Personnel Review

Impersonal trust: The development of the construct and the scale

Mika Vanhala Kaisu Puumalainen Kirsimarja Blomqvist
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mika Vanhala Kaisu Puumalainen Kirsimarja Blomqvist, (2011),"Impersonal trust", Personnel Review, Vol.
40 Iss 4 pp. 485 - 513
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481111133354
Downloaded on: 22 October 2014, At: 02:37 (PT)
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1970 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Harjit Sekhon, Sanjit Kumar Roy, Vaibhav Shekhar, (2010),"Dimensional hierarchy of trustworthiness of
financial service providers", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 47-64
Ana Cristina Costa, (2003),"Work team trust and effectiveness", Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp.
605-622
Shay S. Tzafrir, Simon L. Dolan, (2004),"Trust Me: A Scale for Measuring Manager#Employee Trust",
Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 115-132

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 539746 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

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

Impersonal
Impersonal trust trust
The development of the construct and the scale
Mika Vanhala and Kaisu Puumalainen
School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, 485
Lappeenranta, Finland, and
Kirsimarja Blomqvist Received 9 June 2008
Revised July 2008
School of Business and Technology Business Research Center, Accepted 12 February 2010
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – Modern organizations face an increasing need for trust, yet there are fewer opportunities
for the development and maintenance of interpersonal trust, so they cannot rely only on that. There is
therefore a need for complementary forms of organizational trust. It is believed that the impersonal
element of organizational trust is a useful concept and should be incorporated into the measures. This
paper seeks to conceptualize and clarify the impersonal element of organizational trust and develop
scales on which to measure it.
Design/methodology/approach – The hypothesized model is tested on a sample of 166
respondents with different organizational backgrounds. Confirmatory factor analysis is used.
Findings – It was found that impersonal trust in the organizational context consists of two
dimensions: capability and fairness, the final scales containing 18 and 13 items, respectively.
Research limitations/implications – A more holistic approach to organizational trust is proposed
and a measuring instrument for the impersonal element is provided.
Practical implications – It is suggested that organizational trust is critical for contemporary
organizations. Further evaluation and development of the concept require a comprehensive
measurement instrument incorporating both interpersonal and impersonal elements. This paper
identifies the conceptual domain for the less studied impersonal element of organizational trust, and
provides a measurement scale.
Originality/value – The construct of impersonal trust and the measurement scale developed and
validated in this study represent a step forward towards the effective and reliable measurement of
organizational trust. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first study to provide a
comprehensive, psychometrically sound, operationally valid measure of impersonal trust.
Keywords Trust, Organizations
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Until recently organizational trust has been treated mainly as an interpersonal
phenomenon (Mayer et al. 1995; Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Shockley-Zalabak et al.,
2000; Tyler, 2003) consisting of lateral trust referring to relations among employees
and vertical trust referring to relations between employees and their immediate
Personnel Review
The authors would like to thank MSc (Econ and Bus Adm) Sirpa Multaharju for her valuable Vol. 40 No. 4, 2011
work in the early stages of the research project. They would also like to thank the two pp. 485-513
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
anonymous reviewers for their valuable and inspiring comments that have been very helpful 0048-3486
during the development of this paper. DOI 10.1108/00483481111133354
 PR superiors, top management or the organization as a whole (McCauley and Kuhnert,
40,4 1992).
We argue that this social approach to organizational trust is limited. First, the need
for trust in contemporary organizations has strengthened due to the emphasis on
knowledge as a focal resource, yet the natural evolution of interpersonal trust is more
challenging due to globalization and virtualization. Knowledge work is increasingly
486 carried out in temporary and technology-enabled task forces, projects and virtual
teams. Furthermore, supervisors and leaders may have dual roles, working as experts
and only part-time as supervisors (Alvesson, 2004). In many cases employees may not
have a shared past or future vision (Axelrod, 1984). Such settings provide limited
opportunities for the natural evolution of interpersonal trust. Consequently, trust
among employees and between employees and supervisors may become very thin and
fragile, and employees have actually become less trusting (Zeffane and Connell, 2003;
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Schoorman et al., 2007).

There is increasing interest in the impersonal element of organizational trust,
known as institutional (see, e.g. Costigan et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 1998) or systems
(Luhmann, 1979) trust, as we need trust more than ever, yet there are fewer natural
opportunities for interpersonal trust to evolve. Impersonal trust refers to trust in
impersonal organizational factors such as vision and strategy, top management, the
management group’s goals and capability, technological and commercial competence,
justice, fair processes and structures, roles, technology and reputation, and HRM
policies (Costigan et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 1998; McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992;
Kramer, 1999; Tan and Tan, 2000; Atkinson and Butcher, 2003; Kosonen et al., 2008).
Our aim in this paper is to develop a construct and a scale encompassing the
impersonal element of organizational trust. Researchers measuring organizational
trust have focused on specific dimensions of the impersonal trust. It is characterized in
previous studies mainly as trust in top management (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992;
Costigan et al., 1998; Daley and Vasu, 1998; Clark and Payne, 1997; Tyler, 2003; Mayer
and Davis, 1999), and also in the employer organization (Tan and Tan, 2000), its
competence (Lee, 2004) and performance (Robinson, 1996). Previous measures shed
light on some aspects of the impersonal dimension of organizational trust, but there is
no comprehensive measurement instrument available.
In this paper we describe a step-by-step approach to developing the construct of
impersonal trust and a valid measurement scale for assessing employee perception of
impersonal organizational trust (see Figure 1). We start with a discussion on the role
and nature of the impersonal dimension of organizational trust. Second, we develop the
construct and the scale on which to measure it, and then demonstrate its validity and
reliability. Finally, in our conclusions we discuss the theoretical, methodological and
normative implications.

The conceptual and empirical domains of the impersonal element of

organizational trust
Theoretical background
In the context of sociology trust is considered critical in supporting coherence and
coordination in social communities. Luhmann (1979) argued that the opportunities and
interdependencies characterizing modern life demand commitment to and trust in the
system. He further differentiated system trust or trust in abstract systems and
 Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Impersonal

The development process

trust

Figure 1.
487
 PR interpersonal trust: complex systems (such as organizations) demand some basic trust
40,4 or confidence both in the institution and in being a member of it.
In the realm of social psychology, and especially according to social-exchange
theory, justice and the norm of reciprocity are also critical elements in the impersonal
dimension of organizational trust. This is visible in the symmetry of the psychological
contract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1989; Whitener, 1997; Blau, 1964).
488 Not only may a reciprocal attitude affect the dyadic relationship, it could also become a
meta-psychological contract and a generalized level of reciprocity (Parzefall, 2006;
Rousseau et al., 1998).
In the research on economics and strategy trust is seen as a higher-order organizing
principle enhancing knowledge sharing and transfer (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Foss,
1996). According to the dynamic-capability view of the firm, operational routines
support adaptation in complex situations. Modern HRM and leadership practices,
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

organizing principles, and the roles and decision-making processes among top
management are critical factors (see, e.g. Tzafrir et al., 2004). According to organization
theory, the organizational culture in terms of values, norms and identity has an impact
on the impersonal nature of organizational trust (Creed and Miles, 1996).
Multi-disciplinary research focusing on organizational trust has identified the
vision, strategy, decision-making processes, roles and HRM practices of top
management as sources of the impersonal element (Costigan et al., 1998; Atkinson
and Butcher, 2003). Fairness in decision-making and HRM are also critical factors (Tan
and Tan, 2000; Kim and Mauborgne, 2003).

