Trust is necessary to get people to buy in to new values and accept the process and consequences of change. A synergy of focus and effort relies on trust. . . . But the upheaval of major change always threatens trust because trust is based on predictability and consistency. (pp. 214-215) Despite the surprise and sense of combustion, the coresearchers conveyed a sense of comfort in the reciprocity, consistency, open and honest communication that appears to compel the phenomenon of falling into trust. The metaphor of combustion and sense of shock seems to depict the intensity of the phenomenon. The intensity of commonalities, be it interests, the project at hand, the vision, or the phenomenon itself, has been said to form a bond that is beyond the simple ins and outs of the roles they are supposed to play (CR 13), particularly within the workplace.

138 What was also remarkable was the association of the theme of performing tasks for the greater good to the phenomenon of falling into trust. In motivation, mutual understanding of corporate vision, corporate mission, overcoming obstacles, both supervisor/manager and employee incur benefit by performing tasks in concert, a combination of people and talents and approaches that generate output that exceeds what on paper you would expect the team to produce (CR 13). According to Swett (2005), In times of peace, this can be a very inclusive process that touches the lives in the community. In times of peril, this process must draw upon the trust developed through the relationships formed by working together toward a common goal during peaceful times. (p.7) Time being an element mentioned consistently in prior questions, there was mention that when one has fallen into trust, there is no need to waste time validating information and intention. Having to validate being a possible element of distrust, the importance of leaders fostering trust during difficult times could be considered the trigger for motivation and continued success during difficult times (Swett; Deems & Deems, 2003). Clustering and Thematizing of Question 7 7. How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? Table 13 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 7 Emerging Themes Emerging Theme: Trust is Trust Coresearcher CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15

139 Table 13 (Continued) Textural Descriptor: Trust is trust, my original definition of trust, I think trust is trust; trust can exist in a project or a department, you have to trust him as a prerequisite for a healthy work environment; you need to trust somebody inside of work prior to really working close together with them; if you dont trust that person, or if you feel you dont have the sufficient amount of trust in that person, it is always going to be difficult to interact or work or have a work relationship with; wow, my initial reaction to that was that trust shouldnt be any different in the workplace than it is outside in life; I trust somebody and they continue to show their trust is worthy or my trust is worthy of them; leadership falls in the same category, if they are going to say one thing and act a different way; trust has to come from management; I see it as exactly the same thing; I think there is an emotional connection that you are extending your trust to; ***; my trust definition really goes back to the same kind of example I gave when I used my father as a person; I dont, I dont, I dont believe the definition is different. I think trust is trust. I dont think you have different levels of trust. I think you either trust somebody or dont trust somebody. And I dont think it makes any difference whether its a VP or my boss or whoever; I guess its applied the same across the board, except in a leadership position; I could be more dependent upon it. The level of trust has to be greater I think, in the other sense.

140 Table 13 (Continued) If you are in the army and your peer is someone you cant trust you are screwed to the wall. Because he is not going to save you so in that respect everyones trust would have to be the same; I dont think it would differ my definition of trust in the workplace than what I described in the past. . . . I dont see them; I dont believe they should be different. They might be different subjects or different reasons, but I dont think they should be different; I would not define it differently; I can say my previous definition is still applicable; I want to modify something I said earlier. . . . I dont assess it differently; I was thinking I did because of the nature of the two interactions being a bit different at the surface. Emerging Theme: Work Trust versus Personal Trust CR 8

Textural Descriptor: I think there is some difference, but I am not sure how to quantify it; it is easy for a person in my position to start to distrust higher levels of management based upon conflicting information flowsthat really doesnt change my definition of trust Emerging Theme: Trust is not a concern CR 5, 14

Textural Descriptor: In a company that has significantly reduced headcount by 75% people are not really concerned with trust; I think trust is irrelevant, it just doesnt matter, whether or not the worker bees trust the CEO is immaterial. Through the clustering and thematizing of the invariant themes resulting from reduction and elimination, the primary themes, secondary themes, and patterns were uncovered.

141 Structural Discussion of Question 7 Initially, most respondents began with the belief that how they trusted their coworkers was different from how each had explained falling into trust in their initial definition [Q2]. An example is from CR 7s statement: That emotional connection is absent from trust in the workplace in my mind and CR 10s statement: I think there is two kinds of trust, there is peer trust and the upper level trust. When asked how trust in the workplace differs, all came to the same conclusion as seen in CR 9s statement: I dont, I dont; I dont believe the definition is different. I think trust is trust. I dont think that you can have different levels of trust. I think you either trust somebody or dont trust somebody. And I dont think it makes any difference whether it is a VP or my boss or whoever, you still either trust them or you dont trust them. I dont think that leadership should be on any different standard than anybody else . . . I can see where your questions might be emotional . . . wow. (CR 9) All respondents came to the same conclusion that there was no difference in how falling into trust occurred. Trust is trust (CR 1 & CR 11). Clustering and Thematizing of Discussion of Question 8 8. If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had? Question 8 was a validation question to ensure that participants had actually had the experience of falling into trust. There was only one participant who stated not having had the experience of falling into trust. That transcription was removed.

142 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 9 9. What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? Table 14 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 9 Emerging Themes/Textural Descriptors Time Observations, experiences, interactions The day I was hired, from the beginning Sharing, confiding, openness, openly Bi-directional, reciprocal Trust until burned Mutual understanding CR 6, 9, 10 CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 CR 1, 2, 15 CR 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 CR 7, 8, 9 CR 4 CR 6, 8 Coresearchers

Structural Discussion of Question 9 Question 9 brought about an interesting dichotomy. Two coresearchers believed falling into trust began upon getting hired because of entering a mutual agreement of employment. CR 1 expressed that as a new employee . . . have a level of respect up front. All other coresearchers believed that falling into trust takes time. Additional themes seen in earlier questions reoccurred. Themes such as openness and sharing, supportive experiences, and observations seemed to support the process of falling into trust. Additional themes that were mentioned when referencing management were clear expectations and informal dialogue as seen in CR 13s description:

143 It was a work experience in which this particular manager before they were my manager, visited me on a job site, and asked questions and participated in a very connected way with myself and other members of my team at that point. . . . Unlike I had seen with other equivalent leaders and it was that difference that opened the door to a relatively quick degree of trust . . . just immediately talked about coffee, and issues with the project, issues with the customer, which required no back story, required no fact checking, and how questions were being answered, it immediately felt different. (CR 13) From CR 5s perspective, sharing informal things was thought to facilitate falling into trust when it occurred: Sharing from the manager of some things that I didnt think would be shared with me. Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 10 and 11 10. How does this connection or having fallen into trust impact your day-to-day work? 11. How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? Table 15 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 10 & 11 Emerging Themes /Textural Descriptors Positive Elements Comfortable/Have Fun CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Confident/empowered Creative Enjoyable/improved morale, rewarding CR 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 CR 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 1 Coresearchers

144 Table 15 (Continued) Makes work easy, efficient, quality work Autonomous Know that you are supported Better customer service Improve learning Improved communication Bi-directional CR 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 CR 2, 3, 8, 11, 13 CR 1 CR 2, 7, 8 CR 2, 3, 7, 9, 13 CR 5, 10, 11 Negative Elements Unsure CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Unhappy/job dissatisfying Apprehension/self-doubt/double check work Cautious about sharing, avoid others Expend more time and energy resolving issues Complete disconnect/unable to communicate Animosity Time to determine intent, direction Must double check work of others (time) CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 4, 6, 10, 11 CR 4, 7, 8, 10 CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 4, 6, 9 CR 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 CR 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 4, 6, 7, 9

145 Table 15 (Continued) Not as productive Eats the emotional fabric of the organization and morale Putting in your time versus feeling invested All above contributing to dysfunction Positive Becomes an easy environment to live in; youre comfortable; you feel confident; you feel creative; your customer service is high; adds up to morale and any attitude being affected; a night and day experience; getting up in the morning, look forward to doing things, learning things, accomplishing things; makes a difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time; quality of work improved; autonomous; there is trust in this relationship; supports you in your decisions; makes things easier. Positive Becomes an easy environment to live in; youre comfortable; you feel confident; you feel creative; your customer service is high; adds up to morale and any attitude being affected; a night and day experience; getting up in the morning, look forward to doing things, learning things, accomplishing things; makes a difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time; quality of work improved; autonomous; there is trust in this relationship; supports you in your decisions; makes things easier. Critical in Nature I think its critical in that I cant imagine coming to work and feeling like I didnt have it. CR 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 CR 2, 3, 4 CR 10, 11, 13 CR 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13

146 Table 15 (Continued) Bi-directional Trust is naturally two ways; its not just one way. Negatively You just stick to written down processes, go through the process; makes life easier; you can be yourself; I would be on edge all the time; makes me annoyed; makes me want to leave out important information; I would feel unsure of myself; Id be cautious, quiet; it is just going to kill you because youre not; I think relatively unhappy if I hadnt been able to build trusting relationships; churns up lots of time; slows down progress toward any goal. Connection contrasted by disconnect Churns up lots of time; slows down progress toward any goal; takes a lot of time to overcome; keeps us from collectively reaching highest points we could together.

Clustering and Validating of Questions 11 and 12 12. What are the organizational rules, implicit or unwritten, that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? 13. What are the explicit organizational rules that facilitate trust in your organization? Table 16 Clustering and Thematizing of Questions 12 & 13 Emerging Themes Truth and honesty Coresearchers CR 4, 5, 7, 9, 10

147 Table 16 (Continued) COMMITMENT/FOLLOW THROUGH Openness Cant write a rule to do that Implied when you are in the office you work Fairness, Respect CR 8, 10, 11 CR 3, 7, 10, 12 CR 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 CR 7, 9 CR 6, 10

Structural Discussion of Question 12 & 13 The responses from the coresearchers best convey the context regarding questions 12 and 13. Coresearchers discussed in detail, the structure of the perceived usefulness or lack of usefulness with regard to implicit or explicit rules facilitating trust. CR 6 stated, I know that you cant write a rule that says you will respect your colleagues and actually expect it to be followed all the time. CR 8 stated, I think its a fallacy of us to expect that these unwritten guidelines exist from one person to another. CR 1 stated, First thing that comes to mind is relationship; there is nothing that defines a relationship in any manuals or anything, and that is something that as a manager and as an employee needs to have a relationship in order to be successful together. (CR 1) CR 2 stated, I guess unwritten rules are nothing more than a collection of behaviors of the people in power. CR 8 stated, Non-documented rules simply fall into a category that we are making an assumption that we can measure other people like we measure ourselves. If that were really true, we would not need as many metrics and these personnel guidelines, but the fact of the matter is its not the true instance. You typically can

148 find a lot of traits in people that do the same type of jobs that are similar. I think its a fallacy of us to expect that these unwritten guidelines exist from one person to another; in some cases they do, in some cases they dont; thats probably why we have so many written guidelines in the corporate world; thats because we are not cut from the same mold. (CR 8) Clustering and Thematizing of Question 14 14. Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what changes would you recommend? Table 17 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 14 Emerging Themes/Textural Descriptors Close the leadership gap by Creating opportunity for interaction, surveys, focus groups Walking the talk, open/honest Stopping the rhetoric Improving communication and explanations Providing clarity of vision and goals Providing honest data Providing reciprocity/ bi-directional Developing leadership development programs/stable fresh leadership team CR 1, 4, 8, 10 CR 3, 6, 7, 10 CR 10, 11, 13 CR 4, 8, 10, 11, 13 CR 4, 6 CR 6 CR 7, 8 CR 3,13 Coresearcher

149 Table 17 (Continued) Discouraging empire building, stop making decisions in vacuums CR 4, 13 Creating a relationship based environment Encouraging new ideas Sharing information, open and honest complete information Providing fresh visionary leadership, open to new ideas Providing clear vision/mission/goals Connecting leadership to day-to-day work, interaction Stop making decisions in vacuums Creating a true team environment, Leadership team partner amongst themselves Demonstrating reciprocal behavior Providing a human touch Taking time to build trust Disallowing empire building CR 7 CR 9 CR 10 CR 13 CR 1, 9, 10 CR 3 CR 3, 6, 8, 10, 11 CR 3, 5, 10 CR 4, 6 CR 4, 9, 10 CR 4 CR 4, 5, 6

Structural Discussion of Question 14 Question 14 allowed the coresearchers to reflect upon the questions and determine the areas within organizations that could utilize improvement. There were common threads that occurred throughout the interviews that are reviewed in the clustering and

150 thematizing section. The themes extracted from question 14 were also reviewed in chapter 5 in recommendations to leadership. Clustering and Thematizing of Question 15 15. In your opinion, how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? Table 18 Clustering and Thematizing of Question 15 Emerging Themes/ Textural Descriptors Work toward a team environment Show care Coresearcher CR 1, 10 CR 1, 2

In turn improve customer sat happy employees=happy customers CR 1 Increase employee/leadership interaction, visible, present Common vision, mission communicated by leadership Lean efficient leadership structure Leaders must walk the talk, model desired behavior Create excitement about new opportunities Open honest communication, open dialogue Treat people with respect, fun Proper recognition of what trusting behavior can produce Work toward the greater good Moral and ethical behavior Remove artificial barriers Truth Act upon surveys CR 2, 3, 9 CR 2, 4, 8, 10 CR 3 CR 4, 6, 8, 13 CR 4 CR 4, 8, 10 CR 5 CR 6 CR 7 CR 7 CR 8, 13 CR 8 CR 1, 8

151 Many of the suggestions revolved around increasing leadership involvement with employees, conveying a clear and common corporate vision and mission, creating leadership opportunities to overcome challenges through team work and leadership training, and a common thread arising again in the last question was leaders walking their talk. Clustering and Thematizing (Major Themes) Clustering and thematizing of what Moustakas (1996) refers to as the invariant constituent means that all the phrases or comments that are seen as different but seen as key or significant recurring themes were merged together into single meaning units. This was determined by how often the following themes recurred across the research questions: 1. Trust is bi-directional. 2. Trust takes time. 3. Trust is about sharing and open and honest communication. 4. Trust is walking the talk. 5. Trust occurs for the greater good. 6. Trust can occurs best in a team atmosphere. 7. Trust occurs when there is clarity of vision and mission. These themes occurred not only across multiple coresearchers but across multiple questions. Tables 22-28 present the themes as depicted across each question and the consistency in the theme returning across each question. The most notable examples were the responses to Question 7 (see Table 8). Although initially 13 out of 15 coresearchers believed that falling into trust within the work environment was different than trusting

152 outside of the workplace, all 15 coresearchers came to the conclusion that trust is trust. Clustering elucidated nine major themes regarding falling into trust: 1. Trust is bi-directional. (see Table 19) 2. Falling into trust take time. (see Table 20) 3. Falling into trust was described as a set of observances regarding open and honest communication. (see Table 21) 4. Walking the talk. (see Table 22) 5. Trust occurs when working toward a greater good. (see Table 23) 6. Trust is believed to occur in a team environment. (see Table 24) 7. Falling into trust occurs when the vision and mission are clear. (see Table 25) 8. Trust is trust whether it occurs inside or outside of the workplace. (see Table 26) 9. Falling into trust was experienced as an unusual or profound event (see Table 27). Table 19 Trust is Bi-directional Questions 2 and 3 Emerging Theme Trust is bi-directional: Questions 4, 5, and 6 Emerging Theme Trust is bi-directional Reciprocal/Acceptance/Unconditional Coresearchers CR 10, 12 CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13

153 Table 19 (Continued) Question 9 Emerging Themes Bi-directional, reciprocal Questions 10 and 11 Emerging Themes Bi-directional Bi-directional elements Question 14 Reciprocal behavior Table 20 Falling into Trust Takes Time Questions 2 and 3 Emerging Themes Trust occurs with time Question 9 Emerging Themes Time Questions 10 and 11 Emerging themes Makes work easy, efficient, quality work Expend more time and energy resolving issues Coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 6, 9, 10 Coresearchers Coresearchers CR 2, 4, 8, 13, 14 CR 7 Coresearchers CR 5, 10, 11 CR 5 Coresearchers CR 7, 8, 9

154 Table 20 (Continued) Time to determine intent, direction Must double check work of others (Time) Putting in your time versus feeling invested Question 14 Emerging Themes Takes time to build trust CR 10 Coresearchers CR 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 CR 10, 11, 13

Table 21 Trust is about Sharing, Open and Honest Communication Questions 2 and 3 Emerging Themes Trust is open, honest, and about sharing Questions 4, 5, and 6 Emerging Themes Trust is open and honest sharing Question 9 Emerging Themes Sharing, confiding, openness, openly Questions 10 and 11 Emerging Themes Improved Communication Coresearchers CR 2, 3, 7, 9, 13 Coresearchers CR 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 Coresearchers CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Coresearchers CR 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15

155 Table 21 (Continued) Cautious about sharing, avoid others Complete disconnect/unable to communicate Questions 12 and 13 Emerging Themes Truth, honesty, openness Question 14 Emerging Themes Share information, open and honest complete information Question 15 Emerging Themes Open honest communication, open dialogue Coresearchers CR 4, 8, 10 CR 3, 6, 8, 10, 11 Coresearchers Coresearchers CR 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 CR 4, 6, 7, 9 CR 4, 6, 10, 11

Table 22 Trust is Walking the Talk Questions 2 and 3 Emerging Themes Trust is based upon a prior event or experience (observation) Trust is described as consistent (observation) CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 Coresearchers CR 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13

156 Table 22 (Continued) Trust is walking the talk (observation) Question 9 Emerging Themes Observations, experiences, interactions Question 14 Emerging Themes Walk the talk Question 15 Emerging Themes Leaders must walk the talk, model desired behavior CR 4, 6, 8, 13 Coresearchers Coresearchers CR 7, 10, 11 Coresearchers CR 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 CR 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14

Table 23 Trust Occurs for the Greater Good Questions 4, 5, and 6 Emerging Themes Outcomes/ for the greater good Coresearchers CR 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Work toward the greater good Question 15 Work toward the greater good CR 7 CR 7

157 Table 24 Trust Occurs in the Team Environment Question 14 Emerging Themes Create a true team environment Leadership team partner amongst themselves vs. silos Question 15 Emerging Themes Work toward a team environment CR 1, 10 Coresearchers CR 4, 5 CR 5, 6, 10 Coresearchers

Table 25 Trust Occurs with Clarity of the Vision and Mission Question 14 Emerging Themes Fresh visionary leadership, open to new ideas Clear vision/mission/goal Question 15 Emerging Themes Common vision, mission communicated by leadership CR 2, 4, 8, 10 Coresearchers Coresearchers CR 3, 5, 10 CR 4, 6

158 Table 26 Trust is Trust Question 7 Emerging Themes Trust is Trust Coresearchers All coresearchers CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Table 27 Trust is a Phenomenological or Unusual Event Questions 4, 5, and 6 Emerging Themes A phenomenon/unusual event Coresearchers CR 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15

Textural and Structural Analyses of Themes These nine themes were selected as a result of reviewing the nodes identified within the transcription to be certain that the meaning was in alignment with the intent of the meaning. As discussed by van Manen (1990), a theme is not a thing, but a form of capturing the phenomenon one tries to understand (p.87). This was a form of validation to ensure that the meaning units or nodes held up when brought back to the origination or context within the transcription (Brazeley & Richards, 2005; Creswell, 2000). According to van Manen, themes are the process of insightful invention, discovery, disclosure. As I arrive at certain thematic insights it may seem that insight is a product of all of these: invention

159 (my interpretive product), discovery (the interpretive product of my dialogue with the test of life), disclosure of meaning (the interpretive product given to me by the text of life itself). (p. 88) The importance of van Manens statement is the notion that the themes are forms giving shape to the entire phenomenological experiences of each coresearcher. A timeline can be a representation of the phenomenon of falling into trust in which each theme is a critical piece of the experience (see Figure 2). Each theme has something to do with the phenomenon of falling into trust, but individually it only captures a moment of the phenomenon, so it is important to consider each theme as part of the whole. A second consideration regarding the themes as opposed to the continuum is a cell of trust in which the parties who have fallen have experienced a sum of all the themes or a few (see Figure 2). Each theme could be experienced at different levels that move individuals toward trusting. For example, if one were to experience a high level of intensity of sharing in an open and honest fashion, the intensity of the experience may create what one would refer to as a bi-directional experience, reinforcing the process of falling into trust. The intensity of the experience might be like a moment of combustion, as one coresearcher stated, eliminating the need for some of the other thematic tenets to occur.

