Meas Org Trust

Copyri ght 2000, IABC Research Foundat i on. Al l ri ght s reserved.
IABC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

The Int ernat i onal Associ at i on of Busi ness Communi cat ors Research Foundat i on i s a not -f or-
prof i t 501(c) (3) corporat i on t hat serves as t he research and devel opment arm of IABC.
The Foundat i on provi des knowl edge and underst andi ng t o hel p organi zat i ons become more ef f ect i ve
t hrough communi cat i on. It hel ps communi cat ors maxi mi ze t hei r cont ri but i on t o organi zat i onal
success and serves as a ri ch source of i nf ormat i on and i deas f or devel opi ng IABC resources.
Research You Can Use
IABC/ Wat son Wyat t 1999 Communi cat i ons St udy
Communi cat i ng Change: Ideas f rom Cont emporary Research
Key El ement s of Ef f ect i ve Supervi sor/ Empl oyee Communi cat i on
Organi zat i onal Trust and Di st rust Across Cul t ures
Communi cat i on Compet ence and Busi ness Success
IABC/ PRSA Joi nt Compensat i on Survey
Envi ronment al Scanni ng Report (2nd edi t i on)
Expert Panel Report
Events and Awards
Int ernat i onal Conf erence Semi nar and Luncheon
The Sharon Berzok M emori al Lect ure
The Jake Wi t t mer Research Award
For more i nf ormat i on on t he Foundat i ons work, cal l (415) 544-4700 or check IABCs websi t e:
ht t p:/ / www.i abc.com.
Your Support is Needed
The IABC Research Foundat i on rel i es on sponsorshi ps and donat i ons t o support research proj ect s
t hat promot e ef f ect i ve organi zat i onal communi cat i on pract i ces. To f i nd out about sponsorshi p
opport uni t i es, cont act Suzanne Byron at (415) 544-4722 or sbyron@i abc.com. For more i nf ormat i on
about maki ng a donat i on (t ax deduct i bl e wi t hi n U.S.), cont act Rae Haml i n, ABC, at (415) 544-4713.
International Association of Business Communicators
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
What is Organizational Trust? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Def i ni t i on of Organi zat i onal Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Nat ure of Organi zat i onal Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Concept s of Organi zat i onal Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Why is Organizational Trust Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Impl i cat i ons f or Int ernat i onal Busi ness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Impl i cat i ons f or Organi zat i onal Ef f ect i veness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
What is the Organizational Trust Model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Compet ence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Openness and Honest y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Concern f or Empl oyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Rel i abi l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Ident i f i cat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Development of Survey and Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Organizational Trust Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Scoring the Organizational Trust Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Comparing Your Organization to Organizations Across the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Organizational Trust Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Analyzing Your Organizational Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Areas of St rengt h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Areas f or Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Facilitating Survey Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Creating Action Plan for Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Analysis Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Appendix
Li t erat ure Revi ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Suggest ed Readi ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
About t he Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST
Cross-Cultural Survey and Index
Funded by t he IABC Research Foundat i on and perf ormed by Pamel a Shockl ey-Zal abak, Ph.D.,
Kat hl een El l i s, Ph.D., Ruggero Cesari a
"M easuri ng Organi zat i onal Trust " gi ves communi cat ors not onl y research f i ndi ngs about t he
i mport ance of organi zat i onal t rust , but , perhaps more i mport ant l y, a t ool t o measure t he t rust
i n t hei r organi zat i on.
The l at est research f rom t he IABC Research Foundat i on, perf ormed by prof essor-consul t ant s and
researchers based i n Col orado and It al y, shows t hat t rust i s more t han a soci al vi rt ue i t i s an
economi c i mperat i ve f or busi ness resi l i ence i n a gl obal market pl ace. Today, not onl y must
organi zat i ons bui l d rel at i onshi ps wi t h l ocal co-workers, l eaders, and cust omers, t hey al so must be
abl e t o creat e l ong-di st ance rel at i onshi ps across nat i onal and cul t ural boundari es, of t en wi t h
st rangers. Thi s requi res t hat t he organi zat i ons and t hei r empl oyees make good ef f ort s and
j udgment s about t rust wi t h ot hers. The abi l i t y t o f orm t rust i ng rel at i onshi ps wi t h di verse peopl e
i s an organi zat i ons soci al capi t al a predi ct or of ef f ect i veness.
In t he research model , f i ve f act ors creat e organi zat i onal t rust :
1. Compet ence (co-workers and l eaders ef f ect i veness)
2. Openness and honest y (amount , accuracy and si nceri t y of i nf ormat i on shared)
3. Concern f or empl oyees (exhi bi t i on of empat hy, t ol erance and saf et y)
4. Rel i abi l i t y (consi st ent and dependabl e act i ons)
5. Ident i f i cat i on (shari ng common goal s, val ues and bel i ef s)
As t hese f i ve di mensi ons creat e organi zat i onal t rust , t rust i n t urn proves t o be st at i st i cal l y
si gni f i cant i n creat i ng j ob sat i sf act i on and percei ved organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness.
In addi t i on, l i t erat ure revi ews show t hat organi zat i ons wi t h hi gh l evel s of t rust cont i nual l y
benef i t f rom more:
Adapt i ve organi zat i onal st ruct ures
St rat egi c al l i ances
Responsi ve vi rt ual t eams
Ef f ect i ve cri si s management
Reduced t ransact i on and l i t i gat i on cost s
1
" M easuri ng Organi zat i onal Trust " i ncl udes an Organi zat i onal Trust Index, w hi ch
al l ow s communi cat ors t o measure t hei r organi zat i ons t rust agai nst ot hers
i nt ernat i onal l y. The dat abase f or t he i ndex w as creat ed f rom survey responses of
approxi mat el y 4,000 empl oyees i n ei ght count ri es, produci ng an i nst rument t hat i s
rel i abl e and val i d i nt ernat i onal l y.
"M easuri ng Organi zat i onal Trust " provi des a survey f or communi cat ors t o gat her dat a
about t rust i n t hei r organi zat i ons. When compared t o t he Trust Index, areas of st rengt h
and weakness are i dent i f i ed t hat can be used t o devel op pl ans t o bui l d or rei nf orce t rust .
St ep-by-st ep, t he manuscri pt gui des communi cat ors t hrough anal ysi s of dat a and i ni t i at es
pl ans t o i ncrease t rust i ncl udi ng f aci l i t at i ng survey f eedback and l eadi ng t eam ef f ort s t o
pri ori t i ze t rust i ssues and devel op act i on pl ans.
About the Researchers:
Pamel a Shockl ey-Zal abak, Ph.D., i s vi ce chancel l or f or St udent Success and prof essor of
communi cat i on at t he Uni versi t y of Col orado at Col orado Spri ngs and a consul t ant and
aut hor. Kat hl een El l i s, Ph.D., i s assi st ant prof essor of communi cat i on at t he Uni versi t y of
Col orado at Col orado Spri ngs and a consul t ant . Ruggero Cesari a i s a seni or researcher at
t he Ist i t ut o RSO, a l eadi ng research and consul t i ng organi zat i on i n Rome, It al y.
About the IABC Research Foundation:
The IABC Research Foundat i on i s a 501 (c)(3) not -f or-prof i t corporat i on dedi cat ed t o t he
support and advancement of organi zat i onal communi cat i on by del i veri ng research f i ndi ngs
vi t al t o t he prof essi on. The Foundat i on t ransl at es l eadi ng-edge communi cat i on t heory
i nt o real -worl d pract i ce, hel pi ng communi cat ors be ef f ect i ve and vi si onary i n t hei r work.
Now i n i t s 17t h year, t he Foundat i on i s bui l di ng a research port f ol i o al i gned wi t h a new
research agenda. The Foundat i on of f ers grant s f or communi cat i on research i n support of
t hi s agenda.
2
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
Trust mat t ers! Trust i s rel at ed t o prof i t s, i nnovat i on, successf ul i nt ernat i onal busi ness,
organi zat i onal survi val and a vari et y of cruci al worker percept i ons and behavi ors. The
Organi zat i onal Trust Index (OTI) was devel oped wi t h a grant f rom t he IABC Research
Foundat i on. The broad purpose of t he research was t o i dent i f y speci f i c organi zat i onal
at t i t udes, val ues, and norms t hat i nf l uence percept i ons of organi zat i onal t rust and di st rust ;
t o creat e an i ndex t hat measures organi zat i onal t rust ; t o empi ri cal l y exami ne t he
rel at i onshi ps among organi zat i onal t rust / di st rust , percei ved organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness,
and j ob sat i sf act i on; and t o i dent i f y si mi l ari t i es and di f f erences i n t rust model s f or
organi zat i ons and i ndust ri es l ocat ed i n vari ous part s of t he worl d. Thi s manual cont ai ns
t he resul t s of t he research: t he Organi zat i onal Trust Index, t he model descri bi ng t he
rel at i onshi ps of t rust t o j ob sat i sf act i on and percei ved organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness,
normat i ve dat a col l ect ed duri ng i nst rument val i dat i on st udi es, and gui del i nes f or
i nt erpret at i on and use of your organi zat i ons resul t s.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST INDEX
The Organi zat i onal Trust Index (OTI) measures organi zat i onal t rust by addressi ng f i ve di mensi ons:
Compet ence
Openness and Honest y
Concern f or Empl oyees
Rel i abi l i t y
Ident i f i cat i on
The Organi zat i onal Trust Index assi st s organi zat i ons of any si ze i n underst andi ng t he
cruci al di mensi ons of t rust i n part i cul ar set t i ngs. It provi des communi cat i on
prof essi onal s and al l organi zat i onal l eadershi p a prof i l e f or pl ans rangi ng f rom t he
communi cat i on of vi si on, obj ect i ves, and pol i cy t o a vari et y of t rai ni ng and devel opment
act i vi t i es. When a sampl e or t he ent i re popul at i on of an organi zat i on compl et es t he t rust
survey, t hei r scores can be compared t o t he average scores obt ai ned f rom organi zat i ons,
i ndust ri es, and geographi cal cul t ures t hroughout t he w orl d. The OTI resul t s can assi st you
i n det ermi ni ng t he l evel of t rust i n your organi zat i on and w here best t o bui l d upon your
organi zat i ons f oundat i on of t rust .
3
WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST?
Al t hough we of t en know i nt ui t i vel y when t here i s and when t here i snt t rust i n an
organi zat i on, we al l may def i ne and descri be t rust di f f erent l y. Whi l e we can al l agree t hat
t rust i s i mport ant , we may di sagree at t i mes about what bui l ds or dest roys t rust i n our
organi zat i ons. Somet i mes we l abel a behavi or t rust wort hy, or pl ace hi gh val ue on i t ,
because i t i s val ued i n our speci f i c ci rcumst ance, organi zat i on, or cul t ure. Or we may do t he
reverse, and see a behavi or as unt rust wort hy or l ow i n val ue because of our cont ext .
Because i t can be based on di f f erent val ues, organi zat i onal t rust has a compl ex nat ure.
When we l ook at t hought f ul wri t i ng and research on organi zat i onal t rust , we see a di verse set
of def i ni t i ons, meani ngs, and behavi ors ascri bed t o i t . (For addi t i onal i nsi ght s, you may want
t o expl ore t he books and art i cl es l i st ed i n t he Suggest ed Readi ngs sect i on i n t hi s manual .)
Definition of Organizational Trust
Whi l e t here are many def i ni t i ons f or organi zat i onal t rust , some key words reoccur.
Concept s t hat cont i nual l y appear i n t hose def i ni t i ons are bel i ef , wi l l i ngness, and
vul nerabi l i t y. Bui l di ng upon t he M i shra M odel f or Organi zat i onal Trust (1996),
we def i ne organi zat i onal t rust as:
The organi zat i ons wi l l i ngness, based upon i t s cul t ure and communi cat i on behavi ors i n
rel at i onshi ps and t ransact i ons, t o be appropri at el y vul nerabl e based on t he bel i ef t hat
anot her i ndi vi dual , group, or organi zat i on i s compet ent , open and honest , concerned,
rel i abl e, and i dent i f i ed wi t h common goal s, norms, and val ues.
4
Nature of Organizational Trust
As t he def i ni t i on above demonst rat es, organi zat i onal t rust has many f aces. In t he past , i t has
been seen most of t en as a one-di mensi onal concept . Now we know t hat t here i s more t o i t .
M any expert s now descri be organi zat i onal t rust as:
M ul t i -l evel ed, meani ng t hat t rust resul t s f rom i nt eract i ons t hat span co-worker, t eam,
organi zat i onal , and i nt er-organi zat i onal al l i ances.
Cul t ural l y-root ed, meani ng t rust i s cl osel y t i ed t o t he norms, val ues, and bel i ef s of t he
organi zat i onal cul t ure
Communi cat i on-based, meani ng t rust i s t he out come of communi cat i on behavi ors, such
as provi di ng accurat e i nf ormat i on, gi vi ng expl anat i ons f or deci si ons, and demonst rat i ng
si ncere and appropri at e openness
Dynami c, meani ng t rust i s const ant l y changi ng as i t cycl es t hrough phases of bui l di ng,
st abi l i zi ng, and di ssol vi ng
M ul t i -di mensi onal , meani ng t hat t rust consi st s of mul t i pl e f act ors at t he cogni t i ve,
emot i onal , and behavi oral l evel s, al l of whi ch af f ect an i ndi vi dual s percept i on of t rust
Concepts of Organizational Trust
Organi zat i onal t rust i s associ at ed wi t h a range of concept s. Gi ven t he subj ect i ve nat ure of
organi zat i onal t rust , descri bed i n t he sect i on above, i t i s i mport ant t o underst and why
i ndi vi dual s can vi ew t he same si t uat i on and see varyi ng degrees of di st rust t o opt i mal t rust .
