SHELBY COSNER

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based
Trust Perspective to Examine and
Conceptualize Within-School Trust
Development by Principals

ABSTRACT: Research has revealed the importance of trust to schools and pointed
to the central role that principals play in cultivating within-school trust, yet less
is known about the ways that principals cultivate such trust. Moreover, divergent
perspectives and varied contexts for examining trust have limited the transfer of
trust scholarship to practice by principals as well as by those who prepare and
develop principals. With these issues in mind, I examine and conceptualize ways
that principals cultivate within-school trust as a means of advancing understanding and practice. A multidisciplinary review of trust theory and research led me
to focus this investigation in several ways to be instructive related to the cultivation of within-school trust by principals. First, rather than examine myriad types
of trust and trust processes, I center on the development of knowledge-based
trust, a critical lens for considering the development of within-school trust given
that it has been regarded as a primary mechanism for trust development within
organizations. Second, I consider two important within-school trust referents that
are directly or indirectly responsive to principal activity: trust in leader and trust
between colleagues. From this perspective, I explore organizational benefits
derived by trust in leader and by trust in colleagues; I also examine and conceptualize ways that principals cultivate both forms of within-school trust. Finally, I
share implications for practice and future research.

Over the last 2 decades, research has revealed the importance of trust
for schools (Bryk, Camburn, & Seashore Louis, 1999; Bryk & Schneider,
2002; Cosner, 2009; Daly, 2009; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Smith,
Hoy, & Sweetland, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Yet, even as a growing

Address correspondence to Shelby Cosner, PhD, Department of Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 West Harrison Street (MC 147), Chicago, IL
60607–7133. E-mail: sacosner@uic.edu.

Journal of School Leadership Volume 20—March 2010

117

118

SHELBY COSNER

number of researchers have concluded that principals hold a key position for cultivating within-school trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Cosner,
2009; Kochanek, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2004), there remains insufficient
scholarly treatment of their development of within-school trust. Likewise,
limited synthesis of trust research and scholarship has been undertaken
to directly inform school principals regarding the importance and work of
cultivating within-school trust. To address these needs, I draw from an extensive interdisciplinary review of trust theory and research as I examine
and conceptualize ways that principals cultivate within-school trust.
Given “the vast applicability of the concept ‘trust’ to different contexts
and levels of analysis” (Costa, 2003, p. 106), several critical questions serve
to focus this investigation. First, what is the primary trust mechanism at
play with respect to the development of within-school trust? Second, what
conceptualization of within-school trust is informative for considering the
ways that principals cultivate within-school trust? Guided by these two
questions, I provide a focused examination of school principals’ withinschool trust development—an understudied area and one that I argue is
needed for advancing current trust literature as well as supporting the
translation of trust research into practice by school principals and those
who prepare and develop these leaders.

KNOWLEDGE-BASED TRUST: A CRITICAL LENS FOR
CONSIDERING WITHIN-SCHOOL TRUST
Considering a primary trust mechanism at play in the development of
within-school trust suggests attention to the context of the trust relationship. In this manner, recognizing the school as an organization (Bidwell,
1965) is paramount. Accordingly, research has suggested that the nature
of trust within organizations, as well as the formation of trust in work
relationships, is somewhat different from the development of trust in
close, personal, or romantic relationships or between relative strangers
(Kramer, 1999; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Shapiro, Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992). Although several mechanisms are at
work with respect to trust formation in organizations—such as individuals’
predispositions to trust, perceptions of social similarity, or perceptions
about another person’s reputation (Kramer, 1999; McKnight, Cummings, &
Chervany, 1998)—various researchers regard knowledge-based trust as a
primary trust mechanism at work within organizations (Costa, 2003; Jones
& George, 1998; Kramer, 1999; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995, 1996; McKnight
et al., 1998). Consequently, knowledge-based trust provides a critical lens

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

119

for considering the formation of within-school trust, and I use it to focus
the conceptualization of within-school trust development that I advance
in this article.
Also regarded as cognitive- or interaction-based trust, knowledge-based
trust forms through repeated social interactions that provide interacting
parties with knowledge that informs trust development. Although social
interaction is central to the formation of knowledge-based trust, positive
interactions that reveal one or more facets of trust between interacting
parties are of importance (Costa, 2003; Jones & George, 1998; Kramer,
1999; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995, 1996; McKnight et al., 1998). Simply stated,
interaction creates an opportunity for trust to develop; however, the quality of the interaction can lead to the development of trust or mistrust.
Through interactions, individuals learn about another person’s willingness and abilities to meet expectations or fulfill commitments, and they
become knowledgeable about another person’s behavioral predictability
(Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Swinth, 1967)—all of which are important
understandings with respect to trust formation. Considering the formation
of knowledge-based trust, Kramer (1999) suggested, “Trust between two
or more interdependent actors thickens or thins as a function of their cumulative interaction. Interactional histories give decision makers information that is useful” (p. 575). Likewise, Bryk and Schneider (2002) reported
on the development of trust between members of a school community:
Trust is forged in daily social exchanges. Through their actions, school participants articulate their sense of obligations toward others, and others in
turn come to discern the intentionality enacted here. Trust grows over time
through exchanges where the expectations held for others are validated in
action. (pp. 136–137)

Critical to the formation of knowledge-based trust are the more specific
criteria or lenses that individuals bring “to bear as they observe and interpret the behavior of others” (p. 22). Consequently, knowledge-based trust
is typically operationalized through a set of specific trust facets that serve
as lenses for considering the actions of others. A short list of trust facets
has been empirically tested from two extended lines of research in U.S.
schools, thus supporting the multidimensionality of the construct of trust.1
Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999) identified and tested the trust facets of
benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness. Based on
their research (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000), their conclusion was that
these facets of trust “covary together and form a coherent construct of
trust” (p. 556). From an extensive review of qualitative data gathered from
elementary schools in reform and by a comparison of emergent themes
within cross-disciplined scholarship on trust, Bryk and Schneider (2002)

120

SHELBY COSNER

centered on four facets of trust as they examined issues of trust and school
improvement in Chicago, including respect, competence, personal regard
for others, and integrity.

