Socializing Employees’ Trust in the Organization: An Exploration of

Apprentices’ Socialization in Two Highly Trusted Companies

Abstract

We present here our investigation into how corporate employers deliberately seek to

foster and build employees’ trust in the organization through socialization tactics.

Interestingly enough, such deliberate development of employees’ trust in the

organization has hitherto rarely been addressed in academic research. Using

qualitative case study research methods, we have closely observed the trust

socialization process experienced by entrant employees, namely apprentices in two

separate and highly trusted German companies. Our findings are consistent with

former trust socialization research in that they indicate the importance of high levels

of perceived organizational support and of a convincing communication of

organizational values and principles. However, our research emphasizes further

aspects of trust socialization, such as psychological empowerment, the efficacy of

formal organizational rules, and especially sensegiving activities.

Introduction

Upon examination of the overwhelming volume of trust-related academic writing, it is

striking how few scholars have investigated employees’ trust in their employing

organization . Instead, most literature focuses either upon trust within or between

organizations. Whereas the former examines interpersonal trust between group

members , workplace relationships or leaders and followers , the latter focuses upon

a relatively impersonal trust, especially between partner companies within strategic

1
alliances . What is missing from these perspectives is a focus on employees’ trust in

their employing organization as an abstract entity. We consider this aspect of trust to

be highly relevant for human resource management, and thus our research seeks to

provide the missing focus upon the socialization processes whereby organizations

seek to foster and develop employees’ trust in the organization itself.

According to existing definitions, employees’ trust in the organization describes

positive expectations that their employer will behave in a competent, beneficial and

just manner towards them . Evidence for such employer behavior can be obtained

from internal organizational rules, routines and procedures, or by observing the

behavior of typical representatives of the organization . Since the recipient of trust is

the impersonal organization itself, rather than particular individuals within the

organization, trust is given to an abstract system and thus cannot be observed in the

same way as interpersonal trust behavior. However, although organizational trust

levels might well be somewhat intangible, they have behavioral consequences (i.e.

trusting behavior) as well. Such observable behaviors include specific employee

interaction with other organizational members, resulting solely from their shared

corporate membership. In our perspective we look at trust in the organization as a

generalized and collectively shared expectation that other members of the

organization can basically be trusted.

Despite the shortage of empirical research into the organizational outcomes of

employees’ trust in their employer, it can be deduced from trust research in general

that employees’ trust in the organization improves work force commitment and

motivation , which in turn leads to a positive attitude towards organizational

2
citizenship behavior and to better fulfillment of psychological contracts . Given these

positive outcomes, it would logically follow that building up employees’ trust in the

organization is an important managerial task. Therefore, closer research into

socialization policies which could be employed by organizations to develop

employees’ trust in their employer, is surely of high relevance. Since socialization

policies are complex and consist of a wide range of procedures and tactics, which

may only work in combination, we have chosen to conduct an explorative case study

designed to detect and analyze patterns of trust socializing mechanisms. Our aim is

to achieve a better understanding of exactly which key elements in organizational

trust socialization are most essential and effective. Our qualitative research

methodology is theoretically informed but empirically explorative, since we are not

aiming to test for causal effects, but to elaborate potential causal mechanisms . Our

paper proceeds as follows: (1) we clarify the theoretical background of our study by

briefly reviewing and integrating the literature on employees’ trust in the organization

and socialization; (2) we present the methods and findings of our qualitative empirical

research; (3) we discuss the implications of our study and its limitations.

Theoretical background

According to existing literature on trust in general , there are two basic building

blocks that form employees’ trust in the organization. One is the trustworthiness of

the organization and the other is the propensity to trust on the employees’ side. Both

elements are intertwined and determine the level of employees’ trust in their

organization. First, there is a moderating effect between trustworthiness and trust

propensity, i.e., even if a party’s trustworthiness is generally acknowledged, a

specific person might nevertheless lack trust for it, due to an intrinsically low

3
propensity to trust . Second, both sensitivity towards signals of trustworthiness, and

the likelihood of attributing trustworthiness, also varies according to individual trust

propensity .

Because the propensity to trust is commonly considered to be a feature of a stable

personal disposition, and to mean a general (but not susceptible) willingness to trust ,

the perception of organizational trustworthiness has received research focus and is

seen as being the decisive factor influencing employees’ trust in the organization .

Sources of trustworthiness

In their seminal paper, Mayer et al. differentiated between three sources of trust

(ability, integrity and benevolence), which served as criteria to assess the other

party’s trustworthiness. Depending on the source of trustworthiness, trust is

commonly examined as competence-based, integrity-based, or goodwill trust .

Because it helps to explain the process whereby one party assesses another party’s

trustworthiness, attribution theory is very promising and has attracted much attention

in recent trust research .

In general, attribution theory focuses on individuals’ causal inferences from observed

events or behaviors. In this view, individuals are regarded as naïve psychologists ,

who usually make such causal inferences relatively quickly; despite it being based on

very limited information. In this account, “shortcuts”, which rely on just a few

accordant signals, are commonly used in the attributions process . In relation to trust,

specific events or behaviors are seen as being either positive or negative signals for

trustworthiness, according to implicit trust theories held by the “trusters”.

4
Subsequently, socialization strategies can be viewed as attempts to provide such

trust-sensitive signals on an organizational level.

Following an attribution theory perspective, it is ultimately an empirical question to

establish which precise signals typically lead to the attribution of trustworthiness.

However, on a more abstract level, typical attribution mechanisms can be deduced.

