Personnel Review Trust within organisations (Volume 32 Number 5 2003)

pr_cover_(i).qxd

10/13/03

10:23 AM

Page 1

Volume 32 Number 5 2003

ISBN 0-86176-845-0

ISSN 0048-3486

Personnel Review Trust within organisations Guest Editors: Katinka Bijlsma and Paul Koopman

www.emeraldinsight.com

Personnel Review

ISSN 0048-3486 Volume 32 Number 5 2003

Trust within organisations Guest Editors Katinka Bijlsma and Paul Koopman

Access this journal online __________________________ 539 Editorial advisory board ___________________________ 540 Abstracts and keywords ___________________________ 541 Introduction: trust within organisations Katinka M. Bijlsma and Paul Koopman _____________________________

543

Trust within organisations Tom R. Tyler __________________________________________________

556

Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships: predictors and outcomes Julia Connell, Natalie Ferres and Tony Travaglione ____________________

569

Commitment, trust and work behaviour: the case of contingent workers Dick de Gilder __________________________________________________

588

Work team trust and effectiveness Ana Cristina Costa ______________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/ft You can access over 100 additional Emerald journals, each with a comprehensive searchable archive of articles (many dating back to 1989), a detailed classification system and links to referenced material. See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

605

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Instrumental and relational determinants of trust in management among members of works councils Peter Kerkhof, Annemieke B. Winder and Bert Klandermans____________

623

Antecedents of trust in managers: a ‘‘bottom up’’ approach Katinka M. Bijlsma and Gerhard G. van de Bunt _____________________

638

Book reviews______________________________________ 665 About the authors _________________________________ 672 Awards for Excellence _____________________________ 674

www.emeraldinsight.com/pr.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to the content of this title. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for teaching purposes, training courses, meetings or seminars. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/copyright

How to access this journal electronically To benefit from electronic access to this journal you first need to register on the Internet. Registration is simple and full instructions are available online at www.emeraldinsight.com/register Once completed, your institution will have instant access to the journal content from www.emeraldinsight.com or via the journal homepage www.emeraldinsight.com/pr.htm Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, thus making your subscription more cost-effective. Our Web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Online Publishing and Archiving You can gain access to past volumes as well as new material from this journal on the Internet via Emerald Fulltext. You can browse or search the database for relevant articles. Key Reading This feature provides abstracts of articles chosen by the journal editor on the basis of their subject-matter. These are selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications within the same field. Reference Linking Direct links are provided from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited (where possible this is to the full text of the article). E-mail an Article This facility allows you to e-mail relevant and interesting articles in PDF format to another PC for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Additional Complementary Services Available Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription: E-mail Services Emerald’s range of free e-mail alerting services is designed to deliver personal notification of news and features in a number of different interest areas.

Emerald WIRE (World Independent Reviews) Emerald WIRE is a fully searchable, subject-specific database brought to you by Emerald Management Reviews. It provides article reviews from the world’s top management journals. The database is updated monthly and gives users details of how to obtain the full text of original articles. Research Register Located at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister, the Emerald Research Register is an Internet research forum where you and your readers can identify information on research activity world-wide. This feature is invaluable if you are seeking information or wish to disseminate information about your own research. Support Resources Comprehensive librarian and user toolkits have been created to help you get the most from your journal subscription. For further information about what is available visit www.emeraldinsight.com/usertoolkit

Choice of Access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels, enabling end users and libraries to reach the content through their preferred delivery system. The Emerald Fulltext Web site – www.emeraldinsight.com/ft – is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and high value-added access to the complete content of the journal. Subscribers can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOhost EJS ejournals.ebsco.com Huber E-Journals e-journals.hanshuber.com/english/index.htm Minerva www.minerva.at OCLC Firstsearch Electronic Collections Online www.uk.oclc.org/oclc/menu/eco.htm SilverPlatter www.silverplatter.com SwetsBlackwell’s SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support Services For customer service and technical help, contact: E-mail [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785204

PR 32,5

540

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Professor Janice R.W. Joplin University of Texas at El Paso, Texas, USA Dr Stephen Bach The Management Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Professor Filip Lievens Department of Personnel Management, Ghent University, Belgium

Professor Greg Bamber Graduate School of Management, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Dr Hedley Malloch IESEG School of Business and Management, Catholic University of Lille, France

Dr Yehuda Baruch University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Professor David Megginson Sheffield Business School, Sheffield, UK

Professor Birgit Benkhoff Lehrstu¨hl fu¨r BWL – Personalwirtschaft, Technische Universita¨t, Dresden, Germany

Professor Kathy Monks Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Professor Shawn Carraher Professor of Management & Global Entrepreneurship, Texas A&M University, USA Professor Cathy Cassell Sheffield University Management School, Sheffield, UK Professor Nancy E. Day Henry W. Bloch School of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, USA Professor Ken Dovey Rhodes University, East London, South Africa Professor David Farnham Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, UK

Professor Emmanuel Ogbonna Cardiff Business School, University of Wales, Cardiff Professor Stephen Procter School of Management, University of Newcastle, UK Dr Chris Rowley Department of HRM, The Business School, City University, London, UK Professor Margaret Shaffer Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Professor Ed Snape Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Dr Alan Fish Department of HRM, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Dr Stephen Swailes School of Business and Management, Northampton Business School, UK

Dr Stephen Gibb Department of HRM, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland

Professor Shaun Tyson Cranfield University School of Management, Cranfield, UK

Professor Irena Grugulis University of Bradford, UK

Professor Tony Watson Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, UK Professor Adrian Wilkinson Loughborough University Business School, UK Professor Les Worrall University of Wolverhampton Business School, UK

Professor Jeff Hyman Department of Management, University of Aberdeen Business School, UK Professor Devi Jankowicz Luton Business School, University of Luton, UK Professor Ulf Johanson Ma¨lardalen University and the IPF Institute at Uppsala University

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 p. 540 # MCB UP Limited 0048-3486

Professor Peter Nolan The School of Business & Economic Studies, University of Leeds, UK

Introduction: trust within organisations Katinka M. Bijlsma and Paul Koopman Keywords Trust, Organizations Introduces six empirical studies on trust within organisations which were originally presented at a workshop on “Trust within and between organisations”, organised by the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management at the Free University Amsterdam, in November 2001. Areas covered include: the legitimacy of the field of study; common understandings and disagreements in theoretical ideas; and directions for future research.

Trust within organisations Tom R. Tyler Keywords Trust, Organizations, Society, Organizational behaviour, Co-operative organizations, Relationship management It has been recognised that there is importance of trust within organisations. There is also a recognised theme that trust must move beyond rational or calculative trust to various forms of social trust. This paper makes clear the potential importance of social trust, and its value to emerging organisations. In the new era of faster, looser, more rapidly changing connections between people and groups, trust based on inferences about the motives, character and intentions of others is becoming more central to the ability of organisations to manage their dynamics efficiently and effectively and ensure their growth and survival.

Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships: predictors and outcomes Julia Connell, Natalie Ferres and Tony Travaglione Keywords Trust, Managers, Subordinates, Forecasting, Australia The recent growth in the trust literature indicates that both researchers and

practitioners are continuing to recognise its importance as a factor for determining organisational success and the well-being of employees. Trust is, however, a complex, multidimensional construct that has generated much debate concerning how trusting relationships might be created. The aim of this paper is to add to current debates by reporting on a study concerning trust within manager-subordinate relationships within a large Australian organisation. The annual staff survey for this organisation indicated that levels of trust in managers were very low, leading the authors to investigate the predictors and outcomes of this situation. Focus group and survey questionnaire results led to the finding that perceived organisational support, procedural justice and transformational leadership were significant predictors of trust in managers and that turnover intent and commitment were significant outcomes. The implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

Commitment, trust and work behaviour: the case of contingent workers Dick de Gilder Keywords Trust, Job commitment, Justice, Employee behaviour, Contingent workers In this study differences in trust, commitment and justice perceptions were investigated between contingent and core employees in two hotels, as well as their effects on work behaviour. Contingent workers showed lower commitment to the team and to the organisation and displayed less favourable work-related behaviours than core employees. Commitment to the team mediated between job status (contingent vs. core employees) and five work-related behaviours. Furthermore, depending on job status, trust and commitment were differentially related to work-related behaviours. The implications of these results are discussed.

Abstracts and keywords

541

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 Abstracts and keywords q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486

PR 32,5

542

Work team trust and effectiveness Ana Cristina Costa Keywords Trust, Behaviour, Performance management, Team working, The Netherlands This article aims to explore the nature and functioning of trust in work teams. Trust is defined as a multi-component variable with distinct but related dimensions. These include propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness, co-operative and lack of monitoring behaviours. A model was tested relating trust with perceived task performance, team satisfaction, and two dimensions of organisational commitment, i.e. attitudinal and continuance. Survey data from 112 teams (n ¼ 395) was collected in three social care institutions in The Netherlands. The results are supportive of a multi-component structure for trust and of its importance to the functioning of teams and organisations. Work team trust appeared strongly related with team member’s attitudes towards the organisation. Trust between team members was positively associated with attitudinal commitment and negatively with continuance commitment. Trust was also positively related with perceived task performance and with team satisfaction. In addition, perceived task performance appeared strongly related to team satisfaction.

Instrumental and relational determinants of trust in management among members of works councils Peter Kerkhof, Annemieke B. Winder and Bert Klandermans Keywords Administration of justice, Employees, Trust, Works councils In Western Europe, works councils are a common form of indirect employee participation in management decision making. Trust is often assumed to play an important role in the nature and outcomes of labour negotiations and in management-works

council consultations. So far, however, the antecedents of trust in management within works councils have not been studied. Using longitudinal data collected among the members of 75 Dutch works councils, the current study tests predictions regarding the relative influence of instrumental vs relational antecedents on the level of trust in management among works council members. An important role of instrumental predictors (e.g. perceived influence of the works council on management decision making) supports a view of trust as a calculative phenomenon. On the other hand, strong effects of relational predictors would lend support to trust as a relational phenomenon. The data show that trust in management among works council members is related to relational rather than instrumental antecedents.

Antecedents of trust in managers: a ‘bottom up’ approach Katinka M. Bijlsma and Gerhard G. van de Bunt Keywords Trust, Managers, Performance monitoring, Supports Research on antecedents of trust has, so far, yielded results that do not easily stand up to confrontation with the widely-held assumption of bounded rationality. By employing complex constructs as indicators of antecedents, it is implied that actors, in pondering on trust in managers, can deal with many complex cues, instead of a few single ones, as bounded rationality suggests. This study proposes a different approach, by searching for a parsimonious set of managerial behaviours that serve as cues for subordinates regarding trust in managers. Interview and survey data were combined in this search. Regression analysis and a Boolean pattern analysis were used to arrive at a parsimonious model with high explanatory power.

Introduction: trust within organisations Katinka Bijlsma and Paul Koopman Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Introduction

543

Keywords Trust, Organisationsement Abstract Introduces six empirical studies on trust within organisations which were originally presented at a workshop on “Trust within and between organisations”, organised by the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management at the Free University Amsterdam, in November 2001. Areas covered include: the legitimacy of the field of study; common understandings and disagreements in theoretical ideas; and directions for future research.

In the past decade, issues of trust in inter- and intra-organisational relationships have been increasing in importance on the agendas of organisational scholars, legitimated by changes in the social structure of societies, economic exchange relations and organisational forms. Given the diminishing binding power of reciprocal obligations (Kramer, 1996), of hierarchical relations (Sheppard and Tuschinsky, 1996) and of social institutions relying on hierarchy to sanction deviant behaviour (De Swaan, 1990) other mechanisms are needed to keep the social fabric of society intact. Due to processes of globalisation, flexibilisation of labour relations, continuous change and virtualisation of organisational forms, relations between people have become looser and behaviours are less easy to monitor nowadays. Within firms, lateral relationships and alliances are growing in importance, in contrast to hierarchical relationships that used to dominate the framing of work relations (Sheppard and Tuschinsky, 1996). Between firms, new linkages are being formed to achieve and maintain competitive advantage in the marketplace. These linkages require organisations to move towards network forms and alliances (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996). Besides, organisational performance becomes increasingly dependent on behaviours such as scanning the environment to explore opportunities, participation in organisational learning processes and helping colleagues to improve their performance. While cooperative behaviours are growing in importance, hierarchy can be less relied upon to bring these behaviours about (Kramer, 1996). Trustful relations between organisational members can promote voluntary cooperation and extra-role behaviours, as the study by Tyler in this volume shows. Increasing instances of organisational change have also contributed to the rise of trust on the research agenda. Conditions of change heighten the relevance of trust to organisational performance and to the well-being of organisational members (Mishra, 1996; Gilkey, 1991).

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 543-555 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488324

PR 32,5

544

In this special issue, six empirical studies on trust within organisations are gathered that were presented at a workshop on “Trust within and between organizations,” organised by the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) at the Free University Amsterdam, in November 2001. The articles mirror some of the many themes that in the workshop surfaced as relevant to the study of trust, e.g. the legitimacy of the field of study, common understandings reached at and disagreements in theoretical ideas and empirical results that need to be elaborated or tested in future research. The reviews of Nooteboom’s (2002) most recent book by Guido Mo¨llering and Lane and Bachmann’s (1998) edited volume by Antoinette Weibel show the rich variety of questions and topics that have been addressed within the field in the past years. Why study trust? Questions regarding legitimacy must be asked and answered among scholars within any emerging field of study and in discussions with scholars outside the field. These questions have been explicitly addressed by scholars that study trust. The concluding chapter of Gambetta’s (1988) book Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations which was a landmark in the growing attention to trust, was titled: “Can we trust trust?” And in a later landmark book, Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research by Kramer and Tyler (1996) the editorial introduction by Tyler and Kramer (1996) poses the equally marked question of “Whither trust?” At the workshop, answers were sought to questions like: “Why is trust growing in importance nowadays?”, “Is trust really a distinct and new phenomenon?” and “What does the study of trust add to what we already know from studying other characteristics of relations within organisations?”. In the first study presented in this volume, the keynote speech that Tom Tyler gave at the workshop, the question is addressed of why trust has emerged as such an important issue. He discusses the changes in societies and organisations that are relevant to the rise of trust on the research agenda in more detail, generating hypotheses from this discussion and testing them on empirical data. And he poses the question of whether trust is a different phenomenon than procedural justice, an extensively studied characteristic of intra-organisational relations that seems rather close to the concept of motive-based trust he has developed. By presenting convincing evidence for an affirmative answer to this question, Tyler continues to contribute to the clarification of trust as a distinct phenomenon. According to Tyler, trust is a key to organisational performance because it enables voluntary cooperation. This form of cooperation becomes increasingly important when command and control styles of management are no longer effective. More and more people work in widely dispersed groups, with increases in the number of people that work at home. In these situations, task

performance cannot easily be observed. Besides, the nature of work itself is changing in ways that make command and control approaches to motivation increasingly difficult. Work has become more centred around intellectual labour and a lot of work is done in interdependent teams. Management cannot control everything, it is more and more dependent on willing engagement of employees to work well. Cooperation and trust are important conditions in such a work environment. Tyler argues that conceptualisations of trust must move beyond rational or calculative trust to various forms of social trust. In his study, motive-based trust shows to be most important for positive attitudes, extra-role behaviour and acceptance of decisions made by superiors. Antecedents of motive-based trust found were shared socials bonds, understandable actions by management, quality of treatment by management, and quality of managerial decision making. Common understandings Trust as a phenomenon In the past decades, some common understandings about trust have emerged that can be built on. These understandings have created the opportunity to discover disagreements while also taking next steps in understanding trust. As the authors in this volume, most authors agree that the notion of risk is central to the concept of trust. According to Luhmann (1988) trust is a solution for specific problems of risk in relations between actors, because it is an attitude that allows for risk-taking. If actors choose one course of action in preference to alternatives, in spite of the possibility of being disappointed by the action of others, they define the situation as one of trust (Luhmann, 1988, pp. 97-9). Another common understanding is that trust and cooperation are closely and positively related. Gambetta (1988, pp. 217-18) defines trust in line with Luhmann, but the link between trust and cooperation is made more explicit: [. . .] when we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him.

Creed and Miles (1996) build on Gambetta’s (1988) definition, but their definition is more focused on trust within organisations. Based on the work of Garfinkel (1967) “considering engaging in cooperation with another” is widened to a positive inclination towards the demands of the social order within the organisation: [. . .] trust is both the specific expectation that an other’s actions will be beneficial rather than detrimental and the generalized ability to take for granted, to take under trust, a vast array of features of the social order (Creed and Miles, 1996, p. 17).

A point of discussion, mirrored in this volume, is what kind of expectations are connected to trust. In an earlier study of trust in superiors, Tyler and Degoey

Introduction

545

PR 32,5

546

(1996) distinguished between instrumental (e.g. task reliability) and relational concerns, of which relational concerns were found to be more powerful predictors of trust. The study of Peter Kerkhof, Annemieke Winder and Bert Klandermans in this volume builds on this work. Using longitudinal data collected among the members of 75 Dutch works councils, they tested predictions regarding the relative influence of instrumental vs relational antecedents on the level of trust in management among works council members. Instrumental concerns included perceived influence of the works council on the organisation, on management decision making, and effectiveness of the works council. The data show that trust in management is related to procedural justice and quality of treatment by management, meaning that relational rather than instrumental antecedents predict trust. Like Tyler in this volume, they conclude that trust is a reaction to social information, information about the quality of the relationship, rather than to information about the favour ability of the outcomes of the relationship. The findings of the study of Tyler in this volume also show that contrary to instrumental antecedents, relational antecedents, in this study attribution of positive motives, predict trust in managers and authorities. Motive-based trust, in turn, shows to be the best predictor of extra-role behaviours. Tyler therefore argues that conceptualisations of trust must move beyond rational or calculative trust to various forms of social trust. By adopting Boon and Holmes’ (1991) conceptualisation of trust in terms of motives, De Gilder agrees with Tyler’s point of view. Bijlsma and van de Bunt take the matter in another direction by searching for single managerial behaviours that can predict trust. In their view, these behaviours indicate relevant expectations that subordinates foster in pondering on trust in managers. They conclude that the behaviours found mean that subordinates see these as the core tasks of managers, and that they attach value to a proper execution of these tasks. In this view, task-reliability equals benevolence and respect, shown for subordinates. Referring to the work of Sitkin and Stickel (1996) they argue that both signify value-congruence that impedes distrust to arise. Another conceptual matter that is not agreed upon is whether trust is better conceived of as a one-dimensional or a multi-dimensional construct. Most authors in this volume define trust as a psychological state, thus implying that trust is best conceived of as a one-dimensional construct. Costa and Connell et al. conceptualise trust as a multi-dimensional construct. Ana Cristina Costa discusses her point of view that trust is better understood as a multidimensional construct. Her study focused on the nature and functioning of trust in work teams in three social care institutions. Based on the work of authors from different disciplines, like Cummings and Bromiley (1996) and Lewis and Weigert (1985) she included behaviours that signify trust, like cooperative behaviours and absence of monitoring as dimensions of trust, besides perceived trustworthiness, that represents the psychological state

dimension. A last dimension added was propensity to trust. Trust between team members showed to be positively related to attitudinal commitment, perceived task performance and team satisfaction, while continuance commitment was negatively related to trust. Consequences of trust Theoretically, there is little disagreement about the nature of the consequences of trust. It is widely acknowledged that trust works as a lubricant in economic transactions, by smoothing relations between actors and reducing transaction costs, related to control (Williamson, 1975; Powell, 1990; Creed and Miles, 1996). Empirical research has yielded a wide variety of findings. A recently published meta analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in leadership by Dirks and Ferrin (2002) resulted in the following consequences, of which several were also found in the studies presented in this volume: belief of information, organisational commitment (Connell et al.; De Gilder; Costa), decision commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour (Connell et al.; De Gilder), job satisfaction, satisfaction with leaders, leader-member exchange, intention to stay (Connell et al.; De Gilder). Other authors found trust within organisations to be related to team commitment (De Gilder), voice, loyalty and low neglect (De Gilder), OCB (De Gilder), extra-role behaviours (Tyler), acceptance of decisions (Tyler), acceptance of influence (Blau, 1964; Tyler and Degoey, 1996), absence of monitoring (Costa), team satisfaction (Costa), attribution of positive motives (Kramer, 1996), mutual learning (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Boisot, 1995; Bijlsma et al., 1999; Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2002), and to positive outcomes such as high levels of cooperation and performance (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gambetta, 1988; Costa et al., 2001; Costa). These studies do support the theoretical idea that trust lubricates a wide array of organisational processes. Building trust It is also a matter of common understanding that trust is influenced by past experiences and chances of future interactions, both relevant within organisations. Expectations of others’ beneficial actions will be enhanced by prior experiences of such behaviour. If others live up to prior expectations, this good repute will further positive expectations in the future, enhance the level of trust, and promote actor’s willingness to cooperate (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Buskens, 1999; Gautschi, 2002). This idea, however, has not been tested extensively by empirical research as yet. Longitudinal data are needed for this purpose. In this volume, the study of Kerkhof et al. sheds some light on this matter, based on data of two measurements at different points in time. A related matter that calls for attention is what this insight means in the light of processes of globalisation, flexibilisation of labour relations, continuous change and virtualisation of organisational forms, which were

Introduction

547

PR 32,5

548

discussed before. When relations between people become looser, more temporal and more virtual, a paradoxical consequence can be that trust is more needed to enhance cooperation and extra-role behaviours, as Tyler argues, while at the same time fewer cues are present to build trust on. One can wonder if a breaking point can be discovered in the process of loosening up, a point of the most minimal conditions that are sufficient to build trust. Or is this question not worth asking because trust can be built in any circumstance? Based on the work of Mo¨llering (2001), the question can be rephrased in different terms. He argues that an irreducible leap of faith is always involved in building trust. The question then is whether there is an upper limit to this leap of faith. Systematic comparison of more and less stable work situations, more or less shared bonds, workers with long-term and short-term contracts, local and global organisational forms can bring about some answers to this question. In this volume, the study of Dick de Gilder offers insights regarding this matter. In his study differences in trust, commitment and justice perceptions were investigated between contingent and core employees in two hotels, as well as their effects on work behaviours. Contingent workers showed lower commitment to the team and to the organisation, and displayed less favourable work-related behaviours than core employees. Commitment to the team mediated between job status (contingent versus core employees) and five work-related behaviours: (1) exit; (2) voice; (3) loyalty; (4) neglect; and (5) labour market activity. He concludes that only in the case that a relationship is created at team level, more constructive work-related behaviour can be expected from contingent workers. Matters in discussion Antecedents of trust Although there is a growing understanding about the antecedents of trust, a lot of work has yet to be done. In the study of Dirks and Ferrin (2002), a first systematic review of empirical evidence for antecedents of trust in leadership is presented, that is mirrored in the findings of several studies in this volume. Trust in leaders was found to be significantly related to transformational leadership (Connell et al.), perceived organisational support (Connell et al.), interactional justice, procedural justice (Kerkhof et al.; Connell et al.), transactional leadership, distributive justice, participative decision making and meeting expectations of followers (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002, p. 622).

The study of Julia Connell, Natalie Ferres and Tony Travaglione is most in line with the outcomes of this meta-analysis. They studied antecedents and consequences of trust within manager-subordinate relationships within a large Australian organisation. The annual staff survey for this organisation indicated that levels of trust in managers were very low. Perceived organisational support, procedural justice and transformational leadership were found to be significant predictors of trust in managers, while turnover intention and commitment were significant consequences. In this volume, shared social bonds (Tyler), quality of treatment by management (Kerkhof et al.; Tyler), understandable actions by management (Tyler), quality of managerial decision making (Tyler) and perceived trustworthiness (Costa) were also found as antecedents of trust in managers. An emerging discussion within the field is whether employing rather complex constructs as indicators of antecedents will pave the way to a better understanding of what triggers trust in managers. In this volume, Bijlsma and Van de Bunt argue that antecedents of trust found so far do not easily stand up to confrontation with the widely-held assumption of bounded rationality. By employing complex constructs, it is implied that actors, in pondering on trust in managers, can deal with many complex cues, instead of a few single ones, as bounded rationality suggests (Simon, 1955; March, 1978). Dirks and Ferrin (2002, p. 622) make a similar point in concluding that further research is needed to “examine the behavioural cues that employees use to draw conclusions about the character of the leader or whether the relation is one involving care and concern.” How to measure antecedents of trust? In the matter of how to measure antecedents, two points of discussion have recently emerged after a period of common understanding. The first point, in the words of Kramer (1996), is that in order to arrive at a better understanding of trust, mental accounts of actors should be included in research on trust. By triangulating qualitative data and survey data, robustness of findings can be enhanced (Bijlsma-Frankema and van de Bunt, in press). While most contributions in this volume rely on survey data, Connell et al., in line with this recommendation, used focus group data to test whether the design of their survey reflected all matters that respondents experienced as relevant to trust in managers. Bijlsma and van de Bunt advocate an inductive version of a triangulation approach by basing survey items entirely on interview data. A second emerging debate is about the use of multiple-item scales in measuring antecedents of trust. Most researchers measure antecedents of trust as multiple-item scales, in line with the traditions in psychology and sociology not to rely on single item variables, because of robustness considerations. This tradition is followed in most of the studies presented in this volume. Yet, advocates of single item measurements have not been absent in the field of

Introduction

549

PR 32,5

550

work and organisational psychology. Wanous and Reichert (1997), for instance, compared the robustness of single item and multiple item measurements of overall job satisfaction, concluding that it seems reasonable that single item measures are more robust than scale measures. Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) proposal to search for behavioural cues in future studies of trust in leadership also draws attention to single item measurements, that can lead to a more parsimonious model of antecedents. In the study of Katinka Bijlsma and Gerhard van de Bunt, conducted in a general hospital, interview and survey data were combined in the search for such a parsimonious set of single managerial behaviours that serve as cues for subordinates in pondering on trust in managers. Based on interviews, seven hypotheses, each relating a single behavioural cue to trust, were formulated and tested in a survey, using single item variables. Based on regression analysis and a Boolean pattern analysis, a pattern of three behaviours was found to predict 97 per cent of trust in managers: monitoring performance, guidance to improve performance and support in case of trouble with others. They note, however, that these findings may be context bound. Relation between trust and control A standing matter of substantial disagreement is how trust and control are related. This matter is of importance because almost all of the positive consequences of trust have once been attributed to managerial control. Besides, since control, which is a core task of managers, cannot be expected to disappear, the question of how higher levels of trust affect levels and modes of managerial control needs to be addressed. Many authors conceive of trust as a substitute of control because it reduces transaction costs. The higher the level of trust in a relationship, the lower the costs of monitoring and other control mechanisms will be (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Curral and Judge, 1995; Smith and Barclay, 1997). Another idea is that organisational forms differ in trust and control requirements to function effectively. Whereas building and maintaining a formal control apparatus is effective in functional forms, in network forms building and maintaining trust in hierarchical relations is required to master the risks involved in this form (Creed and Miles, 1996). It is, however, also argued that the increased need for trust in modern organisations does not necessarily mean lesser need of checks and controls. On the one hand, because violations of trust are more likely to occur when vulnerability increases (Morris and Moberg, 1994), on the other hand because the effects of such violations can lead to drastic consequences. Das and Teng (1998, p. 459) also reject the idea that trust is a substitute of control. They argue that trust and control should be seen as complementary phenomena, both contributing to the level of cooperation needed in a relationship. Other authors concentrate on possible tensions between trust and control. Actors may

experience control as based on Theory X (McGregor, 1960), signifying value-incongruence between the controller and the controlled, that can fuel distrust in the controller on the part of the controlled (Sitkin and Stickel, 1996; Handy, 1993; Whitney, 1993). So far, empirical research has not yielded decisive support for one stance over another. In this volume, Costa found that trust between members involved high cooperative behaviours and lack of monitoring between colleagues, indicating that trust can work as a substitute for control. Bijlsma and Van de Bunt, on the contrary, found that subordinates’ trust in managers is positively related to monitoring their performance, indicating that trust and control can be positively related. Directions for future research The studies, presented in this volume reflect common understandings, but they mirror standing and emerging points of discussions as well. Based on the discussions, some directions for future research can be formulated. In our view, the discussion on the relation between trust and control needs to be addressed with full attention. However optimistic some advocates of the substitution hypothesis may be, it cannot reasonably be argued that control will be fully replaced by trust as a mechanism of organisational governance. The general idea that levels and modes of control will be affected if levels of trust are rising seems to be amply supported by scholars, but there is a pressing need for more empirical evidence. A promising way to address this matter may be to follow upon economic ways of reasoning by approaching trust via the concept of risk. The relation between risk and trust is an uncontested one, but in social scientific studies the implications of this conceptual relation have not been fully exploited so far. A study of trust could start by analysing the risks involved in a particular relationship. Several authors in this volume have made a start in this direction. The idea that different relations may involve different risks can be worked out more systematically by comparing risk analyses that explain the findings of different studies. The relation between trust and control as mechanisms of governance may also be clarified by systematic analysis of risks. In reference to the argument of Weibel (2002), that trust is way to absorb risks and formal control is a way to reduce risks, it can be conjectured that, in the eyes of the actors involved, some risks in relationships are better dealt with by control, because reduced risks are more easy to absorb. In this way, control can positively influence trust building. The contrary findings on trust and monitoring of Costa and Bijlsma and van de Bunt may also be explained by following this line of reasoning. A major risk for subordinates is an unfair assessment of performance by the supervisor, which can cause considerable damage to them. Bijlsma and van de Bunt found that monitoring by the supervisor was experienced as care, as a

Introduction

551

PR 32,5

552

benevolent action that reduces the risk of unfair assessments. In relations with colleagues, on the contrary, the risk of social exclusion seems of major relevance. If monitoring colleagues is experienced as promoting this risk, the negative relation Costa found becomes understandable. Another challenge for future research seems to lie in the search for more parsimonious models of antecedents of trust by taking the assumption of bounded rationality seriously. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data can be a promising approach to this search, enriching the field with inductive approaches to complement deductive approaches that dominated in the past. It must be noted, however, that inductive approaches are based on distinct assumptions (Silverman, 2001). It is, for instance, not to be expected that replication of a study will produce exactly the same results in other organisations and situations, because of context boundedness. Differences in tasks, in risks involved, in the nature of organisational relations, contexts and cultures may produce differences in the single cues actors employ in pondering on trusting others. Systematic analysis of different findings, digging a spade below the surface of diversity so to speak, can produce a model of antecedents that, after testing, meets the demands of parsimony, validity and scope better than the complex constructs at hand. A last and general recommendation for future research is that much can be gained by systematic comparison, of more and less stable work situations, more and less shared bonds, more or less virtual relations, workers with long-term and short-term contracts, temporary and stable teams, local and global organisational forms. In this way, answers can be found to the question of how trust and control function in different circumstances. It can, for instance be assumed that the relation between trust and control changes over time within a certain context. If a team must be build from scratch, making agreements and monitoring compliance of team members can help build trust, as Lewicki and Bunker (1996) argue. In teams in a mature phase, like the teams Costa studied, trust building can have been so solid, and the risks involved so small, that monitoring is not needed to maintain optimal cooperation. A comparison of teams in different phases of maturity can shed light on this matter. It seems not so far fetched to conclude that a lot of promising research lies ahead of us. References Bijlsma, K.M., Prins, E. and Weber, B. (1999), “Managerial perspectives on success and failure of post-acquisition processes”, in Rahim, A., Golembiewski, R.T. and Mackenzie, K.D. (Eds), Current Topics in Management, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 155-79. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. and van de Bunt, G.G. (in press), “In search of parsimony, a multiple triangulation approach to antecedents of trust in managers”, Forum, special issue on triangulation, pp. 225-44. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Boisot, M.H. (1995), Information Space, a Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture, Routledge, London.

Introduction

Boon, S.D. and Holmes, J.G. (1991), “The dynamics of interpersonal trust, resolving uncertainty in the face of risk”, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (Eds), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 190-211. Buskens, V.W. (1999), Social Networks and Trust, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam. Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. and Taillieu, T. (2001), “Trust within teams, the relation with performance effectiveness”, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-44. Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), “Trust in organizations, a conceptual framework”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 16-39. Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI), development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 302-30. Curral, S.C. and Judge, T.H. (1995), “Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 151-70. Das, T.K. and Teng, B.G. (1998), “Between trust and control, developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 491-512. De Swaan, A. (1990), Zorg en de Staat (In Care of the State), Bert Bakker, Amsterdam. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “The role of trust in organizational settings”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-67. Gambetta, D. (1988), “Can we trust trust?”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-37. Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gautschi, T. (2002), Trust and Exchange, Effects of Temporal Embeddedness and Network Embeddedness on Providing a Surplus, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam. Gilkey, R. (1991), “The psychodynamics of upheaval, intervening in merger and acquisition transitions”, in Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 331-61. Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organizations, 4th ed., Penguin, London. Janowicz, M. and Noorderhaven, N. (2002), “The role of trust in interorganisational learning in joint ventures”, Proceedings of EURAM Conference, Stockholm. Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchical relation, trust and the intuitive auditor at work”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 216-46. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds) (1996), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London. Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 114-39. Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63, pp. 967-85.

