‘Tell us what, but not how’ – understanding intra-organisational trust among principals and LEA officials in a decentralised school system

ABSTRACT

During the last two decades, researchers and practitioners have shown great interest in research concerning how to implement change in local schools. The research repeatedly stresses the importance of trust among colleagues, yet few studies have examined intra-organisational trust, or the absence of such, during a change process within a decentralised school system that includes local education authorities (LEAs) and local schools. This qualitative study of a municipality reveals principals’ and LEA officials’ views of intra-organisational trust, while managing a situation of a lack of quality within their school organisation. The article presents empirical data from interviews using the analytical perspective from intra-organisational trust to explore trust, or lack thereof. To analyse the statements, a framework of attributes of trust belief (views of co-workers’ benevolence, ability, integrity and predictability) is used. The results describe increasing trust belief among principals and LEA officials comprised in a collectivistic approach of building a new structure for quality and improvement work. The article contributes to the understanding of what creates trust as well as how the relationship between intra-organisational trust and school development can be understood.

KEYWORDS:

• Trust
• School organisation
• Principal
• Local education authorities

Introduction

In practically all aspects of contemporary debate on educational policy, both national and international, a central question is how to implement change in local schools. According to previous research, local education authorities (LEAs) can play a vital role in national educational reform emerging in local schools (Leithwood 2010; Leithwood and Azah 2017; Paulsen and Høyer 2015), especially if it contributes to good relations, functioning communication and solid social capital within an entire district. Educational research has consistently stressed the importance of trust among colleagues in school organisations (Bryk et al. 2010; Tschannen-Moran 2009), but there is seldom explicit definition of what trust is or can be, what its content is, and what forms it (Daly and Chrispeels 2008; Dietz and Hartog 2006).

On a related note, the wider organisation literature reports differences in organisations’ ability to adapt cohesion and commitment (March and Olsen 1989; Scott 2008). According to many researchers, the variation is explained by the amount of trust within an organisation (Brower, Schoorman, and Tan 2000; Burke et al. 2007; Jones and George 1998). A shared experience of trust in an organisation is argued to affect what is seen as an appropriate way of dealing with daily problems and with interactions among co-workers.

Yet, as argued by Fink, research on trusting behaviour at different levels in school systems is scarce, and more studies on ‘trust therefore need to go beyond the schoolhouse’, looking at internal organisational relationships (Fink 2016a, 3). Walker, Kutsyuruba, and Noonan (2011) who have done this found that the hierarchy between central office administrators and principals in Canadian schools created corroding trust due to different perspectives on school issues. This article however aims to discover intra-organisational trusting behaviour among principals and LEA officials in the considerably decentralised Swedish school system, where LEAs and local schools have a joint assignment to improve school quality in accordance with national law. In comparison to other school systems across the world the Swedish system is considered decentralised in the sense that it is non hierarchic at the municipal level. Principals and LEA officials are equally responsible of improving the schools. We use data from interviews with principals and LEA officials in a municipality that had received extensive criticism of its quality work by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate in 2008 and 2014, but three years later received no negative remarks and was judged as having improved considerably with good cooperation established among co-workers. In the analysis of data from interviews, we focus on so-called intra-organisational trust (trust between co-workers within an organisation), including four content components – ability, benevolence, integrity and predictability – in order to investigate what is involved in the decision to trust or not trust co-workers.

The first question posed is whether indications of intra-organisational trust are found among co-workers in the organisation? We especially focus on trust between LEA officials and principals. The second question concerns what creates trusting behaviour? The data allows principals’ and LEA officials’ voices to emerge, providing greater depth in understanding the inner life of a school organisation.

How to understand school organisations

Since the 1990s, studies of healthcare organisations, employment services, and higher education institutions have documented how organisations operating under similar regulations and facing similar external circumstances are not always equally successful (Bennich-Björkman 1997; Kramer and Tayler 1996). These results highlight the inner life of organisations, focusing on norms and cultural systems (Miller 2000; Rothstein and Stolle 2008; Scott 2008).