160

Figure 2. Timeline of falling into trust. The researcher conducted and coded 20 interviews. As a result of the horizons, elimination, and clustering of themes, meaning units were obtained from the transcriptions. What resulted from a multitude of reviews, coding, clustering, and validating of the themes within the actual transcription was a textural chronicle of the composite expressions from the coresearchers. The process of creating the textural synthesis was very similar to the creation of the employees voice regarding the phenomenon of falling into trust, based on the findings. Words are the foundation for how humans create meaning. According to Creswell (2000), In this framework, the leading task of language is to convey accurate information. Viewed as a process of typification, however, words and categories are the constitutive building blocks of the social world (p. 489).

161 Based on the findings in the clusters of meaning units, the phenomenon or process of falling into trust was conveyed as an occurrence that is the result of a bi-directional form of communication or an experience that incorporates a level of reciprocity in 14 out of 15 of the participants. The relationship must go both ways, A karma between two people, I get back out of it what I put in, There is a sense of camaraderie, confidentiality, and The process is personal. Not only is the process portrayed as personal but for a greater good. CR 13 stated it most clearly: Where benefit of the doubt means that one doesnt question the validity of what it is they are trying to do, and one does not question the intentions of what the other person is trying to do, in such a way that it affects the outcome that the two parties are trying to arrive at. (CR 13) Falling into trust in the workplace occurs when the engagement between two or more persons is open, honest, and unguarded. The exchange consists of normally I wouldnt say this, and information is shared in an unguarded manner. For a few, it happens in an instant. It is like combustion. For most of the coresearchers, it happens only with time and observation of consistent behaviors, what many referred to as walking the talk. It is uncertain whether the team environment occurs prior to having fallen into trust or after, but the team environment could be a factor in creating an atmosphere of trust. Clarity of vision and mission of the company was conveyed as a salient point regarding successful organizations. Without clarity, I find myself second guessing myself. I am probably not as productive. I may leave the people that report to me more confused, not knowing what the vision or the direction could be or should be (CR 7).

162 Falling into Trust: The Structural Description The structure of the phenomenon allows for the meaning units to provide some insight into the phenomenon. Van Manen (1990) submitted that to be aware of the structure of ones own experience of a phenomenon may provide the researcher with clues for orienting oneself to the phenomenon and thus to all other stages of the phenomenological research (p. 57). The structure grows out of the themes, and each theme, if appropriate, captures the essence well enough to encourage the understanding or deep connection with the actual occurrence of the phenomenon. Van Manen described phenomenological structures as inclusive of four elements: (a) lived time, (b) lived space, (c) lived body, and (d) lived in relation to other people. Applying van Manens structural approach to illuminating essences, the structure of falling into trust may not be linear at all, as represented in Figure 2. Lived time. One theme recurred heavily across both coresearchers expressions and research questions. The reference to time was made in two forms with regard to falling into trust: (a) falling into trust occurred the day the coresearcher got hired due to entering into a mutual (bi-directional) understood contract, and (b) falling into trust occurred after time passed, and the time allowed for an appropriate level of observation and interaction. Lived space. Lived space in the case of the research conducted is twofold with regard to the experience of falling into trust. Question 2 allowed for the coresearcher to explore the most tender and personal form of falling into trust. Questions 3 and 7 allowed for an exploration of falling into trust within the corporate environment. All but two participants initially saw the process as different within the workplace versus outside of

163 work despite the descriptors being the same. The initial tone was different when explaining the experience of trust within the work environment. With regard to employers reinforcing the phenomenon of trust, explicit factors such as training, ethics regulations, and operational policies and procedures were not considered proper facilitators of trust. One coresearcher stated, I dont think you can put it down and say, in order for me to trust you or in order for a subordinate to trust a manage, here are the rules that you have to follow . . . you cant legislate trust! (CR 10) CR 2 stated, I guess unwritten rules are nothing more than a collection of behaviors of the people in power. CR 9 stated, The further away people are from their management, the more difficult it is to trust people. Lived body. Despite the struggle with Question 7 in making the differentiation with regard to what some referred to as personal trust as opposed to workplace trust, through each coresearchers intense struggle with the attempt to make the differentiation, some were brought to what Thorne (2003) would refer to as the aha moment, a moment of illumination where each coresearcher came to the conclusion that trust is trust (CR 115). It does not matter where it occurs when one reflects upon having fallen into trust. Structure as it relates to other. Demands within the corporate telecommunications environment are interrupt-driven, demanding, and time sensitive. Most, if not all, of the customer service aspects of the business are time-driven, possibly impacting negatively the time necessary to build solid relationships that would provide the opportunity to fall into trust. The coresearchers put forth several references that incorporated the word other

164 within the thick descriptions. Statements relating to bi-directionality or idioms stating bi-directional were: must go both ways, its a two way street. CR 13 stated, I know when I have fallen into trust when the person with whom I am engaging with to achieve some outcome begins to share information with me in a an unguarded manner. Communication is easier, there is banter back and forth that suggests that the other person is not worried about what I might be trying to do, and they are interested in exploring, perhaps, more complex ideas about whatever it is we are trying to achieve. The concept of sharing in an open and honest fashion was also a common theme across questions and across 13 of 15 individuals. What was poignant regarding the open and honest communications was the relationship to mission and vision. The consistency with which statements by management were observed to match management or leadership action was also common across 13 out of 15 coresearchers. The concept of observing consistency and participation in comfortable experiences with leadership was a common theme. Team and greater good are words that mean many things to many people. These themes very strongly relate to other in that to work for a greater good, the mission and vision must be clear to all, which brings the team toward a greater good. Falling into trust seemed to be either a shocking or comfortable experience. There was no discussion as to which occurred first, but CR 13 did note that, when the process of falling into trust began to unfold, it was a very different feeling.

165 Composite Description of the Employee Narrative Falling into trust (FIT) was described as a shocking and comforting feeling when the process occurs. Coresearchers explained knowing that FIT is occurring because the phenomenon feels different. Falling into trust occurs as a process between two or more people, and this is the process that the researcher intended to explore. Despite the possibility that people can trust themselves in their work and their abilities, the focus of the research was how one individual falls into trust with others. One falls into trust with another when one feels trusted; the phenomenon occurs in two directions. For some coresearchers, trust occurs immediately. For others it occurs over time while compiling observances of leadership consistency, open and honest sharing, and leadership action matching their words. The idiom used most frequently was walking the talk. Communication, clarity of corporate vision and mission, open and honest sharing, informal sharing, and working toward a greater good or for the good of the team are all seemingly normal events individually, but when combined with observance of corporate intentionality and consistency, these events bring about new meaning with regard to how leaders engender trust within an organization. For many coresearchers, there was a moment of discovery, referred to as combustion, easiness, comfort, and connectedness that occur and make falling into trust a noticeable experience. Notable in the FIT event is communicating on a higher plane or, as CR 15 expressed it, some sort of level of mental awareness between the people that allows for some higher level of communication. When FIT occurs within the work environment, it makes working easy and efficient, and it allows for the focus to be on personal work as opposed to worry about the

166 intention or abilities of coworkers. The ease that the connection of FIT creates allows for creativity without the need to get caught up in concerns regarding the work that is being done on a day-to-day basis. FITness allows for creativity. CR 12 stated, I feel completely empowered to do what I think needs to be done, and dont feel there would be as many repercussions. CR 1 stated, It becomes an easy environment to be in. Youre comfortable again, you feel confident, you feel creative, when you pick up the phone to talk to your customer, and you feel confident you dont feel like there is anything restricting you, then your customer service is high, and your morale in work and your attitude stay high. The day passes by so fast, employees are looking at the clock and lose track of time. In that regard, employees are willing to do extra work and not feel as though it is at a personal cost, because the work is being done for the greater good. CR 2 stated I consider it a night and day experience, it is like getting up in the morning and going to the gulag, or is it getting up and going to a rather enjoyable thing where I actually look forward to doing thing, learning things, accomplishing things, so I think it is a major deal. . . . I would say it makes the difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time. Summary Chapter 4 presented the findings from the interviews of employees and managers of a major telecommunications company regarding the phenomenon of falling into trust. The chapter included two phases of horizonalization, a reduction of the horizons, and a review of the common themes that evolved as a result of the analysis of the data. A composite description was presented, integrating the primary themes across the participants in order to provide a synthesis of the meaning units and essences obtained

167 from the merged experiences of falling into trust. Chapter 5 presents a concluding summary and recommendations for future research.

168 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study, using a modified van Kaam method by Moustakas (1996), was to capture the essence of falling into trust in the workplace. For the purpose of this study, the central phenomenon of falling into trust was defined as an experience of an intensely valued interpersonal relationship between two or more persons where there is an incidence of being with that generates a harmonious experience of joining together. What was known about trust specifically with regard to the workplace found little agreement within the researched literature. Gibbs (1991) TORI theory provided a way of seeing and making tangible the concept of trust with the intertwining elements of openness, realization, and interdependence. Saj-Nicole Joni (2005) presented a different perspective on trust in which trust was separated into three types: (a) personal, (b) expertise, and (c) structural. The concept of trust is complex, and the researcher believed that part of that complexity comes from understanding the process of falling into trust as a precursor to the experience of trust. The process of falling into trust was also an element underrepresented in the literature in general and in organizational leadership literature in particular. Chapter 5 presents employees perspectives and personal reflections with regard to the four central research questions, recommendations for leadership, recommendations for future research, and concluding remarks. According to Solomon and Flores (2002), Leadership and trust together provide firm but knowing steps into the unknown. But that is why books on leadership and entrepreneurship (and most books on

169 love) provide so little in the way of instruction, despite the demand. There is not set path to the future, and no recipe for authentic trust. (p. 151) The findings provided insight into the possible precursors to falling into trust. This insight, in turn, might provide tentative answers regarding how leadership can facilitate trust. The coresearchers in this study were employees reporting to other individuals. Although they were leaders themselves, they were not in positions above senior manager. The research provided an opportunity for leadership to hear the employees voice on how leadership can impact the falling into trust (FIT) environment. Much of the leadership literature is based on the leadership perspective or the perspective of leaders of successful companies. The Employee Perspective on the Central Research Questions The questions central to the research were as follows: 1. How do employees describe the experience of falling into trust? 2. How does the experience of falling into trust impact the employee within the organizational environment? 3. How does the experience or lack of experience of falling into trust influence the employees perception of organizational leadership? 4. Should the employees perception of leadership be less than effective in creating trust, how do employees describe its impact on organizational and personal performance? The answers are best presented in the coresearchers words. The employees who confirmed that they had experiences falling into trust in their work environment were the experts on falling into trust as they experienced it.

170 Research Question 1. How do employees describe the experience of falling into trust? Although the tone was very different, and initial perceptions regarding lived experiences of falling into trust within the workplace were notably different than the perception of the experience of falling into trust outside of work, all participants concluded that trust is trust. Initial Definition of Trust CR 15 stated, Trust to me means that when interacting with the people I dont need to read anything else into an interaction or verbal or written communications. When someone says they are going to do something there is no reason to go verify there integrity or their accuracy in information without causing me to perform any extra work or tasks to validate any information, it is something I can believe in. On a personal level, it would mean that if I asked someone to keep something in confidence it would be. I f I asked someone to let me know any information Im asking that they would be honest or they would tell me they dont want to answer the question. And I dont have to go else where for validation. (CR 15) According to CR 12, Trust is knowing that you can ask somebody to do something or tell somebody something and theyll either follow through with your requests or needs. CR 13 stated, Trust to me, trust to me is the, I hope I dont get harder than this later. Trust to me is the dynamic that exists between people in which the person who has trust will get the benefit of the doubt about the track that they are trying to work together on. Where benefit of the doubt means that one doesnt question the validity of

171 what it is they are trying to do, and one does not question the intentions of what the other person is trying to do, in such a way that it affects the outcome that the two parties are trying to arrive at. (CR 13) Workplace Trust CR 12 stated, I dont think I would differ my definition of trust in the workplace than what I described it in the past or before. . . . I dont see them, I dont believe they should be different, they might be different subjects or different reasons, but I dont think they should be different. (CR 12) CR 13 stated that I would not define it differently, but CR 15 elaborated: I think the only thing that would make it different is the hesitation to let go and to fully engage in a trustful relationship at work because the stakes are a bit different. If you are talking about trust in general the long term implications of trusting someone, there may be or may not be long term effects, but in workplace your trust, or making a decision on trust can effect your career. . . . I assess my ability to assess my trust inside of work and outside of work a bit differently. I trust someone at work and I trust someone outside of work. . . . I want to modify something I said earlier, I am thinking of who I trust the most out of anyone. It happens to be a lot of my fraternity brothers at the time. Its almost like you went through a war, you went through a huge emotional physical experience, where you had to count on them to survive and finish the task at hand. . . . It is not as common an occurrence inside of work. I dont assess it differently. I was thinking I did because of the nature of the two interactions being a bit different at the

172 surface. To get to that ultimate deep level of trust, there would be the common traits that relate the two types of experiences. And I would judge them the same. Yes, you know what, I would do the same. (CR 15) The expressions from CR 13 show the initial struggle and tone differentiation regarding the differences between falling into trust outside of work and FIT inside the workplace. CR 13s expression is an example of the evolution experienced by the participants who were initially conflicted regarding the comparison of workplace FITness and FITness outside of the workplace. The stakes are perceived as different and in some cases higher because of elements such as impact on professional integrity, impact on management review assessments, and impact on financial well-being. Research Question 2. How does the experience of falling into trust impact the employee within the organizational environment? CR 7 responded, I loved my job, I wanted to please her, I wanted to learn more, I felt confident, I felt there was no task that she would give me that I couldnt do. I felt that if I ran into roadblocks or impairments, she wouldnt just jump in and move them for me, but she would teach me how to do it for myself. (CR 7) CR 8 responded, A confidence level, I think a person needs to feel comfortable that they know they can go to someone they can go to if they are in trouble or if they need resources, or if they need questions answered. That might be a peer, but certainly in the case of the managerial to peer relationship, that knowledge that you know you have an open door, and you can use it at any moment, gives you the confidence to face your workday knowing that you are not going to run into

173 anything that cant be resolved. You are not going to do it yourself you always have some help to bring into the issue. So that confidence that this gives you is what I think the deal is. (CR 8) CR 13 stated, It enables faster decision making and it allows me a degree by in large, a flexibility in getting the things done that I need to get done because I can, because I am free to take risks without having to worry about the impact of those risks with out having to constantly check in with in this case a supervisor. (CR 13) CR 15 responded, Well, I have, it was more of an internal contentment, about all interaction, where you dont have to worry about anything that is going to distract you from the tasks at hand. There is no need to watch your back on the interactions. You know that it is covered. You dont have to worry about anything, you can just concentrate on everything you are working on right then, so that element of contentment, felt good to have that level of connection. Trying to think why. Its an element, other elements would be, give me a second, camaraderie, yah, felt like I was on the same team; we were all shooting for the same result. There was a desire to mutually benefit everyone that was involved. In the relationship so the supervisors can benefit, and the employees can benefit despite all doing different types of jobs. But we all have the same core set of needs and goals that we are trying to build upon. So that made me feel good. (CR 15)

174 Research Question 3. How does the experience or lack of experience of falling into trust influence the employees perception of organizational leadership? CR 13 responded, The absence of trust is the dynamic where a person engages with another person to achieve some desired outcome but because of this said absence of trust, they need to see additional data, and/or double check through other sources or means what the intentions or validity of the other person that they are operating with is bringing to the table. All of that, as one develops trust all of that goes away. So you believe the intentions, you believe the quality of the information that is being given to you, and those barriers that would otherwise exist in that absence, dissipate and you can achieve the desired result in a faster means, and you can achieve the faster means, you can achieve the desired result in a more personally rewarded means, because the atmosphere is not one where you are not constantly questioning what is actually going on. I think that gets to the essence of how I view trust. I think that gets to the essence of how I view trust. (CR 13) CR 2 responded, I view the lack of trust in the workplace to be a crying shame because it really takes a large amount of enjoyment from my work away, when I feel I am not trusted, or if someone doesnt trust me. But, you know, you push by it because its not permanent. . . . I would say it makes the difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time. (CR 2)