553

PR 32,5

Luhmann, N. (1988), “Familiarity, confidence and trust, problems and alternatives”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust, Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-37. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

554

March, J.G. (1978), “Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 587-608. Mishra, A. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis, the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 261-88. Mo¨llering, G. (2001), “The nature of trust, from Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension”, Sociology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 403-20. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38. Morris, J.H. and Moberg, D.J. (1994), “Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal”, in Sarbin, T.R., Carney, R.M. and Eoyang, C. (Eds), Citizen Espionage, Studies in Trust and Betrayal, Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT, pp. 163-87. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy, network forms of organization”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 295-326. Sheppard, B. and Tuschinsky, M. (1996), “Micro-OB and the network organization”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 140-66. Silverman, D. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data, 2nd ed., Sage, London. Simon, H. (1955), “A behavioral model of rational choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 99-118. Sitkin, S.B. and Stickel, D. (1996), “The road to hell, the dynamics of distrust in an era of quality”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 196-216. Smith, J.B. and Barclay, W.B. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 3-21. Tyler, T. and Degoey, P. (1996), “Trust in organizational authorities, the influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 331-57. Tyler, T. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Whither trust?”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 331-57. Wanous, J.P. and Reichert, A.E. (1997), “Overall job satisfaction, how good are single-item measures?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-52. Weibel, A. (2002), Trust and Control. Theoretical Notes for an Expert Meeting on Trust, theoretical notes for an expert meeting on trust, University of Zurich, Zurich. Whitney, J.D. (1993), TheTrust Factor, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Williamson, O.E. (1975), Market and Hierarchies, Free Press, New York, NY.

Further reading Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations, emerging perspectives, enduring questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98.

Introduction

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1975), “The uncertainty of the past, organizational learning under ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, pp. 149-71.

555 About the Guest Editors Katinka Bijlsma is Associate Professor of Organisation Theory at the Department of Public Administration and Organization Science at the Free University Amsterdam and Professor of Organisation Sciences at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM). She received her PHD in Management and Organization sciences from the University of Amsterdam. Her main areas of expertise include organization theory, organisational behaviour and research methodology. Current research interests besides trust include consequences of frictions between cultures and structure in changing organisations, organisational learning processes, managerial cognition. She is chair of the First International Network on Trust (FINT), in which scholars from 18 countries participate, and co-chairs the second international workshop on trust in October 23-24 2003 with Bart Nooteboom. E-mail: K.M.Bijlsma-Frankemascw.vu.nl Paul Koopman is Professor of the Psychology of Management and Organization at the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. In 1980 he finished his PhD study on the subject “Decision making in organizations”. Since then he studied different types of processes of management and decision making on organisational level (industrial democracy, reorganization, turnaround management, privatization in Eastern Europe) and departmental level (leadership and motivation, quality circles, teamwork, ICT, innovation management). At this moment he is interested and actively involved in cross-cultural research, in particular in relation to issues of HRM, leadership, trust and organisational culture. E-mail: [email protected]

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

PR 32,5

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Trust within organisations Tom R. Tyler Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

556

Keywords Trust, Organizations, Society, Organizational behaviour, Co-operative organizations, Relationship management Abstract It has been recognised that there is importance of trust within organisations. There is also a recognised theme that trust must move beyond rational or calculative trust to various forms of social trust. This paper makes clear the potential importance of social trust, and its value to emerging organisations. In the new era of faster, looser, more rapidly changing connections between people and groups, trust based on inferences about the motives, character and intentions of others is becoming more central to the ability of organisations to manage their dynamics efficiently and effectively and ensure their growth and survival.

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 556-568 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488333

It is clear that in the last several years issues of trust have become increasingly central to the study of organisations. For someone who participated in early efforts to draw attention to the importance of trust (Kramer and Tyler, 1996), this growing centrality is exciting. The emerging role of trust makes sense given that trust is a perfect focus for those interested in the dynamics of organisations because trust sits at the boundary of psychology and sociology. For this reason, the study of trust has become important in political science, policy studies, law, organisational psychology, organisational behaviour and behavioural economics. In this paper I want to address several key questions that have emerged as central to the study of trust. The first question is why trust has emerged as such an important issue in the study of organisations. I believe that trust is important because of the strong desire to understand how to create effective co-operation within organisations. Trust is a key because it enables co-operation. While co-operation has always been important in organisations, new trends in the nature of organisational dynamics have had to consequences. First, they have led to changes in the nature of work that make old styles of securing co-operation increasingly difficult to maintain. Second, they have changed the nature of the co-operation that is needed by organisations, putting greater emphasis on more voluntary forms of co-operation which are more difficult to motivate. Old models of management focused on command and control strategies of motivation. These strategies encouraged authorities to direct the activities of people in the organisation using surveillance linked to incentives and sanctions. This model has been labelled the deterrence model in law, “command and control” in management, “low trust” forms of governance in sociology and rational choice in economics. These strategies allow authorities to secure one type and level of co-operation. However, the world is changing,

and organisations increasingly need a new type of co-operation from their members. These are several ways in which the world is changing. First, it is becoming increasingly difficult to implement command and control styles of management effectively. More and more people work in widely dispersed groups, with increases in the number of people who work at home; who work with varying schedules; and who work in different branches of multinational companies. In addition, the multilevel hierarchies that have facilitated traditional command and control are increasingly being flattened. It is more and more likely that people will be working in teams of equals, without a designated leader whose responsibility is to monitor and respond to the behaviour of others. Instead, responsibilities are shared across group members, and “leadership” may be different for varying tasks. In addition, judgements about pay and promotion are made more collaboratively, and involve discussion and consensus building. In addition, traditional social control mechanisms are being lost. One important source of social control are the informal networks of family and friends that embed people in their social groups. The web of extended families and long-term work associates is becoming weaker, since people are more separate from others, and do not view their relationships as necessarily enduring over time. This is partially true because people are more mobile, and often move away from family and friends. These is also a greater willingness to break ties with others, with job turnover becoming more frequent. On many levels, people feel freer to break social ties and change long-term social arrangements. For example, people increasingly think of their relationship with their employer as contingent and changeable when opportunities arise. Instead of expecting to work for one company throughout their career, people anticipate shifting companies and even careers. They are less loyal to any one employer. This is not the only such contingent arrangement – as heightened divorce rates make clear. But, it is a salient one and one with consequences for trust. This trend is connected to the general alienation and disengagement of people from social institutions – church, government – that leads to declining deference to authority (Lipset and Schneider, 1983). This judgement that people’s engagement in society is declining has led to a recent focus on the need for “civic engagement” in neighborhoods, communities and society (Putnam, 1995). Civic engagement can take a variety of forms, ranging from voting to cleaning up one’s sidewalk. Finally, within work organisations the nature of work itself is changing in ways that make command and control approaches to motivation increasingly difficult. Work is increasingly centred around intellectual labour, rather than simple and repetitive tasks. Intellectual labour is difficult to monitor and depends heavily on willing engagement in work. We must trust that people are

Trust within organisations

557

PR 32,5

558

making an effort to work well, since it is harder to monitor their behaviour. In work organisations, this shift in focus has led to increasing attention to extra-role behaviour – the voluntary behaviours that people perform in work settings (Tyler and Blader, 2000). To understand these changes, we need a typology of the types of co-operative behaviour that are desired in organisations. Such a typology is presented in Table I. It highlights the importance of voluntary co-operation, both in terms of following rules and in terms of performing desirable behaviours. While both types of behaviour can be motivated by incentives and sanctions, the voluntary forms of these behaviours are especially valuable to organisations. That value comes because people are internally motivated to engage in these behaviours. Internal motivations facilitate co-operation in organisations because the organisation does not need to create rules and authorities whose task is to monitor and react to people’s behaviour. Further, the organisation does not need to use its resources to provide incentives for desirable behaviour nor to create and maintain a credible system of deterrence. Instead, people act co-operatively because they are motivated to do so for personal reasons. For these reasons, internally motivated co-operation is a value-added for organisations. To the degree that the members of organisations are internally motivated to engage in actions that aid the group, management needs to make efforts to ensure that such actions occur. In addition, people can more effectively manage their own behaviour, bringing it into line with rules and policies irrespective of whether leaders are present and paying attention to the actions of their followers. The desire of followers to follow rules and help the group is a more reliable way to secure desirable co-operation than is the provision of incentives or sanctions. Social motives The increasing importance of internally motivated behaviour to organisations makes clear why issues of trust and procedural justice are becoming more central to organisational studies. Both trust and procedural justice are social motives, i.e. motives that are internal or socially generated. They flow from within the person, rather than being linked to incentives or sanctions. There is already a large literature on procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler et al., 1997; Tyler and Smith, 1997), while the literature on trust is rapidly expanding (Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Kramer, 1999).

Table I. Typology of types of co-operative behaviour desired in organisations

Limiting undesirable behaviour Promoting desirable behaviour

Mandated

Voluntary

Deterrence In-role behaviour

Deference Extra-role behaviour

What is trust? From my perspective one interesting issue is what the nature of trust can best be characterised as being. In addressing the issue of trust many researchers have immediately adopted an instrumental or rational choice approach to trust. For example, they have viewed trust as an issue of predictability in which people behave based on their expectations concerning the likely future behaviour of others. Trust can also be treated as an issue of competence, with people trusting those that they believe can solve problems and deliver desired outcomes. I think that this view of trust is inadequate to deal with the issues of trust that are confronted by organisations. A good example of those issues is reflected in the idea of fiduciary trust. This is the type of trust that people have for a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant. What is striking about situations of fiduciary trust is that, because people are relying on someone with specialised training and knowledge, they lack the expertise and information to understand their actions. So, their ability to anticipate the actions of others is very low. When the ability to predict is low, there must be some other basis for trust if co-operation is to occur (Tyler and Huo, 2002). To address this question I want to distinguish instrumental trust from what I will refer to as social trust. Social trust is not based on judgements about the predictability or competence of others. Instead it is based on attributions about the motives of others. People infer whether they trust that others have the intention to do what is good for them, whether they are motivated to be ethical and fair. With a doctor, for example, I cannot evaluate his or her competence, but I can make an inference about whether they are sincerely trying to do what is in my best interest. This distinction between instrumental and social trust parallels a key distinction within the literature on procedural justice. In that literature the fairness of procedures is distinguished from instrumental judgements about the favourability or fairness of one’s outcomes. As in the case of trust, we become interested in procedural fairness judgements primarily when we find that they have a distinct influence on reactions to experience beyond the influence of outcome-based judgements. As with the literature on trust, studies suggest that outcome-based judgements are inadequate to explain people’s reactions to their experiences. There is typically an addition, non-outcome-based, element to reactions. This element is linked to judgements about the fairness of the procedures involved. Hence, procedural justice can also be viewed as a social motive. In both cases the potential value-added for social motives lies in their ability to encourage levels of co-operation beyond those than can be sustained by instrumental motivations. If we only trust those people whose behaviour we can effectively predict, for example, we will have trouble benefiting from the expertise of others. Trusting those that we think have well-intentioned

Trust within organisations

559

PR 32,5

560

motivations extends our willingness to co-operate with others. As noted, the needs of organisations encourage such trust-based co-operation. Procedural justice and motive-based trust Given that there are two social motives – procedural justice and motive-based trust – we can ask how these two motives are distinguished. In particular, since there is already a large literature on procedural justice, what is gained by adding studies of motive-based trust to this mix. Addressing this question involves addressing several issues. First, whether motive-based trust is important. Second, whether motive-based trust has an impact that is distinct from the impact of procedural justice. Third, whether the social aspects of motive-based trust have an impact that is distinct from the influence of instrumental trust-related judgements. Let me first explore these issues by drawing on a study of trust in the police (Tyler and Huo, 2002). The key concern in this study is gaining voluntary deference with the decisions of the police and the courts. This is the first type of co-operative behaviour discussed earlier in the paper. In this study 1,656 residents of two US cities had personal contact with the police or the courts. The issue was whether they would willingly accept these third-party efforts to resolve problems. As the percentages shown in Table II indicate, acceptance was by no means automatic. For example, 23 per cent of those who deal with a legal authority considered going to someone else to overturn the decisions made, while 49 per cent felt that the situation could have been handled in a better way. Our first concern is whether issues of motive-based trust shape decision acceptance. The items used to measure motive-based trust are shown in Table III. The results of regression analyses using motive-based trust, shown in Table IV, suggest that they do. The extent to which people indicated that Percent agreeing Acceptance I willingly accepted the decision In a similar situation in the future, I would like to see the situation handled in the same way I considered going to someone else to try to change the situation The situation could have been handled better

Table II. Percentage accepting the decisions of legal authorities

Satisfaction The person generally did a good job dealing with my situation I was generally satisfied with the way he/she handled the situation Source: Tyler and Huo (2002)

87

Yes

59

Yes

23 49

Yes Yes

72

Yes

68

Yes

they trusted the motives of the authorities with whom they were dealing was linked to their willingness to accept the decisions reached (beta ¼ 0.47, p , 0.001). Further, the influence of motive-based trust is distinct from the influence of instrumental issues. Two instrumental issues are included in this analysis. One is whether the person indicates that the authority behaved as expected; the second whether they say that they think they can predict the authorities’ future behaviour. These instrumental assessments had only a minor influence on the willingness to accept decisions (beta ¼ 0.04, p , 0.01, for the degree to which people felt they could predict the future actions of the authorities; beta ¼ 2 0.02, n.s., for the degree to which their actions during the encounter were as expected). Finally, the influence of motive-based trust is distinct from the influence of procedural justice. The equation shown in Table IV indicates that both motive-based trust and procedural justice judgements have distinct influences on people’s decisions about whether or not to accept the decisions made by third-party authorities. Motive-based trust

%

The authority . . . Considered my views Tried hard to do the right thing by me Tried to take my needs into account Cared about my concerns I trust him/her

67 69 62 62 69

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Tyler and Huo (2002)

Beta weights Social motives Motive-based trust Procedural justice Instrumental judgements Distributive justice Outcome favourability Predictability Expectations Adjusted R-sq. (%) Notes: * p , 0.01 ** p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Huo (2002)

Trust within organisations

561

Table III. Measuring motive-based trust

n 0.47** 0.38** 0.08** 0.08** 0.04* 20.02 81

Table IV. Factors shaping decision acceptance/ satisfaction with the decision maker

PR 32,5

562

So, what distinctly social factors influence motive-based trust? Two factors emerge as important in a separate analysis (see Table V). First, shared background and values. People indicate more trust in the motives of people with whom they share a social background. Second, whether they feel that they have an understanding of why people are acting as they do. Interestingly, this influence of understanding is distinct from being able to predict what a person will do. People are focused on whether they feel they understand why a person is acting as they are, not just on whether they think that they can predict how a person will act in the future. This is an attributional influence that is linked to judgements about whether a person feels they understand the character and motivations of another. All of these findings point to the value of a social conception of trust. First, motive-based trust influences deference to authorities. If a person trusts that the authorities with whom they are dealing are motivated by a concern for their welfare, they are more willing to go along with decisions made by that authority. In a situation such as social regulation, in which authorities are often telling people that they cannot do things that they want to do, this ability to gain deference is key to effectiveness. Further, this influence of motive-based trust is not linked to the degree to which people think that they can make effective and accurate estimates of the future behaviour of others. Neither the degree to which the past behaviour of the authorities has been as expected, not the degree to which their future behaviour is believed to be predictable are the key issues shaping deference. It is interesting that it is the degree to which a person thinks that they understand why someone is acting (i.e. they understand their motivations) and not the ability to predict their actions that matters. We want to know the “character” of others – feeling that those others are, in fact, interested in our needs and concerns. Work organisations While legal authorities focus on preventing undesirable behaviours, the managers of work organisations are concerned with both limiting negative and undesirable behaviour and with promoting desirable behaviour. As was the Beta weights

Table V. Antecedents of motive-based trust

Shared social bonds Are actions understandable? Behaved as expected. Actions are predictable Adj. R-sq. (%) Note: * p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Huo (2002)

n 0.33** 0.53** 20.01 0.03 55

case with legal authorities, managers also prefer that both forms of co-operative behaviour be voluntarily motivated. Otherwise, the organisation is required to deploy resources for incentives and sanctions that could be used for other organisational purposes. What motivates voluntary co-operative behaviours? Tyler and Blader (2000) compare the role of two types of internal motivations to the motivating influence of the resource levels reflected by the pay and other benefits a person is receiving from their organisation. The two types of internal motivations are attitudes and values. Attitudes reflect the things that people are internally motivated to do. Two attitudes are measured in this study. The first is intrinsic enjoyment of one’s job. The second is commitment to one’s group. People might potentially be motivated either because of their enjoyment of their work and/or because of their loyalty to their group. The key value measured is a person’s feelings of responsibility/obligation to follow rules, a motivation which we will refer to as legitimacy (Tyler, 1990). The influence of attitudes and values on deference to rules and on extra-role behaviour can be compared with the influence of people’s instrumental judgements. Two such instrumental judgements are examined. The first is the person’s judgement about the level of resources they receive from the group. The second is their evaluation of the favourability of the resources they receive from their job, relative to available alternatives. I will use regression analyses to examine the impact of attitudes, values and resource judgements on co-operative behaviour in the sample of employees studied by Tyler and Blader (2000). These analyses are shown in Table VI. They suggest that attitudes and values have an important influence on co-operative behaviours. Attitudes are the most important predictor of extra-role behaviours (beta ¼ 0.54, p , 0.001), while values are the most important predictor of deference to rules (beta ¼ 0.47, p , 0.001). Our primary concern is with the potential importance of motive-based trust in shaping people’s co-operative behaviour in a work organisation. We can

Beta weights Attitudes (commitment, intrinsic motivation) Values (legitimacy) Level of job benefits Dependence on job Adjusted R-sq. (%) Notes: * p , 0.05 ** p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Blader (2000)

Trust within organisations

563

Voluntary co-operative behaviour Deference to rules Extra-role behaviour 0.19** 0.47** 0.04 0.01 30

0.54** 0.04 0.12* 0.14* 26 Table VI. Attitudes, values and co-operative behaviour

PR 32,5

564

compare that influence of motive-based trust to the influence of judgements about the predictability of the decisions of managers and to judgements about managerial competence. The items used to index each construct are shown in Table VII. The influence of motive-based trust is shown in Table VIII. The findings suggest that motive-based trust has a strong influence on attitudes and on extra-role behaviours. It leads people to enjoy their jobs and to want to help their group and to do so in voluntary ways. Motive-based trust has less impact on values. People who trust the motives of management do not indicate that organisational rules are more legitimate. However, motive-based trust does influence deference to rules. Hence, there is a smaller influence of motive-based trust on people’s willingness to limit their engagement in undesirable behaviours such as stealing, taking long lunch breaks, etc. A replication of this analysis including a measure of procedural justice, shown in Table IX, indicates that motive-based trust and procedural justice have distinctive patterns of influence. Motive-based trust shapes attitudes and extra-role behaviour, while procedural justice shapes values and deference. This pattern is consistent with that already outlined and suggests that the influence of motive-based trust is that it encourages people to commit themselves to their work and work organisations, leading to extra-role behaviour. n Motive-based trust (1 ¼ agree strongly; 6 ¼ disagree strongly) I am usually given an honest explanation for decisions My views are considered when decisions are made My needs are taken into account when decisions are made The authorities try hard to be fair to their employees My supervisor gives me honest explanations for decisions My supervisor considers my views when decisions are made My supervisor takes account of my needs Predictability How much do you know about the formal rules? (1 ¼ a lot; 6 ¼ very little) How much do decisions about you depend on the formal rules? (1 ¼ a lot; 6 ¼ not at all) How often are rules applied consistently? (1 ¼ always; 6 ¼ rarely) How well do you know your supervisor? (1 ¼ very well; 6 ¼ not well) Are your supervisor’s decisions consistent? (1 ¼ always; 6 ¼ rarely) Does your supervisor keep promises? (1 ¼ always; 6 rarely)

Table VII. Measures of trust

Competence (1 ¼ strongly agree; 6 ¼ strongly disagree) I do not think I will be laid off in the future I have a secure job well into the future I worry that my organisation will not do well in the future (mean reversed) Source: Tyler and Blader (2000)

3.10 3.52 3.60 2.75 2.56 2.76 2.83 2.69 2.69 3.06 2.35 2.97 2.45 1.98 2.52 2.58

Finally, we can ask how procedural elements shape motive-based trust. Procedural justice theories distinguish between two key procedural elements: the quality of decision-making and the quality of the interpersonal treatment that people receive (Tyler and Blader, 2000). These two elements can be used as antecedents of motive-based trust. The results of such a regression analysis are shown in Table X. They results indicate that both elements shape motive-based trust. However, the primary influence is in the quality of people’s interpersonal treatment by group authorities and rules. Interestingly, once the influence of quality of decision making and quality of treatment is taken into account, there is no independent impact of either the Beta weights

Attitudes

Values

Deference

Extra-role behaviour

Motive-based trust Predictability Competence Adj. R-sq. (%)

0.54*** 0.08 0.17** 40

0.08 0.22** 0.05 7

0.18** 0.16* 0.09 10

0.26*** 0.05 0.11 10

Attitudes

Values

Deference

Extra-role behaviour

0.50** 0.06 0.06 0.17** 40

2 0.19 0.45** 0.04 0.03 11

-0.03 0.36** 0.02 0.08 12

0.42** 2 0.20 0.17* 0.12* 12

Motive-based trust Procedural justice Predictability Competence Adj. R-sq. (%)

Table IX. Influence of motive-based trust and procedural justice

Notes: * p , 0.05 ** p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Blader (2000)

Beta weights Quality of decision-making Quality of treatment Predictability Competence Adj. R-sq. Note: * p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Blader (2000)

565

Table VIII. The influence of motive-based trust on attitudes, values and co-operative behaviours

Notes: * p , 0.05 ** p , 0.01 *** p , 0.001 Source: Tyler and Blader (2000)

Beta weights

Trust within organisations

n 0.23* 0.65* 2 0.03 0.06 67

Table X. Antecedents of motive-based trust

PR 32,5

566

expectedness of past treatment or the predictability of future treatment. Hence, the definition of motive-based trust is primarily “relational” in character (Tyler and Lind, 1992). Overview As the findings of these two studies suggest, there is considerable value to thinking of trust as a distinct and social motivation. Further, the findings suggest that we should be considering two social motivations, motive-based trust and procedural justice. Each makes a distinct contribution to the understanding of co-operation in social groups. As we enter into this new era of co-operation among people, organisations, and society, we need to focus on developing new consensual forms of co-operation. These new forms emphasise gaining “buy in” from people, rather than seeking to shape their behaviour by changing the contingencies of the situation via incentives or sanctions. This desire for consensual relationships suggests that we need to better understand how to develop supportive attitudes and values. If people want to co-operate, and/or feel that they ought to co-operate, then their behaviour is motivated internally and the need for strategies linked to incentives and sanctions is minimised. This is equally true of social regulation and management. The findings outlined further suggest that motive-based trust and procedural justice are similar, in that both are social motives, but have a distinct influence on co-operative behaviour. Trust is linked more directly to social relationships, while procedural justice involves evaluations of the manner in which decisions are being made. When we compare the literatures on motive-based trust and procedural justice to each other it is clear that justice has the longer history. However, as the findings presented make clear, motive-based trust does not simply duplicate the ground already covered by procedural justice. It makes a distinct contribution to our efforts to understand co-operation in organisations. Trust is clearly central to understanding the dynamics of organisations. Furthermore, it seems to reflect different motivations than those already outlined in the justice literature. What we need is a clearer understanding of those distinct trust-based motivations. We can look for better understanding of trust to the work of Heider (1958) on attribution theory. Heider (1958) suggests that an effort to focus on the motives and character of others is fundamental to people’s interactions with others. This effort to infer motives as an antecedent to interaction fits easily into the framework outlined here. People’s motive-based trust is linked to their inferences about the motives and character of others. Hence, in the future the trust literature make fruitfully link itself up to the literature on motive attributions as a way to better frame the discussion of trust issues.

The findings outlined also point to the literature on social relationships as a possible future direction for trust studies. It is found that people are more willing to trust those with whom they feel they share a social connection, for example a similar background. We need to better understand the nature of the bonds that people draw on to make inferences about trust. Further, the findings outlined point to one especially important type of trust. Motive-based trust is one important type of social motive that acts beyond the operation of rational calculations or expectations to shape behaviour towards others. Motive-based trust is central in situations in which the traditional mechanisms for motivating co-operation are problematic, and the development of productive interaction requires the existence of other, more social, motivations. in which traditional mechanisms may be inadequate to sustain co-operation. Motive-based trust may be especially important in particular settings because it is in such settings that rational forms of trust are least likely to be effective. One such situation occurs when relationships are beginning. People with a limited history are unlikely to feel that they can predict each other’s behaviour. They need to have a way to build trust swiftly. This requires the ability to infer the character of others based on inferences of their character and benevolence. Further, motive-based trust may be needed in virtual situations in which traditional face-to-face interactions are limited in scope. In such situations, the mechanisms that led people to trust because they had a long history of personal experience are no longer possible. People must deal with relationships without social and physical elements, and must find new ways to trust in those settings. Traditional mechanisms of trust may also be inadequate during times of crisis or change. It is when organisations are most in need of co-operation from their members that they are often least able to provide the incentives or sanctions that would motivate that co-operation. They need to be able to rely on the good will of their members. Here trust becomes crucial. Since people are unlikely to be able to know the future in a time of change, all that they can do is to evaluate whether they think that management will be motivated to make changes in ways that will take the welfare of group members into account. References Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY. Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organisations: emerging perspectives and enduring questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY. Lipset, S. and Schneider, W. (1983), The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind, Free Press, New York, NY.

Trust within organisations

567

PR 32,5

568

Putnam, R.D. (1995), “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65-78. Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law, Yale, New Haven, CT. Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2000), Cooperation in Groups, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA. Tyler, T.R. and Huo, Y.J. (2002), Trust in the Law, Russell-Sage, New York, NY. Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-91. Tyler, T.R. and Smith, H.J. (1997), “Social justice and social movements”, in Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 595-629. Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R.J., Smith, H.J. and Huo, Y.J. (1997), Social Justice in a Diverse Society, Westview, Boulder, CO. Further reading Cook, K. (2001), Trust in Society, Russell-Sage, New York, NY. Hardin, R. (2002), Trust and Trustworthiness, Russell-Sage, New York, NY.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships

Engendering trust

569

Predictors and outcomes Julia Connell and Natalie Ferres Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, and

Tony Travaglione Adelaide Graduate School of Business, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Keywords Trust, Managers, Subordinates, Forecasting, Australia Abstract The recent growth in the trust literature indicates that both researchers and practitioners are continuing to recognise its importance as a factor for determining organisational success and the well-being of employees. Trust is, however, a complex, multidimensional construct that has generated much debate concerning how trusting relationships might be created. The aim of this paper is to add to current debates by reporting on a study concerning trust within manager-subordinate relationships within a large Australian organisation. The annual staff survey for this organisation indicated that levels of trust in managers were very low, leading the authors to investigate the predictors and outcomes of this situation. Focus group and survey questionnaire results led to the finding that perceived organisational support, procedural justice and transformational leadership were significant predictors of trust in managers and that turnover intent and commitment were significant outcomes. The implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

This paper reports on a study that was undertaken in order to discover which factors caused employees within a large Australian public health sector organisation to experience trust in their managers. Findings from an employee survey that was undertaken in the year 2000 indicated that trust in managers was very low. Although it may be unreasonable to expect that any organisation can enjoy complete trust among its workforce, this paper argues that the presence of certain characteristics may result in higher levels of trust, even within the context of organisational constraints. In this case, these characteristics involved perceived organisational support (POS), transformational leadership and procedural justice. The results of this study encouraged the health authority’s senior management to consider interventions that would promote these factors where possible. In general, human resource (HR) policies and practices are frequently on the front-line of any change initiative. Therefore, the findings from this paper suggest that one of the challenges for HR policy-makers and practitioners lies in assisting with the

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 569-587 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488342

PR 32,5

570

creation of an organisational environment where trust in manager-subordinate relationships is engendered, particularly where existing levels of trust are low. First, literature concerning various definitions, measures and the relevance of trust in manager-subordinate relationships is discussed. Next, a framework for analysis is introduced and the research method outlined, before the survey findings, conclusions and implications are identified. Definitions and measures of trust The degree to which trust exists can determine much of an organisation’s character, influencing factors such as organisational structure, control mechanisms, job design, communication, job satisfaction, commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (Zeffane and Connell, 2003). Currently, environmental and competitive pressures are pushing organisations towards flat, team-oriented structures where employees perform multidimensional work with the autonomy to make decisions. Such arrangements require trust between employees and their managers in order to be successful (Whitener et al., 1998). As a result, the influence of trust in organisational settings has attracted increasing interest in recent years (Clark and Payne, 1997; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Hosmer, 1995; Mayer and Davis, 1999; Mayer et al., 1995), indicating that researchers and practitioners continue to recognise trust as an important factor in determining organisational success, organisational stability and the well-being of employees (Cook and Wall, 1980; Shaw, 1997; Tyler and Kramer, 1996). The growth of literature on trust has generated much debate and divergent opinion focusing on what trust is, what it is not, and how trusting relationships might be created. Trust is a multi-component construct with several dimensions that vary in nature and importance according to the context, relationship, tasks, situations and people concerned (Hardy and McGrath, 1989). Although there is no ubiquitous definition of trust, a frequently cited conceptualisation emphasises interpersonal relationships and a “willingness to be vulnerable” (Mayer et al., 1995) based on the conviction that the latter party is competent, concerned and reliable. Thus, when trust declines, a reversal occurs and people become reluctant to take risks, demanding greater protections against the possibility of betrayal “and increasingly insist on costly sanctioning mechanisms to defend their interests” (Tyler and Kramer, 1996, p. 4). The limited uniformity in the interpretation, comparability and evaluation of trust research may stem from the use of various trust measures, all focusing on contrasting aspects of the trust construct. Measures of trust within organisations may centre on disposition to trust, interpersonal trust or situational trust (Clark and Payne, 1997). Dispositional trust is concerned with an individual’s inclination to trust others within the work environment. Trust as a dispositional personality trait is concerned with an individual’s inclination

to believe that others will be prepared to act in the trustor’s best interests (Kramer, 1999) and there is evidence to suggest that individual inclinations to trust vary a great deal (Gurtman, 1992; Sorrentino et al., 1995). Owing to the potential effect of dispositional trust on organisational trust scores, it has been proposed as an individual difference variable when exploring trust within work environments (Mayer et al., 1995).

Trust and manager-subordinate relationships Some writers maintain that workplace trust is developed primarily through an organisation’s leaders (Creed and Miles, 1996; Fairholm, 1994; Shaw, 1997). For this to occur Whitener et al. (1998) advise that managers must be encouraged to make the first move and that the initiation of this process, is the challenge (and arguably the responsibility) of management. The results of several recent surveys indicate, however, that the formation of trust within workplace relationships is complex and elusive suggesting that employees are becoming less trusting of their managers (Davis and Landa, 1999). For example, trust had declined in three of the four workplaces surveyed by Manchester Consulting in 1996 and 1997 (McCune, 1998), while a 1998 survey of 2,004 workers across Canada concluded that three out of four Canadian employees do not trust the people they work for (Davis and Landa, 1999). In Australia, the results of a large national survey of over 19,500 employees (Morehead et al., 1997) also revealed a very low level of trust in managers, particularly within the public sector. Literature concerning trust and management indicates that trust is a central feature in the relationship that transformational leaders have with their followers (see Butler et al., 1999; Gillespie and Mann, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1990, 1996; Simon, 1995). In addition, research findings have consistently highlighted the positive influence of transformational leadership on organisational outcomes. For example, transformational leadership was found to be a significant predictor of: . lowered intention to leave an organisation and increased organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Bycio et al., 1995; Pillai et al., 1999); and . strong organisational commitment (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Bommer, 1996; Bycio et al., 1995). It also indirectly influenced OCB through procedural justice and trust, although it failed to influence either job satisfaction or organisational commitment (Pillai et al., 1999). Conversely, Podsakoff et al. (1990) found that transformational leadership was significantly linked to both employees’ trust and satisfaction, but not to OCB.