The most salient one is the so-called locus of causality, which means that the

explanation of an observed behavior or an event can basically be seen as originating

from internal or external causes . Whereas the former focuses on inside reasons,

lying within persons or organizations, the latter focuses on factors outside

(environment). Following Tomlinson and Mayer for attributions of trustworthiness in

general, it is necessary that the locus of causality be considered to be internal. Thus,

socialization measures must be seen as being intended by the organization rather

than resulting from individual preferences of managers or trainers (external factor in

this case). Referring to the co-variation model of Kelley , the likeliness of internal

attributions is especially high, when the so-called consensus and distinctiveness of

the observed behavior are low while the consistency is high. Applying this model to

socialization tactics, they have to be considered as being unusual compared to other

organizations (low consensus), employed to different kind of employees (low

distinctiveness) and regularly repeated in similar situations (high consistency) to

enhance the likeliness of internal attributions. Bearing these typical attribution

processes in mind, the question arises as to exactly how organizations can make use

of these findings to positively influence employees’ attributions of organizational

trustworthiness through appropriate signals .

5
Organizational socialization

Organizational socialization is defined as a process by which newcomers acquire the

social knowledge and skills they need to assume an organizational role and to be

accepted as organizational members. It describes a social learning process which

above all entails the learning of cultural values and norms that allow “correct”

interpretation of what goes on at the workplace . Research in organizational

socialization has identified “organizational tactics” and “newcomer pro-activity” as the

basic factors of organizational socialization, which in interaction are considered to

induce newcomer adjustment . Whereas organizational tactics aim to structure

experience, newcomer pro-activity emphasizes mechanisms of self-socialization (e.g.

information seeking, relationship building). Thereby, organizational socialization

occurs within the anxiety-producing context of being “the new entrants”. Since

newcomers do not possess comfortable routines for interacting with other

organizational members and are not sure what is expected from them they are likely

to face a “reality shock” when they first encounter novel work circumstances .

Subsequently, successful integration into a new organizational context is by no

means a self-runner, but requires active support. In this respect, effective

socialization of newcomers is an important task of human resource management .

Even though quite similar outcomes of effective socialization and relationships of

high trust have been proposed , organizational socialization itself has rarely been

integrated into trust research. One exception is the study of Six and Sorge , which

explicitly include (amongst other organizational policies) socialization processes.

Their findings suggest that, in high-trust organizations, newcomers should be a)

introduced to the vision, mission values and principles of the organization, b) taught

6
the common language of the organization, c) intensively supported by a close

mentoring and d) monitored on the basis of values and norms .

Our study draws on these first findings and aims to further enhance our

understanding of trust-building socialization processes. Accordingly, we exclusively

examine socialization policies in order to get a more detailed and in-depth picture in

all its complexity. In terms of an analytical generalization , we are attempting to

explore which basic socialization components are, in combination, essential for trust

socialization.

To sum up our theoretical considerations and to illustrate our particular research

focus, Figure 1 shows the suggested relationships between the main variables

discussed above. Our study focuses on socialization policies, which are aimed at

fostering employees’ trust in the organization. In doing so we needed to choose

companies with already-existing high internal organizational trust levels, so that we

could proceed upon the assumption of a positive relationship between organizational

socialization, the attribution of organizational trustworthiness and employees’ trust in

organization.

=== put figure one here======

Method

7
We have chosen to adopt an explorative qualitative case study design based on two

cases. As mentioned above, we are aiming at theory elaboration and not at theory

testing. In order to determine what kind of socialization policies may enhance

newcomers’ trust in the organization, three groups of organizational members were

expected to be of particular relevance for delivering meaningful information:

newcomers, supervisors of newcomers and organizational members responsible for

the socialization policies.

At first we decided to look at a special category of newcomer - namely, apprentices.

The focus upon apprentices seemed to us to be particularly instructive for at least

three reasons: (1) The socialization process of apprentices is relatively well thought

out and formalized. Apprentices in the context of the German dual education system

are expected to become highly skilled workers after a usually three-year combination

of in-school and in-firm vocational training. (2) Apprentices are an investment in the

future, which makes their successful long-term integration an important task and puts

deliberate socialization efforts on the agenda. (3) Apprentices are typically

undergoing their first work experience and are especially prone to be influenced by

deliberate socialization measures. Subsequently, the focus on apprentices makes the

perspective of their direct instructors especially informative. Instructors in the German

system are in charge of the entire process of apprenticeship and usually accompany

their apprentices for the entire three years. Thus, we decided to appraise their

perspective in addition to that of the apprentices. Finally we integrated the

department heads into our study. The department heads of apprenticeship are

responsible for an effective socialization process in the organization and have to

conceptualize the respective socialization policies. Bringing together these three

8
different kinds of perspective on the socialization process we have tried to get a

reliable picture how the socialization process actually occurs in real organizational

life.

Case selection

Our case selection relied on two criteria: First, they should be presumed highly

trusted companies, as we expected highly trusted companies to be especially

revelatory for the exploration of trust related socialization processes. Second, we

wanted the cases to be diverse in regard to the growth rate in apprentice intake to be

socialized. Since a growing or respectively a consistent number of apprentices may

influence the course of the socialization process and the type of tactics being used,

we expected this kind of diversity to be specifically relevant. For instance,

organizations with a consistent number of apprentice intakes can rely on standard

socializations procedures, whereas organizations with a high growth rate in

apprentice intake continuously have to adjust their socialization programs.

