Do I have to be close to a person in order to trust them? Innovation researcher Jannika Mattes has analysed this in relation to the world of work and published the results in the European Management Journal. In this interview, she talks about coffee breaks as a think tank, challenges for bosses and friendships over distance.
QUESTION: You used teams in multinational companies to investigate the importance of direct social interaction for trust-based collaboration. How important is face-to-face contact?
MATTES: There are different forms of proximity, one of which is geographical proximity - face-to-face contact. And this proximity is particularly important at the beginning of a collaboration: when people work closely together in a team, an initial meeting is very important. After that, things can go quite well separately. That's how my Swedish colleague and I experienced it when writing our specialist article on the subject: we met intensively in the initial phase and two or three times in between, coordinating by phone and Skype. This means that if I have a basis of trust, I can build on it, then I no longer need physical proximity, other forms are sufficient - such as a common language or a common understanding of certain concepts based on the professional background.
QUESTION: In other words, if the basis is there, trust also lasts over distance.
MATTES: Exactly. That certainly applies to professional collaboration. It certainly can't be transferred one-to-one to a private long-distance relationship. After all, there are other needs involved than just talking, which is also possible on the phone. There is no physical closeness, no sharing of everyday life - and that is much less important in a professional context. However, it should not be neglected either: In the interviews we analysed, our interviewees repeatedly emphasised that it is definitely worthwhile for companies to invest in social events that bring everyone together. That Indian engineers come to Germany and go to the beer garden with their local colleagues - in order to build up the level of trust outside of the professional context that can then last for so long.
QUESTION: So for companies, such events are an investment that pays off?
MATTES: It's difficult to calculate how worthwhile it is. But you can be sure: If, for example, the internet company Google provides its employees with free food and drink, has a table football room, sets up cosy coffee corners, promotes joint sports activities for employees, then the company is not doing this because it is such a hip employer, but out of economic calculation - because good ideas also arise in social situations. The idea for our essay was born at the coffee table: In Sweden, there is the institution of the "fika", the coffee break. Traditionally, coffee is drunk at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., even in the office, where people exchange ideas about what they are currently working on, talk about the children, but also develop new projects. I appreciated that during a research stay there - and I realise that this informal level with my Swedish colleagues no longer arises so easily since I am no longer there. This informal dynamic often gives decisive impetus to innovation projects like the ones we looked at.
QUESTION: You are investigating trust - something that basically everyone thinks they know about, but which is not so easy to observe and measure. How did you do that?
MATTES: That's really difficult, there are different approaches. Sometimes scientists try to measure trust quantitatively, for example: how high is the level of trust in one colleague compared to another? This simply cannot be properly quantified because different elements also play a role. Depending on the topic and concerns, it also "fits" with different people. Our research was qualitative, which means that I conducted interviews with people, which also brought out nuances. The aim was not so much to determine the exact level of trust, but rather to answer the question of whether people work well together and really trust each other. Our approach factors included open communication, mutual sympathy as well as reliability and predictability in the interaction.
QUESTION: How does your research tie in with the research on trust?
MATTES: Trust research to date has largely ignored spatial aspects. This means that the significance of spatial proximity is not systematically researched. Trust is complex, its development is differentiated, but the role of spatial factors is less important. There is a consensus in economic geography research that spatial proximity promotes the formation of trust - but why and how is not really considered. It is taken for granted that trust develops through personal contact.
QUESTION: However, the fact that proximity promotes trust in many cases does not mean that it alone can create trust?
MATTES: The interviewees also commented on this: If I'm sitting in a room with someone, that doesn't mean I'm talking to them or getting along. This chemistry is also incredibly important. Companies also hope for this with events such as Christmas parties - that employees will find a different level there. It's quite clear that just because you put two people in a room doesn't mean they trust each other.
QUESTION: According to your findings, how difficult is it for bosses to gain trust?
MATTES: It's also about closeness and distance. In the study, there was a department head in his mid-30s with a doctorate whose employees are all older than 50. He says that he first had to really earn the closeness and see what counts with his employees. For them, it's not the doctorate that counts first and foremost, it's helping to tinker with the engine. And that's what he does. This earns him respect and he can certainly say at a later date that today I have to take care of the administration. It's certainly also about demonstrating expertise, i.e. cognitive proximity: I can do this too, I'm not better than you, but I'm on the same wavelength as you - that's how trust is created in this case.
QUESTION: So the challenge as a manager is to overcome a certain distance in order to gain trust?
MATTES: It's certainly a certain balancing act, on the one hand I want to be the respected boss who stands on the outside and calls the shots, and on the other hand I want to be part of this group. I'm sure everyone chooses a different path. But if trust is central and I want things to reach my table quickly, this social interaction is also crucial. If each level of the hierarchy has lunch separately, this leads to less integration than a communal lunch. Something like that is important for socialising. Trust is simply difficult to grasp. I can't make a conscious decision either: Now I'm going to build up trust with someone. It certainly helps if you talk to someone, professionally or privately, but you can't force it. It doesn't work like that. It either clicks or it doesn't. And for this click to happen, physical proximity, sitting opposite each other, communicating in multiple dimensions and being able to assess each other is crucial.
QUESTION: What do your findings mean for the management of companies?
MATTES: It pays to bring a project team together at an early stage. For example, if I want employees in Germany and Japan to develop something new, then it's nonsense for only the two managers to meet and the teams work separately under their respective leadership. Then the employees won't be able to approach each other easily. If they've only sat together in a room somewhere for an hour and have a face in front of them, they'll pick up the phone - that's just the way it is, the distance feels much shorter. What we've often heard is that the project is over and then there's a joint meeting - that's nice to round things off, but it doesn't make much sense in terms of building a trusting working relationship.
QUESTION: So a kick-off meeting creates short official channels with initial trust?
MATTES: Approaching the other boss via the boss and then going back down a level is terribly inefficient and takes a lot of time. But if the people involved talk to each other directly, there is a greater chance of the project succeeding more quickly. Only direct contact at the start of the project makes this approach possible at all.
QUESTION: You indicated earlier that your findings cannot be transferred everywhere. What about the university, for example?
MATTES: In science, it is indeed likely to be similar, as I mentioned earlier. And it can also be transferred to semesters abroad: when friendships are formed during an Erasmus exchange, there is a basis of trust, especially if you still see each other from time to time afterwards. At the same time - and this should also apply to friendships - there are people with whom you build up a relationship of trust in such a way that you can sometimes not hear each other for years and then it fits immediately when you see each other again. You don't have to think long and hard about where to start, you just chat away as if you had last seen each other yesterday. Anything missing in terms of content is filled in, but the level is the same. And that is analogous to our research findings, certainly in a personal contact. I can hardly imagine such a relationship or friendship developing without ever having sat opposite each other.
Interview: Deike Stolz