PANEL DISCUSSION ON BUILDING AND MAINTAINING TRUST IN THE ABSELESQUE CLASSROOM Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 PANEL DISCUSSION ON BUILDING AND MAINTAINING TRUST IN THE ABSELESQUE CLASSROOM John Butler, Clemson University jkbtl@clemson.edu Michael Crino, Clemson University crino@clemson.edu Barbara Howard, SUNY at Geneseo howardb@geneseo.edu Peter Markulis, SUNY at Geneseo markulis@geneseo.edu Daniel Strang, SUNY at Geneseo strang@geneseo.edu Dolly Malik, NPGC, Inc. NPGC@rochester.rr.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this panel is to clarify the benefits of a climate of trust in the classroom. In particular, the panel focuses on building students’ trust in teachers who use experiential methods such as exercises or simulations. We contrast a trusting climate to a mistrusting climate, discuss ways to build and maintain trust, and suggest possible consequences of trust. We address expectations and perceptions held by students. Two specific models for building trust are discussed. The first is a content model that identifies ten conditions (antecedent factors) that can lead to trust. The second is a process model that proposes cause-effect relationships for causes and consequences of trust in the classroom. INTRODUCTION Definitions of trust are as diverse as the people who have defined it. For example, Gibb (1991) said that trust is freedom from fear. Larzelère and Huston (1980) defined it as the belief that another person will be honest and benevolent. Butler (1991), following Zand (1972) and Deutsch (1958), defined trust as the willingness to risk being vulnerable to another person whose behavior is beyond one’s control. Similarly, Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman (1995) proposed that we trust another person when we are willing to be vulnerable to their actions under the expectation that the other will perform an action important to us, regardless of our ability to monitor or control the other. The feelings of risk, vulnerability, and lack of control are all very familiar to students. Their lack of content knowledge and their uncertainty about whether they can learn enough to satisfy course requirements puts them at risk and makes them feel vulnerable. Further, the teacher’s behavior is largely beyond students’ control. Especially in ABSELesque courses, which include simulations or experiential exercises, risk taking is part of the learning process. Mistrusting students shun the risks and they remain tight in a bud. Trusting students are willing to risk increasing their vulnerability and they blossom. Thus, “upward trust” in the teacher would seem to be advantageous for students. It also seems beneficial to students if they earn the trust of their teachers – build “downward trust.” For one thing, compared to mistrusted students, trusted students tend to be evaluated more leniently because teachers are likely to be more receptive to their ideas. For example, if a student’s response is ambiguous, we believe that a teacher who trusts the student will make an effort to understand the student’s perspective and to judge the response favorably. This bias is one explanation of halo effect, which is frequently discussed in the literature on performance appraisal. 19 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 However, since the proposed panel would be designed for an audience primarily of teachers, we would like to focus on behaviors teachers can engage in to earn the upward trust of their students. Building upward trust can be a win- win process that enhances downward trust as well, because of the reciprocity of trust (Butler, 1983). Building trust requires the knowledge of its causal antecedents. This approach goes a step further than the various definitions offered previously. Several writers have addressed determinants of trust. For example, Hosmer (1995) synthesized the literatures of organization theory and normative philosophy, and concluded that trust follows from an intrinsic expectation of an implicit moral duty. Mayer, et al. (1995) summarized the findings of 23 researchers. Combining the works of three of them – Gabarro (1978), Larzelère and Huston (1980), and Butler (1991) – the antecedent conditions of trust include integrity, consistency, openness, discretion, competence, honesty, benevolence, availability, fairness, promise fulfillment, and receptivity. Thus, it seems useful to ascertain the behaviors that cause trust. Knowledge of such behaviors can provide insight into how one can go about building trust. Ten behavioral conditions of trust were identified in interviews with 84 managers and executives (Butler, 1991). Although the intent of those interviews was to investigate the conditions of trust between managers and their subordinates and superiors, the conditions seem relevant to trust between teachers and students. The panel members intend to focus on the following ten conditions of trust. The following are behaviors that teachers can engage in to earn their students’ trust. 1. Availability: posting and holding office hours, giving students your phone number, email address, etc.) 2. Competence: using effective teaching methods as well as knowing your discipline. 3. Consistency: behaving the same way from time to time whenever the situation is the same. Also, showing consistency among thoughts, words, and deeds (Integrity). 4. Discretion: keeping confidential sensitive information (such as students’ grades, disabilities, etc.) 5. Fairness: treating all students equally, grading equitably, avoiding favoritism. 6. Honesty: telling the truth as you know it. 7. Benevolence: demonstrating helpful good will toward students; never doing anything to take advantage of them, make them lose face, or embarrass them. 8. Openness: sharing your thoughts and ideas with students and telling them what’s on your mind. 9. Promise Fulfillment: following through on things you said you would do. 10. Receptivity: listening actively and reflectively to students, and making an effort to understand what they say. For example, considering just four of the trust conditions (competence, benevolence, fairness, and receptivity) it is clear that a teacher who manifests these conditions will be more “comfortable” for students than one who does not. Students will perceive that such a teacher knows the material well and can impart it to them skillfully (competence), has their best interests in mind and will look out for their welfare (benevolence), will not play favorites when evaluating their performance (fairness), and will listen to their ideas and try to understand them regardless of agreement (receptivity). Under such conditions, we expect that students would be likely to involve themselves in discussions, interact with the teacher both inside and outside of the classroom, and participate freely in exercises and simulations. Thus, upward trust