Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Community organisations aim to promote benefits to members; the benefits can be implicit or explicit. This article assesses trust among community organisational members and tests the factors that influence trust. It examines the relationship between members’ age, sex, membership duration and trust issues in community organisations in Tanzania. Two hundred and fifty respondents were selected for the study using convenient sampling; they filled and returned 165 of the distributed questionnaires, giving a response rate of 66%. Results show that the only variable, among many, significantly associated with trust is perceived benefits. Therefore, the interventions to strengthen groups' effectiveness may need to focus on improving group members' perceived/accrued benefits.

Plain language summary

Trust issues in community organisations in Tanzania

The study assessed the presence of trust, reasons for its presence and absence. Benefits expected by the members was found to be important over any other factor studied including age and gender, etc.

Keywords

trust community organisations trust factors Tanzania VICOBA

Introduction

The trust issue is never becoming obsolete; it is at the centre of human interactions and thus will be in discourse, probably forever. Shakespeare quotes: ‘Love all, trust a few …’‘Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent’. Swahili sayings on trust: ‘An enemy of man is man’. ‘A promise is a debt’‘A good thing sells; a bad thing advertises’. ‘He who trusts in God lacks nothing’. ‘Unity is strength’. Trust is thus essential and nurtures or breaks people and relationships. Trust is necessary for a healthy society (Glanville, 2016); referring to Aristotle (350 BCE), the indispensability of trust to humans is emphasised (Hirai, 2020). Trust is, therefore, a necessary evil, as humans cannot live without it.

Over several decades, trust has received considerable scholarly attention. This attention seems cyclical and often comes about after specific crises. In the recent past, trust studies were associated with uncertain or inconclusive understanding of relationships between government and citizens following the economic upheavals of the Western World and the onset of COVID-19 (Shanka & Menebo, 2022). Crises are significant in prompting engagement on issues but should not be so. Trust literature will grow further with the Russia invasion of the Ukraine and its aftermath.

Trust has also been influential in other human endeavours. For example, the importance of trust with the development of information technology in the contemporary world has also seen mounting concern about trust as an inevitable evil. This is particularly true when relationships and information elements interact (Fairholm et al., 2018). Several issues emerge, given the scholarly preoccupation with trust as a societal and organisational imperative. These are as follows: association of trust with leadership and leadership behaviour (Antonakis & Day, 2017; Fairholm et al., 2018; Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016); trust linked to expectations and previous interactions (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016); trust as a relationship of reliance between leaders and followers (Ahn et al., 2004); enhancement of trust through sharing of power and reward (Birkenmeier et al., 2003); trust linked to responsible leadership (Mehta et al., 2022); trust is associated with better communication flow (Sharkie, 2009); Trust involves risks (Mayer et al., 1995); trust creates willingness to take risks (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001); trust can reduce risks associated with opportunistic behaviours (Sankowska, 2013); trust contributes to transformational leadership that has the concern of followers high in the agenda going beyond self-interest (Khattak et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019); trust is a factor for both individual and organisational effectiveness (Tripathi et al., 2020). Trust is an essential factor to servant leadership in organisations (Chan & Mak, 2014; Joseph & Winston, 2005); trust promotes knowledge sharing and innovations (Berraies et al., 2020); trust promotes self and group interests (Holdo, 2020; Kallestrup, 2020). Trust is a social process (Savolainen et al., 2018). Trust is a catalyst of relationships between people and their economic endeavours, inspiring practical and scholarly interests enhancing engagement, online communication and supports organisational performance (Paliszkiewicz et al., 2022).

Trust can be general and relates to personal characteristics that influence a person’s ability to trust or specific trust which comes from an individual’s conscious experiences – cognitive or gut feelings that are not explicit and conscious – affective; the specific trust is the target in relationship building between two groups (Kenning, 2008; Kramer, 1999; Morrow et al., 2004). Trust as the cause of productive relationships (Rahayuningsih, 2019). Institutional trust is a function of the one who trusts, those who are trusted, and the tendency to trust (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust promotes social exchanges (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Gustafsson et al., 2021). Trust promotes organisational learning (Jiang & Chen, 2017). Moreover, the argument is that trust is to be continuously nurtured (Luhmann, 2017; Möllering, 2013).

Trust in community organisations has received less attention than in organisations where employer and employee relationships are focused. Nonetheless, as most studies within such organisations involve member-leader exchange and relationship theories that also apply to community organisations, those studies help understand the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of trust in community organisations. For example, trust studies at the team level and the dyadic exchanges between leaders and members (Costa et al., 2001; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Savolainen & Ikonen, 2016). Team collaboration involves and generates trust (Bedwell et al., 2012; Lewicki et al., 1998).