Opt i mal t rust requi res a wi l l i ngness t o choose t o t rust even when t here are cal cul at ed ri sks
connect ed wi t h a part i cul ar si t uat i on.
Just as organi zat i onal t rust can range i n degree f rom di st rust t o opt i mal t rust , i t can al so
vary f rom f ragi l e t o resi l i ent . Fragi l e t rust devel ops out of percept i ons of short -t erm and
l ow-cost consequences, whi l e resi l i ent t rust i s based on hi st ory and l ong-t erm memory of
i nt egri t y bet ween t wo part i es.
Organizational trust can also vary in depth, ranging from shallow to deep levels of involvement.
When there is less at stake, more shallow levels of trust exist. In contrast, when the risk levels are
high, deeper levels of trust form.
5
What is
Organizational
Trust?
6
WHY IS ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST IMPORTANT?
Trust i s more t han a soci al vi rt ue. It i s an economi c i mperat i ve f or busi ness resi l i ence i n a
gl obal market pl ace (Fukuyama, 1995). For many years t rust has been associ at ed wi t h
ef f ect i ve organi zat i ons (Barnes, 1983; Boss, 1979; Gi bb, 1978; Dwi vedi , 1983; French &
Raven, 1968; M asl ow, 1954; and Zand, 1972). Todays busi ness envi ronment dri ven by a
gl obal economy, i ncreased compet i t i on, emergi ng t echnol ogi es, and rapi d product
devel opment bri ngs const ant change, requi ri ng new measurement s of organi zat i onal
ef f ect i veness.
We are f aced dai l y wi t h creat i ng "on-t he-spot " agreement s and rel at i onshi ps wi t h co-
workers, l eaders, cust omers, and ot her organi zat i ons t o make t hi ngs happen. Wi t h every
busi ness t ransact i on, we creat e t hese spont aneous connect i ons somet i mes wi t hout f ace-
t o-f ace cont act and we do so i n good f ai t h and t rust . Our day-t o-day work requi res t hat
we, and our work t eams and organi zat i ons, make good ef f ort s and j udgment s about t rust
wi t h ot hers. There are seri ous consequences f or not bei ng abl e t o do t hi s wel l .
Implications for International Business
Gi ven t he dynami cs of t odays gl obal market pl ace, organi zat i onal t rust i s now an economi c
i mperat i ve. To survi ve and be resi l i ent on t he i nt ernat i onal scene, organi zat i ons must be
abl e t o creat e l ong-di st ance rel at i onshi ps across nat i onal and cul t ural boundari es, of t en
wi t h st rangers.
Franci s Fukuyama (1995), i n a not abl e i nt erdi sci pl i nary book ent i t l ed "Trust : The Soci al
Vi rt ues and t he Creat i on of Prosperi t y," argues t hat t he abi l i t y t o devel op rel at i onshi ps of
"spont aneous soci abi l i t y" predi ct s whet her an organi zat i on wi l l compet e ef f ect i vel y. The
capaci t y t o part i ci pat e i n t hese t ransact i ons of spont aneous soci abi l i t y t he abi l i t y t o f orm
t rust i ng rel at i onshi ps wi t h di verse st rangers i s an organi zat i ons "soci al capi t al ." That i s,
t he organi zat i on has t he abi l i t y t o make st rat egi c al l i ances, associ at i ons, and part nershi ps.
An organi zat i ons soci al capi t al i s anchored i n i t s regi onal , nat i onal , or rel i gi ous cul t ure. In
ot her words, some soci et al cul t ures promot e f l exi bl e net works of busi ness and economi c
rel at i onshi ps, whi l e ot hers do not . For exampl e, t he soci et al cul t ures of Japan, Germany,
and t he Uni t ed St at es have a demonst rat ed record of al l i ances t hat are di verse and
mul t i nat i onal . In cont rast , ot her cul t ures have rel i ed hi st ori cal l y on rel at i onshi ps wi t h f ami l y
members or cl ose f ri ends bef ore ent eri ng economi c t ransact i ons t hat requi re t rust . As a
resul t , t hey avoi d doi ng busi ness wi t h "out si ders."
7
Why is
Organizational
Trust Important?
Implications for Organizational Effectiveness
Regardl ess of w het her organi zat i ons engage i n i nt ernat i onal act i vi t i es or not , most
requi re enhanced net w orks of t rust . They must have a vert i cal st ruct ure t hat i s f l exi bl e
and adapt i ve. Such responsi veness bri ngs i mproved organi zat i onal perf ormance t o t he
dai l y dramas of busi ness.
Research has consi st ent l y l i nked hi gh t rust l evel s wi t h perf ormance. We know t hat hi gh
l evel s of t rust are associ at ed wi t h ef f ect i ve t eams and l eadershi p. Li kewi se, organi zat i ons
wi t h hi gh t rust l evel s wi l l cont i nual l y benef i t f rom:
(1) M ore adapt i ve organi zat i onal st ruct ures (Barnes, 1983; Benni s, 1997; Crawf ord, 1998;
Dwi vedi , 1983; M i l es & Snow, 1995; Rousseau, Si t ki n, Burt , & Camerer, 1998)
(2) St rat egi c al l i ances (Das & Teng, 1998; Ingham & M ot he, 1998; Jones & Bowi e, 1998;
Rul e & Keown, 1998)
(3) Responsi ve vi rt ual t eams (Cout u, 1998; Fukuyama, 1996; Jarvenpaa, Knol l , Lei dner, 1998;
Tsai & Ghoshal , 1998)
(4) Ef f ect i ve cri si s management (M i shra, 1996; Webb, 1996).
Hi gh l evel s of organi zat i onal t rust can cri t i cal l y reduce l i t i gat i on charges (Bri ckner & Si egel ,
1996) and t ransact i on cost s (Gi bbs & Gi bson, 1998; M accoby, 1998; Rousseau, et al , 1998).
Thi s resul t s because hi gh-t rust cul t ures mi ni mi ze t he pot ent i al f or dest ruct i ve and l i t i gat ed
conf l i ct , unnecessary bureaucrat i c cont rol and admi ni st rat i ve expendi t ures, and expensi ve
overhead requi red t o sust ai n operat i ons t hat have out l ast ed t hei r need.
WHAT IS THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST MODEL?
Organi zat i onal t rust i s not a si mpl e and uni f i ed concept . It requi res us t o t ake mul t i pl e f act ors
i nt o consi derat i on. To measure organi zat i onal t rust , we need t o assess f i ve di st i nct di mensi ons.
Four of t hese come f rom t he M i shra M odel f or Organi zat i onal Trust (1996). They i ncl ude t he
concept s of compet ence, openness and honest y, concern, and rel i abi l i t y. The f i f t h di mensi on,
cont ri but ed by t hi s st udy, i s cal l ed "i dent i f i cat i on." The model t est ed i n t hi s research (depi ct ed
bel ow) i l l ust rat es t he rel at i onshi ps t hat were f ound among t rust , j ob sat i sf act i on, and percei ved
organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness. Pat hs among t he f act ors were st at i st i cal l y si gni f i cant , and have
very st rong rel at i onshi ps. The f i ve di mensi ons of t he model are def i ned on t he next page.
MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST, JOB SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTIVENESS
* Indi cat es st at i st i cal si gni f i cance (p < .01) i n rel at i onshi p bet ween el ement s.
St andardi zed pat h paramet ers range f rom 0 t o 1.00. The hi gher t he paramet er, t he st ronger t he pat h.
8
Job
Satisfaction
Perceived
Effectiveness
ORGANIZATIONAL
TRUST
.84*
.91*
.88*
.84*
.80*
.31*
.75*
.83*
Concern for
Employees
Openness &
Honesty
Identification
Reliability
Competence
Competence
Compet ence, as i t rel at es t o organi zat i onal t rust , i nvol ves t he ext ent t o whi ch we see not
onl y our co-workers and l eaders as bei ng ef f ect i ve, but al so our organi zat i on as a whol e.
It measures how st rongl y we bel i eve t hat our organi zat i on wi l l compet e and survi ve i n t he
market pl ace.
Openness and Honesty
Openness and honest y are t he w ords used most of t en w hen peopl e are asked
w hat cont ri but es t o organi zat i onal t rust . Thi s di mensi on i nvol ves not onl y t he
amount and accuracy of i nf ormat i on t hat i s shared, but al so how si ncerel y and
appropri at e i t i s communi cat ed.
Concern for Employees
Concern f or empl oyees i ncl udes t he f eel i ngs of cari ng, empat hy, t ol erance, and saf et y t hat
are exhi bi t ed when we are vul nerabl e i n busi ness act i vi t i es. Si ncere ef f ort s t o underst and
f eel i ngs cont ri but e t o hi gh t rust l evel s i n any rel at i onshi p.
Reliability
Rel i abi l i t y i s det ermi ned by whet her or not a co-worker, t eam, suppl i er, or organi zat i on act s
consi st ent l y and dependabl y. In ot her words, can we count on t hem t o do what t hey say?
Identification
Ident i f i cat i on measures t he ext ent t o whi ch we hol d common goal s, norms, val ues, and
bel i ef s associ at ed wi t h our organi zat i ons cul t ure. Thi s di mensi on i ndi cat es how connect ed
we f eel t o management and t o co-workers.
9
What is the
Organizational
Trust Model?
DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND INDEX
For several years a t eam of researchers at t he Uni versi t y of Col orado and i n It al y (Pamel a Shockl ey-
Zal abak, Donal d M orl ey, Ruggero Cesari a, and Kat hl een El l i s) have been exami ni ng rel at i onshi ps
among i nt ernat i onal organi zat i onal communi cat i on, cul t ure, a vari et y of work sat i sf act i ons, and
percept i ons of organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness. The i mport ance of organi zat i onal t rust became
i ncreasi ngl y evi dent i n t hei r work.
The Organi zat i onal Trust Index (OTI) was devel oped usi ng 232 i t ems f rom t he previ ous work of
Shockl ey-Zal abak, M orl ey, Cesari a, and El l i s and wi t h t he addi t i on of t rust -rel at ed i t ems i dent i f i ed i n
current research and i n f ocus groups conduct ed i n bot h t he U.S.A. and Europe.
The survey was t ransl at ed i nt o Engl i sh, It al i an, Spani sh, and Chi nese. Val i dat i on st udi es were
conduct ed vi a t he Worl d Wi de Web and on paper. A t ot al of 53 organi zat i ons are represent ed i n
t he dat abase. Normat i ve compari sons were made f rom t he dat abase whi ch i ncl udes dat a f rom t he
U.S.A. (25 st at es), It al y (11 ci t i es), Sydney, Si ngapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bombay, and Tai wan. The
dat abase cont ai ns responses f rom approxi mat el y 4,000 supervi sory and nonsupervi sory empl oyees.
The i ndust ri es represent ed i n t he dat abase i ncl ude banki ng, t el ecommuni cat i ons, manuf act uri ng,
comput er sof t ware and hardware, educat i on, and sal es/ cust omer servi ce. Company si zes ranged
f rom approxi mat el y 100 t o 146,000. Some of t he part i ci pat i ng compani es i ncl ude:
Academy School Di st ri ct #20, Col orado
Accel erat ed Sol ut i ons, Lt d.
Al l i ed Si gnal
Ameri can Associ at i on of Ret i red Persons
Banca Popul are Pugl i ese
Bri st ol -M yers Squi bb
But era e Part ners
Checks Unl i mi t ed
Chen Hsong M achi nery Tai wan Co., L.T.D.
Col orado Fi rst Commerci al M ort gage
Convex
CPS Syst ems, Inc.
Dayt on Hudson Corporat i on
The Dow Chemi cal Company
Envi ronment al Resources M anagement It al i a (ERM )
Equi l on
Fi nsi el
Hewl et t Packard
Hol i day Inn
ISI
It al t el Tecnomeccani ca
10
J.D. Edwards Worl d Sol ut i ons
JTM Bi l l i ng Associ at es
Li f e Invest ors Insurance Company of Ameri ca
Li f et ouch NSS
Lot s a Bagel s
Lynn Heal t h Sci ence Inst i t ut e
M cDonal ds
M edi cal Col l ege of Vi rgi ni a Hospi t al s
M emori al Hospi t al
M ot orol a
NASA
New Cent ury Energi es
Okl ahoma Ci t y Uni versi t y
Oracl e Corporat i on
Overhead Door
P.E.T. Net Pharmaceut i cal Servi ces
Pi kes Peak Uni t ed Way
Pi ngt ung Tai wan, Ci t y Government
Pi ngt ung Travel
Rut co Ent erpri ses
School Di st ri ct 12, Col orado
Target St ores
TM I Past a
TRACOM Group
UCCSA
Uni versi t y of Col orado at Col orado Spri ngs
Uni t ed St at es Ai r Force
USIBWC
West ern Economi c Di versi f i cat i on Canada
Wi def i el d School Di st ri ct #3, Col orado
The 29-i t em OTI was t est ed and val i dat ed usi ng LISREL 8 sof t ware f or conf i rmat ory f act or
anal ysi s. Ri gorous st at i st i cal t est i ng demonst rat ed t hat t he i nst rument i s bot h rel i abl e and
val i d i nt ernat i onal l y. Al pha rel i abi l i t y f or t he 29-i t em OTI was excel l ent at .95, i ndi cat i ng
t hat t he i nst rument i s st abl e over t i me and i nt ernal l y and ext ernal l y consi st ent . Al pha
rel i abi l i t i es f or t he f i ve subscal es, each of whi ch measures one di mensi on of t rust , were
al so excel l ent , rangi ng f rom .85 t o .90. Resul t s of conf i rmat ory f act or anal ysi s and st ruct ural
equat i on model i ng provi ded st rong evi dence t hat t he OTI i s val i d. In ot her words, t he
i nst rument measures what i t cl ai ms t o measure organi zat i onal t rust . The f i ve di mensi ons
of organi zat i onal t rust di d not di f f er by geographi c cul t ure or i ndust ry t ype. Resul t s st rongl y
support a model whi ch i ndi cat es t hat concern f or empl oyees, openness and honest y,
i dent i f i cat i on, rel i abi l i t y, and compet ence are st rong predi ct ors of j ob sat i sf act i on, whi ch i n
t urn i nf l uences percept i ons of organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness.