This so-called software of organisations generally involves two kinds of rules: formal rules such as organisational charts, and informal rules or norms such as routines and practices that dominate the internal life of an organisation (Scott 2008). As argued by March and Olsen (1989), organisations stipulate specific logic for what are perceived as appropriate attitudes and actions within an organisation. If this logic motivates co-workers to take a course of action that is beneficial to the common task, then everything is fine, but if the logic motivates co-workers to take action that is more beneficial to them individually, then there is often a problem for the common task.

The latter situation is often understood as a social dilemma (Platt 1973; Rothstein 2013; Rothstein and Stolle 2008). Briefly, a social dilemma can be described as follows: a situation in which all agents know that if they collaborate they will all gain, but if an agent doubts that the other agents are going to collaborate, the incentive to collaborate is very low – i.e. if an agent is not confident that all the other agents will contribute, it is more likely that the agent will not cooperate. Moreover, considering that it is necessary to contribute in order to benefit from the collaboration, the incentive to collaborate is even lower.

Such a situation can also be self-reinforcing due to reciprocity – i.e. individuals tend to react to actions of others with similar actions, and tend to act on what they believe others expect of them (Ostrom 2005). That way, a social dilemma situation can stipulate a specific logic of what are perceived as appropriate attitudes and actions within an organisation – i.e. creating an uncooperative logic of appropriateness (Fehr and Gächter 1998).

The literature on organisational research argues that the one component capable of releasing an organisation from this type of dilemma is trust. The accumulative shared experience of trust over an extended period of time in an organisation is argued to be crucial for appropriately handling everyday work (Jones and George 1998). However, what trust actually consists of and how it is created are difficult questions to answer.

Trust in school organisations

In organisational research, the concept of trust has been suggested as a key component for establishing functioning norms in organisations. The amount of trust in an organisation may explain variations in, for example, leader and workforce satisfaction, cohesion, and commitment levels. Individual relationships embedded in trust are strongly linked to a positive working climate in organisations (Brower, Schoorman, and Tan 2000; Burke et al. 2007; Jones and George 1998).

During the last 15 years, trust has also been a regular variable in educational research. Bryk et al. (2010), Hoy, Hoy, and Kurz (2008), Tschannen-Moran (2004, 2009) and Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015) have all identified correlations between trust and a positive school climate. Among other things, they have argued that trust fosters cooperation and a welcoming climate among the staff. Also, Bryk et al. (2010) found that schools with high levels of trust are associated with high levels of loyalty and commitment among employees. Furthermore, the positive effects of building and maintaining trusting relationships are well documented in research on school improvement. For example, Louis (2007) argues that change in school organisation is often associated with a dip in performance and morale during implementation, resulting in slightly worse performance when the new policies are implemented. She states that ‘a reservoir of trust, nurtured before or early in the change process can be an important resource’ (Louis 2007, 18).

However, the problem might be that the reservoir is empty, and further, that it is hard to grasp, in retrospect, how it became empty. This is a key issue, but, as argued by Gregory (2017), Louis (2007) and Price (2012), questions concerning if and how absence of trust becomes an active ingredient in a less effective school organisation is significantly under-examined in the literature. Consequently, there is also a need for more research on how trust develops or, for example, how trust in a complex organisation such as a school system suddenly starts to grow. Additionally, as Fink (2016a, 3) stresses, there is also a need for studies from different countries, as ‘literature on trust in educational settings is American and reflects American values, history, policies and attitudes’.

Intuitively, one can argue that difficulties in maintaining commitment among co-workers in a school organisation probably can be associated with the level of intra-organisational trust. According to Walker, Kutsyuruba, and Noonan (2011) trust in school-based relationships are considerably fragile. Especially interaction between central office administrators and principals can easily create trust related problems due to micromanaging, broken promises, inconsistencies in decision making and so on. But how does a process of increasing trust and commitment among co-workers come into play? In this article, we address this issue by studying trusting relations among and between principals and LEA officials. We use a case (municipality) that had significant quality problems, but in three years managed to establish significant improvement of its quality work.