Trust also generates social capital (Lewicki et al., 2006). Scholars link social capital to generalised trust in social networks (Bhandari & Yasunobu, 2009). Social capital promotes social and economic progress (Claridge, 2020; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Putnam, 1993). Trust should be associated with social capital, the financial objective pursued, and social quality (Beck et al., 2012). Trust is also said to create a reciprocal relationship with socioeconomic progress and itself (OECD, 2017). The OECD further observes that though not yet clearly established trust invigorates development, it is more manifest in prosperous societies than impoverished ones.

In the Swahili language of East Africa where Tanzania is situated, now a continental language – the African Union has recently adopted it as a working language – the word trust translates to ‘uaminifu’, and unlike in the English language, where the words I believe in you might mean I trust you, in Swahili, there is no alternative word of close similar usage as `uaminifu'. Therefore, the word was clear to the researchers and the respondents. These preliminary words might excuse the problematic exercise of defining trust to create a universally accepted meaning. This definition might suffice as being comprehensive enough, particularly for community network organisations: a psychological state that comprises the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another (Rousseau et al., 1998). Similarly, the OECD (2017, p. 42) define trust as: ‘a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectations of positive behavior’. The two definitions may be enough as very early on, different scholars have pinpointed the difficulty of defining the concept, mainly as different disciplines offer differing but related definitions (Dovey, 2009; Gambetta, 1988; McEvily et al., 2003; OECD, 2017; PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2016; Rousseau et al.,1998).

Many studies have tried to seek causality between trust and behaviour, the impact of trust or seek to find out whether trust exists or not, and of what magnitude it is or what causes trust or mistrust; and definitions and conceptualisations of trust (Kenning, 2008; Lundåsen, 2023; PytlikZillig & Kimbrough, 2016; Rahayuningsih, 2019); trust preservation (Gustafsson et al., 2021) our study looks at trust relative to given conditions and also seeks to relate such conditions to trust: these are age, gender, perceived level of benefits and membership duration. We do so by studying community groups called Village Community Banks (VICOBA).

Studies on VICOBA generally focus on the challenges of loan repayment due to, among other their informality (Mzingula, 2020; Shau, 2022), financial literacy (Redson & Magali, 2022), their social security role (Magali & Barhe, 2022) and poverty alleviation objectives (Joyce & Akaro, 2016). Trust has not been a subject of inquiry. As VICOBA operates in groups formed by members’ self-selection (unlike organisational groups), it is interesting to know the level of trust among members and how group dynamics influence this. Although trust has yet to be the topic of inquiry, these groups are formed mainly to escape the challenges they face when accessing loans from formal lending institutions. These institutions are offering loans with prerequisites, such as collaterals. With no rules for membership, trust has become a key to VICOBA. However, no study has explored the level of trust of VICOBA members, linking it to group dynamics such as members’ age, gender, perceived level of benefit, and membership duration. This paper, therefore, seeks to fill this gap.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Social exchange theory was adopted as the theoretical framework to explain the relationships among the five variables in this study. Using the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we explore the factors that tie group members together with a focus on trust. The factors tested about trust are member’s age, gender, longevity, and perceived benefits to members. Social exchange theory explains relationships between group members while having trust issues and mutual returns central to the arguments provided (Mayer et al., 1995; Xia et al., 2022). The theory warrants us to test trust against accrued/perceived benefits and whether age, gender, and membership duration can affect this kind of social exchange.

Membership Duration

The study investigated the link between elements of group dynamics and trust – it aimed to test whether trust is affected by membership duration. According to Tuckman, five stages exist in groups’ formation: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). The stages are not fixed but provide room for conversations. Therefore, we propose that the shorter the members’ duration in a group, because new members join established groups later, they are likely to be in the early stages of group formation and might not positively identify with the group as their older members. Trust and membership duration is also linked to group cohesiveness (Aquino et al., 2022; Sokman et al., 2023). Cohesiveness reflects the degree of mutual interest among group members, and group members prioritise group harmony and solidarity over other issues (Babtist, 2015). According to the social exchange theory relationships form through repeated interactions. A key idea is that relationships grow into bonds with trust, loyalty, and commitment over time (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). For this to happen, people must follow certain norms of exchange, reciprocating the actions/inactions of the other or others. The longer people stay in a group, the more likely they are to build positive relationships. Community groups retain members who share expectations and follow group norms. Although these organisations create rules of engagement, their enforcement is limited to social sanctions; they do not clearly qualify as negotiated exchange, having explicit terms of engagement with binding agreements to assure members that they will not be exploited (Molm et al., 2000). This makes trust an important aspect of VICOBA relationships. Building trust requires a series of interdependent actions (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) like successful savings and borrowings. A series of interdependent exchanges can create strong personal bonds, which is a main idea of social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2012). Trust shows the quality of a relationship over time (Cropanzano et al., 2017). It is, therefore, logical to investigate trust in a temporal context. Hence our first hypothesis aims to enrich and link trust and group dynamics theories within the framework of the social exchange theory. It is thus argued that, there is a positive relationship between membership duration and trust.

