examining the effect of trust in leader
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
1/14
Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach
Jixia Yang a,, Kevin W. Mossholder b,1
a Department of Management, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kongb Department of Management, College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Little empirical research has explored the implications of different bases and foci of trust inleadership within the same study. To rectify this substantive void in the trust literature, we
conceptualized variants of employee trust in organizational leadership in terms of two bases
(cognitive and affective) and two foci (management and supervisor). Using this dual
perspective, we examined the effects of trust in leaders on two work-related attitudes
(organizational commitment, job satisfaction) and two work-related behaviors (in-role
behavior, extra-role behavior). Using data collected from 210 employees and their
supervisors, we found that the four variants of trust in organizational leadership were
distinguishable, and had differential effects on employee outcomes. Affective trust in
supervisor was a signicant predictor of in-role and extra-role behaviors. Affective trust in
management and affective trust in supervisor explained variance in affective organizational
commitment. Cognitive trust in management and affective trust in supervisor explained
variance in job satisfaction.
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Trust in management
Trust in supervisor
Cognitive trust
Affective trust
1. Introduction
Perceptions of trust are central to the process of effective organizational leadership (e.g., Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999).
In this process, leadership behaviors function to engender trust, which in turn, can greatly affect employees' work outcomes (Dirks
& Skarlicki, 2004).Dened as a psychological state comprising a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations
about the intentions or behavior of another (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), trust operates as a critical psychological
mechanism in realizing leadership effectiveness. Perhaps because of complexities surrounding the concept of trust, the conditions
under which the need for trust arises are agreed on only at a relatively high level of abstraction (Rousseau et al., 1998). This creates
a research challenge, then, for a more precise understanding of how the enactment of trust contributes to leadership functioning.
We believe that closer consideration of the basis for and effect of employees' willingness to become vulnerable to those occupying
different positions in the leadership hierarchy is a critical step in meeting this challenge.
That trust in leadership affects employee attitudes and behavior can be readily seen in the literature. What has been much less
evidenced are the motives explaining why employees are willing to accept greater or lesser vulnerability to those in leadership
positions. Theoretically, both cognitive and affective processes should be required for leadership effectiveness across a range of
circumstances (Cremer, 2006; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006; Michie & Gooty, 2005). Trust has been considered an indicator of the
psychological experiences underpinning employees' perceptions of leadership (Pillai et al., 1999), and has been argued to stem
from both a cognitive base grounded on characteristics salient for task-related interactions, and an affective base grounded on
The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
The authors are grateful to Cheryl Adkins, Donald Ferrin, Kwok Leung, and Hettie Richardson for their constructive comments on the paper. An earlier version
of the paper was presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologyannual conference, May 2006, Dallas.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 3442 4750; fax: +852 3442 7220.
E-mail addresses:[email protected](J. Yang),[email protected](K.W. Mossholder).1 Tel.: +1 334 844 6529; fax: +1 334 844 5159.
1048-9843/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
2/14
socioemotional elements pertinent for interpersonal interactions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Given that the two trust bases have rarely
been examined together in the past, it is as yet unknown how subordinates' attitudes and behavior may be linked with cognitive
versus affective trust. Relying on cognitive or affective trust represents divergent approaches used by leaders in building
relationships with subordinates. It should be noted that some leadership perspectives, particularly leader member exchange
theory (LMX), have considered the relational dynamics occurring between leaders and subordinates (Erdogan & Liden, 2002).
However, within this literature, trust has been treated in an undifferentiated manner with respect to its cognitive and affective
bases. Moreover, unlike LMX relationships, trust may not necessarily be mutual or reciprocal (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000;
Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). In sum, we believe that distinguishing between the two trust bases may provide a more
nuanced examination of trust in organizational leaders.
Given organizations' hierarchical nature, it is likely that employees will be subject to control and inuence from persons at more
than oneorganizational level,andthe effects that leaders exert on employees may depend on the level from which inuenceoriginates
(Shamir, 1995). Set within the framework of the present study, this notion suggests that employees may develop different degrees of
cognitive or affective trust in leaders residing in different levels, and such trust could be associated with different employee outcomes.