Engendering trust

571

PR 32,5

572

The constructs relating to the trust literature – namely procedural justice, commitment, turnover intention and OCB conscientiousness are described below: . Procedural justice. A component of perceived justice, procedural justice describes the fairness of the procedures used to determine organisational outcomes (Folger and Greenberg, 1985; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Moorman, 1991). The perception of the fairness of organisation’s performance appraisal systems, professional development opportunities and job security (organisational systems and processes) appear to explain unique elements of trust towards management (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992; Korsgaard et al., 1995). Procedural justice also impacts on most of other variables investigated in the present survey. Previous research indicates that its impact is greater on commitment and OCB. When employers are perceived to treat employees fairly, the norm of reciprocity dictates that employees in turn treat the employer fairly, and OCB increases substantially (Folger and Greenberg, 1985; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989). . Commitment. According to Jaros et al. (1993) the past two decades have seen the definition of commitment evolve into a complex construct that stresses the insufficiency of single-factor models (Bennett and Durkin, 2000). For example, employees with a strong affective commitment remain at an organisation because they want to, while those with strong continuance commitment are said to remain because they need to (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Trust towards management is closely associated with organisational attachment or affective commitment (Tan and Tan, 2000; Sue, 1995; Cook and Wall, 1980). Affective commitment has been shown to be an outcome of transformational leadership (Sue, 1995), but a relationship has also been found between transformational leadership and continuance commitment (Freund, 1995). It is also shown to positively influence the variable of POS (Eisenberger et al., 2001). In addition, a negative relationship has been shown for turnover intention (Schnake and Dumler, 2000). . Turnover intention. “A conscious and deliberate wilfulness to leave the organisation” (Tett and Meyer, 1993, p. 262). Tan and Tan (2000) found that turnover intention was a salient outcome of trust, and Mishra and Morrisey (1990) also found that reduced turnover was a considerable advantage of trust. Turnover intention is also negatively related to transformational leadership (Bycio et al., 1995). Evidence shows that high levels of variables in column two are related to low levels of intention to turnover. Labour market conditions, expectations regarding alternative job opportunities and job tenure all act as intervening variables with regard to turnover intention (Carsten and Spector, 1987; Hulin et al., 1985).

.

.

OCB conscientiousness. This is one dimension of the OCB construct and relates to an employee going beyond normal job requirements (Organ, 1988). OCB conscientiousness has positive relationship with both trust (Organ and Konovsky, 1989) and transformational leadership (Whittington, 1998). Strong patterns relate general OCB to leadership (supporting behaviour and transformational leadership particularly) (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Job satisfaction, perception of fairness and organisational commitment positively related to general OCB (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). POS. This has been defined as the extent to which employees perceive that they are valued by their organisation and that the organisation cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1990). POS has been found to be an antecedent of trust in managers (Tan and Tan, 2000). POS is also positively correlated with affective commitment, (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 1997) and negatively related to turnover intention (Allen et al., 2001; Wayne et al., 1997).

The strong association of trust with transformational leadership led to a decision to include measures for transformational leadership within a framework for employee-manager trust analysis. Prior to the completion of the analytical trust framework, it was decided to undertake a number of focus groups in order establish whether there were any other themes or constructs relating to trust and managers that should be addressed in the survey questionnaire. The focus group method and findings are discussed next. Focus group findings Four focus groups were conducted within four facilities of the health authority under investigation. A total of 31 employees participated and, of these, 19.4 per cent were male and 80.6 per cent were female, which is typical of the gender balance within the organisation overall. Each focus group was divided into two sub-groups, consisting of management (n ¼ 14) and non-management (n ¼ 17). A qualitative research method was adopted. This involved gathering data using a modified form of grounded theory. “Grounded theory” was coined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to describe the concept that theory is generated by an iterative process involving the continual sampling and analysis of data gathered from concrete settings (Pidgeon, 1996). In this case, focus group participants were asked to relate a story concerning when they perceived they were trusted or mistrusted and/or when they trusted or mistrusted someone else in the workplace. Participants were also asked to relate how they felt at the time of the incident. Following data collection and coding, themes emerging from data analysis were categorised within either the core category or a subcategory. To find the core category Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 99) advise the researcher to ask:

Engendering trust

573

PR 32,5

574

“What seems to be the main story line, pattern or theme that is occurring over and over, and what category do all the other categories seem to be leading to?” As the quantity of interviews increased, a number of themes began to emerge which were common to all focus groups at the four facilities. It became evident that the core category relating to trust in managers, which became central to the entire study, was that of support. The word support (or derivatives of it) was mentioned 35 times in total, although terms relating to support occurred frequently also. For both management and non-management the notion of support was raised in relation to interpersonal support (for example, my supervisor supports me by listening to me; believing in me; empowering me) and organisational support (there are appropriate strategies for reward and recognition; consistency occurs in processes and procedures). The latter sub-category was closely related to current concepts of procedural justice. Based on a review of the literature and the focus group findings, constructs that are associated with trust that were selected for inclusion in the analytical trust framework for this study are outlined in the list above. Figure 1 illustrates a proposed model of trust where the predictors and outcomes of trust in managers are shown, with dispositional trust introduced as a control variable. As explained in the “Methodology” section of this paper, Figure 1 represents the research framework for this study. Aims and research hypotheses Given that an initial employee survey within the organisation in question indicated low levels of trust in managers, the researchers set out to determine the predictors and consequences of these findings. As previously stated, the focus group findings indicated that the predictors in Figure 1 were central to employees trusting their managers. Consistent with this model, the focus group findings, and the extant trust literature, two hypotheses are forwarded: H1. Perceived organisational support, procedural justice, and transformational leadership will be significant predictors of trust in managers. H2. Trust in managers will significantly predict higher commitment, OCB conscientiousness and lowered turnover intention. Methodology Sample A total of 275 respondents were included in the study. While 291 questionnaires were returned, list wise deletion was implemented to exclude incomplete responses from analysis. Of the participants, 10.9 per cent were in management or senior management positions, while 89.1 per cent labelled their

Engendering trust

575

Figure 1. A proposed model of trust in managers

position as non-management or “other”. It was not feasible to compare the effects of position level on results because of unequal numbers of employees at each level. The comparison of such unequal sample sizes means that the power of the analysis would be far too low to inspire confidence in any results (Howell, 1997). A total of 86.9 per cent of respondents were female and 13.1 per cent were male. 31.6 per cent of respondents were aged less than 36 years and 46.2 per cent were aged between 37 years and 47 years. 48 per cent of respondents had been with the organisation between six months and ten years, with 42 per cent being employed for over ten years. The distribution of gender, position level, age and tenure in the sample was representative of the demographics of the public health authority where the study was conducted. However, care must be taken when generalising the results of this study to other organisations and industries, especially those in the private sector. Within the organisation studied, the sample was drawn from four facilities, each with a similar number of employees. A total of 1,300 questionnaires were sent to all employees within these facilities, yielding a response rate of 22.4 per cent. This non-response rate may reflect the low degree of trust in the

PR 32,5

576

organisation. It could be noted that sampling bias might have confounded the results. Approximately 48 per cent of respondents were from a facility that closed down in 2002, and the remaining respondents were from three other facilities. The data may have reflected the views of employees within this one facility who were shortly to be redeployed. Subsequent MANOVA analysis comparing the redeployment group to the rest of the employees generally showed that the upcoming redeployment did not result in comparatively negative evaluations and attitudes amongst the affected group. Equivalent results were found for trust in managers, dispositional trust, POS, perceived justice and continuance commitment across the redeployment and non-redeployment employee groups ( p . 0.05 in all cases). One exception was that employees to be redeployed reported greater intentions to leave the organisation, F(1,273) ¼ 4.76, p , 0.05. Despite this finding, these employees communicated more emotional attachment to the organisation, F(1,273) ¼ 5.93, p , 0.05, and reported their leaders to be more transformational, F(1,273) ¼ 4.9, p , 0.05. Questionnaire measures A total of 45 questions captured the variables of interest for the purposes of this study, with five single questions utilised to obtain demographic information on gender, organisational tenure, position level, work facility and age. The questionnaire was designed to allow the researchers to collect relevant information to test several organisational factors. A seven-point Likert response format (ranging from 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 7 ¼ Strongly agree) was used to measure the following constructs: . Trust in managers. The five questions used to measure trust in managers were adapted from Cook and Wall’s (1980) six-item trust in management subscale. One negative item was omitted due to strong arguments that have been forwarded suggesting that it may be unwise to think of distrust as the complete opposite of trust (Kramer, 1996). The use of reverse coded trust items, being framed in terms of distrust, may not be tapping into trust. The reliability for the original subscale was 0.69 (Cook and Wall, 1980). The reliability score for trust in managers for the current study was 0.86. An example item was: “Management is sincere in its attempts to meet workers’ points of view”. . Dispositional trust. Five items measure trust as a personality trait. These questions were taken from the trust subscale in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1985). Three negatively worded items from the original scale were not included. The alpha reliability of the original subscale was 0.90 (Costa and McCrae, 1985). The reliability coefficient of the scale employed in this study was 0.85. An example item was: “My first reaction is to trust people”.

.

.

.

.

.

Perceived organisational support. The three questions that measured perceived organisational support were extracted from the short version of the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (SPOS) instrument devised by Eisenberger et al. (1986). The reliability of the SPOS has been reported as 0.93 (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The internal reliability of the three-item construct used for the current study was 0.92. The three items were chosen from confirmatory factor analysis results (Travaglione, 1998), which purified the POS instrument. Items were: “This organisation is willing to help me when I need a special favour”; “This organisation values my contribution to it’s well-being”; and “This organisation cares about my opinion”. Procedural justice. Procedural justice was measured using three items adapted from an instrument developed by Sweeney and McFarlin (1997). Reliability for the original scale ranged from 0.70 to 0.90. The internal reliability of the three-items used in this study was 0.69. An example item included: “In general, disciplinary actions taken in this organisation are fair”. Transformational leadership. Eight questions were adapted from Hartog et al.’s (1997) scale of inspirational leadership. Den Hartog et al. (1997) devised the inspirational leadership questions by factor analysing the transformational leadership subscale within Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire-8Y (MLQ-8Y). The inspirational leadership items had an alpha reliability of 0.95, identical to the alpha of the transformational scale, but the inspirational leadership scale had fewer items. The average inter-item correlation for the inspirational scale was higher than the average inter-item correlation of transformational leadership (Hartog et al., 1997). The internal reliability coefficient for the items used in the current study was 0.98. An example item was: “My immediate supervisor/manager articulates a vision of future opportunities”. Turnover intention. The three questions that measured turnover intention were adapted from the Intention to Turn Over Scale contained in the Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1979). The internal reliability of this scale was reported by these researchers as 0.83. The internal reliability of this scale in the present study was 0.66. An example item was: “I often think about quitting”. Commitment. The six questions on commitment were extracted from the three-dimensional Allen and Meyer (1990) commitment instrument. Meyer and Allen (1997) have reported the internal consistency estimates (alpha coefficients) of the affective, normative, and continuance scale items. Median reliabilities for affective, normative and continuance commitment scales respectively are 0.85, 0.73 and 0.79. This study made

Engendering trust

577

PR 32,5

578

.

use of only the affective scale and the continuance scale. Affective and continuance commitment were measured by three items each, with internal reliabilities of 0.80 and 0.72 respectively. Example items were: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation” (from the affective scale) and “It would be hard to leave this organisation, even if I wanted to” from the continuance scale. OCB conscientiousness. Three items were used to measure the OCB dimension of conscientiousness. The three items constitute Jordon and Sevestos’ (2001) shortened version of the conscientiousness subscale that was derived from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) OCB questionnaire. Jordon and Sevestos (2001) reported that the alpha reliability of the shortened subscale was 0.76. The alpha reliability of the three items in the current study was 0.82. An example item was “I never abuse my rights and privileges”.

Procedure Following the development of the survey questionnaire, copies were distributed to the organisation’s payroll service, each with a cover letter and return envelope. Staff attached the questionnaire to the pay slips of employees within the four facilities of the organisation where the focus groups had been conducted. Participant anonymity and confidentiality was assured by having the completed questionnaires directed to the researchers. Results and discussion Analysis All organisational variables were screened for normality, homogeneity of variance and outliers. One outlier was detected and subsequently deleted from the analysis. Dispositional trust and OCB conscientiousness were positively skewed, and various logarithmic transformations did not correct this violation. As normality and equal variance assumptions can be violated somewhat with the type of statistical procedures employed in this study (Howell, 1997), these variables were included in the analysis. An examination of residuals from each analysis did not uncover gross violations of normality, equal variances and linearity assumptions. Levels of trust, predictors and outcomes Descriptive statistics reflected several interesting findings. Of note, reported levels of five organisational variables were relatively low. The means for trust in managers (M ¼ 3.37, SD ¼ 1.65), perceived organisational support (M ¼ 3.12, SD ¼ 1.69), procedural justice (M ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 1.35), transformational leadership (M ¼ 3.88, SD ¼ 1.65) and affective commitment (M ¼ 3.55, SD ¼ 1.65) fell between three (Slightly disagree) and four

(Undecided) on a seven-point scale. Despite these results, turnover intention was also low (M ¼ 3.37, SD ¼ 1.72) and the scores for continuance commitment were moderate (M ¼ 4.5, SD ¼ 1.75). Where the two remaining variables were concerned, dispositional trust (M ¼ 5.62, SD ¼ 1.05), and OCB conscientiousness (M ¼ 6.27, SD ¼ 0.91) results were relatively high. Primarily, these results lend credence to previous international (e.g. Nachmias, 1985; Carnevale and Wechsler, 1992) and Australian findings (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003), which have reported low trust in managers within public sector organisations. It should be noted that the high means for self-rated dispositional trust and OCB conscientiousness indicated that socially desirable responding occurred. The determinants and effects of trust in managers are further explored through correlation and regression analysis. Relationships between the variables Correlations showing the strength and direction of the linear relationships between trust in managers and other relevant organisational variables, are presented in Table I. Age, gender, tenure and disposition towards trust were included in the analysis as control variables. With the exception of continuance commitment, the correlations between trust in managers and all other anticipated antecedent and outcome variables were significant. The significant correlations ranged from r ¼ 0.13, n ¼ 275, p , 0.05 for trust in managers and conscientiousness, to r ¼ 0.74, n ¼ 275, p , 0.001 for trust in managers and perceived organisational support. Table I also indicates that there was a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and trust in managers, r ¼ 0.71, n ¼ 275, p , 0.05. Higher levels of perceived organisational support, procedural justice, and trust in managers were related to lower turnover intention and greater affective commitment. In addition to the level of significance, many of these correlations were of moderate strength, indicating that some of these relationships were of importance. Although these correlations suggest that trust in managers had a reasonable association with a number of variables, very strong relationships (r . 0.80) were not established. It is still possible, however, that respondents did not discriminate between the constructs. Regression analysis How is trust in managers created? To test our first hypothesis, a hierarchical regression was performed in order to determine the best set of predictors for trust in managers. Results showed that each of the three organisational factors, with the control variables, significantly influenced trust in managers, F(7, 267) ¼ 101.22, p , 0.001. These results accounted for 73 per cent of the variance for the trust in managers’ ratings. Table II illustrates that each of the predictors was positive and significant. Of

Engendering trust

579

0.05

0.29**

0.05 2 0.09

0.02

0.14* 0.15* 2 0.14*

0.12* 0.13* 0.14*

0.15*

2 0.07 2 0.03 2 0.07 2 0.1

1.0 0.09 0.11

1.0 2 0.04 0.47** 0.11

0.23**

0.18** 0.26** 0.24**

0.36**

1.0

4

0.03

0.18**

20.26** 0.1 0.01 2 0.1

0.02

0.13* 20.19** 0.21**

20.19**

1.0 0.13*

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

11. 12.

10.

7. 8. 9.

6.

Age Gender Tenure Dispositional trust Trust in management Transformational leadership POS Procedural justice Affective commitment Continuance commitment Turnover intention OCB conscientiousness

3

0.49**

1.0 0.58** 0.55**

6

0.61**

1.0 0.63**

7

0.41**

1.0

8

1.0

9

0.13*

0.19**

0.08

0.2**

0.19**

1.0

11

12

0.16** 2 0.16** 1.0

0.12 0.05 0.19** 0.12* 2 0.49** 1.0 20.37** 2 0.35** 2 0.37** 20.26** 2 0.49** 20.2

0.52**

0.71** 0.74** 0.48**

1.0

5

Table I. Intercorrelations between demographic and organisational variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2

10

1

580

Variable

PR 32,5

Variable Perceived organisational support Procedural justice Transformational leadership Age Gender Tenure Dispositional trust

B 0.33 0.36 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26

Trust in managers SE B 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.17 0.05 0.06 R ¼ 0.85 R 2¼0.73 F ¼ 101.22*

b 33* 0.28* 0.31* 0.00 0.01 2 0.06 0.16*

Note: * p , 0.001

the three predictors, perceived organisational support was the most significant (b ¼ 0.33), even after disposition towards trust was entered into the regression model. The results of the regression analysis establish perceived organisational support, procedural justice and transformational leadership as determinants of trust in managers, thus supporting the first hypothesis. Nevertheless, the most important finding was, perhaps, the strong influence of perceived organisational support on trust in managers. To the authors’ knowledge there is limited research that formally recognises this relationship using a POS scale (Tan and Tan, 2000; Whitener, 2001). Consequently, this relationship presents a significant research opportunity given the increasing relevance of trust as an important factor in contributing to organisational effectiveness. The results of this study indicate that managers can influence trust in their relationships with subordinates in a number of ways. These include the adoption of a transformational leadership orientation, through ensuring procedural justice transpires and through supporting employees at every organisational level. The effect of trust in managers on organisational outcomes A second set of regressions was performed to evaluate the second hypothesis, which posited that trust in managers would significantly predict commitment, OCB conscientiousness and turnover intention. Again, demographic factors were used as control variables. The F values in Table III demonstrate the significance of the regression model used to predict outcomes of trust in managers, p , 0.005. A total of 10 per cent to 31 per cent of the variance in outcome scores could be attributed to trust in managers and control variables. Partial support for the second hypothesis was demonstrated as trust in managers was a significant predictor for turnover intention (b ¼ 20.40), affective commitment (b ¼ 0.55) and continuance commitment (b ¼ 0.17).

Engendering trust

581

Table II. Regression analysis of the predictors for trust in managers

PR 32,5 Variable

582 Table III. Summary of standard regression analysis for trust in managers predicting the outcome variables

Trust in managers Age Gender Tenure Dispositional trust

Turnover intention b 20.4** 20.19* 20.01 20.02 0.06 R ¼ 0.41 R 2 ¼ 0.17 F ¼ 11.14**

Conscientiousness b 0.04 0.07 0.27** 2 0.03 0.13* R ¼ 0.33 R 2 ¼ 0.10 F ¼ 6.4**

Affective commitment b 0.55** 0.15* 2 0.06 0.06 2 0.02 R ¼ 0.56 R 2 ¼ 0.31 F ¼ 22.2**

Continuance commitment b 0.17* 0.04 0.00 0.27** 2 0.01 R ¼ 0.31 R 2 ¼ 0.1 F ¼ 5.7**

Notes: * p , 0.05 ** p , 0.001

Then again, trust in managers did not predict OCB conscientiousness – gender was the only significant predictor of this outcome (b ¼ 0.27). Compared with the influence of controls, trust in managers was the most important predictor of turnover, affective commitment and continuance commitment. Consistent with previous research findings, trust in managers was found to be an important determinant of the principal indicators of individual effectiveness for workplace studies (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003; Jones and George, 1998). Specifically, the results of this study supported the proposal that increased trust in managers could be expected to increase levels of affective and continuance commitment, and to reduce turnover. Trust in managers was particularly important in terms of influencing affective commitment. This outcome may have direct implications for increasing discretionary work efforts and reducing absenteeism, as affective commitment can be expected to motivate performance at a level beyond the minimum required to maintain organisational membership. Limitations and directions for future research In addition to the sampling concerns mentioned previously in this paper, there were some methodological problems with this study. First, the use of shortened scales was not optimal for the internal reliability of the procedural justice and turnover intention measures. Second, the scope of the study and the health authority senior management restricted the use of a longer questionnaire – yet this parsimony and the probability of an increased response rate offered by the shortened scales may have outweighed the potential disadvantages outlined here. Another matter concerns the issue of multicollinearity. Some high correlations among predictor variables may have increased the variance of the estimates of the regression coefficients, masking significant results with non-significant effects. Longitudinal designs and the use of structural equation

modelling are encouraged in future research to refine possible relationships and distinguish causal directions. Conclusions and implications The results of this study supported each of the hypothesised relationships, with the exception that trust in managers did not predict OCB conscientiousness nor indicate why. The results also indicated that trust in managers is more than an employee’s general predilection towards trusting others. The strong influence of organisational variables on trust in managers compared to the influence of personality/demographic factors demonstrated that managers can engender trust in their relationships with subordinates in a number of ways. These include practising transformational leadership and ensuring the adoption of practices that are both supportive and fair. Although previous studies have indicated that both transactional and transformational leadership are important (Avolio and Bass, 1988; Egri and Herman, 2000), transformational leadership has been characterised as bringing about change, a prerequisite of contemporary organisational survival. Furthermore, transformational leadership capability can be used in selection and succession planning for new job-holders and trained and developed for existing job holders (Davidson and Griffin, 2002). Building on previous research, this study also demonstrated that where employees had more trust in their managers, this predicated significantly decreased intentions to turnover and greater levels of organisational commitment (Tan and Tan, 2000). In summary, the principle variables used in this study have repeatedly been established as having important consequences for organisational effectiveness. As such, these results reinforce the importance of creating and maintaining trust within manager-subordinate relationships while holding significant implications for both managers and HR professionals. Specifically, these results suggest that organisations should adopt approaches that engender perceived organisational support and procedural justice between the various constituents, policies and procedures of their organisation in addition to focusing attention on relationships at various levels and leadership orientation (Tan and Tan, 2000). As Annison and Wilford (1998, p. 34) point out, “trust does not come with a pay-check, it has to be earned” – it is an ongoing process. The challenge is how to develop trusting relationships within complex, changing and uncertain environments. This paper has contributed some ideas towards that end, future research may disclose additional predictors and outcomes that further assist the promotion of trust in manager-subordinate relationships. References Albrecht, S.L. and Travaglione, A. (2003), “Trust in public sector senior management”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 76-92.

Engendering trust

583

PR 32,5

584

Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behaviour”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 177-98. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, I.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 1-18. Allen, T.D., Freeman, D.M., Russell, J., Reizenstein, R.C. and Rentz, J.O. (2001), “Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: does time ease the pain?”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 145-64. Annison, M.H. and Wilford, D.S. (1998), Trust Matters: New Directions in Health Care Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond”, in Hunt, J.G., Dachler, H.P., Baliga, B.R. and Shcriesheim, C.A. (Eds), Emerging Leadership Vistas, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA. Bennett, H. and Durkin, M. (2000), “The effects of organizational change on employee psychological attachment, an exploratory study”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 126-47. Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Contextual influences on transformational leader behavior’s effectiveness: transformational leader behaviour in a substitutes for leadership framework”, Dissertation Abstracts International, doctoral dissertation, Vol. 56, pp. 3204. Butler, J., Cantrell, R. and Flick, R. (1999), “Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work teams”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 13-28. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-78. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire”, unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Carnevale, D.G. and Wechsler, B. (1992), “Trust in the public sector: individual and organizational determinants”, Administration and Society, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 471-94. Carsten, J.M. and Spector, P.E. (1987), “Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: a meta-analysis test of the ‘Muchinsky Model’”, Journal of Applied Psychology, August, pp. 374-81. Clark, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997), “The nature and structure of workers’ trust in managers”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 205-24. Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), “Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-38. Davidson, P. and Griffin, R.W. (2002), Management: An Australasian Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, Sydney. Davis, T. and Landa, M. (1999), “The trust deficit”, Management Accounting, Vol. 71 No. 10, pp. 12-16.

Egri, C.P. and Herman, S. (2000), “Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, August, pp. 571-604. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 51-9. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-7. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51. Fairholm, G.W. (1994), Leadership and the Culture of Trust, Praeger, Westport, CT. Folger, R. and Greenberg, J. (1985), “Procedural justice: an interpretative analysis of personnel systems”, in Rowland, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141-83. Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 115-30. Freund, C.H. (1995), “The dual impact of leadership behavior and leader-follower and leader-follower tolerance for ambiguity congruence on organizational commitment”, Dissertation Abstracts International, doctoral dissertation, Vol. 56, pp. 3489. Gillespie, N. and Mann, L. (2000), “The building blocks of trust: the role of transformational leadership and shared values in predicting team members’ trust in their leaders”, paper presented at the 2000 Academy of Management Conference, Toronto. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL. Gurtman, M.B. (1992), “Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 989-1002. Hardy, K. and McGrath, A.L. (1989), “Dealing with cheating in distribution”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 123-9. Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), “Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 19-34. Hosmer, L.T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 379-403. Howell, D.C. (1997), Statistical Methods for Psychology, 4th ed., Duxbury, Belmont, CA. Hulin, C.L., Reznowskil, M. and Hachiya, D. (1985), “Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration”, Psychological Bulletin, July, pp. 223-50. Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J. and Sincich, T. (1993), “Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation of eight structural equation models”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 951-95. Jones, G. and George, J. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 531-46. Jordan, C. and Sevastos, P. (2001), “A contruct validation study of organisational behaviour”, Proceedings of the 4th Australian Industrial Organisational Psychology Conference, pp. 80-90. Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), “Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-84.

Engendering trust

585

PR 32,5

586

Kramer, R. (1996), “Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theories and Research, Sage, London. Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust: emerging questions, enduring questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London. McCauley, D.P.. and Kuhnert, K.W. (1992), “A theoretical review and emprical investigation of employee trust in management”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 265-85. McCune, J. (1998), “That elusive thing called trust”, Management Review, Vol. 87 No. 7, pp. 10-14. Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 123-36. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34. Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mishra, J. and Morrisey, M.A. (1990), “Trust in employee/employer relationships: a survey of West Michigan managers”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 443-86. Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organization citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55. Morehead, A., Steele, M., Alexander, M., Stephen, K. and Duffin, L. (1997), Changes at Work: The 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, Longman Press, Melbourne. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47. Nachmias, D. (1985), “Determinants of trust within the federal bureaucracy”, in Rosenbloom, D.H. (Ed.), Public Personnel Policy: The Politics of Civil Service, Associated Faculty Press, Port Washington, NY, pp. 133-43. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 157-64. Pidgeon, N. (1996), “Grounded theory: theoretical background”, in Richardson, J.T.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences, British Psychological Society, Leicester, pp. 86-101. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviours”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-98. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J. and Bachrach, D. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theroetical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63.

Schnake, M. and Dumler, M.P. (2000), “Predictors of propensity to turnover in the construction industry”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 86, pp. 1000-2. Shaw, R.B. (1997), Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity and Concern, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Shore, L.M. and Wayne, S.J. (1993), “Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 774-80. Simon, L.S. (1995), “Trust in leadership: its dimensions and mediating role”, Dissertation Abstracts International, doctoral dissertation, Vol. 56, p. 0556. Sorrentino, R.M., Holmes, J.G., Hanna, S.E. and Sharp, A. (1995), “Uncertainty orientation and trust in close relationships: individual differences in cognitive styles”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 314-27. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory Procedures and Technique, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Sue, L. (1995), “Trust in leadership: its dimensions and mediating role”, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1997), “Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 83-98. Tan, H. and Tan, C.S. (2000), “Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 241-60. Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 259-93. Travaglione, A. (1998), “The determinants and outcomes of organizational commitment”, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “What’s loyalty? perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 82-111. Whitener, E., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.E. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-31. Whitener, E.M. (2001), “Do high commitment human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-35. Whittington, J.I. (1998), “An integrative model of transformational leadership and follower behavior”, Dissertation Abstracts International, (doctoral dissertation), Vol. 58, pp. 3216. Zeffane, R. and Connell, J. (2003), “Trust and HRM in the new millennium”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 1-9. Further reading Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82. Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996), “Trust in organizational authorities: the influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Engendering trust

587

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

PR 32,5

588

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Commitment, trust and work behaviour The case of contingent workers Dick de Gilder Faculty of Social Sciences, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Keywords Trust, Job commitment, Justice, Employee behaviour, Contingent workers Abstract In this study differences in trust, commitment and justice perceptions were investigated between contingent and core employees in two hotels, as well as their effects on work behaviour. Contingent workers showed lower commitment to the team and to the organisation, and displayed less favourable work-related behaviours than core employees. Commitment to the team mediated between job status (contingent vs. core employees) and five work-related behaviours. Furthermore, depending on job status, trust and commitment were differentially related to work-related behaviours. The implications of these results are discussed.