11
Development of
Survey and Index
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST SURVEY
Inst ruct i ons: Fol l owi ng are st at ement s about your organi zat i on. Pl ease ci rcl e t he response t hat
best i ndi cat es t he ext ent t o whi ch t he st at ement descri bes t he current st at e of your organi zat i on.
How much the statement describes my organization:
1 2 3 4 5
VERY LITTLE LITTLE SOME GREAT VERY GREAT
1. I can t el l my i mmedi at e supervi sor when t hi ngs are goi ng wrong.
1 2 3 4 5
2. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor f ol l ows t hrough wi t h what he/ she says.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I am hi ghl y sat i sf i ed wi t h t he organi zat i ons overal l ef f i ci ency of operat i on.
1 2 3 4 5
4. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor l i st ens t o me.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I f eel connect ed t o my peers.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I am f ree t o di sagree wi t h my i mmedi at e supervi sor.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Top management i s si ncere i n t hei r ef f ort s t o communi cat e wi t h empl oyees.
1 2 3 4 5
8. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor behaves i n a consi st ent manner f rom day t o day.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I f eel connect ed t o my organi zat i on.
1 2 3 4 5
10. I am highly satisfied with the overall quality of the products and/ or services of the organization.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I have a say i n deci si ons t hat af f ect my j ob.
1 2 3 4 5
12. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor keeps conf i dences.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on regardi ng how wel l I am doi ng i n my j ob.
1 2 3 4 5
14. I am hi ghl y sat i sf i ed wi t h t he capaci t y of t he organi zat i on t o achi eve i t s obj ect i ves.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on regardi ng how I am bei ng eval uat ed.
1 2 3 4 5
12
13
Organizational
Trust Survey
How much the statement describes my organization:
1 2 3 4 5
VERY LITTLE LITTLE SOME GREAT VERY GREAT
16. Top management l i st ens t o empl oyees concerns.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Top management keeps t hei r commi t ment s t o empl oyees.
1 2 3 4 5
18. I am hi ghl y sat i sf i ed wi t h t he capabi l i t y of t he organi zat i ons empl oyees.
1 2 3 4 5
19. I f eel connect ed t o my i mmedi at e supervi sor.
1 2 3 4 5
20. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on regardi ng how my j ob-rel at ed probl ems are handl ed.
1 2 3 4 5
21. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor i s concerned about my personal wel l bei ng.
1 2 3 4 5
22. M y val ues are si mi l ar t o t he val ues of my peers.
1 2 3 4 5
23. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on regardi ng how organi zat i onal deci si ons are made t hat
af f ect my j ob.
1 2 3 4 5
24. Top management i s concerned about empl oyees wel l bei ng.
1 2 3 4 5
25. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor keeps hi s/ her commi t ment s t o t eam members.
1 2 3 4 5
26. M y val ues are si mi l ar t o t he val ues of my i mmedi at e supervi sor.
1 2 3 4 5
27. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on regardi ng t he l ong-t erm st rat egi es of my organi zat i on.
1 2 3 4 5
28. My i mmedi at e supervi sor i s si ncere i n hi s/ her ef f ort s t o communi cat e wi t h t eam members.
1 2 3 4 5
29. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor speaks posi t i vel y about subordi nat es i n f ront of ot hers.
1 2 3 4 5
SCORING THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST SURVEY
For each organi zat i onal t rust di mensi on, average t he scores f or each quest i on and record i n t he
spaces provi ded bel ow.
To cal cul at e your organi zat i ons overal l score, wri t e t he "Di mensi on Tot al " of each di mensi on i n t he
appropri at e bl ank. Tot al t hese scores and di vi de by 29. Agai n, t he scal e i s:
1 =Very little 2 =Little 3 =Some 4 =Great 5 =Very Great
Dimension One: Competence Dimension Two: Openness/Honesty
It em M y Organi zat i ons Score It em M y Organi zat i ons Score
3 _____________ 1 __________________
10 _____________ 6 __________________
14 _____________ 11 __________________
18 _____________ 12 __________________
Di mensi on Tot al _____________ 13 __________________
Average Dimension
15 __________________
20 __________________
23 __________________
27 __________________
Di mensi on Tot al __________________
Average Dimension
Score (Total/9) __________________
14
Score (Total/4) _____________
15
Scoring the
Trust Survey
Dimension Three: Concern for Employees Dimension Four: Reliability
It em M y Organi zat i ons Score It em M y Organi zat i ons Score
4 __________ 2 __________
7 __________ 8 __________
16 __________ 17 __________
21 __________ 25 __________
24 __________ Di mensi on Tot al __________
28 __________
Average Dimension
29 __________
Score (Total/4) __________
Di mensi on Tot al __________
Average Dimension
Score (Total/7) __________
Dimension Five: Identification Overall Organizational Trust
It em M y Organi zat i ons Score Di mensi on M y Organi zat i ons Score
5 __________ Compet ence __________
9 __________ Openness/ Honest y __________
19 __________ Concern __________
22 __________ Rel i abi l i t y __________
26 __________ Ident i f i cat i on __________
Di mensi on Tot al __________ Overal l __________
Average Dimension Average Overall Trust
Score (Total/5) __________ (Total/29) __________
16
COMPARING YOUR ORGANIZATION
TO ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE WORLD
Compl et e t he f ol l owi ng report , whi ch gat hers det ai l ed i nf ormat i on about your organi zat i on. In t he
f ar l ef t col umn i s each survey i t em. Thi s i s f ol l owed by t he "M EAN," t he "SD" (st andard devi at i on),
and "N" (number of respondent s) f or your organi zat i on and f or al l ot her organi zat i ons surveyed.
These scores compare your organi zat i on t o ot hers.
Mean:
The mean score represent s t he average of al l responses t o t he i t em on a 5-poi nt scal e,
where 1 = very l i t t l e and 5 = very great . The hi gher t he mean, t he hi gher t he t rust l evel .
These are t he same averages you f i gured on t he previ ous score sheet .
Standard Deviation (SD):
The st andard devi at i on, a st at i st i c readi l y avai l abl e i n spreadsheet , dat abase, and st at i st i cal
packages, i ndi cat es t he amount of vari abi l i t y around t he mean. Thi s i s an i ndi cat i on of t he
spread of t he scores and can be i nt erpret ed as t he ext ent t o whi ch a group of i ndi vi dual s
agree or di sagree wi t h t he average response of t he group. A l arge SD i ndi cat es l i t t l e
agreement wi t h t he cal cul at ed mean. A smal l SD i ndi cat es t hat most respondent s have
scored t he i t em f ai rl y cl ose t o t he mean.
In general , SDs great er t han 1.00 on a 1-5 scal e i ndi cat e t hat organi zat i onal members
di sagree wi del y on t hei r responses. For exampl e, some answer 1 (very l i t t l e) and ot hers
answer 3, 4, or 5 f or t he same i t em. SDs of l ess t han 1.00 i ndi cat e more agreement of
organi zat i onal members on t he i t em. The smal l er t he SD, t he more agreement on t he
response. The l arger t he SD, t he l ess agreement on t he response.
Number (N):
N represent s t he t ot al number of respondent s who answered t he quest i on. Because
quest i ons were devel oped over a peri od of years, t he number of respondent s i n ot her
organi zat i ons vari es f or each quest i on, wi t h ol der quest i ons havi ng a l arge number of
responses and newer quest i ons havi ng f ewer responses.
Key Point:
It i s i mport ant t o keep i n mi nd t hat t hese scores have no meani ng i n and of t hemsel ves.
Organi zat i onal members must gi ve t hem meani ng t hrough di al ogue. The next sect i ons
of t hi s manual wi l l hel p your organi zat i on do t hi s.
17
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST INDEX
YOUR ORGANIZATION COMPARED TO ALL OTHERS SURVEYED
YOUR ALL OTHER
ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATIONS
Dimension One: COMPETENCE
3. I am hi ghl y sat i sf i ed wi t h t he
organi zat i on' s overal l ef f i ci ency of
operat i on. M ean __________ 2.69
SD __________ 0.99
N __________ 3368
overal l qual i t y of t he product s/
servi ces of t he organi zat i on. M ean __________ 2.86
SD __________ 0.90
N __________ 2834
capaci t y of t he organi zat i on t o
achi eve i t s obj ect i ves. M ean __________ 2.97
SD __________ 0.98
N __________ 3356
capabi l i t y of t he organi zat i on' s
empl oyees. M ean __________ 3.36
SD __________ 0.82
N __________ 2755
18
Organizational
Trust Index
YOUR ALL OTHER
COMPETENCE DIMENSION OVERALL
M ean __________ 3.01
SD __________ 0.78
N __________ 3383
Dimenstion Two: OPENNESS AND HONESTY
1. I can t el l my i mmedi at e supervi sor
when t hi ngs are goi ng wrong. M ean __________ 3.36
SD __________ 1.07
N __________ 3086
6. I am f ree t o di sagree wi t h my
i mmedi at e supervi sor. M ean __________ 3.20
SD __________ 1.09
N __________ 3082
11. I have a say i n deci si ons t hat
af f ect my j ob. M ean __________ 2.99
SD __________ 1.09
N __________ 3092
12. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor keeps
conf i dences. M ean __________ 3.69
SD __________ 1.19
N __________ 260
19
Organizational
Trust Index
YOUR ALL OTHER
13. I recei ve adequat e i nf ormat i on
regardi ng how wel l I am doi ng i n my j ob.
M ean __________ 2.44
SD __________ 1.02
N __________ 3356
regardi ng how I am bei ng eval uat ed. M ean __________ 2.07
SD __________ 1.05
N __________ 3370
regardi ng how my j ob-rel at ed
probl ems are handl ed. M ean __________ 2.27
SD __________ 0.95
N __________ 3137
regardi ng how organi zat i onal deci si ons
are made t hat af f ect my j ob. M ean __________ 1.94
SD __________ 0.99
N __________ 3529
regardi ng t he l ong-t erm st rat egi es of
my organi zat i on. M ean __________ 2.09
SD __________ 1.08
N __________ 3536
YOUR ALL OTHER
OPENNESS AND HONESTY DIMENSION OVERALL
M ean __________ 2.54
SD __________ 0.72
N __________ 3590
Dimension Three: CONCERN FOR EMPLOYEES
4. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor l i st ens t o me. M ean __________ 3.20
SD __________ 1.13
N __________ 3078
7. Top management i s si ncere i n i t s
ef f ort s t o communi cat e wi t h empl oyees. M ean __________ 2.16
SD __________ 1.06
N __________ 3064
16. Top management l i st ens t o
empl oyees' concerns. M ean __________ 2.92
SD __________ 1.20
N __________ 283
21. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor i s concerned
about my personal wel l bei ng. M ean __________ 3.57
SD __________ 1.26
N __________ 276
24. Top management i s concerned
about empl oyees' wel l bei ng. M ean __________ 2.95
SD __________ 1.22
N __________ 271
20
Organizational
Trust Index
YOUR ALL OTHER
28. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor i s si ncere i n hi s/ her
efforts to communicate with team members. M ean __________ 3.70
SD __________ 1.20
N __________ 279
29. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor speaks posi t i vel y
about subordi nat es i n f ront of ot hers. M ean __________ 3.41
SD __________ 1.19
N __________ 266
CONCERN FOR EMPLOYEES DIMENSION OVERALL
M ean __________ 2.68
SD __________ 0.89
N __________ 3098
Dimension Four: RELIABILITY
2. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor f ol l ows
t hrough wi t h what he/ she says. M ean __________ 3.53
SD __________ 1.16
N __________ 278
8. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor behaves i n
a consi st ent manner f rom day t o day. M ean __________ 3.61
SD __________ 1.19
N __________ 282
21
Organizational
Trust Index
YOUR ALL OTHER
17. Top management keeps t hei r
commi t ment s t o empl oyees. M ean __________ 2.96
SD __________ 1.14
N __________ 279
25. M y i mmedi at e supervi sor keeps
hi s/ her commi t ment s t o t eam members. M ean __________ 3.62
SD __________ 1.13
N __________ 278
RELIABILITY DIMENSION OVERALL
M ean __________ 3.43
SD __________ 0.97
N __________ 288
Dimension Five: IDENTIFICATION
5. I f eel connect ed t o my peers. M ean __________ 3.42
SD __________ 1.07
N __________ 278
9. I f eel connect ed t o my organi zat i on. M ean __________ 3.31
SD __________ 1.12
N __________ 281
19. I f eel connect ed t o my i mmedi at e
supervi sor. M ean __________ 3.44
SD __________ 1.20
N __________ 277
22
Organizational
Trust Index
YOUR ALL OTHER
22. M y val ues are si mi l ar t o t he
val ues of my peers. M ean __________ 3.23
SD __________ 1.08
N __________ 271
26. M y val ues are si mi l ar t o t he
val ues of my i mmedi at e supervi sor. M ean __________ 3.37
SD __________ 1.20
N __________ 264
IDENTIFICATION DIMENSION OVERALL
M ean __________ 3.36
SD __________ 0.93
N __________ 287
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST OVERALL
M ean __________ 2.70
SD __________ 0.66
N __________ 3592
23
Organizational
Trust Index
ANALYZING YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
To begi n t o anal yze your resul t s, l ook f or t wo t hi ngs about your organi zat i on:
Areas of St rengt h
Areas f or Improvement
To prepare f or t hi s anal ysi s, make copi es of Forms 1 and 2
l ocat ed on page 27 and 28 of t hi s manual .
