We recently presented some thoughts on the topic of trust, a central ingredient in human relationships and thus in symphony organizational dynamics. We presented definitions of trust, discussed forms of trust within organizations, and outlined how trust can be created. We also noted that it takes considerable time and effort for trust to be established throughout an organization, and brought out how the advancement of organizational trust is inextricably a part of the process of organization change. This topic is of great significance to symphony organizations, especially in the stresses and strains of the current environment.

In this posting. we will discuss the impact of "group membership" on interpersonal and intraorganizational trust. The ideas and insights that follow are drawn substantially from an excellent paper written by Michele Williams, an assistant professor of organizational studies at the Sloan School of Mangement, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In her paper, the author integrates with her own theories and analysis that of many other academicians; references to the work of others is extensive. However, the page notations below refer to the Williams paper where further underlying references may be found. As we review some of Williams’s primary insights, we also note particularly how they apply to symphony orchestra organizations.

As the author says, interpersonal trust is an "important social resource that can facilitate cooperation and enable coordinated social interactions. It reduces the need to monitor others’ behavior, formalize procedures, and create completely specified contracts. [It] facilitates informal cooperation and reduces negotiation costs . . .," but ". . . it is often difficult to develop trust and cooperation across group boundaries, because people frequently perceive individuals from other groups as potential adversaries with conflicting goals, beliefs, or styles of interacting." (Williams 377)

The article points out that interpersonal trust often exists within groups composed of people who have common professional backgrounds, even though they may have quite dissimilar individual backgrounds, have known each other only shortly or sporadically, and have no specific evidence by which to judge personal trustworthiness. (Williams 378)

• We have often mentioned the "bonding" that exists within an orchestra. There are a number of reasons for this, but they include what might be termed the "implicit trustworthiness" which arises from the quite common and intensive training, shared experience, and, essentially, professional certification of the musicians.

It is well established that human beings engage in "social categorization," proceseses in which oneself or others are grouped in social categories in contrast with others, such as gender, race, profession, etc. Social categorization influences trust development in that it allows people to rely on previously held beliefs as a short-cut, rather than committing time and energy to gathering information and processing evidence about specific group members. This is called "category-driven processing," otherwise known as "stereotyping." (Williams 380)

• Stereotyping is an all too common feature within symphony organizations. It is especially prevalent in the views of many orchestra members with respect to board members and, vice versa, the views of many board members with respect to many musicians. As organizational research attests, such stereotyping often contributes to organizational distrust and suspicion.

It is noteworthy that even when a person in, say, "Group A" develops individuating information about a person generally categorized (stereotyped) as a "Group B" person, human beings usually tend to create a subcategory for the Group B person which includes and refers to his or her exceptional features but, barring significant further information and effort, still classifies the person stereotypically as a member of Group B. (Williams 380)

• How often have we heard a board member say about an orchestra member, "For a musician, he is really quite constructive." Or a player say, "Even though she is a board member, she understands our problems pretty well." Or a volunteer say, "I like George, even though he acts like a child most of the time." Or an "old-boy" board member say, "Considering everything, she does a good job."

In general, people tend to associate positive beliefs and feelings with they groups to which they belong. They "identify" with their fellow group members. However, the beliefs and feelings about other groups may be positive, negative, or neutral, depending in good part on the interdependence among their group and other groups. On balance, individuals strive to maintain a positive image about the group of which they are a member by making social comparisons with other groups that favor their own group, thereby contributing to their own self-esteem. Individuals within their own group (ingroup) are seen as more trustworthy, honest, and cooperative as compared with members of dissimilar groups (outgroups). (Williams 381-382)

• "Group membership" is certainly a fundamental condition within most symphony organizations. Participants in most such organizations are quite conscious of the organizational compartmentalization within their institutions, and they are very conscious of the groups of which they are members. The central group within an orchestra organization, and the primary reason for its existence, is the orchestra. The work of an orchestra is highly unified and centripetal by the nature of orchestral performance. The workspace is highly concentrated and quite separate from the workplace of others in the organization. And as earlier noted, players are bonded as a group by a relatively high sense of professionalism. Barring actions to span if not break down the boundaries that separate orchestra "group membership" from the balance of a symphony organization, is it any surprise that two-way stereotyping, and the related adverse effects on organizational trust, is a prevalent feature in these organizations?

The author goes on to discuss relationships between organizational groups in terms of competitive interdependence (for example, when there is competition for scarce resources or a striving toward mutually exclusive or conflicting goals), or cooperative interdependence (for example, when one group gains because other groups succeed, or when there is a strong similarity or congruence of core values, norms, attitudes, or aspirations). (Williams 382-385)

• "Adversarialism" exists in many symphony organizations, predominantly with respect to the relationship between the orchestra, as a unified group, and the employer, as represented by the management group and the board group, separately or considered as a unified group. These are the primary groups within a symphony organization. The core assumption of adversarialism is that there is a fundamental conflict between the interests of these groups, and a competition for scarce resources. Distrust is engendered by these assumptions. To the contrary, symphony institutions that are well advanced in organization change processes recognize that these primary groups have a cooperative interdependence. Common and shared core values, beliefs, and aspirations are identified and upheld, and the success of any one group is considered to be a gain for all other groups. Organizational trust develops and deepens in these organizations.
  
  

Summary
The development and enhancement of interpersonal and intraorganizational trust is a necessary component in well-functioning symphony organizations, and goes hand-in-hand with organization change and the creation of more satisfying workplaces for employees and volunteers. Trust stems from truthfulness, confidence, dependability, and authenticity, as reflected in words and deeds. The sense of trust broadly felt throughout an organization emerges when there is widespread iterative trust among organizational participants. Trustworthiness becomes a part of the organization’s culture. Therefore, what thinking and behavior might symphony organization participants embrace if they seek to build trust within their institutions? Here are some possibilities:

• Be truthful, honest, consistent, and reliable in your words and actions; be conscious that the trust others place in you will depend upon how well you fulfill their expectations.
  
• Interpersonal trust is a two-way process and, throughout an organization, involves many, many relationships. To establish, enhance, or repair trust on a broad scale requires many initiatives. People in leadership roles especially have the duty of such initiative and the responsibility to set a positive example.
  
• Stereotyping another person is a natural human process that thrives on the absence of specific, directly gained information and feelings about that person as an individual. The obvious antidote to stereotyping is for people to know each other directly, genuinely, and interactively as individuals, and desirably in conditions of repeated, authentic taskwork or serious discussion, as opposed to casual and potentially artificial social environments.
  
• As a contribution toward the development of organizational trust, bringing symphony organization people together regularly in face-to-face communications is of great value.
  
• Even when people work reasonably well together, they often do not expose to each other basic assumptions they hold about their work and about the purposes of the organization. The interpersonal trust established between such persons tends to be conditional; it stops short of people really getting to know and wholeheartedly depend on each other. Facilitated dialogue can help to draw out basic assumptions and beliefs for nonjudgmental examination, discussion, and understanding. This is an important step in establishing deeply trusting relationships and building a trusting environment.
  
• Participants in organizations that are high performing usually are characterized by common, widely shared beliefs and values, and a relatively unified vision of what the organization is and is to become. These attributes come with hard work, starting with a true appreciation of differences, and working toward the embracement of common ground and shared vision. Processes toward the development of shared beliefs, values, and vision are usually best carried out under the guidance of a nonaligned facilitator. It is well established that success in these endeavors results in broad-based organizational trust, which in turn fosters positive organizational health and advancement toward vision.
  

Note:

Michele Williams. July 2001. "In Whom We Trust: Group Membership as an Effective Context for Trust Development." Academy of Management Review 26:3.