Subsequently, if we could find the same underlying socialization principles in two

accordingly variant cases, our findings will be more robust.

In line with the above criteria, we selected two German companies to explore their

socialization of apprentices. Both of the selected companies are leading players in

their industries and have won several awards for being excellent employers and

vocational training institutions. Against this background, we expected them to be

highly trusted employers. To confirm our expectation we asked every interviewee to

rate his or her trust in the organization on a 1 to 10 Likert scale at which 10 is the

highest level of trust. In case A none of our interviewees rated his or her trust lower

9
than 7 (mean: 8.76, s.d.: 0.70). In case B the lowest rate was 8 (mean: 8.87 s.d.:

0.81). According to these results we were fairly confident that the two selected

companies are highly trusted.

Our selected companies have different industry backgrounds and strong differences

in staff intake and turnover. Case A represents a company with a modest and

relatively consistent rate of both newcomers and apprentices. The company operates

in the medical industry, has a very long family tradition, has almost 42,000

employees and operates on a global level. At the time, when we did our interviews,

the company, which represents Case B, had experienced a tremendous employee

growth rate during the last few years, bringing workforce numbers up to more than

5000 employees (with the highest growth rates over the last three years). The

company is the market leader in a specific segment of the solar technology industry.

Data collection
According to our reasoning above, we conducted semi-structured interviews in each

company with the respective department heads, three instructors and various groups

of apprentices. Our interview guideline was slightly differentiated depending on the

group of interviewees (our translated guideline for the apprentices can be found in

the appendix). Three instructors from each company were chosen on the basis of

being designated by the department heads as being highly different in their

instruction styles. These differences were not divulged to us, thus allowing us to get

an unbiased picture of the instruction process in each company. In terms of

attribution theory this procedural method allows us to look at the organizational

consistency of employed socialization tactics.

10
Apprentices were interviewed in groups (usually by two of us) to discern shared

meanings, especially in relation to socialization tactics. Thereby, we could also figure

out if the group members see the locus of causality of certain events or behavior

commonly as lying in the organization itself. Thus, we sought to exploit the typical

advantage of the focus group method, namely the enrichment of data through the

group’s interactive discussion . We interviewed apprentice groups (consisting of four

up to seven members) from the first, second and third year, which enabled us to

distinguish progressive phases in the socialization process. Field notes based on our

observations were taken during the interviews and discussed immediately

afterwards. After the first round of data analysis, we decided to undertake follow-up

interviews in case B with another three apprentice groups to confirm our analysis and

to avoid any bias relating to the type of apprenticeship (technical versus

administrative). All in all, we interviewed 21 employees in case A (including three

group interviews) and 42 employees in case B (including six group interviews).

Interviews lasted one hour on average and were conducted from November 2010 up

to May 2011. All interviews were recorded, made anonymous and transcribed.

Data analysis

We analyzed the transcribed interviews by employing content (using the text analysis

software MAXQDA) and cross-case analysis. Thereby, we used the code-and-

retrieve method of grounded theory approach . During the first stage, our data

analysis relied on an open coding phase that was carried out by each of us

independently. The aim of this step was to figure out and categorize trust-related

statements and concepts throughout the interviews. During the second stage, we

discussed our open coding and agreed on general categories (a common code tree).

11
Subsequently in a third step, we went through the interviews in a selective coding

manner again and discussed the basic trust principles and related actions of each

firm, aiming for general explanations of the trust building process . Through this, we

developed three core categories: company self-image, socialization principles, and

basic behavioral norms. Each of them consisted of different kinds of subcategories.

Above that we had a category “general trust criteria” (with respective subcategories)

to crosscheck whether those criteria correspond to our three core categories.

In the fourth stage, we started a cross-case analysis by contrasting the two

interviews, which showed the biggest difference between the two companies

following prescriptions of comparative casuistics . The comparison of the most

contrasting interviews allowed us to get basic ideas of differences and similarities of

the two cases. We tested these findings against the other interviews until we found a

consistent pattern for each case. Following “replication logic” , we tried to corroborate

the emerging pattern in case A with evidence from case B . Thereby, we had several

discussion rounds aiming at a communicative validation of our findings. Finally, we

fed our findings back to the department heads and other representatives of the two

companies. Positive feedback on our presented findings reinforced our confidence in

the reliability of our interpretations. Furthermore, the follow-up interviews in one

company, as mentioned above, also confirmed our initial findings and showed that

we have reached theoretical saturation .

Findings

Our findings suggest that in both cases, albeit of some differences in detailed

implementation tactics, quite similar basic socialization elements are utilized. The

12
following tables 1 and 2 give an overview of typical quotes from the interviews and

employed socialization tactics for each case related to our core categories. These

findings are more or less descriptive, and are based upon our content analysis

procedure. In both cases we figured out “care”, “transfer of responsibility” and

“supervision” as basic socialization principles, and “openness” as a strong cultural

norm. Differences appeared in the particular self-image of the companies and the

cultural norm “team integration” in Case A versus “individual effort” in Case B.