Intra-organisational trust

The literature on trust involves many contrasting standpoints, but there are some common views to take as a point of departure for understanding its nature. In its simplest form, trust involves the process of the trustor trusting the trustee (Day 2009; Tschannen-Moran 2004). The process of trusting can be broken down into three essential parts: trust as an action, trust as a decision and trust as a belief. The action of trusting involves a risk-taking act by the trustor. This act can be, but does not have to be, a consequence of a decision to actually trust the trustee. But behind this decision is, nevertheless, some sort of belief representing ‘an assessment of the other party’s trustworthiness’ (Dietz and Hartog 2006, 559).

Understanding the sources of trust belief is of central interest for research on trust. In the ongoing debates concerning possible influencing variables for this belief, some general findings within the research on trust can be stated. For example, it is argued that personal traits and previous behaviour of the trustee undergo evaluation by the trustor (Day 2009). It has also been found that the trustor’s belief in trusting the trustee is dependent on the specific domain in which trusting takes place. Further, researchers have highlighted that the institutional arrangements of the domain might influence trusting behaviour among the parties involved (Weibel 2003), while others have noticed the influence of historical experience within the domain (Payne and Clark 2003). Furthermore, the content of trust belief is argued to have certain attributes. In the literature attributes such as, benevolence, competence, reliability, openness, wisdom and honest are discussed (Day 2009; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999; Kutsyuruba and Walker 2014; Tschannen-Moran 2004).

In this study we focus on intra-organisational trust – i.e. the process of trust among co-workers, principals and LEA officials within an organisation (Dietz and Hartog 2006; Fink 2016b; Williams 2001). In our analysis we build on the work by Dietz and Hartog (2006). They argue that the trustor evaluates four key attributes of the trustee: (i) benevolence – i.e. kindness towards the other party; (ii) ability – i.e. the other party’s capability to handle obligations; (iii) integrity, which relates to observance of certain principles such as uprightness and fair treatment; (iv) predictability, which involves continuity and consistency of behaviour. If the trustor evaluates these attributes of the trustee negatively, there is no trust, but rather distrust.

Based on the research on intra-organisational trust, one can argue that trusting is formed by an evaluation of the trustee, which then builds the collective trust in an organisation (Dietz and Hartog 2006). Certain attributes of the content of this trust belief, associated with the domain in which the trusting is to take place, is of importance for the evaluation. In particular, we will focus on the four key attributes when studying principals and LEA officials in the municipality.

To summarise, research on intra-organisational trust argues that trusting is based on evaluating certain attributes of the trustee. However, to understand which trusting processes are in play, one must empirically investigate and theoretically recognise the intra-organisational relations that make up and determine the school culture. In the literature on trust, scholars repeatedly reiterate the fact that dissecting every part of a trusting act is very hard – ‘trust is based on a huge amount of often conflicting evidence’ (Dietz and Hartog 2006, 572). Consequently, it is necessary to investigate these processes by asking questions concerning principals’ and LEA officials’ everyday work.

The study

This section describes the selection of the municipality and the method by which data were collected and analysed.

Selection of municipality

From 1990 onwards, the Swedish education system has been considerably decentralised and deregulated (Lundahl and Alexiadou 2016). Local municipalities were assigned to take over leadership of schools from the government. Even though Sweden has charter schools (independent schools), most elementary students are enrolled in municipal schools. There are 290 municipalities in Sweden, and each has at least one politically elected school board, consisting of members representing different parties, responsible for primary and secondary schools. According to the school law each school unit has to have a principal and together with LEA officials they are responsible for producing high quality educational in the schools. To secure equal education for all students, regardless of the education provider, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate has a national responsibility to conduct regular inspections of schools, municipalities and independent education providers throughout the country (Rönnberg 2014).