SPECIFYING REFERENTS OF WITHIN-SCHOOL TRUST
Conceptualizing within-school trust in a manner that is salient for the examination of trust development by principals necessitates specifying the
referents of trust. It is not surprising that extant research has operationalized within-school trust from divergent perspectives, given that various
issues of trust have been considered relative to schools. Taking a more
organizational-level perspective, Daly (2009) examined school-level trust
as he considered threat-rigid responses of schools under No Child Left
Behind sanctions. In somewhat similar fashion, Reeves, Emerick, and
Hirsh (2007) examined the atmosphere of trust within schools. In contrast,
within-school trust is regularly considered through distinct role sets within
the school, where trust is desirable and “culminates in important consequences at the organizational level ” (Byrk & Schneider, 2002, p. 22). In this
manner, within-school trust has been examined through the role sets of
teacher and student, teacher and parent, teacher and principal, and teacher
to teacher (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Cosner, 2009; Goddard, TschannenMoran, & Hoy, 2001; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999;
Smith et al., 2001; Tarter, Sabo, & Hoy, 1995; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). The
conceptualization presented in this article adopts a role-set perspective related to within-school trust referents and centers on two such referents—
leader trust and collegial trust—which have been linked to myriad positive
workplace-relevant employee attitudes, behaviors, and organizational outcomes (Tarter et al., 1995) and have been found to be directly or indirectly
cultivated by principals (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Cosner, 2009; Kochanek,
2005; Seashore Louis, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
Framing the investigation of within-school trust in these ways, I begin
by examining the productive workplace-relevant employee attitudes and
behaviors and desirable organizational outcomes that are associated with
leader trust and collegial trust. I do so through an interdisciplinary review
of trust literature before narrowing my examination to studies from the
field of education. Understanding these benefits provides a powerful rationale for enhancing the understanding and practice of principals’ withinschool trust development. Next, I draw on an interdisciplinary review of
trust literature to examine and conceptualize ways that principals cultivate
leader trust and collegial trust. Current literature has given much less at-

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

121

tention to the latter, making this conceptual treatment an important contribution to existing trust scholarship.

WHY TRUST IN LEADER IS IMPORTANT
Trust theory and research suggest that employee trust in leadership is
associated with productive workplace-relevant employee attitudes and
behaviors as well as desirable organizational outcomes. From reviews of
extant research, including a meta-analysis of 4 decades of trust research,
scholars have concluded that such associations appear strongest in relation to workplace-relevant employee attitudes, followed by workplacerelevant employee behavior and, finally, organizational outcomes (Dirks
& Ferrin, 2001; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). In studying workplace-relevant
employee attitudes and behaviors, Cunningham and MacGregor (2000)
found that trust in leader is positively related to employees’ job satisfaction and attendance and negatively related to employees’ desires to quit.
Trust in leader has also been associated with employees’ compliance with
decisions (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Tyler & Degoey, 1996) and their acceptance of organizational goals (Oldham, 1975). Employees’ organizational
citizenship behaviors—those actions that are “above and beyond the call
of duty and basic job requirements” (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002,
p. 314)—have also been associated with trust in leadership (Korsgaard
et al., 2002; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Explaining
such benefits, Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) suggested
trust in leadership allows the individuals in the team or organization to suspend their individual doubts and personal motives and direct their efforts
toward a common team goal. In summary, trust in leader has two complementary effects: it helps maximize individual efforts and performance and it then
harnesses those efforts towards achieving a common goal or strategy. (p. 27)

Specific to organizational outcomes, trust in leader has been found to
have a positive effect on task performance (Oldham, 1975), sales performance (Rich, 1997), and team performance (Dirks, 2000). Dirks (2000),
who studied National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball teams,
concluded that trust in leadership is “both a product and a determinant of
team performance” (p. 1,004). Of particular importance, he also found the
relationship between leader trust and team performance is significantly
greater for poor-performing teams, thereby suggesting that trust in leadership might be critical for turning around a struggling organization. Trust
in leadership also appears salient in times of conflict, crisis, and organizational change (Tyler & DeGoey, 1996).

122

SHELBY COSNER

Studies that have been conducted within educational settings have associated leader trust with positive workplace-relevant teacher attitudes
and favorable school-level outcomes. Seashore Louis (2007), who studied
districts engaged in total quality management initiatives, suggested that
trust in administration leads teachers to more positively interpret administratively created visions. Bryk and Schneider (2002) found that trust in
principal is related to teachers’ orientation to innovate, commitment to
the school community, outreach to parents, and professional community.
Trust in principal has been associated with faculty perceptions of organizational justice that center on issues of workplace fairness (Hoy & Tarter,
2004). Principal trust has also been associated with middle-level teachers’
use of focused instruction2 (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louis, 2008) as well as
school effectiveness at the middle school level (Tarter et al., 1995). Trust
in administrative leadership also appears salient in times of conflict, crisis,
change, and school reform (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Seashore Louis, 2007).
Of importance, organizational changes not only appear more easily initiated (Seashore Louis, 2007) but more easily sustained (Bryk & Schneider,
2002) in schools where administrative trust is high, as compared to schools
where administrative trust is low.

WHY TRUST BETWEEN COLLEAGUES IS IMPORTANT
A review of trust theory and research suggests that collegial trust is associated with productive workplace-relevant employee attitudes and behaviors as well as desirable organizational outcomes. Related to the former,
research by Ferres, Connell, and Travaglione (2004) linked collegial trust
to perceptions of organizational support, intentions of turnover, and affective organizational commitment. Moreover, research on trust within
work teams revealed that team satisfaction and relationship commitment
are positively related and that level of stress is negatively related to trust
among team members (Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001).
Research has suggested that numerous workplace-relevant employee
behaviors are related to collegial trust. McAllister (1995) found that collegial trust has a positive impact on organizational citizenship behaviors.
Trust within groups has a positive impact on the effort that group members
expend (Dirks, 2000). Lewicki and Wiethoff (2000) concluded that conflict
resolution is made “easier and more productive” (p. 101) when trust exists
between individuals. In a related point, Simons and Peterson (2000) found
that task conflict—as derived from differing perceptions of viewpoints,
ideas, and opinions—is less likely to evolve into relationship conflict in