Gender and Trust

Trust, social exchange, and even group dynamics theories associate relationships with subjective phenomena, sometimes more than objective tangible outcomes. Women are said to foster trustful environments and promote transformational leadership (Bilal et al., 2021). Women are also more likely to restore trust after a trust violation associated with their value of maintaining relationships (Haselhuhn et al., 2015). Other studies show scenarios where men are more trusting and women are more trustworthy (Van Den Akker et al., 2020). This is only where decisions are based on predictions and expectations (Van Den Akker et al., 2020). These studies do not cover situations where trust and trustworthiness are among group members; the studies were experimental (trust game and gift-exchange game). Community organisations are not one-time events; they exist over time. During that time, members level of trust is likely to be tested by the actions of others that violate trust. In such scenarios, women are likely to be more trustworthy than men because, as studies suggest, they value maintaining relationships (Haselhuhn et al., 2015). Our second hypothesis states that Women are more likely to trust in groups than men.

Trust and Benefits Accruing to Members

Group dynamic theory, social exchange theory, and trust theory speak of benefits occurring, either tangible or otherwise, to promote and engender trust. For example, group cohesiveness linked to trust is a function of group ‘Potency’ (members’ beliefs that the group can be influential), that is, leading to some desired outcomes (Guzzo et al., 1993). This hypothesis is essential, as the influence of benefits is at the core of the relevant theories in this study. Social exchanges involve risks and uncertainty (Molm et al., 2000). Individuals join groups with the expectations that they will benefit more than they would otherwise if they were not members, even if the benefits are unequal among and between members (Molm et al., 2000). This form of exchange is usually negotiated but lacks strict enforcement beyond social sanctions like exclusion. Hence the relationship involve risk to members and what keeps them is trust. So we assume that when members are satisfied with benefits of being members they increase their level of trust to the group. Our hypothesis, therefore, states a positive relationship exists between the level of benefits and trust.

Trust and Age

Maturity is a significant factor in many instances as far as human life is concerned. Organisational management literature associate employee retention with employment duration. In human relationships, maturity is crucial, especially as seen earlier; trust involves risks and perceived benefits. Maturity is essential to influential organisations and leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Maturity requires confidence and experience (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Studies on age and trust establish that they are positively related (Bailey & Leon, 2019; Poulin & Haase, 2015). Therefore, our hypothesis states that positive relationship exists between trust and age.

Material and Methods

Research Design

This study employed a cross-sectional research design utilising a quantitative approach to examine trust within community organisations in Tanzania. The cross-sectional design was appropriate for capturing data at a single time. It allowed for statistical analysis of associations between trust and selected independent variables, including age, gender, membership duration, and perceived benefits. The approach provided insights into the prevailing trust dynamics among members of community organisations, specifically those affiliated with the UYACODE network of Village Community Banks (VICOBA). However, it also allows in-depth qualitative studies to explore the meanings behind current findings and capture changes and dynamics in trust development over time (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Langley et al., 2013; Lewicki et al., 2006).

Sampling and Data Collection

Our study used a convenience sampling method to select participants from UYACODE members attending their annual general meeting in January 2022 at Chalinze, Coast Region of Tanzania. We chose the convenience sampling strategy due to the accessibility of diverse participants from different regions. The study targeted 250 community members. We distributed the self-administered structured questionnaire to these participants. We obtained a total of 165 completed and returned questionnaires, making a response rate of 66%. We excluded two questionnaires from the analysis due to incompleteness, and we remained with 163 complete questionnaires.

The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended and Likert-scale questions to measure trust levels and factors influencing trust. Participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, and membership duration, and their perception of the benefits accrued from their membership.

Respondents were also informed early on prior to the distribution of the questionnaires of the voluntary nature of the requested participation in the study, anonymity and confidentiality in respect to their responses were also guaranteed.

Measurement of Variables

The study examined trust as the dependent variable, categorised into three levels: (i) Enough trust, (ii) Trust is challenging, and (iii) Some members lack trust. The independent variables included age, which was categorised into groups to analyse variations in trust across different age brackets; gender, where we compared male and female respondents in terms of their trust levels; membership duration, which we grouped into two categories (1–5 years, 5 years and above); and perceived benefits where participants reported the benefits they received from group membership, categorised as high, average, or low.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and ANOVA to determine associations between trust and the independent variables. We applied the Chi-square tests to assess associations between categorical variables (gender, membership duration, perceived benefits) and trust. We used the Fisher’s exact test to measure the association between trust and membership duration because the initial Chi-square test showed the expected counts were below the threshold. We used a significance level of p < .05 to determine statistical significance. ANOVA was used to evaluate differences in trust levels across age groups. Descriptive statistics summarised demographic distributions and trust levels among respondents.