Against this background, this article and its analysis are linked to a research project focusing on municipal school organisations significantly improving their quality (Liljenberg and Andersson 2020). The project has a case study design and especially target the joint responsibility among principals and LEA officials. The particular case in this study is selected as a deviant case. According to Flyvbjerg (2001) a deviant case can be useful to investigate something especially extraordinary in some defined sense. Given the fact that the project focus on improvement, we used the Swedish Schools Inspectorate’s regular supervision reports to identify a municipality that raised its game significantly. The Inspectorate supervise all Swedish schools in continuing cycles and the supervision reports are public documents. In 2008 and 2014 the studied municipality received extensive criticism regarding its quality work following the aforementioned regular inspections. The Inspectorate’s assessment determined that the municipal school organisation needed to improve the systematic quality work in all school units and at the LEA, including planning, follow-up and evaluation. Moreover, the Inspectorate called for documentation in order for principals and LEA officials to identify improvement areas and plans of action. For the regular inspection conducted in 2017, the municipality received no negative remarks, and the Inspectorate’s assessment determined that the municipality fulfilled all requirements of the regulations.

A previous paper (Liljenberg and Andersson 2020) described how a number of new artefacts, to improve systematic quality work, were introduced in the organisation: expanded support for quality and improvement, a visionary document for the local school organisation, new tools, and forums for collaboration. In this paper, we briefly describe these initiatives to put focus on the intra-organisational trust among principals and LEA officials.

The interviews and data analysis

According to Dietz and Hartog (2006), there is an explicit but unused rule when investigating trust within organisations – that is, to find out as much as you can about the process concerning the trustor trusting the trustee, but without using the word trust when studying it. Trust is considered a value-loaded word which can mislead respondents. In order to follow this rule, we instead used questions concerning systematic quality work, the organisation, and relations between principals and LEA officials. The interviewees were asked to describe previous and current routines and practices in the organisation. Further, principals and LEA officials were asked questions about the previous and current quality system and their thoughts about their shared responsibility for the systematic quality work.

The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with LEA officials (n = 3) and principals (n = 8) (Table 1). Each interview lasted for 60–75 min and was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews were conducted in Swedish and quotations have been translated to English.

Table 1. Overview of the participants in the municipality.

LEA School	Role	Years in the position
LEA	Official A	10
LEA	Official B	2
LEA	Official C	5
School	Principal A	>10
School	Principal B	>10
School	Principal C	>10
School	Principal D	>25
School	Principal E	>25
School	Principal F	<5
School	Principal G	<5
School	Principal H	<5

In the first step of the analysis, the empirical data – i.e. the interviewees’ descriptions of how they perceive present and past activities related to quality and improvement work in the municipality – were analysed with a focus on content disclosures of intra-organisational trust. The descriptions were compared by analysing coherence in the interviewees’ statements. In the second step of the analysis, the four key attributes of trust belief – benevolence, ability, integrity and predictability – were used as theoretically driven subcategories to establish a greater understanding of what constituted the intra-organisational trust in the organisation. Analysing the interviews, connections of the key concepts (e.g. responsiveness, supportive, skilled, transparency, continuity) to each subcategory were identified, furthering understanding of what contributed to the increase of trust in the organisation. Gibbs (2007, 42) recommends theoretically generated categories, as they help to establish a more analytic and theoretical level of coding. The codes used in the analysis were generated theoretically rather than empirically. However, in the findings, we want principals’ and LEA officials’ voices concerning their beliefs about and relations towards co-workers in the school organisation to be heard. The presentation of the findings and the selection of quotes are aimed at matching this effort. Regarding shortcomings, this study has limitations due to only a single case being investigated. However, focusing on a single case enables in-depth understanding of trusting behaviour, which is an aspect missing in the literature.

Findings

In this part, we present the results of the study, illuminating the status of intra-organisational trust among principals and LEA officials. Findings are presented in five sections, starting with an overview of the initiatives taken to improve the systematic quality work at the LEA and in all school units, followed by the analysis of the four attributes of trust belief. A retrospective perspective is used when presenting the development over the three years.

