ABSTRACT Earlier ascending/descending trust spirals have been explained by the job discretion allowed to employees by managers; few have studied such spirals as this has required a bi-directional longitudinal framework. Such a framework has used ethnographies of managers who ‘jumped’ from other organisations and suffered gaps of knowledge that curbed their psychological safety. Gap-exposing vulnerable involvement in locals’ deliberations would have been required for mutual trust building. These managers were mostly detached or autocratic and generated descending trust spirals which barred locals’ knowledge-sharing. In their ignorance they used immoral subterfuge, furthered distrust, shaped low-trust cultures, and mismanaged. However, detached/autocratic ‘jumpers’ often managed mediocrely by ‘riding’ on the successes of trusted vulnerably involved mid-levelers. Only a few ‘jumpers’ generated ascending mutual trust spirals by vulnerable involvement, learned from and with locals, and succeeded by shaping high-trust innovation-prone cultures. Contextual factors helped explain choices of practicing/avoiding vulnerable involvement and generating ascending/ descending trust spirals. Further study of these choices and these factors is suggested.

中文翻译：

---

“跳跃式”经理人脆弱的参与/避免和信任/不信任螺旋

摘要早期的信任螺旋上升/下降是由经理赋予员工的工作自由裁量权来解释的。很少有人研究过这种螺旋，因为这需要双向纵向框架。这样的框架使用了经理人种志，这些经理人从其他组织“跳来跳去”，并遭受知识鸿沟的限制，从而限制了他们的心理安全。建立相互信任将需要在当地人的讨论中暴露脆弱的脆弱参与。这些管理者大多是超脱的或专制的，并且产生了下降的信任螺旋式上升，从而阻碍了当地人的知识共享。他们无知地使用了不道德的手段，加剧了不信任，塑造了低信任度的文化，并且管理不善。然而，超脱/专制的“跳投者”通常通过“骑乘”受信任且脆弱的中产阶级的成功来平庸。通过弱势群体的参与，向当地人学习和与当地人一起学习，只有少数几个“跳跃者”产生了相互信任的螺旋上升，并通过塑造了高度信任，易于创新的文化而获得成功。情境因素有助于解释选择/避免/弱势参与和产生升/降信任螺旋的选择。建议进一步研究这些选择和这些因素。