|
...supervisors. indicate that competence and consistency explain more variance in task than in relationship-oriented trust. Motivational intention explained more variance in relationship than in task-oriented trust. The results, practical implications, limitations and future research opportunities are discussed.
**********
Uncertainly, complexity and change are forces punctuating today's fast-paced global business environment (Ahn, Adamson, Dornbusch, 2004; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Within this environment, the strategic impact of trusting relationships upon competitiveness is increasingly recognized. As Lewicki, McAllister and Bies (1998) state, "the trusting qualities of the relations between parties--through cross-functional teams, temporary groups, strategic alliances, and socially embedded partnerships--are critical for successful collaboration" (p. 438).
Trust has received extensive academic attention over the last four decades, ranging over many intellectual disciplines and levels of analysis (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Its importance is emphasized in a variety of strategic and managerial areas including developing competitive advantage (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, Audrey, & Werner, 1998), enhancing the effectiveness of strategic implementation (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998), increasing the success of international strategic alliances (Parkhe, 1998), achieving greater managerial coordination (McAllister, 1995) and assigning more effective work teams (Lawler, 1992).
In this uncertain, complex and changing business environment, leaders play a vital role and the leader's ability to develop trusting relationships has been pinpointed as a key success factor (Bennis, 1999). As organizations cope with significant breeches of trust as occurred with Enron, the role of building a trusting climate is further accentuated and scholars argue it is a central responsibility of the leadership (Gini, 2004).
Multiple studies have focused on outcomes resulting from subordinates' trust in their leaders. These studies support that a worker's trust in a leader leads to important positive outcomes including improved individual and organizational performance (Dwivedi, 1983; Earley, 1986; Rich, 1997), perceived accuracy and fairness in performance evaluation (Fulk, Brief, & Barr, 1985), enhanced cooperation (Lindskold, 1978) and increased employee trust in top management and the CEO (Costigan, Insignga, Kranas, Kureshov, & Ilter, 2004). Other outcomes include increased fairness perceptions (Wech, 2002), reduced perceived psychological contract breech (Robinson, 1996), subordinate satisfaction (Driscoll, 1978; Wech, 2002), organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001), and the disclosure of important information, the willingness to accept interdependence, and increased receptiveness to influence regarding goals and methods of execution (Zand, 1972).
To date, scholars have focused extensive theoretical and empirical attention upon antecedents to trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Theory regarding antecedents of interpersonal trust can be broken into three categories. The first, and the main focus of this study, are the cognitive antecedents (e.g. Butler & Cantrell, 1984; Butler, 1991; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995). These include the trustor's cognitive evaluations of the trustee as antecedents to trust. Relatively recent empirical examinations of cognitive antecedents as significant predictors of trust in leaders include contingent reward and transformational leader behaviors (MacKenzie et al., 2001) and interactional justice (Aryee, Gudhwar, & Chen, 2002). It has also been proposed that employee perceptions of ethical leadership behavior impacts psychological empowerment leading to trust in leaders (Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004).
The second category includes affective antecedents or the trustor's emotional feelings as antecedents to trust (e.g. Holmes, 1991; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995; Rempel, Homes, & Zanna, 1985). The third category focuses upon the trustor's dispositions toward trust: i.e. the trustor has some degree of a trusting personality (Mayer et al., 1995; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998; Whitener, et al. 1998).
While much has been learned about trust in leaders, important gaps in our knowledge remain. There has been little theoretical or empirical advancement in (a) exploring different definitions of trust relevant to the worker-leader context and (b) understanding how potential antecedents influence the magnitude of differentially defined trust. It is possible trust defined in one context may at a high level, while in another, trust may be at a low level. In an early effort in this area, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) state, "To date, research has provided almost no evidence on the implications of using alternative definitions" (p. 616).
Our contribution is to theoretically and empirically address these gaps by defining trust in context and examining the differential influence of worker-leader cognitive trust antecedents. This study is different from prior research in that the focus is upon the relative importance of cognitive antecedents to explaining trust levels defined relative to a task or relationship-oriented context. Knowing the differences will allow practitioners better understand why an individual may trust them in one situation but not in another. In turn, this will allow them to maintain the trust gained and work to build the trust yet to be gained in a way that is appropriate to the situation.
Leaders work within at least two contexts including the task and relationship contexts. These contexts provide the basis for different dimensional definitions of trust that are consistent at the core, but vary depending upon the contextual situation. Our purpose is to explore how the importance of antecedents to worker-leader trust may vary between different context-related dimensions/orientations of trust.
For the purposes of this study, the specific referent for trust is the formal leader of the respondent, specifically their direct supervisor or manager. Direct supervisors/managers have been the focus of considerable trust and leadership research (e.g. MacKenzie, et al., 2001; Roberts & O'Reilly, 1974; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 1999; Podsakoff, et al. , 1990). Throughout this paper, we will use the label 'manager' to refer to this person.
We offer the results of our empirical study of 345 part- and full-time workers and their reported interpersonal level perceptions of their manager' s competence, consistency and motivational intention, as well as worker task-and relationship-oriented trust in their managers. We provide theoretical background and development regarding trust and how it may be differentially defined depending upon the context in which it takes place. Building upon this foundation, we offer hypotheses predicting varying magnitudes of effects of antecedents on task- and relationship-oriented trust. Following the presentations of results, we offer our discussion and conclusions.
Theoretical Background
Dirks and Ferrin (2002) indicate that definitions abound for trust and that multiple perceptual antecedents have been found to be related to trust in leaders. The authors also discuss the importance of this issue, citing the possibility that both antecedents and outcomes may vary depending upon the definition of trust being used. We begin by reviewing the literature regarding trust definitions and identifying a trust definition that captures the core of prior literature, which at the same time, allows us to orient it toward different leadership contexts. We further advance the boundaries of the theory by identifying and developing important contextual components that influence the magnitude of importance of various antecedents to trust.
We are explicitly studying interpersonal trust as opposed to levels such as trust between departments (e.g Cummings & Bromiley, 1996) or societal trust (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995). While there have been a variety of definitions for interpersonal trust, a review across the last four decades reveals some definitional similarities. Discussing whether scholars fundamentally agree on the definition of trust, Rousseau et al. (1998) conclude "Trust, as the willingness to be vulnerable under conditions of risk and interdependence, is a psychological state that researchers in various disciplines interpret in terms of 'perceived probabilities', 'confidence', and 'positive expectations'--all variations on the same theme" (p. 395).
Thus, it appears that generally accepted elements of the definition applicable to the worker-manager relationship include trust as a psychological state of the worker that includes a willingness to be vulnerable to the manager. Workers assess the situation, making a subjective probability assessment that willingly placing themselves in this vulnerable position will result in greater benefits than costs.
Following from this assessment, a question arises as to what aspects of the definitions may vary regarding a worker's trust in the manager. The answer lies in the context of the trusting situation that impacts the assessments of antecedents to trust (Mayer, et al., 1995). Specifically, leadership theory encourages us to consider the worker-leader context as including the task context and the relationship context upon which scholars have focused for over half a century. Examples of variations on this theme include the Ohio Leadership studies of the 1940s and 1950s (Korman, 1968), Blake and Moulton's Managerial Grid in the 1960s (1964) and Mishra's work in the 1980s (Bass, 1990).
The task context includes situations that involve how the manager will accomplish tasks through people and in which attention is given by both the...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Yes, you can teach business ethics: a review and research agenda., December 22, 2005
Context and mentoring: examining formal and informal relationships in ..., December 22, 2005
Structural changes in turbulent environments: a study of small and mid..., December 22, 2005
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