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

123

high-trust work groups than in low-trust work groups, where group members may disagree in ways more likely based on personal attack than on
intellectual arguments.
Literature has also revealed important connections among trust,
workplace-relevant attitudes, and the influence that such attitudes have on
workplace-relevant behaviors. From an interdisciplinary review of literature, Edmondson (2004) concluded that individuals who feel psychological
safety—a feeling of safety when “putting oneself on the line” (p. 241) in a
work context, as associated with employee trust in colleagues—are more
likely to engage in five important team-learning behaviors: feedback seeking, help seeking, speaking up about concerns and mistakes, innovation,
and boundary spanning. Dirks (1999), for example, concluded that group
trust “appeared to influence how motivation was translated into group processes and performance” (p. 453) such that high-trust groups transformed
motivation into joint effort and higher performance whereas low-trust
groups transformed motivation into individual effort that evidenced lesser
performance.
Trust between colleagues is also related to several organizational outcomes. Trust helps to make “collective action of various sorts more feasible” (Uphoff, 2000, p. 229). Collective-action problems within organizations, such as group problem solving or decision making that requires the
collective involvement or response of a small or large group of individuals,
are more productively addressed when trust exists among members of
the collective (Putnam, 1993). Trust in colleagues promotes the exchange
of essential information within and across an organization (Grootaert &
van Bastelaer, 2002; Lin, 2001; Serageldin & Grootaert, 2000), and it can
provide and expand individual and group access to “structurally embedded” (Lin, 2001, p. 29) resources and opportunities. Trust within groups
has also been found to have a positive effect on a group’s perceived task
performance (Costa et al., 2001). Consistent with the interdisciplinary
review of literature, research on trust within schools has found that collegial trust supports workplace-relevant teacher attitudes and behaviors.
Collegial trust has, for example, been associated with higher levels of
teacher morale (Smith et al., 2001); teacher professionalism (TschannenMoran, 2009); teacher sense of efficacy (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999);
and teacher commitment, identification, and attachment to the school and
its mission (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hoy, Sabo, & Barnes, 1996). Moreover, collegial trust has been found to support teachers’ willingness and
efforts to innovate in the midst of reform initiatives (Bryk & Schneider,
2002), public problem solving within schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002),
and collaboration among colleagues (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-

124

SHELBY COSNER

Moran, 2001, 2004). In particular, Bryk and Schneider (2002) concluded
that “teachers must work together to advance educational opportunities
for children,” but “if teachers don’t trust their colleagues . . . the required
collaborative efforts are unlikely to be initiated and sustained” (p. 130).
Collegial trust plays an important role with respect to various aspects and
forms of teacher learning. In particular, it supports teacher sharing, help
seeking, and feedback seeking (Kochanek, 2005; Spillane & Thompson,
1997), as well as the development of teacher professional communities
(Bryk et al., 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Gamoran et al., 2003; Halverson,
2003; Seashore Louis, Kruse, & Associates, 1995). In fact, Bryk and colleagues (1999) argued,
By far, the strongest facilitator of professional community is social trust among
faculty members. When teachers trust and respect each other, a powerful social resource is available for supporting the collaboration, reflective dialogue,
and deprivatization characteristics of a professional community. (p. 767)

Collegial trust has been associated with various within-school and
organizational-level outcomes. Higher levels of collegial trust have been
found to relate to higher levels of teachers’ trust in students and in parents (Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Collegial trust has, for example, been
associated with organizational mindfulness3 (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006)
and organizational justice (Hoy & Tarter, 2004). Collegial trust has been
identified as an important element of a school’s capacity to support ambitious instructional reforms (Spillane & Thompson, 1997). Studies have
also associated collegial trust with perceived organizational effectiveness at the elementary and middle levels (Hoy, Tarter, & Witkoskie, 1992;
Tarter et al., 1995), as well as with elementary school improvement (Bryk
& Schneider, 2002).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE-BASED TRUST
BY PRINCIPALS
Although principals have been regarded as holding an important position
for supporting the development of trust in schools (Bryk & Schneider,
2002; Cosner, 2009; Kochanek, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2004), how they
cultivate trust in leader and trust among colleagues is less well understood. This is especially visible with respect to how the scholarly literature
has treated principals’ cultivation of collegial trust. In the following section, I draw from an interdisciplinary review of research and scholarship
to identify various antecedents and trust facilitators connected to the
development of knowledge-based trust in both leader and colleague. I also

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

125

examine and conceptualize leadership actions and considerations for principals’ cultivation of both forms of within-school trust.

HOW PRINCIPALS CULTIVATE KNOWLEDGE-BASED
LEADER TRUST
Researchers have empirically identified, through survey and qualitative
research as well as from reviews of literature, a variety of antecedents and
facilitators to the development of trust in leaders. Although findings vary,
certain facets of trust as well as related leader actions appear important
with respect to the development of trust in leader. Beyond a facet perspective, specific leader actions, as well as several broadly conceived leadership approaches, have been associated with leader trust or have been
identified as antecedents to the development of knowledge-based trust in
leader. I explore each of these areas in turn.
Several scholars have examined leader trust from a facet perspective and
have advanced a small collection of findings related to trust facets that appear salient with respect to the development or destruction of knowledgebased trust in leader. Clark and Payne (2006), who studied the development
of trust in leaders from several organizational settings, concluded that leader
behaviors that demonstrate the facets of fairness, openness, ability, and
integrity4 are salient with respect to leader trustworthiness. Lapidot, Kark,
and Shamir (2007), who examined cadets’ trust in commanders, found that
(1) leader behaviors that demonstrate the facet of benevolence are more
salient with respect to leader trust formation and (2) behaviors that demonstrate the facets of competence and integrity are more salient with respect
to the erosion of trust between employee and leader. Tschannen-Moran
(2004), who investigated teacher trust in principals, suggested that a breach
in the facet of honesty can be “more damaging to trust than lapses in other
facets because it is read as an indictment of the person’s character” (p. 23),
thereby making leader trust difficult to reestablish. Moreover, TschannenMoran suggested that although many leadership actions can violate honesty,
leaders who try “to please everyone or to avoid conflict” (p. 23) run great
risks of being viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy. Tschannen-Moran
also suggested that the facet of reliability is important with respect to leader
trust and urged principals to “demonstrate enough consistency in their behavior to inspire confidence that teachers can count on them in their time of
need” (p. 30). Seashore Louis (2007), who engaged in a qualitative study and
reported on issues of school and district administrator trust, observed that
teachers most often reported leader behaviors that demonstrated caring,5

