Search

This paper attempts to classify of literature on organizational trust and trust repair according to its ontological, epistemological and axiological roots by drawing on two classical sociological frameworks - Burrell and Morgan's sociological paradigms (1979) and Fox's (1966) frames of reference - to help reveal current shortcomings of this literature and suggest ways in which is could be strengthened. We argue that functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structuralist accounts of trust may produce completely different outcomes with regards to the ways in which the notion of trust is constructed and trust repair is attempted. We also suggest that looking at the studies of organizational trust from unitary, pluralist and radical perspectives helps to unmask some important ideological assumptions guiding trust research. These assumptions relate to the one-sided view of organizational life, which is primarily based on a managerial prerogative, and fails to account for the divergent interest of stakeholders in organizational trust. We conclude with some thoughts for further research into trust repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]