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 588-604 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488351

Introduction In today’s organisations, a considerable part of the work force consists of contingent workers, people who are willing to perform a job for an employer on the basis of a contract of limited duration. People who have colleagues for a short while, maybe a week, maybe a month, maybe six months or more. Whatever the duration of the contract is, contingent workers know that the relationship with their employer and with their colleagues, in principle, will end at a time they usually know when they start their job. This type of relationship is generally considered as transactional in nature (McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994). People do a task for a limited time, get paid for it and leave the organisation. It is exchange-based, very much like Taylor’s (1911) ideas about the “economic man”. However, in the second half of the twentieth century people in most developed economies had become used to a stronger relationship between them and the organisation they were working for. People were typically working full-time, holding permanent and often life-time jobs: they had become “organisation men” (Whyte, 1960). Despite the significant increase in contingent work (see e.g. Hartley, 1995; McLean Parks et al., 1998), there has been relatively little theoretical and empirical work set to understand the consequences of the changes in the organisations’ work force on job attitudes and work behaviour (Van Dyne and Ang, 1998). The purpose of the present research is to deepen the current knowledge on these issues, by comparing attitudes and behaviours of core employees and contingent workers who perform comparable jobs. A further aim is to investigate to what degree job attitudes play a role in the emergence of

job behaviours; that is, whether or not job attitudes mediate between job status and job behaviours. Evaluating the contract: justice and trust Although there are different views on the consequences of changing employment relations, contingent work is often positively evaluated by employers. Taking an economic perspective, in general, an organisation’s ability to adjust the work force to immediate needs, results in significantly lower labour costs in comparison to organisations that tend to offer permanent jobs for every level in the organisation (Pfeffer and Baron, 1988). In economic downturns, people with a temporary contract can be laid off without having to be paid premiums to laid off personnel and without the risk of strikes or other types of protests. In times of economic recovery, organisations that are uncertain about the strength of the recovery may be hesitant to employ people on a permanent basis, whereas others can adapt to the situation by hiring temporary employees until it is clear that expansion is permanent. Thus, employers who adopt contingent work into their human resource strategy may have a competitive advantage to those who do not (Lepak and Snell, 1999). With regard to the consequences of contingent work for workers, the literature is much more diverse. Some researchers are outrightly negative about contingent work, suggesting it has grave consequences for contingent workers at the lower end of the job market, who have low job security and few chances for advancement (Kalleberg et al., 2000; McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994; Rogers, 1995). They generally argue that workers, in exchange to the poor treatment by the employers, are likely to have unfavourable job attitudes and to perform poorly in comparison to workers with a permanent contract. Other researchers contend that contingent employees are valuable resources to the organisation that may contribute to innovation and higher effectiveness of the organisation (e.g. Lepak and Snell, 1999). Looking at the empirical evidence on the effects of job status on job attitudes and performance on the job, the only conclusion one may draw is that the results are inconclusive. In some studies contingent workers show less favourable attitudes and poorer job performance than core employees (e.g. Van Dyne and Ang, 1998), whereas no effects of job status were found in others (e.g. Pearce, 1993). The seemingly contradictory results of studies on the effects of job status reveal some problems in the literature. First, the concept of job status is much more complex than might be expected on the face of it. Contingent workers may differ from core employees in many other ways than in job status alone. Often it is difficult to compare employees with a different job status, because the tasks being performed by both groups have a different content. Frequently, certain types of jobs, predominantly jobs requiring few skills and with relatively unfavourable task characteristics, are only performed by contingent workers and not by core employees (McLean Parks et al., 1998). Sometimes

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 589

PR 32,5

590

both groups of employees carry the same job title (e.g. nurses), but still contingent workers may be given fewer responsibilities. Given the wide body of research indicating that task characteristics have a strong influence on job attitudes and job behaviour (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), differences in job content between employees who differ in job status may by itself explain differences in outcome variables. This shows the necessity of studying samples in which comparisons between groups with different job status do not suffer from these flaws, something that will be done in the study presented here. Perhaps as a consequence of this problem, there is little agreement on the process that describes the way in which job status affects job behaviours. However, there are some attempts to identify crucial variables that might intervene between job status and job behaviours. At a general level, apparently all contributions on contingent work emphasise the difference in the relationship between the employer and the various categories of employees. It is generally argued that it is much more difficult for contingent workers to establish a relationship with the employer and (temporary) colleagues than it is for core employees (e.g. Beard and Edwards, 1995). An interesting line of work has been initiated by some authors (McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994; Guest, 1998) who incorporate a social justice perspective in the explanation of differences in job attitudes and job behaviours. In doing so, McLean Parks and Kidder (1994) use the well-known distinction between distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice is “the perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations that an individual receives” (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998, p. xxi). Procedural justice “refers to fairness issues concerning the methods, mechanisms, and processes used to determine outcomes” (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998, p.26). As stated above, there is general agreement that the outcomes of contingent workers are usually worse than those of core employees. Accordingly, the following hypothesis can be proposed: H1. Contingent workers’ justice perceptions will be unfavourable compared with those of core employees. McLean Parks et al. (1998) argue that procedural justice is more likely to be relevant to people who have a long-term relationship than to people who know the relationship will be short-lived and has a predominantly transactional character. They assume that, for contingent workers, it is difficult to build a relationship with the employer, since the contract essentially is of limited duration. They argue that contingent workers tend to focus on distributive justice when they decide how they will behave at work. If they evaluate the distribution of outcomes as just, they will show constructive behaviour towards the organisation. If the outcome is negative, they might display various levels of destructive behaviour, ranging from negligence and shirking to even inflicting overt damage to the organisation. For core employees,

distributive justice is not irrelevant, but they have procedural justice considerations as well. As they do have a relationship with the organisation, they might have more elaborate ideas about the organisation’s policies and will consider them more when preparing their behavioural response. Although there are, as yet, no data supporting these ideas, it seems to be worthwhile to explore whether the process leading from job status to behaviour, may be different for contingent and core employees. This exploration will take place in the study presented here. Although justice research might give an interesting angle to study effects of job status, a relatively recent line of theory and research emphasises the role of trust in organisations (for an overview, see Kramer and Tyler, 1996). As with regard to justice, the relationship between employees and management is also highly relevant for the development of trust in organisations. Although there are several definitions of trust, an adequate definition is “a state involving confident expectations about another’s motives with respect to oneself in situations entailing risk” (Boon and Holmes, 1991, p. 194). Given that trust is associated both with justice considerations and with job attitudes and job behaviour (e.g. Guest, 1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), it should also be considered as a possible consequence of job status. In this respect, the crucial words in the above definition are “confident expectations”. As in other definitions, trust is seen as a state that can be built by experiences. In an interesting analysis, Lewicki and Benedict Bunker (1996) propose that there may be different stages in the development of trust between individuals who are unfamiliar to each other. They call the first stage calculus-based trust, a stage in which the parties scrutinize each other’s behaviour in order to find out what the other expects. Because at this stage there is little knowledge about the other’s trustworthiness, that is, there are no “confident expectations”, few negative or uninterpretable events need happen to disrupt beginning trust. The second stage is more stable, where knowledge-based trust is involved and where the other’s behaviour can be anticipated. This knowledge-base develops from prolonged interaction between the parties and trust cannot be easily disrupted by minor incidents. The third stage is called “identification-based”, where the interactants identify with each other’s intentions and have developed complete mutual understanding. It can be assumed that it will be more difficult for contingent workers to develop trust towards their employer, as they usually do not have such an extensive knowledge-base as core employees have. Furthermore, there is always some threat they will be dismissed, as contingent workers are usually the first employees to be laid off or replaced. In the framework of Lewicki and Benedict Bunker (1996), one would expect that trust by contingent workers be calculus-based. Accordingly: H2. Contingent workers’ trust towards the employer is low relative to that of core employees.

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 591

PR 32,5

592

Commitment There is a wide body of research on determinants and outcomes of organisational commitment (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Much of the research has been reported on affective commitment, that is, the extent to which people experience a sense of identification and involvement with an organisation (see Allen and Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is related to several behaviours, most notably intention to leave the organisation and intention to search for job alternatives, but also turnover and job performance (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). In the different definitions of affective commitment to the organisation, it is always assumed that the worker has a more or less permanent relationship with the organisation, where the decision to stay in – or leave – the organisation is made by the employee (e.g. Mowday et al., 1979). Again, for contingent workers this is not the case. It may, therefore, be expected that the level of affective commitment will generally be lower for contingent workers than for core employees. Consequently, it can also be expected that contingent workers show relatively less constructive behaviour (e.g. job performance) and more destructive behaviour (e.g. turnover). It has been argued (Ellemers et al., 1998; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990) that focused commitment measures might be better predictors of specific behaviours than broad measures. In the studies by Ellemers et al. (1998), affective commitment to the team people are working in (a focused measure, directed at a subgroup within the larger organisation), was a better predictor of job performance than was organisational commitment (a broad measure); whereas organisational commitment was a better predictor of turnover intention and job search behaviour. For this reason, both types of commitment were included in this research. Besides affective commitments, continuance commitment was measured in this study. Continuance commitment refers to the costs associated with leaving the organisation. People who think high costs are involved (finding another job, moving to another city) are less likely to leave the organisation. Given that contingent workers know their position is temporary, they are more likely to be aware of the need to search for job alternatives, which implies they are likely to have lower continuance commitment. Although the affective commitment variables generally show the highest correlations with behavioural outcomes (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), each of the three commitments may be related to behaviour, and therefore they all are included in this study. H3. Contingent workers’ affective commitment to the organisation, affective commitment to their team and continuance commitment is lower in comparison to core employees.

Job behaviour In the research on commitment, justice and trust, as well as in literature on contingent work, several behavioural responses are highlighted as possible outcome variables. A general type of behaviour that is frequently associated with the effects of the relationship between employee and employer is organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). OCB can be defined as behaviour that is constructive, but that is not part of the formal job description of the employee (Organ, 1988). For instance, helping a colleague, volunteering to do extra chores or showing enthusiasm. Extensive research has demonstrated the worth of OCB for organisational effectiveness (e.g. Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). Other types of behaviour have a more specific nature. Hirschman (1970) proposed that important behaviours of employees in organisations are “exit”, which refers to turnover intentions, and “voice”, referring to the active and constructive efforts to improve the situation at work. “Loyalty” is a passive but positive behavioural style, such that loyal employees remain positive about the organisation under all circumstances and wait passively until the effects of negative events are extinguished. Later, “neglect” was recognized as a potentially important behaviour (Rusbult et al., 1988), referring to people who silently allow that things get worse in the organisation, for instance by turning up late and by spending little effort. Exit and voice are considered active behaviours, whereas loyalty and neglect are passive behaviours. Voice and loyalty are seen as constructive behaviours, while exit and neglect are destructive behaviours (Rusbult et al., 1988). Since commitment is generally positively related to constructive behaviour and negatively related to destructive behaviour, and given that commitment is expected to be relatively low for contingent workers (H4), the following hypothesis can be framed: H4. Contingent workers show less constructive behaviours (voice, loyalty, OCB) and more destructive behaviours (exit, neglect, labour market activity) than do core employees. Irrespective of the type of contract that employees have, commitment, justice perceptions and trust are all associated with positive outcomes for the organisation. Accordingly: H5. Affective and team commitment, trust and justice perceptions are positively related to constructive behaviours and negatively related to destructive behaviours. As stated above, there is no strong theory describing the process leading from job status to behaviour in organisations, nor are mediating or moderating variables defined. Implicitly, however, theoretical contributions (e.g. McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994) suggest that differences in perceptions of the situation

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 593

PR 32,5

594

and in attitudes towards the organisation are the consequence of differences in job status, whereas job behaviour is seen as the consequence of these perceptions and attitudes. The meta-analysis on commitment has shown that commitment may indeed mediate between characteristics of the work situation and job behaviour (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Still, the final hypothesis is somewhat exploratory: H6. Affective commitment, trust and justice perceptions may mediate the relationship between job status (core employees versus contingent workers) and the six job behaviours. Method Procedure Data for this study were collected from workers at two hotels that were part of an international hotel chain. Their jobs were all service-related in the hotels’ bar, restaurant, reception and catering. Importantly, contingent workers had identical jobs to core employees. Survey data were collected from workers and an evaluation of their OCB by their supervisors. Questionnaires were personally handed over to the workers, in order to make sure the number of questionnaires were evenly distributed among core employees and contingent workers. All surveys were completed during working hours. Respondents were guaranteed that their data would remain confidential. Data were collected from 64 employees, 33 from contingent workers, 31 from core employees. In order to avoid common method variance, data on OCB were not collected using employee surveys. Supervisors were asked to fill out a six-item OCB questionnaire for each of their employees who had returned their employees’ questionnaire. All employees were asked to write down their name on the questionnaire, to be able to relate the questionnaire data to the OCB measurement. Men and women were roughly equally represented among the respondents (55 per cent men, 45 per cent women), which is representative for the organisation. The mean age was 26.9 years for the core employees and 22.4 years for the contingent employees. Many of the contingent workers (26) were engaged in some sort of education, besides working in the hotel. Hourly pay and gratuities were somewhat lower for the contingent workers and core employees had better fringe benefits. Age differences and differences in fringe benefits between core and contingent workers are rather typical (e.g. Nollen and Axel, 1996). Questionnaire Almost all items were of the Likert scale type. Respondents were instructed to indicate their agreement with a series of statements, using five-point scales (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). These statements were presented

in random order. To measure the affective and continuance commitment, items (five and four items, respectively) were taken from the Dutch translation (de Gilder et al., 1997) of the Allen and Meyer (1990) scales. Sample items are “I feel emotionally attached to this organisation” (affective commitment) and “I feel I have too few alternatives at the moment to quit my job”. Items measuring team commitment (seven items) were taken from the scale developed by Ellemers et al. (1998). A sample item is “I try to invest effort into a good atmosphere in my team” (team commitment). Items measuring distributive justice (five items), procedural justice and trust (four items in each scale) were pre-tested by the author and had previously shown satisfactory reliabilities. Sample items are “Given the responsibilities I carry, the pay I receive is fair” (distributive justice); “The way my job performance is evaluated, is fair” (procedural justice); “I know I can trust my employer completely” (trust). Items measuring exit, voice, loyalty and neglect were adapted from the work of Rusbult et al. (1988). Sample items are “I would rather work elsewhere than in this hotel” (exit); “I have ideas about changing the feedback system and I would like to help implementing the changes” (voice); “I intend to say positive things about this organisation, even if others are criticising it” (loyalty); “I might report sick if I don’t feel like working” (neglect). As exit is an intention and actual turnover could not be measured in this case study, a measure of labour market activity was included, which is closer to actual behaviour. The labour market activity scale consists of four dichotomous items, measuring whether or not the respondents, in the past six months: (1) had read personnel ads; (2) had had an internal career interview; (3) had applied for a job outside of the organisation; and (4) had informally received information on career opportunities elsewhere. All scales yielded satisfactory reliabilities, with Cronbach alpha’s ranging from 0.64 to 0.92. Results To test H1-H4, pertaining to the effects of job status on the dependent variables, t-tests were conducted (see Table I). The results are generally in line with our expectations. Clearly, contingent workers show less commitment to different dimensions of the organisation they work in. In line with H1, contingent workers’ team commitment and organisational commitment are substantially lower in comparison to the core employees, and there is a similar, but marginally significant, result for continuance commitment. Trust and procedural justice are equal for the two groups of employees but, surprisingly, contingent workers judge their distributive outcomes as more just

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 595

PR 32,5

596

Table I. T-test results for the effect of job status on the dependent variables

Core employees Contingent workers t-value df p (one-tailed) Team commitment Organisational commitment Continuance commitment Trust Distributive justice Procedural justice Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect Labor market activity OCB (Supervisor rating)

4.07 3.53 2.77 3.19 2.45 2.82 2.92 3.38 3.05 1.67 0.41 3.91 Note: The scale labor market activity runs from 0-3

3.47 2.91 2.50 3.11 2.93 2.86 3.61 3.02 2.67 2.38 0.60 3.49

3.24 3.78 1.25 0.20 2 2.29 2 0.23 2 2.70 2.04 1.91 2 2.94 2 2.07 2.41

61 59 59 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 56

0.01 0.01 0.10 n.s. 0.05 n.s. 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01

than the core employees do, despite (seemingly) objectively less favourable conditions. Thus, H2 and H3 were not supported. With regard to the behavioural measures, the results are clearly in line with H4. The contingent workers show less positive behaviours and more negative behaviours towards the organisation than core employees do. That is, contingent workers display relatively less voice and loyalty, and more exit, labour market activity and neglect. In line with these results, supervisors also evaluated the behaviour of the contingent workers more negatively: in their opinion, contingent workers displayed less OCB than did core employees. Correlational analyses As can be observed in Table II, there are a number of significant correlations among the attitudinal variables and the behavioural measures, which are generally in line with H5. Particularly team commitment is strongly correlated to all behavioural measures except labour market activity. Interestingly, team commitment is generally more strongly correlated to the behavioural measures than is organisational commitment, which is in line with results reported in Ellemers et al. (1998). Employees who are highly committed, show less destructive behaviours (exit and neglect) and more constructive behaviours (voice, loyalty, OCB). Employees’ trust also is an important determinant of their behaviour. Employees who trust in the organisation’s policies show less exit and neglect, and more OCB, voice and loyalty. The correlations between the justice variables and the behaviours are relatively weak. The only significant correlations are between distributive justice and labour market activity, and between procedural justice and exit, although the correlation with OCB approaches significance.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. Team commitment (0.87) 2. Organisational commitment 0.53 (0.76) 3. Continuance commitment 0.23 0.40 (0.68) 4. Trust 0.35 0.33 0.26 (0.82) 5. Distributive justice 20.10 20.16 0.18 0.41 (0.88) 6. Procedural justice 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.58 0.42 (0.64) 7. Exit 20.63 20.44 20.22 20.56 2 0.05 2 0.26 (0.80) 8. Voice 0.32 0.25 0.28 20.16 2 0.20 2 0.19 2 0.09 (0.77) 9. Loyalty 0.63 0.41 0.44 0.50 0.12 0.21 2 0.72 0.16 10. Neglect 20.65 20.29 20.12 20.35 2 0.02 2 0.04 0.54 0.00 11. Labour market activity 20.19 20.12 20.35 20.17 2 0.35 2 0.14 0.37 0.01 12. OCB 0.37 0.35 0.24 0.27 2 0.13 0.22 2 0.42 0.07 Notes: Correlations higher than r ¼ 0.25 are significant at the p , 0.05 level (two-sided) Reliabilities (alpha coefficients) are reported in parentheses along the diagonal

1

(0.67) 2 0.45 2 0.36 0.34

9

12

(0.68) 2 0.24 (0.86)

11

(0.89) 0.28 2 0.47

10

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 597

Table II. Correlations among the dependent variables

PR 32,5

598

For exploratory purposes, we also investigated the role of continuance commitment. It appears that employees who have high continuance commitment, who associate high costs with leaving the organisation, display high OCB ( p , 0.06), voice and loyalty, and less labour market activity. We also investigated whether the correlations among our measures differed for core employees versus contingent workers, as the work of McLean Parks and Kidder (1994) suggest that the psychological processes underlying work-related behaviour may depend on job status. McLean Parks and Kidder (1994) suggested that contingent workers would base their attitudes and behaviour on their evaluation of distributive justice, whereas core employees would focus on procedural justice. However, in this study there was no support for this hypothesis, although core employees’ procedural justice was correlated somewhat higher with OCB (r ¼ 0.36) than contingent workers’ OCB (r ¼ 0.09). Most of the other comparisons between correlations of the total group and the two subgroups yielded no differences, except for voice and OCB. “Voice” by the core employees is not significantly correlated to the attitudinal measures (correlations vary between r ¼ 2 0.27 and r ¼ 0.16), whereas voice by the contingent workers is highly dependent on organisational commitment (r ¼ 0.70), but also on team commitment (r ¼ 0.46), and continuance commitment (r ¼ 0.38). OCB by core employees is strongly and positively related to trust (r ¼ 0.42) and continuance commitment (r ¼ 0.39) and is not related to team commitment (r ¼ 0.05). OCB by the contingent workers, on the other hand, largely depends on team commitment (r ¼ 0.52) and not on trust (r ¼ 0.07). These results suggests that the emergence and development of employees’ behaviour in organisations is indeed different for core employees and contingent workers, although the results are not in line with the hypotheses of McLean Parks and Kidder (1994).

Regression analyses and mediational analyses We performed regression analyses to test H6, in order to find out to what degree the employees’ behaviours could be predicted from job status and the attitudinal measures. Moreover, we wanted to establish whether the attitudinal measures play a mediating role in the relationship between job status and job-related behaviours. As suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation would in this case occur when: (1) job status is related to the mediator and the behaviour; (2) the mediator is related to the behaviour; and (3) the relationship between job status and the behaviour is reduced to non-significance when the variance of the mediator is partialled out.

Table I reveals that job status is related to all measured behaviours as well as to team commitment and organisational commitment. However, except for labour market activity, only team commitment satisfies precondition (2) and, to a lesser extent, organisational commitment (see Table II). I therefore performed mediational analyses to test whether team commitment mediates between job status and job-related behaviours. I performed regression analyses in two steps. In the first step only the effect of job status on the particular behaviour was included. In the second step, also team commitment was entered in the analysis. The results of these analyses are depicted in Table III. The results show, very convincingly, that team commitment mediates every effect of job status on the behavioural measures. The initially significant effects of job status on the job-related behaviours disappear when team commitment is included in the regression analysis.

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 599

Discussion The results of this study show that job status may influence attitudinal and behavioural responses towards the organisation. Thus, people who perform the same jobs, but who have different contracts with their organisation, may differ in their attitudes and behaviour. In this study, contingent workers showed relatively low affective commitment to the team and to the organisation. Moreover, they displayed less constructive, and more destructive behaviour towards the organisation, in comparison to employees hired on a permanent basis. Contrary to the hypotheses, distributive justice was higher for contingent workers than for core employees. Procedural justice and trust did not depend on job status. Furthermore, the results disclosed that team commitment and trust had special roles in their correlations with behavioural measures. First of all, both team commitment and trust correlated relatively strongly with most of the behavioural measures. Second, team commitment mediated the effect of job status (type of contract) on the behavioural measures. The hypothesis derived

Predictor variable

Exit bstep bstep 1 2

Voice bstep bstep 1 2

Loyalty Neglect bstep bstep bstep bstep 1 2 1 2

OCB bstep bstep 1 2

Step 1 Job status 0.33* 0.10 20.25* 20.15 20.24* 0.00 0.35* 0.12 20.31* 2 0.19 Step 2 Team commitment 20.59* 0.27* 0.63* 2 0.61* 0.29* Overall F for equation 20.2* 4.3* 19.6* 23.6* 5.4 0.38 0.10 0.37 0.42 0.13 Adjusted R 2

Note: p , 0.05

Table III. Mediational analysis

PR 32,5

600

from McLean Parks and Kidder (1994), that distributive justice perceptions guide behaviour by contingent workers and procedural justice determines behaviour by core employees, was not supported. However, the relationships among trust and team commitment on the one hand and some behavioural outcomes on the other hand, did depend on job status. Trust was relevant for the prediction of OCB for core employees but not for contingent workers, whereas team commitment was the strongest predictor of OCB for contingent workers, whilst there was no significant relation between team commitment and OCB for core employees. In an attempt to explain these findings, we again refer to the differences in the relationship with the organisation between core employees and contingent workers. It may be that contingent workers considered the employer as trustworthy and high on distributive and procedural justice, but one may wonder how relevant these judgements were for the contingent workers. As they appeared to have a much weaker relationship with the organisation than the core employees had, their judgements on the organisation’s policies may be more detached. If contingent workers take such a detached, or maybe a calculative stance, they might argue that they do not profit from the employer’s just and trustworthy behaviour as much as core employees do, at least not in the long run. It is not a reason to go the extra mile by increasing OCB. Not towards the organisation as a whole, that is. What are relevant for the contingent workers, are the people they cooperate with on a daily basis, namely their team. The additional correlational analyses indicated that, for contingent workers, team commitment is a reason for displaying OCB. Their colleagues are people they might relate to, or even identify with. They work with them on a daily basis, but they might have few contacts with their employer. Although OCB is positive behaviour that contributes to organisational effectiveness, the primary goal of the contingent worker might not necessarily be to help the organisation. In other words, their OCB might not be directed at helping their organisation but at helping their colleagues. In relating to their colleagues, they are likely to see a direct effect of their helping behaviour by getting respect and amicability. This is something contingent workers do profit from, if only by creating a satisfying work environment. Despite the positive correlation between team commitment and OCB, it should not be forgotten that the attitudes and behaviours of contingent workers were often less favourable than those of core employees. As contingent workers showed more neglect and exit and less OCB, this might harm the effectiveness of the organisation. When there is a high turnover of contingent workers, new contingent workers have to be hired and have to be settled into the job, which may be very costly to the organisation (Cascio, 1991). In this specific organisation, the level of service is very important to the customers. It could be argued that the customers might be less likely to get a high level of service from contingent workers than from core employees. However, also in other

organisations, neglect and lack of OCB are generally considered to be detrimental for the organisation. One of the results was somewhat surprising, as contingent workers were evaluating distributive justice as higher than the core employees did. However, objectively, their outcomes, both financial – and the fringe benefits, were lower than the outcomes of core employees. One explanation for this result might be that the contingent workers knew they were well off in comparison to fellow contingent workers in many other organisations. Feldman (1990) argues that temporary employees might not feel entitled to the same pay as core employees get, and that they might take temporary workers in other organisations as their frame of reference. In any case, it could be argued that the highly positive evaluation of distributive justice by contingent workers in this study, actually underlines that good pay (high outcomes) cannot compensate for the lack of relationship between the contingent workers and the organisation. Even if there is distributive justice or even relatively favourable pay, it still might not evoke the behaviour wanted by the organisation. In general, the results suggest that the evaluation of justice and trust may not differ for employees with a different contract, but the psychological meaning of justice and trust in the organisation and its behavioural consequences, may differ very much (see McLean Parks and Kidder, 1994). In sum, clear differences were found between contingent and core workers, and the results suggest that the perceptions of the work situation and attitudes towards the team and organisation may influence the behaviour of core and contingent workers differently. However, it should be noted that the context of the study as well as the choices that were made with regard to the operationalisations, are likely to affect the generalisability of the results. As stated in the Introduction, the conceptual meaning of contingent work is far from evident, as the type of contract offered by the employer may vary widely and because the contingent workers themselves may differ from each other in many respects (e.g. McLean Parks et al., 1998). For instance, the time-frame of the contract may be short term or long term, definite or indefinite. As most approaches to contingent work emphasize the potential difficulty of establishing a relationship between contingent worker and employer, it could be argued that this relationship may be developed more strongly as the contract is more long-term and indefinite. There is some empirical evidence that contingent workers who would prefer a permanent job over temporary work may have lower job satisfaction and job performance (Ellingson et al., 1998). Furthermore, contingent workers who would prefer temporary work may be more highly skilled (Marler et al., 2002). Although voluntariness was not measured in this study, it is likely that the contingent workers in our study did not have the objective of staying indefinitely in the organisation, since many of them were attending some kind of education. Thus, despite the fact

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 601

PR 32,5

602

that contingent and core employees were comparable with regard to the tasks they performed, which is a significant advantage of this study, the results might have been different when the group of contingent workers would have consisted of people preferring a permanent position within the organisation. For instance, Marler et al. (2002) found that contingent workers who preferred a permanent contract with their (temporary) employer, displayed higher OCB and performed better in comparison to the contingent workers who preferred a temporary contract, perhaps in the hope to attain such a permanent position. Van Dyne and Ang (1998) found that the percentage of contingent workers was positively related to OCB. As the study presented here is a case study in two organisations, this was not a variable that could be included in the analysis. However, it may be a relevant consideration for organisations in their management decisions on employing contingent workers. One can only speculate about the consequences of the choices made with regard operationalisation in this study. However, with regard to trust, and perhaps even with regard to justice, it could be argued that making the measures more specific, or focused, might increase their explanatory power. As with team commitment and organisational commitment, the focus of trust (or justice) may be on the employer, but also on the supervisor (see Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), or the colleagues. This could mean that the role of trust and justice may be more important than has been demonstrated in the present study. This study has contributed to a growing amount of research on the effects of different contracts of employees in organisations and changing employment relations. Despite the contribution the study has made, the discussion demonstrates that there is still a lot of speculation about the precise meaning of the results and the relative importance of some of the key processes underlying the effects of job status on behaviour. It all leads to the inevitable conclusion that this research field will remain an intriguing one in the coming years.

References Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1-18. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82. Beard, K.M. and Edwards, J.R. (1995), “Employees at risk: contingent work and the psychological experience of contingent workers”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 109-20. Boon, S.D. and Holmes, J.G. (1991), “The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk”, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (Eds), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cascio, W.F. (1991), Costing Human Resources, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.

de Gilder, D., van den Heuvel, H. and Ellemers, N. (1997), “Het 3-componenten model van commitment” (“A three component model of organizational commitment”), Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 10, pp. 95-106. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings an implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 611-28. Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D, and van den Heuvel, H. (1998), “Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work”, Journal of Applied Pyschology, Vol. 83, pp. 717-30. Ellingson, J.E., Gruys, M.L. and Sackett, P.R. (1998), “Factors related to the satisfaction and performance of temporary employees”, Journal of Applied Pyschology, Vol. 83, pp. 913-21. Feldman, D.C. (1990), “Reconceptualizing the nature and consequences of part-time work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 103-12. Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Guest, D.E. (1998), “Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 649-64. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison Wesley, London. Hartley, J. (1995), “Challenge and change in employment relations: issues for psychology, trade unions, and managers”, in Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J. (Eds), Changing Employment Relations, APA, Washington, DC, pp. 3-30. Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Kalleberg, A.L., Reskin, B.F. and Hudson, K. (2000), “Bad jobs in America: standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, pp. 256-78. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds) (1996), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lepak, D. and Snell, S. (1999), “The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 31-48. Lewicki, R.J. and Benedict Bunker, B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114-39. McLean Parks, J. and Kidder, D.L. (1994), “Till death us do part . . . changing work relationships in the 1990s”, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 111-33. McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D.L. and Gallagher, P.W. (1998), “Fitting square pegs into round holes: mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 697-730. Marler, J.H., Woodard Barringer, M. and Milkovich, G.T. (2002), “Boundaryless and traditional contingent employees: worlds apart”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 425-53. Mathieu, J.P. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 171-94. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47. Nollen, S. and Axel, H. (1996), Managing Contingent Workers, American Management, New York, NY.

Commitment, trust and work behaviour 603

PR 32,5

604

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Pearce, J.L. (1993), “Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: their psychological involvement and effects on employee co-workers”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1082-96. Pfeffer, J. and Baron, J.N. (1988), “Taking the workers back out: recent trends in the structuring of employment”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 257-303. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Impact of organizational citizenship behaviour on organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 133-51. Rogers, J.K. (1995), “Just a temp: experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical employment”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 22, pp. 137-66. Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G. and Mainous, A.G. III (1988), “Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 599-627. Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper, New York, NY. Van Dyne, L. and Ang, S. (1998), “Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 692-703. Whyte, W. (1960), The Organization Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Work team trust and effectiveness Ana Cristina Costa Section of Work and Organisational Psychology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Work team trust and effectiveness

605

Keywords Trust, Behaviour, Performance management, Team working, The Netherlands Abstract This article aims to explore the nature and functioning of trust in work teams. Trust is defined as a multi-component variable with distinct but related dimensions. These include propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness, co-operative and lack of monitoring behaviours. A model was tested relating trust with perceived task performance, team satisfaction, and two dimensions of organisational commitment, i.e. attitudinal and continuance. Survey data from 112 teams(n ¼ 395) was collected in three social care institutions in The Netherlands. The results are supportive of a multi-component structure for trust and of its importance to the functioning of teams and organisations. Work team trust appeared strongly related with team member’s attitudes towards the organisation. Trust between team members was positively associated with attitudinal commitment and negatively with continuance commitment. Trust was also positively related with perceived task performance and with team satisfaction. In addition, perceived task performance appeared strongly related to team satisfaction.

Introduction Scholars have long been interested in the study of trust in organisations (e.g. Gambetta, 1988, Coleman, 1990). During the past few years this interest has turned into a major focus of organisational literature and research, leading to a renewed emphasis on the nature, causes and consequences of trust (Hosmer, 1995, Kramer, 1999; Shaw, 1997, Rousseau et al., 1998). This resurgence of interest is partly explained by the changes in the way of thinking and functioning of organisations during the last two decades of the millennium. As organisations have become flatter and more team centred, traditional management forms have given way to more collaborative approaches that emphasise co-ordination, sharing of responsibilities and the participation of the workers in the decision processes (Keen, 1990). New emphasis is given on interpersonal and group dynamics at the workplace, where trust is seen as one of the critical elements. If trust is absent, no one will risk moving first and all members will sacrifice the gains from collaboration and co-operation in increasing effectiveness (Sabel, 1993). Although scholars agree on the importance of trust in sustaining effectiveness, research on this topic has been highly affected by the lack of agreement in defining this concept. One problem of studying trust is the vast applicability of the term “trust” to different contexts and levels of analysis. Within the organisational literature, trust has been studied with regard to interpersonal work relationships, teams, organisations, governance structures or even societies as a whole. As result, an enormous variety of approaches and

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 605-622 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488360

PR 32,5

606

definitions have emerged across disciplines, appearing sometimes largely disconnected and ignoring each other’s contributions, or criticised each other’s research methods and accomplishments very severely. Recognising that trust reflects a multitude of roles, functions and levels of analysis has been a turning point for theory and research on this topic. Instead of accentuating the differences between conceptualisations, researchers have started to concentrate on the common elements across perspectives in order to provide coherent knowledge with regard to trust and its role in the functioning of organisations (e.g. Hosmer, 1995; Kramer, 1999; Rousseau et al., 1998). Nevertheless, given its wide domain of research, clear boundaries for the trust concept are necessary in order to understand what is meant by trust and how to define it. In this article, we address trust at the work team level that refers to the extent to which team members trust each within a work team. Similar to other studies that focus on work team processes (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Anderson and West, 1996, 1998) we view work teams as performing organisational units. This means that work teams are real organisational groups, that have some goal or attainable outcome which team members contribute to and are responsible for, and where there is sufficient task interdependence such that individuals need to develop share understandings and expected patterns of behaviour. We adopt a multidisciplinary perspective on trust by developing and testing a model based on presuppositions from different literatures including sociology (e.g. Barber, 1983; Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Luhmann, 1979), economics (e.g. Cummings and Bromiley, 1996) and the psychological work on interpersonal and team relationships (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998; Zand, 1972). The present research aims to contribute to the understanding of the nature and functioning of trust at team level by describing trust as a multi-component variable and identifying the factors that operate combined when trust is taking place, and examining the implications of trust for the effectiveness of the team. The concept of trust To date no definition of trust has been universally accepted. Despite the differences of opinion, several issues seem common across definitions. As Rousseau et al. (1998) note from micro psychological theories (e.g. McAllister, 1995; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Zand, 1972) to social/economics approaches (e.g. Barber, 1983; Cummings and Bromiley, 1996) positive expectations towards the behaviour of others and the willingness to become vulnerable to others are critical elements to define trust. In most definitions, trust appears related to individual attributions about other people’s intentions and motives underlying their behaviour (Smith and Barclay, 1997). For example, for Lewicki and Bunker (1996) trust involves “positive expectations about others”. These attributions influence and are influenced by general beliefs and expectations of individuals about the

treatment they will receive from others (Mayer et al., 1995). In turn, these are Work team trust closely linked to the engagement, or the willingness to engage cooperative and effectiveness behaviours when interacting with others (e.g. Gambetta, 1988; Deutsch, 1962; Kramer et al., 1996). “The willingness to be vulnerable” from Mayer et al. (1995) is one of the most cited definitions of trust and has played a central role in many 607 conceptualisations. For instance, McKnight et al. (1998) refer to trust as the belief and the willingness to depend on another party. Jones and George (1998) associate the willingness to become vulnerable to a set of behavioural expectations that allows individuals to manage the uncertainty or risk associated with their actions. Risk appears central in many definitions of trust and consists of the perceived probability of loss as perceived by the trusting person(s) (Mayer et al., 1995). For Luhmann (1979) risk is a prerequisite in the choice to trust. If actions could be undertaken with complete certainty trust would not be needed (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Underlying the “decision to trust” is also the individual willingness to become vulnerable (Zand, 1972), and the expectation or belief that others will act in a way that is beneficial or at least not detrimental for the relationship (Gambetta, 1988). Trust is also contingent to a certain situation and tends to be based not only on personal information, but also on non-personal (situational) information. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) argue that trust involves not only expectations about other peoples’ motives and intentions, but also considerations about the situation and the risks associated with acting on such expectations. According to Rousseau et al. (1998) risk creates the opportunity for trust, which then leads to risk taking. Risk taking sustains the sense of trust given that the expected behaviour materialises (Boon and Holmes, 1991) and presupposes an action towards those whom we are trusting. In Gambetta’s (1988) definition of trust risk taking involves “engaging in some form of cooperation” with the other part. For Smith and Barclay (1997) besides “acting in a spirit of cooperation” trust also involves refraining from controlling or monitoring others. Throughout research a variety of behaviours has appeared indicative of trust including open communication (Currall and Judge, 1995; Smith and Barclay, 1997), acceptance of influence (Blau, 1964; Smith and Barclay, 1997), forbearance from opportunism, (Smith and Barclay, 1997), and lack of monitoring (Currall and Judge, 1995; Smith and Barclay, 1997). In contexts of ongoing relationships such as work teams these behaviours might occur simultaneously, one type of behaviour may lead to another one, or even in some situations some behaviours may be less present than those of others. The relative importance of each form of behaviour depends on the nature and context of the work relationship (Smith and Barclay, 1997). Since trust involves granting latitude to others over actions that will have an impact on ourselves, decisions to confer trust do probably involve assessments of the accompanying risks and alternatives available to avoid such risks (Morris and Moberg, 1994).