126

SHELBY COSNER

concern, and respectfulness as the basis for their perspectives on leader
trustworthiness. A review of research by Tyler and DeGoey (1996) led the
authors to conclude that subordinates are more likely to view persons of
authority as trustworthy when they interact with subordinates in a manner
that demonstrates respect and dignity. Last, in a more recent interdisciplinary review of the literature, Tschannen-Moran concluded that trust in
leader is particularly shaped through perceptions of leader caring, integrity, and openness.
Research and scholarship on trust has suggested that certain leadership actions or practices not explicitly associated with trust facets are
salient with respect to leader trust. Tschannen-Moran (2009), for example,
found that teachers regard principals as being less trustworthy when they
engage teachers in bureaucratic and rule-bound ways. Similarly, research
has suggested that principal actions to cultivate teacher empowerment,
delegate authority, and share control and decision making are important
antecedents to the development of leader trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002;
Moye, Henkin, & Egley, 2005; Seashore Louis, 2007; Tschannen-Moran,
2004; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). In fact, Seashore
Louis (2007) concluded that leader trust “cannot be easily separated from
expanded teacher empowerment and influence. Teachers are not passive
actors in the school but co-constructors of trust. As active professionals,
teachers, who feel left out of important decisions, will react by withdrawing trust” (p. 18). Moreover, leaders take important steps toward the
development of trust when they engage in actions that reduce teachers’
perceptions of vulnerability, by consistently enforcing expectations such
that teachers clearly understand why they receive rewards or sanctions,
by maintaining confidentiality, and by treating all teachers fairly (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002; Gimbel, 2003).
Also salient to the development of leader trust are actions and approaches related to communication. Trust in leader, for example, is associated with forthcoming, open, and accurate information sharing, as well
as with the sharing of explanations for decisions (Bryk & Schneider, 2002;
Whitener et al., 1998). Trustworthy communication by leaders also involves being accessible for informal conversations and engaging in active
listening (Gimbel, 2003). Moreover, Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) suggested
that trust in leader is supported when leaders communicate challenging
matters through face-to-face interactions.
Finally, survey research has been used to test the relationship between certain leadership approaches (as operationalized through a set
of questions about specific leadership behaviors and actions) and the
development of trust in leader. In this regard, transformation leadership

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

127

actions that demonstrate support, fulfill the organization’s vision, convey
high performance expectations, show concern for the personal needs
of employees, and provide intellectual stimulation are associated with
leader trust (Podsakoff et al., 1990). From a somewhat similar perspective, Smith and colleagues (2001) concluded that leadership that demonstrates consideration, initiates structure, and takes actions to achieve
goals and solve problems appears to “garner the trust of . . . teachers”
(p. 145). Likewise, collegial leadership approaches are associated with
the development of trust in leader—namely, where leaders take actions
to meet both the organization’s goals and needs and the faculty’s social
needs and where the principal treats the faculty as colleagues while setting clear expectations for teacher performance (Hoy et al., 1996; Hoy,
Smith, & Sweetland, 2002/2003; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 1998). Also relevant to this discussion, Tarter, Bliss, and Hoy (1989)
concluded that supportive principal approaches are associated with leader
trustworthiness—specifically, where the principal uses constructive criticism and is “genuinely concerned about the professional and personal
welfare of teachers” (p. 296). Principal authenticity, regarded as leadership
behaviors that demonstrate the acceptance of responsibility for actions
rather than the blaming of others for mistakes, has also been related to
trust in leader (Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985).
Taken collectively, these findings reveal an assortment of leadership actions and approaches that are associated with the cultivation of knowledgebased trust in leader. This research also suggests that principals should pay
attention to how teachers interpret their actions. In particular, Seashore
Louis (2007) argued that administrators
must be ruthless in scrutinizing how their own behavior and context are interpreted by others. Getting information about how one is being perceived requires developing strategies for getting honest assessments, possible through
techniques like rapid feedback, 360 evaluations in which subordinates and
peers provide anonymous assessments of performance. (p. 19)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE-BASED COLLEGIAL TRUST
Researchers have identified, empirically and from reviews of literature, a
variety of factors related to or considered antecedents to the development
of collegial trust. From a knowledge-based trust perspective, the nature or
quality of teachers’ interactions with their peers becomes central to the
trust formation process, as do factors that shape or influence the quality
or nature of such interactions. Likewise, certain facets of trust—as well

128

SHELBY COSNER

as teachers’ behaviors and actions that demonstrate these facets to their
colleagues—have been found to be important with respect to the development of collegial trust. Employee actions and practices not explicitly associated with trust facets, as well as more general qualities of schoolwide
teacher behavior and interactions, have also been regarded as antecedents
to the formation of collegial trust. Work group composition factors, characteristics of group work, and broader organizational factors and conditions have likewise been identified as antecedents to the formation of
knowledge-based collegial trust. I explore each of these in turn.
Several scholars have examined collegial trust from a facet perspective
and have identified certain trust facets as being salient with respect to the
development or destruction of knowledge-based collegial trust. TschannenMoran and Hoy (2000) suggested that the facets of benevolence, caring, and
openness are important antecedents to trust formation among colleagues.
Likewise, Bryk and Schneider (2002), who point to integrity as an important
facet of collegial trust, argued that collegial trust is
grounded in common understandings about what students should learn, how
instruction should be conducted, and how teachers and students should
behave with one another. For teachers to sense integrity among colleagues,
a faculty must not only share these views but also perceive that the actions
taken by other teachers are consistent with them. (p. 130)

Moreover, Bryk and Schneider (2002) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2000) both concluded that the trust facet of competence becomes increasingly important as teachers become more interdependent in their work
with colleagues. In particular, Bryk and Schneider shared the following
observation from their research in Chicago:
We witnessed firsthand the corrosive effect that teacher incompetence had
on the social relations at Ridgeway School. No one could really understand
why some teachers were allowed to continue in their jobs when they refused
to devote more than a minimal effort to their teaching, held very low expectations for children, and interacted with children and their families in demeaning ways. That such behavior was allowed to persist maligned the integrity of
the whole institution. (p. 143)

Although teacher competence is critical in interactive contexts, it appears particularly relevant in certain interactive contexts, such a professional communities, where teachers engage in reflective practices with
their peers and where they begin to make their practice public to their
peers. In these instances, professional communities rely on the competence of teachers to strengthen individual and community practice and
to do so in ways that make incompetence much more visible between