Areas of Strength Form 1
1. From t he Organi zat i onal Trust Index, f i nd t he t wo or t hree survey i t ems wi t h t he hi ghest
mean scores f or each of t he f i ve di mensi ons of organi zat i onal t rust .
2. Wri t e t he number and key words f rom t he st at ement of each survey i t em i n t he f i rst
col umn, l abel ed "Organi zat i onal Trust It em #".
3. Record t he mean score f or each survey i t em you sel ect ed i n t he second col umn, l abel ed
"Hi gh Average Score."
4. Pl ace a check i n t he t hi rd col umn, l abel ed "St rong Compari son t o Ot her Organi zat i ons," f or
any i t em t hat has a hi gher average score t han t he ot her organi zat i ons surveyed.
5. As a resul t of di scussi ons wi t h ot hers or i n speci f i c sessi ons t o f aci l i t at e survey f eedback
(see page 25), pl ace a check i n f ourt h col umn, l abel ed "M ost Import ant ," f or t he t op t hree t o
f i ve i t ems across al l di mensi ons of organi zat i onal t rust .
6. Rank t he t op t hree t o f i ve i t ems i n t he f i f t h col umn, l abel ed "Hi ghest Pri ori t y."
Areas for Improvement Form 2
7. From t he Organi zat i onal Trust Index, f i nd t he t wo or t hree survey i t ems wi t h t he l owest
average scores f or each of t he f i ve di mensi ons of organi zat i onal t rust .
8. Wri t e t he number and key words f rom t he st at ement of each survey i t em i n t he f i rst
col umn, l abel ed "Organi zat i onal Trust It em # .
9. Record t he mean score f or each survey i t em you sel ect ed i n t he second col umn, l abel ed
"Low Average Score."
10. Pl ace a check i n t he t hi rd col umn, l abel ed "Weak Compari son t o Ot her Organi zat i ons,"
f or any i t em t hat has a l ower average score t han al l ot her organi zat i ons.
11. As a resul t of di scussi ons wi t h ot hers or i n speci f i c sessi ons t o f aci l i t at e survey
f eedback, pl ace a check i n t he f ourt h col umn, l abel ed "M ost Import ant ," f or t he t op t hree t o
f i ve i t ems across al l di mensi ons of organi zat i onal t rust .
12. Rank t he t op t hree t o f i ve i t ems i n t he f i f t h col umn, l abel ed "Hi ghest Pri ori t y."
24
25
FACILITATING SURVEY FEEDBACK
When f aci l i t at i ng survey f eedback, t he goal i s t o hel p part i ci pant s i n a f ocus group or a t eam t al k
about and gi ve meani ng t o t he survey dat a. Anot her goal i s t o gui de part i ci pant s i nt o def i ni ng,
devel opi ng, and i mpl ement i ng act i on pl ans f or bui l di ng or rei nf orci ng t rust .
1. Introduction:
As part i ci pant s ent er t he room, have t hem record words t hat t hey associ at e wi t h
organi zat i onal t rust and organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness on l arge sel f -st i cki ng not e paper.
Have t he part i ci pant s read t hei r not es, cl ust eri ng common ones on a f l i p chart .
Ask t he part i ci pant s t o i dent i t y t hemes across t hese word associ at i ons.
2. Purpose and Objectives:
St at e t hat t he purpose of t he f eedback sessi on i s t o read and anal yze dat a, and f orm an
act i on pl an regardi ng t he pat t erns of st rengt h and areas t o i mprove f or organi zat i onal t rust
and ef f ect i veness.
3. Reading the Organizational Trust Index:
Expl ai n t he survey process used i n your organi zat i on and t he f i ve di mensi ons of
organi zat i onal t rust . Show and descri be t he l ayout of t he i nf ormat i on. Def i ne each of t he
scores: mean, st andard devi at i on, and number.
4. Analyzing and Discussing the Organizational Results:
Gui de t he part i ci pant s i n sel ect i ng areas of st rengt h and areas t hat need i mprovement . You
may choose t o have part i ci pant s col l ect i vel y pri ori t i ze st rengt hs and i mprovement areas.
M ake copi es of Forms 1 and 2 and f aci l i t at e t he part i ci pant s t hrough t he st eps.
5. Creating Action Plans for Trust:
Lead t he part i ci pant s i n creat i ng act i on pl ans f or i mprovi ng or rei nf orci ng t he t op pri ori t y
i t ems f or organi zat i onal t rust and ef f ect i veness. M ake copi es of Forms 3 and 4 (pages 29
and 30), and f aci l i t at e t he part i ci pant s t hrough t he st eps on t he next page.
CREATING ACTION PLANS FOR TRUST
Step 1 Area to Reinforce or Improve:
Wri t e a def i ni t i on and descri pt i on of t he area f or rei nf orcement or i mprovement .
Step 2 Analysis of Factors:
Brai nst orm f act ors t hat cont ri but e t o or i nhi bi t ef f ect i veness i n t he area. Draw arrows of
di f f erent l engt hs and t hi ckness f or each f act or, creat i ng a vi sual i mage of t he cont ri but i ng
and i nhi bi t i ng f orces associ at ed wi t h t he sel ect ed area f or rei nf orcement or i mprovement .
Step 3 Action Items:
Brai nst orm, sel ect , and pri ori t i ze act i on i t ems t hat can rei nf orce or i mprove t he area.
Step 4 Who:
Ident i f y who needs t o be i nvol ved or be responsi bl e f or an act i on i t em.
Step 5 By When:
Agree upon a deadl i ne f or compl et i ng each act i on i t em.
Step 6 Resources Needed:
Di scuss resources t hat are needed, i ncl udi ng t hose t hat are readi l y avai l abl e and t hose t hat
are not .
Step 7 Constraints:
Ident i f y barri ers t o t he pl an and st rat egi ze ways t o manage t hem.
Step 8 Assessment and Follow-up:
Def i ne how t he act i on pl an wi l l be assessed and how part i ci pant s wi l l compl et e f ol l ow up
regardi ng t he act i on pl an.
Step 9 Closure:
Ask each person t o i dent i f y t he most i mport ant t hi ng t hey l earned duri ng t he f eedback
sessi on. Express your appreci at i on f or everyones part i ci pat i on.
26
Facilitating
Survey Feedback
ANALYZINGORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
Areas of Strength
Form 1
27
Analysis Form 1
Strong
Organizational High Comparison Most Highest
Trust Average Other Important Priority
Item # Score Organizations
Competence
Openness & Honesty
Concern
Reliability
Indentification
28
Analysis Form 2
Weak
Organizational Low Comparison Most Highest
Trust Average Other Important Priority
Item # Score Organizations
Competence
Openness & Honesty
Concern
Reliability
Identification
ANALYZING ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
Areas of Improvement
Form 2
1. Area of Strength for Reinforcement: (Define and Describe)
2. Analysis of Factors: (Brainstorm and Weight)
Contributing Factors Inhibiting Factors
3. Action Items: (Brainstorm, Select, and Prioritize) 4. Who 5. By When
6. Resources Needed
7. Constraints
8. Assessment and Follow-up
29
Analysis Form 3
ACTION PLANNING GUIDE
Areas of Strength for Reinforcement
Form 3
ACTION PLANNING GUIDE
Areas for Improvement
Form 4
30
Analysis Form 4
1. Area to Improve: (Define and Describe)
2. Analysis of Factors: (Brainstorm and Weight)
Contributing Factors Inhibiting Factors
3. Action Items: (Brainstorm, Select, and Prioritize) 4. Who 5. By When
6. Resources Needed
7. Constraints
8. Assessment and Follow-up
LITERATURE REVIEW
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND DISTRUST:
Similarities and Differences in Organizations
and Industries Across the World
Al t hough acknowl edged by schol ars and pract i t i oners al i ke as i mport ant f or al l aspect s of
organi zat i onal l i f e, t he i ssue of t rust remai ns bot h compl ex and ambi guous. The f ol l owi ng revi ew of
research rel at ed t o organi zat i onal t rust expl ores def i ni t i onal compl exi t y, rel at es t rust t o gl obal
organi zat i onal envi ronment s, exami nes t rust and a vari et y of cul t ural di mensi ons, revi ews t he
research on t rust and i nt erorgani zat i onal rel at i ons, rel at es t rust t o organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness,
expl ores t he rel at i onshi p of t rust t o j ob sat i sf act i on, and f i nal l y, exami nes t he di mensi ons of
organi zat i onal t rust on whi ch t hi s research i s based.
Definitional Issues
In a t i me of i ncreased i mperat i ves f or change and l ess cert ai nt y about how change can and
shoul d occur, i t i s not surpri si ng t hat a renewed i nt erest i n t rust surf aces as schol ars and
pract i t i oners al i ke seek t o underst and rel at i onshi ps bet ween cooperat i ve behavi ors and
organi zat i onal abi l i t i es t o i nnovat e and adapt t o change (Kramer & Tyl er, 1996). A general
consensus among researchers concl udes t hat t rust i s i mport ant i n a range of organi zat i onal
act i vi t i es and processes such as t eam work, l eadershi p, goal set t i ng, perf ormance apprai sal ,
and, i n general , cooperat i ve behavi ors (Axel rod, 1984; El angovan & Shapi ro, 1998;
Gambet t a, 1988; Jones & George, 1998; M ayer, Davi d, & Schoorman, 1995; M cAl l i st er,
1995). Less agreement exi st s around def i ni t i onal i ssues and how t rust f orms, evol ves, and
changes t hrough organi zat i onal communi cat i on and organi zat i onal experi ences.
In recent years, def i ni t i ons of t rust have moved f rom emphasi s on i nt ent i ons and
mot i vat i ons t o behavi oral ori ent at i ons. Hosmer (1995), f or exampl e, vi ews t rust as one
part ys opt i mi st i c expect at i ons of t he behavi or of anot her when t he part y must make a
deci si on about how t o act under condi t i ons of vul nerabi l i t y and dependence. M ayer, Davi s,
and Schoorman (1995) descri be t rust as "t he wi l l i ngness of a part y t o be vul nerabl e t o t he
act i ons of anot her part y based on t he expect at i on t hat t he ot her part y wi l l perf orm a
part i cul ar act i on i mport ant t o t he t rust or, i rrespect i ve of t he abi l i t y t o moni t or or cont rol t hat
ot her part y" (p. 712). Lewi cki , M cAl l i st er, and Bi es (1998) def i ne t rust as conf i dent posi t i ve
expect at i ons regardi ng anot hers conduct , whi l e di st rust i s conf i dent negat i ve expect at i ons
regardi ng anot hers conduct . Bhat t acharya, Devi nney, and Pi l l ut l a (1998) suggest t hat t rust
i s an expect ancy of posi t i ve (or nonnegat i ve) out comes t hat one can recei ve based on t he
expect ed act i on of anot her part y i n an i nt eract i on charact eri zed by uncert ai nt y. Whi t ener,
Brodt , Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) merge several exi st i ng def i ni t i onal approaches
ref l ect i ng t hree basi c f acet s of t rust : (1) t rust i n anot her part y ref l ect s an expect at i on or
bel i ef t hat t he ot her part y wi l l act benevol ent l y; (2) a part y cannot cont rol or f orce anot her
part y t o f ul f i l l t he expect at i on t hat i s, t rust i nvol ves a wi l l i ngness t o be vul nerabl e and
ri sk; and (3) t rust i nvol ves some l evel of dependency on t he ot her part y so t hat t he out comes
of one part y are i nf l uenced by t he act i ons of anot her. M i shra (1996) def i nes t rust as "one
part ys wi l l i ngness t o be vul nerabl e t o anot her part y based on t he bel i ef t hat t he l at t er part y
31
i s (a) compet ent , (b) open, (c) concerned, and (d) rel i abl e" (p. 265). These f our di mensi ons
operat e col l ect i vel y t o creat e t he percept i on of t rust . Fukuyama (1995), i n f ocusi ng on t rust
across cul t ures i n i nt ernat i onal economi c exchanges, def i nes t rust as "t he expect at i on t hat
ari ses wi t hi n a communi t y of regul ar, honest , and cooperat i ve behavi or, based on commonl y
shared norms on t he part of ot her members of t hat communi t y" (p. 26). In def i ni ng t rust i n
an organi zat i onal cont ext , Cummi ngs and Bromi l ey (1996) anchor t hei r def i ni t i on i n t he
assert i on t hat t rust i nvol ves t hree component s of bel i ef (af f ect i ve, cogni t i ve, and i nt ended
behavi or) and t hree di mensi ons of t rust (whet her an i ndi vi dual keeps commi t ment s,
negot i at es honest l y, and avoi ds t aki ng excessi ve advant age). In devel opi ng one of t he f ew
current empi ri cal assessment s of organi zat i onal t rust , t hey def i ne t rust as i nt egrat i ng t hei r
t hree di mensi ons and t hree component s: "Trust wi l l be def i ned as an i ndi vi dual s bel i ef
among a group of i ndi vi dual s t hat anot her i ndi vi dual or group (a) makes good-f ai t h ef f ort s
t o behave i n accordance wi t h any commi t ment s bot h expl i ci t or i mpl i ci t ; (b) i s honest i n
what ever negot i at i ons preceded such commi t ment s; and (c) does not t ake excessi ve
advant age of anot her even when t he opport uni t y i s avai l abl e" (p. 303).
Taken as a whol e, t he f oregoi ng def i ni t i ons suggest t hat uncert ai nt y, dependency, i nf l uence,
and behavi or expect at i ons undergi rd percept i ons of t rust . Theref ore, i n t hi s current work,
t rust i s vi ewed as posi t i ve expect at i ons about t he i nt ent and behavi ors of ot hers based on
rol es, rel at i onshi ps, experi ences, and i nt erdependenci es.