PR 32,5

608

In discussing how expectations underlying trust affect subsequent behaviour, several scholars have alluded to the fact that trust is a multidimensional construct. From a sociological point of view, Barber (1983) argues that trust involves moral, emotional and cognitive bases. Lewis and Weigert (1985) explain trust as highly complex phenomenon with distinct cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions. Within economics, Cummings and Bromiley (1996) use the same dimensions to define trust between individuals or groups in more work-related contexts. More focused on dyadic work relationships, psychologists such as McAllister (1995) distinguish between contents of cognition-based and affect-based trust and the specific factors that influence the development of each form. Mayer et al. (1995) propose further that cognitive and affective dimensions of trust influence and are influenced by a general propensity to trust others, which develops from general beliefs about the treatment individuals expect to receive from others. In line with several of these multi-dimensional conceptualisations of trust, we propose that trust is not only a psychological state based on expectations and on perceived motives and intentions of others, but also a manifestation of behaviour towards these others (see Costa, 2000; Costa et al., 2001). Consistent with Mayer et al.’s (1995) integrated model of trust, we distinguish between: propensity to trust, or the general willingness to trust others (Rotter, 1980) grounded in the individual’s personality, life experiences, cultural background, education and several other socio-economic factor; perceived trustworthiness, referring to the expectations and considerations about other people’s motives and intentions underlying their actions; and trust behaviours (in Mayer et al., referred to as risk taking) which refer to the actions that reflect the willingness to be vulnerable to others whose actions one does not control. Mayer et al. (1995) propose a sequential model with these distinctive components of trust. However, in reality these components constitute interpenetrating and mutually supporting aspects of the one unitary experience that we call trust (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Earlier work shows that individuals who trust their team colleagues have high propensity to trust others, strongly perceive other team members as being trustworthy, often engage co-operative behaviours and do not monitor the work of their colleagues (Costa et al., 2001). Contrary to some other definitions (e.g. Rousseau et al., 1998), we view co-operative behaviour and lack of monitoring as components of trust and not as an effect of trust itself (see Figure 1). We argue that these behaviours are an important component of trust because they enable individuals to act on their own judgements (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Moreover, it is through the observation and interpretation of such behaviours that individuals learn about each other’s motives and intentions, and are able to make inferences of trustworthiness (Zand, 1972). Therefore, we consider co-operative behaviours and lack of monitoring to be components of trust together with propensity to trust and perceived trustworthiness.

Work team trust and effectiveness

609 Figure 1. Conceptual model

Trust and effectiveness Effectiveness is a notion often used to express multiple individual and team outcomes. With regard to teams, Hackman (1987) argues that effectiveness should measure the output of the team, the state of the group as a performing unit, and the impact of the group experience on individual members. Researchers usually assess effectiveness by measuring dimensions of performance and members’ attitudes towards the team or the organisation (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). In this study, effectiveness is assessed in terms of perceived task performance, team satisfaction and commitment to the organisation. Apart from the general assumption that trust is an important lubricant of the social system and a facilitator of co-ordinated action among individuals, several important benefits for teams and organisations have been associated with trust. The relation between trust and performance has been explored at both individual and group levels (see Dirks and Ferrin (2001) for a wider review of these studies), however, somewhat inconsistent findings can be found across studies. In other words, some studies report a main effect between trust and performance while others do not. For instance, McAllister (1995) found a positive relation between the behavioural consequences of trust and the supervisor’s assessment of performance. Smith and Barclay (1997) found also a positive relation between trusting behaviours and perceived trustworthiness with task performance using different rationales. However, in Dirk’s (1999) study the relation between trust and team performance was not significant. One explanation can be related to the fact that in most empirical studies trust has been conceptualised as a psychological state, such as belief or an attitude towards a known individual or group of individuals in opposition to trust as a multidimensional or multi-component construct. The rational behind these approaches rests on the premise that a high level of trust increases the likelihood that one will take a risk (e.g. co-operate or share information) with another partner or group, which in turn is expected to lead to a higher

PR 32,5

610

performance (e.g. Dirks, 1999). In this way, rather than affecting performance directly, trust may moderate the relation between group processes and performance (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). However, by considering trust as a multi-component variable including also behaviours such as co-operative and lack of monitoring some support can be found for the positive main effect of trust on team performance. Although team performance can be evaluated from a management point of view, team members have the best understanding over how well their team performs tasks in relation to their objectives. Moreover, perceived task performance has been found to correlate strongly with more objective measures and relationship continuity (Smith and Barclay, 1997). Therefore, we can expect a positive relation between trust within teams and perceived task performance: H1. Trust between team members will be positively related with perceived task performance. Satisfaction and commitment have been often associated with trust. For instance, Gladstein (1984) found a strong link between intra-group processes (including open communication) and satisfaction. In contexts of buying and selling relationships, Smith and Barclay (1997) reveal that trust behaviours of open communication and forbearance from opportunism lead to mutual satisfaction between partners. In this way, we can expect that trust between team members will have a positive effect on team satisfaction: H2. High levels of trust between team members will be positively related with team satisfaction. While describing the commitment-trust theory, Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that work relationships characterised by trust engender co-operation, reduce conflicts, increase the commitment to the organisation and diminishes the tendency to leave. Mowday et al. (1982)) view commitment to the organisation in terms of attitude and continuance. Attitudinal commitment is seen as a positive attitude towards the organisation, reflecting the extent to which individuals come to identify with the goals and values of the organisation and want to maintain their membership to the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982). Whereas continuance commitment is described as a more calculative attitude towards the organisation, reflecting a membership based on economic reasons, prior investments or lack of alternatives available (Kanter, 1968). Therefore, the relationship between trust and both forms of commitment is expected to be opposite: H3. High levels of trust between team members will be positively related with attitudinal commitment and negatively related with continuance commitment.

Conceptual model Work team trust Our conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1 consists of two parts. The first and effectiveness part addresses the nature of the trust concept. In this model trust is presented as a latent variable, composed of propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness, cooperative behaviours and lack of monitoring behaviours. The second part of the model examines the relation between trust and several team effectiveness 611 variables such as task performance, team satisfaction, attitudinal commitment, and continuance commitment. Method Sample A survey study was conducted in three social care institutions in two different provinces in The Netherlands. Social care institutions are semi-public organisations that function within the framework of the law on social provision of employment. These organisations perform the social function of providing jobs for those who have difficulties in finding one, and at the same time are commercial and market oriented. The three institutions in this study will be mentioned further as Social-Care A, B and C. Initially 144 teams (552 individuals) were asked to participate in this study. A total of 395 individuals provided data via a questionnaire, making possible the identification of 112 teams with a minimum number of three members. The participation rate was 71.5 per cent. The average age was 40.5 (SD ¼ 10.3 years). Of these 395 respondents, 12.5 per cent completed a basic education, 38 per cent completed a low occupational training, 42.4 per cent completed a middle occupational training, 22 per cent completed a high occupational training and 1.5 per cent completed university. The size of the teams ranged from three to six, with an average of 4.25 individuals per team. The sample included 44 teams from Social-Care A, 41 from Social-Care B and 27 from Social-Care C. The average tenure of the teams was respectively 2.6 years (SD ¼ 1.2), 2.5 years (SD ¼ 1.0), and 3.6 years (SD ¼ 5.1). Of these teams, 55 (48 per cent) included only male respondents, eight (7 per cent) included only female respondents and 47 (45 per cent) included respondents from both genders. Measures All variables in our model were measured with validated instruments. The reliability of the scales is satisfactory showing Chronbach alphas . 0.70 (see Table I). The scales consisted of self-report items scaled in a seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ completely disagree to 7 ¼ completely agree). . Trust. This was measured with four scales (Costa, 2000): seven items measuring propensity to trust (e.g. “People usually tell the truth, even when they know they would be better of by lying”); eight items measuring perceived trustworthiness (e.g. “In my team some people have success by stepping on other people” (reversed item); eight items measuring

PR 32,5

612

Table I. Scale characteristics and within-group agreement

Propensity to trust Perceived trustworthiness Cooperative behaviours Monitoring behaviours Perceived task performance Team satisfaction Attitudinal commitment Continuance commitment

No

M

SD

a

F

rwg( j)

6 6 6 3 4 3 4 3

31.11 28.63 33.87 14.51 25.54 17.75 21.69 12.49

7.86 6.89 7.98 3.02 5.61 3.40 3.46 3.77

0.84 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.75 0.85 0.71 0.76

2.13** 2.34** 2.10** 1.97* 2.03** 2.40** 2.13** 2.00**

0.82 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.80 0.79

Notes: * p , 0.05 ** p , 0.01 No is the reliable number of items in each scale, M is mean scale, SD is standard deviation, a is Chronbach alpha, F is ratio ANOVA, rwg( j) is the within-group interrater agreement

.

.

.

cooperative behaviours (e.g. “In my team we provide each other with timely information”); and three items measuring monitoring behaviours (e.g. “In my team people check whether others keep their promises”). Perceived task performance. This was measured with a nine-item-scale “task performance” from the Expanded Delft Measurement Kit from Roe et al. (1997). An example is “I think our team deserves a good evaluation from our supervisor”. Team satisfaction. This was measured with a five-item scale from Smith and Barclay (1997) that assesses the extent to which team members are satisfied with their teamwork. One item of this scale is “We are satisfied with each other’s contributions to our team”. Attitudinal commitment and continuance commitment. These were measured with five-scale item developed by Freese and Schalk (1996). An example of an attitudinal commitment item is “My personal norms and values correspond with what the organisation finds important”, and of continuance commitment item is “I have few changes to leave this organisation.”

Level of analysis The team scores were obtained by aggregating the individual scores on each item within each team. This aggregation was obtained by computation of means in order to permit comparisons across teams without variances in the sample size. The level of agreement within the teams was examined with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and with the within-group interrater agreement index – rwg( j) – of James et al. (1984, 1993). The minimum evidence for differences across teams is provided by an F-ratio . 1.00 (Hays, 1991).

Values of rwg( j) equal to 0.70 or above demonstrate high consistency within Work team trust groups and justify the aggregation within that team. This is the same value and effectiveness provided by Nunnally (1978) as an acceptable level for internal consistency. In this study the results of one-way ANOVA indicate that the between-group variance was significantly greater than the within-group variance in all scales (see Table I). Moreover, all rwg values were above 0.70. The aggregation of 613 scores at team level is therefore justified. Analyses For the test of our hypotheses, we used structural equation modelling (SEM). We took a two-stage approach, assessing first the measurement properties of the constructs without considering the hypothesised relationships, and second, the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In both procedures correlation matrices were used. The adequacy of the models was examined using several indices of fit. The chi-square, with non-significant values showing a good model fit. The ratio x 2/df, with values below 2.0 suggesting a good model fit (Wheaton et al., 1977). The comparative-fit-index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990), the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) and the adjusted-goodness-of-fit-index (AGFI) (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980). These indices indicate a good model fit for values . 0.90. The parsimonious fit was assessed with the parsimoniousgoodness-of-fit-index (PGFI) and the parsimonious-normed-fit-index (PNFI). Values . 0.50 or . 0.60 indicate a good parsimony fit. The analysis of the residuals was made using the root-mean-square-error-of-approximation (RMSEA) and the root-mean-squared-residual (RMR). Values of RMSEA , 0.08 indicate a good fit and , 0.05 a very good fit. For the RMR, in general values . 0.08 indicate a poor fit, between 0.08 and 0.05 suggest a mediocre fit, and , 0.05 indicate a good fit (Byrne, 1998). Results Measurement models Two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were run to examine the structural properties of the trust components and the dependent variables in the study (Table II). For the trust components the measurement model distinguished between propensity to trust (six items) perceived trustworthiness (six items), co-operative behaviours (six items) and monitoring behaviours (three items). Although the four-factor model shows a significant x 2, the CFI indicates a good model fit (CFI ¼ 0.94). Both the GFI and AGFI are moderated, and the parsimonious fit indices PGFI and PNFI indicate a good parsimonious fit. Following Bentler and Bonnet (1980) and Byrne (1998) we ran also several CFAs for concurrent model structures with one, two and three factors. As shown in Table II, the decrease in the number of factors is accompanied by a successive decline in model fitting. The x 2 increases as fewer factors are specified in the models, the goodness of fit indices indicate a decrease in fit, and

PR 32,5

614

Table II. Fit indices for the measurement models

x2

df

p

x 2/df

GFI

AGFI

CFI

PGFI

PNFI

Trust Four factors Three factors Two factors One factor

237.13 300.86 469.56 578.67

180 182 184 185

0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.32 1.65 2.55 3.13

0.83 0.80 0.68 0.60

0.78 0.74 0.60 0.50

0.94 0.88 0.71 0.60

0.65 0.63 0.54 0.48

0.63 0.60 0.52 0.43

Team effectiveness Four factors Three factors Two factors One factor

73.25 128.00 150.62 232.89

48 51 53 54

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.52 2.50 2.84 4.31

0.90 0.84 0.81 0.74

0.84 0.75 0.73 0.63

0.87 0.73 0.67 0.45

0.55 0.54 0.53 0.57

0.56 0.50 0.48 0.34

Models

Notes: Independent model for trust: x 2 ¼ 1,094.12 (df ¼ 210, p ¼ 0.001) Independent model for team effectiveness: x 2 ¼ 405.46 (df ¼ 66, p ¼ 0.00)

the ratio x 2/df increases as the models include fewer factors. Only the models with three and the four factors show and adequate fit according to this ratio, x 2/df ¼ 1.65 and x 2/df ¼ 1.32 respectively. However, only the four-factor model obtained a comparative fit . 0.90. Therefore, we favoured the four-factor model for trust above the other concurrent models. For the dependent variables the measurement model distinguished between perceived task performance (four items), team satisfaction (three items), attitudinal commitment (three items) and continuance commitment (three items). This structure fitted the data reasonably well. Although chi-square is significant the ratio x 2/df is , 2.0. The adequacy of concurrent models with one, two and three factors was also examined (see Table III). The results show a considerable decrease in model fit for these concurrent structures. Not only the x 2 is highly significant and x 2/df . 2.0, but also the other fit indices show an inadequate fit results. Accordingly, we considered the four-factor model to provide an adequate structure for the dependent variables. Hypotheses testing Based on the four-factor structure obtained from the measurement model for the trust components we created a model for trust using four observed variables. These observed variables were obtained by summing the item scores in each factor into a total score. In Table III the results indicate that this model fits the data well: x 2 2.41 (df¼2, p ¼ 0.30), GFI is 0.99 and the AGFI is 0.95. The CFI is 0.99 and the RMSEA and RMR are both , 0.05. In this model, perceived trustworthiness is the strongest component of trust (g ¼ 0.91) and explains 83 per cent of the total variance of trust. Co-operative behaviours explain 57 per cent of the total variance of trust and are the second strongest component of trust (g ¼ 0.75).

0.28 0.35 0.25 0.60 0.17 0.16 0.38 2 0.27

Modified model Perceived task performance Team satisfaction Attitudinal commitment Continuance commitment Trust ! perceived task performance Trust ! team satisfaction Trust ! attitudinal commitment Trust ! continuance commitment Team satisfaction ! perceived task performance 0.50

0.31 0.91 0.75 2 0.25

g

Trust Propensity to trust Perceived trustworthiness Co-operative behaviours Monitoring behaviours Conceptual model

Structural models

0.73 0.65 0.75 0.40

0.88 0.31 0.65 0.95

0.12 0.73 0.45 0.05

Error R 2 0.99

122.27(df ¼ 101, p ¼ 0.07) 0.89 0.84

0.82

0.95

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.32

0.60 0.61

0.04 0.99 0.20

0.10 0.84 0.65 0.08 0.88 0.65

GFI AGFI RMSEA RMR CFI PGFI PNFI

137.47(df ¼ 102; p ¼ 0.01) 0.87

2.41(df¼2; p ¼ 0.30)

x2

Work team trust and effectiveness

615

Table III. Fit indices for the structural models

PR 32,5

616

With g ¼ 0.32, propensity to trust explains 10 per cent of the variance of trust. Monitoring behaviours, as expected, relates negatively with trust (g ¼ 20.25). All these structural relations were statistically significant (t-values . 1.96). The conceptual model was tested with five latent variables; trust, perceived task performance, team satisfaction, attitudinal, and continuance commitment. The results for this model indicate only a marginal fit to the data (see Table II). The x 2 is significant (x 2 ¼ 137.41/df ¼ 102, p ¼ 0.01), the other fit indices show values lower than 0.90, and the residual fit indices indicate values above . 0.05, which is consistent with the poor fit of this model. The modification indices suggested a path from perceived task performance to team satisfaction to improve the fit. In others studies (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Smith and Barclay, 1997) team performance is found to be a strongly related to team satisfaction. The modified model shows a considerable improvement of fit (see Table III). In particular, the x 2 becomes non significant and the residual coefficient RMSEA decreases to 0.04, which indicates a good model fit. The other indices show also improvement and GFI reaches 0.89, showing almost an adequate fit. Based on these results we considered the modified model more adequate to fit our data. The results of the structural equations are displayed in Figure 2. Trust is positively related with perceived task performance (g ¼ 0.17), and team satisfaction (g ¼ 0.16), both confirming our H1 and H2. The strongest relations are for attitudinal commitment (positive effect – g ¼ 0.38) and for continuance commitment (negative effect – g ¼ 2 0.27) confirming also our H3. Discussion The present study aimed to explore the nature of trust and the relation with team performance and other variables concerning team member’s attitudes towards the team and the organisation. With respect to the nature of trust, this study supports the conceptualisation of trust as a multi-component construct. As in other studies (e.g. Cummings

Figure 2. Structural relations

and Bromiley, 1996; Smith and Barclay, 1997), several dimensions were Work team trust identified which suggest that trust is a complex variable with a number of and effectiveness component parts. Although our components cannot be directly compared with those found in other studies, our results support the distinction between propensity, trustworthiness and behaviours of trust often proposed in the literature as dimensions of the trust construct (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995). Perceived 617 trustworthiness was the strongest component of trust. This is consistent with the dominant way of thinking in the literature about trust and “trustworthiness” – the evaluation of the characteristics and actions of the person(s) to be trusted. Co-operative behaviours were the second strongest component of trust, which supports in particular the incorporation of behaviours in models of trust. Monitoring behaviours, though, explained the least variance of trust. Propensity to trust explained also only a small percentage of the total variance of trust within teams. However, we consider that both components still should be viewed as important aspects of trust. Since we were dealing with teams where members are working together already for some years, trust between these members may be more based on attributions of trustworthiness made to one another than on general expectancies. As suggested by Bigley and Pearce (1998), different components can be more important in some contexts than others, depending on the degree of familiarity between individuals and the degree of dependence. For instance, Rotter (1980) argues that as situations or people become increasingly unfamiliar the influence of trusting dispositions on behaviour grows. Except for monitoring behaviours, all components appeared positively related with the trust factor. This is consistent with the notion that trust excludes the deliberate control of others (Ikpen and Curral, 1997). However, teams may demand different requirements for co-operative behaviours and monitoring behaviours depending on various issues such as, work objectives, risks involved, amount of resources committed, etc. (Das and Teng, 1998). For instance, Bijlsma-Frankema (2000) found a positive relation between monitoring and trust in managers in general hospital a case study. Consequently, a high level of trust may not automatically dictate an increase of co-operative behaviours and a lowering of monitoring behaviours. In situation where the risk of trusting is high, monitoring may become a base for trust. The relation between trust and the dependent variables in this study confirms the idea that trust is important for the functioning of teams in organisations. Consistent with other studies (e.g. McAllister, 1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997) various benefits were associated with trust. These benefits are reflected not only in the team outcomes, but also in member’s attitudes to the organisation. High work team indicates high perceptions of task performance, high team satisfaction, high attitudinal

PR 32,5

618

commitment and low continuance commitment. In relation to task performance, our findings support the main effect between trust and performance also found in similar studies examining trust in other contexts (e.g. McAllister, 1995; Smith and Barclay, 1997). The conceptualisation of trust as a higher-order construct as we present here provides a clearer picture in relation to these effects, since distinct components of trust are incorporated in one single variable. Also consistent with other studies, a positive relation was obtained between trust and team satisfaction (e.g. Smith and Barclay, 1997). However, team satisfaction was more strongly related with perceived task performance. This suggests that the overall positive relation of trust has some limitations. Work team trust was particularly strongly associated with the committed with the organisation. When work team trust is low, levels of attitudinal commitment tend to decrease, while more calculative (continuance) commitment tends to arise. Such implications can bring additional problems, for instance in contexts of change when additional levels of effort and involvement are needed to successfully implement those changes. Generally speaking, this study indicates that trust is an important condition for the functioning and well being of teams in organisations. Yet, the extent to which trust may be considered a determinant factor in this functioning remains inclusive, since it is dependent on the trust requirements that are associated with the functioning of teams and organisations. Limitations of the study and directions for future research This study represents a step forward in establishing a multi-component conceptualisation of trust and in theory building on trust in organisations. Although our study was successful in using aggregated data, several limitations are associated with these results. The foremost limitation is the number of teams in our sample (n ¼ 112). Despite the fact that we were able to obtain a sufficient number of teams to perform SEM analyses, the complexity of the model led to initial GIF situated in the marginal acceptance zone. Therefore, our conclusions should be carefully interpreted. Another limitation refers to the fact the teams in this study came from organisations within a single sector of activity, which makes it inappropriate to generalise these conclusions to other sectors of activity. Cautions in the interpretation of these results are also associated with the use of self-ratings of task performance. Directions for future research The idea that trust has numerous benefits for teams and organisations has been, and continues to be, a major impetus for research on trust. Over the past decades, researchers have increasingly recognised the importance of trust at individual, team and organisational levels. However, empirical evidence has generally, but not consistently, supported this perspective. Different approaches to the concept of trust have lead to several conceptualisations

and operational measurements of the variable trust that can lead to some Work team trust inconsistencies across research findings. Further research should address these and effectiveness differences. One variable that may have influenced the results in this study, is the risk associated with poor performance. In some organisations deficits in trust reduce efficiency, in others it reduces effectiveness and increases costs, or even 619 makes the organisation fail. Within contexts with relatively low risk of poor performance, such as the teams in our study, we have seen that co-operative and monitoring behaviours operate as two opposite ends of the same continuum with respect to trust. However, in contexts where poor team performance may bring damaging effects for the organisation, monitoring behaviours may be actually necessary in order to prevent destruction. The relation between trust and risk seems a key issue in the behavioural manifestations of trust. Another key variable refers to the life cycle of the team and degree of familiarity between team members. For example, in teams that are created for a specific project and that exists for a fixed period of time (such as project teams), individual members will have the tendency to identify more with the product being performed, than with their colleagues. On the other hand, in multi-project organisations, teams become a much more dispersed notion, and individuals might have difficulties in identifying to which team they belong. While studying trust and its implications for the functioning of teams and organisations, researchers should also address the contextual variables around trust, in order to provide better interpretations of the results. References Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 62, pp. 77-795. Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1996), “The Team Climate Inventory: the development of the CTI and its applications in team building for innovativeness”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 53-66. Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 235-58. Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp. 238-46. Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606. Bigley, G.A. and Pearce, J.L. (1998), “Straining for shared meaning in organization science: problems of trust and distrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 405-21. Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2000), “Correlates of trust in a general hospital”, Current Topics in Management, Vol. 5, pp. 141-66. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

PR 32,5

620

Boon, S.D. and Holmes, J.G. (1991), “The dynamics of interpersonal trust: resolving uncertainty in face of risk”, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (Eds), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 190-211. Byrne, B. (1998), Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-90. Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. Costa, A.C. (2000), A Matter of Trust: Effects on the Performance and Effectiveness of Teams in Organizations, Ridderkerk Print, Tilburg. Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. and Taillieu, T. (2001), “Trust within teams: the relation with performance effectiveness”, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-44. Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, R.M. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-30. Currall, S.C. and Judge, T.H. (1995), “Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 151-70. Das, T.K. and Teng, B.G. (1998), “Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 491-512. Deutsch, M. (1962), “Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes”, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 275-319. Dirks, K.T. (1999), “The effects of interpersonal trust on workgroup performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 445-55. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in organizational settings”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-67. Freese, C. and Schalk, R. (1996), “Implications of differences in psychological contracts for human resource management”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 501-9. Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY. Gladstein, D.L. (1984), “Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 499-517. Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42. Hays, W.L. (1991), Statistics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Hosmer, L.R.T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 379-403. Ikpen, A.C. and Curral, S.C. (1997), “International joint venture trust: an empirical examination”, in Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P. (Eds), Cooperative Strategies: Volume 1 North American Perspectives, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 308-34. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 85-98. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 306-9.

Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), “The experimental evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 531-46. Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, pp. 499-517. Keen, P. (1990), Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98. Kramer, R.M., Brewer, M.B. and Hanna, B.A. (1996), “Collective trust and collective action. The decision to trust as a social decision”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Ca, pp. 114-39. Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63, pp. 967-85. Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect and cognitionbased trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, special issue on intra and interorganizational cooperation, Vol. 38, pp. 2459. McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Cherany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 473-90. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38. Morris, J.H. and Moberg, D.J. (1994), “Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal”, in Sarbin, T.R., Carney, R.M. and Eoyang, C. (Eds), Citizen Espionage: Studies in Trust and Betrayal, Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT, pp. 163-87. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Roe, R.A., Ten Horn, L., Zinovieva, I. and Dienes, E. (1997), Expanded Delft Measurement Kit: Technical Guideline, report on the European research program on work motivation and quality of work life. Rotter, J.B. (1980), “Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 1-7. Rousseau, M.T., Stikin, S.B., Burt, S.B. and Carmerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: across-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404. Sabel, C.F. (1993), “Studied trust: building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 1-7. Shaw, R.B. (1997), Trust in the Balance, Jossey-Bass Publications, San Francisco, CA. Smith, J.B. and Barclay, W.B. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 3-21.

Work team trust and effectiveness

621

PR 32,5

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. and Summers, G. (1977), “Assessing reliability and stability in panel models”, in Heise, D.R. (Ed.), Sociology Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 229-39.

622

Further reading Argyris, C. (1969), “The incompleteness of social psychological theory: examples from small group, cognitive consistency, and attribution research”, American Psychologist, Vol. 24, pp. 893-908. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1989), “Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 24, pp. 445-55. Jo¨reskog, K.G. and So¨rbom, D. (1989), LISREL8e, Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN. Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.M. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Instrumental and relational determinants of trust in management among members of works councils

Determinants of trust in management 623

Peter Kerkhof, Annemieke B. Winder and Bert Klandermans Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Keywords Administration of justice, Employees, Trust, Works councils Abstract In Western Europe, works councils are a common form of indirect employee participation in management decision making. Trust is often assumed to play an important role in the nature and outcomes of labour negotiations and in management-works council consultations. So far, however, the antecedents of trust in management within works councils have not been studied. Using longitudinal data collected among the members of 75 Dutch works councils, the current study tests predictions regarding the relative influence of instrumental vs relational antecedents on the level of trust in management among works council members. An important role of instrumental predictors (e.g. perceived influence of the works council on management decision making) supports a view of trust as a calculative phenomenon. On the other hand, strong effects of relational predictors would lend support to trust as a relational phenomenon. The data show that trust in management among works council members is related to relational rather than instrumental antecedents.

Introduction Works councils are a widespread phenomenon throughout Western Europe. Works councils consist of employees that in most cases have been elected to represent the interests of the work force in management decision making, and to improve communication between management and the work force. Rogers and Streeck (1995, p. 6) define works councils as: [. . .] institutionalised bodies for representative communication between a single employer (“management”) and the employees (“workforce”) of a single plant or enterprise.

In most European countries, the rights of works councils are statutory. For example, in The Netherlands, works councils have, depending on the issue at hand, the rights of information, consultation and co-determination. Despite the fact that these rights are the same for every Dutch works council, large differences exist in the (perceived or factual) influence of works councils and in the way this influence is brought about (Visser, 1995). Whereas some works councils fully co-operate and share information in their negotiations with management, others deal with management in a much more confrontational style. In the literature on negotiating these differences in bargaining styles have been strongly associated with different levels of trust. Works councils and management typically deal with issues that have a high

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 623-637 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488379

PR 32,5

624

integrative (as opposed to distributive (Walton and McKersie, 1965)) potential: the gains of one party do not inevitably lead to a loss of the other party. Walton and McKersie (1965, p. 358) state that in integrative bargaining situations, trust enables parties to increase their joint gain. The authors call trust an “unmixed asset in negotiations”. Indeed, Butler (1995) shows that increasing levels of trust in negotiations lead to more information sharing and pursuit of the opponents’ interest. Based on a review of the literature about trust and negotiating, Ross and LaCroix (1996) conclude that trust is associated with a better relationship with the other party and with more risk taking behaviour (e.g. information sharing, making concessions). Beersma and De Dreu (1999) show that trust is associated with more problem-solving behaviour and higher joint outcomes. Thus, in a bargaining situation trust appears to be vital. Practice learns that trust is by no means characteristic of the attitude of works council members towards management and vice versa. In The Netherlands, works council members have over time become more positive about their consultations with management and less radical in their means of gaining influence (Teulings, 1989). This is not to say that works council members are management’s best friends these days; many works councils still find themselves in conflict with management on a regular basis. Again, large differences exist in the amount of conflict and trust between management and works councils (van het Kaar and Looise, 1999). Alternatively, the attitude of employers towards works councils has always been ambivalent (Rogers and Streeck, 1996, p. 16). On the one hand, works councils provide employers with a non-union alternative in workplace industrial relations that, in theory, gives management the freedom of movement they want in order to be competitive. On the other hand, many employers fear that works councils become union instruments that will affect their freedom to act and their speed of acting. For example, Visser (1995) cites a Philips director of industrial relations complaining that works council members lack expertise, indulge in unnecessary procedures, attract unwelcome press attention and waste time and energy. Given the importance of trust in bargaining situations, and given the large differences in the level of trust, it is surprising to see that no research exists regarding the determinants of trust in management among works council members. Research on works councils typically focuses on the laws underlying their existence, on the influence they have on decision making and on their effect on organisational effectiveness (e.g. innovativeness and profitability), but hardly on questions regarding trust. In this paper we will use data of a longitudinal study among works council members to determine the antecedents of their trust (or distrust) in management. We will focus on two kinds of determinants: determinants that stem from rational choice theory and that focus on self interest (instrumental determinants), and determinants that stem from relational models of trust and that focus on the social basis of trust

(relational determinants, e.g. Kramer and Tyler (1996)). In this study, instrumental determinants will include the perceived influence and effectiveness of the works council. Relational determinants include perceived fairness of decision-making procedures and the quality of treatment by management. In the remainder of this introduction we will portray the relationship between a works council and management, we will look at the literature regarding the determinants of trust in the situation that works council members are in, and then focus on instrumental vs relational determinants of trust. The relationship between management and works council members and its consequences for trust The relationship between management and works council members is non-hierarchical; although works council members bargain with the person who is typically the chief executive officer (CEO) of the organisation, and therefore their boss. This hierarchical situation ends as soon as they meet the CEO as a member of the works council instead of as an employee. However, this is not to say that theories of trust in management cannot be used in this situation. First, although in formal terms the hierarchical difference vanishes when an employee acts as a member of the works council, the difference may still exist in the eyes of both the manager and the works council member. It is unlikely that both parties show the flexibility to think, feel and behave in totally different ways when they meet in different situations. Second, even when formally there is no hierarchical difference, there is a strong difference in power between management and the works council. French and Raven (1959) distinguish different psychological bases of power, among which the informational (or expert) basis of power: power based on informational asymmetry between parties. When one party has access to information that the other party needs, the one party will be more powerful. In The Netherlands, works councils are supported by a law that describes in great detail when works councils have the right to be informed, consulted or to co-determine. However, in practice, works councils are still very dependent on management. The literature on works councils shows that the power of works councils based on the law, is often not enough to counterbalance the informational power of management (e.g. Rogers and Streeck, 1996; van het Kaar and Looise, 1999). For example, Kerkhof and Klandermans (1998) show that many works council members complain about not having access to relevant information, or having access to information in a stage of decision making that is too late to have an impact on the decisions reached. Of course, works councils are not powerless in their consultations with management. For example, the influence of works councils typically is largest in the implementation phase of a decision-making process, where the potential impact on the outcomes of a decision is smallest

Determinants of trust in management 625

PR 32,5

626

(Looise and De Lange, 1987). One of the reasons behind this phenomenon, which Looise and De Lange (1987) label the “participation paradox”, is that information about upcoming decision is sent to the works council too late to still have substantial influence on the nature of the decision. Thus, we argue that the relationship between works council members and management is one that can be characterised as the relationship between a powerful (management) and a less powerful (works council members) party. These power differences stem in part from the hierarchical differences when an employee acts as an employee instead of a member of the works council, and partly from differences in access to relevant information have consequences for the way trust comes about. Trust in management among works council members Since the relationship between a works council and management shares many of the characteristics of the relationship between a powerful and a less powerful party, the literature on trust in management can fruitfully be applied to the works council members’ trust in their managerial counterpart. Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395) define trust as: [. . .] a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another.