Results

We tested the association between the group dynamics variables of age, gender, membership duration, perceived benefits, and trust.

Trust and Membership Duration

We wanted to know whether there was a relationship between membership duration and trust. We applied crosstabulation, the Chi-square tests, and Fisher’s exact test to test the null hypothesis (Ho), which stated that no positive relationship exists between membership duration and trust.

The Crosstabulation table (Table 1) shows the relationship between the duration of membership and trust in fellow members, with the number of participants in each category. The independent variable is the duration of membership (1–5 years vs. 5 years and above); the dependent variable is trust in fellow members (enough trust, some lack trust, trust is challenging). The total sample size is 163 participants.

Table 1.

Duration of membership and Trust to fellow members crosstabulation.

		Trust in fellow members
Count		Enough trust	Some of us lack trust	Trust is challenging	Total
Duration of membership
1–5 Years	3	66	1	22	92
5 Years and above	2	54	5	10	71
Total	5	120	6	32	163

Among those with 1 to 5 years of membership (N = 92), 66 reported enough trust in fellow members, only 1 said some members lack trust, and 22 found trust very challenging. Among those with 5+ years of membership (N = 71), the majority (54) reported enough trust, 5 said some members lack trust, and 10 found trust very challenging.

The Chi-square test findings suggest no statistically significant association between membership duration and trust in fellow members (χ² (3, N = 163) = 5.960, p = .114). Given that 50% of cells had expected counts below 5, the validity of the Pearson Chi-square test may be affected. We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation yielding an estimated p-value of .117 (95% CI: 0.067–0.166), confirming the lack of significance. The Likelihood Ratio Test (p = .102) and Fisher’s exact test (p = .123) further supported this conclusion (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Chi-Square Test on Membership Duration and Trust.

Chi-square tests	Value	df	Asymptotic significance (two-sided)	Monte Carlo Sig. (two-sided)
				Significance	95% Confidence interval
				Significance	Lower bound	Upper bound
Pearson Chi-square	5.960^a	3	.114	.117^b	.067	.166
Likelihood ratio	6.213	3	.102	.172^b	.114	.230
Fisher’s exact test	5.782			.123^b	.072	.173
N of valid cases	163

^aFour cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.18.

^bBased on 163 sampled tables with starting seed 1,314,643,744.

Trust and Gender

The second variable that we tested against trust was gender. We hypothesised that women were more likely to show trust in groups than men. Hence, our null hypothesis was Ho: Women are more unlikely to show trust in groups than men. The two tables (Tables 3 and 4) show the results from crosstabulation and the Chi-square test.

Table 3.

Crosstabulation of Gender and Trust.

Gender crosstab
		Gender
Count		Female	Male	Total
Trust	Enough trust	76	46	122
	Trust is challenging	16	19	35
	Some of us lack trust	4	2	6
Total		96	67	163

Table 4.

Chi-Square Test of Gender and Trust.

Chi-square tests	Value	df	Asymptotic significance (two-sided)
Pearson Chi-square	3.244^a	2	.197
Likelihood ratio	3.203	2	.202
Linear-by-linear association	1.224	1	.269
N of valid cases	163

^aTwo cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.47.

From crosstabulation of gender and trust (Table 3) to test whether women had more trust in groups than men, more than half of both genders (women and men) registered to have enough confidence in groups. Of the 122 respondents with enough trust, 76 were female, and 46 were male; female respondents were 96, whereas male respondents were 67, making relatively no significant difference in trust between gender percentages (79% and 67%, respectively).

We also conducted a Chi-square test (Table 4) of female and male trust. The results show a p value of .197, higher than our significant level of .05, leading us to accept the null hypothesis that women are unlikely to have more trust in groups than men. This means that there was no statistically significant difference between females and males in group trust.

Trust and Benefits Accruing to Members

Our third test was a thorough and meticulous endeavour to establish a significant positive relationship between benefits and trust. We conducted a comprehensive analysis, including crosstabulation and Chi-square tests, as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Our null hypothesis was Ho: There is no significant positive relationship between benefits and trust. The results of our research are enlightening and provide valuable insights into the dynamics of trust and benefits in group settings in the study context.

Table 5.

Perceived Level of Benefits and Trust.