Trust and Global Organizational Environments:
International Business
In t odays gl obal economy, vi rt ual connect i ons are commonpl ace, i ncreasi ng, and of growi ng
i mport ance f or bot h i ndi vi dual s and organi zat i ons. In t hese t el emedi at ed rel at i onshi ps,
of t en ref l ect i ng nat i onal and cul t ural di f f erences, t ransact i ons based on t rust among
st rangers are accompl i shed. Col eman (1988) has ref erred t o t hese t el emedi at ed
rel at i onshi ps as spont aneous soci abi l i t y rel yi ng on soci al capi t al or t he abi l i t y t o f orm
t rust i ng rel at i onshi ps.
Fukuyama (1995) suggest s t hat organi zat i onal rel at i onshi ps among di verse st rangers are
made possi bl e wi t h soci al capi t al anchored i n rel at i onshi ps of t rust . Fukuyama (1995)
descri bes t he rel at i onshi p of soci al capi t al t o economi c exchange, "Soci al capi t al , t he
cruci bl e of t rust and cri t i cal t o t he heal t h of an economy, rest s on cul t ural root s" (p. 33).
Unl i ke ot her f orms of human capi t al , such as i nt el l ect ual capi t al , whi ch resul t f rom
educat i on, soci al capi t al emerges f rom cul t ural processes, such as rel i gi on, ri t ual s, and
t radi t i on. Theref ore, Fukuyama proposes t hat "t he abi l i t y of compani es t o move f rom l arge
hi erarchi es t o f l exi bl e net works of smal l er f i rms wi l l depend on t he degree of t rust i n t he
soci al capi t al i n t he broader soci et y" (p. 25).
On a gl obal and i nt ernat i onal l evel , research general l y support s t he proposi t i on t hat
di f f erent nat i onal and or regi onal cul t ures wi l l be successf ul t o varyi ng degrees i n t hei r
abi l i t y t o provi de a cont ext f or t he economi c demand of spont aneous soci abi l i t y. Fukuyama
(1995), f or exampl e, vi ews t he soci et al cul t ures of Japan and t he Uni t ed St at es as exampl es
of economi c syst ems t hat al ready exempl i f y t he abi l i t y t o support spont aneous soci abi l i t y.
32
Literature Review
Thi s i s shown by t hei r mul t i -nat i onal al l i ances and di verse net work of busi ness t ransact i ons.
Ot her soci et al cul t ures such as Chi na, It al y, and France hi st ori cal l y have been charact eri zed
by economi c syst ems rel yi ng on f ami l i al or cl an-based rel at i onshi ps f or economi c
t ransact i ons of t rust . Doney, Cannon, and M ul l en (1998) have not ed t he i nf l uence of
soci et al or nat i onal cul t ure on t rust . Ki ong and Kee (1998) and Tsang (1998) have expl ored
how some cul t ures, especi al l y i n Chi na, are not conduci ve t o t he t ypes of busi ness net works
needed i n a gl obal economy. For exampl e, t hese researchers poi nt out t hat i n Chi na one
cont ri but i ng f act or l i es i n t he i mport ance and compl ex nat ure of "guanxi " or good
connect i ons, especi al l y among f ami l i al rel at i ons f or economi c t ransact i ons. In t hi s soci et al
cont ext , t he i mpet us f or busi ness part nershi ps i s cul t ure-dri ven rat her t han market -dri ven.
Fukuyama (1995), i n ref erri ng t o si mi l ar soci et al cont ext s, concl udes t hat connect i ons, cl ans,
and f ami l i al -based part nershi ps as t rust -based rel at i onshi ps do not readi l y f ost er a
spont aneous, or vi rt ual , net work of t ransact i ons among unf ami l i ar, di verse busi ness
part ners. However, Fukuyama consi ders spont aneous and vi rt ual net works as a necessi t y
f or t he gl obal market pl ace of t he 21
st
cent ury.
Trust and Cultural Dimensions
Hof st ede (1984, 1991) was among t he f i rst t o descri be di mensi ons of cul t ure based on
nat i onal i dent i f i cat i ons. Hi s pi oneeri ng work i dent i f i ed di mensi ons of nat i onal cul t ure
such as pow er di st ance, uncert ai nt y avoi dance, i ndi vi dual i sm/ col l ect i vi sm, and
mascul i ni t y/ f emi ni ni t y. Subsequent l y schol ars have ut i l i zed t hese di mensi ons t o bet t er
underst and t he dynami cs of a vari et y of i nt ernat i onal busi ness rel at i onshi ps i ncl udi ng a
vari et y of t rust processes. For exampl e, Harri s and M oran (1996), empl oyi ng t he Hof st ede
di mensi ons, suggest t he i nf l uence of nat i onal cul t ures i n organi zat i onal l i f e i s f ar more t han
superf i ci al , compl i cat i ng t he devel opment and mai nt enance of t rust i ng rel at i onshi ps.
Accordi ng t o Harri s and M oran, t hose engaged i n i nt ernat i onal col l aborat i ve opport uni t i es
must not onl y l earn cust oms, court esi es, and busi ness prot ocol s, but must seek t o
underst and t he nat i onal charact er t hat support s t he mi nd set s of t he peopl e. Adl er (1997)
caut i ons t hat cross-cul t ural mi scommuni cat i on f requent l y resul t s f rom subconsci ous cul t ural
bl i nders whi ch resul t f rom t he l ack of consci ous at t ent i on t o cul t ural assumpt i ons.
Addi t i onal l y, Adl er suggest s t hat many l ack cul t ural sel f -awareness based on an i gnorance
associ at ed wi t h not knowi ng ones own cul t ural condi t i oni ng and proj ect i ng on ot hers a
si mi l ari t y t hat i s unwarrant ed. Ki rkman and Shapi ro (1997), i n ext endi ng t he work of
Hof st ede (1984, 1991) and Kl uckhohn and St rodt beck (1961), descri be how cul t ural val ue
di f f erences i mpact a vari et y of manageri al i ni t i at i ves i ncl udi ng, i n part i cul ar, moves t o
sel f -management and gl obal sel f -managi ng t eams.
M aruyama (1984) and Adl er (1997) provi de l i nkages among nat i onal cul t ural val ues,
cogni t i ve bl uepri nt s f or i nt erpret i ng t he worl d, di f f erences i n t he very st ruct ure of
percei vi ng, t hi nki ng, and reasoni ng, and t rust . Adl er addresses t he consi derat i on f or t he
nat ure of t he i ndi vi dual as good or evi l and rel at es t hose consi derat i ons t o t rust . Some
soci et i es see peopl e as mi xt ures of good and evi l ; ot her cul t ures see peopl e as basi cal l y evi l
or as basi cal l y good. Adl er cont ends t rust i s associ at ed wi t h t hese worl d vi ews. Fukuyama
33
Literature Review
(1995) rel at es soci et al approaches t o communal l i f e wi t h how much t rust exi st s among i t s
members. Parkhe (1998) i n an expl anat i on and ext ensi on of Fukuyama suggest s:
Hi gher t rust soci et i es i ncl ude Japan, Germany, and perhaps t o a l esser ext ent , t he U.S.
These count ri es enj oy rel at i vel y hi gh l evel s of soci al capi t al , spont aneous soci abi l i t y,
and t rust . Peopl e t end t o f orm and j oi n a range of vol unt ary organi zat i ons, f rom sport s
soci et i es t o rel i gi ous groups. These i n t urn prepare ci t i zens t o work cooperat i vel y i n
l arge, pri vat e compani es t hat are abl e t o amass capi t al and devel op t echnol ogi es
ef f i ci ent l y, l eadi ng t o hi gh economi c perf ormance and t he creat i on of prosperi t y.
In cont rast , ci t i zens of l ower t rust soci et i es such as It al y, Chi na, and France t end t o avoi d
peopl e who are not part of t hei r i mmedi at e f ami l i es, t hus cri ppl i ng at t empt s t o bui l d
l arge, pri vat e busi ness organi zat i ons. Whereas hi gh-t rust soci et i es benef i t f rom t hei r
l ower cost s i n f ormi ng l arge ent erpri ses, l ow-t rust soci et i es conf ront hi gher cost s t hat
impede t he f ormat ion of such ent erprises. Persons f rom low- versus high-t rust count ries
are likely t o f ocus on subt le but import ant dif f erences in crit eria in evaluat ing part ners and
part nerships. For example, persons f rom low-t rust societ ies t end t o assess alliances more
on person-specif ic t rust , where socio-psychological f act ors play a larger role (p. 230-231).
Trust and Interorganizational Relations
New organi zat i onal f orms and rel at i onshi ps f requent l y rel y on col l aborat i on wi t h ot her
organi zat i ons. Cl egg and Hardy (1996) concl ude, "Col l aborat i on of t en depends upon t rust i ng
rel at i onshi ps bet ween part ners. Trust serves t o reduce uncert ai nt y and t he l i kel i hood of
cheat i ng i n ways t hat cont ract s cannot .Trust t hus reduces compl exi t y by ensuri ng t hat t he
soci al syst em i s based on mut ual expect at i ons about act ors f ut ure behavi our, encouragi ng
soci al act ors t o sel ect speci f i c opt i ons of soci al act i on and react i on. The basi c f unct i on of
coordi nat i ng soci al i nt eract i on i s achi eved, and cooperat i on, rat her t han opport uni st i c
behavi our i s t he resul t " (p. 678). Ri ng and Van de Ven (1992) suggest t hat rel i ance on t rust
by organi zat i ons can be expect ed t o emerge bet ween busi ness part ners onl y af t er t hey have
successf ul l y compl et ed t ransact i ons i n t he past and t hey percei ve one anot her as compl yi ng
wi t h norms of equi t y. Ot her schol ars (Bl umer, 1971; Laumann & Knoke, 1987; Pasquero,
1991; Rai ney, 1983; and Waddock, 1989) descri be t he i ni t i at i on of col l aborat i ve act i vi t i es
where part ners have very di f f erent goal s, val ues and i deol ogi es, resul t i ng i n probl emat i c
processes t o underst and t he dynami cs of bui l di ng t rust . St i l l ot hers (Berger & Luckmann,
1967; Geert z, 1973; and Schut z, 1970) cont end t hat i nt erorgani zat i onal t rust and ot her t rust
rel at i onshi ps mi ght be bet t er concept ual i zed as communi cat i ve, sense-maki ng processes.
Trust and Organizational Effectiveness
A pl et hora of research rel at es enhanced net works of t rust t o general concept ual i zat i ons of
organizational effectiveness. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998), in synthesizing much of
this work, conclude networks of trust hold important implications for the ability to participate in
virtual networks, adaptive organizational forms, crisis management, productive conflict, and
decreased transaction costs. Specifically, high levels of organizational trust have been associated
with (a) more adaptive organizational forms and structures (Barnes, 1983; Bennis & Bierderman,
1997; Crawford, 1998; Dwivedi, 1983; Miles & Snow, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,
1998), (b) strategic alliances (Das & Teng, 1998; Ingham & Mothe, 1998; Jones & Bowie, 1998;
34
Literature Review
Copyri ght 2000, IABC Research Foundat i on. Al l ri ght reserved.
Rule & Koewn, 1998), (c) responsive virtual teams (Coutu, 1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Meyerson,
Weick, & Kramer, 1996; Tsai & Ghoshal , 1998), and (d) ef f ect i ve cri si s management (Mi shra,
1996; Webb, 1996).
Hi gh l evel s of organi zat i onal t rust can cri t i cal l y reduce l i t i gat i on charges (Brockner & Si egel ,
1996) and t ransact i on cost s (Gi bbs & Gi bson, 1998; Maccoby, 1998; Rousseau, Si t ki n, Burt , &
Camerer, 1998). Thi s resul t s because hi gh-t rust cul t ures mi ni mi ze t he pot ent i al f or dest ruct i ve
and l i t i gat ed conf l i ct , unnecessary bureaucrat i c cont rol and admi ni st rat i ve expendi t ures, and
expensi ve overhead requi red t o sust ai n operat i ons t hat have out l ast ed t hei r need.
Tsai and Ghoshal (1998), usi ng dat a col l ect ed i n a l arge mul t i nat i onal el ect roni cs company,
exami ned rel at i onshi ps among t he st ruct ural , rel at i onal , and cogni t i ve di mensi ons of soci al
capi t al and bet ween t hose di mensi ons and t he pat t erns of resource exchange and product
i nnovat i on wi t hi n t he company. Thei r f i ndi ngs support ed a compl ex set of processes where
soci al i nt eract i on (a mani f est at i on of t he st ruct ural di mensi on of soci al capi t al ) and t rust (a
mani f est at i on of soci al capi t al s rel at i onal di mensi on) were si gni f i cant l y rel at ed t o t he ext ent
of i nt eruni t resource exchange, whi ch i n t urn had a si gni f i cant ef f ect on product i nnovat i on.
Fi nal l y, i n a cross-count ry i nvest i gat i on of t he rel at i onshi p of soci al capi t al t o economi c
perf ormance, Knack and Keef er (1997) f ound t hat t rust and ci vi c norms are rel at ed t o
measurabl e economi c perf ormance. Speci f i cal l y, Knack and Keef er f ound t hat t rust and ci vi c
norms are st ronger i n nat i ons wi t h hi gher and more equal i ncomes, wi t h i nst i t ut i ons t hat
rest rai n predat ory act i ons of chi ef execut i ves, and wi t h bet t er-educat ed and et hni cal l y
homogeneous popul at i ons. Thei r work di d not support previ ous f i ndi ngs t hat rel at ed
membershi ps i n f ormal groups t o t rust or wi t h i mproved economi c perf ormance.