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

129

colleagues. In this manner, the development of collegial trust and professional community is undermined by teacher incompetence.
Research conducted in schools has revealed general qualities of schoolwide teacher behaviors and interactions as being associated with collegial
trust or as antecedents to the development of trust among colleagues and
within various collegial work groups. Research conducted by Tarter and
colleagues (1989), for example, suggested that engaged teacher behavior6
is associated with collegial trust. Likewise, teacher professionalism has
been found to relate to collegial trust (Hoy et al., 2002/2003; Hoy & Tarter,
2004; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), as evidenced when teachers are
“committed to students, respect the competence of one another, and take
their work seriously” and when they “provide strong social support for
one another and help each other with professional problems” (TschannenMoran & Hoy, 1998, p. 341). Furthermore, teacher collegiality and teacher
affiliation (behavior that is friendly and committed) have been found to
predict collegial trust (Hoy et al., 1992; Tarter et al., 1995).
Team composition factors and general characteristics of group work,
as well as certain organizational factors, have been associated with collegial trust or have been identified as antecedents to the development of
trust in work groups and between colleagues. Costa (2003), who examined
the “nature and antecedents of trust in work groups” (p. 105), found three
team composition factors as being salient with respect to the development
of knowledge-based trust among work group members. She concluded,
“Teams with high levels of cohesion, where members have a preference for
teamwork and possess the adequate skills to perform tasks, have the best
composition to enhance trust” (p. 119). Costa also identified two group work
characteristics as salient antecedents to the formation of collegial trust—
namely, functional dependence (the extent to which group members depend
on one another to complete group work) and task ambiguity, although these
show less influence on trust than do team composition factors. As related to
organizational factors and conditions that are supportive of collegial trust,
cultures of collaboration (Seashore Louis et al., 1995; Tschannen-Moran,
2001, 2004) and open school climates (Hoy et al., 2002/2003; Tarter et al.,
1995; Tarter et al., 1989) are both associated with collegial trust.

HOW PRINCIPALS CULTIVATE KNOWLEDGE-BASED
COLLEGIAL TRUST
In contrast to the growing body of literature that considers principals’
development of leader trust, few studies have examined the cultivation

130

SHELBY COSNER

of their collegial trust, which may in part stem from early survey research
on within-school trust that examined the direct effect of principal leadership on collegial trust. Although such studies found supportive principal
approaches (Hoy et al., 1992; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Tarter et al.,
1989; Tarter et al., 1995) and the perceived authenticity of the principal
(Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985) as being positively related to collegial trust,
these studies provided little evidence directly linking principals to the
development of collegial trust. Reviewing such research, Wahlstrom and
Seashore Louis (2008) concluded that “principals can build [collegial]
trust indirectly through supportive behavior, but they cannot make teachers trust one another through direct action” (p. 462). More recently, I
offered support (Cosner, 2009) for indirectly linking principals with the
development of collegial trust from a study that examined a group of high
school principals with expertise in building organizational capacity for
schoolwide instructional reform. Findings from this study revealed that
these principals emphasized the development and repair of trust in their
capacity-building work and pointed to the cultivation of collegial trust as
a central feature of their capacity-building work. Further consideration of
the indirect connection between principal leadership and collegial trust
appears to be a critical area of attention for sharpening understanding and
practice related to the development of within-school trust by principals.
Knowledge-based trust theory and research provide a basis for broadly
conceptualizing the ways that principals provide indirect support for the
development of collegial trust, as do several more recent mixed-methods
and qualitative studies that have pointed to various indirect connections between principals and the development of collegial trust. From
a knowledge-based trust perspective, four salient questions emerge for
conceptualizing the ways that principals contribute to the development of
collegial trust. These questions press for attention to the ways that principals influence teacher interaction within schools, shape groups and group
work, and affect schoolwide organizational conditions. First, in what ways
or through what mechanisms can principals shape the occurrence and pattern of teacher interaction in schools? Second, in what ways can principals
shape the quality and nature of teacher interactions? Third, in what ways
can principals shape work groups and the characteristics of group work
tasks? Fourth, in what ways can principals shape schoolwide organizational conditions that offer support for collegial trust?
From this perspective and an interdisciplinary review of trust literature, I conceptualize the cultivation of collegial trust by principals
through five broad and mutually reinforcing leadership actions: increasing time for teacher interaction, enhancing and expanding teacher

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

131

interaction patterns, improving the nature and quality of schoolwide
teacher interactions, strengthening work groups and work tasks for collaboration and trust, and developing a culture of collaboration. Taken
collectively and as enacted through strategies adapted to local context,
these actions shape a coordinated leadership approach for cultivating the
development of collegial trust.
INCREASING TIME FOR TEACHER INTERACTION
Given that teachers need opportunities to interact for the development
of knowledge-based trust, it follows that leaders take important initial
steps to cultivate the development of knowledge-based trust by increasing time for teachers’ interaction in the schools that they serve. Research
that considered collegial trust has confirmed this and suggested that such
interests are advanced as principals introduce new structures for teacher
interaction and as they generate and allocate additional time for teacher
collaboration within existing school settings (Cosner, 2009; Kochanek,
2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Illustrative of this, my study (Cosner,
2009) examined a group of high school principals whose leadership
evidenced a broad collection of collegial trust-building strategies as a
central feature of their capacity-building work, and it revealed that these
principals substantially increased the opportunity for teacher interaction
by creating a collection of new structures that necessitated teacher interaction. The introduction of mentoring and induction programs, teacher
leadership teams, problem-solving teams, and various work and study
groups created a range of new interaction forums in these schools. These
principals also increased the opportunity for teacher interaction by generating and allocating additional interaction time within existing settings,
such as department meetings, staff meetings, and site-based professional
development sessions.
ENHANCING AND EXPANDING INTERACTION PATTERNS
Given the importance of teacher interaction with respect to collegial
trust development, principals support the cultivation of collegial trust by
enhancing and expanding patterns of teacher interaction within schools.
An underlying point of consideration here is who is interacting with whom.
The traditional organization of schools provides for uneven faculty interaction patterns across a school community as a part of the daily school
routine. In contrast to Lortie’s (1975) research that revealed the isolated
nature of teaching, there is persistent recognition that faculty social

132

SHELBY COSNER

organization is influenced by existing formal subgroup structures within
schools, such as the department context at the high school level and the
grade-level context at the elementary school level (McLaughlin & Talbert,
2001, 2006; Sisken, 1994; Sisken & Little, 1995). That is, formal subgroup
settings within schools encourage interactions between subgroup members. Proximity, based on room assignment and common teaching schedules, has potential for shaping informal social networks that facilitate
patterns of interaction (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996; Putnam, 1993).
Consequently, the existing school organization, with its formal subgroup
structures and informal social networks, plays a role in shaping the development and spread of knowledge-based collegial trust. In fact, Bryk
and Schneider (2002) suspected that such formal and informal subgroup
structuring, a more pervasive feature of larger schools, undermines the
development of collegial trust in larger schools:
Relational trust between teachers is more likely in small elementary schools
with student enrollments of 350 or less. This finding is consistent with basic
organizational theory about the functioning of social networks. As organizations expand in size, subgroup structures form to coordinate work. Concomitantly, informal social networks also arise, frequently based around common
work group assignments. As a result, fact-to-face interactions across the organization may become limited and these relations more bureaucratic. (p. 140)