Trust and level of benefits crosstabulation
		Level benefits			Total
Count		Higher benefits	Average benefits	Low benefits	Total
Trust	Enough trust	92	27	3	122
	Trust is challenging	19	10	6	35
	Some of us lack trust	4	2	0	6
Total		115	39	9	163

Table 6.

Perceived Level of Benefits and Trust Chi-Square Test.

Chi-square tests	Value	df	Asymptotic significance (two-sided)
Pearson Chi-square	13.400^a	4	.009
Likelihood ratio	11.244	4	.024
Linear-by-linear association	5.921	1	.015
N of valid cases	163

^aFour cells (44.4%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33.

One hundred and sixty-three (163) respondents responded to questions on trust levels and the benefits accrued to them. One hundred and twenty-two (122) reported having enough trust in groups, of which 92 were from the 115 respondents (94.2%) who were as well viewing groups as having high benefits (see Table 5). Twenty-seven (27) were from the 39 respondents (69.2) who viewed groups as of average benefits, and only three were from the nine respondents (33.3%) who reported low benefits. This suggests that most respondents with high to average trust levels also perceived getting high benefits from these groups. The fact that a total of hundred nineteen (119), which is 97.5 % of respondents who perceived high to average benefits trusted groups (which is 73% of all the 163 respondents) suggests that there is a positive relationship between trust and the level of benefit perceived/accrued to members.

Furthermore, we conducted a Chi-square test to test the null hypothesis; ‘there is no positive relationship between the perceived level of benefits and trust’. The test (see Table 6) rejected the null hypothesis (p = .009 ≤ .05). These results significantly confirm the results from the crosstabulation that there is a positive relationship between the level of perceived benefits and trust, underscoring the practical relevance of our findings.

Trust and age

Trust and age are other variables in group dynamics that we tested for their relationship.

Our null hypothesis (H₀) was that trust and age have no positive relationship. We used descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test that (Table 7).

Table 7.

Trust and Age.

Descriptive
Age	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error	95% Confidence interval for mean		Minimum	Maximum
Age	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error	Lower bound	Upper bound	Minimum	Maximum
Enough trust	122	49.25	11.936	1.081	47.11	51.39	24	75
Trust is challenging	35	46.89	12.012	2.030	42.76	51.01	25	71
Some of us lack trust	6	58.67	13.501	5.512	44.50	72.83	40	72
Total	163	49.09	12.116	.949	47.22	50.97	24	75

We conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyse group trust differences (Table 8). The results indicate that the significance level (p value) is .084, suggesting that the null hypothesis is accepted. This finding implies no significant relationship between the age of group members and trust. The F-ratio of 2.511 also supports this conclusion. The data does not provide evidence to suggest that age has a discernible impact on group trust based on the tested variables.

Table 8.

ANOVA for Trust and age.

ANOVA
Age	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	723.620	2	361.810	2.511	0.084
Within groups	23,055.999	160	144.100
Total	23,779.620	162

Discussion

The study engaged itself with an essential phenomenon among humans as social beings: trust in a community organisation in Tanzania. The study respondents were in the majority females. Female dominance in community organisations is not surprising because these specific groups (the VICOBA) originate from efforts of women to reduce the problem of inaccessibility of loans from formal financial institutions due to, among other reasons, lack of property ownership, hence lack of loan collateral; men have started joining more recently so the number of women was likely to exceed that of men. About age groups, most respondents were of the age group 31 to 45 years. However, regarding membership duration, most of the respondents have been members for 1 to 5 years. It is not uncommon for VICOBA members to leave one and join another similar organisations for different reasons; hence, most members have relatively short membership durations.

On the dimension studied of respondents’ membership durations and level of trust, most members displayed a high level of trust regardless of their membership durations. These results indicate that there is no strong relationship between membership duration and trust, contrary to Tuckman’s stages of a group development model, which stipulates that groups perform at the fourth stage of development in a five-stage model (Tuckman, 1965) where, impliedly, their level of trust for other members has increased. A potential explanation for the non-significant findings could be the nature of these groups because trust is the basis of membership, as the loans that members borrow are at risk if members are not trustworthy due to a lack of collateral. So, regardless of how long a person has stayed with the organisation, they are bound to remain in the group if they uphold trust. The results also are in line with reciprocity principal of social exchange theory which says that individuals in the exchange relationship who provide to others without being able to control the actions of their counterparts are more likely to have trust than those who do the same in a more binding negotiated exchange relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2012). Contrary to trust built by a series of positive exchanges (which needs time to materialise) the results show time does not influence trust. This could be because the members are bound together by trust as it is their alternative to collateral, so regardless of duration of membership, members have trust of others as early as during group formation stage.