Trust, Communication Exchanges, and Job Satisfaction
Al t hough not speci f i cal l y ref erenced i n t he above def i ni t i ons and processes, communi cat i on
i s i nf erred as cent ral t o t he behavi oral di mensi ons of t rust processes. The research
general l y support s (a) accurat e i nf ormat i on, (b) expl anat i ons f or deci si ons, and (c) openness
as communi cat i on f act ors af f ect i ng percept i ons of t rust wort hi ness and overal l j ob
sat i sf act i on. Previ ous research suggest s t hat i nf ormat i on f l ow has t he st rongest rel at i onshi p
wi t h t rust i n supervi sor (M uchi nsky, 1977; O' Rei l l y, 1977; O' Rei l l y & Robert s, 1974, 1977).
Adequat e expl anat i ons and t i mel y f eedback on deci si ons are associ at ed wi t h hi gher l evel s
of t rust , as i s communi cat i on t hat i s accurat e and f ort hcomi ng (Fol ger & Konovsky, 1989;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Sapi enza & Korsgaard, 1996). But l er (1991) f ound t hat
managers who f reel y exchanged t hought s and i deas wi t h t hei r empl oyees enhanced overal l
percept i ons of t rust . The maj ori t y of recent work rel at i ng t rust t o t ypes of organi zat i onal
rel at i onshi ps deal s di rect l y wi t h managers and t hei r i mmedi at e di rect report s. Whi t ener,
Brodt , Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) concl ude f i ve cat egori es of behavi or capt ure t he
vari et y of f act ors t hat i nf l uence empl oyees' percept i ons of manageri al / supervi sory
t rust wort hi ness: behavi oral consi st ency, behavi oral i nt egri t y, shari ng and del egat i on of
cont rol , communi cat i on, and demonst rat i on of concern. Fi nal l y, communi cat i on and t rust
have bot h been l i nked t o a range of percept i ons of overal l j ob sat i sf act i on (Barnard, 1938;
35
Literature Review
Cl ampi t t & Downs, 1983; Gol dhaber, Yat es, Port er, & Lesni ak, 1978; Lewi s, Cummi ngs &
Long, 1981; M orl ey, Shockl ey-Zal abak, & Cesari a, 1997; Pi ncus, 1986; Shockl ey-Zal abak &
M orl ey, 1989; Shockl ey-Zal abak & M orl ey, 1994).
Dimensions of Organizational Trust
As t he f oregoi ng research revi ew suggest s, t he nat ure of organi zat i onal t rust i s compl ex,
communi cat i on-based, dynami c, mul t i -f acet ed, and not adequat el y underst ood across cul t ures.
A revi ew of di verse l i t erat ures suggest s no si ngl e approach or di sci pl i ne domi nat es t he i nqui ry
i nt o t rust (Rousseau, Si t ki n, Burt , & Camerer, 1998). If t rust i s t o be measured across nat i onal
cul t ures and i ndust ri es, t he model sel ect ed must ref l ect mul t i pl e di mensi ons, not a si ngl e
uni f i ed one. Congruent wi t h t hi s perspect i ve, Mi shras (1996) def i ni t i on and model f or organi za-
t i onal t rust i dent i f i es f our di st i nct di mensi ons broadl y support ed i n vari ous l i t erat ures:
compet ence, openness, concern, and rel i abi l i t y. An addi t i onal di mensi on, i dent i f i cat i on, i s
proposed i n t hi s research as an addi t i on t o t he Mi shra model based on a revi ew of t he
communi cat i on and j ob sat i sf act i on l i t erat ure. Thi s f i f t h di mensi on hi ghl i ght s t he i mport ance of
whet her or not organi zat i onal members associ at e wi t h an organi zat i ons goal s, val ues, norms,
and bel i ef s. Recent l y, several researchers have suggest ed t he cul t ural resi l i ence t hat sust ai ns
hi gh t rust i n organi zat i ons i s cl osel y l i nked wi t h t he concept s of associ abi l i t y (Leana & Van
Buren, 1999) and i dent i f i cat i on (El l i s & Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1999). In ot her words, i f i ndi vi dual s
associ at e or i dent i f y wi t h an organi zat i ons goal s, norms, val ues, and bel i ef s, t hey are more
l i kel y t o at t ri but e hi gher l evel s of t rust t o t he organi zat i on. The f ol l owi ng i s a di scussi on of f i ve
di mensi ons of an expanded versi on of Mi shras (1996) model f or organi zat i onal t rust .
Competence Dimension
The f i rst di mensi on of organi zat i onal t rust i s compet ence (Mi shra, 1996). As appl i ed t o
organi zat i onal t rust , compet ence i s a general i zed percept i on t hat assumes t he ef f ect i veness
not onl y of t he l eadershi p, but al so of t he organi zat i ons abi l i t y t o survi ve i n t he market pl ace.
At an organi zat i onal l evel , compet ence connect s wi t h t he ext ent t o whi ch empl oyees see t he
organi zat i on as ef f ect i ve: whet her i t wi l l survi ve and be abl e t o compet e (Shockl ey-Zal abak &
Morl ey, 1989).
Today, havi ng f ai t h i n an organi zat i ons compet ence mi ght i ncl ude f ai t h i n i t s abi l i t y t o
del i ver qual i t y product s or servi ces, t o compet e dynami cal l y, t o survi ve i n an ever-changi ng
gl obal economy, or t o embrace di srupt i ve t echnol ogi cal devel opment s, such as e-busi ness
(Chri st ensen, 1997; Col l i ns & Porras, 1994). In ot her words, a f i rm mi ght exempl i f y t he
di mensi ons of organi zat i onal t rust such as openness or cari ng, but i f i t does not have t he
expert i se or compet ence t o embrace new t echnol ogy t o remai n compet i t i ve, i t s abi l i t y t o
engender t rust wi t h i t s empl oyees, cust omers, and busi ness part ners woul d be di mi ni shed.
The compet ence di mensi on of organi zat i onal t rust al so ref ers t o t he ext ent t hat empl oyees
have conf i dence i n t he compet ence of t hei r organi zat i ons l eadershi p (Barnes, 1983;
Dwi vedi , 1983). Thi s ref ers not onl y t o l eadershi p at t he t op management l evel , but al so at
t he supervi sory and co-worker l evel s. Here, workers j udge whet her t hei r supervi sors and
36
Literature Review
co-workers are compet ent and t heref ore, t rust wort hy. At a general l evel , Gabarro (1987)
l i nks t he percept i on of compet ence t o t rust . Wi t h regard t o l eadershi p, compet ence can
encompass such qual i t i es as i nt el l i gence and cl ari t y of t hi nki ng, great communi cat i on ski l l s,
and a f ocus on "doi ng t he ri ght t hi ngs ri ght " (Nef f & Cri t i n, 1999). Overal l , El l i s and
Shockl ey-Zal abak (1999) have f ound t hat t rust i n t he t op management l evel of an
organi zat i on, compared t o t rust i n l ower l evel s, i s t he most cri t i cal f act or t hat correl at es
wi t h percei ved work sat i sf act i on and organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness.
Openness Dimension
The second di mensi on of M i shra' s (1996) model of organi zat i onal t rust i s openness. Thi s
di mensi on i s ref erred t o t he most f requent l y. At an organi zat i onal l evel , percept i ons of
openness and honest y have been l i nked t o t rust (Gabarro, 1987; Ouchi , 1981). To veri f y t hi s
l i nk f urt her, But l er (1991) f ound t hat openness was an empi ri cal measure f or t rust .
Empl oyees are most l i kel y t o hol d t rust i n t hei r organi zat i on when t hey see t he
organi zat i onal l eadershi p as open and honest (At wat er, 1988; El l i s & Shockl ey-Zal abak,
1999; Ki rkpat ri ck & Locke, 1991; Nanus, 1989; Schut z, 1994; Whi t ener, Brodt , Karsgaard, &
Werner, 1998). Si gni f i cant l y, El l i s and Shockl ey-Zal abak (1999) f ound i t i s not j ust t he
amount of i nf ormat i on shared, but whet her or not t he l eadershi ps ef f ort s are percei ved as
bei ng si ncere. And whi l e openness and si nceri t y are i mport ant among al l l evel s (t op
management , supervi sors, and co-workers), t he percept i on of t rust i n t op management had
more predi ct i ve power f or whet her or not f ol l owers had t rust i n t he organi zat i on as a whol e.
Wi t h regard t o openness wi t h si nceri t y, Cooper & Sawaf (1996) bui l d upon t he concept t hat
ef f ect i ve l eaders i n an organi zat i on need t o model emot i onal i nt el l i gence, as def i ned by
Gol eman (1995, 1998). Wi t h i ncreased sel f -awareness, ef f ect i ve l eaders communi cat e wi t h
i ncreased aut hent i ci t y, whi ch l eads t o enhanced credi bi l i t y. Thi s aut hent i ci t y and credi bi l i t y
cont ri but e t o t hei r abi l i t y t o f ost er a "t rust radi us," bui l di ng a net work of t rust i ng
rel at i onshi ps where openness and honest y are t he soci al norm f or membershi p (Cooper &
Sawaf , 1996; Fai rhol m, 1994).
And as French and Raven (1968) argued, a net work of rel at i onshi ps based upon "ref erent
power" who do you know and t rust , and who knows you and t rust s you generat es
one of t he st rongest sources f or power and i nf l uence. In such net works, members share
i nf ormat i on wi t h i ncreased accuracy, compl et eness, and appropri at eness. Organi zat i ons
wi t h communi cat i on net works of ref erent t rust , where deci si ons can be made based upon
ef f ect i ve exchange of i nf ormat i on, can bet t er respond t o cri si s, changes, or chal l enges i n a
corporat e l andscape.
When an organi zat i ons l eadershi p exempl i f i es behavi ors associ at ed wi t h openness and
honest y, i t f ost ers ef f ect i veness i n t eamwork. Empi ri cal l y, Larson & LaFast o (1989) def i ned
openness i n t eams as t he st rongest predi ct or of t eam ef f ect i veness. They see openness i n
t eams, al ong wi t h cari ng, concern, and af f ect i on, as t he behavi ors t hat cont ri but e most t o
t he percept i on of t eam t rust and ef f ect i veness. Ot her researchers have al so descri bed t he
37
Literature Review
i mport ance of openness and honest y and i nf ormat i on recei ved as maj or cont ri but ors t o t eam
success (Benni s & Bi erderman, 1997; Gi bb, 1964; Gol embi ewski & M cConki e, 1975; Schut z,
1994; Smi t h & Berg, 1987; Shockl ey-Zal abak and M orl ey, 1989; Shockl ey-Zal abak & M orl ey,
1994; Shockl ey-Zal abak, M orl ey, & Cesari a, 1997).
It i s i mport ant t o not e, however, as M i shra and Sprei t zer (1998) al so emphasi ze, t hat
openness and honest y al one are not enough. Wi t h openness comes responsi bi l i t y and
et hi cal behavi or. Fi rst , responsi bi l i t y has t o do wi t h "soci al def t ness," t he emot i onal
i nt el l i gence t o assess not onl y when openness i s appropri at e, but al so how t o communi cat e
t hat openness (Cooper & Sawaf , 1996; Gi bb, 1964; Gol eman, 1995, 1998; Nef f & Ci t ri n,
1999; Schut z, 1994). Appropri at e sel f -di scl osure i s i nevi t abl y i nt ert wi ned wi t h t he
devel opment of sel f -awareness and soci al def t ness. At an organi zat i onal l evel , t rust i s
enhanced t o t he ext ent t hat an organi zat i ons members, f rom co-workers t o t op
management , demonst rat e openness and honest y wi t h pract i ced sel f -awareness and soci al
def t ness. These pract i ces wi l l bui l d t rust at i nt erpersonal , t eam, organi zat i onal , and
i nt er-organi zat i onal l evel s. Second, organi zat i onal t rust requi res t he hi st ori cal f oundat i on of
et hi cal behavi or i n i t s corporat e rel at i onshi ps (Brass, But t erf i el d, & Skaggs, 1998; El angovan
& Shapi ro, 1998; and Hosmer, 1995). Wi t hout et hi cal behavi or, organi zat i onal t rust i s
severel y di mi ni shed.
Concern Dimension
As t he previ ous di scussi on on openness st ressed, si nceri t y and cari ng coupl ed wi t h
openness cont ri but e t o t he percept i on of concern. Thi s di mensi on occurs when
organi zat i onal members percei ve concern f or t hem f rom t hei r l eadershi p. As a resul t , t hey
have more t rust i n t he organi zat i on. Cummi ngs and Bromi l ey (1996) address concern as
bei ng demonst rat ed when a part y, (whet her a co-worker or t he organi zat i on), does not t ake
advant age when anot her part y i s vul nerabl e. M i shra (1996) descri bes concern as when
ones sel f -i nt erest s are bal anced wi t h ot hers i nt erest s, whet her at a t eam, organi zat i onal ,
or soci et al l evel . El l i s and Shockl ey-Zal abak (1999) di rect l y l i nked si nceri t y t o t rust i n al l
l evel s of management .
Edmondson (1999) descri bes organi zat i ons where t he cul t ure and net work of rel at i onshi ps,
w hi ch i s i t s soci al capi t al , exempl i f y psychol ogi cal saf et y. In t hi s cont ext , members
descri be an envi ronment of cari ng, empat hy, and t ol erance, i n whi ch a l earni ng organi zat i on
(Senge, 1990) can t hri ve. Here agai n, t he i mport ance of si nceri t y i n communi cat i on al so
pl ays a cri t i cal rol e regardi ng t he amount of t rust t hat empl oyees wi l l gi ve t o an organi zat i on
(El l i s & Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1999). An at t unement t o f eel i ngs cari ng and empat hy not onl y
enhances t eam t rust (Larson & LaFast o, 1989), but al so enhances t rust i n t op l eadershi p (El l i s
& Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1999; Nanus, 1989), and subsequent l y, i n t he organi zat i on as a whol e.