Thus, in addition to taking trust bases into account, we argue that considering in whom trust is placed (i.e., the focus of trust) could be
instructive. An obvious means of differentiating between hierarchical leadership levels would be in terms of whether leaders are more
proximal or distalwith regardto their subordinates. There is theoretical precedence forthis delineation.Researchersin theareasof both
leadership and trust have noted that inuence exerted by immediate supervisors is qualitatively different from that exerted by higher
level managers (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997; Schoorman et al., 2007). The former are involved in more task-related issues whereas the
latter focus more on overall organizational concerns. Shamir (1995) has noted there are substantive differences between close versus
distant charismatic leadership. One difference has to do with the magnitude of the importance of trust for the inuence of charismatic
leadership to arise. In linewith Shamir's observations, we contend that the importance and effects of trust may vary with specied foci.
Drawing on Lewin's (1943) eld theory, we argue that trust in the supervisor and trust in management may have differing importance
depending on the types of employee-related outcomes (e.g., behavioral versus attitudinal) being considered.
In short, two fundamental issuesthe impetus from which positive expectations are formed (i.e., trust's bases) and in whom
positive expectations are placed (i.e., trust's foci)must be considered to more precisely understand processes and effectiveness
associated with trust in organizational leaders. The need to consider trust foci and bases simultaneously when studying trust in
leadership has been recognized only recently (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Addressing these issues is important
because, as articulated in the following sections, we suggest that the four combination or variantsof trust in leaders formed by
crossing affective and cognitive bases with supervisor and management foci may have divergent effects on salient employee
outcomes. Uncertainties surrounding such effects need to be claried so that the signicance of trust can be better appreciated
(Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Schoorman et al., 2007). Thus, we propose that explicitly recognizing and operationalizing these bases
and foci together in one study may provide insights into trust's operational role in the context of organizational leadership.
2. Bases and foci: Framing trust in organizational leaders
Intention to accept vulnerability is rooted in the conceptualization of trust. When this acceptance is manifested as cognitive or
affective trust in either the supervisor or management, differencesin employee attitudinal andbehavioral outcomes could accrue.As is
explained below, we expect that high levels of trust should allow for more attentional resources to be devoted to the job, facilitating
greater in-role (i.e., task) behavior and extra-role (i.e., helping) behavior (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). With regard to work
attitudes, individuals' organizational experiences of being willing to be vulnerable also has a directimpact on their jobsatisfaction and
affective commitment to the organization (e.g.,Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck, 1997). Because it has been documented that trust in leaders
may be generally associated withthese employee outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004), these work behaviors (i.e.,
in-role task behavior and extra-role helping behavior) and attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment)
were chosen for purposes of investigation. Before offering the hypotheses and exploratory research questions, we provide a more
complete explication of the bases-and-foci trust perspective.
2.1. Bases of trust in organizational leaders
Dueto theasymmetries of power andstatus inherentin hierarchicalrelationshipsbetweenemployeesand organizationalauthorities
(Kramer, 1996), issues of vulnerability and dependency are particularly salient, which makes trust in leaders critical for enhancing
positive employee behavior and attitudes at work. Trustworthiness attributions have a strong, widespread inuence upon people's
reactions to leaders. Research shows that two distinctive psychological processes underlieemployees' trustworthiness attributions, one
being instrumental in nature and the other being more relational (Tyler & Degoey, 1996). The former has been recognized as cognitive
trust and focuses on another party's characteristics such as ability, dependability, and integrity (e.g., Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995),
whereas the latter has been considered affective trust and derives more from personal bonds (McAllister, 1995). Leader behavior can
help mitigate the risk of opportunism inherent in organizational contexts, thus making followers feel safe to be led by immediate
supervisors and top managers (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Specically, cognitive trust allows for comfortable task-
related exchanges at work, such as work requests given and taken between supervisors and subordinates. Affective trust facilitates
socioemotional communication including initiation and reciprocation of care and consideration (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Despite advances in conceptualizing trust and its relationships withother variables, there has been an imbalance in the amount ofempirical research devoted to the understanding of the two-base structure of trust ( Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). To date,
51J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
3/14
less research has dealt with trust grounded in emotional bonds among interdependent individuals, despite evidence highlighting the
importance of such bonds (McAllister, 1995; Webber & Klimoski, 2004). Considering the literature on trust in organizational
leadership specically, a similar level of inattention on affective trust is also apparent. Although both bases of trust in leadership may
be functional for engendering benecial outcomes in organizations, the literature has been skewed toward cognitive explanations
(Schoormanet al.,2007). In the presentstudy, we attempt to address this research gapby directly examining the relative contribution
of cognitive and affective trust in organizational leaders in predicting employee outcomes.