=== put table one here======

=== put table two here======

Based on our cross-case analysis, we tried to discern a common pattern of trust

socialization, and interpreted our findings on an aggregate and more abstract level by

connecting them to existing theoretical concepts. For fostering employees’ trust in the

organization, as we will illustrate in the following, a combination of five key

socialization elements can be inductively derived from our data: (1) Sensegiving

related to a familiar trust setting, (2) high organizational support, (3) psychological

empowerment, (4) efficacy of organizational rules, and (5) exemplification of cultural

norms by role models. Whereas our key elements (2), (3) and (4) directly correspond

to the socialization principles which we found in both cases, namely “care”, “transfer

of responsibility” and “supervision”, our elements (1) and (5) rely on an intermediate

step of interpretation. Since our content analysis showed somewhat different results

within the two core categories “company self-image” and “basic behavioral norms”,

we looked for a common pattern underlying these differences in our cross-case

13
analysis. For “company self-image”, we figured out that both companies relied on a

strong image building although they used different kind of images. In relation to our

category “basic behavioral norms”, we discovered that the two norms, albeit being

different in one aspect, were as such very decisive for both companies.

Subsequently, they both convincingly tried to demonstrate these norms in the

behavior of their managers, who served as role models for the apprentices.

Sensegiving related to a familiar trust setting

The first socialization element can be described as transmitting to newcomers a

sense of the general self-image of the organization. According to socialization

research, as indicated above, newcomers usually experience a high degree of

uncertainty and ambiguity when they start to work for a new organization . In this

situation, they typically engage in sensemaking activities . Simply put, according to

Weick et al. , sensemaking is about the development of plausible images to

rationalize what people are doing. People ask “what’s the story here?”, and “what

should I do?” This is especially true for newcomers. They try to interpret sets of cues

that they detect in their new work environment on the basis of their existing frames of

reference in order to answer the above questions. From a socialization point of view,

newcomers’ sensemaking becomes easier when their established frames of

reference suit the cues they notice in their new work environment. Thereby,

sensegiving can be understood as the attempt to influence the sensemaking of

others towards a preferred image of the organization . Subsequently, organizations

that engage in sensegiving activities that draw on trust-related frames newcomers

are familiar with, may influence newcomers’ sensemaking to accounts of an

organization that can be trusted.

14
Our analysis revealed that the socialization process in case A is strongly associated

with the image of a family (see table 1, 1st quotation). Since the percentage of family-

run companies in Germany amounts to approximately 95% , this might add further

support to the communication of a family image and the important role of a father-like

figure. The central father-like figure in case A is the CEO, who is a member of the

company-owning family. Consistent with the family image the corporate tradition is

essential and provides the emotional security to be innovative. The three-year

apprenticeship is seen as a step-by-step integration into the family, with a view to

eventually becoming a fully responsible member. Such “family members” are

expected to spend their whole working life with the company and, consequently, job

security is a central issue for the company.

Apprentices are preferably recruited on recommendation by employees who already

have a personal relationship with them. From a socialization point of view, this

recruiting principle has two advantages: (1) Existing employees judge on a broad

basis of information who will fit in to the company, and also feel personally

responsible for successful socialization of the apprentices they have recommended.

(2) This sense of personal responsibility leads to an informal pre-socialization of the

recommended apprentices by their recommenders (e.g. introducing the company’s

philosophy, working style etc.). Especially this kind of pre-socialization can be seen

as an early activity of sensegiving. Furthermore, in advance of starting work, such

sensegiving is supported by formal integration measures which take place right after

the signing of work contracts, sometimes more than half a year before the beginning

of the actual work relationship (e.g. the house magazine, seasonal greetings and so

15
on are sent to them). Additionally, apprentices are told during the induction days that

they represent “the family” from now on and that they should not communicate in a

critical manner about the company to outsiders in order not to harm “the family”.

Even though in case B the image was not as clearly communicated as in case A, we

found a consistent one that is strongly connected to the idea of ‘friendship’ (see table

2, 1st quotation) and resembles the image of a modern flat or house-sharing

community. The company is seen as a common project, one that could easily fail in

the future. In comparison with the company in case A, potential failure is reflected

within employee awareness. As one apprentice said: “If something goes wrong in the

future, the market will be damaged. Thus, it can be over within a month.”

Furthermore, the socialization process is less structured and rigid than in case A.

Apprentices describe the company’s culture as being “easy”, “cool” and “relaxed” but

also “warm” and “friendly”. Consistent with the image of ‘friendship’, a modern way of

work is propagated that everyone can be part of, and where everyone has an equal

stake as long as the common project is developed further. Regardless of prior

educational qualification, company B believes that everybody should get a chance to

participate in the community. Therefore, they deliberately set out to employ and train

people who had difficulties in finding an apprenticeship place due to bad marks at

school or college. This commitment is seen as a strong signal that everybody can be

a member of the common project and in itself has a sensegiving impact. To further

transmit the idea of ‘friendship’, the common form of address is the forename

coupled with the German “Du” (the informal ‘you’) - which is unusual in a German

work setting. As one apprentice puts it: “(…) it’s much easier to use “Du” when I

16
address my instructor. Thereby, we are sort of on the same personal level, at least in

my mind”.

High organizational support

As a second component of socializing employees’ trust in the organization, our

findings suggest that a perceived high organizational support is of particular

relevance. Perceived organizational support refers to the employees’ general beliefs

about the organization’s commitment towards them. Thereby, it especially focuses on

the extent to which the organization values employees’ contribution and cares about

their well-being .

Both of our cases showed high levels of perceived organizational support in the form

of care. In case A, the socialization principle of care enhances the emotional binding

of employees to their organization in the sense that organizational membership is

incorporated into self-identity. “Care” in case A means that instructors should be as

accessible as possible, not only for problems at the workplace but also for private

ones. This broad perspective of care has the objective of bringing the whole person,

the private and professional one, into the family of the company. One Instructor

reported: “When I heard about his alcohol problems due to his mother’s death, I said

that we have to do something and we managed to help him to pass the examination.