Vulnerability in the case of works councils may take the form of a decision not to use its full legal rights in a particular issue, in order to gain credit from management that can be used in other issues. In this example, the risk the works council runs is that neither the constituents of the works council, nor management appreciate this gesture. The question we pose in this paper is what causes a works council member to trust management, and run this kind of risk. One particularly interesting question regarding the antecedents of trust is whether works council members trust management because of expectations regarding the outcomes of the consultations (e.g. influence on decision making, decisions that are profitable to the workforce), or because of the way these outcomes have been established (e.g. did management involve the works council in decision making, were the decision-making procedures fair). In other words, does trust arise because trust has shown to pay off in the past? Or does trust arise because one has been treated in a respectful way? Tyler and Kramer (1996) label these two groups of antecedents of trust instrumental vs relational antecedents of trust. In instrumental models of trust, self-interest is the prime motive for the decision to trust somebody. Tyler and Degoey (1996, p. 332) summarise this way of looking at trust as follows: “trust is seen as a subjective probability of the potential costs and benefits of future interactions”. Thus, according to this instrumental view of trust, people trust somebody when they have reason to believe that the other person will treat them in a favourable way, and that

future interaction will generate favourable outcomes. An instrumental model of trust would predict that works council members trust management more when they gets things done. In such a view, when management gives the works council influence on decision making, and works council members have the idea that the actions of the works council have a positive effect on the organisation, works council members will trust management. Trust is enhanced when the relationship is seen as profitable. Tyler and Degoey (1996, p. 332) contrast this view of trust with a social or relational view of trust. In this view, the “intentions to maintain respectful relations in decision-making processes are central to trust”. Although outcomes can serve a heuristic function in making up one’s mind about the motives and intentions of the other person, in the relational models of trust, outcomes are not central. For example, Tyler and Lind’s (1992) group value model of authority suggests that people are concerned about their status in the group, and that the way they are treated by others provides them with information about how they are valued. Trust in authorities in this model does not depend on expected utility of future co-operation, but on the way one is treated. According to the group value model, trust is enhanced when people are treated in a respectful manner that communicates to them that they are important and valued members of the group. A relational model of trust predicts that trust is enhanced when management shows respect and values the works council and its members by giving it information on time and by dealing with works council members in a friendly and respectful way. The degree to which management values the works council is reflected in the procedures management uses in its dealing with the works council. For example, when information is given to the works council long before decisions are made, the works council has a chance to influence the decision-making process. Although there is undoubtedly a strong instrumental benefit to fair procedures (Thibaut and Walker, 1975), the group value model of Tyler and Lind (1992) states that above and beyond their direct benefits, fair procedures communicate to group members that they are considered important. In a fascinating study, Kramer (1996) shows that one’s hierarchical or power position strongly determines the nature, origins and level of trust. First, low power persons perceive the level of trust in the relationship as lower than those in power. Second, trust matters more to those low in power than to those in high power positions: persons in a low power position consider more issues as relevant to trust and remember more trust related incidents than those high in power. Third, and most important for our reasoning, trust of the low power persons is based more on relational considerations, whereas among high power persons trust is more instrumental and task-focused. Low power typically is associated with low status. Following the reasoning of Tyler and Lind (1992), the way one is treated by a high status person is highly informative about one’s own status in the group or in the organisation. Therefore, for those low in

Determinants of trust in management 627

PR 32,5

628

power, trust is often more strongly based on relational than on instrumental considerations. In this study, we want to explore what causes works council members to trust their managerial counterpart. Kramer’s work suggests that given the asymmetrical power relationship of works council members and management, trust in management among works council members is determined by relational, rather than instrumental or task-focused considerations. In other words, we think that trust in management can be explained better by a relational model than by an instrumental model of trust. We tested this prediction in a longitudinal study among the members of 75 Dutch works councils and their counterparts in management. Perceptions of works council effectiveness and influence were used as instrumental predictors of trust. Procedural justice and the quality of treatment by management were used as relational predictors of trust in management. Trust was measured half a year after the instrumental and relational predictors had been assessed. Method The data presented in this paper are based on two questionnaires sent to works council members in municipal organisations. The first questionnaire was sent at the end of 1998. This survey consisted of several questions, including the predictor variables. The second questionnaire was sent in March 1999 and consisted of several questions, including our dependent measure trust in management. Sample and participants A stratified sample of 108 works councils was selected from the total population of works councils in municipal organisations in The Netherlands. The selected councils were requested to participate and 75 (69 per cent) agreed to do so. The works councils functioned within a variety of organisations, ranging from an accountancy department in one of the major cities in The Netherlands, to a civic centre in small southern village. The size of the selected works councils varied from 3 to 16 members (m ¼ 8.2, SD ¼ 2.62). The size of the organisations varied between 27 and 2,800 employees (m ¼ 325.51, SD ¼ 411.32). We approached 633 works council members to participate in our study, 379 members (59.9 per cent) did fill in the first questionnaire and of these 379 works council members, 315 participated in the second round (83.1 per cent). The total response for both interviews was 49.8 per cent. The mean age of the works council members was 44.7 years (SD ¼ 7.49), 83.7 per cent of the respondents were male. Dependent measures Trust in management among works council members was assessed at t1 and t2 using seven items originating from the short version of the Organisational

Trust Inventory (OTI) (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996). The items we used were: “In my opinion, top management is reliable”; “I feel that top management negotiates with us honestly”; “I think that top management meets its negotiated obligations to our department”; “I think that the people in top management tell the truth in negotiations”; “I feel that top management will keep its word”; “I think that top management does not mislead us”; and “I feel that top management tries to get out of its commitments”. The items that we selected reflect both the cognitive and the affective dimension of trust of the OTI. Moreover, items were selected to reflect both the “keeping commitments” and “negotiating honestly” dimensions of the original OTI. All responses were made on five-point scales (ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree, indicating low trust, to 5 ¼ strongly agree, indicating high trust) and were averaged to form a scale of trust in management. Independent measures Instrumental antecedents. Works council influence within the organisation was assessed by asking the works council members about the amount of influence of the works council on each of five domains: general management and economical policies, internal organisation, personnel policies, terms of employment and working conditions. The responses were made on five-point scales, ranging from 1 (very little influence), to 5 (very much influence). Works council influence on management decisions was assessed using three items. The works council members were asked how often: (1) the suggestions of the works council are included in the decisions reached by management; (2) they have the feeling that the works council contributed to the decisions made by management; and (3) they are satisfied with the outcomes of the consultations. The responses were made on five-point scales, ranging from 1 (never), to 5 (often). Works council effectiveness was assessed using an existing list of eight items that measures to what degree employees feel that the works council actually generates positive effects (IDE, 1981; Andriessen et al., 1984). Examples of items are: “Are the interests of employees better represented because of the work of the works council?” and “Has the work of the works council brought about an equalisation of power between employees and management?”. All responses were made on four-point scales (1 ¼ definitely, 2 ¼ maybe, 3 ¼ I don’t think so and 4 ¼ definitely not; we also included a category I don’t really know). The responses to the eight items were averaged to form a composite measure of perceived works council effectiveness. Relational antecedents. Procedural justice was measured with nine items, based on six criteria for procedural justice formulated by Leventhal (1980).

Determinants of trust in management 629

PR 32,5

630

These criteria include consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness and ethicality. Seven items stemmed from an existing scale (Altena and Van Yperen, 1988) and two items were constructed for this study. Subjects responded to the stem: “In this organisation” with the following completions: . . . rules and procedures are used with consistency. . . . personal motives and biases of management often play a role in decision-making procedures . . . decisions are influenced by matters that should not be taken into consideration . . . management decisions are based on carefully and accurately gathered information . . . all employees who are affected by a decision get a clear explanation after that decision has been made . . . employees have the opportunity to express their opinions before a decision has been made . . . the decision-making process could be criticised from a moral point of view . . . all parties involved by a decision are represented in the decision-making process . . . employees have the opportunity to challenge decisions.

All responses were made on five-point scales (1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree). The quality of treatment by the CEO was assessed using four items – the CEO: (1) does not take us seriously; (2) involves us in decision making at his/her own initiative; (3) is open to suggestions of the works council; and (4) declines contributions of the works council in decision making. Responses were made on five-point scales (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The variables, their means, standard deviations and reliabilities are shown in Table I. Results We will present the analysis of our data in three steps. First, we will show the intercorrelations between the variables. Second, we will show the results of a linear regression analysis of trust on its relational and instrumental predictors in management at t1. Third, we will use trust at t2 as a dependent variable in a regression analysis and establish whether the predictors can explain variance when we control for the stability in trust. Table II shows the correlations of trust and its instrumental and relational antecedents.

Trust in management at t1 is strongly correlated with trust in management at t2. All predictors, both instrumental and relational, are associated positively with trust in management at t1 and t2. The correlations of the instrumental antecedents range between.23 for works council effectiveness with trust in management at t2 and.46 for works council influence on management decisions with trust in management at t1 (both ps , 0.001). Thus, works council members who think that the council is influential or effective report more trust in management than their colleagues who do not think that the works council is influential or effective. The relational antecedents correlate more strongly with trust in management: the correlations with trust in management are all in between 0.46 and 0.65 (all ps , 0.001). Works council members who think that decision-making procedures are fair and that they are treated in a respectful manner, report higher trust in management at both t1 and t2. The relational and instrumental variables are strongly related to each other. For example, procedural justice correlates 0.42 ( p , 0.001) with works council

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Trust in management (t1) Trust in management (t2) Works council influence in the organisation Works council influence on management decisions Works council effectiveness Procedural justice Quality of treatment Trust in works council

1. Trust in management (t1) 2. Trust in management (t2) Instrumental antecedents 3. Works council influence in the organisation 4. Works council influence on management decisions 5. Works council effectiveness Relational antecedents 6. Procedural justice 7. Quality of treatment

m

SD

n

Cronbach’s alpha

3.3 3.3 2.9

0.75 0.69 0.71

317 314 311

0.92 0.79 0.77

3.5 3.0 2.7 3.6 4.3

0.60 0.41 0.54 0.64 0.53

314 312 313 314 51

0.78 0.78 0.84 0.80 0.88

1

2

– 0.66

–

0.33 0.26

3

4

5

Determinants of trust in management 631

Table I. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alphas of the scales

6

7

–

0.46 0.31 0.47 – 0.38 0.23 0.50 0.46

–

0.62 0.48 0.36 0.42 0.35 – 0.65 0.46 0.40 0.56 0.44 0.50 Note: All correlations are significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed)

–

Table II. Intercorrelations of the variables (309 , n , 314)

PR 32,5

632

influence on management decisions and the quality of treatment by management correlates 0.56 ( p , 0.001) with works council influence on management decision making. Thus, favourable outcomes are related to fair procedures and to high quality treatment by management. Given the high intercorrelations between our predictors, we conducted a regression analysis to determine which of our predictors shares the highest unique variance with trust in management. First, we tried to establish which variables perform best in explaining variance in trust in management at t1. Table III shows the result of a regression analysis in which we first entered the instrumental antecedents (Model 1) and then added the relational antecedents (Model 2). In Model 1, the instrumental antecedents explain 25 per cent of the variance in trust in management (t1). The strongest predictor is works council influence on management decisions (b ¼ 0.33, p , 0.001): works council members that perceive the works council to be influential in their consultations with management, report higher trust in management than their colleagues who perceive the works council as having less influence on management decision-making. Effectiveness of the works council is also positively related to trust in management ((b ¼ 0.18, p , 0.01). The works council influence in the organisation as a whole is not related to trust in management. However, after entering the relational antecedents in Model 2, none of the bs of the instrumental variables reaches significance, whereas both the relational antecedents, procedural justice and quality of treatment, show positive and significant associations with trust in management (respectively b ¼ 0.38 and b ¼ 0.42, both ps , 0.001). Works council members are more likely to trust management when they perceive decision-making procedures as fair and when

Model 1 b Instrumental antecedents Works council influence in the organisation Works council influence on management decisions Effectiveness of works council

Table III. Regression analysis of trust in management (t1) on predictors (t1)

Relational antecedents Procedural justice Quality of treatment Total R 2 (adj.) F df Notes: * p, 0.05; ** p , 0.001

0.09 0.33** 0.18*

0.25 33.21** 3,304

Model 2 b 20.01 0.05 0.05 0.38** 0.42** 0.54 70.25** 5,302

they feel they are treated in a respectful manner by management. Together, the instrumental and relational antecedents explain 54 per cent of the variance in trust in management. Table IV shows the results of a regression of trust in management at t2 on the instrumental (Model 1) and relational antecedents (Model 2) at t1. In Model 3 we control for the stability in trust by entering trust in management at t1. Models 1 and 2 show a pattern that is similar to that in Table III: the instrumental antecedents are only significantly related to trust in management at t2 as long as the relational antecedents are not entered in the equation. In Model 2, 29 per cent of the variance in trust in management is explained by the instrumental and relational antecedents. Again, only the relational antecedents show the expected positive relationship with trust in management at t2. Both procedural justice and quality of treatment show positive and significant associations with trust in management at t2 (respectively b ¼ 0.33 and b ¼ 0.29, both ps , 0.001). Works council members are more likely to trust management when they perceive decision-making procedures as fair and when they feel they are treated in a respectful manner by management. In Model 3, trust in management at t1 is entered in the equation. We are able to explain 43 per cent of trust in management at t2 using only t1 predictors. Trust in management at t2 is strongly related to trust in management at t1 (b ¼ 0.57, p , 0.001). Apart from procedural justice, none of the other antecedents is a significant predictor of trust in management at t2. Procedural justice, however, still has a weak positive effect on trust in management at t2, even when we control for the stability in trust (b ¼ 0.12, p , 0.05).

Model 1 b Instrumental antecedents Works council influence in the organisation Works council influence on management decisions Effectiveness of works council Relational antecedents Procedural justice Quality of treatment Trust in management (t1) Total R 2 (adj.) F df Notes: * p, 0.05; ** p , 0.01; *** p , 0.001

0.14* 0.22** 0.06

Model 2 b

0.11 13.51*** 3,304

0.07

0.00 20.05

20.02 20.07

0.29 25.47** 5

633

Model 3 b

0.06

0.33** 0.29**

Determinants of trust in management

0.12* 0.05 0.57** 0.43 40.20** 6,301

Table IV. Regression analysis of trust in management (t2) on predictors (t1)

PR 32,5

Thus, overall relational antecedents are far better predictors of trust in management than instrumental antecedents. Over time, the only predictor of trust in management is procedural justice.

634

Discussion In this paper we explored the antecedents of trust in management among works council members. Specifically, we tested whether works council members’ trust in management is associated more strongly with relational than with instrumental determinants. Our results lend support to a view on trust in management among works council members that is relational rather than instrumental in nature. In the words of Tyler and Degoey (1996, p. 345): “trust is a social commodity”. Trust is a reaction to social information, information about the quality of our relationship with members of the organisation, rather than to information about the favourability of the outcomes of a relationship. Indeed, the instrumental considerations in our study (e.g. works council influence) were only associated with trust because of their associations with relational considerations (e.g. quality of treatment). Thus, although favourable outcomes often go hand in hand with respectful treatment or fair procedures, it is the latter that causes trust among members of works councils. Works council members’ judgement about the quality of the relationship with management appears to be derived from both respectful treatment and fair procedures. The quality of treatment as we used it in our study is somewhat similar to what some authors call interactional fairness (e.g. Bies and Moag, 1986), and refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment while procedures are being implemented. The fact that the quality of treatment exerts an effect on trust is the strongest evidence in our study for a relational view on trust. Whereas the effects of procedural justice may be ascribed to the control and, thus, the instrumental benefits of fair procedures (Thibaut and Walker, 1975), it is hard to come up with purely instrumental and non-social benefits of a respectful treatment. Even though fair procedures are partly instrumental for people, the effects of procedural justice in our study do in our view lend support to a relational conceptualisation of trust. Procedural justice was associated with trust even when the instrumental benefits (e.g. works council influence) were held constant. Therefore, the effects cannot be explained by its instrumental correlates. Our study has some limitations that the readers should take into account when drawing conclusions. First, although our study is longitudinal, one should be cautious with drawing strong causal conclusions. Although it is likely that procedural justice and the quality of treatment cause trust instead of vice versa, it could be the case that initial trust causes works council members to behave in a more co-operative way. This may cause the CEO to become

friendlier and to use fair procedures. This reverses the causal chain we assumed in our study. Second, our measures of the instrumental antecedents may not be as strong as our measures of the relational antecedents. Although the reliabilities seem to be fairly good for both the instrumental and the relational variables, within works councils there is much more agreement about the relational than about the instrumental antecedents. For example, there are not many different opinions within one works council about the quality of treatment by the CEO, but there are many different opinions about the amount of influence of the works council or the effects. This may cause the effects of these variables to be less reliable than the effects of the relational variables. Third, our measure of trust may have been disadvantageous for the instrumental antecedents. Items like “I feel that top management will keep its word” may have a more relational than instrumental flavour: they refer to the process of negotiation rather than to its outcomes. Further research should pay careful attention to the way trust is operationalised. It is intriguing to think about the practical implications of our study for building trust among works council members. One could conclude from our study that CEOs can gain trust from works council members without giving the works council any real influence on management decision making. In theory, this is possible. In practice, however, this would be hard to do without violating principles of fair procedures. This in the end leads to less trust. On the other hand, our results do indicate that always giving in to the wishes of the work council is not necessary when one wants to be trusted. There clearly is more to be gained when it comes to trust from fair procedures and respectful treatment than from continuously giving in to the demands of the works council. Only when giving in is combined with fair procedures (e.g. an open debate), will it lead to a climate of trust.

References Altena, N.H.C. and Van Yperen, N.W. (1988), “Functieverandering na een reorganisatie: effecten op relatieve deprivatie en werktevredenheid” (“Job change after a reorganisation: effects on relative deprivation and job satisfaction”), Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 11, pp. 81-94. Andriessen, J.H.T.H., Drenth, P.J.H. and Lammers, C.J. (1984), Medezeggenschap in Nederlandse bedrijven: Verslag van een onderzoek naar participatie- en invloedsverhoudingen (Participation in Dutch Businesses: A Report of Research on Participation and Influence Relations), Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, Amsterdam. Beersma, B. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (1999), “Negotiation processes and outcomes in prosocially and egoistically motivated groups”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 385-402. Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.

Determinants of trust in management 635

PR 32,5

Butler, J.K. Jr (1995), “Behaviors, trust, and goal achievement in a win-win negotiating role play”, Group and Organisation Management, Vol. 20, pp. 486-501.

636

French, J.R.P. Jr and Raven, B. (1959), “Bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Dearborn, MI, pp. 150-67.

Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organisational Trust Inventory (OTI): development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-30.

IDE (1981), Industrial Democracy in Europe, Clarendon, Oxford. Kerkhof, P. and Klandermans, P.G. (1998), Medezeggenschap beter geregeld?, Stichting A+O Fonds Gemeenten, Den Haag. Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchical relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 216-46. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds) (1996), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K.S., Greenberg, M.S. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55. Looise, J.C. and De Lange, F.G.M. (1987), Ondernemingsraden, Bestuurders en Besluitvorming: Eindrapport Onderzoek Ondernemingsraden, Works Councils, Managers, and Decision-making, Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen, Nijmegen. Rogers, J. and Streeck, W. (1996), “The study of works councils: concepts and problems”, in Rogers, J. and Streeck, W. (Eds), Works Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 3-26. Ross, W. and LaCroix, J. (1996), “Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: a literature review and integrative model”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7, pp. 314-59. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404. Teulings, A. (1989), “A political bargaining theory of co-determination”, in Szell, G., Blyton, P. and Cornforth, G. (Eds), The State, Trade Unions and Self-management: Issues of Competence and Control, de Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 75-101. Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996), “Trust in organisational authorities: the influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions”, in Kramer, R.M and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 331-56. Tyler, T.R. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Whither trust?”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-15. Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 115-91.

van het Kaar, R.H. and Looise, J.C. (1999), De Volwassen OR. Groei en Grenzen van de Nederlandse Ondernemingsraad. Resultaten van het grote OR-onderzoek (The Grown up Works Council. Growth and Limits of the Dutch Works Council), Samson, Alphen aan de Rijn. Visser, J. (1995), “The Netherlands: from paternalism to representation”, in Rogers, J. and Streeck, W. (Eds), Works Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-114. Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1965), A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Determinants of trust in management 637

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

PR 32,5

638

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Antecedents of trust in managers: a “bottom up” approach Katinka M. Bijlsma European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Bnrussels Belgium and Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences, Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences, Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and

Gerhard G. van de Bunt Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences, Department of Social Research Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Keywords Trust, Managers, Performance monitoring, Supports Abstract Research on antecedents of trust has, so far, yielded results that do not easily stand up to confrontation with the widely-held assumption of bounded rationality. By employing complex constructs as indicators of antecedents, it is implied that actors, in pondering on trust in managers, can deal with many complex cues, instead of a few single ones, as bounded rationality suggests. This study proposes a different approach, by searching for a parsimonious set of managerial behaviours that serve as cues for subordinates regarding trust in managers. Interview and survey data were combined in this search. Regression analysis and a Boolean pattern analysis were used to arrive at a parsimonious model with high explanatory power.

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 638-664 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480310488388

In response to changes in the social structure of societies, economic exchange relations and organisational forms, attention to trust as characteristic of social relations that promotes co-operation and extra-role behaviours in a wide array of social processes has been growing in the past decades. In this issue Tyler discusses these changes in more detail. Due to deterioration in the binding power of reciprocal obligations (Kramer, 1996) and of hierarchical relations (Sheppard and Tuchinsky, 1996), other mechanisms seem to be needed to sustain co-operative behaviour (Kramer, 1996). In contrast to hierarchical relationships, lateral relationships and alliances are getting more important (Sheppard and Tuchinsky, 1996). Between firms, new linkages are formed that make organisations move towards network forms and alliances (Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1996). These forms require high levels of trust to function effectively (Creed and Miles, 1996). Furthermore, increasing occurrence of organisational change promotes the relevance of trust to organisational performance and to the well-being of organisational members (Mishra, 1996; Gilkey, 1991).

By now it is widely acknowledged that trust works as a lubricant in economic transactions, by smoothing relations between actors and reducing transaction costs, related to control (Williamson, 1975; Powell, 1990; Creed and Miles, 1996). A recently published meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in leadership resulted in the following consequences, of which several were also found in the studies presented in this issue: . belief of information; . organisational commitment; . decision commitment; . organisational citizenship behaviour; . job satisfaction; . satisfaction with leaders; . leader-member exchange; and . intention to stay. Other authors found trust to be related to acceptance of influence (Blau, 1964; Tyler and Degoey, 1996), absence of monitoring, attribution of positive motives (Kramer, 1996), mutual learning (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Boisot, 1995; Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 1999; Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2002), and to positive outcomes such as high levels of co-operation and performance (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gambetta, 1988; Costa et al., 2001; Costa, 2000). These studies do support the theoretical idea that trust lubricates a wide array of organisational processes. A matter that comes to the fore is what managers can do or refrain from to earn trust of employees in order to reap these benefits? Based on insights in antecedents of trust in managers gathered so far, this question is hard to answer. Some general insights have been produced that can be worked upon. In studies of subordinates’ trust in managers, Kramer (1996) and Tyler and Degoey (1996) conclude that relational issues have a stronger impact on subordinates’ trust in managers than task-focused issues. If subordinates feel they are treated fairly, with respect and with dignity, they perceive their manager as benevolent and thus trustworthy. Yet, respect, dignity, and fairness are quite general terms that do not reveal much about what managers can do to generate these experiences. In the study of Dirks and Ferrin (2002), a first systematic review of empirical evidence for antecedents of trust is presented. Trust in leaders is found to be significantly related to transformational leadership, perceived organisational support, interactional justice, procedural justice, transactional leadership, distributive justice, participative decision making, and meeting expectations of followers (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002, p. 622). These complex constructs, however, are measured as multi-item variables. Therefore, they cannot serve directly as

Antecedents of trust in managers 639

PR 32,5

640

antecedents of trust without violating the widely-held assumption that bounded rationality makes people focus on a few single cues instead of many complex ones (Simon, 1955; March, 1978). Next steps must be taken to find the behavioural components responsible for the effect on trust in leaders. Dirks and Ferrin (2002, p. 622) make a similar point in concluding that further research is needed to “examine the behavioural cues that employees use to draw conclusions about the character of the leader or whether the relation is one involving care and concern.” So, a search for a restricted set of simple managerial behaviours that trigger trust in managers seemed worthwhile enough to pursue. Therefore, the present study was aimed to answer the following question: “Which behaviours (or sets of behaviours) of managers are related to trust in managers in the perspectives of organisational members?” The data were taken from a case study of a general hospital in transition from a divisional form to a network form of organising. The transition to a form with higher trust requirements and the conditions of change heighten the relevance of trust in intra-organisational relations (Gilkey, 1991; Creed and Miles, 1996; Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1996; Mishra, 1996; Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001a, b). Since the data showed a surprising relation between monitoring performance of subordinates and trust in managers, the issue of how trust in managers is related to managerial control of subordinates will also be addressed in this study. Authors disagree on the nature of this relationship so far. Methodologically, the study is in line with recommendations for research on trust in managers made by Kramer (1996), who argues that there is a pressing need for more “naı¨ve theories” about trust, that are based on mental accounts of people studied. Naı¨ve theories are theories that “individuals, conceptualised as lay epistemologists, carry around inside their heads . . . As such, naı¨ve theories presumably play a central role in their attempts to retrospectively make sense of, and learn from their experiences (Kramer, 1996, p. 238).” Survey data alone are not fit to arrive at naı¨ve theories because of the framing of questions and answers: Even though the data from such surveys may reveal quite adequately how individuals weigh and prioritise among the variables that have been selected by the researcher, they may reveal very little about the naturally occurring set of categories, dimensions or variables that individuals would spontaneously find salient or invoke (Kramer, 1996, p. 239).

Kramer (1996, p. 239) advocates using autobiographical narratives and searching for mental accounts, “people’s actual accounts of genuine events from their everyday lives,” because of the high external validity this method can produce. Since a weakness of this method is that internal validity can be low due to researcher effects on data gathering and interpretation, triangulation of narrative data and survey data is proposed to reduce this problem. Kramer’s argument adequately balances two meanings of validity that seldom both are given full attention within a research project, as Smaling (1992)

argues. The first meaning, mostly stressed in quantitative research is avoiding biased and unbiased measurement errors. The second, mostly used in qualitative research is whether the researcher’s representation of the empirical world respects the empirical world under study. As Blumer (1969, p. 22) notes:

Antecedents of trust in managers

The problems set for study need to be critically studied to see whether they are genuine problems in the empirical world; the concepts used and the data chosen need to be inspected to see if in fact they have in the empirical world the character given to them in the study.

641

To strike a balance between both meanings of validity, a multi-triangulation approach was used. In the first phase of this study, following Blumer, an interpretative approach was chosen. In this way a weakness of survey research, the hard to measure and hard to control “noise,” created by answers given to questions experienced as irrelevant by respondents, can be curbed. Topic-guided interviews were conducted, based on Kvale’s (1996) interview methodology. The kernel of this method is to “pose short questions and getting long answers,” to get as close to the concepts, meanings and relations between phenomena that respondents use to make sense of their experiences and, subsequently, to build their opinions on. Analysis of the interview material resulted in seven hypotheses, each relating a single managerial behaviour to trust in managers. These hypotheses were tested in a survey research and administered to the population of organisational members. In triangulating the interview and survey data, low validity of the interview data due to researcher effects come to the fore if different conclusions must be drawn from the survey data. Besides, two different methods of analysis were employed to analyse the survey data, a regression analysis and a Boolean algebra-based pattern analysis, each built on different assumptions and related error threats, adding another possibility of triangulating data. The principle of Boolean analysis is to look for patterns of independent variables that discriminate between outcomes in the dependent variable (Ragin, 1989, 1994). Triangulation was employed to strive after robustness of findings, because, as Webb et al. (in De Jong-Gierveld and Van Tilburg, 1992, p. 276) argued: If a hypothesis can survive the onslaught of a series of imperfect measures, with all their irrelevant error, confidence should be placed in it.

The paper consists of four parts. First, some theoretical ideas that have motivated the analysis will be briefly reviewed. In the second part the research design will be discussed. In the third part the data and the results of analyses will be presented. In the last section the results will be discussed and some conclusions will be drawn. Theoretical ideas In the interpretative phase of the project, a few sensitising ideas about the meaning of the concept of trust and related phenomena were used to include trust in the list of topics that guided the interview processes and the

PR 32,5

642

interpretation of data. Some basic notions are widely accepted in the literatures. Most authors agree that the notion of risk is central to the concept of trust. According to Luhmann (1988) trust is a solution for specific problems of risk in relations between actors, because it is an attitude that allows for risk-taking. If actors choose one course of action in preference to alternatives, in spite of the possibility of being disappointed by the action of others, they define the situation as one of trust (Luhmann, 1988, pp. 97-9). Gambetta (1988, pp. 217-18) defines trust in line with Luhmann, but the link between trust and co-operation is made more explicit: [. . .] when we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him.

Creed and Miles (1996) build on Gambetta’s (1988) definition, but their definition is more focused on trust within organisations. Based on the work of Garfinkel (1967) “considering engaging in cooperation with another” is widened to a positive inclination towards the demands of the social order within the organisation: [. . .] trust is both the specific expectation that an other’s actions will be beneficial rather than detrimental and the generalized ability to take for granted, to take under trust, a vast array of features of the social order (Creed and Miles, 1996, p. 17).