Improving the systematic quality work

When exposed to criticism from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate in 2014, a new structure for the systematic quality work at the LEA and in the local school units was developed. On an overarching level, it included a visionary document for the municipal school organisation together with expanded support for quality and improvement. The visionary document underlined that inclusive education, formative education and collaborative learning should permeate all forms of education in the municipality, without being explicit regarding how to implement these themes. To ensure that improvement areas were identified and a systematic quality system was guaranteed, the LEA further created a ‘year wheel for quality and improvement’, telling ‘when to do what’ for everyone taking part in the municipal school organisation. More ‘hands on’ tools for systematic documentation to be used by the principals were also introduced. The plan for improved quality of teaching was a document to be used in order to evaluate a school unit’s status of, and strategies for, improved teaching quality. Additional support materials targeted different aspects of school challenges such as student transitions and grading. Further, student and educator surveys were implemented to enable follow-up aspects. Finally, the LEA introduced new forums for collaboration, where principals and LEA officials could meet and work together.

In short, this is how a new structure within the municipal school organisation was built. Yet, in the decentralised Swedish system, LEA officials and principals have, by law, a joint responsibility to improve school quality. Consequently, trusting relations among co-workers were up for a test.

Attribute of benevolence

The director of the LEA emphasised that a new structure for the systematic quality work had to be developed immediately, as the criticism from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate had been extensive. Despite the time pressure, the LEA officials arranged reference groups and invited principals to take part in the work. Although they believed that the structure they had started to develop was good, they wanted to hear what the principals thought about it. LEA Official B reflected on this process by saying:

It is a delicate balancing act, as a fine, fine, thread on which you balance on to stick to the assignment and at the same time listening to the principals so that they still think: ‘Yes, the support is quite good to have.’ Because if we would become completely impossible to work with, we would not have any impact with what we do. … How far can you raise the bar and set the requirements for it [the systematic quality work] in order to reach high quality, without demanding too much, so much so that it goes out of their hands?

When the principals talked about the process, their reflections were in line with the reflections of the LEA officials. The principals had been very interested in taking part in the reference groups, to give response to questions such as: How do you want us (LEA officials) to organise this? What is your need? How do you think about this? This gave them the feeling that the new structure was something that they had created together, and they stated that this was a ‘quite delightful feeling’.

Principal D who had worked in the municipality for several years stated that there was a different culture in the organisation compared to how it had been before. The culture was more supportive,

I think that there are many more who do not see the administration [the LEA] as the enemy but as … I do not know … [laughs] No, … more as a helping hand. It has become a … It’s a shift in the right direction, I think.

Another of the more experienced principals expressed similar feelings and stated that the initiatives taken to improve the systematic quality work signalled trust and confidence in the employees. According to Principal E, the approach from the LEA towards the principals was that:

We think you can do this. We trust you. No one says: ‘You have to, you have to do this or you have to do that, it should be in this way.’ Rather, they tell us what, but not how, we can shape things in the profession.

Also, the principals with less experience described the LEA support as very helpful. It was easy for them to call the LEA officials if there was something in the quality documentation that they did not know how to handle. They also perceived that their questions were taken seriously and that they received good responses. Additionally, they stated that this openness also permeated the principals as a group. One of the less experienced principals (Principal G) expressed that she had ‘the best colleagues in the world’ and that they always tried to help if she had a dilemma or a question. Another principal (Principal C) that previously had worked in other municipalities described her principal colleagues as ‘an incredible driving force eager to be part of something big’.

Attribute of ability

When the new structure was introduced, a new manager was recruited. As she was new to her position, the principals did not know her capacity. However, having a background as a former principal, she gave a confident impression. Principal E explained:

And then, when the new manager came in, I think she had a way of thinking, she had the principal’s perspective with her. So, she knows what it’s like to work as a principal. And I guess that’s why … When I say that I think she has taken into account the conditions, or given us better conditions. I think that it is perhaps because of the experience she had with her then.