A key limitation of this study is the high proportion of low expected counts, specifically for trust and membership duration variables, which can reduce the reliability of the Chi-square test. While we used Monte Carlo estimation and Fisher’s exact test to enhance accuracy, future research should consider increasing the sample size to ensure sufficient expected counts for more robust statistical analysis.

Furthermore, the study revealed that there was relatively no difference in trust between genders percentages wise (79% and 67% respectively) and as well as statistically as per the Chi-square test, which showed a p value of .197, more significant than our significance level of .05. These results contradict previous studies that established the relationship between gender and trust, where males were more trusting and females were more trustworthy (Van Den Akker et al., 2020). Furthermore, the unique nature of VICOBA groups makes them rely primarily on trust in lending decisions, unlike other formal lending institutions, whose decision to lend money relies on collateral. VICOBA members need help maintaining trust in each other to continue qualifying as group members. Members force themselves to behave outside of their habits, as there are social consequences to being untrustworthy, including exclusion risk since VICOBA usually dissolves and reestablishes yearly.

Regarding the association between age groups of respondents and level of trust, the majority of members in all age categories in the community organisation indicated a high level of trust at the significance level (p value) .84, which is more significant than .05. Earlier studies, however, observed different results as they established the positive relationship between age and trust (Bailey & Leon, 2019; Poulin & Haase, 2015). The uniqueness of VICOBA to other groups comes from the fact that one must trust the members to join the group because they would otherwise risk their savings if lent to untrustworthy members.

The association between the level of benefits and trust yielded different results. Most respondents who indicated having high confidence in the community members (94.2%) have also recorded high levels of benefits from being members. Percentage-wise, more low-benefit members were less trustful than higher and normal-benefit members (who made a total of 97.5% of respondents). The statistical test further confirmed the results where p was .009, which is less than the level of significance of .05, which led us to accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a statistically significant relationship between the level of trust and benefits accrued by community organisation members. The trust game and gift exchange game studies established that individuals were more trusting because they perceived reciprocity in providing gifts (in the gift-exchange game) (Van Den Akker et al., 2020). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is also not far from the results. Trust level was likely high because the respondents also perceived higher benefits from the community organisation. The results are also in line with Molm et al. (2000) who suggest that individuals join groups expecting that they would benefit more as members than being non-members. Those few who showed low level of trust were also reported to receive less benefits which means their expectations were not met hence their level of trust was negatively affected.

Given the strong association between trust and perceived benefits, future studies should explore more detailed categories of benefits (e.g., financial, social, emotional) to understand their specific impact on trust. Moreover, incorporating in-depth interviews and focus groups would help understand why certain factors (e.g., gender and membership duration) were not significantly associated with trust. Future studies may also apply a stratified random sampling approach to improve generalisation by ensuring proportionate representation across different member groups and regions. These studies could also increase the sample size to replicate these findings to a larger, more diverse sample to strengthen generalisation.

Conclusion

The study concludes that the community organisational members have a high level of trust between them. The respondents’ age groups, gender, and membership duration had no significant association with this high level of trust. Instead, the level of benefits accrued to members significantly influenced this trust level. This paper concludes that perceived/accrued benefits made community members trust each other and were the basis of belonging to community organisations; this in line with the reciprocity principal of social exchange theory. Again, in respect to group formation theory, membership duration and trust are not closely aligned regardless of the duration of membership, members seem to trust others as early as the group formation stage. Furthermore, the results conclude that the ability to manage group benefits will ensure their continuity and performance. Interventions to strengthen community organisations like VICOBA should thus emphasise imparting skills on loans and other benefits management.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Faisal H. Issa

Mary Rutenge

Ethical Considerations

The study was of a general nature; the outcome targeting no specific individuals that could be directly affected by the study output. The study is also to inform communities on what is significant in keeping team spirit alive and sustainable. The study was also approved as per the institutional ethical clearance in accordance with the relevant ethical guidelines.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was also obtained from all participants prior to the distribution of the questionnaires. Participants were provided with information about the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights, including the option to withdraw at any time.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available in an Excel sheet collected from the questionnaires available to respondents.

References

Ahn

M. J.

Adamson

J. S. A.

Dornbusch

(2004). From leaders to leadership: Managing change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000409

Antonakis

Day

D. V.

(2017). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In Antonakis

Day

D. V.

(Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–26). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506395029.n1

Aquino

J. F.

Riss

R. R.

Multerer

S. M.

Mogilner

L. N.

Turner

T. L.

(2022). A step-by-step guide for mentors to facilitate team building and communication in virtual teams. Medical Education Online, 27(1), Article 2094529.

Babtist

R. W.

(2015). Measuring predictors of groupthink: Instrument development and validation. Illinois State University.