Since in this article trust is studied within an organisational context, it was decided to work upon the definition of Creed and Miles. Another common notion is that trust is influenced by past experiences and chances of future interactions, both relevant within organisations. Expectations of others’ beneficial actions will be enhanced by prior experiences of such behaviour. If others live up to prior expectations, this good repute will further positive expectations in the future, enhance the level of trust, and promote actor’s willingness to co-operate (Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1996; Buskens, 1999; Gautschi, 2002). March and Olsen (1975) related trust to social integration, adding a dynamic view to how trust and distrust develop. Unlike most authors on trust, they include the notion of relevance, which is also found in the work of Weick (1995). They argue that people come to trust those who are perceived to bring about desirable events, or to prevent undesirable events, in areas that are experienced as relevant. If people trust others, they seek interaction with them, tend to like what they like and see what they see, to share definitions of relevance, thus furthering integration between them. Distrust creates discord, since, if others are distrusted, actors will tend to dislike what they like, tend not to share their definitions of relevance and, to the degree that the opportunity structure permits them, tend to avoid interaction with them. In the process of developing trust or distrust, beneficial events will tend to be attributed to trusted others, detrimental events to those who are distrusted. Put shortly, trust begets trust,

while distrust begets distrust. Sitkin and Stickel (1996) made a similar point in concluding that distrust, based on feelings of value-incongruity, creates barriers that can stimulate an escalating spiral of formality and distance between parties. Working on the ideas of March and Olsen, the sensitising ideas underlying the research questions can now be explained in more detail. It is assumed that in the process of building trust in superiors, subordinates’ areas of relevance play an important part in selecting behaviours of superiors that are sharply monitored. Since trust is a solution for problems of risk, it can be conjectured that trust-related areas of relevance are connected to risks experienced in the relationship with the manager. It is assumed that in the first phase of trust building, subordinates focus on a few managerial behaviours that are highly relevant to them because of the risks involved. These behaviours are used as a test of whether superiors can be trusted. If managers pass the test, trust is built on these outcomes, resulting in expectations that the manager will act beneficial in a widening range of superior-subordinate interactions. So, a limited number of relevant expectations are transformed into a more general positive expectation called trust. A last assumption is that in explaining trust or distrust retrospectively, actors focus on the few areas of high relevance that shaped their initial expectations. This assumption of relevance stability is sustained by the argument that shared notions about relevance, as studied in this research, are core characteristics of organisational cultures (Bijlsma-Frankema, 1997a). Since cultures are characterised by longer term rather than short-term changes, the assumption of relevance stability does not seem too far-fetched to adopt. Trust and control Many authors agree that trust works as a substitute to control because it reduces transaction costs. The higher the trust in a relationship, the lower the costs of monitoring and other control mechanisms will be (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1996; Handy, 1993; Whitney, 1993). It is also acknowledged that organisational forms differ in trust and control requirements to function effectively. Whereas building and maintaining a formal control apparatus is effective in functional forms, in network forms building and maintaining trust in hierarchical relations is required to master the risks involved in this form (Creed and Miles, 1996). Others have argued that the increased need for trust in modern organisations does not necessarily mean lesser need of checks and controls. On the one hand, because violations of trust are more likely to occur when vulnerability increases (Morris and Moberg, 1994), on the other hand because the effects of such violations can lead to drastic consequences. Das and Teng (1998, p. 459) also reject the idea that trust is a substitute of control. They argue that trust and control should be seen as complementary phenomena, both

Antecedents of trust in managers 643

PR 32,5

contributing to the level of co-operation needed in a relationship. Powell (1996, p. 63) makes a similar point in criticising a lack of attention to other factors that, besides trust, promote co-operation: Societal norm-based conceptions of trust miss the extent to which cooperation is buttressed by sustained contact, regular dialogue and constant monitoring.

644

It can, however, be argued that by treating trust and control as complementary, possible tensions between trust and control can be overlooked. Actors may experience control as based on Theory X (McGregor, 1960), signifying value-incongruence between the controller and the controlled, that can fuel distrust in the controller on the part of the controlled (Sitkin and Stickel, 1996). Working on this idea, Handy (1993) concludes that managers face a trust-control dilemma, urging them to seek carefully balanced solutions. So far, empirical research has not yielded decisive support for one stance over another. For instance, in a study of work teams Costa (in this issue) found that trust between members involves high co-operative behaviours and lack of monitoring between colleagues, indicating that trust can work as a substitute for control. Curral and Judge (1995) and Smith and Barclay (1997) arrived at a similar conclusion. In managers-subordinates relationships, on the other hand, Bijlsma-Frankema (1998) found that subordinates’ trust in managers is positively related to monitoring by managers, indicating that trust and control can go hand in hand. Following on from Luhmann’s (1988) argument that trust is a solution for specific problems of risk, different kinds of risk may be involved in working with colleagues and in relations to managers. Different risks create, in terms of March and Olsen (1975), different areas of relevance that are related to trust. In reference to the argument of Weibel (2002) that trust is a way to absorb risks and formal control is a way to reduce risks, it can be conjectured that, in the eyes of the actors involved, some risks in relationships are better dealt with by control, because the thus reduced risks are more easy to absorb by trust. In this way, it is conceivable that control positively influences trust building. Methodology The methodological aim of this study is to search for a parsimonious model to understand the cues employees use in pondering on trust in managers. By “grounding” survey items in interview data, the best of two worlds can be combined, i.e. building representations of the empirical world in which measurement errors are minimised and that do justice to that world at the same time. This design is especially useful when there is little prior knowledge regarding a phenomenon, or when the knowledge available is so all embracing, like the results of Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analysis of antecedents of trust, that a parsimonious conceptual framework cannot be arrived at. In this study both circumstances did apply.

The data were taken from a case study, conducted in a general hospital with 1,800 employees, situated in a medium-sized Dutch town. The results are reported in Bijlsma-Frankema (1997b). The case study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, 76 organisational members, selected by a stratified random sample, were interviewed with a list of sensitising topics, covering different kinds of relations between organisational members (Bijlsma-Frankema, 1997a), like relations with colleagues within the team, relations between groups and relations with managers and top management. Each topic was approached in a non-directive way, to help understand the perspectives of the interviewees, the way they make sense of the situation they are in (Weick, 1995), and what they experience as relevant, thus worth talking about unsolicited. The interview methodology of Kvale (1996) was followed, which is directed at posing short non-directive questions and getting long answers. The topic of relation with the manager, for instance, is opened by: “Do you often meet your manager?”; “Which topics are discussed?”; and “Are you satisfied with the way he/she operates?” In the course of the interview, the interviewer poses short questions like “Why [or how] did you feel [about] that?”; “How did you react?”; and “What did you do?” If a silence falls the interviewer is encouraged to let it last for a while to persuade the respondent to talk on. If the respondent does not break the silence, the interviewer repeats the last sentence the respondent spoke. If trust has not come up spontaneously the topic is closed with two questions: “Do you trust your manager?” and “Which of the things we talked about do you think of most in giving this answer?”. Next, the interviews were fully transcribed and entered into a qualitative data matrix (Bijlsma-Frankema and Droogleever Fortuijn, 1997), which is a table with two entrances. The columns give the respondents; the rows give the topics from the topic list that guided the interviews. The cells are filled with abbreviated statements made by respondents on subjects within the topics. The respondents’ statements are recorded in their language, also denominated as “emic” terms (Pelto and Pelto, 1981, pp. 54-66), in contrast to the “etic” terms of researcher language. The resulting matrix can be interpreted as a map of shared areas of relevance of organisational members. It showed that trust in managers surfaced as a relevant problem throughout the interviews. In the process of generating hypotheses, a host of emic data must be caught into a restricted number of etic terms and inferences. To this purpose the methodology of analytical induction, as developed by Silverman (2001, pp. 237-8) was applied. By constantly comparing cases and analysing deviant ones, hypotheses about relations between phenomena are formulated and tested on the data. In this process the emic terms of the respondent are gradually transformed in more general concepts that enable the link to theoretical concepts of a more abstract nature. For instance, a lot of different situations of problems with other employees were talked about, nurses among themselves, nurses and facility staff, nurses and doctors, doctors among

Antecedents of trust in managers 645

PR 32,5

646

themselves, and so on. These conflicts were about a host of different issues. Yet, the recurrent theme turned out to be that respondents expected their manager to support them in solving these problems, although not necessarily by taking their side. So, the more general concept of “problems with others” was developed to catch many different accounts in a single term. Since a team of five researchers conducted the case study, researcher triangulation could be employed. Every part of the matrix was checked by two co researchers to arrive at inter-rater reliability on the selection of statements and inferences drawn in terms of hypotheses. Regarding trust in managers, seven hypotheses were formulated. In the second phase of the case study, a questionnaire of 64 items was devised with help of the data matrix. All members of the organisation were surveyed to test if the outcomes of the interviews could be generalised to the population of organisational members. The response rate was 58 per cent, with little variation between departmental and professional groups. Unfortunately, additional demographic information about the non-respondents is not at hand. After conducting a stepwise regression analysis, a pattern analysis (Ragin, 1989, 1994) was applied to the data (n ¼ 1053) to answer the research question in a different mode. In this analysis different patterns of managerial behaviours, as experienced by subordinates, that explain trust in managers, are searched for. In testing the hypotheses, no attempt was made to aggregate the single item variables in multiple item scales. The choice of single item analysis was based on two grounds. First, a parsimonious model, containing a few single behavioural cues was aimed at. Second, inspiration was found in a meta-analysis of Wanous and Reichers (1997), who compared the robustness of single item and multiple item measurements of overall job satisfaction. They calculated overall correlations between single item measures and job satisfaction scales, and used two moderators, namely type of single item measurement and type of scale. Because differences among single item measures had no effect, whereas type of scale did have, they concluded that it seems reasonable that single item measures are more robust than scale measures. This finding seemed challenging enough to pursue the quest for single cues as intended. Interview data The interview texts were scanned for behaviours that the interviewees related to trust in managers. The six behaviours that were often related to trust are discussed in this section. Monitoring performance Many of those interviewed who claimed not to trust their manager (fully), also complained about aloofness in the manager’s behaviour, resulting in a

perceived lack of knowledge about what people do and whether they perform as expected. Sometimes respondents said that the manager failed to formulate clear expectations regarding their performance. Lack of care was an interpretation frequently associated with complaints of distant behaviour – “It is as if he doesn’t care whether we do a good job or not,” one of the respondents said. Some related lack of care to the manager’s striving after personal, rather than team goals – “He is so busy minding his own career in the organisation that he neglects us. We do not count enough, I guess.” Respondents who trusted their managers praised them for knowing about their work and performance and for caring about things. Respondents brought up several consequences of a lack of monitoring, such as a shortage of feedback on performance, arbitrariness and inequity in assessments, and a low level of improvement that inhibited satisfaction: H1. Monitoring by managers based on clear expectations will be positively related to trust in managers. To test the hypothesis, questionnaire items 1 and 2 were formulated: “(1) I trust my manager (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)” and “(2) My manager is well aware of whether I perform as expected (strongly agree . . . strongly disagree).” Supportive behaviour Supportive behaviour is a second theme that most of the interviewees directly related to trust in their manager. Respondents often explained trust in their manager by stating that he or she supported them in matters important to them. Lack of trust was explained in the same way: I do not trust my manager fully, since she does not support me enough. When I have to solve a problem and ask her to help me find a solution, most of the time I walk out of her office without a solution. She is very clever in passing a problem back.

For the interviewees, a manager’s support is especially relevant in two areas – in improving individual performance and in resolving problems with others. Help and guidance in improving individual performance were seen as signs of caring. The threat of sanctions on sub-optimal performance is lessened, and satisfaction can grow as a result of effective support given. Indirectly, people saw consequences for the group too. If individuals are helped to improve their performance, improving team performance becomes attainable, and with that, collective satisfaction about a job well done comes into reach: H2. Managers’ help and guidance in improving individual performance will be positively related to trust in managers. The other area often mentioned was support by the manager in resolving problems with others. The relevance of this may be context-specific. In the interviews, there were many complaints about the social order in the hospital,

Antecedents of trust in managers 647

PR 32,5

648

as mentioned before. In such a context, a manager is sometimes the last resort for people trying to cope with others who are “no good” or unco-operative. By offering unconditional support in such cases, the manager not only shows that he or she cares, but also shows a willingness to accept risk on behalf of a subordinate. If a manager was seen to act in this way, he or she was trusted. Managers who were not (fully) trusted were said to shirk their responsibility in solving problems between people, to “delegate” problem solving to subordinates, or to promise to act but without any follow-through: H3. Managerial support in resolving problems with others will be positively related to trust in managers. To test H2 and H3, questionnaire items 3 and 4 were formulated: “(3) My manager offers help and guidance to improve my performance (strongly agree . . . strongly disagree)” and “(4) My manager will always support me in cases of problems with others (strongly agree . . . strongly disagree).” Cooperation-related problem solving Trust in managers was not only related to support in solving problems with others, but also to effective results of problem solving within the team or department. Respondents, who did not (fully) trust their managers, pointed to problems that were not solved because of differences in opinion between team members about the preferred solution to those problems. In some teams or departments, people complained about a pile of “nagging” problems that impede smooth functioning. Respondents who trusted their manager did not mention a large number of unsolved problems: H4. Low incidence of problems that cannot be solved because of differences of opinion within teams/departments will be positively related to trust in managers. To test this hypothesis, questionnaire item 5 was formulated: “(5) How often does it happen in your team/department that a problem cannot be solved because of differences of opinion between people? ((Almost) always, often, sometimes, rarely ever, (almost) never).” Listening to ideas and suggestions in an atmosphere of security Besides expectations about monitoring, support, and solving co-operation-related problems, listening to subordinates was seen as relevant to trust. A manager who was fully trusted was often said to be a “good listener” if subordinates brought up ideas or made suggestions to improve work processes or to improve relations within or between teams. If people said they did not (fully) trust their manager, general complaints about a lack of fruitful discussions with the manager abounded, sometimes seen specifically as a lack of openness to the ideas of subordinates on the part of the manager. Respondents said that they felt that their manager did not take them seriously,

and that he or she showed little respect for them. Some respondents even said that the manager created an atmosphere, in which they did not feel secure to speak openly about improvements they would like to have made, because the manager could interpret that as an attack on his or her performance. In these cases, the managers were said not to be (fully) trusted:

Antecedents of trust in managers

H5a. Openness to ideas and suggestions of subordinates will be positively related to trust in managers.

649

H5b. Creating an atmosphere in which subordinates feel secure to speak up about improvements will be positively related to trust in managers. H5a was measured by a question Hofstede (1990), based on Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1956), designed for measuring leadership style. Respondents are asked to characterise the style of their manager by choosing one of four decision-making styles, ranging from authoritative (tells) authoritative/ explaining decisions (sells), to participatory and democratic, where the group takes the decisions. Contrary to the first two styles, the participatory and democratic styles are seen as an indication of openness to ideas of subordinates. To test H5b, questionnaire item 6 was formulated: “(6) The atmosphere at work makes me feel secure to suggest improvements (strongly agree . . . strongly disagree).” Feedback on performance The final trust-related theme that surfaced in many interviews is feedback on performance. Managers who were trusted were praised for giving feedback on performance and for being fair. Giving feedback in a fair way was seen as having consequences for individuals and for the group. Feedback was seen as a way to improve team performance, especially if help and guidance followed feedback to under-performing colleagues directed at improvement: [. . .] it makes you feel that something is being done about improving the performance of the team.

So feedback was seen as an investment in people and their collective effort. If managers failed to provide feedback, they were seldom fully trusted. In such cases, it was also mentioned that the manager did not show a lot of care. Respondents that did not fully trust their managers often said that their good work seemed to be unnoticed by her or him, or was just taken for granted. They felt that in exchange for working hard and doing a good job, the manager should show appreciation in one way or another. Some even said that appreciation was needed to provide motivation to keep trying: “if I never get recognition, why do I try so hard anyway?”: H6. Appreciation for good work will be positively related to trust in managers.

PR 32,5

650

To test this hypothesis questionnaire item 7 was formulated: “(7) If I do a good job, appreciation is clearly shown (strongly agree . . . strongly disagree).” Results Bivariate analysis In this section the results of several bivariate analyses are presented. To test the hypotheses about bivariate relations between the trust related behavioural cues and trust in managers, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted on styles and trust. The other hypotheses were tested by means of correlation and partial correlation analysis. The analysis of variance shows that there are differences between the four types of managers regarding the level of trust placed in managers (F3,738¼59.775; p , 0.001). Adjusted for sample size the percentage of explained variance (h 2unbiased) is a moderate 19.2 per cent. Furthermore, a Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test[1] shows that employees who classified their managers to be an authoritative manager clearly trust their managers to a lower degree (an average of 3.0) than employees that classify their managers to be an explaining, a participative, or democratic manager (an average of 2.2, 2.0, and 2.0, respectively)[2]. Table I shows the Pearson’s correlations between the remaining behavioural cues and level of trust in managers. The managerial behaviours are all significantly related to trust in managers. Support shows the highest correlation with trust, 0.77. Guidance and monitoring are also well correlated with trust, 0.73 and 0.67 respectively. All three can be judged as (uncontrolled) large effects (Cohen, 1988). Appreciation and cooperation-related problem solving show moderate values, both 0.43. Since the correlations among the behaviours of managers are fairly high, partial correlations between the behaviours on the one hand, and the level of

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table I. Correlation matrix trust in managers (n ¼ 763)

Trust Support Guidance Monitoring No co-operation Openness Appreciation

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

2.42 2.56 2.71 2.59 3.46 2.71 2.82

0.98 0.99 1.04 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.04

0.77* 0.73 0.67 20.43 0.50 0.43

0.67 0.60 20.36 0.47 0.43

0.70 20.39 0.42 0.46

20.33 0.38 0.42

20.37 20.27

0.39

Notes: * p , 0.001 in all cases Trust ¼ trust in manager; Support ¼ support in case of trouble with others; Guidance ¼ help and guidance to improve performance; Monitoring ¼ monitoring; No cooperation ¼ no cooperation-related problem solving; Openness ¼ atmosphere of openness; Appreciation ¼ appreciation for good work

trust in managers on the other hand, are also calculated. The results are shown in Table II. In all cases the Pearson’s correlation drops significantly, e.g. the partial correlation between guidance and level of trust is 0.25 (a drop of 0.42). The partial correlation between level of trust and appreciation is not even statistically significant anymore (one-sided, p= 0.316). This variable is therefore excluded from further analysis. Based on the bivariate partial correlation analysis it can be concluded that all but one of the hypotheses cannot be falsified by the data. The effects, however, are rather moderate (Cohen, 1988).

Antecedents of trust in managers 651

Regression analysis In order to disentangle the bivariate effects, and to determine the relative importance of the independent variables, a stepwise regression analysis was performed. Type of leadership is recoded into dummies, with type 1 as type of reference. Since multicollinearity is a major threat to the reliability of the results of a regression analysis (e.g. Tatsuoka, 1988; Stevens, 1995), the tolerance of all independent variables was calculated (see Table III). There appeared to be no violations; the lowest tolerance was 0.43. All others were at least 0.50. List wise deletion was used in the regression analysis. To see whether imputation would seem in order, imputation of missing values with the mean, and pair wise deletion were also used. The three analyses showed similar results. An additional, often used check that was performed is the following. A dummy variable, indicating whether a case had a missing value on one of the independent variables, was added to the regression analysis using imputation of missing values with the mean. The dummy variable did not have a

Variable

Support

Guidance

Monitoring

No cooperation

Security

Appreciation

Trust 0.49* 0.25 0.24 –0.14 0.17 Note: * p , 0.001 in all cases, except between trust and appreciation ( p ¼ 0.316).

Support Guidance Monitoring Openness

– 0.02

Beta

Standard error

t

Semi partial correlation

Tolerance

0.45 0.24 0.19 0.13

0.028* 0.029 0.027 0.023

15.9 7.6 6.7 5.5

0.32 0.15 0.14 0.11

0.51 0.43 0.51 0.77

Notes: * p , 0.001 in all cases R 2adjusted ¼ 69.2 per cent, F4,758 ¼ 429.6; p , 0.001

Table II. Partial correlation matrix trust in managers (n ¼ 763)

Table III. Results of regression analysis for trust in managers (n ¼ 763)

PR 32,5

652

significant effect on the level of trust in managers (two-sided, p= 0.688). Therefore it was decided to opt for the statistically soundest form, that is, list wise deletion. The results are shown in Table III. Because of the large sample size, only variables that are significant at the 0.001 level and that increased the percentage of explained variance by at least an extra 1 per cent were added to the equation. All in all eight variables were used in the analysis (five behaviours and three “type of leadership” dummies). Support was the first variable to enter the equation, followed by guidance, monitoring, and, finally, openness. The percentage of explained variance in trust is 69.2 per cent. It can be conjectured that this good result is partly due to the interpretative approach chosen in the first phase of the research. Support (b ¼ 0.45, t ¼ 15.9; p , 0.001), guidance (b ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 7.6; p , 0.001), monitoring (b ¼ 0.19, t ¼ 6.7; p , 0.001), and openness (b ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 5.5; p , 0.001) are included in the model. This suggests that support is the most important independent variable, while openness is the least important. Co-operation-related problem solving was excluded since it did not add substantially to the model (an increase of only 0.5 per cent explained variance), although the Fchange was significant at p, 0.001. The same holds for type 2 leadership (an increase of 0.7 per cent) and type 3 (an increase of 0.5 per cent). Type 4 was not statistically significant. It seems that type of leadership, when controlled for the effects of all other variables, is not substantially related to the level of trust in managers. The semi-partial correlation between support (the most dominant variable) and trust is 0.32, which means that support explains 0.322 £ 100 per cent = 10.2 per cent variance in trust in managers. Guidance, monitoring, and security add another 2.1 per cent, 2.0 per cent, and 1.2 per cent, respectively (Stevens, 1995). This implies that almost 54 per cent (69.2 per cent-15.5 per cent) explained variance cannot be accounted for exclusively by a single independent variable. This is a result of the high inter-item correlations. Consequently, it seems sensible to carry out additional analyses in order to find out whether certain combinations of values on the independent variables lead to a high or low level of trust in management. Bearing this in mind, Boolean algebra-based pattern analysis is a suitable technique, because “the principle of Boolean analysis is to look for entailments between variables” (Degenne and Lebeaux, 1996, p. 231). The basic idea of this analysis is to find patterns of independent variables (i.e. the trust related behavioural cues) that discriminate between outcomes in the dependent variable, trust in managers, by comparing patterns and deleting variables and patterns that do not discriminate (Ragin, 1989, 1994). In the next section pattern analysis is explained in some detail, and subsequently, applied to the survey data.

Pattern analysis In the interviews, different combinations of fewer than the six managerial behaviours were found related to trust in the manager, including the four that came out of the regression analysis. Different circumstances within the organisation may lead to different relevance-based expectations regarding the manager’s behaviour. A model with six variables may show to be redundant, not with respect to one variable in all circumstances, but with respect to different variables in different circumstances. Pattern analysis is suitable to disclose this kind of redundancy. Because of missing values in one or more variables used, 226 cases had to be excluded, leaving 827 valid cases for analysis. Since the regression analysis (using the same variables) was insensitive of missing data, we expect the same for the pattern analysis. All variables were dichotomised into values, which are given an upper-case letter, a positive connotation, and values, which are given a lower-case letter, a non-positive connotation. Decisions about dichotomising are crucial to the outcomes, because valuable information can be lost by data reduction. In this study the choice was not difficult, since the research question is directed at behaviours of the manager that are experienced by subordinates. So, strongly agree and agree answers, indicating that a specific behaviour is positively experienced, were coded in upper-case letters. The letters used to code the cases were: . M for monitoring performance (assigned in 59.9 per cent of all cases); . A for appreciation of good work (50.5 per cent); . G for help and guidance to improve performance (52.2 per cent); . S for support in resolving problems with others (58.5 per cent); and . P for cooperation-related problem solving (57.5 per cent). The nominal variable of management style is also included. This variable is coded O, openness to ideas of subordinates, if the manager is typified as participatory (type 3) or democratic (type 4) (40.2 per cent)[3]. In case of P, co-operation-related problem solving, respondents indicating that insoluble problems “rarely ever” or “almost never” occur get a P, the rest a p (100 2 57.5 ¼ 42.5 per cent). To be able to find distinguishing behaviours of managers related to trust and non-trust, trust is divided into three categories: (1) T (strongly agree and agree, 64.1 per cent); (2) – (neither agree nor disagree, 19.9 per cent); and (3) t (disagree and strongly disagree, 16 per cent). Since each respondent’s pattern is coded in letters, no information on differences between respondents’ patterns is lost. For example, MAGSopt indicates that a respondent is positively experiencing monitoring, appreciation,

Antecedents of trust in managers 653

PR 32,5

654

guidance and support by the manager, but not openness and problem solving, and that he/she has answered negatively on trust in the manager. If Ragin is strictly followed, two rules guide the analysis: (1) If two patterns with the same value on the dependent variable show difference in value in only one criterion variable, this variable is considered as not discriminating, therefore it can be removed form the pattern. For example, MAgSOpt and MAgSopt lead to: MAgSpt. In this way patterns are reduced to sets of discriminating variables. (2) If two similar patterns lead to different values in the dependent variable, this pattern must be removed from the analysis. For example, if MAgsOpt and MAgsOpT are found, the pattern MagsOp must be removed. After coding the patterns it became clear that in this data set these rules cannot be applied to the letter without loosing the intended effect of finding reduced sets of behaviours that discriminate between trust and non-trust in the manager. Two problems had to be taken care of. First, of the 64 logical possible patterns 63 were found. The consequence is that the first rule of Ragin, if applied, would lead to reduction to single variables, whereas the pattern analysis is employed to improve on single-variable explanations. The second problem was that frequencies of patterns, varying from one to 111, are not taken into account. Take, for instance, the pattern MaGSOp. Of the 85 respondents with this pattern, 84 have a T-code and only one a t-code. If the second rule would be applied, this pattern must be deleted from the analysis. With that, valuable information about a “high trust” pattern would be lost. To solve these problems, “prediction of trust” percentages were calculated by dividing the number of respondents that trust their manager by the total number of respondents showing the same pattern. The highest “prediction-of-trust” patterns are then compared to patterns with one less behaviour, to see how the prediction rate is affected. If a high prediction rate is maintained in the reduced pattern, it is assumed that the behaviour can be deleted, since it is redundant. Another method used was aggregation of findings over patterns with high trust percentages that differed in only one behaviour to see how the prediction of trust rate was affected by excluding this behaviour as predictor of trust. In this way, the principle of comparing and reducing is kept alive, as well as the search for minimal patterns with optimal discriminatory power. Based on the prediction of trust percentages, the patterns have been arranged into five categories (see Table IV): from “high prediction of trust” (at least 93 per cent) to “high prediction of non-trust” (at least 86 per cent). Since the patterns related to the neither-nor outcomes did not disclose clear insights so far, they were put aside for further analysis. The lower-case letters of the

Medium High prediction High prediction prediction of absence Indecisive of trust of trust of non-trust patterns Pattern n %t Pattern n %t Pattern n %t Pattern MAGSOP MAGSO MAGSP MAGOP MASOP MASO MASP MGSOP MGSO MGSP MGP MSOP AGSOP AGSO AGOP ASOP GO

87 44 45 16 5 9 3 26 16 15 4 6 9 2 1 8 1

100 98 98 94 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

MAGS 32 86 MAG MAGO 8 88 MAS MAGP 11 82 MAO MAOP 4 75 MAP

13 6 2 8

3 6 6 7

62 MA 67 50 63

MGS MG MOP MO

25 16 4 4

88 75 75 75

MGOP MSO MSP MS

67 MGO 67 MP 67 M 57

AGSP AGS AGP AG GSOP GSO SOP

5 4 5 5 8 7 8

80 75 80 80 88 86 88

ASO ASP AS

8 63 AOP 6 67 10 50

GSP G SP S OP

2 9 6 15 8

50 67 50 53 50

GOP GP SO O

n

High prediction of non-trust %t Pattern n %t

7 29

Antecedents of trust in managers 655

4 25 9 22 29 41

4 25 AO AP A 4 3 3 19

7 14 10 0 25 8

25 GS 1 33 P 33 33 magsop 111 32

0 6 5

Boolean notation were deleted from the patterns for ease of reading, except for the all-negative pattern magsop. Table IV shows that 13 of the patterns are perfectly associated with trust in managers, including MGSO, the four variables that came out of the regression analysis. In general, the high “prediction of trust” patterns show the richest combination of behaviours experienced, the high prediction of non-trust the poorest, while the in-between categories show a descending line in the number of behaviours of managers that are positively experienced. Next, the patterns in the first two categories, with high and medium percentages of trust, were closely examined regarding redundancy. What happens if, starting with the full pattern MAGSOP, one behaviour is missing? The full pattern, MAGSOP, with 87 cases, predicts trust in managers in all cases. Yet, MAGSOP can be seen as a “fat” pattern. Monitoring, appreciation, or guidance can be deleted from this pattern without losing a perfect association with trust. If the patterns with at least five respondents are taken into account, the patterns ASOP, MSOP, MASO turn out to be equally good predictors of trust and as parsimonious as the MGSO pattern that was suggested by the regression analysis. The occurrence of these patterns is however confined to less than 3 per cent of the respondents.

