Why does trust continue to command such intense interest from the world’s top management scholars?
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified. Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
The recent decision by the Academy of Management Review to feature trust across Vol. 50, No. 4 provides a clear answer: it is a linchpin of modern business theory and practice.
This significant investment by a leading journal highlights a vital research agenda: Trust as an indispensable, yet complex, phenomenon. We present our review, delving into the rich and varied perspectives that constitute the contemporary study of trust.
Korsgaard, Cooper, Mayer, Poppo & Zaheer (2025) argue that societal, technological, and organizational changes have outpaced traditional trust theory.
The shifts within the above areas have created new pressures on how trust is formed, maintained, and repaired. As argued by authors, as of now, trust in institutions is declining while relationships are becoming more complex. Therefore, traditional models of trust no longer fully capture contemporary dynamics.
The editors review four articles in the Special Topic Forum, each expanding the conceptual boundaries of trust.
Below are the online versions of the papers:
Schilke & Lumineau (2025) article propose that trust can reside at either the individual or organizational level. It dramatically depends on organizational actorhood, the degree to which an organization is perceived as an autonomous, agentic entity.
On top of that, Vanneste & Puranam (2025) develop a model of trust in AI. The model demonstrates that perceived agency of AI determines whether trustors focus on the AI itself or on its designers. It also explains how agency increases both trust and betrayal concerns.
Accordingly, Leavitt, Barnes & Shapiro (2025) examine how AI affects trust in managers. This is very dependent on the reflexivity _ as managers’ ability to interpret and adapt algorithmic outputs. In other words, the authors introduced a new trustworthiness factor in human–AI collaboration.
Finally, Ballinger, Schoorman & Sharma (2025) reconceptualize how hope and fear change. This is the case during the period when the decision to trust is taken. The other time is when that trust is reciprocated or betrayed. Two points that researchers call as vulnerability phase. During the vulnerability phase, as explained, trustors process information about a trustee’s ability, benevolence, and integrity, with emotional reactions influenced by goal importance, regulatory focus, and relationship strength. Changes in these emotions can trigger self-focused or avoidance behaviors, such as monitoring, seeking alternatives, or curiosity-driven inquiry, which may end the vulnerability phase prematurely.
Across these papers, two overarching themes emerge: The challenge of determining the Agency. Who or what is perceived as the relevant “actor” which shapes the referent of trust (individual, organization, or technology). Furtheremore, Vulnerability which is about how trustors experience and manage risk. It plays a more dynamic and influential role than previously acknowledged.
Korsgaard et al. (2025), emphasize the dramatic imprtance of these themes due to three macro-trends. Fristly, rising interdependence and blurred accountability across humans, organizations, and technologies (e.g., AI systems, global supply chains).
Secondly, high levels of global uncertainty that heighten vulnerability and encourage simplified or biased trust judgments. Thirdly, an information environment dense with noise and low-quality data. This process complicates assessments of trustworthiness and can lead to misplaced trust or mistrust.
The Special Topic Forum concludes that contemporary conditions require new theoretical frameworks. Such foundation ought to cover a variety of areas including multi-agent systems, technological agency, dynamic vulnerability, and complex information environments.
The 2025 forum comprehended the landmark 1998 AMR trust issue. The forum pushes trust theory into a new era which is shaped by intertwined human and technological actors. This is also increasing accountability and the pervasive uncertainty that businesses face.
Reference
Ballinger, G. A., Schoorman, F. D., & Sharma, K. (2025). What we do while waiting: The experience of vulnerability in trusting relationships. Academy of Management Review, 50(4), 768-787.
Korsgaard, M. A., Cooper, C. D., Mayer, K. J., Poppo, L., & Zaheer, A. (2025). The Boundaries of Trust in a New Era. Academy of Management Review, 50(4), 687-697.
Leavitt, K., Barnes, C. M., & Shapiro, D. L. (2025). The role of human managers within algorithmic performance management systems: a process model of employee trust in managers through reflexivity. Academy of Management Review, 50(4), 745-767.
Schilke, O., & Lumineau, F. (2025). How organizational is interorganizational trust?. Academy of Management Review, 50(4), 698-725.
Vanneste, B. S., & Puranam, P. (2025). Artificial intelligence, trust, and perceptions of agency. Academy of Management Review, (ja), amr-2022.
