(2026) Science and education, 2, 72-79. Odessa.
Liudmyla Chorna,
Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor,
Professor at the Department of Business and Law,
Separate Structural Subdivision of Higher Education Institution
“Open International University of Human Development “Ukraine”
Vinnytsia Institute of Economics and Social Sciences,
6, Dmytra Maiborody Str., Vinnytsia, Ukraine,
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7142-4597
Vadym Shved,
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor,
Professor at the Department of Business and Law,
Separate Structural Subdivision of Higher Education Institution
“Open International University of Human Development “Ukraine”
Vinnytsia Institute of Economics and Social Sciences,
6, Dmytra Maiborody Str., Vinnytsia, Ukraine,
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5497-0975
Iryna Naumchak,
Bachelor’s Degree Student at the Department of Business and Law,
Separate Structural Subdivision of Higher Education Institution
“Open International University of Human Development “Ukraine”
Vinnytsia Institute of Economics and Social Sciences,
6, Dmytra Maiborody Str., Vinnytsia, Ukraine,
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2513-0551
ON SOME ASPECTS OF TRUST IN THE CORPORATE CULTURE OF AN ENTERPRISE
SUMMARY:
The article examines trust as one of the key foundations of an enterprise’s corporate culture under conditions of uncertainty, wartime risks, and organizational change. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that trust ensures predictability of interaction, supports employees’ psychological safety, increases the legitimacy of managerial decisions, and reduces the need for excessive control. The aim of the article is to summarize psychological and managerial approaches to the interpretation of trust and to define its role in shaping the corporate culture of a modern enterprise. The study is based on analysis, synthesis, comparison, theoretical generalization, interpretation of interdisciplinary sources, and structural-logical modeling. The findings show that trust has a multilevel nature and appears as self-trust, interpersonal trust within the team, trust in management, trust in procedures, and trust in organizational values. It is substantiated that the psychological approach explains the relationship of trust with the sense of safety, stress resistance, cooperation, and acceptance of risk, whereas the managerial approach emphasizes its influence on coordination, communication, innovation, employee loyalty, and the reduction of transaction costs. The article argues that procedural justice, consistency of decisions, transparency of communication, and correspondence between declared values and real organizational behavior are decisive for a trust-based corporate culture. It is concluded that trust is not only a moral and psychological characteristic of the internal climate but also a strategic organizational resource that determines resilience, governability, and the ability of an enterprise to adapt to crisis challenges.
KEYWORDS:
trust, corporate culture, organizational trust, self-trust, managerial decisions, psychological safety, procedural justice
FULL TEXT:
REFERENCES:
2. Huba, N. O., & Mosol, N. O. (2025). Psykholohichni osoblyvosti mizhosobystisnoi doviry u volonterskii diialnosti [Psychological features of interpersonal trust in volunteering]. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia Psykholohiia, 36(75)(1), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.32782/2709-3093/2025.1/14 [in Ukrainian].
3. Hurlieva, T. S., & Zhuravlova, N. Yu. (2022). Dovira do sebe yak vazhlyvyi atrybut stresostiikosti osobystosti v umovakh informatsiinoi viiny: vzaiemozviazok poniat [Self-trust as an important attribute of personality stress
resistance in the conditions of information war: The relationship between concepts]. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia Psykholohiia, 33(72)(4), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.32838/2709-3093/2022.4/12 [in Ukrainian].
4. Kozhemiakina, O. M. (2016). Dovira ta sotsialnyi kapital: prostorova tsinnisno-normatyvna interpretatsiia [Trust and social capital: Spatial value-normative interpretation]. Demohrafiia ta sotsialna ekonomika, 1(26), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2016.01.118 [in Ukrainian].
5. Kryzhanivska, Yu. V., & Sviderska, O. I. (2020). Teoretyko-metodolohichnyi analiz psykholohichnoho pidkhodu do fenomenu doviry [Theoretical and methodological analysis of the psychological approach to the phenomenon of trust]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu oborony Ukrainy, 58, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.33099/2617-6858-2020-58-5-107-112 [in Ukrainian].
6. Shved, V. V. (2026). Psykholohiia doviry: yak syhnaly pidminiaiut dokazy u rishenniakh Systemy 1 [Psychology of trust: How signals substitute for evidence in System 1 decisions]. Zhurnal suchasnoi psykholohii, 1(40), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.26661/2786-7471/2026-1-12 [in Ukrainian].
7. Shved, V. V., & Dudnyk, M. V. (2025). Pro deiaki pytannia doviry v orhanizatsiinomu upravlinni [On some issues of trust in organizational management]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Psykholohiia, 4, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.32782/psy-visnyk/2025.4.26 [in Ukrainian].
8. Shved, V. V., & Kovtun, A. V. (2025). Dovira yak psykholoho-ekonomichnyi fenomen [Trust as a psychological and economic phenomenon]. Inkliuziia i suspilstvo, 3, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.32782/2787-5137-2025-3-9 [in Ukrainian].
9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
10. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
11. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
12. De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110
13. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
14. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
15. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press.
16. Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., & Lockey, S. (2014). Organizational reintegration and trust repair after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 371–410. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq2014437
17. Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034726
18. Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. New York, NY: Little, Brown Spark.
19. Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
20. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
21. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognitionbased trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
22. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