175 CR 7 responded, Oh it creates a lot of dysfunction, ahhm, I have worked with a number of dysfunctional teams, people who have hidden agendas or anyway, it makes working irritating unpleasant, it makes me want to try to avoid those people, even though I know I have to work with them. I dont avoid them, but I dont go out of my way to find them either. Or seek assistance from them, if perhaps they are the best persons to go to because of the dysfunction and disharmony. I really like harmony. I feel that it absolutely slows down productivity. It leads to job dissatisfaction. (CR 7) CR 3 responded, It was a willingness of the other person, to listen to not make their level a condition of a conversation, opening up and sharing their life with you, well with me. And having deep conversations about things that may not have anything to do with work. There are several people that. . . . I have this wonderful relationship with the vice president, and its because they dont put that VP in front of their name, they are just who they are, they share things about their family. They show you they are just like you and I. They just happen to wear a different level within the company. And its the coming on common ground and common interests that make it an instant trusting relationship and knowing that it can continue at any time. It just works; its just something you feel. All set. (CR 3) Research Question 4. Should the employees perception of leadership be less than effective in creating trust, how do employees describe its impact on organizational and personal performance? According to CR 3,

176 Leadership falls into the same category. If Im having a conversation and they tell me one thing, if they are going to say one thing and act a different way. It goes back to actions . . . there ends up being trust issue. . . . I keep getting tied up with integrity trust and integrity are tied really closely for me personally . . . all set. (CR 3) CR 12 responded, Some people are driven relationships with their, the people that report to them, and some are driven by the people that they report to. So where am I going with this. So I guess if everybody was driven more towards supporting particularly as a manager and above, if you were driven towards more supporting your people, then I suppose everybody could get aligned in terms of trust. But as long as there are more people that are interested in supporting above you are going to have that disconnect. (CR 12) CR 8 stated, I think upper management at the very top levels and I dont mean corporate levels, I mean vice presidential levels, have to state what they believe in, have to demonstrate that they believe in it themselves, have to set an example that they are willing to have an open door policy as much as logistics will allow. They have to be one-on-one with as many people as they possibly can be. They have to step away from artificial barriers at management levels, people will always know that there is a hierarchy, people will always know that there are protocols, you dont necessarily want to jump around levels of management. You would be much better off if. You would be much better off if levels of management worked they

177 way they were supposed to. And they were simply stair steps to carry communication and deal with the logistics of a large organization. (CR 8) CR 1 stated, From the get go, you can tell they are a relationship environment, a relationship driven environment, they care about their people, they treat their people with respect, and if those things are in place, then the team, the team environment is created. So people are happier, better morale, do you want me to go on. . . . I just wanted to stress that there is a . . . like a snow ball effect, and if you can start off on the right foot with that environment, which the company can create, then you are going to have happy employees, managers that can focus on managing situations and events that keep their employees happy. And ultimately your customer or end user will be satisfied resulting in complete success. (CR 1) Employees want to see management or leadership walk the talk and match what is professed to actions. As soon as employees feel that they are falling out of trust (FOT), their morale and motivation decrease, and fear pervades the atmosphere surrounding their tasks. Employees no longer wish to share information, and in a knowledge worker environment where knowledge is what is being sold, this could have serious implications. Another notable point made is the reference to organizational explicit or implicit rules. Neither was considered useful for the employees in their process of falling into trust. Although corporate ethics training was considered enlightening in terms of the global environment and cultural differences, the explicit rules to take this type of training was not considered a facilitator of trust, except for one participant.

178 Personal Reflections on Central Research Questions Dialogues with each coresearcher, transcriptions of each interview, and the coding process of each phase contributed to a complex and intimate perspective on the topic of falling into trust and the core questions of the research. The need for the study emerged from the identification of a difficult and complex process of finding comfort within the corporate world. Trusting others and experiencing the feeling of teamness did not seem to occur as readily in the telecommunications industry as it did within the health care field where the researcher has worked. She observed that trust was not as elusive in the health care industry as it was in the telecommunications environment. Although the comparison between the corporate world and the health care industry was not a focus of this study, it could be considered for future research. The focal point for this study emerged from further reflection, and the corporate telecommunications environment became the chosen context for uncovering the process of falling into trust. After some reflection and journaling throughout the research process, the researchers personal experiences led her to define trust as a comforting feeling between two people. Over time and with further research discussion with colleagues and committee members, she conceptualized trust as the process she called falling into trust (FIT). The perception of FITness began to crystallize during the course of the research, and FIT became a combination of multiple factors inclusive of Jonis (2005) and Gibbs (1991) perspectives on trust. Mutual interest was a key factor as noted in the coresearchers perception of bi-directionality or reciprocity. FIT was a personal experience, and the individual observations consisted of reciprocity within the team toward common goals. Communication was easy, time was not wasted second guessing

179 team members motivations or intentions, consistency was observed, and any shared information asked to be kept in confidence were kept in confidence. When consistency prevailed, FITness evolved toward a sense of comfort with and amongst colleagues. The feeling of comfort was usually the result of sharing information that later did not get misconstrued, of consistent follow through, and of actions matching words or, as many of the coresearchers stated, walking the talk. Collins (2001) used a metaphor to describe successful companies. He suggested that a company is like a bus, and that it is important to get the right people on the bus, to all ride the bus together, be in the correct seat, and to head in the same direction toward the same destination. Collins reiterated that all people in the company must be clear about their roles and responsibilities and understand how they fit into the overall goal of the company. Each employee is part of a team, sharing, taking risks, and growing as the expectations of customers grow. All employees considered the process of FIT not only a leadership accomplishment but also a team and personal accomplishment. When a company is FIT, it is trim, it is flexible, it has endurance, and the employees within the company are the same. The researcher wanted to know how employees describe the experience of falling into trust. Personal reflections captured through journaling and through the research process contributed to refining the understanding of the concept of falling into trust not only in the context of a global telecommunications business, but in general. According to the employees who participated in this study, falling into trust within the work place is an open exchange between people who are trying to decide what level of participation will be put forth toward possible mutual goals. Falling into trust is a relationship assessment

180 process of observable consistencies with regard to the emotional risks of sharing personal information and of follow-through on tasks with behavior that matches words. The process of falling into trust becomes trust when the observable events are interpreted as reciprocal and consistent. Not only does an individual have to convey a level of consistency, the consistency may have to be exhibited in certain areas, as mentioned by Joni (2005): expertise trust, personal trust, and structural trust. Examples of expertise trust might be does a manager have the competencies necessary to manage a certain technology or even the competency to manage people. Structural trust was discussed by Joni as the notion that employees are assessing how corporate structural changes impact relationships between leaders and subordinates. Personal trust is trust. When relationships within the corporate environment are distilled down to the most common denominator, there are several elements that each individual or employee chooses from to assess if in fact trust is obtained. After careful examination of competencies, such as walking the talk, structural consistencies, and exhibition of necessary aptitude, trust occurs. The researcher also wanted to know how the experience of falling into trust impacts employees within the organizational environment. Although the process of falling into trust may take some time, as indicated by the majority of the coresearchers, the return on the investment strongly suggested less time wasted on repairing relationship, double-checking work, and trying to increase motivation. Ultimately the return on the upfront investment in creating a trusting environment translates into monetary savings that result from healthy human relations.

181 Another question that interested the researcher was how the experience or lack of experience of falling into trust influences the employees perceptions of organizational leadership. The process of falling into trust for leaders is the execution of a clear vision, mission, and goals that positively impacts all employees. When leaders operate within a paradigm of trust, employees have a clear understanding of their role, its scope, and how their role contributes to the direction of the company. Constant disruptions such as organizational changes, changes in management, changes in direction without clear explanation, create a sense that there is a lack of clarity with regard to direction. This lack of clarity leads directly to the fourth core research question. The researcher wondered how employees describe the impact on organizational and personal performance when their perceptions of leadership are that it is less than effective in creating trust. The answer to this question is essential. Leadership does not exist without trust. Without trust, leadership is merely management through task with no relationship. From an employee perspective, when leadership is perceived as mistrustful and not willing to facilitate a trusting culture, trust does not exist and employees motivation falls. Lack of motivation grows out of experience. The experience is likened to a child building a sandcastle by the ocean with the wet sand the tide left behind. Without experience, a child may not know that the wet sand arrives twice a day after the tide subsides. The child goes out the next day and sees the sandcastle that was built with so much hard work washed away by the incoming tide. After a few experiences of the force of the tide, the child moves further up shore, away from the wrath of the oncoming tide. The external force that initially assisted in the creation of the wet sand to build the childs

182 castle now has become the childs nemesis. The child finally moves so far away from the creative sand that constructing the castle is no longer easy. The construction of the castle and the certain level of permanence desired for the child to keep an interest in building the castle has now become a great deal of effort and time each time is must be reconstructed. There is a movement away from the facilitative forces. The sand as illustrated in the metaphor is likened to leadership, the creative force. As the child or an employee moves further and further away from those creative forces, there is little interaction between the creative sand and the child. In the case of organizations, as individuals are pushed further and further away from the unpredictable tides of leadership, there is no longer a reason to build the castle. Concluding Revelations for Leadership Although a vast body of literature exists on the topic of leadership through the assessments of perceived great leaders and from self-proclaimed great leaders, there is very little if any leadership literature written from the employees perspective. The intent of all phenomenological research is to make heard the unheard voice and to expand, add value, and redefine standards of assessment (Pistrang, Picciotto, & Barker, 2001). This was done by capturing the lived experiences of the employees of a telecommunications company regarding falling into trust and leadership. Members, leaders, and followers, are the persons who empower leaders to lead. The employees voice would seem a proper voice to hear on what makes great leadership great. The intent of the researcher in conducting this study was to make the following three significant contributions to leadership research: (a) to present employees perspective on the elements of falling into trust, (b) to further elucidate the actual process

183 of falling into trust, and (c) to complement the leadership literature by providing the employees voice. The employees voice has been presented as the core of the data presented within the study. Gibb (1991) reiterated that leaders must engender trust, openness, realizing, and interdependence. Trust was presented as relational, bidirectional, open and honest, and a process of observing consistent behavior that matched what was being stated by leadership, capturing the essence of Gibbs TORI theory. This phenomenological research study is significant to the field of leadership because the results provide a more thorough understanding of employee and leadership trust, influence the management and employees behaviors impact on organizational performance, and provide perceptions about trust through the exploration of the lived experience of the employees. The research study provided an alternate and unique perspective for leaders to consider when they try to engage the employee base amidst the chaotic, stressful, and ever-changing work environment. Gibb (1991) and Buber (1996) are major voices that have contributed to the fundamentals of human relations. Gibb and Buber incorporated trust into the complex dimensions of human relations and applied the concepts to organizational leadership theory. Gibb incorporated human elements of trust with organizational needs while Buber developed a method of identifying ways of relating: I-Thou (person to person), I-It (person to person as object), and I-I (narcissism no one else is worthy except the self). The understanding of how employees relate and how employees develop trust is germane to how leaders develop trust in the workplace because employees who have fallen out of trust are not motivated. Lack of motivation costs money.

184 The ability to lead, inspire, and guide others is an example of social competencies (Goleman, 2000). The ability for leadership to facilitate the process of falling into trust is also a social competency, so leaders can benefit from understanding the intricacies of that process as presented by the research. The relationship between followership and leadership is a leaders primary responsibility (Heisselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard, 1997). Thus, the research findings provide a new opportunity for an expanded and more thorough understanding with regard to leadership and trust, and an opportunity for a new leadership style to emerge. In the virtual global telecommunications environment, the ability to share and transfer knowledge is an essential driver of the business. Trust has been shown to improve knowledge sharing, growth, and development of organizations (Argyris, 1993; Gibb, 1991; Kramer & Cook, 2005; Schein, 1996). With a strong level of knowledge sharing, the opportunity for creating an optimum learning environment within the telecom industry is essential to retaining knowledge of the most advanced technological advancement and innovations. Trust in leadership, leadership direction, and leadership decisions, assist in the growth and development of an organization and the employees (Kramer & Cook). Telecommunications being an industry of constant technological advancement, it is important to understand how falling into trust is facilitated within the work environment. Recommendations The recommendations of each coresearcher were captured regarding how leadership can facilitate the phenomenon of falling into trust or the FIT environment.

185 CR 1 stated, I would recommend what we began a year ago, which was the employee engagement surveys, and acting upon those surveys, and focus groups. Things to try and improve employee morale, which again are relationship-driven. CR 2 stated, I am very cynical about things like that, at least in this corporation I dont believe it can happen, I dont believe anything can be done to change that, because I have already have some experiences where suggestions were made, and you know the VP merely said, I dont believe in that, end of story. So, there is a culture within a corporation that, that exists, and the older the corporation and the more heritage it has, the harder it is for that culture to change. And when the culture becomes institutionalized by policies and procedures, then I believe it becomes very easy, I think, for the senior folks in the corporation to feel that they are meeting all their obligations by hitting all the touch points in the policies. So, throw a bunch of courses together and make all your employees take a bunch of ethics about business ethics. But actually you never hear about it outside that environment. So yes we met the letter of the law, and we can prove it because we are making everybody check off, and keep track, to make sure every person in the corporation understands an went for this ethics training, but you never hear about it in a conversation or in a meeting, when you are actually discussing real interactions with customers or vendors, at least I never have. (CR 2) CR 3 stated, So, I would say, the problem we have today, are the leadership changes or restructure, more often than we get a customer, or a major customer, so what

186 happens there, is we really need a stable, fresh leadership team. So that we can say ok yes, this person brings in new ideas, rather than just we didnt reach our margins this time, we exceeded our revenue except with our bad margins we need to lay off some people. So I say that the ideas need to change of the management or they have to think more of the way the future could work for us, and this would enable trust, if the managers would share that with us at a higher extent than they did before. (CR 3) CR 4 stated, Changes need to be made I think that if we are talking <<org>> we get so caught up in what we are doing that we have forgotten where we are going and why we are going there. And we get hung up in fire drills and I gotta have this yesterday, today, in ten minutes. We dont do a very good job, we dont think about it. We also dont bring together the people that can affect change. I created a carnival for mentally challenged kids, it ran for 16 years, back in 1986, and one of the things I found as far as being a leader while you can give people jobs to do, you still need to keep in touch with what is happening. You need to keep your pulse on what is happening, when your people are engaged, and you all see the same goal and you all believe in the same goal, it doesnt matter how you get there because you are all . . . the individual way you get to the goal is not as important as everybody believing and seeing the same goal. I dont believe we have that here. I am going to go out on a limb here. I think our VP doesnt understand people or even like people. And I think that comes across every single time he opens his mouth and I cant change him, but I also have knowledge that he has

187 been told that. I think that if he could work on that. If people could stop making decisions in vacuums. Rumors in this company are destructive and cost a lot of waste in productivity. If there was a way that people could have a forum to go and talk about things without retribution, or the feeling that you were going to be retributed against, I think you would see a workforce that was ready to move mountains but it all comes with people believing that they are needed, and making them feel that they are part of the organization. I dont think we have that right now. (CR 4) CR 5 responded, Well if I were to look at it from a hard standpoint, I would try to start with all new employees that have the experience level of the employees we have today, but dont have the baggage of previous management. I really do believe and I have mentioned this to my manager or my director, he as a director going back to another manger <<<name>>> are two of the best managers I have ever worked with. And we need more people like that. That the level we have with our current workforce, and I can only speak for the location I am at. <<<location>>> has been a production line workforce, by that we are line engineers, customer service people, delivering engineering and product to customer. It was a production line organization, and production line orgs are treated differently than a development organization, and rightfully so. They have to be. Production line organizations had to meet certain quality and timeliness requirements in a different way than the design community, and people were beat

188 up, told when they could take their breaks, and when they could leave, it was just a strange environment to grow up in as professional. (CR 5) CR 6 stated, I would recommend, lets see, an effort to try and be a little more consistent with expectations, and as examples things like, our expectation is to improve the performance of something for the customer. And most people could resonate with that. But, we create an expectation of making a certain metric turn green, and that becomes the focus versus whether or not we supported the customer. And I think employees in general can get more around the conceptual, most people can make the connection that if you can make things better for the customer, you can garner more business and you become more successful as a company. So more consistency in the ultimate goal, which is customer satisfaction and things, Id recommend, rather than . . . of course this is based on my own opinion but, I think we have, there are certain, you find employees that relish, and appreciate and work with really honest data, on how the company is doing, on what the expectations are over the next three months or 6 months, 3 years, for what businesses we are going to be in, what skills people will need, and how to grow people toward those skills. And I think more honest communication around that would be helpful, I think we should and could take more time helping employees understand the nuances of where the company is, and why some of the things that appear ridiculous at some level, actually do have a plan behind them, but we dont take the time to share it. And there are also cases where the time is taken to share it,

189 and there are some employees that dont know what to do with same information, they dont know what to do with it, and no one will tell them what to do with it, and therefore they are frustrated. The corporation cant be in a position particularly as we are continuing to shrink, to be too prescriptive about what any one individual should do, because the leadership team cant make any commitments about long term whats best for an employee, and employee has to figure that out for themselves. But for an employee to figure it out for themselves, you have to give them honest, complete information. And that is what I think we dont get to the employees enough, and usually that is because the leadership hasnt made the decisions, you know havent decided in final fact what the key aspects are. What else can the leadership do to improve connections? I think our leadership could do more to partner together amongst themselves and support each other, and therefore demonstrate by their actions, a model for individual contributors to follow where they really and truly partner with other groups in the organization. (CR 6) CR 7 stated, I think that that happens by having people at the helm who are there hopefully for the same reasons that everyone else is there. And that is, maybe a love for the business or the product that they put out there, or the philanthropic, no wrong word, the advancement of society in general. I think we are in a really good spot for that at <<company>>. Where we do provide things that we can actually improve the lives of people on the planet, and make a difference, and I never felt so much that really till 911 you mean I can tell you, the impact that had on me in