Clearly, the formal and informal social structuring of the school organization is a salient factor with respect to the development of collegial trust,
and it may in part explain Seashore Louis’s (2007) conclusion that “many
schools have weak overall levels of relational trust among adult employees, even when there are pockets of high relational trust in small groups of
like-minded teachers” (p. 3).
Accordingly, it seems essential that principals come to understand the
formal and informal social structuring within their schools and consider
ways for enhancing and expanding existing teacher interaction patterns
as they work to cultivate collegial trust. Telling in this regard are findings
from my study (Cosner, 2009) of a group of trust-minded high school principals who were deliberate in their efforts to strengthen existing content
department interactions, as based on their beliefs that interactions in these
formal subgroups were critical with respect to improving teaching and student learning. Equally important, these principals introduced a number of
new structures that served to expand existing faculty interaction patterns.
Through the organization and engagement of teacher leadership teams, ad
hoc problem-solving teams, and ad hoc and standing work groups, teachers
who may not have taken the time to interact with one another were bound
for face-to-face interactions for an extended period in purposeful ways.

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

133

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF SCHOOLWIDE
TEACHER INTERACTIONS
Research and scholarship on the development of knowledge-based trust
have suggested that principals support the cultivation of collegial trust
when they engage in actions to improve the overall quality of teacher interactions. Improving the quality of schoolwide interactions not only involves
initiating proactive steps to encourage and cultivate productive teacher
interactions but requires decisive interventions when individual or collective teacher interactions become unproductive and unhealthy.
Several studies have offered support for this perspective and provided
fine-grained details about the ways that principals shape the quality of
teacher interactions. Establishing and enforcing norms of behavior, for example, have both been identified as critical leadership actions for enhancing
the overall quality of interactions as mechanisms for cultivating collegial
trust (Cosner, 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). The enforcement of norms
requires “calling people who break those norms to account for their actions
[and] doing so in ways that do not embarrass, humiliate, or demean them
but that challenge them to better behavior in the future” (Tschannen-Moran,
2004, p. 59). Given that poorly handled interpersonal conflicts are one of the
“primary causes of the disruption of trust in schools” (Tschannen-Moran,
2004, p. 129), strengthening staff responses to interpersonal conflict, mediating between faculty members who are in conflict, and developing teachers’
skills in conflict management and resolution are important leadership actions that can affect the overall quality of staff interactions (Cosner, 2009;
Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Relatedly, I found that
principals who were skilled at cultivating collegial trust and who inherited
schools with long-standing and widespread patterns of unproductive staff
interactions not only reported mediation and intervention work between
individuals and within smaller teacher groups but reported taking swift actions at an organizational level to end widespread problematic interaction
practices (Cosner, 2009). In these instances, principals openly shared their
schoolwide observations and concerns with their respective faculties and
worked with their staffs to develop schoolwide norms for interaction.
STRENGTHENING WORK GROUPS AND GROUP TASKS FOR
COLLABORATION AND TRUST
A review of research and scholarships on the development of knowledgebased trust suggested that principals can play an important role in cultivating collegial trust by taking actions to strengthen work groups and work

134

SHELBY COSNER

tasks for collaboration and trust. Research by Costa (2003) suggested that
collegial trust strengthens when leaders attend to team composition and to
characteristics of teamwork. Several additional studies not only supported
this finding but also revealed relevant issues, actions, and approaches.
Regarding team composition, principals hold a critical role for shaping
the composition of teams in schools and can support the cultivation of
collegial trust by caring for team composition issues. For example, team
composition is strengthened for collegial trust when teacher groups are assembled with members who have not only dispositions to collaborate but
good collaboration skills (Costa, 2003). Consequently, attention to such
dispositions and skills in the hiring and termination process is important.
Ensuring that work groups are led by teachers who are equipped with
strong group facilitation and decision-making skills is equally important
and requires the thoughtful selection of teacher leaders. Oftentimes, it
requires that principals take formal or informal actions to develop teachers’ leadership skills (Cosner, 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Principals
take a critical step toward strengthening work groups for the formation
of collegial trust by removing incompetent teachers (Bryk & Schneider,
2002). Simply stated, principals who are lax with teacher evaluation and
termination undermine the development of collegial trust—especially in
schools that emphasize the development of site-based teacher learning
communities. In such settings, teacher incompetence has great potential
to become visible to peers in ways never imagined in schools where instructional practice is hidden behind the classroom door, sheltered from
the view of peers.
Principals take steps to cultivate collegial trust within teams by considering the characteristics of work tasks that are the sources of team
engagement. Trust theory and research have pointed to three considerations with respect to work tasks that are introduced into group settings,
including the nature of group member dependence associated with the
task, the level of ambiguity associated with the task, and the management
of risk levels associated within the task (Bhattacharya, Devinney, & Pillutla, 1998; Cosner, 2009; Costa, 2003; Kochanek, 2005; Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Regarding group member dependence, research
by Costa (2003) found that work tasks designed to foster the functional
dependence of work team members offers support for the development of
collegial trust. Moreover, my research (Cosner, 2009) revealed that principals with expertise in the cultivation of collegial trust were deliberate in
shaping the nature of work tasks in department meetings, staff meetings,
and professional development sessions in ways that required group members’ interdependence.

