Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Dynamics of Organizational Distrust: An Exploratory Study in

Workplace Safety
Cihangir Gümüştaş a, *, Fatma Küskü b
a
Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences, TR-34469, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Management, TR-34367, Macka, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although there are numerous studies on how to establish a safety-climate within organizations, knowledge about
Trust how distrust, as a distinct factor, develops and can be best managed in the occupational safety context is limited.
Distrust Instead of taking a normative perspective of how distrust is developed in Individualist-Western cultures, and
Workplace safety
using it as the center to understand distrust development in collectivist non-Western cultures, this paper takes an
Turkey
Qualitative Study
exploratory method, which allows participants to identify the content and variety of elements they think sig­
nificant in distrust development. This study also aims to address how distrust might best be managed by iden­
tifying a set of practices. Data from occupational health and safety (OHS) specialists and OHS academicians
working in Turkey were collected through open-ended questionnaire forms, and content analysis was performed.
While the opposite ends of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity, respectively Incompetence, Malevolence, and Deceit
were found to be essential aspects of organizational (dis)trustworthiness, External factors appeared as a context-
specific dimension of distrust. It is found that the absence of hygiene factors and good relations with employees
has a noticeable influence on distrust formation. Drawing on this evidence and the data collected, distrust
overcoming practices, which are more affective in nature and focus on better material conditions, are offered.

1. Introduction According to the literature, trust develops from a person’s opinions

In the recent years, there is a growing interest in the importance of
workers’ trust and distrust in management for workplace safety (Gunia
et al., 2017; Pilbeam, Denyer, Doherty, and Davidson, 2019; Liu, Zhou,
Cheng, and Zhu, 2020). Studies found that trust in management is an
important facilitator for employees’ safety orientation (Zacharatos et al.,
2005), internalization of safety-based behaviors (Tyler, 2003), shaping
workers’ risk-related behaviors (Conchie and Burns, 2009), engagement
in safety-citizenship behaviors (Conchie and Donald, 2008), and
increasing safety performance (Tharaldsen, Mearns, and Knudsen,
2010). On the other hand, distrust is associated with potentially severe
consequences such as limited knowledge sharing (Jeffcott, Pidgeon,
Weyman, and Walls, 2006), lack of cooperation (Cho, 2006), and
increased errors and accidents (Conchie and Donald, 2008). According
to these studies, organizations should aim at developing employees’
trust in their management, and reduce employees’ distrust to create a
safe working environment. However, to create such an environment,
where trust is high and distrust is low, it is important to understand what
qualities contribute to the development of each phenomenon.
about another person’s qualities (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995).
In terms of workplace safety, Conchie and Donald (2008) have identified
several qualities that foster trust development, such as honesty, open­
ness, and concern for others’ safety and welfare. However, the existing
literature is limited to the factors contributing to distrust development in
workplace safety (Gunningham and Sinclair, 2011 is an exception).
Besides, understanding what qualities contribute to distrust develop­
ment may pave the way for its effective management within the work­
place. Moreover, the available research on trust and distrust in
workplace safety context has done within wealthy Western countries (e.
g., Conchie, Taylor, and Charlton, 2011; Gunningham and Sinclair,
2011), reflecting the individualistic nature of Western work practices. In
those studies, organizational context was treated as a dominant situation
that bounds the influence of the social/economic/relational aspects of
trust/distrust relations, and assuming the regulatory and monetary is­
sues are not important concerns because they had already been solved
outside the organization. Consequently, how distrust develops within a
non-Western context is a black-box.
The current study aims to explore what qualities foster distrust in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gumustas@itu.edu.tr (C. Gümüştaş), kuskufa@itu.edu.tr (F. Küskü).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105032
Received 13 March 2020; Received in revised form 11 September 2020; Accepted 1 October 2020
Available online 7 November 2020
0925-7535/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
workplace safety and how it might best be managed in a non-Western
context. The contribution of the paper is threefold. First, this study
aims to contribute both to the workplace safety literature and distrust
literature by examining the antecedents of distrust through an explor­
atory approach. Despite the previous research has identified that several
qualities contribute to trust and distrust development in safety context
(e.g., Conchie and Donald, 2008; Gunningham and Sinclair, 2011) it
treats the different antecedents as a single, undifferentiated construct,
and see trust and distrust as different ends of the same concept. This
approach makes it challenging to identify the distinct antecedents of
distrust in a safety context, and difficult to identify whether or not the
features that are significant to the development of trust are also those
that are important to the development of distrust. In line with this, the
current study aims to fill in this gap by examining the question of which
elements foster distrust by determining the comparative importance of
different distrust characteristics in the development of employees’
distrust in their organizations. Second, despite the consensus on the
adverse effects of distrust on safety outcomes (Conchie and Donald,
2008; Gunningham and Sinclair, 2011), this paper focuses on how these
adverse effects might best be overcome by elaborating the practices
aiming to eliminate distrust between workers and their organizations.
This contribution is important because even though there are numerous
studies on how to establish a safety climate within the organizations,
still our knowledge about how distrust, as a distinct factor, can be
eliminated and best managed in high-reliability organizations (HROs),
which exist in hazardous environments where the consequences of er­
rors are high (Baker, Day and Salas, 2006), is limited (Gunningham and
Sinclair, 2014). Lastly, a significant part of all research on organiza­
tional trust and distrust, including those performed in the safety field, is
largely limited to the developed wealthy Western context (see Wasti,
Tan, and Erdil, 2011 for a review). Studies performed outside these
contexts generally use quantitative methods (Saunders and Thornhill,
2004; Tan and Chee, 2005 are exceptions) with the assumption of trust/
distrust can be theorized and measured in contexts such as that of
Western setting is universal and transferable (Wasti, Tan, Brower, and
Onder, 2007). However, relying on this kind of approach across different
contexts is detrimental because it is difficult to reveal the differences in
the content and manifestations of concepts. Consequently, scholars have
emphasized the use of qualitative research approaches to accurately
enhance the cross-cultural management literature (e.g., Meyer, 2006;
Wasti et al., 2011). Accordingly, this paper also aims to contribute to the
literature by investigating distrust formation in a peripheral context,
namely Turkey (Üsdiken, 2014). By doing so, rather than relying on the
accepted view of how (dis)trust emerges in the Western context, where
different socio-economic factors are at play, this study performs an
inductive approach to reveal and understand the factors of distrust.
2. Conceptual Background
2.1. Distrust
Over the years, trust has been attracted significant attention from
researchers (Deutsch, 1958; Zucker, 1986; Mayer et al., 1995; Lyon,
Möllering, and Saunders, 2015), and organizational scholars have
studied trust at different levels such as interpersonal, organizational and
inter-organizational (for detailed reviews, see Colquitt, Scott, and LeP­
ine, 2007; Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis, 2007; Fulmer and Gelfand,
2012). For trust researchers, there is an agreement in terms of core
definitions, constructs, and operationalization of the notion of trust
(Sitkin and Bijlsma-Frankema, 2018). However, distrust literature has
been much slower to develop, in terms of a distinct area of interest.
(Sitkin and Bijlsma-Frankema, 2018). In the recent years, there has been
increasing attention on distrust (see recent reviews: Saunders et al.,
2014; Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, and Weibel, 2015; Sitkin and Bijlsma-
Frankema, 2018). However, the literature on distrust is highly frag­
mented with numerous definitions and approaches (Guo et al., 2017).
2
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
Less conceptual agreement on distrust and the relative shortage of
studies on the concept might be derived from the fact that previous
studies have assumed that trust and distrust are the same constructs that
exist at opposite ends of a single continuum. Consequently, completely
understanding the notion of distrust is not possible without under­
standing its association with trust. Hence, the following discussion of
distrust will be performed with respect to its relation to trust.
Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party1 based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the
ability to monitor or control that other part” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712).
In contrast, distrust is defined as “confident negative expectations
regarding another’s conduct” (Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies, 1998, p.
430)2.
Traditionally, two main but contrary approaches to theorizing trust
and distrust have developed. The first approach, namely the unidi­
mensional view, argues that the notions of trust and distrust are at the
opposite ends of one continuum (e.g., Bigley and Pearce, 1998). Ac­
cording to this approach, trust and distrust are complete alternatives,
and mutually exclusive (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996). So, an increase in
the level of trust leads to a decrease in the level of distrust. This
perspective generates the expectation that the research on trust is also
valid for distrust after reversing the findings.
The second approach, namely the bidimensional view, sees trust and
distrust are theoretically different concepts that can vary independently
from each other (Lewicki et al., 1998). Recent empirical studies argue
that high trust does not necessarily mean low distrust (e.g., Cho, 2006;
Dimoka, 2010; Connelly, Miller, and Devers, 2012). According to these
studies, distrust is not merely a lack of trust or low trust, whereas distrust
can act independently from the concept of trust at the same time (see
Saunders et al., 2014). Similarly, Lewicki et al. (1998) argue that a
person may simultaneously experience feelings of high trust / high
distrust. Saunders and Thornhill (2004) examined trust and distrust
within the framework of organizational justice, and found that em­
ployees with high trust in their organizations had low levels of distrust;
while the feeling of distrust is high, it is observed that the trust level of
the employees is low. In particular, the authors argue that, whereas
some employees perceive trust and distrust as two ends of a continuum,
others see them as distinct concepts. These findings are conceptualized
as trust – mistrust – absence triangle. Based on the prior discussion, it
can be argued that the studies on the relationship between trust and
distrust in the literature have not reached definite conclusions so far.
Furthermore, according to the recent studies, there is strong support for
the distinction between trust and distrust (e.g., Vlaar, Van den Bosch,
and Volberda, 2007; Dimoka, 2010; Lewicki and Brinsfield, 2015; Guo
et al., 2017), while the opposing views still exist (Moody, Galletta, and
Lowry, 2014). Thus, this study takes distrust and trust as two related but
distinct constructs.
2.2. Distrust and Safety
The significance of employees’ trust in their organization in terms of
workplace safety has attracted growing interest in the literature
(Zacharatos et al., 2005; Conchie, Donald, and Taylor, 2006; Conchie
and Donald, 2008; Kath, Magley, and Marmet, 2010). Drawing on the
trust literature, Conchie and Donald (2008, p. 493) defined safety-
specific trust as “a person’s willingness to rely on another based on
positive expectations about their safety behavior or intention to act
safely.” They also defined safety-specific distrust as “a person’s will­
ingness to rely on another based on negative expectations about their
safety behavior or intention to act safely” (p.493). Safety-trust in
1
Here, the notion of “another” involves coworker, manager, or organization.