190 Lisle, Il . But I knew on that day I knew just exactly why I was here. They need to have firm moral values. They need to see that those moral values apply towards what they do in their business. And, see that the people that work for them, also use, or are under that same understanding of morality or of ethics that they are. I think once you have unethical behaviors in leadership roles, trust is very hard to achieve. (CR 7) CR 8 stated, I think upper management at the very top levels and I dont mean corporate levels, I mean vice presidential levels, have to state what they believe in, have to demonstrate that they believe in it themselves, have to set an example that they are willing to have an open door policy as much as logistics will allow. They have to be one-on-one with as many people as they possibly can be. They have to step away from artificial barriers at management levels, people will always know that there is a hierarchy; people will always know that there are protocols, you dont necessarily want to jump around levels of management. You would be much better off if. You would be much better off if levels of management worked they way they were supposed to. And they were simply stair steps to carry communication and deal with the logistics of a large organization. (CR 8) CR 9 stated, I think that the leadership has to be consistent with what they say and what they do. I think that inconsistency causes problems with trust, so I think that for example, I think consistency of message, and even though we get that, we get <<company>> goals and all that stuff, all the time, there is still a divergence

191 between what they say and what they do. They say they adhere to these values, you see things happen that indicate that they dont really do that. So I think a good company needs to be consistent in its message. I think the leadership needs to be visible and present, and take them as role models, a consistency in message I think is very important, and the fact that its an ethical organization, and that you know that there is no doubt in your mind that its straight up and ethical. (CR 9) CR 10 stated, There is always a gap between the employee and the leadership. There is, I dont think theres any way that that gap could be filled up totally. Its an in-between the person in the leadership role there is that piece of trust that goes, that says well, I know he cant tell me everything, but I know enough about this person to feel comfortable in saying if they tell me that this is the road I should be on, then thats the road I should take. And Im trusting that person enough to stay on that road and stay on that road and do my own thing. I dont necessarily think that after you get over your initial manager or your, and again initial manager could be supervisor manager, its basically once it gets off site out of the organization, I dont want to get to far off on this. Theres a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, year-to-year process that builds up the trust, when you have interaction between two people. If you dont have that interaction, I think its difficult to build up that trust. You dont know how that person is going to react because you dont interact with that person. You may say you are doing a great job, and you are the greatest guy to come along since Teddy Roosevelt, and we are going to put you in for all these

192 awards, and he takes care of me, but I dont have that interaction of trust. And thank you very much and I appreciate it. But, if he tells me something and I dont interact with him and I have to really go back and take a really hard look at it and determine if its really the true thing. Whereas if Im interacting with him, I get an idea if hes BSing me or not or when he is trying to help me or not, if hes trying to help me fly the nest and fly on my own. Go up the next level I dont have that interface, so trying to trust him, how do I, how does he or she, relate back to me. She doesnt even know me. You know you see things, you hear things, and then they say something, and then you are like, how does that relate. I think there has to be more interaction between you know . . . you have to be brought into the nest, there is, with all these acquisitions, changes, you dont know, you really, unless you have been working with that person on a long term basis. We know our group, I know if I can trust this one or trust that one. . . . I dont know anybody else out of my group. Somebodys telling me this, and yet, Im seeing all these people laid off, Ive seen part of my job going over to India, Im hearing some dumb VP saying how great it is over there. You know and Im saying what am I chopped liver, theres no, you know, I understand but I dont understand, I dont know how you fix that. I understand theyre busy, and there are certain people that are at a level where you are working to get . . . new business, new acquisition. New whatever, and yah they cant come around to all the new places because it is physically impossible.

193 The quarterly meetings, they are talking about stuff that does not apply to me. I dont hear, I hear rhetoric, I hear somebody answer a question, and I hear somebody do a jig for five minutes, and then say, I hope that answers your question. Well now, if there is a problem with answering a question, as much as I would like to answer that question for you, were in the process of doing something we cant discuss. We are not kids, tell it like it is, good or bad, but dont go off and do a jig and come back 5 minutes later and tell me how great I am, and go off and tell me how great everything it is. I can accept that, there are questions I cant answer. Thats a tough question, I suppose if you stopped the rhetoric, and stopped the jigs, and you kind of say I know you cant say to every question, but ill get back to you. I mean somebody asks a question when will the fmps stop. Well we cant really say for sure because we dont know. Dont say, well it all depends on the business climate. Hey, wed like to stop the fmps today . . . just tell me that. I think its a time where from the top on down to the bottom guy all feel like they are part of the team, and working toward the same goal, there is no difference between people in section of this country and a section here because these people have been here longer and get treated better or worse, everyone has to feel as though they are part of the organization from top to bottom. There are no prima donnas, within the organization and there are important people and there are people who are smarter, and can do things that other people cant do, and there are people that have to sweep the sidewalk, if you dont pick up the garbage, you end up with a pile of crap. So doesnt matter how smart you are, you have to

194 make sure everyone feels like they are part of the crew. Everybody has to be rowing in the direction. You cant have the captain rowing in one direction and everyone is rowing in the other. (CR 10) CR 11 stated, I think it would be helpful for leadership to be trusted more if more information about why decisions were made, were shared, and but, by the same token, as decisions are explained, its like sometimes you dont believe it, so and maybe its just a situation here has been bad for a few years with people exiting the company and because people are existing the company, and people are exiting the company, and people exiting the company, the people in leadership seem to have retained their leadership structure more than I feel is necessary to support the employees beneath them. I would say more communication, I think its a double edged sword for more communication just because the information that comes out can be seen positively or negatively, and it could have a positive impact on trust or it could be viewed as an excuse that youre really not trustworthy you are feeding me a line of crap because the action and the words dont seem to line up. And the words dont seem to explain the actions properly. (CR 11) CR 13 stated, I would recommend would be two, two things one continue to improve on our leadership development programs that exist within the organization, to encourage good healthy talent based management and communication, at the end of the day knowing ones own self around what talents they bring to the table and being able to recognize what other people bring to the table and being able to have good

195 open conversations around those I think they will go along way towards making people not just be managers any more but more leaders capable of helping subordinates become more effective and that in and of itself will open better dialogue for trust in the organization. There also exists a ridiculous number of anti trust barriers in the company that look like span of control, driven organizational structures where people create empires. Bring folks into their organization, and create work without regards to what it is that actually needs to be done. Those types of behaviors coupled with bad budgeting behaviors, and organizational turf battles make leaders seem to be not trust worthy. And regardless of whether or not those individual leaders are to be or not to be trusted it doesnt lend itself for people to report to those leaders to open up and be willing to take a plunge into that type of a relationship where you get connection, and you get exchange of ideas. Rather people drive in the opposite information, they hold onto information, they hold onto work, they hold on decisions, or ideas so as to protect the arbitrary structures that have been put in place. An example of this one of the people who I do not trust a peer of mine outside of this organization, because of his organizational structure, and because of what his particular <<omit>> level always demands of him to enforce that organizational structure, he is very guarded on his ideas and where things are to go, and even when I will have a very pointed conversation with him, about a way to improve the business, because of that organizational structure he will deliberately get quiet, not open up and talk to me, and will even fess up and say

196 <<omit>> I agree with you, but I dont represent my thinking I represent my<<omit>> levels thinking and this is what I must do. And so its easy to blame he is just working for a jerk, but in fact he is protecting an old school set of structures and rules about how you create an set up an organizational, how you develop an organization within this company, and how you define its success. And, you dont define an organization by its output, you define an organization by its longevity to exist on its own, and its degree of independence from the rest of the company. When an <<omit>> level or above creates that kind of behavior it encourages people to not want to fall into trusting relationships with the exception of those who are very close to them. And, I suspect that it isolates. Many people who work in that organization be it working for this leader or be it working for this leaders boss, or one level below, feel trapped, dont trust one another, dont trust, are wrapped up in a game of hiding information, scrubbing things before it leaves the walls. Always wanting their particular leader to look good, any time date comes out of that organization, and the relative lack of dishonesty, my suspicion is keeps everyone looking over their shoulder all the time, in that particular organization and encourages me as an outsider to not trust any of them. And those types of barriers need to be torn down. We need to take a close look at what it is we are encouraging, how we are rewarding in our organizational structures, how we choose leaders that create those types of structures, once you tackle that, you can cascade a whole new way of thinking about relationships between subordinates, and supervisors and even peer relationships.

197 CR 15 stated, I think that they would have to go through some emotional, physical, training experience, with a group of individuals that led to some sort of success. I think that would facilitate the building of trust and bonds. I think without that everything is doing to be superficial. (CR 15) Reflections on Recommendations Leadership must remember that a FIT (Falling Into Trust) environment consists of open and honest communication that is consistent and clear. Employees are sensitive to changes in corporate direction invested in the greater good of the company, so the importance of honesty amidst constant change is imperative. Trust forms the foundation, or the dynamic precondition for any free enterprise system (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 11). Any work environment is a complex set of relationships based on the trust that each contributor is going to follow through on the promises each member of the organization makes, inclusive of the leadership. Leaders must understand the responsibility and complexity of the role of leadership within an organization as well as how that responsibility impacts the FIT environment. Relationships are bi-directional; there is give and take and a need for reciprocity. Trust for most people does not occur right away. Falling into trust is a culmination of observing consistent behavior of leaders walking the talk. The FIT environment is open and honest, and it participates in relationships, takes relationships seriously, and sees relationships as important. This is FITness with a clear vision, a mission, and goals for a team that understands the company direction and works toward the greater good of the company and the surrounding society. In FITness, employees are comfortable to challenge themselves, take risks, and support

198 customers in creative ways without the fear of repercussion. The FIT environment is fit to take on the only thing that is constant, and that is change (Handy, 2000). Conclusion Falling into trust (FIT) and the environment where FITness occurs are observed when leadership and management present with clarity a vision, mission, and honest measurable outcomes. The mission is communicated honestly, openly, and with consistency. The overarching intent of the corporation is for the greater good of society and the individuals dedicating their time and efforts to the company. The FIT environment is an environment of reciprocity. When mutual investment is observed with a level of consistency, a sense of comfort grows into trust, and the FIT environment, although seemingly less apt to occur in the workplace, does occur as powerfully as it does outside of the workplace. Although the barriers within the telecommunications corporate environment may be great and the time it takes to fall into trust may be affected by the task at hand or by mistrustful behavior, when an individual falls into trust, it is no different inside the corporate doors than out. FIT is FIT. Trust is trust. Either leadership is trusted or it is not. One either trusts one manager or does not, and the same happens for colleagues. If the environment is not FIT, the consequences can be devastating. Once a colleague stops trusting a colleague, as Joni (2005) stated, time and money is lost on double-checking work. If the environment is not FIT in terms of passing on consistently good information, in an honest fashion, money is lost double-checking methodology and calculations. If employees have fallen out of trust (FOT) resulting from lack of clarity around direction (i.e., the corporate mission and ultimate goal which is to sustain the company),

199 employees lose motivation, get less done, fear repercussions, and take longer to make decisions. In business, time is equated with money. In the FIT environment, time passes quickly, motivation is high, and the working hours are not spent double-checking work, ironing out animosity, or repeating cycles. Employees feel confident and sense a connection to the greater goals of the company. As a result, they do not feel restricted, can make decisions easily, share information readily, and service the customer efficiently and effectively. Business is conducted via relationships, and trust is the foundation of relationships. . . . Directly and indirectly, trust is related to individual, group and overall organizational performance (Reina & Reina, 1999, p.8). Time spent double checking work and avoiding colleagues when trust is not present slows progress toward corporate goals. A FIT workplace allows employees to concentrate on the job and to not have to spend time worrying about what other people are doing. Employees, as a result, are empowered to do the job they were hired to do.

200 REFERENCES Adamy, P., & Heinecke, W. (2005). The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 233-255. Adebayo, D. O. (2005). Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership and motivation in the Nigerian police: Implications for change. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 7(2), 110-122. Akdere, M. (2005). Social capital theory and implications for human resource development. Singapore Management Review, 27(2), 1-23. Al-Kazemi, A. (1998). The self-managed team and TORI theory. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 8, 70-88. Anderson, W. T. (1992). Reality isnt what it used to be. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley. Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the iron cage: Which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(7/8), 315-320. Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19, 244-257. Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches/distrust. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 521-525. Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3-4), 201-211.

201 Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stodgills handbook of leadership: Theory research and managerial application (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Beer, M., & Cannon, M. D. (2004, Spring). Promise and peril in implementing pay-forperformance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 3-20. Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Bolton, B. (2005). Control or lead? Its your choice. Information Systems Management, 22(3), 81-82. Boslego, J. (2005). Engineering social trust. Harvard International Review, 27(1), 28-31. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Language & symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Boyd, J. W., & Williams, R. G. (2005). Japanese Shinto: Interpretation of a priestly perspective. Philosophy East & West, 55, 1, 33-63. Brazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2003). The NVIVO qualitative project book. London: Sage Publicaions. Brazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2005). The NVivo qualitative project book. London: Sage Publications. Breacher, A. (2005). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Society for Technical Communication, 52(2), 90-91. Bruce, D. H. (2005). The accountable organization: Reclaiming integrity, restoring trust. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 526-528. Buber, M. (1996). I and Thou. (Kaufmann, Trans.) New York: Simon and Schuster. (Original work published 1923). Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

202 Carnevale, D. G. (1993). Root dynamics of alternative dispute resolution: An illustration. Public Administration Review, 53(5), 455-461. Casey, C. (2004). Bureaucracy re-enchanted? Spirit, experts and authority in organizations. Organization, 11, 59-70. Ciulla, J. B. (2001). Carving leaders from the warped wood of humanity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration, 18(3), 313-319. Claburn, T. (2005, January 20). Report: Employees doubt companies workplacemonitoring motives. Systems Managment Pipeline. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from http://www.systemsmanagementpipeline.com/57703085 Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins. Cooper, M. (2003). I-I and I-ME: Transposing Bubers interpersonal attitudes to the intrapersonal plane. Journal of Constructive Psychology, 16, 131-153. Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press. Cowperthwaite, L., & Holm, R. (2005). Attendees learn about leadership, human resources, and technology during the 2005 congress managers program. Association of Operating Room Nurses Journal, 81(6), 1225- 1231. Cratnopol, M. (2002). The dwelling places of self-experience. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12(2), 259-284. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

203 Cross, R., Liedtka, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). A practical guide to social networks. Business Source Premiere, 83, 124-132. Cuffe, S. S. (2005). Future e-business models and strategies for managers. Futurics, 29(1/2), 41-46. Curley, M. A. Q. (1998). Patient-nurse synergy: Optimizing patient's outcomes. American Journal of Critical Care Nursing, 7(1), 64-72. Deems, R., & Deems, T. (2003). Leading through tough times: The managers guide to responsibility, trust and motivation. Amherst, CA: Human Resource Development Press, Inc. del Castillo, E., & Yaez, C. (2004). Turning concepts into success. Business Mexico, 14(8), 48-49. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations: Toward complementary communities of practice. Management Learning, 33(1), 99-126. Drucker, P. (Speaker). (2005). On point with management guru Peter Drucker. National Public Radio 90.9 WBUR, Boston University (Broadcast August 2, 2005 @ 8pm Eastern). Rebroadcast on WBUR.org http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050802_a_main.asp. Egan, T. M., & Lancaster, C. M. (2005). Comparing appreciative inquiry to action research. OD practitioner perspectives. Organizational Development Journal, 23(2), 29-39.

204 Entcorp (2004, December 12). Title employee satisfaction. Employee Motivation, Retrieved January 2005, from http://www.frequentlyasked.info/articles/?q=node/93. Erikson, E. (1993). Childhood and society. New York: Norton Paperback. Fairlamb, D., Matlack, C., & Ihlwan, M. (2002, January 28). Europes bean counters are sneering; Enron is fueling a global duel over rules. Business Week (3767), 55. Farquhar, S. A., Michael, Y. L. & Wiggins, N. (2005). Building on leadership and social capital to create change in 2 urban communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 596-576. Feiner, M. (2004). The Feiner points of leadership: The 50 basic laws that will make people want to perform better for you. New York: Warner Business Books. Fram, M. S. (2004). Research for progressive change: Bourdieu and social work. The Social Service Review, 78, 553-576. Francis, J. B., & Simon, M. K. (2001). The dissertation and research cookbook. (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man's search for meaning. Riverside, NJ: Simon & Schuster. Friedman, M. S. (2002). Martin Buber: The life of dialogue. (4th ed.). London: Routledge. Furness, V. (2005). A quiet word. Employee benefits, 5/05, 45. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from Business Source Premiere. Gagne, T. E. (1995). Designing effective organizations: Traditional and transformational views. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

205 Garvin, T. (2001). Analytical paradigms: The epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. An International Journal, 21(3), 443456. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1998). The mind's past. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Gibb, J. R. (1991). Trust: A new vision of human relationships for business, education, family, and personal living. North Hollywood, CA: Newcastle Publishing. Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis exploration with NVivo. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press. Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 321-338. Goleman, D. (2000). Working with emotional intelligence. NY: Bantam Books. Greenall, P. (2004). Managerial process: The reflective practitioner. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 17(4/5), viii-xii. Greener, M. J., & Guest, J. F. (2005). Do antidepressants reduce the burden imposed by depression on employers? CNS Drugs, 19(3), 253-264. Grefen, D. (2004). What makes ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: Linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. Journal of Management Information Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73, 4048. Handy, C. (1998). Beyond certainty: The changing world of organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, C. (2000). The new alchemists. London: Random House. Handy, C. (2005). Understanding organizations. US: Penquin Group.

206 Hanley, E. N. (2004). Leading beyond the shadow-line. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 86, 2553-2600. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Hegel, G. W. F. (2005). Hegel's preface to the phenomenology of spirit (Yirmiyahu Yovel, Trans.). Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Heidegger, M. (1982). On the way to language. New York: Harper and Row. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Dewey, E. J. (2000). Management of organizational behavior: Human resources (8th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (Eds.). (1996). The leader of the future. New York: Jossey-Bass. Hester, J. P. (2003). Ethical leadership for school administrators and teachers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Hillman, J. (1997). The soul's code. New York: Random House. Hlongwane, G. G. (2003). Simunye (We are one!): Discourse of nation-building in South African texts. York University (Canada), 1-339. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from Proquest Digital Dissertations. Hosmer, L. R. (2003). The ethics of management (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67-91. Hultman, K. (2004). Lets wipe out systematic mistrust. Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 102-106.

