TRUST AS A FACTOR OF AN ORGANISATION’S EFFECTIVENESS

This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. BSTRACT

Problem statement. Currently, research on trust is one of the most actual areas in the social sciences (Gerbert, 2006;p. 397). The reason for this is a remarkable sociopsychological phenomenon, called the "trust deficit". It was formed until the mid 90's of the twentieth century in post-Soviet society and became one of the negative consequences of the radical economic and political transformations that took place in the CIS countries in the early 1990s.
A lack of trust was acutely felt in many walks of life of that historic period and in many areas of people's life, especially in economics, politics, and the social sphere. Thus, the real source of scientific interest in the problems of trust was precisely the practical needs, which gave rise to a public atmosphere of the need for knowledge about trust, which would not only describe, but also explain, predict, and, if possible, influence, manage it (Kupreychenko, 2008;p. 29).
In the recent years, special attention has been given to psychological factors that can help increase an organization's effectiveness. The studies on trust in organizations are one of the most developed and popular areas of research in foreign psychology, sociology, management.
Modern researchers unanimously recognize trust as an important factor of an organization's climate, a psychological factor that contributes to its development and increases its work efficiency (Zhuravlev, 2004;p. 8).
In order to be successful in business, you need two things first: a winning competitive strategy and high-quality organizational performance. Distrust is the enemy of both.
Many failures that we see today in business are the result of suspicion among those who, for the sake of prosperity, should think and act in a collaborative way. Management consultants conclude that "divergent" strategic goals and unclear organisational objectives are often the result of mistrust. It also leads to poorly thought out and poorly implemented innovations. In other words, distrust is the source of many of the problems facing organizations (Show, 2000; p.12).
The impact of distrust extends far beyond an organization's senior management. It can permeate the entire organization and nullify its ability to adapt to changes in the competitive environment. Anyone who has worked for a large organization knows the tendency of different groups to distrust one another. Functional, production, and regional groups in many firms work if not overtly antagonistic to one another, but at least without any cooperation (Chayka, 2005;p. 57).
In today's competitive economy, distrust becomes something much more important than just a staff problem.
Highly-distrusted organizations are in fact uncompetitive, and vice versa: trust-based organizations have the best chance of achieving predictable business results in rapidly changing and stressful environment. In this respect, trust is one of the most important factors in achieving tangible business success (Skripkina, 2000;p.78).
The direction of research on the impact of trust on organizations' effectiveness is gradually emerging in the national social psychology. However, there is very little empirical research done on the basis of real modern organizations. Differences in approaches to understanding the essence of trust in an organization determine the specificity of theoretical models and evaluative methods for this phenomenon.