Bailey

P. E.

Leon

(2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of age-related differences in trust. Psychology and Aging, 34(5), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000368

Beck

Büyükkarabacak

Rioja

F. K.

Valev

N. T.

(2012). Who gets the credit? And does it matter? Household vs. firm lending across countries. The BE Journal of Macroeconomics, 12(1), 1–46.

Bedwell

W. L.

Wildman

J. L.

DiazGranados

Salazar

Kramer

W. S.

Salas

(2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 128–145.

Berraies

Lajili

Chtioui

(2020). Social capital, employees’ well-being and knowledge sharing: Does enterprise social networks use matter? Case of Tunisian knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 1153–1183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0012

Bhandari

Yasunobu

(2009). What is social capital? A comprehensive review of the concept. Asian Journal of Social Science, 37(3), 480–510.

10.

Bilal

Ahmad

Jan

M. F.

Huseynov

Nagy

(2021). How women’s transformational leadership induces employees’ innovative behaviour through trust and connectivity: A sequential mediation model. Global Business Review, 26, 0972150920982760.

11.

Birkenmeier

Carson

P. P.

Carson

K. D.

(2003). The father of Europe: An analysis of the supranational servant leadership of jean monnet. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 6(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-06-03-2003-B005

12.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206.

13.

Chan

S. C.

Mak

(2014). The impact of servant leadership and subordinates’ organizational tenure on trust in leader and attitudes. Personnel Review, 43(2), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2011-0125

14.

Claridge

(2020). Social capital at different levels and dimensions: A typology of social capital. Social Capital Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8016096

15.

Costa

A. C.

Roe

R. A.

Taillieu

(2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244.

16.

Cropanzano

Anthony

E. L.

Daniels

S. R.

Hall

A. V.

(2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516.

17.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

18.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640

19.

Dovey

(2009). The role of trust in innovation. The Learning Organization, 16(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470910960400

20.

Fairholm

M. R.

Dzordzormenyoh

M. K.

Binda

G. A.

(2018). Trust-culture leadership in local public administrators’ work. International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-06-2018-0031

21.

Fulmer

C. A.

Gelfand

M. J.

(2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.

22.

Gambetta

(1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil Blackwell.

23.

Glanville

J. L.

(2016). Why does involvement in voluntary associations promote trust? Examining the role of network diversity. Sociological Inquiry, 86(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12096

24.

Gustafsson

Gillespie

Searle

Hope Hailey

Dietz

(2021). Preserving organizational trust during disruption. Organization Studies, 42(9), 1409–1433.

25.

Guzzo

R. A.

Yost

P. R.

Campbell

R. J.

Shea

G. P.

(1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 87–106.

26.

Haselhuhn

M. P.

Kennedy

J. A.

Kray

L. J.

Van Zant

A. B.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104–109.

27.

Hersey

Blanchard

K. H.

(1988). Management and organizational behavior (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

28.

Hirai

(2020). The impact of trust on the quality of participation in development. The International Journal of Social Quality, 10(2), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2020.100207

29.

Holdo

(2020). Contestation in participatory budgeting: Spaces, boundaries, and agency. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(9), 1348–1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220941226

30.

Jiang

Chen

W.-K.

(2017). Effects of organizational trust on organizational learning and creativity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2057–2068.

31.

Joseph

E. E.

Winston

B. E.

(2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510575552

32.

Joyce

Akaro

(2016). Some factors associated with operations of Village Community Banks (VICOBAs) for poverty alleviation in Tanzania. International Journal of Management and Economics Invention, 2(9), 748–758.

33.

Kallestrup

(2020). Groups, trust and testimony . In Dormandy

(Ed.), Trust in Epistemology (1st ed., pp. 136–158). Routledge.

34.

Kenning

(2008). The influence of general trust and specific trust on buying behaviour. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(6), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550810873938

35.

Khattak

M. N.

Zolin

Muhammad

(2020). Linking transformational leadership and continuous improvement. Management Research Review, 43(8), 931–950. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2019-0268

36.

Kim

B.-J.

Park

Kim

T.-H.

(2019). The effect of transformational leadership on team creativity: Sequential mediating effect of employee’s psychological safety and creativity. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 27(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2019.1587304

37.

Knack

Keefer

(1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.

38.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Bell

B. S.

(2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333–375.

39.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.

40.

Langley

A. N. N.

Smallman

Tsoukas

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.

41.

Lewicki

R. J.

McAllister

D. J.

Bies

R. J.

(1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.

42.

Lewicki

R. J.

Tomlinson

E. C.

Gillespie

(2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32(6), 991–1022.

43.

Luhmann

(2017). The development of subjective well-being. In K. Dormandy (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 197–218). Elsevier.