207 Hurst, P. W., Payla, W., Mills, W. C., One of the corporate worlds biggest headaches: Ethical Behavior. Performance Management, 44(10), 22-27. Hwang, P. (2005). Managing relational bond: An integrative approach*. The Journal of Business, 78(2), 557- 576. Institute of Management & Administration (IOMA). (2004). How training managers fix the loss of corporate trust. Managing Training & Development, 4(3), 5-7. Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 19th to 21st centuries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jaworski, J. (1998). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Jazzar, M. (2005). Tales of micromanagement, Part 1. American School Board Journal, 192(8), 31-33. Johnson D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together Group theory and group skills. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Joni, S. (2005). Trust and the third opinion. Consulting Management, 16, 16-21. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from ABI/INFORM Global database. Kaarst-Brown, M., Nicholson, S., von Dran, G.M., & Stanton, J. M. (2004). Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Library Trends, 53(1), 33-53. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 113-142.

208 Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265. Karathanos, D., & Hillis, B. (2002, March/April). Help them roar. Industrial Management (44), 22-28. Keenan, E. K. (2004). From sociocultural categories to socially located relations: Using critical theory in social work practice. Families in Society, 85, 539-549. Keller, G. F., & Kronstedt, C. R. (2005). Connecting Confucianism, communism, and the Chinese culture of commerce. The Journal of Language for International Business, 16(1), 60-75. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2005). Leadership group coaching in action: The Zen of creating high performance teams. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 61-77. King, J. W. (2005). How we become who we are. Journal of Hand Therapy, 18(1), 5563. Koch, T (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 827-836. Kramer, R. M. & Cook, K. S. (Eds). (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations. NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

209 Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economic$, 23(1), 6-13. Law, K. S., Wong, C., Wang, D. & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 751-756. LaZara, V. (2002). DOC701: Workshop 4, Lecture 1 From Cognitive Development Model. Newsgroup: University of Phoenix Doctorate of Management Program. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Lin, C., & Chou, C. (2005, March). An empirical study on corporate governance mechanism and its antecedents: Evidence from Taiwanese venture capital industry. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 155-161. Mara, G. (2001). Thucydides and Plato on democracy and trust. The Journal of Politics, 63, 820-845. Marques, J., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2005). Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 7, 81-92. Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on management. NY, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mason, G. L. (2005). Connectivity as a basis for a systems modeling ontology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, 69-80. McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (1998). The center for creative leaderships handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

210 McGee, M. K. (2005). Midcareer crisis. InformationWeek, 1043, 36-40. McGee-Cooper, A. (2005). Tribalism: Culture wars at work. The Journal of Quality and Participation, 28, 12-16. McKenzie, G. K. (2005, Fall). Working together: Collaborative school leadership fosters a climate of success. Montessori Life. 17(4), 38-43. Merleau-Ponty, M (2003). Phenomenology of perception. London, NY: Routledge Classics. Misztal, B. A. (2001). Trust and cooperation: The democratic public sphere. Journal of Sociology, 37(4), 371-386. Moon, M. J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does the organization matter? Public Administration Review, 59(1), 31. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organizations: The executive edition, abridged. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Moser, P., & Vander Nat, A. (1995). Human knowledge: Classical and contemporary approaches (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Moustakas, C. (1996). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Myron, D. (2004). Stolen names, big numbers. Ithaca, 26(7), 36-38. Newmeyer, J. (2005). Splitting hairs, helping heirs. Harvard International Review, 27, 80-81. Oiler-Boyd, C. (2001). Phenomenology: The method. In P.L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

211 Oliver, M. (1997). History of philosophy: Great thinkers from 600 B.C. to the present day. Great Britain: Hamlyn, A division of Octopus Publishing Group. Othman, R., & Hashim, N. A. (2004). Typologizing organizational amnesia. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3), 273-284. O'Toole, J. (1996). Leading change: The argument for values based leadership. New York: Random House. Paswan, A. (2005). The knowledge advantage. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(4/5), 441-445. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Payne, R. L., & Clark, M. C. (2003). Dispositional and situational determinants of trust in two types of managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 128-139. Perry. R. W., & Mankin, L. D. (2004). Understanding employee trust in management: Conceptual clarification and correlates. Public Personnel Management, 33, 277291. Persaud, A. (2001). The knowledge gap. Foreign Affairs, New York, 80, 107-118. Pistrang, N., Picciotto, A., & Barker, C. (2001). The communication of empathy in couples during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(6), 615-636. Predpall, D. F. (1994, May-June). Developing Quality Improvement Processes In Consulting Engineering Firms. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(3), 3031.

212 Ramanujan, S. & Jane, S. (2006). A legal perspective on outsourcing and offshoring. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), pp. 51-59. Rechtman, J. S. B. (2001). Wonder. Tikkun, 15, 80. Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. J., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Santmire, H. P. (2005). A reformation theology of nature transfigured: Joseph Sittlers invitation to see as well as to hear. Theology Today, 61, 509-528. Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and post-modernism. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. Schein, E. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240. Schuster, S. C. (2004). The autobiography of I and thou: A philosophical psychoanalysis. Existential Analysis, 12, 133-126. Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B. S. (2004a). Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future. Cambridge, MA: SoL (The Society for Organizational Learning). Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2004b). Awakening faith in an alternative future a consideration of presence: Human purpose and the field of the future. Reflections, 5(7), 1-9.

213 Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shafritz, J. M., & Ott, J. S. (1996). Classics of organization theory (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College. Sikorska-Simmons E. (2005). Predictors of organizational commitment among staff in assisted living. The Gerontologist, 45(2), 196-205. Simon, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-37. Skinner, C., & Spurgeon, P. (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health leadership: A study of empathy, leadership behaviour and outcome effectiveness. Health Services Management Research, 18, 1-12. Smith, T. (2005). Social capital and information technology. Engineering Management Journal, 17(1), 40-41. Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2003). Building trust: In business, politics, and life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Speares, L .C., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spence-Laschinger, H. K., & Finnegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23, 6-13. Stephenson, C. (2004, January/February). Rebuilding trust: The integral role of leadership in fostering values, honesty and vision. Ivy Business Journal, 1-5.

214 Stidvent, V. (2005). Impact of regulation on U.S. manufacturing. FDCH Congressional Testimony 6/28/2005, MasterFILE Premiere. Subramamaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of the intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-464. Sussman, L. (1991). Managers: on the defensive. Business Horizons, 34(1), 81-86. Swett, R. N. (2005). Leadership by design. Atlanta, GA: Greeway Vommunications, LLC. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning. Great Britain & United States: Kogan Page Limited. Tichey, N. M. (2002). The cycle of leadership: How great leaders teach their companies to win. NY: Harper-Collins Publishers. Triola, M. (2001). Elementary statistics (8th ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley. Turner, J. R., & Mller, R. (2005). The project managers leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 4962. Vallario, C. W. (2005). Top committee agendas: Trust & Accountability. Financial Executive, 21(1), p. 28-31. van Kaam, A. (1987). Scientific formation: Formative spirituality. New York: Crossroad Publishing. Van Manen, (1990). Researching lived experience. London: The State University of New York Press.

215 Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, X. C. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432. Watts, D. (2001). CEOs role in IT-driven organizational change. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 3(3), 44-51. Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership & Organizational Development, 22(5/6), 291300. Weymes, E. (2005). Organizations which make a difference: a philosophical argument for the people focused organization. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 142-158. Wheatley, M. (1994). Leaders and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wheatley, M. (2002, Summer). Turning to one another: Simple conversation to restore hope to the future. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 25, 8-20. Retrieved May 30, 2003, from EBSCOHost database. Whitmeyer, J. M., Webster, M., & Rashotte, L. S. (2005). When status equals make status claims. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2), 179-186. Wiland, E. (2004). Trusting advice and weakness of will. Social Theory and Practice, 30, 371-389. Williams, L. (2002). Creating the congruent workplace. Challenges for people and their organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

216 Wishard, V. (2005). Understanding our moment in history: Living between two ages. Vital Speeches of the Day, 71(14), 442-448. Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader's companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New York: The Free Press. Yan, J., & Hunt, J. G. (2005). A cross cultural perspective on perceived leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM, 5, q, 49-66.

217 APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Subject: Participation Request: Co-researchers To Whom this May Concern: I, xxxxxxxxxxxx, am a doctoral candidate in the University of Phoenix Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership program. I did receive permission from <<place of employment>> Human Resources to make this request. I am conducting research for my dissertation that involves interviewing employees (co-researchers) on the topics of trust and falling into trust in the workplace from an employee perspective. The intent is to explore the phenomenon of falling into trust to provide the leadership literature with a more thorough perspective from an employee view on trust, how leaders facilitate trust, and how it is experienced within the workplace. As a recognized employee, and if you are self identified as having had the experience of falling into trust within the workplace, I would like to ask whether you might be interested in participating in this study. Participation would involve having a taped interview on the subjects of your personal experience of falling into trust at a location of your choice. You would also receive a transcribed manuscript to review for corrections and errors. The interview should last from between a half hour to an hour. This has no relationship what-so-ever with your position at Lucent Technologies, but is an effort to capture your experience at <<place of employment>>. The research will not identify you or your place of employment. Your participation in this study would be strictly voluntary, and you could choose to withdraw from participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself or your position at Lucent. In addition, all information would be confidential. While the results of this study will be published, your name would not be identified. There would be no foreseeable risks to yourself or your position, and if desired, you would have access to the final dissertation. I realize that you are extremely busy, but I would greatly appreciate your participation if at all possible. Should you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. Should you decide to participate I will explain the study and answer any questions or any other related issues prior to you volunteering. You have the choice at anytime during the interview to withdraw your participation, as it is strictly voluntary and without consequence. This study aims to add to the limited body of literature an insight into the employee experience of trust and the experience of falling into trust within the workplace.

Co-researcher: I, <<participant>>, an employee of a major telecommunications company have voluntarily agreed to participate in this research study. My participation in the study is

218 entirely voluntary and my participation or non-participation will not be reported to any Lucent staff member, direct or otherwise. I understand the following: 1. I may refuse to participate and/or withdraw at any time without consequence to my employment. 2. Research records and list of interviewees will be confidential. 3. Personal anonymity will be guaranteed. 4. Results of research data will be used for presentation and publications. 5. As the data is presented, I can choose to be identified as the source of that information for group discussion purposes. 6. xxxxxxxxxxx has explained this study to me and answered my questions. If I have any other questions regarding research related issues, I can be reached at work or at home #s. There are no other agreements, written or verbal related to this study beyond that expressed in this consent and confidentiality form and the form you will sign off on regarding your acceptance of the transcription of the interview you participated in. I, the undersigned, understand the above explanation, and I give consent to my voluntary participation in this research. Signature of the interviewee__________________________________ Date__________ Signature of the researcher___________________________________ Date__________ Thank you in advance for your kind consideration and response. Sincerely,
========== =============================

<< contact information>>

219 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTIONS CR 1:Coresearcher #1

# Years employed 5.5 Your position Network se Any direct reports No Gender Male

[Q1]What is it you understand your role to be within your company? Ahhm NSE as an employee to support my major account customer <deleted company name> for their data network

[Q2]Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Trust means to me...Trust would mean a. . . bi-directional relationship with respect, ahh, trust would also mean a relationship actually getting to know somebody, even though it has to be professional, you have to get to know something about them personally to trust them . . .

220 Its hard, just a ahhm. . . I mean. . . .just a ahhm . . . It would need to be a relationship that obviously if you can trust someone you can be comfortable it would allow you to be creative. So I guess trust would just lead to a better working environment working relationships and should ultimately lead to better customer satisfaction

[Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? Its more of a feeling of being comfortable around certain individuals that you have fallen into trust with, but I would have to say I have only fallen into trust with certain individuals, not so much the company. The company is something you dont see, it is represented by different people. You know what Im saying.

[Q4]If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. Ahh . . . a great experience it is like ahhm, once you or when you begin to feel that you dont feel like you are at work as much or you dont feel like you are working as much and you are in a place where it is more comfortable and you can be you more without fear of what am I doing wrong without setting yourself up politically so I would have to say it is more of a comfort level

[Q5]How would you define synergy in the workplace? Synergy to me means flow. Rain, it means flow it means things moving along on a road toward a common goal, and every time you have a hiccup or a problem, whoever is with you or the group is able to handle it without any real problems or breakdowns.

221

[Q6]How would you define connection in the workplace? Connection I would define, I guess it almost, ok, I guess connection would be like a moment of trust, if that is such a think . . . kind of a . . . moment a period of time, you feel you are on the same page as somebody if someone says you are on the same page, or we seem to be on the same wavelength, thats a connection

[Q7]How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? I guess for me trust is trust, I dont know that theres different types of trust, so it would be my original definition of trust

[Q8]If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had? I have experienced it but on for a short period of time, until, you know and this happened very quickly, the manager was able to prove himself to be not trustworthy. Meaning when you make a connection and begin to trust somebody, and you start to feel comfortable, and then somebody throws that trust away by there actions. Or something, some kind of an even that obviously shows you that he does not have your best interests in mind, and he is just out for himself.

222 [Q9]What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? The events that led me to trust was . . . basically, as a new employee ahh you come in and your manager is the person you are reporting too, obviously, and you have to have a level of respect up front, while you are learning. And then your manager begins to gain your respect, and you begin to trust certain aspects of the relationship. So I would have to say the beginning when I was a new hire, and starting to work issues and deal with the customer with my customer, does that answer it?

[Q10] How does this connection or having fallen into trust, impact your day-today work? Well it goes back to the synergy question. It becomes an easy environment to be in. Youre comfortable again, you feel confident, you feel creative, when you pick up the phone to talk to your customer, and you feel confident you dont feel like there is anything restricting you, then your customer service is high, and your morale in work and your attitude stay high

[Q11] How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? Disconnect is just another negative feeling that over time will add up to my moral and my attitude being affected. If you had trust and synergy, then disconnect would only be a momentary thing, and you should be able to work toward a compromise. Its pretty freaking simple.

223 [Q12]What are the organizational rules that are implicit or unwritten that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? If so, what do you believe them to be? Ah, I dont that I really understand that. Organizational rules?

Are there any organizational rules, managerial rules, company rules that are not written that impact the facilitation?

First thing that comes to mind is relationship, there is nothing that defines a relationship in any manuals or anything, and that is something that as a manager and as an employee needs to have a relationship in order to be successful together.

[Q13]What are the organizational rules that are explicit which facilitate trust in your organization? Long silence . . . you say rules and trust, and rules almost is like a negative term so I guess it is hard for me to answer those last two questions . . . they are hard to think of an answer for. Do you mean like rules, I mean how would you describe that questions? ---what are the org rules written or stated clearly that you believe facilitate trust Things that help you along, like training rules, like guidelines ---anything that you feel facilitate trust you first said rules to you were a negative term Its not fair for me to say rules are negative. I dont even know how to answer that.

224 [Q14] Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what would you recommend? I would recommend yes. And I would recommend what we began a year ago, which was the employee engagement surveys, and acting upon those surveys, and focus groups. Things to try and improve employee morale, which again are relationship driven.

[Q15] In your opinion how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? From the get go, you can tell they are a relationship environment, a relationship driven environment, they care about their people, they treat their people with respect, and if those things are in place, then the team, the team environment is created. So people are happier, better morale, do you want me to go on. . . . I just wanted to stress that there is a . . . like a snow ball effect, and if you can start off on the right foot with that environment, which the company can create, then you are going to have happy employees, managers that can focus on managing situations and events that keep their employees happy. And ultimately your customer or end user will be satisfied resulting in complete success.

It really is pretty simple. . . CR 2: Coresearcher #2

Years of employment 4.8

225 Role IT/Senior systems analsyst Organizations Knowledge management org

Gender Male

[Q1]What is it you understand your role to be in your company

Do whatever my manager indicates he would like me to do.

[Q2]Describe and discuss what trust means to you

I GUESS part of to me its a feeling between, that I have about other people whether I have, and it goes in two different directions, I, I trust other people by sort of an amalgamation of prior events and interactions that I had with them, and ahhm It is a result of conversations, understanding what their value system really is, and observing how they interact with other people. Ah <<pause>>. Id like to think that peoples trust in me somewhat works the same with me. That it is based on my behavior and prior interactions with people, and in conversations and their observing me, you know, dealing with other people. So you know there is the classical meanings of what trust are. I guess, once I establish a level of what I think somebodys actions are, or reactions over a broad,

226 you know, area, I then establish this multi-tiered trust model, that says I can trust somebody on this range of subjects about things because I understand where their boundaries are. And I think they will be consistent about whatever that is. So if somebody is openly prejudicial about something, and I think I understand where those boundaries are, I dont necessarily have to agree with them. I can establish a certain level of trust about what their actions are going to be given some situation. Even to me.

About something different, I might not have the same level of trust with the same person, because I dont really understand what their action or reaction is about something. So in other words, I could trust you on a hundred subjects, but maybe you and I have never had an encounter, where we were both, say consuming alcohol. So I havent established a trust, about whether I could trust you enough to be safe driving, because I really dont know. Because based on actions about similar kinds of things, I have no idea at all. So ther there is some level of trust based on some things I know, but not the same deep level until we have experienced that. So if you and I had been out going to bars and you said, I have to stop now, so I can drive home. I am not going to do this anymore. Another point of trust along this mountainous kind of curve would be established around other things like that.

[Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace?

I guess it is a set of experiences that establish ah, you know, level of trust, that are important in the workplace. So, its, Id say it is experience based. Personally, I tend to

227 start off trying to give everyone a hi level of trust, and because we work in a professional environment. And then I think I notch it down perhaps, based on experience (laughing) so I am trusting by nature, but I can be proved to be incorrect.

[Q4] If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy or trust with a manager, please describe the element of this experience

With my current manager, no, I have not even gotten close.

[Q5]How would you define synergy in the workplace?

Ahhm long pause. I guess its a set of actions and mental attitude where team members build on each other. They support each other that they know where they can contribute; everyone feels they are in synchronization with each other . . . everybody builds on everybody else. A fancy word for teamwork [Q6] How would you define connection in the workplace? I guess I would define it as, hesitating to use synonyms for it, like were on the same wavelength or . . . its where a team understands . . . ahhm and I guess has the same goals in mind. Everybody is or has a mental pathway an information pathway between everybody on the team where on the team understands everybody, and everybody understands what the goal is, and all moving forward toward the same goal with an unselfish kind of motivation.