Previous literature
In order to identify the previous research on the impersonal element of organizational
trust and its measurement we carried out a literature review. We conducted a search
for journal articles within the Abi/Inform, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, Emerald and Ebsco
information sites, using key words such as “organizational trust”, “impersonal trust”,
“intra-organizational trust” and “trust within the organization”. We then analyzed the
results in order to find research of relevance to our study. Thus, at this stage studies
dealing with inter-organizational trust or trust between an organization and consumers
were left aside. After these restrictions, 20 studies on intra-organizational trust with
impersonal components were left for deeper analysis (see Table I).
According to McCauley and Kuhnert (1992), trust between employees and
management is not interpersonal in nature, but derives from the roles, rules, and
structured relations of the organization. They further argue that trust is determined by
the fairness and efficiency of the organizational structures. Atkinson and Butcher
(2003) point out that impersonal organizational trust is based on the roles and systems
of the employer organization, specifically on perceptions of the other’s competence to
fulfil the role or task..
McKnight et al.(1998) divide impersonal trust along the dimensions of situation
normality, referring to the belief that success is likely because the situation is normal,
and structural assurance, referring to the belief that success is likely because the
contextual conditions, such as promises, contracts, regulations and guarantees, are in
order. Zucker (1986) differentiates institution-based trust from character- and
process-based trust, which could be built on certification, authorization and insurance.
 Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Author(s) Context Object of trust Components of trust Operationalization

Atkinson and Conceptual paper Organization Roles, systems, technology and –

Butcher (2003) reputation
Blunsdon and Reed Australian workplaces Organization Organization’s technological n/a
(2003) system
Brockner et al. Employees from a wide variety of Organization and top Capability and fairness 4 items, e.g. “I trust the
(1997) organizations in the USA management management to treat me fairly”
Clark and Payne British Coal in the UK Organization and top Fairness, honesty, 23 items, e.g. “I believe that
(1997) management communication, capability and managers apply the same rules to
reliability all workers.”
Costigan et al. Focal employees from various Top management Top management’s decisions on 6 items, e.g. “The CEO and the top
(1998) firms in the USA vision, strategy and processes management of my organization
are sincere in their attempts to
meet the worker’s point of view.”
Daley and Vasu North Carolina state employees in Top management Communication, fairness and 4 items, e.g. “I feel positive about
(1998) the USA capability the direction in which upper
management is leading the
agency/university.”
Kim and Conceptual paper Organization and top Fairness of the processes –
Mauborgne (2003) management
Kramer (1999) Conceptual paper All organizational Organizational roles and rule –
members system
Lee (2004) Korean-USA joint venture Organization Organization’s capability 3 items, e.g. “I am confident that
multinational organization (resources, technology, this company will be continuously
competitiveness) competitive in the market in
future.”
McCauley and Federal government training Top management Roles, rules and structures 6 items, e.g. “I feel quite confident
Kuhnert (1992) organizations in the USA that the organization will always
try to treat me fairly.”
McKnight et al. Conceptual paper Organizational Structures that enable situation –
(1998) structures normality and structural
assurance
(continued)
Impersonal
trust

literature
impersonal trust in the
The conceptualization of
489

Table I.
 Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

PR
40,4

490

Table I.
Author(s) Context Object of trust Components of trust Operationalization

Mayer and Davis Small manufacturing firm in the Top management Top management’s capability, 21 items, e.g. “Top management is
(1999) USA fairness, honesty and reliability. well qualified.”
Perry and Mankin Municipal fire department and Organization and top Organizational goals, values and N/a for the organization. For top
(2007) manufacturing firm in the USA management shared identity; Top management 7 items, e.g. “The
management’s integrity, motives, chief executive is fair in rewarding
intentions and fairness and recognizing all employees.”
Robinson (1996) Graduates of a MBA program in Organization Organizational qualities and 7 items, e.g.,“My employer is not
the USA performance always honest and truthful.”
Shockley-Zalabak 54 companies in the USA and in Organization and top Organizational capability 46 items, n/a
et al. (2000) Italy management (products and services,
technology, competitiveness). Top
management’s capability,
fairness, honesty and reliability.
Shared identity with the
organization
Tan and Lim (2009) Life insurance company in Organization Fairness, organizational support 5 items, e.g. “I am willing to
Singapore and shared identity with the depend on the organization to
organization back me up in difficult situations.”
Tan and Tan (2000) Respondents with no common Organization Organizational support and 7 items, n/a
organizational background organizational justice
Tyler (2003) n/a Organization and top Fairness and sustainability of the 7 items, “My views are considered
management organization when decisions are made.”
Whitener (1997) Conceptual paper Organization Strategy, fairness of the processes –
(e.g., HRM) and organizational
support
Whitener et al. Conceptual paper Organization Communication and fairness of –
(1998) the processes
 The trustworthiness of an organization is also evaluated based on its leadership style Impersonal
and behavior. For most employees the decision to trust top management depends more trust
on the outcomes of its actions (Costigan et al., 1998). Moreover, it is argued that trust in
top management is usually based on the outcomes of its decision-making. Perceived
organizational justice has an impact on experienced organizational trustworthiness
(McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992; Tan and Tan, 2000).
Whitener (1997) states that competent decisions made in the organization produce 491
increased trust in its top-level management. Employees feel they have exchange
relationships with the organization as an entity, and their trust in it is partially based
on its decision history, possibly in the hands of higher-level superiors with whom they
have no interpersonal relationships. They evaluate organizational trustworthiness on
the basis of their experience of these decisions, routines and activities.
According to Blunsdon and Reed (2003), characteristics of the production system
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

define the context in which work occurs, and are therefore included among the
organization’s values, as is trust. Moreover, Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000) argue that
trust in an organization entails having confidence that it is capable of delivering
quality products in terms of reliable production technology.
Perry and Mankin (2007) argue that organizational trust incorporates the
acceptance of goals and values as well as a strong desire to identify with the
organization. According to Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000), identity concerns how
individuals manage the paradox of separation and association as a member of an
organization: those who identify with it are more likely to consider it more worthy of
trust.
Employees observe how outsiders such as customers, employees of other companies
and the media value their employer. Its reputation may derive from the reliability of the
company and its products or services, how familiar the brand is or its position in the
branch or the stakeholder’s networks. A good external reputation as perceived by
employees leads to trust in the employer (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009; Atkinson and
Butcher, 2003).
According to Whitener (1997) the experience of decisions, routines and activities
related to fairness in HRM practices has an impact on experienced organizational
trustworthiness. In a similar vein, Kim and Mauborgne (2003) argue that fair process
refers to the human need to be valued as human beings and not as mere personnel or
human assets. Also Tan and Tan (2000) argue that employee trust may change if the
organization does not compensate fairly or recognize employee contributions.
Perceived organizational support also has an impact on experienced organizational
trustworthiness (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992; Tan and Tan, 2000). The norm of
reciprocity is discussed in earlier research, especially in terms of the psychological
contract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1989; Whitener, 1997; Blau, 1964).
According to Whitener et al. (1998) accurate information, explanations for decisions
and openness in communication affect perceptions of the organization’s
trustworthiness. Finally, open communication in the form of honest information and
the exchange of thoughts and ideas enhances perceptions of trust.