2
We used Lewicki et al., (1998) definition of distrust because no definition of
distrust by Mayer and his colleagues is available to our knowledge.
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
management increases; employees’ commitment to safety behaviors
(Conchie and Donald, 2008), engagement in safety-citizenship behav­
iors (Conchie and Donald, 2008), safety-performance rates (Tharaldsen
et al., 2010), and decreases accident rates (Zacharatos et al., 2005).
According to Conchie et al. (2011), part of the success of trust is based on
social exchange relationships where behaviors are based on reciprocated
responsibility. In particular, if employees trust their supervisor-leader or
organization in terms of safety, they will be more likely to experience a
sense of responsibility to reciprocate positive actions by engaging in
safety specific actions that promote workplace safety (Zacharatos et al.,
2005). For instance, Hoffmeister, Gibbons, Johnson, Cigularov, Chen,
and Rosecrance (2014) found that leadership has a positive effect on
employees’ safety performance, as such a transformational leadership
nurtures trust and increases interpersonal relationships between super­
visors and their subordinates. Transformational leadership has been
found to yield a better understanding of safety issues and improved
communication (Conchie, Taylor, and Donald, 2012). Contrarily, few
studies examined safety-distrust, and they argue that safety-distrust has
mostly negative consequences. It is found that safety-distrust is associ­
ated with failed safety initiatives (Conchie et al., 2011), absence of
shared inter-group safety perceptions (Fleming and Lardner, 2001),
reduced sense of responsibility for safety behaviors (Jeffcott et al.,
2006), and increased injury rates (Conchie et al., 2006).
These findings recommend that organizations may focus on
increasing employees’ safety-trust in their organization and decreasing
their safety-distrust to promote safety culture, which refers to the atti­
tudes and values held by organizational members, which in turn affect
safety performance (Conchie et al., 2006). Specifically, a good organi­
zational safety culture requires workers’ trust because the extent to
which workers act safely and internalize safety culture might be
dependent on the extent to which they perceive their organization is
trustworthy (Zohar, 2002; Conchie et al., 2006). Cox, Jones, and Rycraft
(2004) emphasize that trust between organizations and workers is
essential to ensure the effective process of providing feedback about
unsafe actions, which is an integral part of safety culture. With the ex­
istence of distrust, this process may fail because observing actions no
longer helps the efficient role of ensuring safe working practices (Con­
chie et al., 2006).
However, what is the most successful method for an organization to
accomplish this goal? Despite its potentially negative impacts of distrust
on occupational safety, the number of studies focusing on the concept
through the lenses of workplace safety is limited (Gunningham and
Sinclair, 2014), and the exact nature of distrust in workplace safety is
poorly understood (Conchie and Donald, 2008; Conchie, Woodcock, and
Taylor, 2015). To avoid the negative consequences of distrust in the
organization, it is of great importance to determine the antecedents of
the concept of organizational distrust.
2.3. Antecedents of Distrust
Gefen (2002) emphasized that it is important to consider the com­
ponents of trust as a multidimensional construct, including distinct as­
pects comprising the phenomenon. Specifically, different factors
contribute to the development of trust, namely trustworthiness. One of
the most accepted models explaining trustworthiness is offered by
Mayer et al. (1995). The authors suggested the Integrative Model of
Organizational Trust, a framework studying trust in an organizational
setting, including two parties: a trustor (the individual trusting) and a
trustee (the individual being trusted). The authors first identified trust
propensity, a dispositional willingness to rely on others, as a distinct
variable that determines trust and the effect of trust antecedents. Mayer
et al. (1995) noted that trust is composed of ability, benevolence, and
integrity (ABI framework). In particular, ability is the belief in the confi­
dence in another’s skills and performance capability. Benevolence is the
belief in the good intentions of another toward an individual and is the
extent to which the individual believes that person or organization cares
3
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
about the individual’s concerns and wants to act in good faith toward
the individual. Lastly, integrity is the belief in the honesty and truthful­
ness of the trustee.
Even though scholars have argued that trust is a multifaceted
concept (Gefen, 2002), distrust has only recently been described in
terms of its diverse constituents. If trust and distrust are two distinct
constructs, it is reasonable to expect that they might have different an­
tecedents. However, while there is much work on the nature and
dimensionality of trust (e.g., Currall and Epstein, 2003; Clarke and
Ward, 2006), research on the nature and underlying dimensions of
distrust is limited (e.g., Dimoka, 2010; Camblor and Alcover, 2019). In
general, the distrust literature argues that distrust develops when there
is a perceived value incongruence or the belief that others refuse to
accept the trustee’s core values and adhere to values that are perceived
as incompatible with these core values (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015).
Moreover, the perceived intention or motive of the other actor is crucial
when evaluating other actors’ distrustworthiness (Jukka, Blomqvist, Li,
and Gan, 2017). According to the literature, distrust involves suspicion
and can be activated by numerous factors (Lewicki et al., 1998;
Seppänen and Blomqvist, 2006).
To understand distrustworthiness, Mayer et al. (1995) model is
widely used (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009), rather than examining the
unique dynamics of the concept. Specifically, it is argued that the em­
ployees’ assessment of the other party as inadequate in terms of ability,
benevolence, and integrity will cause distrust. Moreover, some re­
searchers operationalized distrust in terms of three sub-dimensions that
are the exact opposite the trustworthiness, namely incompetence, ma­
levolence, and deceit (McKnight et al., 2004; Lowry, Wilson, and Haig,
2014). Thus, it can be argued that as in the definitions of trust and
distrust, there is transitivity in the antecedents as well. Nonetheless,
there is potential value in viewing trustworthiness and distrustworthi­
ness as distinct but interrelated concepts, as in the case of trust and
distrust, and examining distrustworthiness. Besides, our knowledge
about the antecedents of organizational distrust, especially in occupa­
tional safety context, is much more limited. In line with this, the purpose
of this study is to uncover the conceptualization of organizational
distrust in a peripheral context, namely Turkey, and to extend the
nomological network of distrust in an occupational safety context.
Consequently, we pose the following research question: What are the
antecedents of safety-specific organizational distrust, and how it might
best be managed in a non-Western context?
3. Research Context
Some researchers (e.g., Rousseau and Fried, 2001; Tsui, 2004; Gel­
fand, Erez, and Aycan, 2007) argued that many concepts in the field of
management are the products of scholarly work by researchers in North
America, especially the United States, and secondarily by scholars in
Western Europe, which represent the welfare society, and Western-
based assumptions (such as individualism and low power distance).
Therefore, there are difficulties in transferring these concepts to
different contexts, including trust and distrust. While involving certain
etic (universal) aspects of trust formation, Mayer et al., (1995) model of
trust, including the following works done by McAllister (1995), broadly
represents the individualistic nature of American work behaviors, and it
treats the organizational context as a central condition that limits the
relevance of the socio-economic aspect of trust relations (Wasti et al.,
2011). Most of the later studies take the Western perception of trust as
apparently universal through different cultures, so it may fail to grasp
the contextual meaning of trust perceived by individuals and organiza­
tions across diverse cultures (Jukka et al., 2017). Although Doney,
Cannon, and Mullen (1998) offered a framework to understand the
impact of culture on the development of trust, it was also found to be
insufficient in terms of emphasizing emic (culture-sensitive) features
(see; Noorderhaven, 1999), and supposing that trust and its antecedents
are conceptualized as universal. These universalistic Western-based
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
approaches are also valid for the conceptualization and measurement of
distrust (Jukka et al., 2017). On the other hand, management scholars
are increasingly emphasizing that cross-cultural generalizability of
North American theories and assumptions of organizational concepts
should be tested in a non-Western context, and they are encouraging
indigenous, context-specific research (e.g., Tsui, 2004; Whetten, 2009).
Particularly, in collectivist and developing contexts, the work environ­
ment represents more importance on affective, relational, and economic
aspects (e.g., Triandis, 1995; Tsui, 2004).
In this study, we draw on an exploratory study in the Turkish
workplace safety context. Justification for country selection is based on
the prior studies claiming that the Turkish workplace safety field has
significant reasons than other sectors to have considerable worries about
the absence of trust because of its unsettled industrial relations (Ercan,
2010; Gurcanli et al., 2015). Specifically, according to Gurcanli et al.
(2015), there is an on-going distrust between the workers and the
management of high-reliability organizations as a primary obstacle to
build and internalize safety applications in the related industries. In
addition, Gurcanli et al. (2015) identified the difficulties of effective
applications of a workplace safety policy with employees, who have
resistance to management plans, which are based on cost-cutting in
every aspect, including safety protections. In particular, the authors
noted that an atmosphere of distrust exists among the workers due to the
perfunctory workplace safety applications and higher rates of accidents.
The authors also emphasized that workers are unwilling to report near-
misses, due to the fear of being punished or fired. Moreover, Turkey has
one of the highest records of occupational accidents and deaths in the
World; death toll 1970 in 2016, 2006 in 2017, 1923 in 2018, and 1736 in
20193, which makes the research context more relevant to the research
question.
To understand the essence of trust and distrust in the Turkish
context, Küskü (1999) examined the nature of perceived trust across
managers and subordinates. She found that distrust, rather than trust, is
more prevalent in governing manager-subordinate relationships in the
Turkish manufacturing industry, including textile, chemistry, automo­
tive, and mining sectors. In particular, the author found that trust in
Turkish organizations is based on three categories; achieving organiza­
tional goals, risk-taking in decision-making, and solving problems.
Interestingly, these factor structures were found to be the same both for
managers and subordinates. However, trust levels of each side are quite
low, and distrust is the main factor that shapes the manager-subordinate
relationship. According to Küskü (1999), the main reasons behind this
picture are based on the rapid change in the environment, high political
and economic uncertainty, and instability in the Turkish business
environment, which pave the way for distrust.
More recently, Erdem and Özen-Aytemur (2014) examined the
context-specific dimensions of trust in Turkey across different foci
(manager, subordinate, and co-worker). The authors found that the trust
structure varies in different organizational relationships, and cultural
perceptions influence the dimensions-meanings of trust. In particular,
they found that subordinate-manager relationships tend to be pater­
nalistic, demonstrating that perception of trust may have a different
cultural manifestation. Specifically, the perception of managers as pro­
tectors and “a sort of father” indicate a stronger sensitivity and protec­
torate toward the trustee than the expectation of showing interest as
reported in trust literature.