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

135

Related to task ambiguity and the development of trust in work groups,
research has suggested that principals can support the development of collegial trust by considering the level of ambiguity associated with assigned
work group tasks. In particular, Costa (2003) found collegial trust to be associated with work group tasks that involved a certain level of ambiguity:
“Ambiguity may reinforce interdependence and the need to collaborate,
which in turn promotes trust” (p. 120).
The level of risk associated with work group tasks is another issue
that principals should consider as they work to cultivate collegial trust.
Kochanek (2005), for example, suggested that principals support the development of collegial trust by managing the way that risk is introduced and
extended into teacher group tasks. By introducing lower-risk work into
group settings before introducing high-risk work, principals help “set the
stage” (p. 18) for collegial trust formation. Moreover, my research (Cosner,
2009) documented the practice of a group of trust-minded high school
principals managing the introduction of risk in work tasks.
DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF COLLABORATION
Research on the development of collegial trust has consistently emphasized the development of a culture of collaboration (Seashore Louis
et al., 1995; Tschannen-Moran, 2001, 2004). This research, as well as a
broader body of work on school culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Kruse
& Seashore Louis, 2009), has suggested that school principals play an
instrumental role in shaping culture, and it has offered important insights
related to the ways that principals shape school culture. TschannenMoran (2004), who engaged in mixed-methods research in three urban elementary schools that were reputed as either high- or low-trust schools,
concluded that principals foster collaborative cultures by emphasizing
faculty cooperation over competition. Considering during interviews
individuals’ dispositions to collaborate and hiring teachers who have a
genuine interest in collaboration are equally critical for shaping a collaborative culture (Costa, 2003).

PRINCIPALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF WITHIN-SCHOOL
TRUST: WHERE TO BEGIN
When principals assume the leadership of a school, it is critical that they
begin with an understanding of the importance of within-school trust as an
organizational resource. Research has suggested that such an understanding

136

SHELBY COSNER

encourages principals to pay attention to the cultivation of trust as they begin
leading their new schools (Cosner, 2009).
Early attention to within-school trust development begins as principals
seek out information about the current status of within-school trust. Even
before principals formally accept new posts, they can begin to gather
important information. The actual process of interviewing for a principalship can reveal important insights into the quality of faculty relations and
the extent to which collegial trust exists (Cosner, 2009). These impressions suggest areas for further investigation, whether through individual
or focus group interviews or through faculty surveys. Instruments such
as the Organizational Health Survey (Smith et al., 2001) and the Faculty
Trust Survey (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999), which includes elements
on principal trust and collegial trust, are developed survey instruments
that can be used for initial and ongoing assessments of within-school trust.
Collecting and considering information about faculty relations and trust
provide the basis for developing deliberate plans to cultivate collegial trust
that principals can enact, as well as a school-based problem-solving team
charged with addressing these very issues (Smith et al., 2001).
Once incoming principals have been in their new positions for a period,
it is critical that they begin to collect information to access the development of leader trust. To this end, Seashore Louis (2007) suggested that
leaders must be
ruthless in scrutinizing how their own behavior and context are interpreted
by others. Getting information about how one is being perceived requires
developing strategies for honest assessments, possibly through techniques
like rapid feedback 360 evaluation, in which subordinates and peers provide
anonymous assessments of performance. (p. 19)

Such information is instructive in settings whose leaders are considering
the initiation of whole-school change efforts and where lack of leader trust
holds great potential for undermining reform work (Seashore Louis, 2007).
Moreover, given that trust relationships often “stabilize” (Tschannen-Moran
& Hoy, 2000, p. 570) within the first 18 months, obtaining early information
appears critical for informing leadership adjustments and responses to
prevent the development distrust and to strengthen leader trustworthiness.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Given the importance of within-school trust as well as the position of opportunity that principals hold for directly and indirectly developing such

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

137

trust, it seems imperative that principals become not only mindful of their
contributions to the development of within-school trust but tactical in the
diagnosis and development of within-school trust. That said, these interests may be hard to achieve if, as Dirks and Skarlicki (2004) suggested,
hiring practices emphasize “technical rather than interpersonal competencies” and if leaders “prefer to focus their efforts on other goals” rather than
building trust (p. 33). Nevertheless, this article provides critical attention
to principals’ within-school trust development, and it does so in a manner
that extends the trust literature and informs practice and future research.
In particular, this article extends the trust literature in several ways.
It is one of the first to provide an in-depth treatment of the benefits and
development of within-school trust by school principals. Next, the framing
of within-school trust from a knowledge-based trust perspective and the
specifying of within-school trust referents contribute to the conceptual
understanding of within-school trust and provide clarity and useful granularity as within-school trust benefits and development are considered.
Moreover, this article is the first to draw on an interdisciplinary review of
literature to advance scholarly understanding of principals’ cultivation of
collegial trust.
In addition to making these contributions to existing trust scholarship,
this article provides an examination and conceptualization of the cultivation of collegial trust by principals that is not only instructive for school
principals but informative for those responsible for principal preparation,
selection, and development. Specifically, this article points to several
considerations. First, to what extent are principal preparation programs
developing the interpersonal competencies of aspiring principals and
providing meaningful instruction in the diagnosis and development of
within-school forms of knowledge-based trust? This analysis suggests
that principal preparation programs would be wise to carefully infuse
such development into academic and clinical experiences for aspiring
principals. Second, to what extent are school districts considering interpersonal competencies and candidate understanding and expertise with
the development of within-school trust during the hiring processes? Third,
what diagnostic information is being shared with incoming principals
about the quality of faculty relations and the organizational health of the
schools that they will soon lead? Fourth, are districts encouraging newly
appointed principals to collect relevant data early in their tenure to inform
future trust-building work? This review suggests that districts should be
mindful of interpersonal competencies in the principal selection process
and that they would be wise to investigate candidates’ understandings and
abilities with respect to within-school trust diagnosis and development.

138

SHELBY COSNER

Moreover, districts can share diagnostic data about organizational health,
faculty relations, and faculty trust with incoming candidates, arming them
with critical information. Finally, what actions are districts taking to provide practicing principals with ongoing development in these areas? This
analysis suggests that districts would benefit from having mechanisms in
place to assess within-school trust and from using such assessments to
inform professional development and other supports for principals whose
schools evidence low levels of within-school trust.
Much remains to be understood about school principals’ cultivation of
within-school trust. Several directions for future research become apparent from this article. Certainly, further investigation is needed to deepen
understanding of principals’ cultivation of within-school trust. In particular, careful examination of the indirect ways that principals cultivate
collegial trust appears warranted given the paucity of extant research in
this area to date. Moreover, from a critical perspective, few studies have
thoroughly examined issues of principal and faculty gender and ethnicity
with respect to within-school trust development. Are there, for example,
differences in the development and sustainability of within-school trust in
schools that have a staff composition that is ethnically mixed as compared
to schools that have a staff composition that is ethnically homogeneous?
Likewise, how do principal ethnicity and gender influence the development of within-school trust?
Research has pointed to the importance of school trust and supported
the press for strengthening it. Principals are in key positions to support the
development of within-school trust. This article suggests that such work
begins with principals who are mindful of within-school trust and who understand the mechanisms at play in the development of knowledge-based
trust. Using diagnosis to inform a multifaceted strategy for the development of within-school trust, principals can make important contributions
to its development in the schools they serve.
NOTES
I would like to thank Mark Smylie and the anonymous reviewers for providing useful feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
1. Several existing publications provide an extensive description of individual
trust facets, including those by Bryk and Schneider (2002), Tschannen-Moran
(2004), and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000). For this reason, I do not discuss
them in detail.