Focus groups
We used the focus-group approach in order to further understanding of how employees
perceive the impersonal element of organizational trust. Perceptions of impersonal
 PR trust in four focus groups comprising employees from eight different organizations and
40,4 different positions in the ICT, forest and transport industries as well as the public
sector. Each group contained people in the same kind of organizational position. A total
of 22 people participated, of which five were planning staff, six were experts, six were
managers and five worked within HR development. The participants were first asked
to discuss “What kind of trust there is in your organization and in organizations in
492 general”. It should be noted that in all of the groups they raised the issue of impersonal
trust naturally (without the moderator’s probing). Once the issue had been raised they
were asked to discuss in more detail the question: “What are the objects of impersonal
trust in organizations?” The focus-group data were subjected to content analysis
wherein the components of the data on impersonal trust were extracted. Atlas.ti
software was used for the analysis of the empirical data.
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Identification of the components of impersonal trust

Inductively collected components of the impersonal organizational trust were then
connected to components taken from the literature review in the fields of sociology,
social psychology and economics, as well as from a separate review of the emerging
inter-disciplinary research on trust. On the basis of the literature review and our
qualitative focus-group research we defined the impersonal element of organizational
trust as “the individual employee’s expectation about the employer organization’s
capability and fairness”. The capability dimension consists of six and the fairness
dimension of five components (see Table II).

Item development and content validity

Before constructing the scale we carried out an extensive review of published measures
dealing with impersonal organizational trust and other related aspects. About half of
the items comprising the original version of the scale were drawn from the early
studies, the other half being generated by the researchers based on the model of
impersonal trust.
The items characterize specific aspects of impersonal trust. The response format for
them all was a five-point Likert scale, anchored by “I totally disagree” and “I totally
agree”. A neutral option “neither disagree nor agree” was introduced in order to reduce
uninformed response.
A total of 132 items were generated. The item pool was then further refined by a
group of PhD students and their supervisors. The questionnaire was then pre-tested on
a group of PhD students, which led to the removal of about half of the items. The
wording of some of the items was also refined. Thus the final version included 60 items
grouped in the six components of the capability dimension (37 items) and the five
components of the fairness dimension (23 items) of impersonal trust (see Appendix
Tables AI and AII).

Expert panel
An expert panel capable of understanding the construct further evaluated the 60 items.
The panel consisted of seven members, five people with PhDs and two PhD students.
The instructions and a list of items (in Finnish) were sent by e-mail to the panel
members, who individually assigned each item to one of the eleven components. There
was also the option of putting the items in a “no class” category. The items were listed
 Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Appearance in the
Dimension Component Description of the component focus groups Appearance in the literature
Capability Organizing the operational activities The general operations, the Yes Yes
organization’s ability to cope in
exceptional situations and how its
resources are exploited
Atkinson and Butcher (2003); Kramer
(1999); Lee (2004); McKnight et al.
(1998)
Stability and predictability of the Changes in the operational Yes Yes
operational environment environment and employment
outlook
Atkinson and Butcher (2003);
McKnight et al. (1998); Robinson
(1996); Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000);
Tyler (2003)
Management of the business and Top management’s capabilities and Yes Yes
people decision-making practices
Costigan et al. (1998); Daley and Vasu
(1998), Mayer and Davis (1999);
Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000)
The organization’s technological Equipment that is crucial for its Yes Yes
reliability operations, the respondents’ personal
tools, working conditions and
assistance with technical problems
Atkinson and Butcher (2003);
Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000),
Blunsdon and Reed (2003)
Identity The organization’s products and Yes Yes
services as well as the organization
itself compared with its competitors
Perry and Mankin (2007); Shockley-
Zalabak et al. (2000)
Employer reputation Perceptions of what outsiders think Yes Yes
about the employer organization
Atkinson and Butcher (2003)
(continued)
Impersonal

impersonal trust
components of
The dimensions and the
trust

493

Table II.
 Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

PR
40,4

494

Table II.
Appearance in the
Dimension Component Description of the component focus groups Appearance in the literature
Fairness HRM practices Salary, reward systems, education Yes Yes
and career
Brockner et al. (1997); Daley and
Vasu (1998); Whitener (1997);
Whitener et al. (1998)
The norm of reciprocity Top management’s behavior, reward Yes Yes
systems and the employer’s promises
and obligations
Clark and Payne (1997); Mayer and
Davis (1999); Perry and Mankin
(2007); Tan and Lim (2009); Tan and
Tan (2000)
Communication Trustworthiness of the information, Yes Yes
sufficiency of information,
information that is relevant, and
overall internal communication
Clark and Payne (1997); Daley and
Vasu (1998); Whitener et al. (1998)
Culture Internal competition and Yes Yes
opportunism
Brockner et al. (1997); Tan and Lim
(2009)
Values and moral principles The organization’s values and Yes Yes
ethicality
Perry and Mankin (2007); Kim and
Mauborgne (2003)
 in random order in the Excel sheet and the panellists were instructed to assign each Impersonal
item to only one component. trust
Items placed in the wrong category by four of the seven panellists were taken under
review. There were 14 items that the experts classified differently than the researchers
had originally done. However, all of the 60 items were included in the questionnaire
because there was inconsistency among the panel members: they placed these 14 items
in various categories. 495
Data collection
The respondents comprised a heterogeneous group: working adult students with
different kinds of organizational backgrounds. They were not randomly selected, and
the questionnaire was sent to all current and former students in the Master’s degree
programme whose e-mail addresses were available.
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

An internet questionnaire was used for data collection. A covering letter including
a personal link to the questionnaire (in Finnish) was sent to 356 potential respondents
via e-mail. The initial e-mail was followed up with two reminders, the first after ten
days and the second after another three days. A total of 166 completed questionnaires
were received, representing a 46.6 percent response rate. The majority of the
respondents were women (54 percent) and 48 percent were in the 31-40 year age
group. Almost half of them (49 percent) had a higher university degree, one third (35
percent) had a lower university degree, and a few had a vocational education (7
percent). The majority were officials (43 percent) or managers (30 percent), the third
major group comprising ordinary employees (10 percent). In terms of employment
duration, the majority had worked in the organization for less than ten years: one to
five years (36 percent), six to ten years (28 percent) and under one year (15 percent).
The major fields of activity were education (13 percent), state administration (10
percent), telecommunications (8 percent) and information technology (8 percent),
followed by the metal industry (8 percent), the forest industry (6 percent), trade (5
percent), and health care and social services (5 percent). One third of the respondents
(30 percent) worked in organizations with over 1,000 employees, 16 percent with
between 500 and 999, 11 percent with between 250 and 499, and 8 percent with
between 100 and 249.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was carried out in order to confirm the
absence of non-response bias. The respondents were divided to into three groups:
(1) the first mailing;
(2) the first follow-up; and
(3) the second follow up.