Wasti, et al. (2011) examined trust relationships directed at different
foci in the organization (supervisor, peer, and subordinate) in two
different countries; Turkey, and China. In their study, the authors found
that the general antecedents of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity exist in
both countries. In contrast, with its culture-specific manifestations,
Benevolence played a critical role in trust-building across multiple foci in
both countries. The researchers also found that trust relationships in the
3 5
http://isigmeclisi.org/ (access date: 15.02.2020)
4
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
Turkey context tended to go beyond the professional domain and to
involve sharing of personal time, information, and space.
Moreover, Wasti et al. (2013) examined the antecedents of organi­
zational distrust through a cross-cultural perspective. The results of in­
terviews with white-collar workers from Turkey and the Netherlands
showed that institutional, organizational, and individual level variables
influence organizational distrust. Similar to interpersonal trust, the an­
tecedents of distrust are found to be ability, benevolence, and integrity.
The authors also found that, only in Turkey, an organization’s lack of
care about employee well-being was stated as an antecedent of distrust
in an organizational setting. Issues such as social security, job insecurity,
and wage level appear as sub-dimensions of benevolence for Turkish
employees.
In sum, extant research on the Turkish context signal that trust and
distrust have more relational (relationships beyond workspace, seeing
managers as a sort of father, or sharing personal time), and socio-
economic aspects (political uncertainty, and economic difficulties such
as job insecurity), compared to the existing trust-distrust literature.
Based on these studies, we expect to observe more relational and socio-
economic driven distrustworthiness manifestations.
4. Method
A qualitative approach, namely content analysis, is performed to
determine the antecedents of organizational distrust and how to manage
it. According to Bluhm, Harman, Lee, and Mitchell (2011), it is more
appropriate to use qualitative methods to examine personal perceptions,
experiences, and opinions. We also notice Lewicki, Tomlinson, and
Gillespie’s (2006) call for a keen focus on qualitative techniques to
better grasp the nature and development of trust over time. The ques­
tions are developed according to the literature review of trust and
distrust both in general and in occupational safety (e.g., Clark and
Payne, 1997; Conchie and Donald, 2008; Tillmar, 2015; Welter and
Alex, 2015), and in the final questionnaire there are 9 demographic
questions, fourteen open-ended questions4, and we only used 4 of them,
which are related to the aim of this study. The first three questions are
based on the distrust development process, and the fourth question is
based on overcoming distrust. These four questions are; (1) “Can you
please define safety-distrust?”, (2) “Which characteristics and behaviors
of your organization affected your safety-distrust development at early
and later stages of your employment relationship?”, (3) “Can you report
a specific incident about your distrust development, if possible?” and (4)
“Which practices can be used by organizations to eliminate safety-
distrust?”
An on-line questionnaire form was asked to two different groups: (1)
academicians teaching at the occupational health and safety (OHS)
program and (2) certified OHS specialists working in businesses. Those
groups are considered to have the most reliable and rich information
about the subject studied because of their high level of interaction with
both high-reliability organizations (specifically, construction, mining,
and shipbuilding industries) and workers. In line with this, academicians
teaching in the workplace safety domain, listed in the Council of Higher
Education website5, were reached through e-mail. In detail, academi­
cians teaching OHS are giving courses such as fundamentals of occu­
pational health and safety, risk analysis and risk management in the
workplace, occupational health and safety in mining, shipbuilding,
construction industries, ergonomics, occupational diseases and occu­
pational health, and advanced issues in occupational health and safety.
All the academicians in our sample provide OHS consultancy service to
firms operating in the construction, shipbuilding, and mining industries,
4
All the questions were in Turkish, as respondents’ native language, and the
responses are translated into English for this study without changing or altering
their meaning.
http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/anasayfa (access: 05.01.2019)
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Table 1
Background Information of Respondents
Background Information Ratio Mean (Standard
(%) Deviation)
Gender
- Male 81
- Female 19
Age (years) 43.2 (6.04)
Years of Experience as OHS Academic 6.4 (3.9)
Years of Experience as OHS Specialist 11.7 (4.1)
Education Level
- Bachelor’s degree 78
- Graduate degree 22
Occupation
- Academic 10.8
- OHS Specialist 89.2
Working Area of OHS Specialist (189 in
total) 50.8
- Construction 27.5
- Shipbuilding 21.7
- Mining
which indicates that they have up-to-date information and sufficient
experience about the field. OHS specialists were reached through
Linkedin professional social networking platform. Given that Turkish
companies employ OHS specialists to ensure workplace safety in their
client company, these specialists have firsthand experience about the
workplace safety environment in Turkey. Therefore, selecting such a
research sample is justified because both the academicians and OHS
specialists have first-hand knowledge about the occupational health and
safety field.
The total number of participants in the study is 212 (189 OHS spe­
cialists, 23 academicians), which is far above the number of 20-50
participants recommended by Guest et al. (2006) for qualitative
studies. Collecting data from the respondents from 51 different cities out
of 81 increases the representativeness of the research sample. The re­
spondents have an average of 11.3 years of experience (SD=4,0) in
general, and the majority of them are male (81 percent), and the average
age is 43.2. Respondents who are OHS specialists work in construction
(96), shipbuilding (52), and mining (41) industries. Detailed informa­
tion is given in Table 1.
All responses were on-line recorded and transcribed verbatim. In
total, 632 statements are recorded from the valid responses of 204
participants6. During the content analysis process, we used the sugges­
tions of Hsieh and Shannon (2005). The authors read both the tran­
scripts and the related literature, and then jointly designed a coding
manual to systematically summarize the data. Some codes in the coding
manual are determined prior to data analysis (literature-based), and
some of them are data-driven. For instance, codes of “the inability of
managers” (Ability), “seeing workers unworthy” (Benevolence), and
“failure to keep promises” (Integrity) were theory-driven codes that are
taken from trust literature. On the other hand, codes of “previous acci­
dents,” “insufficient wages and incomplete social security payments” are
generated by relying on our data. Total of 632 statements were coded by
two Ph.D. students, who were blind to the research question, according
to the coding guideline, and they were asked to generate as many factors
as possible that contributed to distrust development. Specifically, the
coders developed a glossary of antecedents and management practices,
in which they labeled, defined, and categorized each identified factor
(Duriau, Reger, and Pfarrer, 2007). After a pilot coding, the scope and
the content of the coding manual were re-arranged where necessary.
Next, the coders simultaneously identify organizational distrust ante­
cedents and match with the related category. Then, the two coders met
to compare their list and resolve inconsistencies in their list through
6 7
Eight of the respondents were excluded from the sample because they
completed only half of the questionnaire.
5
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
extensive discussions. Then, the second author of the study compared
and contrasted the lists developed by the coders to identify antecedents
and to label them accordingly. The main focus in this stage was on
performing a parsimonious classification. The same process was applied
to analyze and determine distrust management practices, as well. The
steps of the coding process are presented in Figure 1.
The interrater reliability coefficient was calculated to determine
whether both encoders consistently encode the items. As a result of the
evaluation, the inter-encoder safety coefficient was 0.768 (for distrust
development), and 0.88 (for distrust management). These ratios are
above the minimum acceptable reliability value for exploratory studies,
and therefore the inter-rater consistency is acceptable (Krippendorff,
2018). All remaining disagreements were resolved through a discussion
moderated by the second authors of the study.
In this study, two ways were followed to ensure ethical requirements
for data collection and use. First, after the data collection form was
created, ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committees of the
universities where the authors of this study work7. Second, as it is
advised by other researchers (e.g., Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), re­
spondents were informed of the purpose of the study, confidentiality of
their responses, and intended scientific use of the collected data. At the
same time, participants were also informed that participation was on a
voluntary basis and that they have the right to withdraw at any time.
5. Results
Our analysis strategy is designed to understand the two main issues
raised in this study; what are the antecedents of organizational distrust, and
how it might best be managed in a non-Western context? The results are
represented accordingly. In total, 632 statements were described by the
respondents. Of these 385 (61%) statements pertained to distrust ante­
cedents, and 247 (39%) pertained to managing distrust. Specifically, of
these 385 statements, 219 (56,8%) pertained to the domain of Malev­
olence, 47 statements (12,2%) pertained to the domain of Incompe­
tence, 43 statements (11,2%) pertained to the domain of Deceit, and 60
statements (15,5%) pertained to the domain of External Factors, which
are outlined in Table 2. Specifically, while the three of the antecedent
categories are oppositely similar to Mayer et al., (1995), antecedents
within the broad categories are sometimes manifested in different ways
as shown in Table 2. These different manifestations of an antecedent
category are named as facets. For example, for the Incompetence ante­
cedent, respondents report two different facets: inability of managers and
previously experienced accidents.
5.1. Distrust Antecedents
The content analysis of the responses revealed four organizational
distrust antecedents. Comparing the distrust antecedents generated by
our sample with mainstream literature, a significant similarity was
evident and supported the generalizability of the ABI framework
developed by Mayer et al. (1995). Organizational distrust antecedents
are grouped under the main categories of Malevolence, Incompetence,
Deceit, which are more or less equivalent to, respectively, Benevolence,
Ability, and Integrity model of Mayer et al. (1995), and one distinct
category unique to the research context is identified; External Factors.
Nonetheless, there were noteworthy differences as well. In general, the
antecedents found in our sample reflected monetary aspects (e.g., lack of
hygiene factors), relational mistreatment, and factors unique to Turkey
(e.g., family firms or distrust to the regulatory agencies), which are not
evident in prior studies on organizational distrust antecedents in
workplace safety. For instance, Gunningham and Sinclair (2011)
examined the characteristics associated with the formation of distrust in
Istanbul Technical University Research Ethics Committee, Protocol number:
106, date given: 23.01.2019
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Figure 1. Content Analysis Process. Adapted from Hsieh and Shannon (2005)
the Australian mining industry. The authors found that the factors
related to the formation of distrust are: a catalytic event, a divided
workforce, mixed messages, inconsistent actions, a high turnover of
senior management, a closed management style, and a resentment of
corporate intervention.
6
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
5.1.1. Malevolence
Malevolence antecedent has the highest frequency among other an­
tecedents, which might be based on the relevance of collectivist norms in
Turkey (Wasti et al., 2011). Most facets of malevolence antecedents
mainly occur in the context of hygiene factors and profit maximization
pressures. There are also important facets of personal relations, such as
seeing workers unworthy, which refers to the ignorance of the workers’
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Table 2
Antecedents of Organizational Distrust
Facets Main Antecedent Category
• Profit maximization pressures Malevolence(N=219; %=56,8)
• Insufficient wages and incomplete social security
• Job insecurity
• Seeing workers as unworthy
• Inappropriate working conditions
• Lack of workplace safety training
• Seeing workplace safety as a cost center
• Inability of managers Incompetence(N=47; %=12,2)
• Previously experienced accidents
• Pretending to take workplace safety measures Deceit(N=43; %=11,2)
• Failure to keep promises given after an accident
• The sector itself is dangerous External factors(N=60; %=15,5)
• Prevalent subcontracting in the sector
• Inadequacy of the state to prevent accidents and protect workers
Other
Total
*
N represents the number of statements (385 in total) generated from the responses of 204 participants.
