Functions and Dysfunctions of Interorganizational Trust and Distrust in the Public Sector

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399716667973
• Author: Peter Oomsels,Geert Bouckaert,Marloes Callens,Jolien Vanschoenwinkel
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716667973

Administration & Society

2019, Vol. 51(4) 516 –544

© The Author(s) 2016

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399716667973

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Functions and

Dysfunctions of

Interorganizational Trust

and Distrust in the Public

Sector

Peter Oomsels1, Marloes Callens1,

Jolien Vanschoenwinkel1, and Geert Bouckaert1

Abstract

This contribution explores the functional and dysfunctional roles of

interorganizational trust and distrust in the public sector. We construct

a conceptual framework and analyze 59 qualitative interviews with key

informants in Flemish executive and judiciary public sector organizations.

Results indicate that the combination of “trust as rule” and “distrust as

reasonable exception” is functional for interorganizational interactions,

whereas “trust as dogma” or “distrust as rule” gives rise to dysfunctionalities

in interorganizational interactions. The study provides empirical evidence

that challenges the “positive bias” toward trust in extant research, and

suggests a more balanced perspective on roles of interorganizational trust

and distrust.

Keywords

dysfunctional trust, functional distrust, public administration, juvenile justice

chain, criminal justice chain, interorganizational trust

1KU Leuven, Belgium

Corresponding Author:

Peter Oomsels, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 bus 3609, Leuven, 3000 Belgium.

Email: Peter.oomsels@soc.kuleuven.be

667973AASXXX10.1177/0095399716667973Administration & SocietyOomsels et al.

research-article2016

Oomsels et al. 517

Introduction

Public administration scholars investigate a wide variety of themes, aiming to

better understand and improve “management and policies so that government

can function” (Rabin, Hildreth, & Miller, 1998, p. iii). Within this wide array

of themes however, there has been little attention for interorganizational

trust, or trust in “cooperative relationships . . . between organizations, creat-

ing interdependency of joint actions that affect the success of those organiza-

tions” (Calvard, 2014, p. 116).

Interorganizational trust has been receiving increasing attention in other

research fields with aims similar to those of public administration scholars,

such as political science, organizational sociology, organizational psychol-

ogy, economics, and the derivative fields of management studies and orga-

nizational studies. It is, therefore, curious that it receives scarce attention as

a central research question in public administration research (Choudhury,

2008). The lack of focus on interorganizational trust as a core question in

public administration research is even more striking when we consider that

it is often argued to be a crucial factor for the success of contemporary

public administration, in which single organizations struggle to deal with

increasing complexity because they are given responsibilities “beyond the

virtue and authority [they] can summon” (Waldo, 1980, p. 187). To deal

with this complexity, governance of loosely coupled networks is proposed

as an alternative to hierarchical and market-based steering arrangements,

which are both considered to be outmoded as strategies for the management

of public administration (Loorbach, 2010, p. 162). Authors such as Shaw

(2003), Getha-Taylor (2012), and Agranoff (2013) argue that (interorgani-

zational) trust is a crucial factor for successful (co-)operation in such net-

works. Edelenbos and Klijn (2007) similarly argue that interorganizational

trust facilitates, solidifies, and increases the performance of interorganiza-

tional cooperation in complex decision-making networks. However, despite

such notions of interorganizational trust as an important factor for success-

ful public administration, scholars in the field are also critical of the con-

cept of “trust.” Although he emphasizes the potential importance of

interorganizational trust in public administration, Bouckaert (2012) warns

that trust should not be considered a panacea for reform, because an over-

abundance of trust could be as damaging for public administration as a

shortage. Van Montfort (2010) argues that trust is often used as a mantra in

public sector reform rhetoric, potentially veiling and obstructing serious

debate about mechanisms such as oversight, accountability, and the organi-

zation of checks and balances. In the more general management literature,

Sievers (2003) suggests that “trust” is used as a managerial ruse for