It was assumed that the last group most closely resembled non-respondents
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The three groups were compared on all items, and it
was found that there was no significant (at the five-per-cent level) difference between
them.

Item reduction – exploratory factor analysis

The first stage in the item reduction was to carry out exploratory, principal-component
factor analysis (PCA), the objective being to cull items that did not load on the
 PR appropriate component of the dimensions of impersonal trust. SPSS 14 for Windows
40,4 software was used for the analysis, with direct oblimin rotation. As a result, nine items
from the capability dimension and four items from the fairness dimension were
removed (see Appendix Tables AI and AII). In addition, some modifications were made
to the original construct. On the capability dimension (see Table III). Identity and
Employer reputation were originally different components, but in the PCA their items
496 loaded together to comprise one component referring to the organization’s reputation
as an employer. On the fairness dimension (see Table IV) Values and morals and the
Norm of reciprocity were combined into one component, which refers to fair play in the
organization. Items concerning salary loaded onto a different component than other
HRM items.
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Items Mgm Tech Emre Opact Openv Communality Msa

Mgm5 0.924 0.848 0.962

Mgm3 0.898 0.779 0.949
Mgm11 0.897 0.737 0.951
Mgm7 0.876 0.849 0.940
Mgm4k 0.859 0.768 0.958
Mgm10 0.847 0.817 0.963
Mgm1 0.837 0.769 0.961
Mgm8 0.823 0.745 0.946
Mgm12k 0.813 0.723 0.938
Mgm2k 0.775 0.614 0.938
Mgm9k 0.711 0.649 0.965
Mgm6k 0.564 0.618 0.970
Tech2 0.901 0.826 0.817
Tech4 0.883 0.778 0.811
Tech3 0.747 0.715 0.915
Tech5 0.699 0.610 0.917
Emre1 0.819 0.793 0.861
Emre2 0.694 0.667 0.858
Iden2k 0.656 0.696 0.898
Iden1 0.611 0.682 0.935
Opact5k 0.750 0.575 0.920
Opact4 0.678 0.463 0.907
Opact6 0.622 0.587 0.921
Opact9 0.543 0.570 0.949
Opact2 0.462 0.494 0.910
Openv5k 0.923 0.811 0.856
Openv1 0.688 0.679 0.875
Openv4k 0.483 0.607 0.945
Eigenvalue 12.556 2.781 1.824 1.295 1.011
% of variance 44.843 9.932 6.514 4.624 3.611
Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization; Rotation converged in 9 iterations; Loadings under 0.40 are not presented; Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.932 and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: sig. 0.000; Opact
Table III. ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stability and predictability of the operational
Results of the PCA on the environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people; Tech ¼ The organization’s
capability dimension technological reliability; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation
 Impersonal
Items Commu Pay Cult Fair Hrm Communality Msa
trust
Commu1 0.897 0.836 0.880
Commu2 0.863 0.831 0.887
Commu6 0.824 0.796 0.924
Commu7k 0.681 0.745 0.930
Commu4 0.680 0.630 0.948 497
HRM2k 0.958 0.901 0.672
HRM1 0.896 0.891 0.710
Cult1k 2 0.858 0.858 0.797
Cult2k 2 0.798 0.844 0.825
Valmo2k 2 0.747 0.693 0.863
Valmo3k 2 0.715 0.679 0.890
Valmo1 2 0.639 0.624 0.948
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Reci2k 2 0.634 0.599 0.857

Reci1k 2 0.570 0.594 0.854
Valmo4 2 0.542 0.437 0.915
HRM5 20.823 0.785 0.902
HRM4 20.718 0.648 0.925
HRM6 20.710 0.668 0.883
HRM3 20.495 0.509 0.940
Eigenvalue 8.336 1.930 1.305 1.065 0.930
% of variance 43.876 10.156 6.866 5.608 4.895
Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization; Rotation converged in 10 iterations; Loadings under 0.40 are not presented; Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.876 and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: sig. 0.000; HRM Table IV.
¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fair play in the Results of the PCA on the
organization fairness dimension

Dimensionality – confirmatory factor analysis

We carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to test the dimensionality
of the scale, separately for the capability and fairness dimensions. According to the
theoretical conceptualization and exploratory factor analysis the capability scale
should exhibit the latent structure of a second-order model, in which five components
are first-order factors and are collectively accounted for by a second-order factor. The
fairness scale, in turn, should consist of three first-order factors and a second-order
factor. A total of 141 cases were processed by means of LISREL 8.50. PRELIS 2.50 was
used to compute the covariance matrix and the Maximum Likelihood estimation
method was applied.

The capability dimension

First, CFA was conducted separately for each component in order to verify that the
items were, in fact, grouped together. During this phase three items were removed (in
stages, i.e. one item at a time) from the Management component because of the large
standardized residuals with the other Management items.
In the next phase all five components were tested together. The initial model fit
indices indicated that the original model needed to be re-specified to fit better with the
sample data. Seven items were sequentially removed according to the values of the
standardized residuals. From pair of items with a large standardized residual the one
 PR with lower squared multiple correlation was removed and the one resulting in more
40,4 improvement in the model fit was retained. As a result of the above steps, a total of ten
items were removed.
The following three absolute-fit measures were obtained: the likelihood-ratio
chi-square value, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). Even though all the measures fell within acceptable levels,
498 incremental i.e. the normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) and
parsimonious i.e. the adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI), the normed chi-square
(chi-square/df), and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) fit indices were needed to
ensure acceptability of the model from other perspectives. In sum, the various
measures of overall goodness-of-fit gave sufficient support to deem the results an
acceptable representation of the hypothesized construct (see Table V).
In order to further establish the dimensionality, we compared three competing
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

models:

Items R2 Loading t-value Cr Ave Alpha

OPACT
a
Opact2 0.469 0.685
Opact4 0.231 0.481 5.037
Opact5k 0.240 0.490 5.117
Opact6 0.448 0.669 6.769
Opact9 0.472 0.687 6.920
0.743 0.372 0.763
OPENV
a
Openv1 0.339 0.582
Openv4k 0.684 0.827 5.709
0.670 0.511 0.674
MGM
a
Mgm1 0.721 0.849
Mgm4k 0.701 0.837 12.630
Mgm5 0.817 0.904 14.512
Mgm9k 0.664 0.815 12.070
Mgm10 0.834 0.913 14.573
0.937 0.747 0.928
TECH
a
Tech2 0.789 0.888
Tech4 0.682 0.826 10.070
Tech5 0.442 0.665 8.148
0.839 0.637 0.841
EMRE
a
Iden1 0.716 0.846
Iden2k 0.666 0.816 10.581
Emre1 0.539 0.734 9.330
0.842 0.640 0.829
a
Notes: The t-value is not available because the coefficient is fixed at 1; Chi-square ¼ 140.505; df ¼
125; chi-square/df ¼ 1.12, p ¼ 0.162; GFI ¼ 0.900; AGFI ¼ 0.863; RMSEA ¼ 0.0298; NFI ¼
Table V. 0.904; CFI ¼ 0.985; AIC ¼ 232.505; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼
The results of the CFA on Stability and predictability of the operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and
the capability dimension people; Tech ¼ The organization’s technological reliability; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation
 (1) Model 1. The five correlated factors model: Covariance among the items is Impersonal
accounted for by five first-order factors, each factor representing a distinct trust
component of capability and each item being reflective of only a single
component. The five factors are correlated.
(2) Model 2. The one-factor model: capability is conceptualized as a
uni-dimensional construct, the covariance among the 18 items being
accounted for by a single factor. 499
(3) Model 3. The second-order factor model: responses to each item are reflective of
two factors, a general capability factor and a specific component factor.

The summary statistics for these three models are shown in Table VI. Model 1 was
found to outperform Model 2 on all measures.
As shown in Figure 2, all the first-order factors loaded quite well onto the
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

second-order construct. Moreover, the t-values associated with each of the loadings
exceeded the 0.01 significance levels (critical value ¼ 2:576). The fit indices of Model 3
showed similar results (see Table VI). All of the second-order measures presented in
Table VI are close to the first-order measures, indicating acceptance of the
second-order factor structure.

The fairness dimension

CFA was first conducted separately for each component on the fairness dimension.
Three items were removed during this phase due to large standardized residuals with
other items. Then all the components were tested together. The initial model fit indices
indicated the original model needed to be re-specified. First, the Culture and Pay
components were combined with the Fair play component: the contents of all of the
items are similar and the model worked better that way. In addition, three more items
were sequentially removed because of the high modification indices. These steps
resulted in the removal of a total of six items. Based on absolute, incremental and
parsimonious fit measures the hypothesized construct can be accepted (see Table VII).
In order to further establish the dimensionality we compared three competing
models: Model 1 – the three correlated factors model, Model 2 – the one-factor model,
and Model 3 – the second-order factor model. The summary statistics for the three

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:

five correlated factors one general factor second-order model

Absolute measures
GFI 0.900 0.676 0.889
RMSEA 0.0298 0.158 0.0391
Incremental-fit measures
CFI 0.985 0.742 0.976
NFI 0.904 0.679 0.892
Parsimonious-fit measures Table VI.
AGFI 0.863 0.589 0.854 A comparison of the
Normed chi-square 1.12 4.48 1.21 capability dimension
AIC 232.505 677.075 239.835 models
 PR
40,4

500
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Figure 2.
The second-order CFA for
the capability dimension
 Impersonal
Items R2 Loading t-value Cr Ave Alpha
trust
HRM
a
HRM3 0.493 0.702
HRM4 0.457 0.676 7.108
HRM5 0.599 0.774 7.979
HRM6 0.397 0.630 6.661 501
0.790 0.486 0.789
Fair
HRM2k 0.108 0.328 3.422
a
Reci2k 0.465 0.682
Cult2k 0.333 0.577 5.762
Valmo3k 0.493 0.702 6.750
Valmo4 0.266 0.516 5.220
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

0.702 0.333 0.725

Commu
a
Commu2 0.704 0.839
Commu4 0.520 0.721 9.599
Commu6 0.743 0.862 12.428
Commu7k 0.755 0.869 12.567
0.894 0.680 0.888
a
Notes: The -value is not available because the coefficient is fixed at 1; Chi-square ¼ 73.535; df ¼
62; chi-square/df ¼ 1.19, p ¼ 0.150; GFI ¼ 0.925; AGFI ¼ 0.890; RMSEA ¼ 0.0365; NFI ¼ Table VII.
0.904; CFI ¼ 0.975; AIC ¼ 131.535; HRM ¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼ The results of the CFA on
Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fair play in the organization the fairness dimension

competing dimensionality models are shown in Table VIII. Model 1 was found to
outperform Model 2 on all measures.
As shown in Figure 3, the first-order factors load quite well onto the second-order
construct. Moreover, the t-values associated with each of the loadings exceed the 0.01
significance levels (critical value ¼ 2:576). The Model-3-fit indices show similar results
as Model 1 (see Table VIII). All of the second-order measures are the same as those in
the first-order model, indicating acceptance of the second-order factor structure.

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:

three correlated factors one general factor second-order model

Absolute measures
GFI 0.925 0.849 0.925
RMSEA 0.0365 0.103 0.0365
Incremental-fit measures
CFI 0.975 0.897 0.975
NFI 0.904 0.829 0.904
Parsimonious-fit measures Table VIII.
AGFI 0.890 0.788 0.890 A comparison of the
Normed chi-square 1.19 4.48 1.19 fairness dimension
AIC 131.535 214.402 131.535 models
 PR
40,4

502
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Figure 3.
The second-order CFA for
the fairness dimension