The ‘competence culture’ that the manager and the other LEA officials brought with them from their previous work in school settings turned out to be important for ensuring recognition among the principals. Further, as time went by, they were also recognised for their competence in the work they did when supporting principals. In the interviews, the principals described that the programme the LEA officials put together for their ‘school leader days’ was always well prepared and had a pedagogic structure, with lectures, reflections and workshops. Also, the ‘hands on’ tools for systematic documentation, as the plan for improved quality of teaching, were very much appreciated by the principals, as it facilitated their work and gave them a good foundation for further analysis. Consequently, this boosted the LEA officials’ abilities. Principal C reflected on their abilities by saying:

They are skilled. They are talented, and therefore we become more and more dependent on them in some way, because we ask: ‘Can you help us with this? Do you have any material around this?’, and then they start to deliver and a bit ahead of what you expected, even. So yes, they are skilled. But it could probably have been an opposite experience, and a feeling of being disturbed. … But it’s not.

As all principals wrote their plans for improved quality of teaching as online documents, the LEA officials had access to them. This set-up could easily be perceived as a form of control, but when the LEA officials followed up what the principals had written in the ‘result dialogues’, they added a new perspective to the analysis and helped the principals to be more specific in their improvement work. Once again, the principals appreciated the competence of the LEA officials and admitted that without the collaboration it was easy to become blind to their own analysis. The LEA officials expressed mutual respect for the principals’ competence, but they also expressed a desire to be able to support the principals in their analysis in an even better way. For example, a task that the LEA officials did not yet have full control over was the provision of reliable statistics to all schools. LEA Official B gave emphasis to this approach by saying:

I don’t think we achieve anything by saying … by being the ones who condemn and say we have the wrong principals. We have the principals we have and they are good, but they can get even better. And we need to support that in different ways – that is the approach we have.

Attribute of integrity

Some years ago, another document for education improvement was launched in the municipality. It was published at the same time as the politicians decided to introduce saving requirements. Consequently, LEA officials and principals thought that the municipality politicians put unreasonable demands on them without taking any responsibility themselves. Yet, when the new visionary document was introduced, there was greater unity in the municipality. The director of education and the leading politicians all agreed that this was the direction they wanted the schools to take. Also, principals and teachers found the new document easy to accept as it was precise in its direction, underlining that inclusive education, formative education and collaborative learning should permeate all forms of education in the municipality. Although accepting the document meant that the LEA increased its influence, the principals seemed to buy that, as the main purpose was to increase equality in the municipality. Principal D reflected on this by saying:

The control of the schools has increased significantly. But I think that’s good. It will be fine. Because there is still an openness, and we can discuss it.

Working for increased equality in the municipality also brought a need for greater transparency of data and decision-making. To give all principals equal opportunities to express the needs of their school, regular ‘result dialogues’ were introduced. Thus, the principals perceived that they were listened to, as expressed by Principals C:

It always gives me the feeling that I am part of the thinking right from the start. And that I can affect the work that they do at the LEA as well as my own work. We do it together. It’s a very comfortable feeling, the humility that it entails. And it maintains legitimacy, all the time – that you have been part of it and listened to from the start. You don’t do anything outside what we do together.

The LEA officials also admitted that there were principals with great knowledge that really challenged them, and their views were welcomed: ‘there were principals that had thought a lot more about particular problems than we had’ (Official A). However, it was not just the relationship between the LEA officials and the principals that had improved during these years, as the principals, especially those who were less experienced, stressed that the relations among themselves had also changed in a positive way:

When I became a principal and got into the principal group, we had workplace meetings and not so many other meetings. I felt that it was a hierarchical relationship between principals. You did not have many opportunities to make your voice heard and there was not much dialogue – unlike now, when we have learning dialogues. (Principal F)

Attribute of predictability

In the past, the LEA had been quick to adopt new trends and jump into new projects without any major long-term strategy. The principals explained that if no results had been identified within a certain time, the LEA easily changed direction and started something new. In contrast, the new visionary document was written for a five-year period, signalling consistency.