44.

Lundåsen

S. W.

(2023). Intergroup contacts, neighborhood diversity, and community trust: The asymmetrical impact of negative and positive experiences. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 24(1), 163–188.

45.

Magali

Barhe

(2022). Clients’ perception of VICOBA informal social security roles: The case of Nambis Division in Mbulu District, Tanzania. East African Journal of Management and Business Studies, 2(2), 1–14.

46.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

47.

McEvily

Perrone

Zaheer

(2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814

48.

Mehta

Sarvaiya

Chandani

(2022). Community engagement through responsible leadership in managing pandemic: Insight from India using netnography. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42(3/4), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2020-0214

49.

Mitchell

M. S.

Cropanzano

R. S.

Quisenberry

D. M.

(2012). Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In K. Törnblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications (pp. 99–118). Springer.

50.

Möllering

(2013). 12. Process views of trusting and crises. In K. Törnblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of advances in trust research (p. 285).

51.

Molm

L. D.

Takahashi

Peterson

(2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396–1427.

52.

Morrow

J. L.

Hansen

M. H.

Pearson

A. W.

(2004). The cognitive and affective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1), 48–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40601183

53.

Mzingula

E. P.

(2020). Borrower determinants of loan repayment in community village banks (VICOBA) in Lushoto District Tanzania: A case study of Mshikamano VICOBA. International Journal of Arts, Humanities, Literature and Science, 4(5), 7–15.

54.

OECD. (2017). OECD guidelines on measuring trust. OECD Publishing.

55.

Paliszkiewicz

Chen

Launer

(Eds.). (2022). Trust and digital business: Theory and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.

56.

Poulin

M. J.

Haase

C. M.

(2015). Growing to trust: Evidence that trust increases and sustains well-being across the life span. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 614–621.

57.

Putnam

R. D.

(1993). What makes democracy work? National Civic Review, 82(2), 101–107.

58.

PytlikZillig

L. M.

Kimbrough

C. D.

(2016). Consensus on conceptualizations and definitions of trust: Are we there yet? In Shockley

Neal

T. M. S.

PytlikZillig

L. M.

Bornstein

B. H.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration (pp. 17–47). Springer International Publishing.

59.

Rahayuningsih

(2019). The positive impact of organizational trust: A systematic review. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 8(1), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v8i1.12195

60.

Redson

Magali

(2022). The role of financial literacy on clients' participation in village community banks (VICOBA) activities in Karagwe District, Tanzania. African Development Finance Journal, 1(1), 80–96.

61.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617

62.

Sankowska

(2013). Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and firm’s innovativeness. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311288546

63.

Savolainen

Ikonen

(2016). Process dynamics of trust development: Exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context. In S. Jagd & L. Fuglsang (Eds.), Trust, organizations and social interaction: Studying trust as process within and between organizations (pp. 231–256). Edward Elgar Publishing.

64.

Savolainen

Ikonen

Laitinen

(2018). Trust restoration and knowledge processes – A qualitative study within leader-follower relationships. In Bolisani

Di Maria

Scarso

(Eds.), The 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) (pp. 765–772). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd.

65.

Schnackenberg

A. K.

Tomlinson

E. C.

(2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202

66.

Shanka

M. S.

Menebo

M. M.

(2022). When and how trust in government leads to compliance with COVID-19 precautionary measures. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1275–1283.

67.

Sharkie

(2009). Trust in leadership is vital for employee performance. Management Research News, 32(5), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170910952985

68.

Shau

(2022). The assessment of challenges facing the growth of informal lending groups in Tanzania. The case of VICOBA. African Journal of Applied Research, 8(1), 1–14.

69.

Sokman

Othman

A. K.

Abdul Aziz

Musa

M. H.

Azizan

Rahmat

N. H.

(2023). Stages in group work: Is there a relationship among them? International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(11), 7951–7971. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i11/19764

70.

Tripathi

Priyadarshi

Kumar

(2020). Micro-foundations for sustainable development: Leadership and employee performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2019-1622

71.

Tuckman

B. W.

(1965, June). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

72.

Van Den Akker

O. R.

van Assen

M. A. L. M.

Van Vugt

Wicherts

J. M

. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, Article 102329.

73.

Xia

Wang

(2022). How workplace incivility leads to work alienation: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 921161.

Assessing Issues Influencing Group Trust in Community Organisations in Tanzania

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Underpinnings

Membership Duration

Gender and Trust

Trust and Benefits Accruing to Members

Trust and Age

Material and Methods

Research Design

Sampling and Data Collection

Measurement of Variables

Data Analysis

Results

Trust and Membership Duration

Trust and Gender

Trust and Benefits Accruing to Members

Trust and age

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References