He is still working with us.”

In case B, “care” is even more emphasized. Care is concerned with specific

individual problems and especially personal ones, which are considered to be the

17
reason for job-related problems. Thereby, it is accepted that professionals from

outside the group or the company are consulted to solve severe problems.

Psychological empowerment

Our third key component, “psychological empowerment”, relies on the activation of

the norm of reciprocity . Employees who feel that they get empowered take this as a

symbol that they are trusted by the organization and should reciprocally trust the

organization. Thereby, foremost in both our cases, the belief in empowerment, and

not the actual enhancement of decision-autonomy itself was of special relevance.

Whereas the first type is usually conceptualized as psychological empowerment, the

second one is described as job empowerment .

In both our cases apprentices reported that they felt that a relatively high amount of

responsibility was transferred to them and that they could influence the outcome of

projects and the like. Consistently in both cases, apprentices interpreted this as a

signal of trust towards them, making them eager to give trust back to the

organization. For instance, in case A, apprentices are psychologically empowered by

assigning interesting projects to them, which they are supposed to manage on their

own. Apprentices reported that being allowed to represent the company on official

occasions (e.g. presentations in front of other firm’s managers) are considered the

most important and challenging projects. This tactic also stimulates self-socialization

and unfolds a subtle identification mechanism on the apprentices’ side. Through

being prepared to be a representative and acting as such, they absorb the

companies’ philosophy, values and norms. In addition, the norm of reciprocity is used

for the transfer of responsibility. From the start apprentices are told by their

18
instructors and department heads that the company considers them to be

trustworthy, which finds expression in the autonomous use of work equipment (e.g.

every apprentice gets a laptop computer, which also can be used in private) and

reliance on self-maintained registration of attendance. In addition, the desire for

mutual trust is explicitly addressed in introductory meetings. In reaction, apprentices

are keen to warrant the company’s trust and try to behave responsibly with regard to

the company.

In case B the socialization tactics to enhance psychological empowerment are

approximately the same as in case A. Apprentices also get projects assigned, which

they can manage autonomously (see table 2, 4 th quotation). Furthermore, apprentices

especially mentioned that they are allowed to fill out their time sheets on their own

and that they are self-responsible for their work schedule.

Efficacy of organizational rules

The fourth key component that we could identify points to the role of organizational

rules for trust building. Rules can be seen as normative organizational expectations

over how to behave correctly as an organizational member. Accordingly, Kramer and

Lewicki argue that, from a perspective of trust, the foremost function of rules is not to

predict other employees’ behavior but to deliver a shared understanding of what is

guiding and constraining one’s own and others’ behavior. In this sense, rules and

their interpretation give essential orientation to newcomers. Without this orientation,

the feeling of uncertainty will lead rather to reserved or skeptical behavior towards

the organization.

19
For an understanding of rules, the presence of supervision (monitoring and

assessing compliance of organizational members) seems to be necessary. On that

account, supervision in case A is strongly related to the compliance with rules. Thus,

apprentices have to adapt to clear social rules which are communicated to them as

job etiquettes and high working standards supervised by their instructors. For the

latter, report cards in particular are not seen as instruments of control but as

occasions for clarifying organizational rules.

Evidence in case B points in the same direction, but is somewhat different from case

A. In the perception of apprentices, “supervision” of rule-oriented behavior seems not

to go far enough. Although at first glance, there seem to be a lot of official

socialization tactics in use (e.g. report cards, system of sanctions), closer inspection

reveals that these are, at least from the apprentices’ point of view (department heads

confirmed this as well), not fully employed by the instructors. One reason for this

might be that the socialization process in case B depends highly on personal

relationship building between instructors and apprentices. Therefore, instructors want

to signal first and foremost benevolence. Thus, they describe themselves in case B

as being ‘father-substitutes’. As one instructor said: “When I notice that an apprentice

doesn’t pay attention, I try to catch him during the break and ask him whether there is

a problem (…) that’ s really like being a father”.

Indeed, insisting on rule compliance can be in contradiction to supporting and

empowering behavior. For instance, if an employee has problems with following

certain rules, leaders can react with sanctioning or supportive behavior. Whereas the

first one aims to confirm the rule without looking at individual reason of rule breaking,

20
the second is more concerned with the human being, but at the risk of rules not being

taken seriously. Insofar, case B shows that for trust socialization a balance between

organizational support, empowering, and supervision of rule compliance seems to be

necessary. Some of the apprentices in case B stress this point directly by

complaining that the organization is too permissive in the case of deviant behavior

and over-favors caring behavior. They particularly criticize that their instructors care

too much about their private life (see table 2, 3 rd quotation) and that they are too

patient concerning misbehavior. To sum up, our findings in case B support the view

that socialization is a complex process, in which various components are perceived

as interacting.

Exemplification of cultural norms by role models

Our last key component, which we were able to determine from our empirical data,

refers to the exemplification of cultural norms by managers acting as role models. As

pointed out by van Maanen and Schein , organizational socialization is in its essence

cultural socialization. The concept of culture expresses the real but often

unconscious shared values and norms that guide the behavior of organizational

members . However, for newcomers to an organization, it can be especially difficult

to find out exactly what the specific values and norms are.

Both of our cases indicate that, in order to effectively foster employees’ trust in the

organization, values and norms must be convincingly demonstrated in the behavior

of organizational role models. For example, most important for the apprentices was

the fact that in both our cases management and instructors were perceived as “doing

what they are saying”.