When the new structure for the systematic quality work was developed, a requirement was that it should be sustainable over several years. Previously, the principals had been used to getting new templates for quality documentation almost every year. Official B recalled a principal’s reaction: ‘Oh, not a new one again. Oh, what a pain’. Writing the new plan and following the same template year after year across schools was thereby considered a vast improvement:

I find it positive. I think it is good for the equality in the municipality. I think it is positive that if a teacher changes school, for example, she or he will recognise how the systematic quality work is built up. And that it feels more professional. (Principal A)

The principals also argued that, in the past, they had seldom received any response to what they had written. They had been asked to send all kinds of documentation to the LEA. However, when they did, ‘it did not lead to anything’, and their feeling was that ‘nobody read it’. Official C, a former principal in the municipality, stated that,

You did not receive any real response. I, as a principal, could not really know what … It was like you threw something up in the air but you did not know if anyone caught it. It could apply to everything from quality reports to financial reports or whatever. It can’t be that you talk into a megaphone that no one listens to.

To counteract this feeling, the new structure also included meetings where the principals and LEA officials met and discussed their plans. The principals argued that it took some time to prepare themselves for these meetings, but as they knew the scheduling well in advance, it caused no problems. In addition, they argued that the time it took was well spent. The discussions were really valuable for their own learning and helped them to get a new perspective on their analysis. Thus, continuity and predictability were something that permeated the new structure. Principal H with previous experience from working in another municipality told how she felt when she came to understand the new structure:

I was so ridiculously optimistic: ‘This is so good.’ You see … if you’ve worked here all the time, you don’t realise how good this is. When you come from the outside and have had nothing to hold on to, when tasks have been sprawling, it is very nice what we have here: ‘This is what we’re looking at. This is what we are working on. Here is our focus right now.’

Discussion

This study has examined the building of intra-organisational trust during a change process in a municipality aiming to improve systematic quality at LEA and in local schools. The first question posed asked whether indications of intra-organisational trust were found among co-workers in the organisation. There are clear indications that launching the new structure created a fresh start for trusting behaviour among co-workers. Yet, answering the second question, illuminating what created this trusting behaviour, is more complex. The results describe how principals and LEA officials gradually embraced a collectivistic approach in terms of being and building something together in the organisation. The analytical instrument (Dietz and Hartog 2006) helped to reveal this increasing trust behaviour – i.e. trustworthy evaluation of other agents’ benevolence, ability, integrity and predictability.

In short, the statements from the principals declare that they feel a kindness from the LEA officials – a benevolence signalling that the officials ‘have their back’ regarding their positions and task. Yet, even if the principals feel that LEA officials are, first and foremost, there to help, the principals also have the courage to oppose the help, and that probably, or at least partly, has to do with this kind approach. The principals also believe in the LEA officials’ ability. Since the start of the new structure, this situation seems to be mutual. Both principals and LEA officials signal that they believe in the other party’s capability to handle obligations. Further, both parties show respect for each other’s tasks, signalling integrity – i.e. that they do their work in an upright and fair manner. The new structure also consolidated predictability in the process, which involves continuity and consistency of routines and behaviour.

The findings reveal that the ‘new strategy’ of the quality and improvement work is central for the development. The drive and focus of getting the new systematic quality system going in the organisation seems to shadow historical experience of scepticism towards past initiatives (Payne and Clark 2003). The findings signal views of mutual capability to handle obligations and of notions of fair treatment. Even if some new principals do not know every detail regarding how the new strategy came about, discussions create a positive course of action. The kind of assumptions they make from what they know leads them to conclude that they probably should trust their colleagues and their investments in the new start of the quality and improvement work. In light of the theoretical understanding of the attributes of trust belief (Day 2009; Dietz and Hartog 2006; Kutsyuruba and Walker 2014; Tschannen-Moran 2004), the analysis indicates that the relationships among principals and LEA officials are trustworthy. There are few indications of participants questioning each other’s leadership.