**
Frequency is calculated by dividing the number of the given statement by the total number of statements (385) used in the coding process.
psychological interests, but is not necessarily based on objective criteria.
Thus it is different from unfairness (categorized as Deceit), being more
about not demonstrating concern. Respondents described how em­
ployees are generally seen as worthless assets by their organizations.
Some respondents even quoted that they have witnessed that some or­
ganizations see workers as a sort of material in the production process,
rather than human beings. Consequently, employees perceive that their
organizations do not consider their well-being. For instance, one OHS
specialist noted that:
Workers? They are not classified as human. Believe me. Employers want
to exploit workers because they see them as something to be exploited. They
do not value them, and I am sure they even don’t recognize their dignity. So,
when employees see this kind of attitude, they feel worthless, which fosters
distrust because they know that their safety is not a concern, even if it is a
cost!
This finding is consistent with Chen, Chen, and Meindl’s (1998)
argument that collectivists’ level of attachment to their organizations
can be very motivating or demotivating for task achievement, workplace
safety here, which, in turn, causes distrust. Moreover, several re­
spondents provided examples of how organizations do not provide suf­
ficient financial conditions to their employees, such as giving lower
wages and incomplete social security payments. In addition, some re­
spondents provided several examples of how safety is insufficiently
considered, such as not providing safety equipment when it is necessary.
Respondents noted that this led to a situation in which most workers
develop distrust toward their organization because their organization
ignores their well-being. The following response of one of the OHS
specialists illustrates the issue:
Why would they trust their organization? If you get your salary on time,
which is quite low, by the way, you consider yourself lucky. Social security is
entirely a different story. Even though it is legally binding, many organiza­
tions treat it as a favor. They don’t pay, they pay partially, and they pay late.
In such a distorted environment, employees distrust their organization.
5.1.2. Incompetence
In the incompetence dimension, which refers to an organization’s
incapability to meet its task requirements, two facets are labeled,
namely the inability of managers (lack of competence) and previous
accidents occurred in the organization. Oreg and Sverdlik (2011) noted
that employees shape their trusting behavior in terms of their managers’
ability to steer the organization. Similarly, it is found that respondents
emphasized that the lack of competence and lack of professionalism of
the managers in the organizations play a pivotal role in both preventing
the accidents and taking the necessary safety measures, which leads to
distrust. In particular, it is noteworthy that the issue of workplace safety
7
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
Number* Ratio (%)**
52 13,5
37 9,6
37 9,6
34 8,8
33 8,5
14 3,6
12 3,1
29 7,5
18 4,7
38 9,9
5 1,3
29 7,5
17 4,4
14 3,6
16 4,1
385 100
is mainly based on the discretion of the bosses in the family-owned or­
ganizations, which take a significant part in the Turkish business envi­
ronment (Çalışkan, 2014). Respondents also noted that managers of
family-owned organizations are generally family members, rather than
professional managers, who have area-specific expert knowledge and
are expected to take the issue of workplace safety seriously. Respondents
noted that how workplace safety will be treated is entirely dependent on
the boss’s attitude toward workplace safety. The incompetence of
family-member managers, and not giving too much space to the pro­
fessional managers, create a perception that workplace safety is not
taken seriously, causing to organizational distrust. On the other hand,
respondents noted that their organizations’ competence to prevent po­
tential accidents, due to the previous record of accidents, is another
source of distrust.
5.1.3. Deceit
In the deceit dimension, two facets are found; pretending to take
workplace safety measures and failure to keep promises given after an
accident. As Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) put,
behavioral consistency and behavioral integrity are important aspects of
trust. Employees monitor the consistency between organizations’ words
and deeds and make attributions about their integrity, consistency,
honesty, and moral character. According to Dasgupta (1988), there are
two important behaviors (1) telling the truth and (2) keeping promises
as key behavioral antecedents to attributions of integrity: attributions
that affect employees’ distrust in their managers.
The respondents emphasized that organizations deceive employees
and other stakeholders by not taking the necessary workplace safety
measures. Some respondents noted that organizations attempt to over­
come the legally imposed safety obligations by pretending as if they are
paying attention to workplace safety, and expect employees and other
stakeholders to believe them, which then leads to distrust. These find­
ings are consistent with Whitener et al. (1998) argument of lack of
behavioral integrity. As it is noted previously, trust reflects the will­
ingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party and the will­
ingness to take risks (Mayer et al., 1995). If organizations behave
consistently over time and across situations, employees can better pre­
dict managers’ future behavior, and their confidence in their ability to
make such predictions should increase (Whitener et al., 1998).
Accordingly, respondents described the discrepancy between what the
management said about workplace safety measures and what they really
do about workplace safety, and noted that this inconsistency leads em­
ployees to distrust their organization. One of the OHS specialists high­
lights this situation as:
Many organizations see workplace safety as something to be bypassed,
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032

Table 3
Practices of Managing Organizational Distrust
Practices Main Practices Category (Labels) Number* Ratio
(%)**

• State audits State Audits and Incentives(N=90; %=36,44) 76 30,77

• Government incentives about OHS 6 2,43
• Increasing the independence and authority of the workplace safety 8 3,24
specialist
• Improvement of workers’ wages and rights Improvements in basic rights and working environment(N=41; %= 21 8,50
• Providing job security 16,60) 16 6,48
• Improvements in the working environment 4 1,62
• Designing a safety system within the organization Improvements in Organizational Structure(N=40; %=16,19) 24 9,72
• Transparency and internal audits 10 4,05
• Increasing the number of professional managers 6 2,43
• Providing OHS based training Company Safety Leadership(N=38; %=15,38) 29 11,74
• Senior Management Commitment 9 3,64
• Attaching value to employees Attaching Value to Employees(N=30; %=12,15) 21 8,50
• Being fair 9 3,64
Other 8 3,24
Total 247 100
*
N represents the total number of statements (247) generated from the responses of 204 participants.
**
Frequency is calculated by dividing the number of the given statement by the total number of statements used in the coding process (247).

something to be discarded because it costs money and time. On the other
hand, the state legally imposes these safety measures. This creates pressure on
organizations, so they superficially apply them. For instance, organizations
are required to employ an OHS specialist. What do they do? They employ but
do not give any responsibility. The OHS specialist just takes a salary and sign
the necessary papers. Nothing else. If the OHS specialist does what is needed,
the boss will say that ‘stop right there! Not that much!’ But you can’t fool
employees they are aware of everything.
fish rots from the head down. Everyone knows this. Bosses know this, sub-
contractors know this, and employees, for sure, know this. They (em­
ployees) are aware that no one will stand behind employees when something
terrible happens, including the state as well.
In the next section, we focus on how distrust might best be overcome
with the quotations from respondents.
5.2. Managing Organizational Distrust

5.1.4. External Factors
External factors appeared as a fourth distrust antecedent in our
study. As Fulmer and Gelfand (2013) emphasized, the development of
trust and distrust is mainly based on a degree of contingency between
psychological and behavioral responses and influences of the environ­
mental context, such as political (government and law) and economic
environment. Respectively, the fact that high-reliability organizations
themselves are highly dangerous, prevalent subcontracting in the environ­
ment, and the inadequacy of the state to prevent accidents and protect
workers are found to be important external factors causing distrust
among workers.
According to our sample, many respondents emphasized that the
sector itself is highly dangerous, and work-related accidents are natural
consequences of operating in these highly risky industries. The wide­
spread subcontracting in the sector is another factor causing distrust.
According to the respondents’ comments, in a particular project, many
jobs are carried out by more than one subcontractor, and employees
have doubts about who is their main interlocutor. Respondents also
noted that employees feel that each sub-constructor transfers the re­
sponsibility of workplace safety to other sub-contractors in such an
organizational setting. Accordingly, such indifference to workplace
safety causes organizational distrust among employees. Employees’
distrust of independent regulatory bodies (such as the government or
professional chambers) also influences their organizational distrust,
which is consistent with Möllering and Stache (2010), who noted that
institutions influence the basis for distrust development. Some re­
spondents emphasized that the state and the regulatory agencies
attributed superficial importance to workplace safety, and audits are
made superficially. Participants also stated that these institutions are
inclined to support the employer in the case of possible accidents, rather
than the employees. Consequently, although the focus is on an external
institution, employees distrust their organizations due to the belief that
no one will take care of their safety. One of the OHS academicians il­
lustrates this situation as:
In Turkey, the state does not care about safety. All the laws, controls, etc.
are for show. So, why would the organizations attach importance to safety? A
Accordingly, the qualitative data gathered have enabled us to iden­
tify a number of ways that HROs can use to overcome distrust. In total,
247 statements were described by the respondents. Of these 247 state­
ments, 90 (36,4%) pertained to the domain of State Audits and In­
centives, 41 statements (16,6%) pertained to the domain of
Improvements in Basic Rights and Working Environment, 40 statements
(16,2%) pertained to the domain of Improvements in Organizational
Structure, 38 statements (15,4%) pertained to the domain of Company
Safety Leadership, and 30 statements (12,1%) pertained to Attaching
Value on Employees, which are outlined in Table 3.
In general, similar to the distrust antecedents found in the study,
improvements in hygiene conditions, competent management with
improved organizational structure, better treatment of workers, and
state intervention on organizations are found to be important practices
to manage distrust within organizations. While some findings are similar
to the previous studies that focus on managing distrust on workplace
safety (e.g., Gunningham and Sinclair, 2014), distinct distrust manage­
ment practices were also found. Specifically, improvements in organi­
zational structure and safety leadership are similar to those of
Gunningham and Sinclair (2014). However, state audits and incentives,
improvements in basic rights and working conditions, and attaching
value to employees are unique to this study.