38
Literature Review
Reliability Dimension
Thi s di mensi on deal s wi t h t he expect at i on f or consi st ent and dependabl e behavi or.
Consi st ency and congruency bet ween words and act i ons bui l d t rust . Inconsi st enci es and
i ncongruenci es decrease t rust .
Thi s l i nkage of rel i abl e behavi or, or t he mat chi ng of words t o act i ons, t o organi zat i onal t rust i s
not new (McGregor, 1967; Ouchi , 1981). However, t here have been new at t empt s t o def i ne i n
great er speci f i ci t y t he i ndi vi dual communi cat i on behavi ors and t hei r i mpact on percept i ons of
organi zat i onal t rust , sat i sf act i on, and ef f ect i veness. For exampl e, Gabarro (1987) expl ai ns how
t rust devel ops i n worki ng rel at i onshi ps as t he resul t of a hi st ori cal pat t ern of rel i abi l i t y across
event s and experi ences. When st udyi ng t he behavi or of execut i ves and t op management ,
schol ars see t he congruence bet ween what t hey do and what t hey expect and ask of t hei r
empl oyees as havi ng i mmense i mpact on credi bi l i t y and organi zat i onal t rust (Ki rkpat ri ck &
Locke, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Nanus, 1989; Shockl ey-Zal abak & Morl ey, 1989). The
t hemes of rel i abi l i t y, dependabi l i t y, and consi st ency al so permeat e t he l evel of t rust bet ween
an organi zat i on and i t s suppl i ers, cust omers, and busi ness part ners (Mi shra, 1996).
Identification Dimension
The f i f t h proposed di mensi on of organi zat i onal t rust i s i dent i f i cat i on. The concept of
i dent i f i cat i on essent i al l y i s concerned wi t h how i ndi vi dual s manage t he paradox of separat i on
(or i s concerned wi t h i ndi vi duat i on) and associ at i on (af f i l i at i on) as an organi zat i onal member
(Burke, 1954; Cheney 1983a, 1983b; Tompki ns & Cheney, 1983). If members i dent i f y wi t h an
organi zat i on, t hey wi l l be more l i kel y t o report hi gher l evel s of organi zat i onal t rust and
ef f ect i veness. In cont rast , i f t hey f eel more al i enat ed f rom t he organi zat i on, t hey are more
apt t o descri be l ower l evel s of organi zat i onal t rust and ef f ect i veness (Dwi vedi , 1983; Leana &
Van Buren, 1999; Morl ey & Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1991; Schal l , 1983).
Thi s di mensi on of i dent i f i cat i on hi ghl i ght s t hat t rust i s i nherent l y t he resul t of communi cat i on
behavi ors and i nt erpret at i ve processes (El l i s & Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1999). Through a
general i zed percept i on of i dent i f i cat i on af f i l i at i on and associ at i on wi t h an organi zat i on,
l eaders and members wi l l be more l i kel y t o communi cat e wi t h i ncreased t rust t han wi t hout
t hi s general i zed vi ew of common ground (Fukuyama, 1995; Leana & Van Buren, 1999).
Wi t h i ncreased communi cat i on, organi zat i onal members al so share more account s wi t h each
ot her, gi vi ng meani ng t o act i vi t i es and f ost eri ng shared sense-maki ng regardi ng event s
(Smi rci ch & Morgan, 1982; Wei ck, 1995). Thi s management of meani ng up and down t hrough
t he organi zat i onal ranks or across i nt er-organi zat i onal part nershi ps wi l l det ermi ne t he amount
of shared meani ng i n t he organi zat i on (Burke, 1954). Wi t h i ncreased shared meani ng,
organi zat i onal members wi l l i dent i f y more wi t h t he organi zat i on and, t hereby, wi l l cont ri but e
t o hi gher l evel s of t rust i n t he organi zat i on. From t hese sense-maki ng act i vi t i es, organi zat i onal
members t hen generat e opport uni t i es t o exami ne t he ext ent t o whi ch t hey share and i dent i f y
wi t h t he goal s, val ues, norms, and bel i ef s associ at ed wi t h organi zat i onal cul t ure (El l i s &
Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1999; Morl ey & Shockl ey-Zal abak, 1991; Schal l , 1993; Schei n, 1985;
Shockl ey-Zal abak & Morl ey, 1989, 1994; Shockl ey-Zal abak, Morl ey, & Cesari a, 1997.) When
t his dept h of ident if icat ion occurs, organizat ional t rust and organizat ional ef f ect iveness prosper.
39
Literature Review
SUGGESTED READINGS
Adl er, N. J. "Int ernat i onal Di mensi ons of Organi zat i onal Behavi or."
Ci nci nnat i : Sout h-West ern Col l ege Publ i shi ng, 1997
At wat er, L. E. "The Rel at i ve Import ance of Si t uat i onal and Indi vi dual Vari abl es i n Predi ct i ng
Leader Behavi or: The Surpri si ng Impact of Subordi nat e Trust ."
Group and Organi zat i onal St udi es, 13 (1988): 290-310.
Axel rod, R. "The Evol ut i on of Cooperat i on."
New York, NY: Basi c Books, 1984.
Barnard, C. "The Funct i on of t he Execut i ve."
Cambri dge, M A: Harvard Uni versi t y Press, 1938.
Barnes, L.B. "M anagi ng t he Paradox of Organi zat i onal Trust ."
Harvard Busi ness Revi ew, M arch-Apri l 1983: 107-116.
Benni s, W., & Bi erderman, P. W. "Organi zi ng Geni us: The Secret s of Creat i ve Col l aborat i on."
Readi ng, M A: Addi son-Wesl ey, 1997.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. "The Soci al Const ruct i on of Real i t y:
A Treat i se on t he Soci ol ogy of Knowl edge."
Garden Ci t y, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. "A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes."
Academy of M anagement Revi ew, 23 (1998): 459-472.
Bl umer, H. "Soci al Probl ems as Col l ect i ve Behavi our."
Soci al Probl ems, 19 (1971): 298-306.
Boon, S. D., & Hol mes, J. G. "The Dynami cs of Int erpersonal Trust : Resol vi ng Uncert ai nt y i n
t he Face of Ri sk." Trust : M aki ng and Breaki ng Cooperat i ve Rel at i onshi ps.
R. A. Hi nde & J. Groebel Eds. Oxf ord, UK: Basi n Bl ackwel l , 1991.
Boss, R.W. "Trust and M anageri al Probl em-Sol vi ng Revi si t ed."
Brass, D. J., But t erf i el d, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C.
"Rel at i onshi ps and Unet hi cal behavi or: A Soci al Net work Perspect i ve."
Brockner, J., & Si egel , P. "Underst andi ng t he Int eract i on bet ween Procedural and Di st ri but i ve
Just i ce: The Rol e of Trust ." Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i er of Theory and Research.
R.M . Kramer & T.R. Tyl e, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Burke, K. "Permanence and Change: An Anat omy of Purpose."
Los Al t os, CA: Hermes, 1954.
40
But l er, J.K., Jr "Towards Underst andi ng and M easuri ng Condi t i ons of Trust :
Evol ut i on of Condi t i ons f or Trust Invent ory."
Journal of M anagement , 17 (1991): 643-663.
Christensen, C. M. "The Innovators Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail."
Bost on, M A: Harvard Busi ness School Press, 1997.
Cl ampi t t , P., & Downs, C. "Communi cat i on and Product i vi t y."
Paper present ed at t he annual convent i on of t he Speech Communi cat i on Associ at i on,
November, Washi ngt on, D.C., 1983.
Cl egg, S. R., & Hardy, C. "Handbook of Organi zat i on St udi es."
London: Sage, 1996.
Col eman, J. S. "Soci al Capi t al i n t he Creat i on of Human Capi t al ."
Ameri can Journal of Soci ol ogy, 94 (1988 Suppl ement ): S95-S120.
Col l i ns, J. C., & Porras, J. I. "Bui l t t o Last : Successf ul Habi t s of Vi si onary Compani es."
New York: Harper Busi ness, 1994.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. "Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations."
New York: Grosset / Put nam, 1996.
Coovert , M . D., Penner, L. A., & M acCal l um, R. "Covari ance St ruct ure M odel i ng i n
Personal i t y and Soci al Psychol ogi cal Research."
Research M et hods i n Personal i t y and Soci al Psychol ogy. C. Hendri ck & M . S. Cl ark.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publ i cat i ons, 1990: 185-216.
Cout u, D.L. "Organi zat i on: Trust i n Vi rt ual Teams." Harvard Busi ness Revi ew,
M arch-Apri l 1998: 20-21.
Crawf ord, D. "A M at t er of Trust ." Bri t i sh Journal of Admi ni st rat i ve M anagement ,
November 1998: 240.
Cummi ngs, L.L., & Bromi l ey, P. "The Organi zat i onal Trust Invent ory: Devel opment and
Val i dat i on." Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i ers of Theory and Research.
R.M . Kramer & T.R. Tyl er, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. 302-330.
Das, T.K. & Teng, B.
"Bet ween Trust and Cont rol : Devel opi ng Conf i dence i n Part ner Cooperat i on i n Al l i ances."
Doney, P.M ., Cannon, P., & M ul l en, M . R.
"Underst andi ng t he Inf l uence of Nat i onal Cul t ure on t he Devel opment of Trust ."
Dwi vedi , R.S. "M anagement by Trust : A Concept ual M odel ."
Edmondson, A. "Psychol ogi cal Saf et y and Learni ng Behavi or i n Work Teams."
Admi ni st rat i ve Sci ence Quart erl y, 44 (1999): 350-383.
41
Suggested Readings
El angovan, A. R., & Shapi ro, D. L. "Bet rayal of Trust i n Organi zat i ons."
El l i s, K., & Shockl ey-Zal abak, P. (1999) "Communi cat i ng wi t h M anagement :
Rel at i ng Trust t o Job Sat i sf act i on and Organi zat i onal Ef f ect i veness."
Paper presented at National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL, November, 1999.
Fai rhol m, G. "Leadershi p and t he Cul t ure of Trust ."
West port , CT: Praeger, 1994.
Fol ger, R., & Konovsky, M . A.
"Ef f ect s of Procedural and Di st ri but i ve Just i ce on React i ons t o Pay Rai se Deci si ons."
Academy of M anagement Journal , 32 (1989): 115-130.
French, J.R., & Raven, B. "The Bases of Soci al Power." Group Dynami cs:
Research and Theory." Dorwi n Cart wri ght & Al vi n Zander, Eds.
New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Fukuyama, F. "Trust : The Social Virt ues and t he Creat ion of Prosperit y."
New York: Free Press, 1995.
Gabarro, J. "The Dynami cs of Taki ng Charge."
Bost on: Harvard Busi ness School Press, 1987.
Gambet t a, D. G., Ed. "Can We Trust , Trust ?"
New York: Basi l Bl ackwel l , 1988.
Geert z, C. "The Int erpret at i on of Cul t ures."
New York: Harper Col l i ns, 1973.
Gi bb, J. R. "Cl i mat e f or Trust Format i on." T-Group Theory and Laborat ory M et hod.
Lel and Bradf ord, Jack Gi bb, & Kennet h Benne, Eds.
New York: Wi l ey, 1964.
Gi bb, J.R. "Trust : A New Vi ew of Personal and Organi zat i onal Devel opment ."
Los Angel es: The Gui l d of Tut ors Press, 1998.
Gi bbs, J., & Gi bson, S. "Organi zat i onal Ef f ect i veness."
Int ernal Audi t or, 55 (1998): 34-36.
Gol dhaber, G., Yat es, M ., Port er, D., & Lesni ak, R.
"Organi zat i onal Communi cat i on: 1978 St at e of t he Art ."
Human Communi cat i on Research, 5 (1978): 76-96.
Gol eman, D. "Emot i onal Int el l i gence."
New York: Bant am Books, 1995.
Gol eman, D. "Worki ng wi t h Emot i onal Int el l i gence."
New York: Bant am Books, 1998.
42
Suggested Readings
Gol embi ewski , R.T., & M cConki e, M .
"The Cent ral i t y of Int erpersonal Trust i n Group Processes." Theori es of Group Processes.
Gary Cooper, Ed. London: John Wi l ey & Sons, 1975.
Handy, C. "Trust and t he Vi rt ual Organi zat i on." Harvard Busi ness Revi ew,
M ay-June 1998: 40-50.
Harri s, P. R., & M oran, R. T. "M anagi ng Cul t ural Di f f erences."
Houst on: Gul f Publ i shi ng Company, 1996.
Hof st ede, G. "Cul t ures Consequences: Int ernat i onal Di f f erences i n Work-Rel at ed Val ues."
Beverl y Hi l l s, CA: Sage Publ i cat i ons, 1984.
Hof st ede, G. "Cul t ure and Organi zat i ons: Sof t ware of t he M i nd."
New York: M cGraw-Hi l l , 1991.
Hosmer, L. T. "Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics."
Ingham, M ., & M ot he, C. "How t o Learn i n R & D Part nershi ps?"
R & D M anagement , 28 (1998): 249-261.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knol l , K., & Lei dner, D.E. "Is Anybody Out There? Ant ecedent s of Trust i n
Gl obal Vi rt ual Teams."
Journal of M anagement Inf ormat i on Syst ems, 14 (1998): 29-64.
Jones, T.M . & Bowi e, N.E. "M oral Hazards on t he Road t o t he Vi rt ual Corporat i on."
Busi ness Et hi cs Quart erl y, 8 (1998): 273-292.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M . "The Experi ence and Evol ut i on of Trust :
Impl i cat i ons f or Cooperat i on and Teamwork."
Ki ong, T. C., & Kee, Y. P. "Guanxi Bases, Xi nyong and Chi nese Busi ness Net works."
Bri t i sh Journal of Soci ol ogy, 49 (1998): 75-96.