Analysis of recent research and publications.
According to one of the most common approaches, trust is defined in terms of cognitive processes. Thus, trust is defined as a person's awareness of his/her own vulnerability or risk arising from the uncertainty of the motives, intentions and expected actions of other people on whom he/ she depends. R. Levitsky, D. McAllister, and R. Bies point out that two opposite models of trust can be distinguished within the social choice theory. One, the origins of which are expressed in the sociological (J. Coleman), economic (O. Williamson), and political (R. Hardin) theories, explains trust in relatively rational, intelligible terms. In this regard, H. Schrader notes that the tradition of the "trust" term as a result of rational choice and utility calculation is most common in the decision-making and game theories.
Another model is more inclined to the social and psychological bases of choice in difficult situations (M. Doyle) (Deynega, 2013;p. 30).
Many contemporary scholars argue rightly that trust should be understood as a more complex, multidimensional psychological phenomenon that includes emotional and motivational components (P. Bromilei and L. Cummings, R. Kramer, D. Levy and A. Weigert, D. McAllister , T. Tyler, and P. Dego). As noted by G. Fine and L. Holyfield, cognitive models of trust reflect the necessary but insufficient understanding of trust. They believe that trust also includes aspects of cultural values, emotional reactions and social relationships ... It is necessary not only to be aware of trust but also to feel it (Fine & Holyfield, 1996;p. 25). This position, shared by most sociologists (G. Simmel, A. Giddens), is the closest to the socio-psychological understanding of trust as a psychological relationship, including cognitive, emotional and connotative components (Zhuravlev & Sumarokova, 1998;p. 32).
Studying the dynamics of organizational trust, G.
Fine and L. Holyfield examined the entry of new members into the culture of trust in an organization (Fine & Holyfield, 1996;p. 27). A special role here is given to experienced employees who teach beginners a sense of responsibility. Another way to build trust is to influence the rules that drive it. J. March and J. Olsen point out that in this case an organization acts, like an "assistant director", making "clues that cause similarity in certain situations" (March & Olsen, 1994;p. 72). G. Miller exemplifies the positive dynamics of self-created trust in an organization. While discussing the principles of collaboration at Hewlett-Packard, he notes that the company have implemented an open-door policy for employees that not only allows engineers to have all equipment in laboratories, but also approves if they take it home for personal use (Milner, 2002;p. 197). to study and often "escapes" from researchers. A possible solution to this problem may be to analyze the social behaviour in general and the individual actions of an organization's members in situations of trust or distrust. It is also necessary to identify in the system of organizational rela-tions specific "zones" of subcultures with a particular types, forms or stages of trust and distrust. Such "zones" as well as individual and group characteristics of trust and distrust in the organization were identified in the course of the empirical research. Its main purpose was to analyze the relationships that exist between trust and distrust in the organization and the phenomena of common life, in particular, the psychological atmosphere, the psychological climate, the organizational culture, etc. The subject of the study is also the influence that some personal determinants have on the assessment of trust in the organization and the psychological atmosphere: general attitude to trust, features of trust / distrust to others, level of subjective control, anxiety, aggressiveness and gender identity. In addition, the influence of the socio-economic and organizational-psychological factors of organizations and individual groups of their employees was analyzed (Zhuravlev & Sumarokova, 1998;p. 258).
The studies of trust in organizations (and, in recent years, distrust) are one of the most developed and popular areas of research in foreign psychology, sociology, management. This is evidenced by a number of recent major collective works and review publications (Show, 2000;Farrell, 2004;Lewicki, 1998) In studies that analyze the reduction of an organization's internal costs, trust is often understood as a socially regulated heuristic, that is, employees' a priori willing-ness to have certain decision-making behaviours and to respond constructively to a variety of difficult situations.
According to V. Uzzi, organizational trust as a heuristic enables an employee to give the best interpretation of the motives and actions of other employees in difficult situations (Uzzi, 1997;p. 43). Reduction of internal costs of an enterprise is achieved, first, by reduced time to discuss problems and decision-making, second, by the optimal allocation and movement of resources, and third, due to the absence of formal monitoring, control procedures and artificial methods encouraging cooperation and collaboration. V. Uzzi notes that the heuristic nature of trust enables actors to respond promptly and positively to the stimulus (Uzzi, 1997;p. 44  We assumed that there is a relation between the level of trust in a team and its performance. The study subject was the teams of selected organizations. The study object is the impact of trust in organizations on their performance. The following tasks were set: • To conduct research in 22 teams of the selected organizations; • To determine whether trust affects the performance of the organizations; • To determine whether corporate culture influences trust in the teams; Correlation and regression analyzes were used to process and interpret the data. The performed empirical study found the relations of trust with performance, consistency and concern. The study results confirm the hypothesis that there is a close relation between the level of trust in an organization and it performance (0.479). Consistency and concern also have a significant impact on performance, even greater than trust (0.661 and 0.565, respectively) (see Table 1).
During the interview with the employees of the organizations where the research was conducted, we also found that the peculiarities of collective beliefs (or distrust) in the organization in the most cases are determined by the personal and professional qualities of line managers. In turn, the dominant corporate culture of the enterprise shapes attitudes toward other people, which develops the skills to interact with them in accordance with the organizational rules.
From our study findings, we can conclude that one of the most important sources of competitive advantage of prosperous firms and corporations is the development (strength) and features of organizational culture, the bearers of which are an enterprise's personnel and directly its head.
We see a high correlation between the strength of organizational culture and performance -0.618 (see Fig. 1).
Organizational culture