Although frequently taken for granted, trust was a common factor that appeared at the cornerstone of relationships and motivation for information sharing. For example, in the recent launching of a new Knowledge Management database (AACREA, 2007, Video 1
Gestión del Conocimiento); AACREA has very carefully communicated its preferred form of organizing: working in networks. The message is also clear in another point: the development of networks conveys the development of trust among its members.
In its mission statement, AACREA refers very explicitly to trust: “We sow trust”, as something that is carefully planted, taken care of, and expected to see it grow.
The fact that you work in a group changes your culture, it changes the way you see things, the way you relate to other people, your suppliers, your clients, even your family…that is why the permanence of things is important. Because deep down, this entire network…is trust. Trust. I acknowledge there is also a working methodology, but the important thing here is the progressive building of trust, from that working methodology and from that exchange. And trust is not created out of two years of meetings; it is slowly built…And obviously, trusting others allows you to grow, allows you to create knowledge, allows you to put that knowledge into practice, allows you to learn from others… (Former CREA Coordinator, CREA member and Asesor).
Knowledge creation is mentioned in this context; in a trusting, comfortable, supporting context. A crucial point is brought in the above quote: trust is slowly built. Trust needs time. The structure on which knowledge is then built is established over time. Intimacy takes time to develop. Time is a construct which I have learned changes in different historical contexts. An asesorremembers the ‘old times’ (with barely any
communication technology), when distances and transport conditions made him stay overnight after a day’s work:
When you get invited by a farmer to stay over, you are not being invited to a firm’s headquarters; you are invited to his home... You are allowed into their intimacy, especially in those days, when it was common to stay and spend the night in the farm as a guest. The more meaningful conversations were held over dinner, having a glass of wine... Being a guest in their homes was different than being taken around the farm to see weeds. Our assessment in those days was something more of a personal encounter with a certain degree of intimacy, with the conversation revolving around different topics. Today, there are other time constraints, other requirements, more to do with efficiency and utility…Visits are quicker, people farm more land…more work…In the beginning there was a
different speed for things, which allowed for a different type of conversation. (Former CREA Asesor)
The negative aspect of the farm becoming more efficiency-oriented and enterprise- managed is the impact it brings in terms of relationships. The previous quote expresses how before there was room and time for another type of relationships, which needed a different rhythm to get cultivated and be developed into friendship.
We learn from this story about the nature of the foundations of present networks. The structure of the organization we see today was built throughout the years of feeding of these close human relationships, of feeding of trust. It was over these that knowledge sharing and developing took place. As Snowden (2002a) wrote,human knowledge is deeply contextual and is triggered by circumstance. Difficult circumstances favoured the strengthening of networks because of the challenging collective experiences lived. These networks of practice and of knowledge were nurtured and cultivated alongside human relationships. Available literature shows that trust leads to openness which in turn favours the development of joint knowledge (Nahapiet et al., 2005; Nooteboom, 2002). Further, in a farming context, Ingram (2008) reports: ...“there is evidence that agronomist– farmer encounters that are underpinned by trust, credibility, empathy, and consultation can provide a more effective context for knowledge exchange...The question of how to foster more facilitative encounters is important...”(p.418).
I found similar results, as trust is crucial to sustain the cohesion within CREA groups. It is necessary to clarify that contemporary time pressure does not necessarily mean that trust cannot be developed or that CREA will start to shrink as older groups (which developed their trust in the “old” way) hit retirement. Newer groups simply just have a different way to develop trust (like for example, email groups, blogs and online
chatting). The way and the tools used to develop trust have changed. The way the relationships are built has changed too. In contemporary time, pressures may have increased, but so have technologies facilitating exchange and communication.
Nevertheless the strong cohesion of CREA members have within their institution has its foundation in the “old type” of trust development. And this history will be always foundational of times to come, reminding members of how the foundations were built.