21
Especially with regard to the strong cultural value “openness” (which we found in

both cases), instructors in case B deliberately functioned as role models and tried to

exemplify the central cultural norms through their own behavior (see table 2, 6 th

quotation). We found similar mechanisms in case A, although here role models were

represented not so much by the instructors but rather by department heads and top

management level. To support the process of role modeling, the head of the

department and the instructors in case A try to change team formation from project to

project while enforcing informational role building within the team analogous to the

whole organization (e.g. CEO, Head of Department etc.). Through this procedure

apprentices deliberately emulate the role of their models and can reflect over the

desired behavior.

Discussion

The objective of our paper was to identify organizational socialization policies, which

effectively foster newcomers’ trust in the organization. Thereby, we looked at a

special kind of newcomer, namely apprentices, who usually undergo an explicit

socialization process. Our findings suggest that five components are of particular

importance in a trust socialization process: (1) Sensegiving related to a familiar trust

setting, (2) psychological empowerment, (3) high organizational support, (4) efficacy

of organizational rules, and (5) exemplification of cultural norms by role models. Our

findings also indicate that these components have to be well balanced to be most

effective. In the following, we will discuss the most important theoretical and practical

implications as well as methodological limitations.

22
Theoretical implications

Our findings are consistent with past research done by Six and Sorge in so far as

they emphasize the importance of care and concern (high organizational support)

and of a convincing communication of the organization’s value and principles

(exemplification of cultural norms). Beyond that, our study brings into attention the

transfer of responsibility (psychological empowerment) and the supervision of

compliance (efficacy of organizational rules). However, the most important

contribution of our study is that socialization tactics should also effectively support a

consistent alignment with newcomers’ existing mental models of a trustful setting. In

line with literature on sensemaking , newcomers especially will engage in

sensemaking processes because they are confronted with new circumstances that

are somehow confusing or surprising. This situation opens up possibilities for

sensegiving on the side of the organization . Adapting sensegiving to existing mental

models of a trustful setting will enhance the likelihood of positively influencing

newcomers’ trust in the organization.

Consequently, we assume that in a situation of uncertainty and ambiguity, as faced

by newcomers, attention is first directed to suitable familiar mental models for the

purpose of reducing complexity through familiarity, which is understood as a

prerequisite for trust building . Such familiarity will foster employees’ identification

with the organization, which in turn makes it easier to trust their organization . In

summary, our results suggest a strong relationship between sensegiving

(sensemaking), employees’ identification (organizational identity) and trust in the

organization. However, literature so far is lacking an investigation of all three of them

in relation to each other. Those few scholars who have addressed this field were

23
focusing either on sensegiving and identification or identification and trust or

sensemaking and trust . Insofar, our study advocates a more integrative approach to

organizational trust research by directing attention to the influence that sensegiving

activies can have on employees’ identification with the organization and subsequent

trust building.

Practical implications

Our study has several important practical implications from a human resource

management perspective. The first implication refers to personnel recruitment and

selection policies. The background message of our findings is that applicants’

existing mental models of trust relationships play a decisive role. Therefore,

organizations should select newcomers with mental models that match their own

trust-related self-image. This implies that organizations are well aware of their own

self-image since potential applicants may identify with a particular organization

through social self-categorization . Therefore it is important that the company

convincingly communicates its self-image to applicants and newcomers. From this it

follows that organizations should monitor whether their public image corresponds to

their self-image and whether applicants, who were prone to identify with the

organization, are the desired ones.

A second practical implication of our study refers to the socialization policy and to

human resource development in general. An organizational socialization policy can

only be effective if the employed tactics are consistent and mixed in a balanced way

with each other. The five components of effective trust socialization, which we have

established, are not per se harmonious but instead comprise potential for conflict. For

24
instance, organizational support may be very important but also has to be restricted,

when compliance to fundamental organizational rules is at stake. Subsequently,

organizations should reflect on the interaction of their formal and informal

socialization tactics and whether they are in line with the organization’s self-image.

What is true for socialization also holds for human resource development in general.

Thus, organizations should reflect on what kind of values, principles and self-image

are communicated through their training and development programs.

Methodological Limitations

One limitation of our study arises from our research setting being an explorative

qualitative case study design, which does not allow statistical generalizations.

Additionally, in line with attribution theory, we examined the effect of socialization

tactics from the subjective viewpoint of the apprentices. However, we found no

evidence that their instructors or department heads had a substantially different

assessment of the socialization process. A further limitation is that we only

researched apprentices, a special kind of newcomer, who typically gain their very first

work experience and are presumably easier to impress than more skilled or

experienced newcomers are. For such newcomers, who have already worked in

various kinds of organizations socialization tactics may need a somewhat different

focus. Against this background, we would suggest for further research to compare

experienced newcomers with less experienced ones.

Furthermore, we interviewed apprentices as groups, which has the advantage of

allowing us to better capture collectively shared understandings but the disadvantage

of possible response bias due to the peer-group influence of socially desired answers

25
and self-censorship. However, since the groups were usually interviewed by two of

the authors, we could crosscheck our observations, and determine whether and to

what extent the group dynamic itself (how they deal with each other) affected the

authenticity of their verbal expressions.

Finally, we chose for our study two organizations, which are already highly trusted by

their employees and have an excellent employer reputation. In this regard,

socialization tactics to enhance employees’ trust in the organization might need to

have a different focus if organizations are known as having violated employees’ trust

in the past. Trust repair might require other tactics .

