When trust becomes a burden:
How good intentions complicate relationships in collaborative networks
This is a shorter version of the newsletter. To get the full version with tips, follow-ups, and introductions of other members, subscribe to our mailing list:
Today's paper:
"Does Trust Still Matter? Research on the Role of Trust in Inter-Organizational Exchange" - Chapter 16, Handbook of Trust Research
What can be bad about trust?
It’s easier to answer this question with a comparison to gift-giving. Imagine you receive an expensive gift from a potential partner you have no interest in collaborating with. You might feel manipulated, awkward, or obligated to reciprocate—all because this gift was unwelcome.
Like gifts, trust can be offered to create obligations or to manipulate the receiver. The tricky part is that people often create these unwelcome obligations unintentionally, as shown in the three situations below.
When we talk about trust, we often overlook that trust is not just a feeling; it’s a process. We don’t simply think someone is trustworthy; we take risks to show our trust. These risks vary widely—from sharing a family secret to appointing someone to a high managerial position.
Navigating trust is never simple, and it’s even harder in networks where roles and responsibilities aren’t clearly defined. I’ve taken the liberty of rewriting examples from Skinner and colleagues’ paper to show how this can look in networks—and what I recommend to mitigate issues of “unwelcome” trust.
I’d love to hear your stories and questions, so please feel free to share them here.
Situation 1: Ben, a network member, volunteers to organize an event, but his colleagues consider him unreliable.
By volunteering, Ben implicitly “asks” to be trusted. Although his colleagues know that all of Ben’s previous initiatives were poorly executed, rejecting his offer is challenging. Declining would require an explanation, often so uncomfortable that people prefer to let Ben proceed (even though the event is likely to fail again). In networks, this issue is complicated by two factors: 1) most meetings happen in groups, and 2) there’s often no clear person designated to “approve” or “reject” members’ initiatives, as networks may lack a formal leader.
What would help? A clear division of responsibilities and a system for rotating or changing them. A useful tool is a task&competence map: a list of tasks, the skills needed to perform them, and a clear explanation of how one can prove or acquire those skills. For example, this could involve training in event management and/or organizing an event under the supervision of a senior colleague.
Situation 2: A network manager assigns Paul to organize an important event, but Paul isn’t ready.
Although the manager trusts Paul to handle this task, Paul himself might feel unmotivated, under-skilled, or simply too busy. Refusing such a gesture of trust is tough; it might damage their relationship. Paul is likely to accept and attempt the task under significant pressure, which doesn’t improve his work quality either.
What would help? An open call to all members, paired with a competence map, could allow motivated individuals to volunteer while helping filter out those who lack the necessary skills.
Situation 3: The partnership between two organizations is clearly failing, yet they keep working together.
his often results from a “trust trap.” When partners have worked together for a long time, they develop trust, and ending the partnership feels like betrayal. Often, one partner still benefits from the relationship and emphasizes the importance of trust and reciprocity (even if unintentionally manipulative), while the other partner feels indebted and trapped in an unproductive arrangement to avoid guilt.
What would help? When people initiate partnerships, I recommend discussing how and when the partnership will end. Think of it like a prenuptial agreement: it’s much easier to negotiate with someone while the relationship is strong, which can help avoid difficult “divorces” later on.