Ki rkman, B. L., & Shapi ro, D. "The Impact of Cul t ural Val ues on Empl oyee Resi st ance t o
Teams: Toward a M odel of Gl obal i zed Sel f -M anagi ng Work Team Ef f ect i veness."
Ki rkpat ri ck, S., & Locke, E. "Leadershi p: Do Trai t s M at t er?"
Academy of M anagement Execut i ve, 52 (1991): 48-60.
Kl uckhohn, F., & St rodt beck, F. L. "Vari at i ons i n Val ue Ori ent at i ons."
Evanst on, IL: Row, Pet erson, 1961.
Knack, S., & Keef er, P. "Does Soci al Capi t al Have an Economi c Payof f ?
A Cross-Count ry Invest i gat i on."
Quart erl y Journal of Economi cs, 112 (1997): 1251-1288.
43
Suggested Readings
Konovsky, M . A., & Cropanzano, R. "Percei ved Fai rness of Empl oyee
Drug Test i ng as a Predi ct or of Empl oyee At t i t udes and Job Perf ormance."
Journal of Appl i ed Psychol ogy, 78 (1991): 698-707.
Kouzes, J. H., & Posner, B. Z. "The Leadershi p Chal l enge: How t o Get Ext raordi nary Thi ngs
Done i n Organi zat i ons."
San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Kramer, R.M ., & Tyl er, T.R. "Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i ers of Theory and Research."
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Larson, C. E., & LaFast o, M . J. "TeamWork: What M ust Go Ri ght / What Can Go Wrong."
Newberry Park, CA: Sage, 1989.
Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. "The Organi zat i onal St at e."
M adi son: Uni versi t y of Wi sconsi n Press, 1987.
Leana, C.R., & Van Buren, H.J. "Organi zat i onal Soci al Capi t al and Empl oyment Pract i ces."
Academy of M anagement Revi ew, 24 (1999), 538-555.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, D.J. "Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities."
Lewi s, M ., Cummi ngs, H., & Long, L. "Communi cat i on Act i vi t y as a Predi ct or of t he Fi t
Bet ween Worker M ot i vat i on and Worker Product i vi t y."
Paper present ed at t he annual convent i on of t he Int ernat i onal Communi cat i on Associ at i on,
M i neapol i s, M N, 1981.
M accoby, M . "M aki ng Val ues Work."
Research-Technol ogy M anagement , 41 (1998): 55-57.
M asl ow, A. "M ot i vat i on and Personal i t y."
New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
M aruyama, M . "Al t ernat i ve Concept s of M anagement : Insi ght s f rom Asi a and Af ri ca."
Asi a Paci f i c Journal of M anagement , 1 (1984): p 100-111.
M ayer, R.C., Davi s, J. H., & Schoorman, F.D. "An Int egrat i ve M odel of Organi zat i onal Trust ."
Academy M anagement Revi ew, 20 (1995): 709-734.
M cAl l i st er, D. J. "Af f ect - and Cogni t i on-Based Trust as Foundat i ons
f or Int erpersonal Cooperat i on i n Organi zat i ons."
M cGregor, D. "The Prof essi onal M anager."
New York, NY: M cGraw-Hi l l , 1967.
M eyerson, D., Wei ck, K. E., & Kramer, R. M . "Swi f t Trust and Temporary Groups."
Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i ers of Theory and Research R. M . Kramer & T. R. Tyl er, Eds.
44
Suggested Readings
M i shra, A.K. "Organi zat i onal Responses t o Cri si s: The Cent ral i t y of Trust ."
Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i ers of Theory and Research. R.M . Kramer & T.R. Tyl er, Eds.
M i shra, A.K. & Sprei t zer, G.M . "Expl ai ni ng How Survi vors Respond t o Downsi zi ng:
The Rol es of Trust , Empowerment , Just i ce, and Work Redesi gn."
M orl ey, D.D., & Shockl ey-Zal abak, P. "Set t i ng t he Rul es:
An Exami nat i on of t he Inf l uence of Organi zat i on Founders' Val ues."
M anagement Communi cat i on Quart erl y, 4 (1991): 422-449.
M orl ey, D.D., Shockl ey-Zal abak, P., & Cesari a, R. "Organi zat i onal Communi cat i on
and Cul t ure: A St udy of Ten It al i an Hi gh-Technol ogy Compani es."
The Journal of Busi ness Communi cat i on, 34 (1997): 253-268.
M uchi nsky, P. M . "An Int raorgani zat i onal Anal ysi s of t he Robert s
and O Rei l l y Organi zat i onal Communi cat i on Quest i onnai re."
Nanus, B. "The Leaders Edge: The Seven Keys t o Leadershi p i n a Turbul ent Worl d."
Chi cago, IL: Cont emporary Books, 1989.
Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J.M. "Lessons from the Top: The Search for Americas Best Business Leaders."
New York: Currency Doubl eday, 1999.
O Rei l l y, III., C. A. "Supervi sors and Peers as Inf ormat i on Sources,
Group Support i veness, and Indi vi dual Deci si on-M aki ng Perf ormance."
O Rei l l y, III., C. A., & Robert s, K. H. "Inf ormat i on Fi l t rat i on i n Organi zat i ons: Three Experi ment s."
Organi zat i onal Behavi or and Human Perf ormance, 11 (1974): 253-265.
O Rei l l y, III., C. A., & Robert s, K. H. "Task Group St ruct ure Communi cat i on
and Ef f ect i veness i n Three Organi zat i ons."
Ouchi , W. G. "Theory Z: How Ameri can Busi ness Can M eet t he Japanese Chal l enge."
New York, NY: Avon, 1981.
Parkhe, A. "Underst andi ng Trust i n Int ernat i onal Al l i ances."
Journal of Worl d Busi ness, 33 (1998): 219-240.
Pasquero, J. "Superorgani zat i onal Col l aborat i on: The Canadi an Envi ronment al Experi ment ."
Journal of Appl i ed Behavi oral Sci ence, 27 (1991): 38-64.
Pi ncus, J. "Communi cat i on Sat i sf act i on, Job Sat i sf act i on, and Job Perf ormance."
Rainey, H. G. "Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentive Structures, Goals, and Individual Roles."
Admi ni st rat i on and Soci et y, 15 (1983): 207-242.
45
Suggested Readings
Ri ndskopf , D. "Lat ent Vari abl e M odel s: Appl i cat i ons i n Educat i on."
Cont emporary Educat i onal Psychol ogy, 9 (1984): 104-121.
Ri ng, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. "St ruct uri ng Cooperat i ve Rel at i onshi ps Bet ween Organi zat i ons."
St rat egi c M anagement Journal , 13 (1992): 483-498.
Rousseau, D.M ., Si t ki n, S.B., Burt , R.S., & Camerer, C.
"Not So Di f f erent Af t er Al l : A Cross-Di sci pl i ne Vi ew of Trust ."
Rul e, E., & Keown, S. "Compet enci es of Hi gh-Perf ormi ng St rat egi c Al l i ances."
St rat egy and Leadershi p, 26 (1998): 36-37.
Sapi enza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M .A. "M anagi ng Invest or Rel at i ons: The Impact of Procedural
Just i ce i n Est abl i shi ng and Sust ai ni ng Invest or Support ."
Schal l , M . S. "A Communi cat i on-Rul es Approach t o Organi zat i onal Cul t ure."
Schei n, E.H. "Organi zat i onal Cul t ure and Leadershi p: A Dynami c Vi ew."
San Franci sco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Schut z, A. "On Phenomenol ogy and Soci al Rel at i ons."
Chi cago, IL: Uni versi t y of Chi cago Press, 1970.
Schut z, W. "The Human El ement ." San Franci sco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Senge, P. M . "The Fi f t h Di sci pl i ne: The Art and Pract i ce of t he Learni ng Organi zat i on."
New York: Doubl eday Currency, 1990.
Shapi ro, D., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraski n, L. "Busi ness on a Handshake."
Negot i at i on Journal , 8 (1992): 365-377.
Shockl ey-Zal abak, P., & M orl ey, D.D.
"Adheri ng t o Organi zat i onal Cul t ure: What Does It M ean, Why Does It M at t er?"
Group & Organi zat i onal St udi es, 14 (1989): 483-500.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D.D. "Creating a Culture: A Longitudinal Examination of the
Influence of Management and Employee Values on Communication Rule Stability and Emergence."
Shockl ey-Zal abak, P., M orl ey, D.D., & Cesari a, R. "Organi zat i onal Inf l uence Processes:
Percept i ons of Val ues, Communi cat i on and Ef f ect i veness."
Paper present ed on Top Three Panel i n Organi zat i onal Communi cat i on at t he
Nat i onal Communi cat i on Associ at i on Convent i on, November, Chi cago, 1997.
Smi rci ch, L., & M organ, G. "Leadershi p: The M anagement of M eani ng."
Journal of Appl i ed Behavi oral Sci ence, 18 (1982): 257-273.
46
Suggested Readings
Smi t h, K. K., & Berg, D. N. X. "Paradoxes of Group Li f e:
Underst andi ng Conf l i ct Paral ysi s, and M ovement i n Group Dynami cs."
San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Thompki ns, P.K., & Cheney, G. "Account Anal ysi s of Organi zat i ons: Deci si on M aki ng
and Ident i f i cat i on." Communi cat i on and Organi zat i ons: An Int erpret i ve Approach.
L. Put nam, & M . Pacanowsky, Eds. Beverl y Hi l l s, CA: Sage, 1983.
Tsai , W., & Ghoshal , S. "Soci al Capi t al and Val ue Creat i on: The Rol e of Int raf i rm Net works."
Tsang, E. W. K. "Can Guanxi Be a Source of Sust ai ned Compet i t i ve Advant age
f or Doi ng Busi ness i n Chi na?"
Academy of M anagement Execut i ves, 12 (1998): 64-73.
Waddock, S. A. "Underst andi ng Soci al Part nershi ps: An Evol ut i onary M odel
of Part nershi p Organi zat i ons."
Admi ni st rat i on and Soci et y, 21 (1989): 78-100.
Webb, E.J. "Trust and Cri si s." Trust i n Organi zat i ons: Front i ers of Theory and Research.
R.M . Kramer & T.R. Tyl er, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Wei ck, K.E. "Sensemaki ng i n Organi zat i ons." Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995.
Wheat on, B., M ut hn, B., Al wi n, D. F., & Summers, G. F.
"Assessi ng Rel i abi l i t y and St abi l i t y i n Panel M odel s."
D.R. Hei se, Ed. Soci ol ogi cal M et hodol ogy, San Franci sco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Whetten, D.A., & Godfrey, P.C. "Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations."
Whit ener, E. M., Brodt , S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M.
"Managers as Init iat ors of Trust : An Exchange Relat ionship Framework f or Underst anding
Managerial Trust wort hy Behavior."
Wi cks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M .
"The St ruct ure of Opt i mal Trust : M oral and St rat egi c Impl i cat i ons."
Zand, D.E. "Trust and M anageri al Probl em-Sol vi ng."
Zand, D.E. "The Leadershi p Tri ad: Knowl edge, Trust , and Power."
New York: Oxf ord Uni versi t y Press, 1997.
47
Suggested Readings
ABOUT THE RESEARCHERS
Dr. Pamela Shockley-Zalabak
i s vi ce chancel l or f or St udent Success and prof essor of communi cat i on at t he Uni versi t y of
Col orado at Col orado Spri ngs. Her research i nt erest s i ncl ude organi zat i onal cul t ures as t hey
rel at e t o i ndi vi dual empl oyee val ues and overal l organi zat i onal ef f ect i veness. She has
consul t ed wi t h di verse organi zat i ons, i ncl udi ng 20 Hewl et t Packard di vi si ons and operat i ons,
AARP, Di gi t al , J.D.Edwards, Bri st ol -M yers Squi bb, Jet Propul si on Laborat ory, Ci t y of
Col orado Spri ngs, and IRI Group (Rome, It al y). She speci al i zes i n di agnosi ng organi zat i onal
management and l eadershi p probl ems and worki ng wi t h t eam-based organi zat i ons. She i s
t he aut hor of f our books and numerous art i cl es on organi zat i onal communi cat i on.
Dr. Kathleen Ellis
i s an assi st ant prof essor of communi cat i on at t he Uni versi t y of Col orado at Col orado Spri ngs
where she t eachers undergraduat e and graduat e courses i n organi zat i onal communi cat i on,
research met hods, and st at i st i cs. Her research i nt erest s i ncl ude organi zat i onal cul t ure, j ob
sat i sf act i on, and superi or-subordi nat e communi cat i on. She has consul t ed wi t h bot h publ i c
and pri vat e sect or organi zat i ons, i ncl udi ng Hewl et t Packard, AARP, Bri st ol -M yers Squi bb,
Ci t y of Col orado Spri ngs, Penrose-St . Franci s Heal t hcare Syst em, and IRI Group (Rome, It al y).
Ruggero Cesaria
i s a seni or researcher at t he Ist i t ut o RSO i n Rome, It al y. IRSO i s It al ys l eadi ng research and
consul t i ng organi zat i on, worki ng t hroughout Europe and t he Paci f i c Ri m. As a l eadi ng
consul t ant t o European i ndust ri es, Cesari a has assi st ed Dr. Shockl ey-Zal abak wi t h European
and Asi an dat a col l ect i on i nvol vi ng 30 organi zat i ons. Toget her t hey have co-edi t ed
"Communi cat i on Is Communi cat i on," a compi l at i on of papers publ i shed f rom one of t he f i rst
i nt ernat i onal conf erences on organi zat i onal communi cat i on hel d i n Rome, It al y, i n 1994.
48

Meas Org Trust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meas Org Trust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyri ght 2000, IABC Research Foundat i on. Al l ri ght s reserved.

IABC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

You might also like