Conclusion

How can employees’ trust in the employer be deliberately developed? Because there

is almost no research available to answer this question, we have tried to direct more

attention to socialization processes. Our study suggests that an effective socialization

policy is first and foremost about communicating an image of the organization to

newcomers, which is aligned to contexts with which trust is typically associated. This

communication process can be understood as a form of sensegiving. For

sensegiving to be successful other components of trust socialization must point in the

same direction to build up a consistent image of the organization. With our study we

hope to especially stimulate further discussion about organizations’ self images and

employees’ organizational identification as antecedents of trust in the organization.

References

26
Adobor, H. (2005). 'Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interfirm
alliances'. Journal of Business Research, 58:3, 330-337.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M. and Tucker, J. S. (2007).
'Newcomer Adjustment During Organizational Socialization: A Meta-Analytic
Review of Antecedents, Outcomes, and Methods'. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92:3, 707-721.
Bernerth, J. and Walker, H. J. (2009). 'Propensity to Trust and the Impact on Social
Exchange: An Empirical Investigation'. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 15:3, 217-226.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A. and 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.
Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3. ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Das, T. K. and Teng, B.-S. (2001). 'Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An
integrated framework'. Organization Studies, 22:2, 251-283.
Dietz, G. (2004). 'Partnership and the development of trust in British workplaces'.
Human Resource Management Journal, 14:1, 5-24.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. (2001). 'The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings'.
Organizational Science, 12:4, 450 - 467.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2002). 'Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and
Implications for Research and Practice'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:4,
611-628.
Dirks, K. T. and Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). 'The Relationship Between Being Perceived
as Trustworthy by Coworkers and Individual Performance'. Journal of
Management, 35:1, 136-157.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). 'Perceived
Organizational Support'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:3, 500-507.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). 'Building Theories from Case Study Research'. Academy of
Management Review, 14:4, 532-550.
Fang, R., Duffy, M. K. and Shaw, J. D. (2011). 'The Organizational Socialization
Process: Review and Development of a Social Capital Model'. Journal of
Management, 37:1, 127-152.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009). 'Trust Repair After an Organization-level Failure'.
Academy of Management Review, 34:1, 127-145.
Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991). 'Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic
Change Initiation '. Strategic Management Journal, 12:6, 433-448.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). 'The norm of reciprocity: A prelimanary statement'. American
Sociological Review, 25:2, 161-178.
Hatzakis, T. (2009). 'Towards a Framework of Trust Attribution Styles'. British Journal
of Management, 20:4, 448-460.
Haunschild, L. and Wolter, H.-J. (2010). 'Volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung von
Familien- und Frauenunternehmen', in Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn
(Ed.), IfM-Materialien (Vol. 199). Bonn: IfM.
Heider, F. (1967). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Jüttemann, G. (Ed.). (2009). Komparative Kasuistik. Die psychologische Analyse
spezifischer Entwicklungsphänomene. Lengerich: Pabst.

27
Kelley, H. (1967). 'Attribution Theory in Social Interaction', in D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192 - 238). Lincoln (N.E.):
University of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. and Michela, J. (1980). 'Attribution Theory and Research'. Annual Review
of Psychology, 31, 457 - 501.
Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M. and Kim, S.-P. (2005). 'Socialization Tactics, Employee
Proactivity, and Person--Organization Fit'. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90:2, 232-241.
Kramer, R. M. and Lewicki, R. J. (2010). 'Repairing and Enhancing Trust:
Approaches to Reducing Organizational Trust Deficits'. The Academy of
Management Annals, 4, 245 - 277.
Lee, T. (1999). Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage.
Logan, M. S. and Ganster, D. C. (2007). 'The Effects of Empowerment on Attitudes
and Performance: The Role of Social Support and Empowerment Beliefs'.
Journal of Management Studies, 44:8, 1523-1550.
Luhmann, N. (1988). 'Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives', in D.
Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 94 -
107). Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell.
Maguire, S. and Phillips, N. (2008). '‚Citibankers' at Citigroup: A Study of the Loss of
Institutional Trust after a Merger'. Journal of Management Studies, 45:2, 372-
401.
Maitlis, S. and Lawrence, T. B. (2007). 'Triggers and Enablers of Sensegiving in
Organizations '. Academy of Management Journal, 50:1, 57-84.
Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, D. (1995). 'An Integrative Model of
Organizational Trust'. Academy of Management Review, 20:3, 709-734.
Mayer, R. and Gavin, M. (2005). 'Trust In Management and Performance: Who Minds
the Shop While the Emloyees Watch The Boss?'. Academy of Management
Journal, 48:5, 874-888.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. (2003). 'Trust as an Organizing Principle'.
Organization Science, 14:1, 91-103.
Payne, R. L. and Clark, M. C. (2003). 'Dispositional and situational determinants of
trust in two types of managers'. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14:1, 128-138.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification
among Amway Distributors'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:3, 456-493.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). 'Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract'.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:4, 574-599.
Schein, E. H. (1984). 'Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture'. Sloan
Management Review, 25:2, 3-16.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4. ed.). San Francisco,
Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Searle, R. and Billsberry, J. (2011). 'Organizational trust during recruitment and
selection', in R. Searle & D. Skinner (Eds.), Trust and Human Resource
Management (pp. 67-86). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Searle, R., Hartog, D. N. D., Weibel, A., Gillespie, N., Six, F., Hatzakis, T., et al.
(2011). 'Trust in the employer: the role of high-involvement work practices and
procedural justice in European organizations'. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 22:5, 1069-1092.