2.2. Foci of trust in organizational leaders
Trust is target-specic in that it varies according to the individual(s) with whom one is interacting. As it is not necessarily
transferable across different targets, pinpointing the target of trust is critical for understanding its subsequent effects. In fact, Dirks
and Parks (2003)argued that thoughtfully specifying the focus of trust is important, as trust in varying foci may be due to diverse
factors and lead to different outcomes across conditions. Generally speaking, targets of trust can be a person, group, or rm.
Likewise,Whitener (1997)suggested that employees can have trust in at least two different types of foci, one being specic
individuals such as supervisors, and the other being generalized representatives, such as higher level management. Trust in one's
supervisor is more immediate and circumscribed, whereas trust in management is more general.
When management is the referent of interest in trust studies, it has been considered as an identiable upper-level collective whose
actionshave a signicantimpacton nonmanagerialemployees (Mayer & Davis,1999). Examples of such collectives are: peoplewho make
policies, rules, and major decisions in an organization (Scott, 1980); the group comprising an organization's strategic and operational
executives, all of whom contribute directly to key business decisions (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003); and those at the business division
level (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). Because management is responsible for formulating strategies and allocating organizational resources,decisions and actions made by management have a broad impact on employees over time. In this regard, management's trustworthiness
may affect whether employees buy into an organization's objectives and fully engage in management initiatives. On the other hand,
decisions and actions by immediate supervisors tend to have greater inuence upon employees in daily operations.
Both management and immediate supervisors create concerns for employees about being vulnerable in the hierarchical
relationships. As such, these two foci are of prime importance in the discussion of trust in leaders. Leadership demonstrated either by
immediate supervisors or by distant executives can have signicant implications for employee attitudes and behavior (e.g.,Avolio,
Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Studies that examined both trust in management and immediate supervisors (e.g., Mayer & Gavin, 2005;
Morgan & Zeffane, 2003; Tan & Tan, 2000) have offered evidence that employees distinguish between trustworthiness of immediate
supervisors and management in general, and that each may affect employee outcomes.
3. Predicting trust outcomes using bases and foci
Field theory (Lewin, 1943) suggests that individuals react more strongly to psychologically proximate factors in the environmentthan to distal factors. Some researchers have suggested that more immediate behavioral demands are best addressed through timely
responses appropriate to those creating the demands (e.g., Brandes, Dharwadkar, & Wheatley, 2004). Considering the two types of
leaders in the present study, it is obvious that employees could respond more appropriately to ones with whom they work than ones
with whom they have infrequent or indirect contact. The immediate supervisor is physically and interpersonally closer to employees
than is top management. Thus, trust in the supervisor (whether cognitive or affective), rather than trust in management, should be
associated with employees' in-role and extra-role behaviors. We further discuss below the potentially unique inuences of cognitive
and affective trust in supervisor on such employee behaviors.
3.1. Trust in the supervisor and work behavior
In-role behavior consists of behaviors that are recognized by formal reward systems and xed by job descriptions (Williams &
Anderson, 1991). Trust in supervisor has been shown to impact in-role behavior which directly benets the supervisor (Aryee,
Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). Completing work goals entails engaging in task-related exchanges with the supervisor, which makes asubordinate vulnerable to the supervisor's decisions and actions for task accomplishment. Accordingly, it appears that having
cognitive, as opposed to affective, trust could reduce the diversion of task-related attention and effort due to unnecessary worry and
anxiety. Focused use of one's attentional resources is critical for engagement and subsequent task completion (Mayer & Gavin, 2005).
When characteristics such as ability, reliability, and integrity are attributed to immediate supervisors, employees should be able to
moreefcientlyfocustheir attentionalresources on behaviors fortask goal attainment.Conversely,employeeshavinglittle condence
in the immediate supervisor's knowledge and skills in handling task-related problems would be unlikely to comply with the
supervisor's directives and requests without some second-guessing.
Hypothesis 1. Of the four variants of trust in leaders, cognitive trust in the supervisor will be most strongly related to in-role
behavior.