5.2.1. State Audits and Incentives
The role of state and other regulatory bodies is important to ensure
safety (He, Dong, Rose, Li, Yin, and Cao, 2016) and trust (Möllering and
Stache, 2010) within organizations. Many respondents emphasized the
importance of state-controlled safety audits in overcoming organiza­
tional distrust. In particular, some respondents described that messages,
audits, and even penalties issued by state and other regulatory bodies,
particularly how much they value safety and well-being of the workers
and they do whatever it takes to protect employee safety, may have a
greater influence on decreasing workers’ distrust. Specifically, a signif­
icant number of the respondents noted that state and regulatory bodies
are the major actors that would eliminate distrust because most workers
do not believe that their organizations will take safety measures without

8
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
external coercion or threat of sanctions. One of the OHS specialists noted
the importance of state audits as follows:
In Turkey, the state is everything! If someone will solve these problems
(meaning the high rates of accidents and deaths), it is the state. It regulates,
but does not control! It controls superficially. However, the fate of employees
is left to the discretion of the bosses. If an accident occurs, companies know
that they will get away with it. So far, it has always been like this. If the state
imposes dissuasive penalties on violators, companies will pay attention to
safety measures even if they do not want to!
Moreover, several respondents give examples of how government
incentives about encouraging workplace safety measures can eliminate
distrust. In detail, respondents gave several examples of providing
financial incentives, such as the abolition of taxes on workplace safety
equipment or offering financial rewards-privileges to organizations that
implement workplace safety programs, which may eliminate distrust by
enhancing the safety climate within the organization. In addition, re­
spondents highlighted that the status of the OHS specialist is another
important issue. In the current system, the salary of the OHS specialist is
paid by the company where he-she works, creating a dependence for
OHS specialists and limiting their independence in terms of fully
implementing workplace safety measures. Some respondents gave ex­
amples of how managers and bosses generally ask OHS specialists to do
minimum work, sign necessary papers, and not make changes that may
disrupt the current operation. Therefore, some respondents argued that
the status of the OHS specialists should be changed to increase their
independence and ability to perform their duties to get employees’ trust
back. One OHS specialist noted the following comments:
The OHS specialist is taking a salary from the boss! How come an OHS
specialist can say –Hey, this is wrong! We have to change it!- The moment
OHS specialist says this, the contract will be terminated. So, they act
accordingly. Workers also know this; they are not stupid. In my opinion, OHS
specialists must be employed by the state, rather than the organization they
work. Otherwise, employees will continue to be skeptical about the extent to
which their organization is really audited. And, skepticism brings distrust. It’s
that simple.
5.2.2. Improvements in basic rights and working environment
According to the respondents, improving employees’ basic rights and
working conditions can have a significant effect on eliminating distrust.
As discussed, the evidence from our sample shows a greater degree of
distrust is based on violations of transactional obligations and lack of
hygiene factors. Some respondents noted that improvements in basic
rights (e.g., wages and social security payments) and the working
environment should be performed. Respondents emphasized that em­
ployees may feel that their organization pays attention to their financial
well-being, at least does not violate their basic rights, and may reduce
distrust in return. One OHS specialist noted the importance of hygiene
factors as follows:
Think of this; you work under such bad conditions, I mean, bedrooms and
dining halls are so terrible that even animals do not eat or sleep there. At the
end of the day, you get a meager salary. Moreover, they do not pay your
social security as well. So, would you trust your company under these cir­
cumstances? If organizations want their employees to trust them, they first
improve basic rights. Employees should not think about whether they can get
their salary and question their working conditions’ appropriateness.
5.2.3. Improvements in Organizational Structure
Organizational structure may also have important effects on over­
coming distrust. Respondents reported that increasing the number of
professional managers, instead of family members, may positively affect
reducing distrust because workers will be more likely to perceive that
the management is competent to steer the organization, which is
consistent with Oreg and Sverdlik (2011). Moreover, respondents noted
a less hierarchical structure might lead to less distrust between em­
ployees and management, parallel to Gunningham and Sinclair’s (2014)
findings. In such a case, the ‘lines of communication’ would be more
9
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
open and efficient, and employees will be more likely to report safety
problems without having fear of exploitation and unfair treatment. Re­
spondents described that they want to see that workplace safety is sys­
tematically controlled and operated, rather than something taken care of
on occasion. Overall, these findings are consistent with organizational
distrust literature that highlights how hierarchical structures and lack of
communication nurture distrust, rather than trust (Kramer, 1996).
5.2.4. Company Safety Leadership
The role of leadership in developing trust is essential because it is the
senior management, who sets the priorities, determines the values, and
delivers the resources that extensively influence workplace safety. Par­
ticipants emphasized that senior management can shape employee
distrust to what extent they value employees’ safety and well-being
within the organization. This finding is consistent with Whitener
et al.’s (1998) finding of leaders’ role in nurturing trust within organi­
zations. Some respondents noted that they want to see senior manage­
ment’s commitment to safety practices. In general, this finding of safety
leadership is parallel to Conchie et al. (2006) finding of a good organi­
zational safety culture is based on good safety leadership, which pro­
motes shared values and commitment to an organization’s safety
policies. However, some respondents also described that senior man­
agement’s “so-called” commitment is just a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for the successful implementation of safety initiatives. It
should be supported with actual behaviors, such as open communica­
tion, employee participation, and not blaming employees when they
report a near-miss. Otherwise, distrust between senior management and
employees will maintain.
5.2.5. Attaching Value to Employees
In this dimension, participants emphasized that employers and
managers should attach value to employees and show how much they
care about their well-being. According to respondents, many employees
are dissatisfied with their organizations’ attitudes and the way they
behave. Some respondents provided some examples of how employees
are being ignored, despised, and treated like a material rather than
human beings, which causes them to distrust their organization.
Furthermore, other examples of how workers commonly faced with
abusive words, wrongful accusations, public insults and criticism, and
derogatory nicknames are also provided by respondents. To reverse this
situation, some respondents suggest that organizations should treat
employees with dignity, and recognize their social needs as well. Many
respondents noted that instead of seeing workers as a sort of material in
the production process, organizations should understand that they are
human beings with psychological needs. To overcome distrust, re­
spondents highlighted that organizations should respect their employees
and not avoid behaviors abusing them psychologically. In general, these
findings are consistent with organizational trust literature that empha­
size good intentions, goodwill, and treating with dignity and respect are
important features in developing of organizational trust (e.g., Tan and
Lim, 2009). One of the OHS specialists illustrates this situation as:
At the site, there is no respect for workers. For instance, when an engineer
or line manager comes, they don’t even recognize you. They just walk past as
if you’re not even there. You cannot hear ‘hey, hello, how are you’ or any­
thing like that. But those small things matter. The only time they notice you is
when they criticize something! Public criticism, including abusive words, is a
fairly common method. If they want to overcome distrust, they should first
understand that workers are human, too.
6. Discussion
Distrust research has been criticized for its limited theoretical
conceptualization and limited evidence of distrust formation in different
contexts, and the lower replication and validity of distrust measures are
reported in the research findings (see, McLeary and Cruise, 2015). To
address these concerns, this study aimed to understand how
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
organizational distrust is developed in a workplace safety context, and
how it might best be managed in a peripheral setting, namely Turkey.
The first research topic identified that the antecedents of organizational
distrust are parallel to those classified in the literature; however, there
are visible differences derived from the context. The framework devel­
oped by Mayer et al. (1995) is still a useful guide in determining the
antecedents of organizational distrust. This finding is also supported in
other studies (see Hodson, 2004; Schoorman et al., 2007; Gillespie and
Dietz, 2009). Opposite ends of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity, which
are respectively Incompetence, Malevolence, and Deceit of the organiza­
tion, seem to be essential aspects of organizational (dis)trustworthiness.
Furthermore, External factors appeared as an additional dimension of
distrust manifestations. The finding of external factors’ role in devel­
oping organizational distrust supports Sitkin and Roth’s (1993) argu­
ment that trust is best conceptualized as context-specific rather than
generalizable.
In terms of incompetence, Hodson (2004) noted that the competence
of management can be considered as a factor that provides predictability
and consistency in work life. Therefore, even though they do not have
direct control over the management processes, workers may want to
have competent management, providing a kind of predictability and
stability to some extent. This argument is parallel to our finding that lack
of professional managers, which is a unique condition to Turkey (Yıl­
dırım-Öktem and Üsdiken, 2010), fosters distrust because employees
consider that family-member managers are assigned to those positions
not because they are capable but because they are from the family. Thus,
workers’ sense of predictability for workplace safety is violated, and
distrust develops. Moreover, in high-reliability organizations, predict­
ability in work is much more important due to the higher costs of ac­
cidents (Pratt, Lepisto, and Dane, 2019). Consequently, working under
competent management becomes more crucial to overcome distrust.
Similarly, a previous accident that happened within the organization
also violates workers’ sense of having competent management. Specif­
ically, a previous accident that happened within the organization trig­
gers workers’ fear of a potential accident within the organization, and
again violates the sense of predictability and control on work life.
For malevolence, we found that lack of hygiene factors, job insecu­
rity, bad working conditions, and unfair treatment of workers cause
distrust. In a similar study, Gunningham and Sinclair (2011) examined
the characteristics associated with the formation of distrust in the
Australian mining industry. The authors found that the factors related to
the formation of distrust are: a catalytic event, a divided workforce,
mixed messages and inconsistent actions, a high turnover of senior
management, a closed management style, and a resentment of corporate
intervention. However, lack of hygiene factors, job insecurity, and bad
working conditions were not among the distrust antecedents for
Australian mine workers. The difference between our study and Gun­
ningham and Sinclair (2011) might be based on the fact that the hygiene
factors in Australia, which is a developed country, are no longer a
problem for workers. On the other hand, in Turkey, which is a devel­
oping country, manifestations of distrust are mainly based on the issues
related to lack of hygiene factors. Moreover, Wasti et al. (2011) also
found that, compared to Turkish employees, these material issues are
not a concern for Dutch employees’ distrust development. In Turkey,
these issues are generally left to organizations’ initiative, whereas wage
and working conditions are agreed through collective bargaining in
Australia and the Netherlands (Trampusch, 2006; Bray, Macneil, and
Spiess, 2019). In these countries, providing and maintaining employee
welfare has the top priority. Accordingly, the relationship between the
employee and the employer is regulated legally by the authorities so that
there is no situation that may adversely affect the physical and psy­
chological health of the employees. On the other hand, the social se­
curity system in Turkey is significantly less extensive compared to these
countries (Buğra and Keyder, 2006), and thus these material conditions
and job insecurity are at the discretion of the organization. Conse­
quently, compared to the developed Western work setting, material
10
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
conditions have an important role in employees’ distrust formation in
Turkey due to its unique institutional and social characteristics. In
Turkey, as a part of their psychological contract, employees may believe
that ensuring appropriate working conditions is the organization’s
obligation. As it is known, the psychological contract contains the em­
ployees’ beliefs about the mutual obligations between them and their
organizations. Unlike official contracts, the psychological contract
shows a perceptual quality; therefore, the parties’ understanding of the
contract may differ from each other (Robinson, 1996). Failure of the
organization to comply with workplace safety and hygiene obligations
may cause distrust in the organization as it will be considered a violation
of the psychological contract.