228 [Q7]How would you define trust in the workplace, and if diff than original definition of trust what makes it different than your original definition? Please explain.

Very long pause. . . .. Well, I guess the workplace, trust, I think trust is trust, the workplace tends to be a exist in this envelop of non-permanence, or temporary situation, temporary might be a year or two years, trust might exist in the envelope of a project or a department. So there is, it tends to exist in the envelop of a certain period of time during the day, in other words it is something you can leave. Ahhh, Unlike on the . . . on a personal level, with your children with your family, those relationships are forever, but nothing at work or in the workplace tends to be forever, it might be a couple years, it might be 6 months. So I view the lack of trust in the workplace to be a crying shame because it really takes a large amount of enjoyment from my work away, when I feel I am not trusted, or if someone doesnt trust me. But, you know, you push by it because its not permanent [Q8] If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had?

I have, in the past. And, ahhm, with any number of managers, ahhh. To me it is a wonderful experience because it means I really enjoy work. My wife can tell because I dont come home on time. I actually feel like you know, the days have n o bounds by work hours. Oh its 7 oclock at night, I have been sitting here since lunch and I just love doing what I am doing, and Ah, you know I think the company gets way more out of anybody. Thats when things are good. Its great.

229

[Q9]What led up to the experience, meaning what were the events that led you to trust

As I said in the very beginning, I guess it is a set of observations that I make, ah, about my interactions, ah, with peers and managers. So the observations are of 2 kinds, I observe, I observe, the other persons reactions to my, the way I carry myself, and the actions I have. And sometimes they are subtle, kinds of things, you know. Ah, do I feel I could come to work at 10 oclock in the morning without being questioned because my manager trusts me. Well how did I get to feel comfortable about that, I got to feel comfortable by observing ah you know prior event in which maybe which I was questioned, maybe I was questioned and I got the sense maybe my answer was not believed. In that, for those kinds of things, for the future, until proven differently, I will feel that he doesnt, my manager (he or she) about putting in the right amount of hours. So its an observation I made based on a reaction to my actions. And then ah, my I guess its the same way, so I then have a belief he does not trust me. So then how do I come to whether I trust him, again observing what happens when perform certain actions, do I submit a report or do some work for him that ends up with someone elses name on it. I will take a couple notches off my trust. Again observation I guess.

[Q10]How does falling into trust impact your day-to-day work?

230 Big laugh . . . you know it, I consider it a night and day experience, it is like getting up in the morning and going to the gulag, or is it getting up and going to a rather enjoyable thing where I actually look forward to doing thing, learning things, accomplishing things, so I think it is a major deal [Q11]How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? I would say it makes the difference between actually contributing and just putting in the time

[Q12]Org rules unwritten

<<<<<<<<<Long long pause>>>>>>>

I am not so sure that organizational rules, if we are talking about company policy,

Suzanne Response: Unwritten,

CR 2: Oh I guess unwritten rules are practiced, in other words, thats the way it is, , you learn what they are after a while. You know if there, in my department, I think there is an unwritten rule that contribute or not contribute whatever you want, and unless it passes muster by one or two anointed people it doesnt count. Now I didnt know that was a rule in the beginning but I learned it after a while.

231

I think there pfff you know, I guess unwritten rules are nothing more than a collection of ahhm, behaviors of the people in power.

[Q13]What are the org rules that are explicit written which facilitate trust in your organization?

<<<<<<<Longest pause. . . .>>>>>>>

I dont think there are any. . . .or in the corporation for that matter.

[Q14]Do changes need to occur within the org to improve the connections between employees and these in leadership positions, if so what would you recommend.

I am very cynical about things like that, at least in this corporation I dont believe it can happen, I dont believe anything can be done to change that, because I have already have some experiences where suggestions were made, and ah you know the VP merely said, I dont believe in that, end of story. So ah, there is a culture within a corporation that ah, that exists, and the older the corp and the more heritage it has, the harder it is for that culture to ahhm change. And when the culture becomes institutionalized by policies and procedures, then I believe it becomes very easy, I think, for the senior folks in the corporation to feel that they are meeting all their obligations by hitting all the touch points in the policies. So, throw a bunch of courses together and make all your employees

232 take a bunch of ethics about business ethics. But actually you never hear about it outside that environment. So yes we met the letter of the law, and we can prove it because we are making everybody check off, and keep track, to make sure every person in the corporation understands an went for this ethics training, but you never hear about it in a conversation or in a meeting, when you are actually discussing real interactions with customers or vendors, at least I never have. Did I answer the question?

Suzanne: Do you want me to read it again?

CR 2: I guess I feel they do, but I do not feel as though in this corporation it is possible.

[Q15] ] In your opinion how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? Tough tough one. Actually this is very tough, because I think in observations where I thought there was a great deal of trust, ahhm, I think it is kind of easy, it is possible to do in a relatively small company, in other words, from top to bottom you are talking 4-500 people who have a lot of interaction with each another because there is the opportunity because of the # of interactions ahhm . . . to actually demonstrate ah day to day actions that will in fact confirm or sure up some bodys trust. Part of the problem I see, as companies become larger, and for just management reasons, hierarchy more hierarchical orgs are built, there are more levels, it is hard to scale up those actions that led to trust in a small company.

233

Small company, hey I see the company president, I can overhear him at lunchtime talking to other people, I have a sense of what he is all about, of his ethics, I know that when support manager says we are going to do whatever is right for the customer, no matter what it costs us I have had enough interactions with that person in my 600 man company, that I trust him. If you are going to ship 200,000 dollars worth of equipment to them that is what we are going to do. He then shows that he trusts me to make the right decision. And then suddenly I trust him that he is really concerned about the customer and not all wrapped up in dollars that little interaction built a great deal of trust about things like that. In a large company that person who might make that kind of decision, I may hear his voice on an all hands meeting once every 3 months, I have no idea what that person is about, and I have no idea if two people between him and me somewhere in that chain is a rotten apple. Big laugh, because I dont touch and feel those rotten apple, and that one rotten apple corrupts everything down below. That rotten apple might be there, some self serving person building his own career and doesnt in fact care what is going on. So the sticky point is assuming you had the right collection of people, with the right motivations, ,the right interactions and synergy, how do you successful scale that up into something big. It might be able to be done, but as in nation building and everything else it takes real leadership at the top who cares an awful lot about that, that is what I think.

Coresearcher #4 # Years employed

234 27 Your position Budgets/Finance Any direct reports No Gender Female [Q1]What is it you understand your role to be within your company? Finance and Budgets and anything that is asked of me beyond that.

[Q2]Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Ahhhmm, I think trust is something that is earned, but also unconditional. I tend to trust people until Im burned. And I know other people tend not to trust people until they are proven otherwise. I tend to trust explicitly and too much. So when I get burned I will never trust again. Or when I get a bad vibration from somebody there is just no way, so trust is something to me a good feeling a karma between two people, somebody that their word is entangled into the word integrity to me. There word means something, and you know if you ask them to do something, they will help you out to the best of their ability, and not try to take advantage of you. All set. . .

[Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace?

235 Ahhm, <<Long pause>> the walk matches the talk, and actions speaks louder than words, and if I am asking a question and I get a different answer than the actions, I know I am not in a particularly good situation. Just walk versus talk.

[Q4] If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. Yes, ahh, it was a willingness of the other person, to listen to not make their level a condition of a conversation, opening up and sharing their life with you, well with me. And having deep conversations about things that may not have anything to do with work. There are several people that . . . I have this wonderful relationship with the vice president, and ahhm its because they dont put that VP in front of their name, they are just who they are, they share things about their family. They show you they are just like you and I. They just happen to wear a different level within the company. And its the coming on common ground and common interests that make it an instant trusting relationship and knowing that it can continue at any time. It just works, its just something you feel. All set. . . [Q5] How would you define synergy in the workplace? Ahhhm, A group of diverse people coming together to pull off an extraordinary feet, and being unstoppable at it. It brings back to me a team I brought together called building blocks with education and training if you didnt have a career. It was different people from different backgrounds, different organizations, while we all thought of different ways of getting to the end goal, we all saw the end goal as the same. So the energy that was in the room and the working together and not bickering was incredible, it

236 was one of the most powerful ahhm, experiences that people had on this campus because of all the work that was together. Its like combustion, you put the right mix together, and it builds a fire and it continues to go. . . all set.

[Q6]How would you define connection in the workplace? Ah, connection would be hitting it off with somebody, having something common together. I personally belief that you know, you dont have to like me as a person, but you have to work with me. So I have to look at people like two parts, so that if there is someone I dont like as a person, dont like their values or standards, but if I can connect with them on a intellectual level with them in the work environment then Im going to enjoy the experience. So, it can be either intellectual or it can be like a, like I talk to my friends about my passions, so thats connection to me . . . all set. [Q7] How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? Wow, <<pause>> My initial reaction to that was that trust shouldnt be any different in the workplace than it is outside in life, ahhm trust is something that should be earned, by maybe example, or by walking the talk. And, there was something about management so could you read it again. . . .

Read again. . . .

237 There is a caveat and that would be if I trust somebody and they continue to show me that their trust is worthy or my trust is worthy of them, then the relationship should continue. However, if and this is happening to me real time, if somebody says I want to sit there and have a meeting with you <<coresearcher>> and pick my brain for all kinds of stuff and go and use that information from me, and say it was their own, I no longer trust that person. Because they have violated what their initial, ahhm condition of getting together.

Leadership falls into the same category. If Im having a conversation and they tell me one thing, if they are going to say one thing and act a different way. It goes back to actions... there ends up being trust issue. . . . I keep getting tied up with integrity trust and integrity are tied really closely for me personally . . . all set.

[Q8]If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had? Trust? Suzanne: Yes Well I have had it, if I didnt have it; I think personally I would be a very miserable person. I would probably continue to try and reach that person on some kind of a level whether it be probably on a personal level, because the people that work in any company are the greatest asset you have. Its not your product . . . again you should be able to connect at some level. Again, it may not have a long lasting relationship, ahhm

238 but the relationship should be at least cordial and ahhm, so that there is some way you can work with them should you end up on a project or something. All set. [Q9]What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? Well since I tend to trust until I get burned. However if there is a situation where I need somebody, and I have a bad vibe about them, it is instinctual for me. I try and believe it can work. Ah..I try to believe that people are nice and good-hearted. Because I try to give you unconditional trust until you do me wrong. [Q10] How does this connection or having fallen into trust, impact your day-today work? Makes life easier, makes working knowing that youre with people that you can be yourself, get the information when you need it, ahhm and that you can work with the people. It just makes life easier. If I had to worry about every person that comes into my office, that I couldnt trust them and I didnt have a connection with them, I would be on edge all the time. Ahhm there are people that come to my office, I cringe when they come to my office, but that is just because I dont like them because I have seen their actions. And they are not in tuned, I have very hi standards, and I have either caught them in a lie, or I have caught them doing things that I would not consider to be appropriate. So, I will answer them, but I can feel that there is a wall that goes up right away. For the most part, I have fun and I think that it is very important to have connections with the people that you work with so that you can have a good time. [Q11] How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work?

239 I think I just answered that a little bit, it makes me annoyed, it makes me not want to help the person, that is not how I react, but it makes me not want to do it. It makes me want to leave out important information, just so they have to go dig harder for it. But its not a very pleasant experience.

Its much easier to have a good connection than to have a bad one. It makes me nervous. All set. [Q12]What are the organizational rules that are implicit or unwritten that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? If so, what do you believe them to be? <<<long Pause>>> I think one of the rules that are implicit, as you go up the chain, that every person ahs the best interest in the organization at heart. And the management team is going to be telling you the truth. Ahhh rules. . . .that is really all that comes to my mind right now.. [Q13]What are the organizational rules that are explicit which facilitate trust in your organization? Nothing that Im aware of. Want me to read it again . . . I think you said organizational rules that are explicit or written that facilitate trust, but, Id like to have a conversation with you about that question after we are done. But I cant think of any rules that facilitate trust, I cant think of one. [Q14] Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what would you recommend?

240 Ahhh, changes need to be ahhm, made I think that ahhm, if we are talking <<org>> we get so caught up in what we are doing that we have forgotten where we are going and why we are going there. And we get hung up in fire drills and I gotta have this yesterday, today, in ten minutes. We dont do a very good job, we dont think about it. We also dont bring together the people that can affect change. I created a carnival for mentally challenged kids, it ran for 16 years, back in 1986, and one of the things I found as far as being a leader, while you can give people jobs to do , you still need to keep in touch with what is happening. You need to keep your pulse on what is happening, when your people are engaged, and you all see the same goal and you all believe in the same goal, it doesnt matter how you get there because you are all . . . the individual way you get to the goal is not as important as everybody believing and seeing the same goal. I dont believe we have that here. I am going to go out on a limb here. I think our vp doesnt understand people or even like people. And I think that comes across every single time he opens his mouth and I cant change him, but I also have knowledge that he has been told that. I think that if he could work on that.

If people could stop making decisions in vacuums. Rumors in this company are destructive and cost a lot of waste in productivity. If there was a way that people could have a forum to go and talk about things without retribution, or the feeling that you were going to be retributed against, I think you would see a workforce that was ready to move mountains but it all comes with people believing that they are needed, and making them feel that they are part of the organization. I dont think we have that right now, so . . . all set

241 [Q15] In your opinion, how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? I think that it almost goes back to the answer I just gave, they give people the forum, they walk the talk, people understand their, the companies mission and vision, and they are not just words on a view graph. Ahhm, that diversity and making people successful is important to the organization, all those things lead to people trusting one another. And when you trust one another, and you are not always fearing you are on the next fmp or the next people told you guys need to find new jobs. Then people would be more excited about taking new opportunities and and . . . working to make the company successful.

I need you to repeat the question again, I am long in thought. Repeat

Ahhm, we have the walk the talk, the open forum, we really truly understand that people are focusing on the same end goal. Let me give you another example. There was a group of us in my office having a conversation. We were talking about how the company needs to go from a product driven to a services driven because we provide, we have some of the best development and some of the best services, people that support products. And on a whim I sent an email to CEO asking the question are we going to start going to the services end of the business? And it is not clear where our vision is going. And I got a phone call back within from one of <<pronoun>> staff and within 2 minutes I didnt trust the person and the reason why was because the first question was didnt your boss tell

242 you what the mission and vision was, didnt you know you can go find it on the website, not thank you for your email, not where were you coming from? not any of those things, so, where I might have said I trust CEO and company 3 months ago, because for me personally they violated my trust. Here I was asking what I thought was an innocent question, and what came back was, your manager should have told you and if they didnt, you can go to a website and find out. And you know dont send these kinds of emails to Pat because she has better things to do. So if we worked in an environment where sending those kind of emails that might seem irrelevant to a person a CEO level but are relevant to the people sending them. And somebody to be able to facilitate and explain where the person or persons were coming from, you would have more trust. Personally I dont have trust in our leadership because they do not walk the talk, the do not want to listen tot eh people at the lower level. And the people at the lower levels are the ones doing all the real hard work.

So successful company would have an open forum, would want to engage people in an open dialogue, knowing that we can agree to disagree, ahhm but we dont have that. We havent had that since I started.

I remember they wanted me to join the united way, and they said well <<boss>> says you have to and I said, no, they cannot tell me what to do with my money. And so ahhm we have lived in, we are part of a corporate that rules by . . . Im kind of a brazen person, in a diversity council meeting I said organizational behavior wise part, I work for an alcoholic where I have learned to adjust my behavior according to whether they are

243 drunk or whether my parents, who is the leadership, are drunk mad sad happy glad whatever the emotion is, we have all learned to adjust our behavior to doing that. When you have a loving and warm environment, and I am not saying give everybody everything they want, there have to be boundaries and there has to be rules. If you give the people the freedom to have a conversation, express their opinion, ahhm, hierarchy started off by saying there is nothing wrong, you give people the forum to express their opinion, you may find that people at the lower echelon the . . . have the ideas that will make <<company>> money because we are too busy fire reacting that we have lost site that people are a great staff. And you can say it, but we are not walking the talk, and we havent for a really long time.

All those things that I said are really negative if you reversed them around you could be really successful for people to come into trust.

CR 6: Coresearcher #6 # Years employed 26

Your position Senior Tech Manager Any direct reports Yes Gender

244 female

[Q1]What is it you understand your role to be within your company? I manage a team of people who are responsible for quality procedures, process design, compliant to industry standards, customer satisfaction, as well as some user forums where we gather additional pertinent information. My role is to facilitate the employees in their roles in accomplishing these tasks, and their growth within the company, and growth as employees within their assignments.

[Q2]Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Trust to me is that ahhm, you can be 100% confident that what you shared with someone remains accurate as in, if I really trust someone, and we have a conversation, and I say things are AB and C, that person then does not convey our conversation as the opposite of that. And in the same manner if I ask that the conversation that weve had not be shared, then it wont be shared/. But it goes even further than that in that You know I develop a relationship with someone, and I have a sense for what theyll do with it, or how theyll relate to it, if thats consistent, then I feel like I have shared some trust with them. If I , if whenever I interact with someone, their behavior is always different, and I cannot predict it or assimilate it, then I sometimes think, not that I cant trust the person in terms of integrity, but I cant trust what the reactions going to be. So we havent built up that real connection yet. At least in my mind. So, ahh, I am trying to think what else trust would mean. . . . I guess thats all that comes to mind about it.

245

[Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? I guess, you know I guess its that building of a relationship that, ahh, I get an understanding that with this other person that, I understand what they told me, and that they understood what I told them, and we were really able to make a connection on what it is that we are talking about. And that we fully understand how each person sees it and feels about it, and kind of have reached a common plane that we see the issue, we at least understand how each person sees the issue, and feels about the issue, and that there arent any major gaps in our understanding.

[Q4]If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. Where I have fallen into trust with my manager. Can you just read that again <<Repeated question>> The elements, ahhm, the elements of how I felt, I guess there is a feel or element of enjoyment, because there is a sense that we really connected, and thats enjoyable to know that youve reached that point on this issue or other issues in the past. I guess another element would be satisfaction, because it is important to me that my manager and I do have these times when I feel we have really connected, and that we are really on a trust level. So enjoyment would be one, satisfaction would be the other, ahhm, I cant think of any more.

[Q5]How would you define synergy in the workplace?