Construct reliability and validity

Reliability
We evaluate the reliability of the items by their path coefficients and squared multiple
correlations (R 2). Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (also known as construct
reliability) are used for assessing the reliability of each latent component.
A complementary measure is the average variance extracted, which directly shows
the amount of variance that is captured by the construct in relation to the amount of
variance due to measurement error.
The reliability statistics for the capability dimension are shown in Table V. All the
items were significantly related to their specified constructs, verifying the posited
relationships among the indicators and constructs. The Cronbach’s alphas vary from
 0.67 to 0.93 and the construct reliabilities range from 0.67 to 0.94, both exceeding the Impersonal
minimum recommended level of 0.60. The average variance-extracted meets the
recommended 50 percent (see Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; Hair et al., 1998) in all
trust
but one component (Organizing the operational activities). The squared multiple
correlations (R 2) were also mainly over or near the limit of 0.50.
The reliability measures for the fairness dimension are shown in Table VII. Most of the
loadings of the items turned out to be high, and the t-values associated with each of the 503
loadings exceeded the critical values for the 0.01 significance level, implying good
reliability on the item level. All of the constructs exceeded the recommended level of 0.60
for Cronbach’s alpha and for the construct reliability. The average variance extracted is at
or above the recommended level in all but one component (Fair play). Thus the model
provides a reliable measurement of the fairness dimension of impersonal trust.
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Construct validity
Convergent validity. According to Bagozzi and Yi (1991), weak evidence of convergent
validity results when the factor loading on an item of interest is significant. Strong
evidence is achieved when the squared factor loading is greater than 0.5 (i.e. more than
half of the total variation in the measures is due to the trait). Second, convergent
validity can be assessed in terms of the degree to which the components, i.e. factors
(which could be considered different measures of the construct) are correlated (Smith
et al., 1996; Bagozzi and Yi, 1991).
As shown in Table V, the factor loadings for almost all of the items (15 out of 18) of
the capability dimension were greater than 0.6, and all were statistically significant at
the 0.01 significance level. In addition, 11 of the 18 items turned out to have a squared
factor loading (R 2) greater than 0.5. Table IX gives more evidence of convergent
validity in that the correlations between the components of capability are all
significant, ranging from 0.28 to 0.78. This suggests that the five components all
measure some aspect of the same construct.
On the fairness dimension (Table VII) ten of the 13 items turned out to have a factor
loading of over 0.60, all of the loadings being statistically significant at the 0.01
significance level. In addition, five items showed a squared factor loading greater than
0.5, and four items almost reach the limit. Furthermore, the correlations among the
components (Table X) all turned out to be significant and thus they all measure the
same construct.
Discriminant validity. Assessment of discriminant validity requires examination of
the components to ensure that they are not perfectly correlated i.e. correlations equal to
1 (Smith et al., 1996; Bagozzi and Yi, 1991). Discriminant validity exists if the
correlations are two or more standard errors below 1.0 (Schmitt and Stults, 1986).
Further, more rigorous evidence is obtained from the average variance extracted (AVE)
by each factor relative to that factor’s shared variance with other factors in the model
(see Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
As shown in Table IX, all of the component correlations on the capability dimension
turned out to be significantly different from one ( p , 0.05). This suggests that when
the components measure aspects of the same construct they measure unique
dimensions of it. The AVE is greater than or almost equal to the squared correlation in
all but one component (Organizing the operational activities).
On the fairness dimension, too, all of the component correlations are significantly
different from one (see Table X). Analysis of the AVE by each component relative to
 PR
Factors Opact Openv Mgm Tech Emre
40,4
Opact 0.372
Openv 0.652 0.049 0.511
Squared correlation 0.425
t-value 3.923
504 Mgm 0.776 0.034 0.680 0.045 0.747
Squared correlation 0.602 0.462
t-value 5.444 4.376
Tech 0.428 0.069 0.290 0.077 0.276 0.078 .637
Squared correlation 0.183 0.084 0.076
t-value 3.648 2.475 2.822
Emre 0.681 0.045 0.706 0.042 0.619 0.052 0.517 0.062 0.640
Squared correlation 0.464 0.498 0.383 0.267
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

t-value 4.960 4.363 5.336 4.606

Table IX. Notes: The AVE associated with a factor is presented diagonally; The standard errors are in
The factor parentheses; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stability and predictability of
intercorrelations on the the operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people; Tech ¼ The
capability dimension organization’s technological reliability, Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation

Factors Hrm Fair Commu

Hrm 0.486
Fair 0.790 0.032 0.333
Squared correlation 0.624
t-value 4.910
Commu 0.796 0.031 0.742 0.038 0.680
Squared correlation 0.634 0.551
t-value 5.551 5.193
Table X.
The factor Notes: AVE associated with a factor is presented diagonally; Standard errors are in parentheses;
intercorrelations on the HRM ¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fair
fairness dimension play in the organization

that component’s shared variance with the other components reveals some problems
with discriminant validity, however: only Communication has greater AVE than the
squared correlation with the other components.

The final construct and the scale for impersonal trust

Impersonal trust in the organizational context consists of two dimensions, capability
and fairness. From the scale-development process described above it could be assumed
that these dimensions consist of the components presented in Figure 4. The items
measuring these dimensions are presented in the Appendix (Tables AI and AII).

Discussion and conclusions

In theoretical and methodological terms, our interest was in organizational trust as a
more comprehensive concept incorporating both the inter-personal and impersonal
 Impersonal
trust

505
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Figure 4.
The structure of
impersonal trust

aspects of trust. From the normative and managerial perspectives, the more
comprehensive measure we developed could be used to analyze, evaluate and develop
the concept of organizational trustworthiness. This has value especially for the
strategic-management and HRD functions, which increasingly strive to differentiate
the organization in terms of human capital. If a company is able to set itself apart from
its competitors and to build a higher level of trust, it could exploit the benefits related
to organizational trust in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness, and also to
attract and retain the most competent employees (see also Barney and Hansen, 1994;
Blomqvist, 1997).
The construct and the scales of impersonal trust developed and validated in this
study represent a step forward towards the effective and reliable measurement of
organizational trust. Despite the increasing research attention in this area, to date no
valid, comprehensive operational measure of impersonal trust has been developed. To
the best of the researchers’ knowledge this is the first study to provide such a measure
that is psychometrically sound and operationally valid.
This study provides two major contributions to the research on organizational trust:
first a framework describing the construct of impersonal trust and second an
instrument for measuring it.

Managerial implications
Given current organizational and management challenges, organizations cannot rely
only on interpersonal trust. Hence, there is a need to develop complementary forms of
organizational trust. Even if a supervisory role and interpersonal trust are critical,
organizations could benefit from complementary impersonal forms of trust. If an
employee is able to trust the organization s/he works for, s/he can trust her/his future in
it even if co-workers and supervisors cannot provide sufficient support for the
evolution of strong interpersonal trust. If employees could trust the organization
without having personalized knowledge of each decision maker and key actor, the
organization should be more efficient (Kramer, 1999). Further, if the impersonal
 PR element of organizational trust were embedded in its measurement, a more holistic
40,4 understanding of employee perceptions could be reached.

Limitations
Overall, it could be said that the steps reported in this study fulfil the requirements of
successful scale development. However, there are some limitations, the most severe one
506 being that the same data sample was used throughout. The optimum solution would
have been to use one data set for item reduction through PCA, and another for CFA, in
order to allow comparison of the models and assessment of the construct reliability and
validity. However, the problem in finding another sample and being forced in using
only one dataset is not uncommon. (see, e.g. Wang and Ahmed, 2004; Plank et al., 1999).
Another limitation is that the discriminant validity of the fairness dimension is not
totally established. This should be tested on a new set of data and, if necessary, items
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

in the “HRM practices” and “Fair play in the organization” components should be
modified and/or deleted/added. The average extracted variance measures in the
“Organizing of the operational activities” and “Fair play in the organization”
components should also be tested on another set of data, and if necessary items should
be modified and/or deleted/added.

Directions for future research

The development and validation of the scales require retest and replication in a
systematic manner (Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1998). This construct of impersonal trust is
the first step and it should be subjected to further research.
Discriminant, nomological, and convergent validities of the scale were not part of
this research, and should therefore be tested in future studies. For example,
discriminant validity between scales of impersonal trust and scales that measure
interpersonal trust should be assessed. In order to ensure generalizability of the
construct and the scales, scales measuring impersonal trust should also be tested:
.
in different kinds of organizations;
.
with respondents from different organizational levels; and
.
in different countries and cultures.

Another recommendation would be to test the causal relationships between impersonal

trust and other organizational parameters. This would allow the further assessment of
nomological validity.