In addition to working and material conditions, echoing the exis­
tence of collectivist norms, lack of good treatment appears as an
important factor in distrust formation in the Turkish setting. Malevo­
lence manifestations also involve treating workers without dignity and
respect, ignoring, putting profit first rather than employee’s welfare,
and seeing them as materials or worthless assets. Personal relations are
quite important in collectivist cultures (Triandis, 1995), and the absence
of good relations causes employee distrust. In particular, even though
many organizations in Turkey are family firms, many respondents
complain that the working conditions are far away from being a family.
As a result, employees who feel distant from the organization experience
distrust.
Deceit antecedent is mainly based on the assessments related to
unfairness and non-dependability, such as not keeping promises, not
admitting errors, and not initiating alterations instantly. Gillespie and
Dietz (2009) emphasized that deceitful behaviors may undermine the
perception of trustworthiness. Similarly, it is found that purposefully
acting deceitfully leads to distrust among workers. Much of the existing
literature argues that deceitful behaviors intended to trick other parties
(see Oliveira and Lumineau, 2019). Likewise, it is found that high-
reliability organizations in Turkey take safety measures superficially,
mostly to convince regulatory and supervisory authorities, despite the
potential negative consequences of not taking these measures. More­
over, promise-breaking is found to be another deceit-based source of
distrust. This is consistent with the perception that trust is constructed
through keeping promises; otherwise, it will be destroyed due to a lack
of perceived integrity and lead to distrust (Jukka et al., 2017).
Lastly, external factors appeared as a fourth distrust dimension in our
study. In particular, respondents identified that high-reliability organiza­
tions themselves are highly dangerous, prevalent subcontracting in the envi­
ronment, and inadequacy of the state to prevent accidents and protect
workers are external elements fostering distrust among workers. Ac­
cording to our sample, many respondents emphasized that the sector
itself is highly dangerous, and work-related accidents are natural con­
sequences of operating in these highly risky industries. This might be
better understood by focusing on the fatalistic characteristics of Turkey
(e.g., Aycan, 2005). For instance, even state officers noted that it was in
the “fitrat8” of mining for workers to die in accidents9. Therefore, some
workers assume that accidents are inevitable, even though their orga­
nizations take safety measures properly. This conclusion is parallel to
the finding that employers with fatalistic beliefs see worker safety
measures as pointless because destiny cannot be intervened (Kiani and
Khodabakhsh, 2013). Therefore, regardless of their organizations’ atti­
tude toward safety, some workers distrust their organizations due to
their inherent belief about the nature of the industry. Moreover,
extensive subcontracting practice in the sector also causes distrust for
workers because they cannot identify their real employer. In some cases,
there might be numerous contractors and subcontractors in one project,
8
Means: Nature
9
https://www.counterpunch.
org/2014/05/19/the-toma-approach-to-the-soma-mining-massacre/ (access
date: 30.10.2019)
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
such as subcontractor of a subcontractor, and so on. Therefore, workers
cannot address their real respondents. Furthermore, the inadequacy of
state and regulatory bodies is highlighted by the respondents as a dis­
trusting factor. Echoing Zucker (1986), trust can be based on in­
stitutions, especially between actors who have no history of prior
interaction. Institutions are supposed to offer certainty through shared
rules and sanctions, replacing prior interpersonal experience or mem­
bership of the same group or class. Accordingly, employment relation­
ships between Turkish organizations and workers would benefit from a
reliable institutional context, but this is only possible if they assume that
those institutions are trustworthy (see Möllering, 2006; Möllering and
Stache, 2010). As long as institutions are sources of trust (Zucker, 1986),
an uncertain institutional setting will often hinder trust in business re­
lationships and may need to be compensated for by other ways of trust
development (Child and Möllering, 2003). According to our findings,
this is also valid for distrust development. As Möllering and Stache
(2010) noted, institutions influence the context and the basis for distrust
development, but actors and organizations also exercise agency in the
way they use, influence, or make up for them. In our study, this argu­
ment is supported, and it is seen that both organizations and institutions
shape the context and basis for distrust development.
In general, there are several important findings that signal the
possible effect of culture. Doney et al., (1998) noted that there are
certain cultural variations in the trust-building process. Specifically,
underlining the importance of collectivist norms in Turkey, Malevolence
appears as the most important element in distrust development (56,8%).
In addition, in the literature, the typical operationalization of affect-
based trust (e.g., McAllister, 1995) involves items mainly based on
workplace interactions, presumably based on the assumption that hy­
giene factors have already been solved and no longer an issue. However,
one of the most important findings of our study is the finding of the
noticeable influence of hygiene factors on the formation of organiza­
tional distrust. Furthermore, other different findings in our study,
compared to Gunningham and Sinclair (2011), are based on the in­
adequacy of the state to enforce workplace safety measures, organiza­
tional characteristics, such as being family-owned businesses, and
organizations’ deceitful behaviors such as pretending as if they are
taking workplace safety measures. These context-specific findings of this
study provide the support that the distrust changes in different organi­
zational settings and the meanings attributed to those dimensions are
influenced by cultural perceptions. As Tsui (2004) put, the major con­
tributors to the body of global management knowledge are scholars in
the developed economies of the U.S. and Western Europe, where the
concepts and theories are based on studies of wealthy Western firms
operating under liberal states that do not intervene in economic pro­
cesses often. On the contrary, our findings are indigenous to the eco­
nomic context and specific to this juncture of Turkey’s development
level. In particular, widespread family businesses, shortage of profes­
sional managers, lack of hygiene factors, and inadequacy of state and
regulatory bodies in terms of work safety are unique to the research
context and influence the manifestations of distrust. Thus, our findings
contribute to the lack of management studies from developing countries
in terms of enhancing our understanding of how distrust develops in
peripheral settings. Moreover, it is also found that these context unique
dimensions of distrust have a crucial role in both internalization and
implementation of workplace safety measures.
This brings us to our second research topic: How the negative conse­
quences of distrust best be overcome? The findings discussed above
recommend specific strategies to eliminate distrust and, in turn, yields
better safety performance. According to our content analysis, these
strategies are, respectively, state audits and incentives, company safety
leadership, improvements in basic rights and working environment, im­
provements in organizational structure, and attaching value to employees.
Some of these factors are so important that overcoming distrust in their
absence is almost impossible. According to our research, the most
important and context unique factor is the prominence of the state. The
11
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
ratio of the role of the state is considerably higher than other factors,
particularly with respect to imposing control on organizations in terms
of applying workplace safety measures. Kujala, Lehtimäki, and Pučėtaitė
(2016) noted that unreliable public institutions can result in distrusting
attitudes and respective behavior for individuals. Thus, in order to
eliminate distrust in workplace safety settings, the state should take
important actions. Interestingly, the inadequacy of the state to prevent
accidents and protect workers as a distrust antecedent is relatively less
emphasized by the respondents, whereas the role of the state on over­
coming distrust is the most frequently highlighted factor by the re­
spondents. This conclusion is different from prior studies. For instance,
in a similar study, Gunningham and Sinclair (2014) found that mine-site
leadership, the capacity to overcome middle management inertia, flatter
structures, decentralized decision-making and rotating shifts, worker
buy-in, and effective communication are the essential ways of nurturing
trust among workers. However, the roles of state and improved hygiene
factors on eliminating distrust among workers are not mentioned by the
authors. This might be derived from the socio-economic characteristics
of the Turkish context. As discussed before, in Turkey, issues such as
wages and social security are left to organizations’ discretion, and the
state is still the dominant actor in shaping the business environment in
Turkey (Buğra, 1994). Therefore, respondents may assume that instead
of waiting for organizations to take action in terms of creating a safe
environment, the state’s taking action on workplace safety might lead to
more fundamental and positive solutions.
Another important strategy for overcoming distrust is based on
corporate safety leadership. As the role of senior management in
creating trust is crucial, it is concluded that senior management should
tailor the priorities, set policies, and provide the necessary resources
that significantly form workplace safety. For instance, prior studies (e.g.,
Conchie et al., 2012; Hoffmeister et al., 2014) found that trans­
formational leadership has a positive effect on employees’ internaliza­
tion of workplace safety behaviors. As a result of effective safety
leadership executed by the management, workers might believe that
their organization values their safety and wellbeing, and thus, workers
might not experience distrust. These results are similar to the studies of
Conchie et al. (2006) and Gunningham and Sinclair (2014). In partic­
ular, good organizational safety culture is generally based on good safety
leadership, stimulating shared values, and commitment to an organi­
zation’s safety policies (Burt, Williams, and Wallis, 2012). However,
unlike these studies, we also found that safety leadership is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for the accomplishment of workplace
safety and overcoming distrust. According to our findings, without state
coercion, workers perceive almost all safety leadership actions with
doubt because workers generally see their organization as opportunistic
entities, and think they will deceive themselves at the first opportunity.
Improving basic rights (e.g., wage and social security) and working
environment (e.g., dining halls and dormitories) is another way of
overcoming employee distrust. Similar to our finding in the antecedents
of organizational distrust, respondents, again emphasized the impor­
tance of improvements in basic rights and working environment. As
discussed before, offering financially satisfying wages, providing job
security, and improvements in the working environment might lead
employees to perceive that their organization values their well-being,
thereby overcoming distrust.
According to our sample, another important factor to overcome
distrust is based on attaching value to employees because of the
collectivist nature of the research setting. Specifically, we found that
Turkish respondents’ manifestations of distrust repair are largely based
on intimacy, being respected, being appreciated, good-treatment, and
better interpersonal relations. Moreover, being fair to workers is also
essential to overcome distrust. According to Saunders and Thornhill
(2004), interactional justice, which refers to the fairness of interpersonal
treatment one receives from others, has a key role in developing
workers’ perceptions of fairness, promoting trust through their benev­
olent treatment of employees. We found that organizations may promote
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Table 4
Relationship between Distrust Antecedents and Practices to Manage Distrust
policies that will positively influence employees’ perception of inter­
personal justice, such as showing respect to employees, acknowledging
their being, giving positive feedback, and establishing good communi­
cation in order to eliminate distrust.