Both principals and LEA officials predict continuity and consistency. However, the amount of pre-made material from the LEA officials could be interpreted as questioning the principals’ ability. Yet, with regard to their belief of integrity and predictability, there is positive expectation of goodwill. Additionally, the principals appear to really appreciate the support from the LEA officials. Having the possibility to meet other principals and the LEA officials under organised circumstances, focusing on pre-made tasks, creates a unifying motion. Hence, a mutual experience and collective memory of the local school system as a coherent organisation is starting to grow (Boyd, Gintis, and Bowles 2010; Paulsen and Høyer 2015). As a result, principals’ work is also successively becoming more and more collaborative. The organisational guidelines from the LEA seem to be helping this movement at the same time as they help principals in their daily practice.

Findings indicate that both principals and LEA officials view themselves as agents of change, and that the new venture for the municipal school organisation makes a difference for the students. Together, they accept the task of challenging each other, and accept the rehearsed way of handling quality and improvement work. The conclusion they come to, based on the experience they have right now, is that they expect that other colleagues will cooperate, and therefore, they themselves decide to cooperate. The process of step-by-step positive evaluation of the trustees in the organisation builds the collective trust (Day 2009; Tschannen-Moran 2004).

In sum, the findings tell the story of reversing the negative spiral of distrust – and hence, a social dilemma situation – thus starting a positive drive. Seen from the perspectives of principals, it is their belief that, in this organisation, they will behave in a trustworthy and cooperative manner. They have clear indications that cooperation is what is expected of them and that LEA-introduced pre-made material, such as tools for documentation and forums for collaboration, really is helping them in their individual leadership. They start to adopt reciprocity as a norm. Having the reputation of personally being trustworthy is a good investment. Further, finding the trust around them becomes mutually reinforcing, making them behave likewise. To put it differently, not cooperating became unacceptable, and the benefits of an individual approach primarily focusing on ‘my own school’ and ‘my own priorities’ are not believed to outweigh the costs. The municipal school organisation as a whole has started to achieve a collective experience of a cohesive and collaborative workplace, resting on trust.

To summarise, this study contributes to the school management literature by (i) unpacking the sometimes bluntly used concept of trust, and (ii) disclosing the complexity of intra-organisational trust building within a municipal school organisation. Further, the study contributes to answering the question of what creates this trusting situation. In Louis’s (2007) terms: the ‘reservoir of trust’ is starting to refill in this municipal school organisation, generating a collective effort to improve it. Kutsyuruba, Walker, and Noonan (2016) argues that a high frequency of interactions between principals and teachers is of great importance for building trusting relationship. We believe that this is true also when it comes to interactions between LEA officials and principals. Our results show that it was the new strategy for improvement work initiated by LEA officials that was the starting point for this increased interaction. Yet, the new strategy was presented as ideas open for discussions and not forced on the principals. In the interactions a reciprocal and mutual approach of understanding ‘what’ needed to be done started to grow, and so did the collective trust in the organisation. Principals and LEA officials found themselves continually discussing ‘how’ to develop and improve the school organisation, giving the suggestions on the table, finding out that they really could benefit from helping each another.

Conclusion

A common understanding in educational research is that trust is a critical issue for school performance. The process by which trust becomes an active ingredient in a local school organisation is, however, less studied, especially in terms of how trustworthy behaviour among co-workers develops and how norms that make up such cultures are created (Fink 2016a; Louis 2007). In this article, we argue that, in order to understand active trusting processes, or the lack of such, one must empirically investigate and theoretically recognise the intra-organisational relations that make up and determine the relations within school organisations.

The findings reveal that the process of creating intra-organisational trust between LEA officials and principals in the studied municipality involved a new start for implementing quality and improvement work. This process worked as a catalyst for exposing the principals’ and LEA officials’ evaluation of each other as trustees. Then, the positive spiral of trusting was set in motion, building the collective trust in the organisation. Notably, the result goes in the direction of Weibel’s (2003) argument that institutional arrangements of the domain can influence intra-organisational trust among the parties involved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).