Table IV. Patterns, frequencies and prediction of trust percentages

PR 32,5

656

The 100 per cent trust patterns of four behaviours all include support in resolving problems with others (S), the dominant variable in the regression model. The other variables can be divided into individual-directed (M, A, G) and team-directed (O, P) behaviours of managers. ASOP, MSOP, MASO and MGSO seem to be balanced in combining both types of behaviour. The above analysis is confined to patterns with a perfect association between patterns and trust in managers. However, the search for the most parsimonious pattern that still is perfectly related to trust is a very stringent restriction. What happens if this restriction is relaxed? MAGSO and MAGSP are almost perfectly associated with trust (98 per cent in both cases). Since these two patterns are based on 44 and 45 cases, respectively, they are probably more robust patterns compared to ASOP, MSOP, and MASO which are discussed in the former section, and that are based on eight, six and nine cases, respectively. Combining the results of MAGSOP and MAGSO, thus aggregating over P and p, shows that 99 per cent of trust is predicted. Aggregation over P and p, and O and o results in MAGS; a subset of both MAGSO and MAGSP. This combination of behaviours predicts 97 per cent of trust in managers. A closer look at all possible subsets of MAGS, i.e. MAG, MAS, MGS, and AGS, shows that of these four patterns MGS is the combination of managerial behaviours that also predicts 97 per cent of trust in managers! So, next to “co-operation-related problem solving”, and “openness to ideas of subordinates”, also “appreciation of good work”, does not seem to matter much in the prediction of trust in managers. Conclusion In this article, some answers were found to the following question: “Which behaviours (or sets of behaviours) of managers are related to trust in managers in the perspectives of organisational members?”. Based on open interviews with a stratified sample of the organisational population (n ¼ 76), using the methodology of Kvale (1996), seven hypotheses were formulated that relate behavioural cues and trust in managers. Behaviours included monitoring performance of subordinates (referred to as M in the pattern analysis), appreciation of good work (A), guidance to improve individual performance (G), support in case of trouble with others (S), co-operation-related problem solving (P), openness to ideas of subordinates, and type of leadership (O). The hypotheses were tested in a survey that was administered to all organisational members. Bivariate analysis, multiple regression analysis (e.g. Stevens, 1995) and a pattern analysis, based on Boolean algebra (Ragin, 1989, 1994) were used to test the hypotheses, and to search for the most parsimonious model. Bivariate correlation analysis showed that, if controlled for the effect of the other behaviours, all but one of the behaviours of managers, as experienced by organisational members, correlated moderately, but significantly, with trust in managers. Monitoring performance, guidance to improve individual

performance, support in case of trouble with others, openness to ideas of subordinates and co-operation-related problem solving were found to be relevant trust-related behaviours of managers. Appreciation of good work was not significantly related to trust in managers, and consequently, left out of further statistical analysis. A Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test (e.g. Stevens, 1995) showed that authoritative managers are less trusted than explaining, participative and democratic managers. Multiple regression analysis is especially suited to disentangle the separate effects of behavioural cues on trust in managers, and to estimate their relative importance. The analysis showed that controlled for the effect of the other variables, support (b ¼ 0.45), guidance (b ¼ 0.24), monitoring (b ¼ 0.19), and openness (b ¼ 0.13), are statistical and substantial predictors of trust in managers (R 2adjusted ¼ 69.2 per cent). Openness, problem solving, and type of leadership were excluded from the model because of statistical redundancy. So, the model of seven managerial behaviours suggested by the interview data, could be reduced to four relevant behaviours. It can be conjectured that this good result is partly due to the “bottom up” pattern approach chosen. The pattern analysis showed that 100 per cent of the respondents that positively experience all six behaviours stated to trust their manager. This analysis, however, also produced another 12 more parsimonious patterns that perfectly associate with trust in managers, including the MGSO pattern from the regression analysis. The patterns found suggest that, in general, a balance between individual-directed behaviours and team-directed behaviours leads to trust, with differentiation in accents within the balance among respondents. This can be interpreted as a signal that different circumstances may produce differentiation in some areas of relevance, while others are shared. By disclosing this insight, the pattern analysis proves its worth. Based on the patterns, a fair amount of trust or non-trust can be predicted. If the indecisive answers are left out for separate analysis, 661 cases are left. Based on the patterns of these respondents 90.5 per cent of the yes and no answers to the trust variable can be predicted, again a rather satisfactory outcome. Another insight gained from the pattern analysis is a theoretical one. The general tendency, to be seen in Table IV, is that if managerial behaviours are missing from the “high trust” patterns, overall trust is diminishing. It is a matter of common understanding that trust is related to risks (Luhmann, 1988). The interview data suggest that the managerial behaviours discussed were experienced as curbing the chance of unpleasant events. If managers show less of these behaviours, it can be conjectured that their behaviour is not experienced as beneficial anymore, and trust diminishes as a consequence. The search for the most parsimonious model with the highest prediction rate resulted in MGS. A total of 97 per cent of the respondents with a pattern including monitoring, guidance and support showed trust in the manager. This result is almost fully compatible to the outcomes of the regression analysis,

Antecedents of trust in managers 657

PR 32,5

658

which resulted in four behaviours, MGSO, of which openness explained the least variance. It can be concluded that the combination of monitoring, guidance and support is a necessary condition for trust in managers, which comes close to a sufficient condition. Trust and control A question, raised by the literature was how trust in managers is related to experiences of managerial control. In the interviews, monitoring was often mentioned as relevant to trust in the manager. Monitoring was experienced as care for organisational members, both at the individual and the group level. Monitoring was also seen as enabling other behaviours of managers, such as feedback on performance and, consequently, appreciation of good work, guidance to improve individual performance, managerial support and problem solving. The regression analysis and the pattern analysis both disclose the relevance attached to monitoring in relation to trust. The full pattern and the four four-trait patterns with at least five respondents that predict trust perfectly, all include monitoring. Moreover, 88 per cent of the respondents with one of the 13 perfect trust-related patterns indicate that the manager monitors her/his performance. It can be concluded that monitoring, as a form of control, does not negatively relate to trust, as suggested by the substitution hypothesis (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Lewicki and Benedict Bunker, 1996; Handy, 1993; Whitney, 1993). The data offer more support to the idea that trust and control are complementary phenomena. And the conjectured relation, that monitoring, by reducing risks enables trust to build cannot be refuted by the data either. Discussion In answering the question why the six items found are related to trust, the distinction between instrumental and social concerns, made by Kramer (1996) and Tyler and Degoey (1996), does not seem very helpful if the concept of relevance is taken into account. Relevance, attributed to behavioural traits of managers, means that subordinates see these things as the core tasks of the manager, and that they attach value to a proper execution of these tasks. Following on this argument, task-reliability equals benevolence and respect, shown for subordinates. Both signify value-congruence that impedes distrust to arise. Sitkin and Stickel (1996) make a similar point in stating that perceived mismatches between managerial systems and employees’ own task perceptions are potentially important as a factor in escalating cycles of distrust in managers, because these mismatches easily lead to feelings of value-incongruence. The items found are better understood as specifications of two general features of the manager’s task, as worded by Hackman and Walton (1986) that is monitoring and taking action. If monitoring is insufficient, taking action cannot be optimal. Two items refer to the gathering of information about

subordinates’ relevance’s that seem necessary to act in a “proper” and effective way: individual-directed monitoring and openness to ideas of subordinates in a team setting. All high trust patterns contain M or O, but a majority of those who trust their manager seem to attach higher relevance to monitoring than to openness. A comparison of the results found and the results of the meta-analysis on trust in leadership conducted by Dirks and Ferrin (2002, p. 622) yields surprisingly little concurrence. In the first systematic review of empirical evidence for antecedents of trust they presented, shows that trust in leadership is significantly related to transformational leadership, perceived organisational support, interactional justice, procedural justice, transactional leadership, distributive justice, participative decision making, and meeting expectations of followers. It is hard to determine in general whether monitoring, guidance and support in case of trouble with others relate to these multi-item constructs or not, since they are measured differently throughout the studies the meta-analysis was conducted on. Some conclusions can, however be drawn. First, in this study, contrary to the findings of Dirks and Ferrin (2002), participatory decision making did not surface as a very relevant antecedent of trust in managers. Second, meeting expectations, a useful container concept, seems to come closest to the findings and interpretations of findings in this study. If expectations are defined as areas of relevance, differences can be bridged. So, it can be concluded that in this study, on pondering on trust in managers, actors react to a few single behavioural cues instead of many complex ones. The question that remains to be answered is why monitoring, guidance and support are so highly relevant to trust in managers in this hospital. It is a matter of common understanding that trust is related to risk (Luhmann, 1988). The high relevance attached to these three behaviours can be understood as signifying reduction of a core risk that employees run in relation to the manager, that is to get a negative performance appraisal, that can result in loosing one’s job. Monitoring performance by the manager reduces this risk because if the manager knows how things are, he/she becomes involved in this risk in one way or another. Either by running the risk of being blamed for not acting on low performance of the employee involved while knowing about it, or by trying to do something about it, for instance by offering guidance or support. If a manager offers guidance to improve performance, the chance of a negative appraisal is diminished. If he/she offers support in case of trouble with others, the chance of a negative appraisal due to these problems is curbed. So, all three behaviours seem directly related to this core risk. This is less so with the other three behaviours. However benevolent appreciation of good work may be, this behaviour does not reduce the risk of depreciation in case of low performance. Co-operation-related problem solving and openness seem to relate

Antecedents of trust in managers 659

PR 32,5

660

less directly with this core risk, which can explain the relatively lower relevance of these behaviours to trust in managers. Limitations of the study This study is limited in several respects, of which two will be discussed. First, there are deviant cases that need further examination, indicated in Table IV as cases that reduce the prediction rate of a pattern to less than 100 per cent. In these cases, other areas of relevance than the ones found in the interviews may dominate in pondering on trust in managers. The interview sample may not have been as representative as was assumed. Including other variables in the pattern analysis may shed light on these cases, for instance items about the daily work situation or colleagues. Another matter that asks for attention is the indecisive answers to the trust variable and the fourth category of patterns that seem to predict indecisiveness better than other patterns. One can wonder what the essence of indecisiveness can be? Is it a sign that trust in the manager is not a relevant issue, is the manager not long enough in function to form an opinion, or does it mean that plusses and minuses add up to zero in the experience of subordinates? Further analysis of these patterns showed that part of the cases seem to support the “adding up” hypothesis, while other cases tend to overall neutrality, in line with the other explanations suggested. Further research is needed to yield more robust answers to this question. A second limitation is that it can be argued that the validity of the outcomes is confined to this hospital because of context-boundedness. This matter will be addressed in future research. The first results are encouraging, though. In a case study of a mental health network, monitoring, support, guidance, openness and co-operation-related problem solving were mentioned again as relevant to trust in managers. Appreciation of good work was replaced by fairness of assessment by the manager. A replication of the pattern analysis with the MFGSOP traits, F signifying fairness, resulted in 92.2 per cent prediction of trust or non-trust. Yet, this is only a beginning. More studies in hospitals, in different organisations and in different contexts are needed to be able to generalise confidently on the findings presented in this article. Notes 1. A Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test was conducted to test the difference between each pair of means by holding the overall level of significance at, in this case, 0.05 (e.g. Stevens, 1995). 2. Remember that a higher score on “level of trust” means that less trust is placed in managers (minimal and maximal score are 1 and 5, respectively). 3. Since type of management style is more directly related to openness of managers, management style is used instead of questionnaire item 6, the atmosphere at work makes me feel secure to suggest improvements, which can also relate to colleagues.

References Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. (1997a), “On costly frictions between organizational cultures and structure”, in Rahim, A., Golembiewski, R.T. and Pate, L. (Eds), Current Topics in Management, Vol. II, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 123-52. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. (1997b), A Healthy Wish for Improvement, research report in Commission of the Board of Directors of a General Hospital, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. (1998), Between Dream and Deed, research report in Commission of the Board of Directors of a Mental Health Care Organisation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. (2001a), “On managing cultural integration- and cultural change processes in mergers and acquisitions”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25 No. 2/3/4, pp. 192-208. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. (2001b), “Erfolg und Miszerfolg Grenzuberschreitender Akquisitionen: Herausforderungen fu¨r die Interculturellen Forschung”, in Fink, G. and Meierenwert, S. (Eds), Interkulturelles Management, Springer Verlag, Vienna, pp. 299-313. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. and Droogleever Fortuijn, A.B. (1997), “De Kwalitatieve datamatrix als analyseinstrument” (“A qualitative data matrix as instrument of analysis”), Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 448-59. Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M., Prins, E. and Weber, B. (1999), “Managerial perspectives on success and failure of post-acquisition processes”, in Rahim, A., Golembiewski, R.T. and Mackenzie, K.D. (Eds), Current Topics in Management, Vol. IV, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 155-79. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Boisot, M.H. (1995), Information Space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture, Routledge, London. Buskens, V.W. (1999), Social Networks and Trust, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. and Taillieu, T. (2001), “Trust within teams: the relation with performance effectiveness”, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-44. Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), “Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 16-39. Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 302-33. Curral, S.C. and Judge, T.H. (1995), “Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 151-70.

Antecedents of trust in managers 661

PR 32,5

Das, T.K. and Teng, B.G. (1998), “Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 491-512.

662

De Jong-Gierveld, J. and Van Tilburg, T.G. (1992), “Triangulatie in operationaliseringsmethoden” (“Triangulation in operational measurement”), in Bruinsma, G.J.N. and Zwanenburg, M.A. (Eds), Methodologie voor Bestuurskundigen: Stromingen en Methoden, Coutinho, Muiderberg, pp. 273-98.

Degenne, A. and Lebeaux, M.-O. (1996), “Boolean analysis of questionnaire data”, Social Networks, Vol. 18, pp. 231-45.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings an implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 611-28. Gambetta, D. (1988), “Can we trust trust?”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-37. Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gautschi, T. (2002), Trust and Exchange: Effects of Temporal Embeddedness and Network Embeddedness on Providing a Surplus, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam. Gilkey, R. (1991), “The psychodynamics of upheaval: intervening in merger and acquisition transitions”, in Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, CA, pp. 331-61. Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986), “Leading groups in organisations”, in Goodman, P. (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 72-120. Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organisations, 4th ed., Penguin, London. Hofstede, G. (1990), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, London (first published in 1980). Janowicz, M. and Noorderhaven, N. (2002), “The role of trust in interorganisational learning in joint ventures”, in Proceedings of EURAM Conference, Stockholm. Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchical relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 216-46. Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews, Sage, London. Lewicki, R.J. and Benedict Bunker, B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 114-40. Luhmann, N. (1988), “Familiarity, confidence and trust: problems and alternatives”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-37. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. March, J. and Olsen, J. (1975), “The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, pp. 149-71. March, J.G. (1978), “Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 587-608. Mishra, A. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 261-88.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38. Morris, J.H. and Moberg, D.J. (1994), “Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal”, in Sarbin, T.R., Carney, R.M. and Eoyang, C. (Eds), Citizen Espionage: Studies in Trust and Betrayal, Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT, pp. 163-87. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Pelto, P.J. and Pelto, G.H. (1981), Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 295-326. Powell, W.W. (1996), “Trust-based forms of governance”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 51-68. Ragin, C.C. (1989), “The logic of comparative method and the algebra of logic”, Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, Vol. 1, pp. 373-98. Ragin, C.C. (1994), Constructing Social Research, Pine Forge Press, Newbury Park, CA. Sheppard, B. and Tuchinsky, M. (1996), “Micro-OB and the network organization”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 140-66. Silverman, D. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data, 2nd ed., Sage, London. Simon, H. (1955), “A behavioral model of rational choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 99-118. Sitkin, S.B. and Stickel, D. (1996), “The road to hell: the dynamics of distrust in an era of quality”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 196-216. Smaling, A. (1992), “Objectiviteit, betrouwbaarheid en validiteit”, (“Objectivity, reliability and validity”), in Bruinsma, G.J.N. and Zwanenburg, M.A. (Eds), Methodologie voor Bestuurskundigen: Stromingen en Methoden, Coutinho, Muiderberg, pp. 299-322. Smith, J.B. and Barclay, W.B. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 3-21. Stevens, J. (1995), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W.H. (1956), “How to choose a leadership pattern”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, pp. 95-101. Tatsuoka, M.M. (1988), Multivariate Analysis: Techniques for Educational and Psychological Research, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishing, New York, NY. Tyler, T. and Degoey, P. (1996), “Trust in organizational authorities: the influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, London, pp. 331-57. Wanous, J.P. and Reichers, A.E. (1997), “Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-52.

Antecedents of trust in managers 663

PR 32,5

Weibel, A. (2002), “Trust and control”, theoretical notes for an expert meeting on trust organised at the University of Zurich, Zurich, January. Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, London. Whitney, J.D. (1993), The Trust Factor, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Williamson, O.E. (1975), Market and Hierarchies, Free Press, New York, NY.

664 Further reading Baumeister, R.F. and Newman, L.S. (1994), “How stories make sense of personal experiences: motives that shape autobiographical narratives”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 20, pp. 676-90. Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, Wiley, New York, NY. Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D. and Sechrest, L. (1966), Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

Book reviews Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures Bart Nooteboom Edward Elgar Cheltenham 2002 ISBN: 1840645458 £55.00 hardback; £15.95 paperback 231 pp. + xii pp. Keywords Trust, Altruism, Organization, Governance Review DOI 10.1108/00483480310488397 Bart Nooteboom likes to ask questions – and dares giving his own answers. We join him in this monograph in the search for answers to ten sets of questions about trust addressing, in particular, the value of trust; the economic function of trust; failures of trust; trust and probability; calculative and non-calculative trust; objects and aspects of trust; the sources of trustworthiness; the mental basis of trust; the process of trust; and the testing and modelling of trust. Instead of encountering the questions in this sequence, we travel through the five areas of interest given in the book title, i.e. the forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures of trust meeting the questions along the way. For readers primarily interested in trust the journey is thoroughly enjoyable and instructive for the first half but less exciting in the second. Overall, the author achieves his principal aim of contributing to more conceptual coherence in trust research without surrendering the richness of the concept. Before embarking on the journey, the author presents his ten sets of questions and the theoretical equipment for the adventure in some detail. He reveals his objection against the view that trust is non-rational, arguing that rationality can be based on mechanisms other than self-interested calculation. He also points out that a process view of trust is required, that an interpretative approach to trust is called for, that a complex causality for trust must be assumed and that the situatedness and institutional embeddedness of trust needs to be recognised. Despite the possible rationality of trust, Nooteboom emphasises that all trust by definition involves “radical” uncertainty. Following the introductory chapter, the forms of trust are visited first. Arguing that trust should be neither restricted to nor separated from probabilistic and calculative considerations of the trustor, the author distinguishes forms of trust according to the possible objects of trust giving seven categories (with further subcategories) including behavioural, material,

Book reviews

665

Personnel Review Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003 pp. 665-671 q MCB UP Limited 0048-3486

PR 32,5

666

competence, intentional, conditional, exemplar and informational trust drawing on an action theory that he traces back to Aristotle. Not only people but also organisations and institutions can be objects (and subjects) of trust. The relationship between personal and impersonal trust is very complex, though. Nooteboom illustrates it quite lucidly, albeit with a highly objectified notion of “organisation”. The next chapter takes us to the foundations of trust which the author categorises first of all by distinguishing between egotistic and altruistic sources on one dimension and macro and micro sources on a second dimension (giving a two-by-two table). He discusses the sources in detail, making sure that the complex and extensive issues behind the simple distinctions are understood. Moreover, Nooteboom identifies (tentatively) the effects of psychological sources of trust and in greater detail the processual nature of trust and its sources. All in all, he suggests that it is possible to identify positively the foundations for trust but that the way they bear out in practice is ultimately indeterminate. The chapters on forms and foundations of trust are truly perceptive and insightful for trust research, but the journey subsequently takes an unexpected and unwelcome turn away from trust as such into Nooteboom’s home ground of inter-organisational governance. Instead of systematically discussing different functions of trust in this chapter, the author treats trust as one possible instrument of inter-organisational governance. Clearly this is one important function of trust which is highly important for relationships between organisations and needs to be understood in relation to contractual mechanisms and so on, but a book on trust should not drift that far from its central theme into a topic on which the author has published extensively and authoritatively elsewhere. The same applies to the short chapter on the failures of trust which hardly reaches beyond the insight that trust is only functional within limits and that institution-based trust requires trust in institutions. If you are interested in systems of innovation, though, then this may be the most interesting chapter of the book for you. The sixth chapter on the figures of trust reports empirical findings from studies on inter-organisational governance that Nooteboom has been involved in. They illustrate that meaningful findings can be achieved even with structured quantitative measures. More original are the reported attempts at simulating trust using agent-based computational economics by one of Nooteboom’s doctoral students. The final chapter gives a summary of the answers that the author would give to his ten sets of questions. His answers certainly go far beyond mainstream conceptions of trust – sometimes not far enough – and I was amazed how frequently I could strongly agree with them. Unfortunately, the final chapter does not achieve more than a summary. Some kind of integrative framework or set of propositions would have been desirable.

In terms of style, the book is clear and engaging, targeted at an academic audience but suitable also for practitioners and general interest given some basic knowledge of organisation science and proclivity for concepts. Nooteboom somewhat overdoes the Williamson bashing – the favourite but by now unoriginal pastime of many organisational trust researchers. His eclecticism is refreshing, but can become superficial and random at times. It is not helped by the frequent cross-references between chapters and the shuffling of the ten questions that may confuse rather than support the flow of the argument. To fully appreciate the book, I would encourage the reader to the following exercise: before reading the book, go to page 16 (Table 1.1) and take a few hours to answer the ten sets of questions that Nooteboom addresses in the book yourself. Then read the book and compare your notes with it. Whether you are an experienced trust researcher or a novice to the topic, you are bound to be impressed, surprised, occasionally disappointed and persuaded. You will often agree and partly disagree with Nooteboom’s ideas and surely recognise new questions to be asked. What more can we expect from a scholarly text? Guido Mo¨llering Institute of Business Administration, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Trust within and between Organizations. Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications Edited by C. Lane and R. Bachmann Oxford University Press Oxford 1998 ISBN: 0-19-829318-6 334 pp. Keywords Trust, Organizations, Cognition, Morality Review DOI 10.1108/00483480310488405 The jacket’s description of this book offers a useful orientation to its aim and approach. This books wants to offer a “wide-ranging study of trust within and between organizations from the perspective of several social and management sciences”. Unlike other books published in this area before, the editors stress that they seek to complement the burgeoning trust literature with a truly multidisciplinary view on trust and empirical studies that cover such diverse societal contexts as Britain, France, Germany, Canada, the USA, Japan, India and China. Although the book is mainly geared toward issues in organizational

Book reviews

667

PR 32,5

668

theory, scholars of management and human resources will find several topics covered interesting too. In the introduction and the conclusion both editors – Christel Lane and Reinhard Bachmann – offer their interpretation of the content of this challenging book. However, rather than merely restating how they intelligibly arranged and rearranged the chapters of the book, I decided to offer yet a different reading from the “other” hitherto more dominant socio-psychological approach to trust. I would like to answer the question: “What can a researcher learn from this book who usually focuses on micro-level intra-organizational studies?”. Although there a many more subjects covered, four issues are central from a more micro-level perspective. First of all there are some chapters that add to the already quite developed debate on trust as a multidisciplinary construct that may integrate micro-level psychological processes with macro-level institutional arrangements. Second, a group of contributors study the interplay of formal institutions and trust building. Third, some authors add to our understanding of how different national settings influence interpersonal and inter-organizational trust building. And finally two chapters of the book address the dark sides of trust. In her introduction Lane differentiates sources of trust and different levels of trust analysis. Calculative trust is mainly advocated by economists and game theory and focuses on the idea that a rational actor bestows trust only if her calculations suggest a net benefit in doing so. For value and norm-based trust shared values are the basis. Common cognitions and tacit knowledge render a “world in common” which serves as the basis for cognitive trust. Lane further mentions that trust can be analysed on different levels such as on an interpersonal, an institutional and a system level. Ten chapters later in the conclusion of the book Bachmann elaborates again on these distinctions. In his analysis he seeks to show that neither basis of trust is alone sufficient. Trust should best be understood as a multidimensional construct where elements of calculation, social norms and collective cognitions are present at the same time. Also trust is preferably studied on multiple levels. Interpersonal trust is influenced by the institutional framework, but the institutional arrangement never completely determines the quality of social interaction. Thus, micro-level trust relations are constrained and enhanced by macro processes. In Chapter 1 Sydow seeks to marry these different sources of trust with a multi-level approach building on Giddens’ conceptual framework. He shows how trust is created and reproduced through the institutional order of a business system whereby all sources of trust (as modalities) facilitate trust production. By explaining the notion of recursiveness of “social praxis” he also offers a new interpretation of how vicious or virtues circle of trust and control develop. Brenkert in Chapter 10 among other things focuses on the normative dimension of trust yet turns the usual relation upside down by looking at the normative

implications of trust. He implies that trust, although not a sufficient condition for moral business relations, is certainly a necessary condition. To the extent that people consciously trust each other they must have some mutual understanding of each other which is a precondition for morality. Also trust involves a certain restriction of self-interested behaviour so that the interests of the others are not harmed. Finally trust involves a certain reciprocity which offers a certain leeway for decisions and actions. As morality is often tied to some degree of autonomy and self-determination trust will promote this basic condition. In this way trust can further morality in business relations. The interplay of the institutional environment and trust building are prominent features of Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. In Chapter 3 Sako tries to answer the question whether trust improves business performance. She looks at trust in supplier relations in the USA, Japan, Germany and Latin catholic countries. She examines carefully under which conditions contracts are trust enhancers. In a cross-level test she shows that in the USA the offering of longer-term contracts led to lower levels of trust. Quite contrary in Europe (with the notable exception of the UK), where longer-term contracts fuelled trust building. The reason for this may be that the existing relationships in the USA were adversarial. In this context longer-term contracts pronounced this value incongruence rather than being a remedy to it. Liebeskind and Oliver in Chapter 4 look at the effects of intellectual property rights on trust building. In biotechnology the widespread involvement of university researchers has impacted traditional forms of academic research. Scientists that work for the biotech industry and the university at the same time have a greater interest in protecting their intellectual property out of commercial interest than other researchers. These commercial interests invade scientific research on several levels. For example collaborative relationships with parties who have commercial interests call for deeper forms of trust, because incentives for unethical behavior are increased. But also researchers that are engaged in commercial ventures have higher demands on research collaborations than before as strict confidentiality has become more important to them. Consequently a change in the intellectual property rights system of a university impacts directly on the number and quality of research alliances in the scientific community as there are fewer research co-operations as a result. In Chapter 5 Deakin and Wilkinson draw on a comparative study of supplier relations in Britain, Germany and Italy to show that trust and legal regulations are interdependent and that a tighter legal framework may further the development of trust. In Germany and to a lesser extent in Italy the legal framework is much tighter than in Britain. Legal norms are taken for granted and cannot be contracted out except at a high cost. The authors show that this legal framework acts as a facilitator for trust. For example in Germany firms are very much aware of possible legal costs and they are most likely to carry insurance against liability yet at the same time they are also least likely to take

Book reviews

669

PR 32,5

670

legal action for breach of contract. The German legal framework (and its extra-legal norms promoted by the intermediate associations) seems to absorb the risk of inter-organizational cooperation up to a certain degree and by this allows social actors to trust one another more than is possible without this reduction in risk. Finally Marsden analyses in Chapter 6 the role of inter-firm institutions for trust within the employment relationship. He starts with the notion that trust in this relationship is inherently fragile as both employees and employers can never be sure whether the other party uses the constitutional information asymmetry of the relationship to their own advantage. A downward spiral into low-trust relations can begin with a shock to the established workplace equilibrium, for example, when managers start to control workers in some area important to them, which the latter then may interpret as showing institutional distrust. It is therefore very important that both parties share some common understandings on how work has to be done. For example in the US jobs are assigned by the work post role i.e. the work is divided into discrete work posts for each of which individual workers are held responsible. This common understanding helps control opportunism on both sides as it sets limits on managerial authority and provides a basis for the employment relationship. He then goes on to highlight how interfirm institutions supplement these common understandings and by this further the co-operation within the firm. The influence of national settings on trust building are subjects to Chapters 8 and 9. Humphrey in Chapter 8 studies the transfer of supplier relations towards partnership in India where trust had to be developed where there was previously none. This is an extraordinary challenge as “trust relationships have a start-up problem”. Usually in this situation risk is contained through formal means such as contracts and penalties. However, in India there is none of a legal and institutional framework or trade associations that might support closer supplier-customer relations. Rather firms have to build trust despite this lacking institutional framework. It is then that personal trust becomes the backbone of these relations and it has to be constructed slowly through a process of mutual learning. Child, in Chapter 9, in similar vein analyses how firms that enter China through alliances can build up the necessary trust between them and their business partners. Again high trust in the Chinese society can only be found in family relations or in the Guanxi system. For a foreign company it is very difficult to enter such relationships and it is therefore confronted with the low trust within Chinese society. There are two options for firms that still wish to build successful relationships. A low trust option is built on securing management control of the joint venture and dealing with key external institutional bodies directly. The high trust option for foreign investors is to rely on the Chinese partner to cope with the several complexities arising in a Chinese context. This kind of partnership very often starts with a mutually acceptable calculus for the relationship to be established. As in the

Indian case trust building then becomes mainly a matter of personal trust whereas the “boundary spanners” with experience of both cultures and institutional systems become very important. Finally and maybe most interestingly two chapters explicitly address the dark sides of trust. In Chapter 2 Hardy and coauthors start from the idea that any study of trust needs to take into account the often asymmetrical power in relations. Power may be hidden behind a fac¸ade of trust and rethoric of collaboration and can then be used to promote vested interests through the manipulation of the weaker partners. The aim of this pretending to be trustworthy and caring is to secure agreement and reduce chances of opposition by creating legitimacy for actions. The authors describe an examplary case where a company gains the trust of a trade union only to manipulate the union not to use its contra-power and to create some sort of lock-in to finally be able to disinvest a production site. Kern in chapter 7 addresses the problem that trust under specific circumstances can create blockages to learning and innovation. In his analysis of this problem he looks at one of the most pressing problems facing German industry today: producing basic innovations is the very weakness of the system. The problem stems from the fact that interorganizational networks in Germany tend to be too stable. New relations with new ideas are hardly formed. Additionally the long tradition of working together might have created some kind of a “group-think”-syndrome where basic tenets are seldomly discussed. The questions of trust and trust building have become very pronounced these days. This book, together with the volume edited by Kramer and Tyler (1996) and the special issue of the Academy of Management Review (1998), offer a formidable overview on the state of the art of today’s trust discussion. A trust researcher looking for a more macro-oriented, sociological account of trust cannot ask for better contributions. Management and Human Resources scholars will also find some chapters, especially those combined with empirical studies, very helpful. However it would have been very interesting if one of the editors helpful commentaries would have bridged this debate with the ongoing debate in the more micro-oriented, socio-psychological area. To research further in this area this important point remains to be done. Antoinette Weibel University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland References Academy of Management Review (1998), Vol. 23 No. 3, Special Topic Forum on Trust in and between Organisations, Academy of Management Review. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Book reviews

671

PR 32,5

672

About the authors Julia Connell Julia Connell is a Senior Academic at the Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle, Australia. Her research interests include change management, organisational effectiveness, various aspects of temporary work and call centres and labour turnover. Her recent publications are included in the International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Journal of Strategic Change and the International Journal of HRM. Julia is currently co-editing a book on international perspectives on temporary work. E-mail: [email protected] Ana Cristina Costa Ana Cristina Costa is an Organisational Psychologist currently working as Assistant Professor at the Section of Work and Organisational Psychology at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. She obtained her PhD entitled “A matter of trust: effects on the performance and effectiveness of teams in organisations” in 2000 from Tilburg University, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Dick de Gilder Dick de Gilder is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Public Administration and Organization Science at the Free University Amsterdam. He received his PhD in 1991 at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands for his dissertation on Expectation States Theory. He has also been working as an Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam and as a Consultant. His main research interests, besides trust in organisations, are the application of social identity theory in organisations and the study of error management in organisations. E-mail: [email protected] Natalie Ferres Natalie Ferres is an Adjunct Lecturer and Senior Research Associate at the Adelaide Graduate School of Business. Previously Natalie was a Lecturer at the Newcastle Graduate School of Business. Natalie’s research has explored topics such as leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour, intent to quit, justice and organisational support. Her current research interests include relationships between trust and organisational outcomes and the impact of emotional intelligence on leadership style and change management. E-mail: [email protected] Peter Kerkhof Peter Kerkhof is currently Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication of the Free University in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He graduated as a social psychologist at the same university and his PhD thesis evaluated mass media influence on political attitudes. Subsequently he worked on a large scale study of Dutch works councils. His recent research interests focus on organisational communication, organisational justice and employee participation. E-mail: [email protected]

Bert Klandermans Bert Klandermans is Professor of Applied Social Psychology in the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Free University of Amsterdam. He has published extensively on societal and political participation. With Peter Kerkhof and Annemieke Winder he conducted a comprehensive study of participation in Dutch Works Councils. He is the Editor of University of Minnesota Press’ series Social Movements, Protest and Contention. He has recently published in Social Psychology Quarterly, Political Psychology and American Psychologist. In 2002 he edited Methods of Social Movement Research with Suzanne Staggenborg. E-mail: [email protected] Tony Travaglione Tony Travaglione holds the Chair in Management at the Adelaide Graduate School of Business at the University of Adelaide. Tony obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree in Organisational Behaviour from the University of Western Australia. His research interests are in the areas of organisational commitment, workplace trust, transformational leadership and emotional intelligence. Tony’s most recent book, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, co-authored with Professor Steve McShane has become the standard text for many organisational behaviour courses within the Pacific Rim area. E-mail: [email protected] Tom R. Tyler Tom R. Tyler is a University Professor of Psychology at New York University. His work explores the dynamics of authority in organized groups. In particular, he studies the influence of justice on attitudes, values, and behaviours. He is the author of Why People Obey the Law, Social Justice in a Diverse Society and Trust in Organizations. E-mail: [email protected] Gerhard van de Bunt Gerhard van de Bunt is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Research Methodology at the Free University Amsterdam. He received his PhD in 1999 at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, for his dissertation on “Friends by choice: an actor-oriented statistical network model for friendship networks through time”. His main research interests are trust in organizations, social network analysis, inter- and intra-organizational networks and the evolution of friendship networks. E-mail: [email protected] Annemieke B.Winder Annemieke B.Winder is Assistant Researcher and PhD student at the Department of Sociology, at the Free University of Amsterdam. She received her Masters Degree at the same university in the Department of Social Psychology. Her thesis focuses on representative/indirect employee participation through works councils and procedural justice. Her research interests include procedural justice, employee participation, industrial relations, political participation and work-family interference. E-mail: [email protected]

About the authors

673

Literati Club

Awards for Excellence Jose´ Alberto Bayo-Moriones and Emilio Huerta-Arribas Universidad Pu´blica de Navara, Pamplona, Spain

are the recipients of the journal’s Outstanding Paper Award for Excellence for their paper

‘‘Organizational incentive plans in Spanish manufacturing industry’’ which appeared in Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, 2002 Jose´ Alberto Bayo-Moriones is a Lecturer of Organization and Human Resource Management at the Business and Management Department of Universidad Pu´blica de Navarra (Pamplona, Spain), where he earned his PhD. His main writing and research interests are incentive systems, payment by results schemes and high-commitment management practices. Other research interests include the impact of human resource management practices on firm performance, the human resource management implications of operations management decisions and quality management adoption, as well as the impact of information and communication technologies on employee compensation. The results of this research have been published in several international book chapters and journal articles. Emilio Huerta-Arribas is a Professor of Strategic Management and Organisational Design and the Director of the Business and Management Department of Universidad Pu´blica de Navarra (Pamplona, Spain). During his academic career he has also carried out his research in University of Minnesota, Universidad de Zaragoza, University of Virginia and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His main research interests are the incidence of workplace innovation and new technology adoption. Other research lines are industrial organisation, competition policy, information technology and R&D cooperation. The results of his research in these areas have been published in several international journal articles and book chapters.