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

139

2. Wahlstrom and Seashore Louis (2008) regarded focused instruction as “teachers’ use of classroom strategies that are designed to keep the emphasis on pacing
of instruction and academic learning” (p. 475).
3. Hoy, Gage, and Tarter (2006) drew from the work of Hoy (2003) and Langer
(1989) when they defined mindfulness as “continuous scrutiny and refinement of
expectations based on new experiences, appreciation of the subtleties of context,
and identification of novel aspects of context that can improve foresight and functioning” (p. 238).
4. Whitener, Brudt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) defined integrity “as the consistency between what the manager says and what he or she does” (p. 516). Seashore
Louis (2007) pointed to the importance of process integrity that administrators
demonstrate as they initiate change efforts, suggesting that “cutting corners in the
change process to speed up planning and implementation is unwise” (p. 20). Two
behavioral antecedents to integrity—telling the truth and keeping promises (Dasgupta, 1988)—seem to be important considerations for principals who are striving
to become trusted leaders.
5. Tschannen-Moran (2004) suggested that high-trust principals demonstrate care
“beyond the scope of school, with a willingness to listen and advise teachers about
issues they face in the personal realm” (p. 21).
6. Tarter and his colleagues (1989) suggest that engaged teacher behavior is observed when “teachers are proud of their school, enjoy working with one another,
and are supportive of colleagues. Teachers are concerned about one another and
they are committed to their students” (p. 296).

REFERENCES
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T., & Pillutla, M. (1998). A formal model of trust based
on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459–472.
Bidwell, C. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972–1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Seashore Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in
Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Clark, M., & Payne, R. (2006). Character-based determinants of trust in leaders.
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1161–1173.
Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248–291.
Costa, A. (2003). Understanding the nature and the antecedents of trust within
work teams. In B. Nooteboom & F. Six (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development (pp. 105–124). Northampton, MA: Elgar.

140

SHELBY COSNER

Costa, A., Roe, R., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with
performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(3), 225–244.
Cummings, L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):
Development and validation. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cunningham, J., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations,
53(12), 1575–1591.
Daly, A. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making
and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Dirks, K. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.
Dirks, K. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA
basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004–1012.
Dirks, K., & Ferrin. D. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Sciences, 12(4), 450–467.
Dirks, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging
issues. In R. Kramer & K. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations:
Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 21–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Edmondson, A. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations:
A group-level lens. In R. Kramer & K. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in
organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
19(6), 608–622.
Gamoran, A., Anderson, C., Quiroz, P., Secada, W., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S.
(2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gimbel, P. (2003). Solutions for promoting principal-teacher trust. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Education.
Goddard, R., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). A multilevel examination of
the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban
elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–19.
Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Introduction and overview. In. C. Grootaert
& T. van Bastelaer (Eds.), The role of social capital in development: An empirical assessment (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n37/

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

141

Hoy, W. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some
theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(1), 87–108.
Hoy, W., Gage, C., & Tarter, C. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(2), 236–255.
Hoy, W., & Kupersmith, W. (1985). The meaning and measure of faculty trust. Educational and Psychological Research, 5(1), 1–10.
Hoy, W., Sabo, D., & Barnes, K. (1996, Spring). Organizational health and faculty
trust: A view from the middle level. Research in Middle Level Education
Quarterly, pp. 19–38.
Hoy, W., Smith, P., & Sweetland, S. (2002/2003, December–January). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and
relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, pp. 38–49.
Hoy, W., & Tarter, C. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without
trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250–259.
Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools, healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hoy, W., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking
the principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development
in Education, 36, 38–45.
Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9(4), 185–208.
Jones, G., & George, J. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
531–546.
Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top
management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 502–526.
Kochanek, J. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The
role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 312–319.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Kramer, R., Brewer, M., & Hanna, B. (1996). Collective trust and collective action.
The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357–389). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kruse, S., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to
leading change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability
on the development and erosion of followers’ trust in their leader. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 16–34.

142

SHELBY COSNER

Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. In B. Bunker & J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and
justice (pp. 133–173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers
of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In
M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory
and practice (pp. 86–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
24–39.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation in
new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
473–490.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of
high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based professional learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Moye, M., Henkin, A., & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher–principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 260–277.
Oldham, G. (1975). The impact of supervisory characteristics on goal acceptance.
Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 461–475.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2),
107–142.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic tradition in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reeves, C., Emerick, S., & Hirsh, E. (April, 2007). Creating an atmosphere of
trust: Lessons from exemplary schools. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
Rich, G. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 25(4), 319–328.
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
393–404.
Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1–24.

Drawing on a Knowledge-Based Trust Perspective

143

Seashore Louis, K., Kruse, S., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community:
Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Serageldin, I., & Grootaert, C. (2000). Defining social capital: An integrating view.
In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 40–58). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8(4), 365–377.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management team: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(1), 102–111.
Sisken, L. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary
schools. London: Falmer.
Sisken, L., & Little, J. W. (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, P., Hoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Organizational health of high schools
and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School Leadership, 11(2),
135–151.
Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
Swinth, R. (1967). The establishment of the trust relationship. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 11(3), 335–344.
Tarter, C., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in
secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294–308.
Tarter, C., Sabo, D., & Hoy, W. (1995). Middle school climate, faculty trust and effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29, 41–49.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The
role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (1998). A conceptual and empirical analysis of
trust in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334–352.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 71,
547–593.
Tyler, T., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence
of motivation attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. Kramer &
T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.
331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of association. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital:
A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215–252), Washington, DC: World Bank.

144

SHELBY COSNER

Wahlstrom, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal
leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared
responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M., & Werner, J. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.

Shelby Cosner, an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Policy
Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago, focuses her research on urban
school improvement, the development of organizational capacity in reform contexts, and principal and teacher leadership for the development of human and
social resources.