leads to students’ openness and involvement and consequently to their learning. Panel members will lead an interactive discussion addressing how teachers can build upward trust in their classrooms – how we can get our students to trust us. We propose that upward trust leads to beneficial outcomes for students such as their openness and involvement, consequent learning, and consequent good grades. For teachers, the favorable outcomes of upward trust could include good teaching evaluations and consequent extrinsic rewards such as promotions, tenure, salary raises, and extra-pay assignments. A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT MODEL The conditions of trust are useful in that they specify the antecedents of trust. However, to predict what will happen if we implement the conditions of trust we need a process model showing cause-effect relationships. Figure 1 portrays a process model proposing a number of consequences of upward trust. Not the least of these consequences is psychic income for both students and teachers. 20 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 Figure 1. Model of trust-building process and outcomes . B B D G Teacher’s Trustworthy Behaviors (enacting the 10 conditions of trust) Student’s trust in teacher (willingness to take risks) Student’s openness and involvement in exercises and simulations Student’s learning Good teaching evaluations for teacher Promotions, Tenure, Salary raises, Extra-pay assignments, etc. for teacher Job offers, interesting and challenging jobs, authority and responsibility, good salary Student’s psychic income (intrinsic satisfaction) Teacher’s psychic income (intrinsic satisfaction) Teacher’s Trustworthy Behaviors (enacting the 10 conditions of trust) Student’s trust in teacher (willingness to take risks) Student’s openness and involvement in exercises and simulations Student’s learning Good teaching evaluations for teacher Promotions, Tenure, Salary raises, Extra-pay assignments, etc. for teacher Job offers, interesting and challenging jobs, authority and responsibility, good salary Student’s psychic income (intrinsic satisfaction) Teacher’s psychic income (intrinsic satisfaction) REFERENCES utler, J. K., Jr. (1983). Reciprocity of trust between professionals and their secretaries. Psychological Reports, 53, 411-416. utler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663. eutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279. abarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust influence and expectations. In A. G. Athos & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships (pp. 290-303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gibb, J. (1991). Trust: A new vision of human relationships for business, education, family, and personal living. North Hollywood, CA: Newcastle. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403. Larzelère, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595-604. 21 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239. 22 Table of Contents Volume 28, 2001 Using A Web Based Tutorial Program To Enhance Student Learning Reflecting On Reflection: An Examination Of Reflective Learning And Assessing Outcomes Overcoming Obstacles To A Cross-Global Collaborative Classroom Panel Discussion On Building And Maintaining Trust In The Abselesque Classroom Cosmopolitan-Based Cross National Segmentation In Global Marketing Simulations Strategic Management And The Case Method: Survey And Evaluation In Hong Kong Designing Interactive Self-Learning Modules Using Macromedia Director Teaching Financial Markets Using The Wall Street Journal Core Course Outcomes Assessment And Program Continuous Improvement Using An Integrative Business Plan Œ An Empirical Evaluation Using A Mock Trial Activity For Interdisciplinary Learning Fidelity, Verifiability, And Validity Of Simulation: Constructs For Evaluation 2001 International Collegiate Business Strategy Competition: 37 Years Of Collegiate Competition Motivating Students: An Initial Attempt To Operationalize The Curiosity Gap Model E-Learning: The Next Wave Of Experiential Learning Helping New Game Adopters: Four Perspectives An Initial Validity Invesitigaion of A Test Assessing Total Enterprise Simulation Learning Administering A Marketing Simulation - Common And Varied Practices Among Instructors Issues In Case Method Instruction: Class Discussion Leadership Sex Composition, Cohesion, Consensus, Potency And Performance Of Simulation Teams Integrating Management Curriculum: Linking Courses With Frontpage Absel: The Way We Talk! Teaching Strategic Management: A Case Study In The Diffusion Of Innovation In Education A Demonstration Of Bussim Strategy A Total Enterprise Simulation Teaching Methods: Etic Or Emic Antecedents Of Work Team Performance In A Business Simulation: Personality And Group Interaction When Experiential Educators Reflect Upon Their Craft: A Qualitative Research Report Strategic Sensemaking In Organizations: Model Formulation And Operationalization Panel Discussion: A Model For Initiative Development: Discussion And Ideas Of Individual Spirit Harmonics Assessing The Efficacy Of Experiential Learning In A Multicultural Environment Are Business Schools Producing 21st Century Managers? Blue Horizon Cruises: An International Simulation Exercise To Illustrate Conflicting Economic And Cultural Models Different Perceptions Of The Same Thing: An Experiential Exercise Current Use Of Agribusiness Simulation Games: Survey Results Of University Agribusiness And Agricultural Economics Programs Team Building 101 For Accountants An Online Evaluation Of The Compete Online Decision Entry System (Codes) Total Enterprise Simulation Winners And Losers: A Preliminary Study Gilding The Lily, Enhancing The Pedagogical Experience, Or Fixing What Isn™t Broke: The Dilemma Of New Simulation Versions The Absel Endnote Database: The Perfect Tool For The Bernie Keys Library Decision-Making Exercises (A), (B), And (C): Examining The Role Of Conflict In Group Decision-Making Group Decision Simulation (A)-(F): Examining Procedural Justice In Group Decision-Making Processes Evaluation Of Performance In Business Games: Financial And Non Financial Approaches A Framework For Evaluating Simulations As Educational Tools Congruence II™: A Strategic Business Board Game The Tournament Concept: Extending The Idea Of Using Simulations As Instruments Of Assessment The Economic And Political Transition Of The Mexican State In The Threshold Of Twenty First Century: From The Entrepreneurial State To The State Of Entrepreneurs. Experiential Learning For Accountants: The Not For Profit Project An Investigation Of The Environmental Awareness Attained In A Simple Business Simulation Game A Daily Exercise In Theory Application: Is This Why I Had To Take Marketing, Management, Finance –? An Alternative View to Scoring Selected Simulation Games and Experiential Exercises