Lastly, alterations in organizational structure may have important
effects on overcoming distrust. The majority of the respondents noted
that designing an organizational structure, which considers occupa­
tional safety as the primary element, is crucial to overcome distrust. In
order to design such a structure, it is important to decrease hierarchy
and increase worker participation. Moreover, most of the respondents in
our sample emphasized the importance of replacing family-member
managers with professional managers. Specifically, family SMEs
constitute a significant amount of businesses in Turkey. For example,
statistics show that 90% of businesses in Turkey are family firms (Çal­
ışkan, 2014). Consequently, the number of family-member managers in
Turkish firms is considerably higher. In our study, this fact creates
distrust because workers assume that the value attached to safety is
dependent on the family members’ discretion. In order to overcome this
issue, the number of professional managers, who have the technical
expertise and a more professional point of view to the issue, should be
increased within the firms. Therefore, employees might be more likely to
assume that their safety is not left to the family-member managers’
discretion.
Furthermore, even though there are certain etic (universal) charac­
teristics of trust and distrust development, prior studies (Conchie and
Burns, 2009; Conchie et al., 2011; Gunningham and Sinclair, 2011;
2014) and subsequent work on distrust in safety context mainly reflect
the individualistic and wealthy nature of the Western business envi­
ronment and take the organizational settings as a predominant condition
that limits the relevance of the socio-economic aspects of trust and
distrust relations. On the other hand, specifically in collectivist and
developing countries contexts, work settings and relations are assumed
to involve higher importance on economic and relational components
(Triandis, 1995; Wasti et al., 2011). In this vein, our study also con­
tributes to the literature by demonstrating that the manifestations of
distrust may have different aspects depending on the study context.
Finally, this study contributes to the literature by investigating distrust
formation in a peripheral context, namely Turkey, (Üsdiken, 2014). By
doing so, rather than relying on the accepted view of how (dis)trust
emerges in the Western context, where different socio-economic factors
are at play, this study performs an inductive approach to reveal and
12
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
understand the factors of distrust.
7. Managerial Implications
It can be argued that organizations have many areas of action in
terms of managing organizational distrust. From this point of view, we
developed a diagram demonstrating the relationship between distrust
antecedents and practices to overcome distrust (Table 4). Firstly, the
elimination of deficiencies in monetary and social rights, providing job
security to employees, improving the work environment, respecting the
employees can be effective in eliminating the malevolence-based
distrust of the employees. Rather than pretending that safety measures
are taken, the safety measures’ actual fulfillment and developing an
organizational structure that takes workplace safety as the top priority
are more important to eliminate both incompetence-based distrust and
deceit-based distrust. Safety leadership of the organizations may also
have a positive impact on decreasing both incompetence-based distrust
and malevolence-based distrust. Specifically, providing safety training
and commitment of the managers to workplace safety may signal that
the organization takes the issue of safety seriously and values em­
ployees’ well-being, which is related to a more benevolent approach.
Furthermore, safety training may also increase the level of skills and
abilities of workers and managers, which then may overcome
incompetence-based distrust. On the other hand, organizations have
limited power in the areas outside their control, such as state and reg­
ulatory agencies. Nevertheless, it can be aimed to eliminate the factors
that cause distrust by pressuring the regulatory institutions in the
medium-long term. State audits and incentives will eliminate deceit-
based distrust because organizations will not be able to deceive inter­
nal and external stakeholders anymore. Moreover, employees will also
assume that the state and the other regulatory institutions will act
objectively, and a trustworthy institutional context would offer certainty
through shared rules and sanctions, replacing distrust.
8. Limitations and Further Research
Relying on a qualitative methodology, our results should be assessed
by the possibility of certain biases inherent to such research design. For
instance, inherent to the nature of the content analysis, generalizability
is an important concern (Krippendorff, 2018). Thus, it is important to
keep in mind that our results are more exploratory than generalizable.
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Moreover, in-depth interviews, instead of on-line questionnaires might
be more useful to obtain richer data about distrust formation as well.
Specifically, interviews with line workers in high-reliability organiza­
tions may provide richer data as well. Additionally, another qualitative
method, namely, the critical incident technique, which asks participants
to note a real-life event about distrust formation, might yield richer
insights (Münscher and Kühlmann, 2012). Thus, future studies may
apply these methods to reduce biases in our study. Another future
research idea is based on quantitative confirmation of the findings in this
study. As a next step, further researchers might focus on testing the
distrust antecedents obtained in this study by relying on more robust
methodologies, such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, to
test the generalizability of the findings. Last but not least, our study is
mainly limited to three industries, which are shipbuilding, construction,
and mining. Therefore, future studies focusing on cross-industry or even
cross-national comparisons might reveal other important contextual and
cultural differences as well.
Conflicts of interest
There are no funding information or conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all our respondents for sharing their expe­
riences and time with us. Some parts of this paper were presented at the
19th European Academy of Management (EURAM) Conference, 2019,
Lisbon, Portugal, ISSN 2466-7498, and ISBN 978-2-9602195-1-7 and
Global Conference on Business and Economics, 2019, İstanbul, Turkey,
ISBN 978-1-7321275-5-5. We wish to thank Mehmet Erçek, İdil V.
Evcimen, Gürkan Emre Gürcanlı, Özlem Öktem Yıldırım, Cemil Ozan
Soydemir, and the reviewers of the conferences for their insightful
comments and suggestions. We are grateful to the reviewers and editors
of Safety Science, whose valuable comments have done much to help us
improve the article. We, however, accept sole responsibility for any
remaining errors.
References
Aycan, Z., 2005. The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural
contingencies in human resource management practices. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 16 (7), 1083–1119.
Baker, D.P., Day, R., Salas, E., 2006. Teamwork as an essential component of high-
reliability organizations. Health services research 41, 1576–1598.
Bigley, G.A., Pearce, J.L., 1998. Straining for shared meaning in organization science:
Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review 23 (3), 405–421.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Sitkin, S.B., Weibel, A., 2015. Distrust in the balance: The
emergence and development of intergroup distrust in a court of law. Organization
Science 26 (4), 1018–1039.
Bluhm, D.J., Harman, W., Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., 2011. Qualitative research in
management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies 48 (8),
1866–1891.
Bray, M., Macneil, J., Spiess, L., 2019. Unions and collective bargaining in Australia in
2018. Journal of Industrial Relations 61 (3), 357–381.
Buğra, A., 1994. State and business in modern Turkey: A comparative study. State
University of New York Press, New York.
Buğra, A., Keyder, Ç., 2006. The Turkish welfare regime in transformation. Journal of
European Social Policy 16 (3), 211–228.
Burt, C.D., Williams, S., Wallis, D., 2012. New recruit safety expectations: Relationships
with trust and perceived job risk. Safety Science 50 (4), 1079–1084.
Çalışkan, B.Ö.Ö., 2014. Occupational health and safety in SMEs: Overview as a part of
management system. In: Machado, C., Melo, P. (Eds.), Effective human resources
management in small and medium enterprises: Global perspectives. Hershey, PA,
Business Science Reference, pp. 167–182.
Camblor, M.P., Alcover, C.M., 2019. Integrating distrust antecedents and consequences
in organizational life. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 35 (1), 17–26.
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.P., Meindl, J.R., 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The
cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review 23
(2), 285–304.
Child, J., Möllering, G., 2003. Contextual confidence and active trust development in the
Chinese business environment. Organization Science 14 (1), 69–80.
Cho, J., 2006. The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational
outcomes. Journal of Retailing. 82, 25–35.
Clark, M.C., Payne, R., 1997. The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 18, 205–224.
Clarke, S., Ward, K., 2006. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in
engaging employee’s safety participation. Risk Analysis 26, 1175–1185.
13
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A., 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4), 909–927.
Conchie, S.M., Burns, C., 2009. Improving occupational safety: Using a trusted
information source to communicate about risk. Journal of Risk Research 12 (1),
13–25.
Conchie, S.M., Donald, I.J., 2008. The functions and development of safety-specific trust
and distrust. Safety Science 46 (1), 92–103.
Conchie, S.M., Donald, I.J., Taylor, P.J., 2006. Trust: Missing piece(s) in the safety
puzzle. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 1097–1104.
Conchie, S.M., Taylor, P.J., Charlton, A., 2011. Trust and distrust in safety leadership:
mirror reflections? Safety Science 49 (8–9), 1208–1214.
Conchie, S.M., Taylor, P.J., Donald, I.J., 2012. Promoting safety voice with safety-
specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17 (1), 105–115.
Conchie, S.M., Woodcock, H.E., Taylor, P.J., 2015. Safety and Productivity. In: Clarke, S.,
Probst, T.M., Guldenmund, F., Passmore, J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of
the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health. Blackwell, Malden
MA, pp. 111–132.
Connelly, B.L., Miller, T., Devers, C.E., 2012. Under a cloud of suspicion: Trust, distrust,
and their interactive effect in interorganizational contracting. Strategic Management
Journal 33, 820–833.
Cox, S., Jones, B., Rycraft, H., 2004. Behavioural approaches to safety management
within UK reactor plants. Safety Science 42 (9), 825–839.
Currall, S., Epstein, M., 2003. The fragility of organizational trust: Lessons from the rise
and fall of Enron. Organizational Dynamics 32 (2), 193–206.
Dasgupta, P., 1988. Trust as a Commodity. In: Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and
Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge MA, pp. 49–72.
Deutsch, M., 1958. Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 265–279.
Dimoka, A., 2010. What does the Brain Tell Us about Trust and Distrust? Evidence from a
Functional Neuroimaging Study. MIS Quarterly 34 (2), 373–396.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., Mullen, M.R., 1998. Understanding the influence of national
culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review 23 (3),
601–620.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., Pfarrer, M.D., 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis
literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and
methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods 10 (1), 5–34.
Ercan, A., 2010. Türkiye’de Yapı Sektöründe I˙şçi Sağlığı ve Güvenliğinin
Değerlendirilmesi (Assessment of the Occupational Health and Safety in
Construction Sector in Turkey). Politeknik Dergisi 13 (1), 49–51.
Erdem, F., Özen-Aytemur, J., 2014. Context-specific dimensions of trust in manager,
subordinate and co-worker in organizations. Journal of Arts and Humanities 3 (10),
28–40.
Fleming, M., Lardner, R., 2001. Behaviour Modification to Improve Safety: A Review of
the Literature. HSE Books, Suffolk.
Fulmer, C.A., Gelfand, M.J., 2012. At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across
multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management 38, 1167–1230.
Fulmer, C.A., Gelfand, M.J., 2013. How do I trust thee? Dynamic trust patterns and their
individual and social contextual determinants. In: Models for intercultural
collaboration and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 97–131.
Gefen, D., 2002. Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online
consumers. ACM SIGMIS Database 33 (3), 38–53.
Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M., Aycan, Z., 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual.
Review of Psychology 58, 479–514.