246 Synergy in the workplace, to me synergy in the workplace is when teams and ahh, different organizations are able to come to a place where they are willing to accept the work done by another, as good honest work that doesnt have to be redone. And they take it as valuable and add their value to it, and their value that is added is instantly valued by the other teams as well. And that they are truly building on what each one brings to the table vs. a non-synergistic team would be where each member has to redo what the other one did, before they can accept it, because they can only accept what they have done. So to me synergy is when all pieces and all the different people who bring it are valued for the pc they bring and the pc that they bring is accepted as finished, good work, done, and then you build on top of that and keep building on top of that, to reach higher together than any one of you could alone.

[Q6]How would you define connection in the workplace? Ahh, connection, connection is harder for me because Im a personality that ahh, doesnt I guess I dont search out a lot of connection in my life. I am more of, ahh, not necessarily introverted, but and I dont want to ahh, whats that word, put all engineers in the same kind of little box, but I am an engineer by training, and therefore I lead to .. at work, if you have an a, b, c, d and you either going to line them up or move them around, and the whole goal is to get someplace else, and hey if theres some connections made along the way good for you if there isnt phhssssht (oh well?). You know kind of like take it outside laugh laugh. . . . I have hopefully thought that I have learned over the course of my career thats probably not a good strategy. When the fact is we are dealing with people and people thrive on connections, and by that I mean people have really

247 gotten to know one another, and they have taken the time to know about them, and know where they come from, understand a little bit about how they think and maybe they think a little differently than you do, thats ok, and thats good and thats important, and these connections are I guess probably built on the whole trust type thing in that you feel good about these connections, you feel like you got a real ally in the work that you are trying to do, and a real supporter of your growth in the company. And that you have made these real connections. I dont know a sharing of more or less your place in life with another person, via either something you are interested or your work or something. But I see connections more and emotional-feeling type level than the analytical project management type side. Thats all I can think of. . .

[Q7]How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? I think what I heard is do I see trust in the workplace as maybe different thing or slightly or larger or smaller thing than, excuse me, than what I might see as trust outside of work, in another type of arrangement. Ahm . . . and I guess I dont really see them different. Because trust to me is not something that I would just think of in relation to work. Trusting another person is getting to a point where you know they are going to be respectful of you and what you might have shared together. Ahh and that is equally and I see it as the same thing in work whether you are sharing issues that need to be done, or ways that two people might be working together, there is still a trust in that you have full faith in that the other person has full faith that that other persons respects who you are the

248 things youve said, the things youve done and will treat that element of you that you have been willing to share with a lot of respect and I see that equally if you have friends spouses and colleagues even outside of work, I see it as exactly the same thing.

[Q8]If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had?

[Q9]What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? I guess the things that lead me to trust, ahh, one key element is time. Ahh because I, I have in my mind that you just want to approach new relationships or all new opportunities for relationships, whether it is new people, new jobs, or same people new assignments. It takes me time, say I have been working with the same people I have always have been working with , and a new issue comes into the pot that we have to work on. Even in that sense I might trust the folks already because weve had other issues. I dont know if you know, they are going to make the same connection with me in that, If I understand something a certain way, and I have conveyed that I understand it a certain way, and time goes by and I hear that back from them, Yes Cathy I realize you understand that a different way, and time goes by . . . as the circle then broadens and other people that join the circle, my thoughts have been conveyed appropriately, then that trust starts to build up around that issue separate from what I might have around the people that are working on it. So it really is, I think its just time, and conversation, and sharing that has to occur before ahhm, I get the whole trust thing built.

249

[Q10] How does this connection or having fallen into trust, impact your day-today work? Ahhh, I think its critical in that I cant imagine coming to work everyday and feeling that I didnt have it. Ahhm, if I thought that I hadnt made any of these trustful connections with either people, my manager, my peers, or the people in my department, I would feel unsure of myself, like I had been unsuccessful, Id be cautious, quiet, I think relatively unhappy if I hadnt been able to build, at least in my mind, a lot of trusting relationships with people in dealing with issues.

[Q11] How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? How does disconnect. . . . Disconnect churns up a lot of time and it slows down progress toward any goal, because disconnect usually have to be resolved in order to bring everyone to wherever it is we are collectively going. And it takes a lot of time. I tend to be a conflict averse, and therefore these disconnects, I am not very good at leaving them out there. I have learned to leave some out there, just because you know a disconnect is a disconnect, ok get over it and move on. I really see a disconnect as a failure to understand each other, more than just a difference of opinion, because a difference of opinion is a difference of opinion. But, disconnect takes a lot of time to overcome, and I think they do keep us from being collectively ahh, everything reaching the highest points that we could together. [Q12]What are the organizational rules that are implicit or unwritten that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? If so, what do you believe them to be?

250 These are organizational, implicit rules, unwritten... implied rules. That . . . hmm I have to give this one some thought. . . . Unwritten organizational, unwritten implicit rules that assist in the creation of trust. . . . Well <<sigh>> I think this is a little bit harder, because <<company>> has taken the time to write some of its specific rules.. that assist us in trust . . . and those are . . . some of the <<company>> values.

And I know that you cant write a rule that says you will respect your colleagues and actually expect it to be followed all the time. But I think it was key to lucent to write that down, and I think organizational structures, by their nature historically are hierarchical, which means everybody reports to somebody, sometimes demands are floated down with expectations, sometimes requirements and expectations are floated up.

Ok lets try to think, implicit unwritten rules, there is certainly the unwritten rule, not sure if it is a rule exactly. The company does in fact depend on everyone, and if everyone isnt ahh, at least working toward the same corporate goals, which the corporation has tried to set out there effectively, I think it can create trust issues. Because if everyone is working for the same corporation and the corporation has the same goals, then it is implicit that everyone is working toward the same ones. So that should allow you, to build up some trust even faster, theoretically, all heading in the same direction with some of the work that you do . . . ahhh. . . .and I know the corporation is pretty specific about their writing down their support of diversity as well, of course that is a written rule but it still should HELP of building up of trust, we have certain expectations of the employee as part of the <<company>> community. I cant think of any other ones.

251

[Q13]What are the organizational rules that are explicit which facilitate trust in your organization? That are written, <corporate>values, respect for the individual, support for diversity, rules against discrimination, and I think those support trust when taken and internalized by the people, you obviously will occasionally still get some whether written or unwritten they really dont care to be involved in them. And I think that hurts trust when you have employees that dont follow either the unwritten or the written rules. I am trying to think if there are any others besides those. You know VP has is vision statement which is also written and indicative of where we are headed and how we treat one another, I guess that would be one of the written ones. I guess that is all I can think of. . . .

[Q14] Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what would you recommend? All right changes in the org, now I presume changes in the org might be who sits in which chair and how many, as well as the current structure might do things different?

Suzanne: it can be any recommendation that you can come up with that you think oculd impact leaders and employees. Leaders and employees. . . I think ah, to improve the connection, I would recommend, lets see, an effort to try and be a little more consistent with expectations, and as examples things like ahh, our

252 expectation is to improve the performance of something for the customer. And most people could resonate with that. But, we create an expectation of making a certain metric turn green, and that becomes the focus versus whether or not we supported the customer. And I think employees in general can get more around the conceptual.. Most people can make the connection that if you can make things better for the customer, you can garner more business and you become more successful as a company. So more consistency in the ultimate goal, which is customer satisfaction and things, Id recommend, rather than. . . of course this is based on my own opinion but, . . . I think we have, there are certain, you find employees that relish, and appreciate and work with really honest data, on how the company is doing, on what the expectations are over the next three months or 6 months, 3 years, for what businesses we are going to be in, what skills people will need, and ahh,how to grow people toward those skills. And I think more honest communication around that would be helpful, I think we should and could take more time helping employees understand the nuances of where the company is, and why some of the things that appear ridiculous at some level, actually do have a plan behind them, but we dont take the time to share it. And there are also cases where the time is taken to share it, and there are some employees that dont know what to do with the information, and therefore that causes frustration. And even though they heard all the same information, they dont know what to do with it, and no one will tell them what to do with it, and therefore they are frustrated. The corporation cant be in a position particularly as we are continuing to shrink, to be too prescriptive about what any one individual should do, because the leadership team cant make any commitments about long term whats best for an

253 employee, and employee has to figure that out for themselves. But for an employee to figure it out for themselves, you have to give them honest, complete information.

And that is what I think we dont get to the employees enough, and usually that is because the leadership hasnt made the decisions, you know havent decided in final fact what the key aspects are.

What else can the leadership do to improve connections? I think our leadership could do more to partner together amongst themselves and support each other, and therefore demonstrate by their actions, a model for individual contributors to follow where they really and truly partner with other groups in the organization.

[Q15] In your opinion, how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? Ah I think successful organizations can do it by modeling that kind of behavior at all levels of the organization, and recognizing people for it, and supporting its occurrence. And you know I think having written expectations around respect for the individual, social obligations, diversity support, having those written supports falling into to trust. I think recognizing when people have really partnered and developed a trust based relationship within their own team, or between teams, or between you know what we call organizations, business units all the way up to the product house. To demonstrate and let the employees, all levels of management see that happen, and provide evidence of that,

254 ahh, to all levels of management as a real model of how it should be, would be the best thing they could do to facilitate it happening more often with more people.

Coresearcher #10

# Years employed 9

Your position Lab management Any direct reports Had 4 Gender Male

[Q1]What is it you understand your role to be within your company? My role within the company is to provide engineers with the tools that they deem necessary in order for them to perform their job with the customer. And other duties assigned.

[Q2]Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Trust is basically to me, basically is being able to get and receive something without wondering if that in fact is actual. Also being able to leave my desk open (laugh).

255 I have to be able to put my faith in someone and to tell them and to do something for them know that what I am doing or what they are doing, is something that I believe without consequence or I can do something for them without consequence, cuz its a two way straight. I can trust someone fully, and they can look at me and say (mmmm not trust). Or vice versa someone could trust me, I could look at them and think . . . or. . . .so in order for it to be a full duplex trust, I think you have to be able to go back and forth on it. I dont know if that answers the question . . .

Suzanne: Any way you feel it necessary to answer the question. . . .

Im all set [Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace? I can A either say something to someone on a personal or a, whats the word . . . cant think of it. I can go to someone and know that what Im saying isnt going to go A any farther or is an issue I can go to someone and say this is whats happening, this is what I think should happen, and their going to give me feedback, a and I am going to be comfortable, its the right feedback I should be getting, and not walk away and feel its not a BS story. So can I tell you something and walk away and feel confident that what you told me is accurate to the best of your knowledge and not the party line, because there is too much party line around here. I guess you could say the trust is not the party line but the actual line.

256 [Q4]If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. Well theres a comfortableness where theres a give and take relationship, theres a relationship where you can go in and say ABC and the manager says its 123 and you can argue back and forth and know that in no way is going to affect your dealings with the manager or your level of competency with the manager that you may have, or your overall performance. You know I dont expect to have yes people working for me. So when I talk to a manager, I dont expect them to be looking for yes people, so when I have something that I need to say, I have to be comfortable. So thats a thing of trust, so you can go in and say something, and know that the manager isnt in total agreement, you know its not going to affect your overall performance rating. So theres a comfortableness, ability to give and take, to argue, and to have the ability that when your manager says something to you, that you take it more as a constructive pc of evidence and not criticism, and not necessarily that the manger is trying to belittle you or do anything like that. I dont think, with a manager that you dont trust, if he says something that is quote constructive criticism id like you to do it this way. . . youd like to tell him to pound sand because no you wouldnt like me to do it this way, just tell me that you want it done this way. As apposed to give and take, I can see if they say you have to do ti this way or thats a good idea but, have you considered this and this before you go ahead.

So its comfortable, two way street, go out after work and have a beer. You would feel comfortable having them come into the house.

257

[Q5]How would you define synergy in the workplace? I dont know if I ever saw it, so I dont know if I can define it (laugh). I think we used to have synergy in the workplace, and I think in some respects we still do. And thats basically the ability that everybody works for a common goal, and they are not looking at this is not my work this is, my work is this and if you really want to do that, if you want it done, call so and so, somebody is going to be willing to go the extra step, take the extra time, help you find what you are looking for, what you are doing, there is a camaraderie that interfaces with each person, no one is out for their own, but their all out basically because they are out to , they are not stepping on anybodies toes, or stepping on anyones back trying to get to the top. They are working in an atmosphere of goal, and in order to get to that goal, we need everybody to get to that goal, its not just me. And in order to get to that goal, I need this person, even though this person doesnt supply me with a lot of stuff, he still does that, and hes part of the team, and what he does may not really affect anything that I do, but he does effect what other people do, and because he affects them that effects the overall team. So its ah, its a group thing that we all are in the same boat together, so lets all row in the same direction.

[Q6]How would you define connection in the workplace? Connection, connection . . . I guess its just an ability to be able to work with somebody. Yah I can connect with Joe, or I can connect with bill, I can work with them, I can do stuff for them, and not feel as though Im subservient to what they are doing, its an equality of exchanges.

258

[Q7]How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? Well, long pause, I think there is two kinds of trust, there is the peer trust and the upper level trust. You can go to somebody and expect, you can ask a question and not get a party line answer, or get an answer, and not feel its a party line answer. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but its an answer you can go away with and feel as though you can go away and make a solid decision a, b, or c.

Peer trust is just can I depend on this person, is this person dependable. And trust and dependability are kind of the same thing. Can I depend on that this person trusts that person to carry out my request, is he going to do it or blow me off. sorry I forgot all about it if you cant do it they will get back to me, not going to leave me out flapping in the breeze. So I guess trust and dependability.

Suzanne: Do you depend on a leader, do you expect like you say, you can depend on a colleague, a leader, a friend outside of work, is dependability or level of dependability the same across each one of those individuals in order for you to feel as though you have fallen into trust with them.

I guess the level of dependability is different on each group. Youve got different types of dependability, youve got.. to me your expecting the upper levels to lead and to

259 lead you into a place, its like in the army you are going to follow this person because you trust that person, as soon as you stop trusting that person, you dont know where he is going to leave you.

Its not, Im not, Im depending on him to do something for me, but Its not going to be, if it doesnt get done, if the lower level of trust doesnt get accomplished, if the dependability doesnt get done, it is going to impair what I do. I wouldnt look at it as a major impairment. But I wouldnt look at it as a leader who says one thing and goes off and does something else. I may trust leaders A but I may not trust his leader, because to me his leader is giving me rhetoric, where I would believe if I asked my, ...how do I apply trust, do I apply it the same or differently. . . .

I guess its applied the same across the board, except in a leadership position, I could be more dependent upon it. The level of trust has to be greater, I think, in the other sense If you are in the army and your peer is someone you cant trust you are screwed to the wall, because hes not going to save you. . . . So in that respect everyones trust would have to be the same.

I dont know, good question . . . its got to be earned, built up, and everybody has to earn it. Its and earned quality.

[Q8]If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had?

260 Yes [Q9]What led up to that experience, meaning, what were the events that led you to trust? Again its a build up of various functions, various commitments over time, various promises that are kept, someone that goes out for you and does something out of the ordinary that its nice, they didnt have to do it, but they did it. So its a collection of functions or experiences over a period of time, that at some point, you say hey, I trust this person implicitly without any doubt because everything that was done in the last 2 years or the past year or whatever it is. [Q10] How does this connection or having fallen into trust, impact your day-today work? How does it impact my day-to-day work? I have never given that much thought about; I have just gone out and done my day-to-day work without even thinking about it.

By trusting people around me, I assume certain evidence (laugh) I assume certain things are going to happen, that if I didnt trust them, I would not take those assumptions. It allows me to A either, to do more things, because I dont have to worry about other things be completed or done or because I know someone is going to take care of certain things, it gives me more confidence that I can do more stuff, because again everything is not going to fall on me to be done, and Im not going to have to worry if did so and so is going to do it.

261 Where if I am working with someone I didnt work with before, now we get back on the treadmill or the stair climber, we have to work together for a while before I can fully trust that person, so now I cant just go off and do what I need or want to do, I have to go back and check on that person, and make sure that what Ive requested of that person to do is actually being done and being done in the right way.

[Q11] How does disconnect impact your day-to-day work? Disconnect from people? Or from just from people, Not in a telecommunications sense.. Well the whole network is down; we have just been disconnected folks. Disconnect from people. I think if there is a disconnect, there is some animosity there, am I assuming disconnect, or is this piece of my trust that gets disconnected. Or is this something that is within the circle of trust.

Ok someone I trusted disconnected me. Then I suppose I need to know the circumstances were, why, and if it was something that I could see that was excusable, but I would still, I think would have that in the back of my mind for the next incident. Make sure as a precaution until I could start building it up. Unless of course its a mistake, of course everyone makes mistakes. If there was something that was suppose to get done, I trusted someone to do it, it failed to get done, and it was a result of . . . what caused the disconnect, was it personal reasons, was there a home thing where somebody was having a problem, or was it just a fluff off. Thats kind of a hard thing. . .

262 The disconnect impacts the day-to-day work in that I have to re establish the trust work again. I just cant go off now and say this is ABC. Where before I could go out and say heres abc, and know it would get done, so I have to do 1 and then check on A for the other person, and then go 2 and go over and check B. So it impacts what Im doing, I cant totally concentrate on my job, or I can but then I have to stop and go over and make sure that that disconnect is not disconnected again.

[Q12]What are the organizational rules that are implicit or unwritten that assist in the facilitation of trust in the workplace? If so, what do you believe them to be? <<<long pause>>> truth, <<<>>> honesty<<<>>> fairness, I think if you had those three in somebody, I dont think there is anything in any company manual that says you will be truthful, you will be honesty, you will be fair. There is fairness when you get into equality, and diversity, and all that stuff, but outside of that, or even with that fairness is still something that if you are going to do for one you have to do for the other. Whether you do it for someone who is pink yellow or blue, if youre going to be fair to them then you have to be fair to everyone, fair to blue, fair to yellow, fair to yellow, fair to white. And its not written down as saying you have to treat or you have to give this person the same opportunity, its fairness is more of a I dont know, I dont want to get involved in the diversity thing, I dont know if you understand what Im saying.

[Q13]What are the organizational rules that are explicit which facilitate trust in your organization?

263 I dont know if there are any. I dont think you can designate trust in writing. I dont think you can put it down and say, in order for me to trust you, or in order for a subordinate to trust a manager, here are the rules that you have to follow. Now, you cant write, you cant legislate trust! Thats it.