References
Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press
Inc., New York, NY.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003), “Trust in managerial relationships”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 282-304.
Axelrod, R.M. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1991), “Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 426-39.
 Barney, J.B. and Hansen, M.H. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”, Impersonal
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, special issue, Winter, pp. 175-90.
trust
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Blomqvist, K. (1997), “The many faces of trust”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 271-86.
Blunsdon, B. and Reed, K. (2003), “The effects of technical and social conditions on workplace 507
trust”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J.P., Tyler, T. and Martin, C. (1997), “When trust matters: the
moderating effect of outcome favorability”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42,
pp. 558-83.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Churchill, G., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. (1974), “Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial
salesmen”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 254-60.
Clark, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997), “The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management”,
Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 205-24.
Costigan, R.D., Ilter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-17.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I.. (2000), “Consequences of the psychological contract for the
employment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37
No. 7, pp. 903-30.
Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), “Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control”,
in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and
Research, Sage Publications, London, pp. 16-38.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) –
development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.
Daley, D.M. and Vasu, M.L. (1998), “Fostering organizational trust in North Carolina: the pivotal
role of administrators and political leaders”, Administration and Society, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 62-84.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: Guide for the Uninitiated, Sage
Publications, London.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Puumalainen, K. (2008), “Trust in organizational innovativeness”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 2.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foss, N.J. (1996), “Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: some critical
comments”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 470-6.
Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009), “Trust repair after an organization-level failure”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-45.
 PR Gould-Williams, J. (2003), “The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving
superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations”, International Journal of
40,4 Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-54.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
508 questionnaires”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-21.
Hunt, S.D., Wood, V.R. and Chonko, L.B. (1989), “Corporate ethical values and organizational
commitment in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 79-90.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003), “Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy”,
Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 3-11.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

replication of technology”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.

Korthuis-Smith, W. (2002), Organizational Trust: The Influence of Contextual Variables, Seattle
University, Seattle, WA.
Kosonen, M., Blomqvist, K. and Ellonen, R. (2008), “The impersonal nature of trust”,
in Putnik, G.D. and Cunha, M.M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual
Organizations, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring
questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 69-98.
Lee, H.-J. (2004), “The role of competence-based trust and organizational identification in
continuous improvement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 623-39.
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, Wiley, Chichester.
McCauley, D.P. and Kuhnert, K.W. (1992), “A theoretical review and empirical investigation of
employee trust in management”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 265-85.
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.I. and Chervany, N.I. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new
organisational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-90.
Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 123-36.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, D.F. (1995), “An integrative model of organisational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Neveu, V. (2005), Organisational Trust: Definition and Measurement, available at: www.argh.
org/english/neveu_uk.doc (accessed March 12, 2007).
Parzefall, M.-R. (2006), Exploring the Role of Reciprocity in Psychological Contracts, London
School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, London.
Perry, R.W. and Mankin, L.D. (2007), “Organizational trust: trust in chief executive and work
satisfaction”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 165-79.
Plank, R.E., Reid, D.A. and Pullins, E.B. (1999), “Perceived trust in business-to-business sales:
a new measure”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 61-71.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.
 Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee Impersonal
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-39.
trust
Rousseau, D.M., Sim, B., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all:
a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 393-404.
Schmitt, N. and Stults, D.M. (1986), “Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethod
matrices”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-22. 509
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An integrative model of organizational
trust: past, present and future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 344-54.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organisational trust: what it is, why it
matters”, Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 35-48.
Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J. and Burke, S.J. (1996), “Information privacy: measuring individuals’
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

concerns about organizational practices”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 167-96.
Tan, H.H. and Lim, A.K.H. (2009), “Trust in coworkers and trust in organization”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 45-66.
Tan, H.H. and Tan, C.S.F. (2000), “Toward a differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization”, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 2,
pp. 241-60.
Tyler, T.R. (2003), “Trust within organisations”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 556-68.
Tzafrir, S.S., Harel, G.H., Baruch, Y. and Dolan, S.L. (2004), “The consequences of emerging HRM
practices for employees’ trust in their managers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 628-47.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-13.
Whitener, E.M. (1997), “The impact of human resource activities on employee trust”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 389-404.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators of
trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behaviour”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.
Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M., Park, H.J., Gerhart, B. and Delery, J.E. (2001),
“Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: additional
data and suggestions for future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 875-901.
Zeffane, R. and Connell, J. (2003), “Trust and HRM in the new millennium”, International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure”,
in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 53-111.
 PR Appendix
40,4
Removed
Code Item Mean SD Used by in

Opact1 The operations in our organization are 2.89 1.097 Churchill et al. PCA
510 organized in the most functional way (1974)
Opact2 Our organization is capable of adapting to 3.29 1.123 Self-generated
changing conditionsb
Opact3 There are routines in our organization that 3.69 0.884 Self-generated PCA
make it easy to perform daily work tasks
Opact4 There are routines in our organization that 3.39 1.045 Self-generated
help us to overcome exceptional situationsb
Opact5k It is difficult for me to handle things in our 3.59 1.033 Korthuis-Smith
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

organizationa, b (2002)
Opact6 Our organization efficiently utilizes the 2.93 1.249 Self-generated
expertise of its staffb
Opact7 Our organization has the technological 3.63 1.242 Lee (2004) PCA
resources to function successfully
Opact8 Our organization possesses the resources 3.71 0.946 Lee (2004) PCA
and competences that enable it to operate
successfully
Opact9 Work is well organized in our organizationb 3.01 1.021 Self-generated
Opact10k Our organization does not possess sufficient 3.59 1.017 Self-generated PCA
resources or abilities to function
successfullya
Openv1 Our organization functions on such a firm 2.92 1.140 Self-generated
foundation that changes in our operating
environment do not threaten its operationsb
Openv2 Our organization’s operations take future 3.66 0.999 Self-generated PCA
challenges into consideration
Openv3 I believe that I will have a job in this 3.68 1.142 Self-generated PCA
organization in the future as well
Openv4k People employed by our organization have a 3.72 1.048 Wright et al.
poor employment outlook for the future with (2001)
this employera, b
Openv5k Changes in the operating environment will 3.09 1.139 Self-generated CFA2
threaten the operation of our organization in
the futurea
Mgm1 Our organization’s top management has a 3.64 1.185 Self-generated
vision of the course in which to take the
organization in the futureb
Mgm2k Our organization’s operations suffer as a 3.47 1.242 Daley and Vasu CFA1
result of the incompetence of the top (1998)
managementa
Mgm3 I trust the top management’s ability to keep 3.44 1.144 Neveu (2005) CFA2
our organization competitive
Mgm4k Changes have to take place in our 3.07 1.267 Self-generated
organization’s top management for our
operations to developa, b
Table AI. (continued)
 Impersonal
Removed
Code Item Mean SD Used by in trust
Mgm5 In my opinion, the top management is taking 3.41 1.110 Daley and Vasu
our organization in the right directionb (1998)
Mgm6k Our organization does not possess sufficient 2.79 1.290 Neveu (2005) CFA2
competencies in managing peoplea 511
Mgm7 I trust the top management’s ability to make 3.42 1.119 Neveu (2005) CFA1
the right decisions for the future
Mgm8 The decisions taken by the top management 3.40 1.106 Self-generated CFA2
are well-founded
Mgm9k The top management makes decisions that 3.52 1.096 Cummings and
will endanger the operations of our Bromiley (1996)
organization in the futurea, b
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