Extra-role behavior has been identied as an important form of citizenship behavior that contributes to the maintenance and
enhancement of the social context that supports task performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), so it isimportant to organizations when work roles are interdependent and employees' cooperation can facilitate overall functioning
52 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
4/14
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Like in-role behavior, task-oriented extra-role helping has been suggested to benet the supervisor
(Aryee et al., 2002) and potentially the organization, even though it may be targeted at coworkers and other peers in the
organization. Employees engage in this form of extra-role helping as they assist others in their jobs whenever the situation arises,
such as when high workloads and unresolved problems are at hand (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). It has been argued that
supervisory trustworthiness can contribute to creating a safe social atmosphere at work. In particular, highly considerate
leadership can facilitate coworkers' interactions and group cohesion (Burke et al., 2006). As such leader actions are likely to trigger
affective trust as a response, we expect affective, as opposed to cognitive, trust in the supervisor to be effectual in encouraging
employees feel comfortable and willing to assist one another.
Hypothesis 2. Of the four variants of trust in leaders, affective trust in the supervisor will be most strongly related to extra-role
behavior.
3.2. Trust in leaders and work attitudes
Persons occupying positions of organizational leadership are expected to inuence employee attitudes, as they shape any number
of employee workplace experiences over time. Interactions with the supervisor are part of the more proximate job environment, and
events arising in the broader work environment are likely to be connected with management. Arguably, the trust associated with
either the immediate leader or distant leaders could inuence important work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been considered both supervisor- and organization-related
outcomes (Spector, 1997). Accordingly, we believe both of these work attitudes could be affected by trusting relationships associated
with the supervisor and management. Therefore, given the inadequate documentation with respect to the unique effects exerted by
cognitive versus affective trust upon job satisfaction and organizational commitment, we decided to examine trust's relations with
these attitudes in an exploratory manner.
Job satisfaction has been increasingly portrayed as a combination of one's cognitive beliefs and affective work experiences (e.g.,
Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999), meaning that both cognitive evaluation and affective experiences
may affectit. Carr, Schmidt, Ford, and DeShon's (2003) meta-analysis reported that both affective and instrumental facets of the work
environment are importantfor jobsatisfaction.Thisobservationsomewhat suggests that both affective trust andcognitive trust might
incrementally explain job satisfaction. A recent meta-analysis (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) showed that cognitive trust correlated with job
satisfaction, but did not address the impact of affective trust on job satisfaction because a sufcient number of affective trust studies
were not available. On the other hand, trust across each of the two foci should explain some variance in job satisfaction. Evidence has
been found supporting the explanatory power of trust in both immediate supervisors and management when examined in separate
studies (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002; Pillai et al., 1999). Because of its composite nature, overall job satisfaction is unlikely to be sufciently
explained by any single source or referent (Fisher, 1980). Taken together, cognizant of the possibility that each base of trust may be
associated with either the supervisor or management, we seek to answer the following question:
Research question 1: Of the four variants of trust in leaders, which will be more strongly related to job satisfaction?
Affective commitment reects the strength of an individual's identication with and involvement in an organization (Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Leaders' trustworthiness in an organization makes employees believe that they intend to seek
employees' best interest and act effectively on employees' behalf. With regard to our four trust variants, the literature provides an
incomplete picture of their possible association with commitment. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001)have proposed that variables
contributing to the likelihood that an individual desires being involved in actions relevant to an organization and derives his or her
identity from organizational afliation, will contribute to the development of affective commitment to the organization. In view of
their proposal, either cognitive or affective trust vested in both foci could be capable of enhancing such commitment. Dirks and
Ferrin's meta-analysis (2002)showed that cognitive trust was related to affective organizational commitment, but their meta-
analysis could not address the impact of affective trust on this form of commitment. Trust in management ( Konovsky &
Cropanzano, 1991) and trust in immediate manager or supervisor (Simons, Friedman, Liu, & Parks, 2007) have been found to
correlate with affective commitment. Unfortunately neither of these studies included separate measures of affective and cognitive
trust. Because the affective commitment research stream contains too many uncertainties regarding relations of the four trust
variants with the employee outcomes examined, we therefore pose the following question:
Research question 2: Of the four variants of trust in leaders, which will be more strongly related to affective organizational
commitment?