[Q14] Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what would you recommend? Moving right along, yes, there is always a gap between the employee and the leadership. There is, I dont think theres any way that that gap could be filled up totally. Its an in-between the person in the leadership role there is that piece of trust that goes, that says well, I know he cant tell me everything, but I know enough about this person to feel comfortable in saying if they tell me that this is the road I should be on, then thats the road I should take. And Im trusting that person enough to stay on that road and stay on that road and do my own thing. I dont necessarily think that after you get over your initial manager or your, and again initial manager could be supervisor manager, its basically once it gets off site out of the organization, I dont want to get to far off on this.

Theres a day to day week to week month-to-month year-to-year process that builds up the trust, when you have interaction between two people. If you dont have that interaction, I think its difficult to build up that trust. You dont know how that person is going to react because you dont interact with that person, you may say you are doing a

264 great job, and you are the greatest guy to come along since teddy Roosevelt, and we are going to put you in for all these awards, and he takes care of me, but I dont have that interaction of trust. And thank you very much and I appreciate it, but if he tells me something and I dont interact with him and I have to really go back and take a really hard look at it, and determine if its really the true thing, whereas if Im interacting with him, I get an idea if hes BSing me or not or when he is trying to help me or not, if hes trying to help me fly the nest and fly on my own.

Go up the next level I dont have that interface, so trying to trust him, how do I, how does he or she, relate back to me. She doesnt even know me. You know you see things, you hear things, and then they say something, and then you are like, how does that relate.

I think there has to be more interaction between you know, I dont think weve . . . you cant define, you have to be brought into the nest, there is, with all these acquisitions, changes, you dont know, you really unless you have been working with that person on a long term basis, we know our group, I know if I can trust this one or trust that one . . . I dont know anybody else out of my group. Somebodys telling me this, and yet, Im seeing all these people laid off, Ive seen part of my job going over to India, Im hearing some dumb VP saying how great it is over there. You know and Im saying what am I chopped liver, theres no, you know, I understand but I dont understand, I dont know how you fix that. I understand their busy, and there are certain people that are at a

265 level where you are working to get. . . new business, new acquisition. New whatever, and yah they cant come around to all the new places because it is physically impossible.

The quarterly meetings, they are talking about stuff that does not apply to me. I dont hear, I hear rhetoric, I hear somebody answer a question, and I hear somebody do a jig for 5 minutes, and then say, I hope that answers your question. Well now, if there is a problem with answering a question, as much as I would like to answer that question for you, were in the process of doing something we cant discuss. We are not kids, tell it like it is, good or bad, but dont go off and do a jig and come back 5 minutes later and tell me how great I am, and go off and tell me how great everything it is. I can accept that, there are questions I cant answer.

Thats a tuff question, I suppose if you stopped the rhetoric, and stopped the jigs, and you kind of say I know you cant say to every question, but ill get back to you. I mean somebody asks a question when will the fmps stop. Well we cant really say for sure because we dont know. Dont say, well it all depends on the business climate. Hey, wed like to stop the fmps today. . . .just tell me that.

[Q15] In your opinion how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust? I think its a time where from the top on down to the bottom guy all feel like they are part of the team, and working toward the same goal, there is no difference between people in section of this country and a section here because these people have been here

266 longer and get treated better or worse, everyone has to feel as though they are part of the organization from top to bottom. There are no prima donnas, within the organization and there are important people and there are people who are smarter, and can do things that other people cant do, and there are people that have to sweep the sidewalk, if you dont pick up the garbage, you end up with a pile of crap. So doesnt matter who smart you are, you have to make sure everyone feels like they are part of the crew. Everybody has to be rowing in the direction. You cant have the captain rowing in one direction and everyone is rowing in the other.

CR 13: Coresearcher 13

# Years employed 9

Your position NAR Business Operations

Any direct reports Yes Gender Male

267 [Q1] What is it you understand your role to be within your company? To support the team that measures and enables the successful delivery of remote tech support in the North American region

[Q2] Describe and discuss what trust means to you. Trust to me, trust to me is the, I hope I dont get harder than this later. Trust to me is the dynamic that exists between people in which the person who has trust will get the benefit of the doubt about the track that they are trying to work together on.

Where benefit of the doubt means that one doesnt question the validity of what it is they are trying to do, and one does not question the intentions of what the other person is trying to do, in such a way that it affects the outcome that the two parties are trying to arrive at. Now is this where I get discuss what that means However you feel you need to answer the question Are you recording? Suzanne: I am recording . . .

CR 13: So I will resist swearing

The absence of trust is the dynamic where a person engages with another person to achieve some desired outcome but because of this said absence of trust, they need to see additional data, and/or double check through other sources or means what the intentions or validity of the other person that they are operating with ahhm is bringing to

268 the table. All of that, as one develops trust all of that goes away. So you believe the intentions, you believe the quality of the information that is being given to you, and those barriers that would otherwise exist in that absence, dissipate and you can achieve the desired result in a faster means, and you can achieve the faster means, you can achieve the desired result in a more personally rewarded means, because the atmosphere is not one where you are not constantly questioning what is actually going on. I think that gets to the essence of how I view trust. I think that gets to the essence of how I view trust. [Q3]How do you know when you have fallen into trust in the workplace?

I know when I have fallen into trust, when the person with whom I am engaging with to achieve some outcome begins to share information with me in an unguarded manner. Communication is easier, there is banter back and forth that suggests that the other person is not worried about what I might be trying to do, and they are interested in exploring perhaps more complex ideas about whatever it is we are trying to achieve. So if it is something thats just technically challenging and someone is looking for my insight into how its being done, and they listen freely to my opinions and thoughts, I start to recognize that they are suddenly seem to be trusting me.

And its these scenarios that occur without having to do all of the leg work to build the trust. I had a colleague someone I have talked to twice now, whom within 5 minutes on a conversation that I realized I was into trust with this guy. And I suspected I felt like he trusted me as well. At first it was a cautious discussion, we had a difficult budget dialogue. I could tell that he wanted to tell me something. I shared something with

269 them fairly shortly into the conversation, and his tenor changed suddenly he was communication with me in a different way. He didnt really know me, but he suddenly felt as though he could share details that he was worried about sharing with others with the objective of lets reach an amicable solution to this particular budget problems that much quicker. So, I could tell that it changed his voice. All this was being done over the phone, so there was no body language that we could associate with, and it was a lot of the phrases were based on You know I wouldnt normally say this but. . . or I wouldnt have or I have been trying to find someone that can help me with this. You know you are the first person blah blah blah. You know there is this kind of awakening almost, the relationship I am about to enter with you is going to be different, and and thats refreshing when it happens so quick. In the case of people whom I get to fall into trust with face to face, its not clear to me that it is remarkably different than what I just described, although theres a dynamic of facial expressions, eyes, body posture, that changes from the norm fairly quickly. You can tell the difference between that and idle friendliness, and there are plenty of people whom I dont believe dont trust me, and I dont really trust them, and we are painfully friendly with each other on a fairly regular basis and yet there is no falling into trust. And the friendliness isnt even artificial per se I think when I ask person X who I dont trust at all, how his family is doing and he says he went he camping with his family and had a great time, I am genuinely pleased to hear that, and happy for him that thats the case. But I still dont feel that I trust him with regard to the matter at hand. So it isnt just the oh you get to know people and so forth, rather there is a different dynamic that seems to occur.

270 [Q4] If you have ever felt a level of connection, synergy, or trust with your manager, please describe the elements of that experience. In times that I have felt that, it is almost always associated with sharing of information or asking my opinion on things that dont normally come up in boss subordinate type relationships. So it is not my job to provide an opinion and information relative to topic X. and yet I get asked to provide said opinion and information. So thats sort of a clinical description of what that level of trust is about.

What it feels like and what it looks like is a different kind of conversation, a different kind of request for input, or dialogue or email that is more based in a . . . the person that is doing the asking already knows where my commitments are, where my allegiances are, what I tend to think about things, and what I tend to think about problem solving, how I want to approach issues, what things set me off, in fact the person already knows what I am most likely to answer relative to the question that they are asking me or the thing that they want me to participate on or what have you. Because and yet they will still ask. <<name omission>> I know that blah blah blah, and I want to get you take on this. And that pattern as it that evolves has a very different feel than simply <<name omission>> please provide input on this proposal. There is a different awareness that comes in the request and comes in the conversation. Distinction for me would be for a manager would be for a manager that I never felt that relationship with, would come ask me my opinion on things only in a very formal or ask for my help on things only in a very formal capacity. Never in a capacity that I thought they were genuinely interested in what

271 it was that I had to say, it was I am gathering input, you are a sources, and I am now gathering input. And it feels very different. [Q5] How would you define synergy in the workplace?

I feel like I want another chance at this quiz.

Suzanne: You can have another chance when you review your transcript. If you feel you did not convey something.

Syn-er-gy. Synergy is a combination of people and talents and approaches that generate an output that exceeds what on paper you would expect that team would be able to produce. So rather than having this well everybody has their role, because of a certain combination of talents, people structure, role overlap whatever it is, they are producing a greater result. [Q6] How would you define connection in the workplace? Connection, connection in the workplace is. . . people forming a bond that is beyond the simple ins and outs of the roles that they are suppose to play at work but rather a reinforcing bond as it encourages the transmission of data both relevant and irrelevant between those two roles in excess of whats necessary, purely for getting the task done. Not to be a social relationship, it can be a trust based connection it can be a social connection, it can be a professional connection, it can be a common need connection that drives further exchange of information of ideas to enhance the output, thats how id describe it.

272

[Q7]How would you define trust in the workplace, and if different than your original definition of trust, what makes trusting colleagues or leadership different than any other type of trust? Ahhm I would not define it differently.

[Q8] If you have not experienced this with a manager, how would you envision the experience would be if you had?

I have experience this with a manager, which was the basis for answering the earlier question. . . .

[Q9]Events that led to trust Oh goodness, in this specific immediate case on which I derived my answer, it was a work experience initially, it was a work experience in which this particular manager before they were my manager, visited me on a job site, and asked questions and participated in a very connected way with myself and other members of my team at that point. Unlike I had seen with other equivalent leaders and it was that difference that opened the door to a relatively quick degree of trust.

We went out for coffee and ahh and what normally what I would expect would be a game where everyone is being formal and trying to feel one another out and assess where they are in the pecking order and just immediately talked about coffee, and issues

273 with the project, issues with the customer, which required no back story, required no fact checking, and how questions were being answered, it immediately felt different.

[Q10] Impact of fit on d2d work It enables faster decision making and it allows me a degree by in large, a flexibility in getting the things done that I need to get done because I can, because I am free to take risks without having to worry about the impact of those risks with out having to constantly check in with in this case a supervisor.

[Q11] Impact of disconnect d2d work Dis as in D I S connect, disconnect it forces rework, it forces cleanup both at a technical as well as a social dynamic so weather it be happen to go redo a set of analysis, recommendations, numbers or just cleaning up miscommunication, and someone is upset around that communication, it costs time, it eats into the emotional fabric of the organization. It is one of those things that drains the energy that you start the day with and has a carry over effect in your ability to deliver on other things. [Q12]Implicit rules Can you read the question again. . . that assist in the facilitation of trust. I am absolutely of the opinion that there are very few rules that assist in the facilitation of trust. There perhaps is a question is that there is the question of are there unwritten rules that destroy trust in the workplace. But to be able to establish and develop that trust in the workplace, man unwritten rules that facilitate. . . .

274 I would have to dig deep to come up with an answer, if there is something in my head, something is blocking, it is getting blocked by my own cynicism around the barriers which I think are overwhelming around being able to create trust, I think are overwhelming.

[Q13] What are the organizational rules that are explicit which facilitate trust in your organization? There are organizational constructs and processes designed in theory to facilitate trust, things like 360 feedback and performance review process, and things like two way communication or one way communication through any number of various means. However I believe they only loosely facilitate trust because they suffer from the same sets of issues that I implied in the last question which is there are unwritten rules that go against them and none of these are particularly compelling in our culture.

[Q14] Do changes need to occur within the organization to improve the connection between employees and those in leadership positions? If so, what would you recommend? Yes, and what I would recommend, what I would recommend would be two, two things one continue to improve on our leadership development programs that exist within the organization, to encourage good healthy talent based management and communication, at the end of the day knowing ones own self around what talents they bring to the table and being able to recognize what other people bring to the table and being able to have good open conversations around those I think they will go along way

275 towards making people not just be managers any more but more leaders capable of helping subordinates become more effective and that in and of itself will open better dialogue for trust in the organization.

There was another brilliant idea I had, crap other that that pieces there also exists a ridiculous number of anti trust barriers in the company that look like span of control, driven organizational structures where people create empires, bring folks into their organization, and create work without regards to what it is that actual needs to be done, those type of behaviors coupled with bad budgeting behaviors, and organizational turf battles make leaders seem to be not trust worthy and regardless of whether or not those individual leaders are to be or not to be trusted it doesnt lend itself for people to report to those leaders to open up and be willing to take a plunge into that type of a relationship where you get connection, and you get exchange of ideas, rather people drive in the opposite information, they hold onto information, they hold onto work, they hold on decisions, or ideas so as to protect the arbitrary structures that have been put in place.

An example of this one of the people who I do not trust a peer of mine outside of this organization, because of his organizational structure, and because of what his particular E level always demands of him to enforce that organizational structure, he is very guarded on his ideas and where things are to go, and even when I will have a very pointed conversation with him, about a way to improve the business, because of that organizational structure he will deliberately get quiet, not open up and talk to me, and

276 will even fess up and say <<name omission>> I agree with you, but I dont represent my thinking I represent my E levels thinking and this is what I must do.

And so its easy to blame he is just working for a jerk, but in fact he is protecting an old school set of structures and rules about how you create an set up an organizational , how you develop an organization within this company and how you define its success. And you dont define an organization by its output; you define an organization by its longevity to exist on its own, and its degree of independence from the rest of the company. When an E level or above creates that kind of behavior it encourages people to not want to fall into trusting relationships with the exception of those who are very close to them. And I suspect that its isolates.

Many people who work in that organization be it working for this leader or be it working for this leaders boss, or one level below, feel trapped , dont trust one another, dont trust, are wrapped up in a game of hiding information, scrubbing things before it leaves the walls, always wanting their particular leader to look good, any time date comes out of that organization, and the relative lack of dishonesty, my suspicion is keeps everyone looking over their shoulder all the time, in that particular organization and encourages me as an outsider to not trust any of them.

And those types of barriers need to be torn down. We need to take a close look at what it is we are encouraging, how we are rewarding in our organizational structures, how we choose leaders that create those types of structures, once you tackle that, you can

277 cascade a whole new way of thinking about relationships between subordinates, and supervisors and even peer relationships.

[Q15] In your opinion how do successful organizations facilitate falling into trust?

Yeah it has to start at a leader level and a willingness to confront those things that get in the way if trust. And to understand that even the smallest things can really hamper that. Be it something as simple as well the organization wont be able to handle this information so we are not going to share it, or we dont have a sense for what all the answers are yet, so we arent going to share it yet. We are going to wait before we share this information. Or any time we put data out about one of our results if one of our results are red, we get asked questions, so lets find a way to not have red data come out. So lets find a way to not have any red data come out because well get asked questions. And you get a choice as to how you want to interact within an organization and externally regards to sharing of information, and regards to opening up and understanding people all the time, and if you are not periodically checking into whether or not it is important to creating that. Then it is really easy to fall into the guise of the organization cant find that out yet, or we better clean that up before we send it out, and the more that you censor those things, the more trouble you get into. And we do it all the time.

I have an interesting an interesting example, so our organization goes out of our way to publish outage reports and the mechanism for escalating to our executives using the executive CI is a nice good open, everybody communicates with our executives if we

278 get asked questions that we dont have answers to we might look bad. Ahhm it is easier to say put the clamps on that make sure if you do an executive CI you have to run it by <<manger>> first, he will make the communication, and what that does is drive an internally focused set of dialogues anytime we have an important discussion that needs to be reaching that level before hand. Rather than opening up and sharing the information. I think when <<manager>> makes that kind of a claim, it goes against his reports trusting him, it goes against the engineers trusting them, and feels like a very different type of organization. And what may seem like a perfectly logical explanation to say well, that time is too valuable and we cannot be flooding <<CEOs>> box with all kinds of information that is incomplete, the reality is it has a carry over effect against the direction of encouraging trusting relationships at all levels, or certainly anyone close enough to the executive CI process.

Leaders need to understand this dynamic and value and embrace the benefit of connection and the benefit of the relationship enough to challenge even these little easy to decisions.

All right I got to work in executive outage process.

279 APPENDIX D: TABLES

280 Table 28 ProQuest Key Word Searches

Key Word Searches in ProQuest>Scholarly Journals including Peer Reviewed>multiple databases>all dates 2005 Synergy And Organizational Leadership Trust And Organizational Leadership Employee Trust And Management Trust And Management Mistrust And Management Leadership And I-Thou Management And I-Thou Leadership And Buber Mistrust And Leadership Mistrust And Management Connection And Leadership "Leadership Connection" And Trust "Leadership Synergy" And Trust Synergistic Leadership Simunye Guanxi And Leadership TOTALS 0 0 0 0 1 609 0 0 1 0 6 2260 0 0 1 1 8 2494 0 0 2 1 7 2204 0 0 1 3 9 1899 3 37 34 523 4 0 0 0 3 4 2004 12 47 188 1886 51 0 0 1 17 51 2003 9 110 248 1982 54 1 0 1 17 62 2002 9 102 47 1889 61 0 1 2 22 61 2001 11 92 22 1615 60 0 1 3 21 61 2000 and Prior 55 563 2599 8967 408 0 2 13 127 399 0 0 0 3 6 26 13168 0 0 8 11 57 22634 Total 99 951 3138 16862 638 1 4 20 207 638

281 Table 29 World Wide Web Key Word Searches

Google.Com Leadership And I-Thou "Synergistic Leadership" Trust And "Organizational Leadership" TOTAL 27,100 204030 4930 172,000

Amazon.Com Leadership And Trust Synergistic Leadership I-Thou Organizational Leadership TOTAL 368 52 260 1309 1989

BN.Com Leadership And Trust Synergistic Leadership I-Thou TOTAL 291 12 376 679