28
Six, F. (2007). 'Building interpersonal trust within organizations: a relational signalling
perspective'. Journal of Management and Governance, 11:3, 285-309.
Six, F. and Sorge, A. (2008). 'Creating a High-Trust Organization: An Exploration into
Organizational Policies that Stimulate Interpersonal Trust Building'. Journal of
Management Studies, 45:5, 857-884.
Tomlinson, E. and Mayer, R. (2009). 'The Role of Causal Attribution Dimensions in
Trust Repair '. Academy of Management Review, 34:1, 85-104.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. H. (1979). 'Toward a Theory of Organizational
Socialization'. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). 'Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking'. Organization Science, 16:4, 409-421.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. A. and Werner, J. (1998). 'Managers as
Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding
Managerial Trustworthy Behaviour'. Academy of Management Review, 23,
513 - 530.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4. ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage.

29
Appendix: Interview Guideline Apprentices (translated)

1. How much do you trust your company (rated on a scale from 1 to 10)?
Do you think that the other employees basically have the same amount of trust?
2. Why do you believe that your company can be trusted?
What has to happen that your trust increases or, respectively, declines?
3. Please tell us about an experience in which you particularly experienced trust.
4. Please tell us about an experience in which you experienced some kind of
mistrust.
5. What do you think the expected behavior is in your company? What is a
definite taboo?
6. How do you perceive your integration process into your company? What
happens when you do something wrong? What would you improve?
7. Are there any departments, which you trust less than others? Where do these
differences come from?
8. Do you think that other employees trust you? Do you think that your company
trusts you?
9. Do you think that mutual trust is important for your personal learning process?

30
Figure 1: Organizational Socialization in the context of employees’ trust development

31

Company self-image
family
Socialization principles
a) care
b) transfer of responsibility
c) supervision
Behavioral norms
a) openness
b) team integration
Table 1: Core Categories with emerging patterns and empirical examples for case A
(translated by the authors)
Examples of statements Examples of tactics
“… it’s like a family, you simply Advance provision of informal
feel like you are at home” and formal information about
the company’s philosophy and
“… the philosophy is to carry on events.
the company tradition and
realize that we developed from Induction days.
a small pharmacy and now act
globally with more than 41.000
employees.”
“… I told him [an apprentice Accessibility of instructors and
with alcohol problems] that this department heads for job-
wouldn’t work and then we related and private problems.
helped him through the
examination. He is still working
with us. He has got it.”
“… right at the beginning of our Self-contained registration of
apprenticeship we had to attendance.
prepare a relatively large
presentation (…) the fact that Challenging projects.
we held this presentation in
front of a big audience, Working equipment (e.g. laptop)
including executive staff, proves for private use also.
that they trust us and shows
that instructors think that we
can manage it.”
“…we have a tight structure. A Communication and control of
young person has to be job etiquettes and high working
prepared to follow the rules. standards by instructors and
Other companies may be more department heads.
open-minded and modern than
ours” Report cards.
“… I met him [CEO and
member of the owning family] in
the elevator and he asked me
where I come from and what I’m Role playing in changing team
doing. I told him everything. It projects.
was just a normal
conversation.”
“… only if you work together do
you achieve something good. If
everybody works for himself,
nothing good comes out of it.”
32

Company self-image
friendship
Socialization principles
a) care
b) transfer of responsibility
c) supervision
Behavioral norms
a) openness
b) individual effort
Table 2: Core Categories with emerging patterns and empirical examples for case B
(translated by the authors)
Examples of statements Examples of tactics
“… you can be real friends with Everybody is addressed by first
people around here, if you are names (uncommon for German
decent (…) they’ll tell you where firms); apprentices are seen as
your limits are, to what you ordinary colleagues.
should pay attention, what will
work and what doesn’t. Once Induction week outside the
you’re in, you really can have company with instructors to
fun with these people.” build up common experiences.
Different perspectives:
Accessibility and high alertness
‘‘… they [apprentices] don’t of instructors and department
have the heart - o.k., that heads for job-related and
means we [instructors] must go private problems.
to the apprentices. (…) When I
notice that an apprentice does Apprenticeship agent and social
not pay attention - he is education worker as additional
physically there but not with his support for problem solving.
mind – I try to talk to him during
the break and ask him: Hey,
what’s the matter? Is something Mentoring system.
wrong? Do you have a
problem? Then they try to tell
me (…) and they see there is
somebody who cares about
them’’
‘‘… I [apprentice] would prefer
to work instead of talking about
‘beer’ or any other [private]
subjects, which are useless.
Waste of time.’’
‘‘… he told me [apprentice] from Enhancement of task
one day to the other to manage autonomy. Self-contained
the correspondence with our registration of attendance.
international partners. I did it Small projects. Responsibility
and gained extreme self- for working equipment (e.g.
confidence.’’ toolbox).
‘‘…somewhere, there might be Formal measures:
control, but I think in this job- and task-related rules,
company it’s not necessary. We report cards, system of
[apprentices] get things that sanctions (e.g. memo and
other firms don’t have.’’ objectives, warning letter).
‘‘… I [instructor] was open and
told him that this won’t work (...)
maybe he has got this wrong Mutual feedback rounds.
but I was open (...) this was a
really tough group, but one of
them started to tell me his
story.’’
“In our company you really have
to struggle to earn your money”
33