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of
Management Review 34, 127–145.
Guest G, Bunce and Johnson L (2006), How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59-82.
Gunia, B.C., Kim, S.H., Sutcliffe, K., 2017. Trust in safety-critical contexts. In: Searle, R.
H., Niennaber, A.M.I., Sitkin, S.B. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Trust. Taylor
and Francis, New York, pp. 423–437.
Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D., 2011. A cluster of mistrust: safety in the mining industry.
Journal of Industrial Relations 5, 450–466.
Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D., 2014. Building trust: work health and safety management
in the mining industry. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 12 (1), 35–51.
Guo, S.L., Lumineau, F., Lewicki, R.J., 2017. Revisiting the foundations of organizational
distrust. Foundations and Trends in Management 1, 1–88.
Gurcanli, G.E., Bilir, S., Sevim, M., 2015. Activity based risk assessment and safety cost
estimation for residential building construction projects. Safety Science 80, 1–12.
He, Q., Dong, S., Rose, T., Li, H., Yin, Q., Cao, D., 2016. Systematic impact of institutional
pressures on safety climate in the construction industry. Accident Analysis &
Prevention 93, 230–239.
Hodson, R., 2004. Organizational trustworthiness: Findings from the population of
organizational ethnographies. Organization Science 15 (4), 432–445.
Hoffmeister, K., Gibbons, A., Johnson, M., Cigularov, S.K., Chen, K.P., Rosecrance, J.C.,
2014. The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee
safety. Safety Science 62, 68–78.
Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research 15 (9), 1277–1288.
Jeffcott, S., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A., Walls, J., 2006. Risk, trust, and safety culture in UK
train operating companies. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 105–1121.
Jukka, M., Blomqvist, K., Li, P., Gan, C., 2017. Trust-distrust balance: Trust ambivalence
in Sino-Western B2B relationships. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 24 (3),
482–507.
C. Gümüştaş and F. Küskü
Kath, L.M., Magley, V.J., Marmet, M., 2010. The role of organizational trust in safety
climate’s influence on organizational outcomes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42
(5), 1488–1497.
Kiani, F., Khodabakhsh, M.R., 2013. The relationship between safety climate with
fatalism and perceived helplessness among workers: Implication for health
promotion. Journal of Community Health Research 2 (3), 196–207.
Kramer RM (1996), Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the
hierarchical relation, trust and intuitive auditor at work. In: Kramer R M and Tyler T
R (eds). Trust in organisations: frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage: 216.
Krippendorff, K., 2018. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage
Publications, London.
Kujala, J., Lehtimäki, H., Pučėtaitė, R., 2016. Trust and distrust constructing unity and
fragmentation of organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics 139 (4),
701–716.
Küskü, F., 1999. Yöneten-Yönetilen İlişkisinde Güven: Ampirik Bir İnceleme. (Trust in
Manager-Subordinate Relationship. An Empirical Study) Amme İdaresi Dergisi 32 (1),
135–151.
Lewicki, R.J., Brinsfield, C., 2015. Trust research: Measuring trust beliefs and
behaviours. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M.N.K. (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods on trust. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 46–64.
Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B., 1996. Trust in relationships: A model of trust development
and decline. In: Bunker, B.B., Rubin, J.Z. (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice.
Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 133–175.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., Bies, R.J., 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review 23, 438–458.
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E., Gillespie, N., 2006. Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.
Journal of Management 32, 991–1022.
Liu, S.X., Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., Zhu, Y.Q., 2020. Multiple mediating effects in the
relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety
participation behavior. Safety Science 125, 104611.
Lowry, P.B., Wilson, D.W., Haig, W.L., 2014. A picture is worth a thousand words: Source
credibility theory applied to logo and website design for heightened credibility and
consumer trust. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30 (1),
63–93.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M.N., 2015. Introduction. Researching trust: the
ongoing challenge of matching objectives and methods. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G.,
Saunders, M.N.K. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 1–22.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., 1995. An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 709–734.
McAllister, D.J., 1995. Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38, 24–59.
McKnight, D.H., Kacmar, C.J., Choudhury, V., 2004. Dispositional trust and distrust
distinctions in predicting high-and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions.
E-Service 3 (2), 35–58.
McLeary, C.N., Cruise, P.A., 2015. A context-specific model of organizational trust. Cross
Cultural Management 22 (2), 297–320.
Meyer, K.E., 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 23 (2), 119–137.
Möllering, G., 2006. Trust, Institutions, Agency: Towards a Neoinstitutional Theory of
Trust. In: Bachmann, R., Zaheer, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Trust Research. Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 355–376.
Möllering, G., Stache, F., 2010. Trust development in German-Ukrainian business
relationships: dealing with cultural differences in an uncertain institutional context.
In: Skinner, D., Dietz, G., Gillespie, N., Lewicki, R. (Eds.), Saunders M. Cambridge
University Press, Organizational trust. A Cultural Perspective. Cambridge,
pp. 205–226.
Moody, G.D., Galletta, D.F., Lowry, P.B., 2014. When trust and distrust collide online:
The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13 (4), 266–282.
Münscher, R., Kühlmann, T.M., 2012. Using critical incident technique in trust research.
In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M.N.K. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods
on trust. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 210–222.
Noorderhaven, N.G., 1999. National culture and the development of trust: The need for
more data and less theory. Academy of Management Review 24 (1), 9–10.
Oreg, S., Sverdlik, N., 2011. Ambivalence toward imposed change: The conflict between
dispositional resistance to change and the orientation toward the change agent.
Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (2), 337–349.
Oliveira, N., Lumineau, F., 2019. The dark side of interorganizational relationships: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management 45 (1), 231–261.
Pilbeam, C., Denyer, D., Doherty, N., Davidson, R., 2019. Designing safer working
interventions through a literature review using a mechanisms-based approach.
Safety Science 120, 352–361.
Pratt, M.G., Lepisto, D.A., Dane, E., 2019. The hidden side of trust: Supporting and
sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters. Administrative Science Quarterly 64 (2),
398–434.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531–544.
Robinson, S.L., 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
science quarterly 41 (4), 574–599.
Rousseau, D.M., Fried, Y., 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing
organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22, 1–13.
14
Safety Science 134 (2021) 105032
Saunders, M.N.K., Thornhill, A., 2004. Trust and Mistrust in Organizations: An
Exploration Using an Organizational Justice Framework. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 13 (4), 493–515.
Saunders, M.N.K., Dietz, G., Thornhill, A., 2014. Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or
independent and co-existing? Human Relations 67, 639–665.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., 2007. An integrative model of organizational
trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review 32, 344–354.
Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., 2006. It is not all about trust-the role of distrust in inter-
organizational relationships. In: Centric, Network (Ed.), Camarinha-Matos L,
Afsarmanesh H and Ollus M. Collaboration and Supporting Framewors. Boston,
Springer, MA, pp. 181–188.
Sitkin, S.B., Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M., 2018. Distrust. In: Searle, R.H., Niennaber, A.M.I.,
Sitkin, S.B. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Trust. Taylor and Francis, New York,
pp. 50–61.
Sitkin, S.B., Roth, N.L., 1993. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies”
for trust/distrust. Organization Science 4, 367–392.
Tan, H.H., Chee, D., 2005. Understanding interpersonal trust in a Confucian-influenced
society: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management 5
(2), 197–212.
Tan, H.H., Lim, A.K., 2009. Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of
Psychology 143 (1), 45–66.
Tharaldsen, J.E., Mearns, K.J., Knudsen, K., 2010. Perspectives on safety: The impact of
group membership, work factors and trust on safety performance in UK and
Norwegian drilling company employees. Safety Science 48 (8), 1062–1072.
Tillmar, M., 2015. Cross-cultural comparative case studies: a means of uncovering
dimensions of trust. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, N.K. (Eds.), Handbook of
Research Methods on Trust. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 102–109.
Trampusch, C., 2006. Industrial relations and welfare states: the different dynamics of
retrenchment in Germany and the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy 16
(2), 121–133.
Triandis, H.C., 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Tsui, A.S., 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality
indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 21, 491–513.
Tyler, T.R., 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and
Justice 30, 283–357.
Üsdiken, B., 2014. Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in
‘Top’US Journals and their European Alternatives, 1960–2010. Journal of
Management Studies 51 (5), 764–789.
Vlaar, P.W., Van den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., 2007. On the evolution of trust,
distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships:
Toward an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management 32 (4),
407–428.
Wasti, A.S., Erdaş, K.D., Dural Şenoğuz, U., 2013. Örgüte güvensizlik: kültürlerarası nitel
bir çalışma (Distrust in organization: a qualitative cross-cultural study). METU
Studies in Development 40 (3), 525–552.
Wasti, S.A., Tan, H.H., Erdil, S.E., 2011. Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative
study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review 7 (2), 279–302.
Wasti, S.A., Tan, H.H., Brower, H.H., Onder, C., 2007. Cross-cultural measurement of
supervisor trustworthiness: An assessment of measurement invariance across three
cultures. Leadership Quarterly 18 (5), 477–489.
Welter, F., Alex, N., 2015. Researching trust in different cultures. In: Lyon, F.,
Möllering, G., Saunders, N.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods on Trust.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 50–60.
Whetten, D.A., 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory
applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization
Review 5 (1), 29–56.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., Werner, J.M., 1998. Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review 23 (3), 513–530.
Yıldırım-Öktem, Ö., Üsdiken, B., 2010. Contingencies versus external pressure:
professionalization in boards of firms affiliated to family business groups in late-
industrializing countries. British Journal of Management 21 (1), 115–130.
Zacharatos A, Barling and Iverson JD (2005), High performance work systems and
workplace safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 90:77-90.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., Iverson, R.D., 2005. High-performance work systems and
occupational safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (1), 77. ISO 690.
Zohar, D., 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve sub-unit safety: A
leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 156–163.
Zucker, L.G., 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure,
1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior 8, 53–111.
Cihangir Gümüştaş is currently a research assistant and Ph.D. student at Graduate School
of Arts and Social Sciences at Istanbul Technical University. His research focuses on
organizational trust, distrust, occupational health and safety, and cross-cultural organi­
zational behaviour.
Fatma Küskü is currently a professor of management in the Faculty of Management at
Istanbul Technical University. Her research interest are different aspects of Human
Resource Management such as organizational trust, satisfaction of employees, employ­
ment interview process, career choice and social responsibility subjects including corpo­
rate citizenship and corporate environmental citizenship. She has published in several
academic journals including the British Journal of Management; Gender, Work and Organi­
zation, Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Human Resource Management and
Career Development International.