Trust among decision makers and its consequences in emergency response operations


  • Christian Uhr, MSc
  • Olof Ekman, MSc



trust, emergency response, crisis response, defining trust, consequences of trust


In an emergency response operation, trust can have an influence on the efficiency in communication between different decision makers and how the networks of these decision makers are formed. Consequently, it might affect the efficiency, flexibility, and adaptation capability in the response system as a whole. Trust could generally be described as a relation between a trustor and a trustee where the expected behavior and competence of the trustee in a specific context, estimated by the trustor, is a central core in the concept. On the basis of a literature review and interviews with Australian emergency response practitioners, this article discusses relevant characteristics of trust and its consequences in emergency response. The content emphasizes the need for further development of descriptive analysis of the processes underlying the formal charts and documents to understand authentic conditions and further develop valid normative theories for emergency response management.

Author Biographies

Christian Uhr, MSc

Licentiate, Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Skane, Sweden.

Olof Ekman, MSc

Lieutenant Colonel, Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Skane, Sweden.


Uhr C, Fredholm L: Theoretical approaches to emergency response management. Conference Proceeding Presented at TIEMS, Seoul, Korea, 2006.

Mishra AK: Organisational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds.): Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996: 261-287.

Drabek TE, McEntire DA: Emergent phenomena and the sociology of disaster: Lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster Prev Manage. 2003; 12: 97-112.

Quarantelli EL: Major Criteria for Judging and Managing and Their Applicability in Developing Societies. Disaster Research Center. (DRC) Newark, Delaware, USA: University of Delaware, 1998.

Comfort LK: Integrating theory and practice in dynamic systems: Self-organisation in complex systems. J Public Admin Res Theory. 1994; 4: 393-410.

Comfort LK, Kapucu N: Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Centre attacks, September 11, 2001. Nat Hazards. 2006; 39: 309-327.

Robinson SE, Berrett B, Stone K: The development of collaboration of response to hurricane Katrina in the Dallas area. Public Works Manage Policy. 2006; 10: 315-327.

Kock S: Strategic processes for gaining external resources through long lasting relationships: Examples from two Finnish and two Swedish firms. PhD Thesis, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, 1991.

Uhr C, Johansson H: Mapping an emergency management network. Int J Emerg Manage. 2007; 4: 104-118.

Miles RE, Snow CC: Causes of failure in network organisations. California Manage Rev. 1992; Summer: 53-72.

Kapuchu N: Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. Am Rev Public Admin. 2006; 36: 207-221.

Meyerson D,Weick KE, Kramer RM: Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds.): Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996: 166-195.

Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, et al.: Introduction to special topic forum. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1998; 23: 393-404.

Kramer RM: Trust and distrust in organisations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu Rev Psychol. 1999; 50: 569-598.

LaPorta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, et al.: Trust in Large Organizations. Am Econ Rev. 1997; 87: 333-338.

Coleman JS: Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Putnam R: Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Fukuyama F: Trust; The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press, 1995.

Wachtendorf T: Improvising 9/11: Organizational Improvisation Following the World Trade Center Disaster. Dissertation (PhD), Newark: University of Delaware.

Willig C: Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. United Kingdom: Open University Press, 2001.

Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman D: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995; 20: 709-734.

Costa AC:Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Rev. 2003; 32: 605-622.

Blomqvist K: The many faces of trust. Scand J Manage. 1997; 13: 271-286.

Barbalet J: Social contexts and responses to risk network (SCARN). A characterization of trust and its consequences, working paper. 2006.

Fredholm L, Uhr C: Is the concept of command and control useful in civil and military co-operation?. Conference paper presented at CIMI, Sweden, 2006.

Luhman N: Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Gambetta D (eds.): Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990: 94-107.

Giffin K: The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the Communication Department. Psychol Bull. 1967; 68: 104-120.

Deutsch M: The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations. 1960; 13: 123-140.

Hardin R: The street-level epistemology of trust. Analyse Kritik. 1992; 14: 152-176.

Barber B: The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983.

Dawes RM: House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: Free Press, 1994.

Brewer MB: In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination. In Messick DM, Tenbrunsel A (eds.). Codes of Conduct: Behavioral Research and Business Ethics. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1996: 160-170.

Möllering G: The nature of trust: From georg simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology. 2001;35: 403-420.

Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.

Giddens A: Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991.

Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, et al.: Trust in physicians and medical institutions: What is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Quart. 2001: 79: 613-639.

Fiske ST, Taylor SE: Social Cognition, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

Jarvenpaa S, Leidner DE: Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organizational Sci. 1997; 10: 791-815.

Lester PB: Swift trust: Examining the development and acceleration of follower trust in leaders in a temporary group context. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2006.

Perrow C: Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Weick KE, Roberts K: Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin Sci Quart. 1993; 38: 357–381.

Adams BD, Webb RDG: Trust in Small Military Teams. Paper presented at the 7th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Quebec, 2002.

Atkinson SR, Moffat J: The Agile Organization: From Informal Networks to Complex Effects and Agility. Washington D.C.: DoD Command and Control Research Program, 2005.

Comfort LK: Shared Risk: Complex Systems in Seismic Response. Oxford: Pergamon, 1999.

Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds.): Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.

Lewicki R, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ: Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Acad Manage Rev. 1998; 23: 438-458.



How to Cite

Uhr, MSc, C., and O. Ekman, MSc. “Trust Among Decision Makers and Its Consequences in Emergency Response Operations”. Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 6, no. 3, May 2008, pp. 21-37, doi:10.5055/jem.2008.0019.