Mgm10 I have faith in the professionalism of the top 3.50 1.080 Cummings and
managementb Bromiley (1996)
Mgm11 The decisions made by the top management 3.44 1.133 Self-generated CFA2
follow a clear goal
Mgm12k The top management is unable to make 3.59 1.179 Self-generated CFA1
decisions on important issues regarding the
operations of our organizationa
Tech1k Problems in the equipment we use 3.57 1.130 Self-generated PCA
(e.g. computer hardware and production
equipment) cause interruptions in our
organization’s operationsa
Tech2 The tools I need to do my work (e.g. tools or 3.96 1.023 Self-generated
equipment) work properlyb
Tech3 My working conditions are in order 4.00 0.952 Self-generated CFA2
Tech4 The equipment that is crucial for the 3.86 1.036 Self-generated
operation of our organization (e.g. computer
hardware and production machines)
functions reliablyb
Tech5 I receive assistance with technical problems 4.26 0.852 Self-generated
whenever I need itb
Iden1 I believe that we have products and services 3.95 0.908 Self-generated
that allow us to match the competitionb
Iden2k I believe that the other players in the field are 3.48 1.028 Self-generated
ahead of our organizationa, b
Iden3 We are able to do what other organizations 3.75 1.057 Self-generated PCA
cannot
Emre1 Outsiders consider my employer to be a 3.82 1.003 Self-generated
successful player in its field
Emre2 Outsiders consider my organization to be a 3.78 0.936 Self-generated CFA2
good place to workb
Notes: aNegated items; bItems included in the final scale; PCA is principal component analysis; CFA1
is confirmatory factor analysis conducted separately for each factor; CFA2 is confirmatory factor
analysis conducted on the model; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stability
and predictability of the operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people;
Tech ¼ The organization’s technological reliability; Iden ¼ Identity; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation Table AI.
 PR
Removed
40,4 Code Item Mean SD Used by in

HRM1 I receive a fair salary in comparison with 3.39 1.243 Coyle-Shapiro CFA2
other employees in our organization who do (2000)
the same work
512 HRM2k My salary is unfair in comparison with that 3.52 1.233 Self-generated
received by other employees in our
organization who do the same worka, b
HRM3 The people rewarded for the success of our 2.80 1.180 Self-generated
organization are those who deserve to be
rewardedb
HRM4 My employer offers me opportunities to 3.69 1.267 Self-generated
educate myself and develop myself in my
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

professionb
HRM5 Skilled employees have the possibility of 3.25 1.251 Wright et al.
taking up more responsible positionsb (2001)
HRM6 My employer has kept the promises they 3.38 1.118 Gould-Williams
made with regard to my careerb (2003)
Reci1k I do not receive respect for my achievements, 3.61 1.130 Eisenberger et al. CFA2
but instead the top management takes the (2001)
credit for thema
Reci2k The top management puts its success ahead 3.23 1.243 Neveu (2005)
of that of the employeesa, b
Reci3 If I work hard, I am also rewarded for doing 2.73 1.173 Daley and Vasu PCA
so (1998)
Reci4 I believe that my employer keeps its 3.35 1.100 Gould-Williams PCA
promises and lives up to its duties towards (2003)
the employees
Commu1 I receive sufficient information on the state 3.35 1.206 Gould-Williams CFA1
of the organization (2003)
Commu2 I receive information on changes in the 3.50 1.180 Daley and Vasu
organization that are important to meb (1998)
Commu3 The information that is distributed in our 3.98 0.836 Self-generated PCA
organization is valid
Commu4 The information that is distributed in our 3.61 1.011 Self-generated
organization is up-to-dateb
Commu5k The information that is distributed in our 3.88 1.099 Self-generated PCA
organization cannot be trusteda
Commu6 Information on matters important to me is 3.14 1.223 Ellonen et al.
communicated openly in our organizationb (2008)
Commu7k Our organization’s internal communication 3.13 1.236 Ellonen et al.
functions poorlya, b (2008)
Cult1k There is internal competition in our 3.02 1.276 Self-generated CFA2
organization, which is detrimental to the
organization’s operationsa
Cult2k In our organization there is opportunism 3.12 1.248 Self-generated
that harms the organization’s operationsa, b
Valmo1 I accept the prevailing values in our 3.75 1.044 Self-generated CFA1
organization
Table AII. (continued)
 Impersonal
Removed
Code Item Mean SD Used by in trust
Valmo2k In my opinion, our organization functions 3.89 1.110 Hunt et al. (1989) CFA1
unethicallya
Valmo3k I have to compromise my ethical principles 4.12 1.038 Hunt et al. (1989)
in order to succeed in our organizationa, b 513
Valmo4 The top management has made it clear that 3.37 1.216 Hunt et al. (1989)
unethical action is not tolerated in our
organizationb
Notes: aNegated items; bItems included in the final scale; PCA is principal component analysis; CFA1
is confirmatory factor analysis conducted separately to each factor; CFA2 is confirmatory factor
analysis conducted to the model; HRM ¼ HRM practices; Reci ¼ The norm of reciprocity; Commu
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)

¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Valmo ¼ Values and moral principles Table AII.

About the authors

Mika Vanhala, MSc (Econ), is a Doctoral Student and a researcher in the School of Business and
Technology Business Research Center at Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. His
primary research interest is the relationship between organizational trust, HRM practices and
organizational performance. Mika Vanhala is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
mika.vanhala@lut.fi
Kaisu Puumalainen, DSc (Tech), is a Professor in Technology Research in the School of
Business at Lappeenranta of Technology, Finland. Her primary areas of research interest are
diffusion of innovations, organizational innovation, international marketing, and small business.
She has published about 30 refereed articles, for example, in Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, European
Journal of Marketing, R&D Management, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Kirsimarja Blomqvist, DSc (Econ), is a professor of knowledge management in the School of
Business and a vice-director for Technology Business Research Center at Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Finland. Her research interests include the emerging theory of trust
and its applications, R&D and innovation management, strategic alliances as well as inter- and
intra-organizational collaboration. Her research has been published in R&D Management,
Technovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Creativity and Innovation Management, Industrial Marketing
Management, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Journal of Strategic Change, Journal of
International Production Economics, International Journal of Management Concepts and
Philosophy, Journal of Workplace Learning, as well as book chapters in several international and
Finnish books.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Husni Kharouf, Donald J. Lund, Harjit Sekhon. 2014. Building trust by signaling trustworthiness in
service retail. Journal of Services Marketing 28:5, 361-373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Heiner Evanschitzky, John Rudd. 2013. Aligning employee service recovery
performance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of Marketing Management
29:9-10, 981-1006. [CrossRef]
3. Francesco Schiavone, Roy K. Smollan. 2013. Trust in change managers: the role of affect. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 26:4, 725-747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Mika Vanhala, Riikka Ahteela. 2011. The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational trust.
Management Research Review 34:8, 869-888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by NAJRAN UNIVERSITY At 02:37 22 October 2014 (PT)