4. Methods
4.1. Organizational context
Data were collected from a state-operated medical healthcare system in the southeastern United States. The state system had been
increasingly facing the demands of shrinking budgets and cost containment. The two locations from which we collected data were
within 70 miles of eachother.The human resources directors at each location had cooperated withone another to improve service by
eliminating unnecessary redundancy across the hospitals. For example, some clinics in the communities served by the hospitals had
been consolidated. The delivery of certain services was restructured in some cases. And
nally, some employees were also asked tochange shifts or locations at which services were provided. Thus, it was likely thateither directly or indirectly, most study participants
53J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
5/14
experienced some uncertainty due to structural changes and retrenchment. These conditions made their vulnerability a salient
factor and trust an important consideration in the work setting. Through meetings and organization newsletters, the top system
administrator and human resource managers at the medical centers encouraged employee involvement in the survey. Aggregated
survey results fed back to employees was offered as a potential benet to encourage greater overall participation.
At both locations,the natureof work required individuals within departments to interact on a frequent basis and coordinate closely
with the supervisor to complete requisite tasks. Also, we determined through interviews with the human resource managers that
managementwas an identiable group of people (i.e., division directors) that employees distinguished from direct supervisors,
suggesting no confusion as to who comprised this group. Departments from the medical centers that participated in the survey
included nance and billing services, information technology, human resource services, facility services, and a variety of clinical units
(e.g., radiology, intensive care, emergency, and nursing). Employees who participated in the study included registered and practical
nurses, lab technicians, pharmacists, data entry personnel, food service workers, accounting specialists, and maintenance personnel.
The variability of employee jobs allowed the survey to capture a range of individual perceptions and workplace behaviors.
4.2. Sample and procedure
Employees self-reported data on all study variables except for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior, which were evaluated
by their immediate supervisors. An employee identication number was used to match subordinate responses with those of their
supervisors. Supervisory surveys were dispersed at the managers' council meetings, and employee surveys were distributed by
each supervisor after council meetings. Prior to the managers' council meetings, the survey project was publicized through email
announcements and the medical center newsletter. A cover letter accompanying the survey explained the purpose of the survey
and guaranteed condentiality. Respondents had the choice to return completed questionnaires at a designated collection box or
mail them to the researchers using postage-paid envelopes. A majority of the completed questionnaires were returned via mail.
In all, surveys were distributed to 864 employees and 96 supervisors. We received 353 completed employee surveys for a
response rate of 41% and completed surveys from 47 supervisors for a response rate of 49%. On average, the survey respondents
had been working at their locations for 8 years and were 43 years old. About 82% of the survey respondents were female. Based on
human resource data from the healthcare system (average age= 43 years old, 80% were female; average organizational
tenure=10 years), it was determined that respondents did not differ from the overall employee population in age, gender, and
years of service.
Of the 353 employee self-reported surveys, 210 had matched supervisory ratings. The average supervisory span of control among
the matched cases was 5.12. Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests were performed on respondent demographic variables
and on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes betweenthe respondents who had matched supervisory ratings (n=210)and those who
did not (n=143). No signicant differences were detected. Of the 210 surveyed employees, the average age was 42, and 84% were
female. Seventy-three percent were Caucasian and 27% were African-American. In terms of education, 33% had high school degrees,
22% had some college or vocational degrees, and 44% had college or graduate degrees. Subsequent analyses used the 210 employee
responses having matched supervisory ratings.
4.3. Measures
A ve-point response format was used for the instruments in this study, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Employees responded to the survey questions including the four types of trust in leaders, affective organizational com-
mitment, and job satisfaction. Their corresponding supervisors provided the ratings for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior.
4.3.1. Trust variants
The few studies distinguishing between the cognitive and affective trust have adapted McAllister's (1995)measure. However,
more work needed to be done regarding a measure of trust using a bases-and-foci framework. The measure developed by McAllister
(1995) was for trust between peer managers. In ourresearch, a measure thatcould reect trusting relationships withinorganizational
hierarchy would be more suitable. To this end, we developed a trust instrument estimating the two substantive bases (cognitive andaffective)and two foci (management and immediate supervisor) in a pilot study. Therst step was to generate an initial pool of items
measuring trust. Using denitional guidelines of cognitive and affective trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; McAllister, 1995), we developed
new items and adaptedotheritems fromthe literature for use in our study(Clark & Payne,1997; Cook & Wall, 1980; Johnson-George &
Swap, 1982; Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Luo, 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1999; McAllister, 1995; Mishra & Mishra, 1994; Rempel, Holmes, &
Zanna, 1985; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Scott, 1980). An initial pool of 44 items measuring trust was generated, with half of them
being expected to tap into each base.
Next, these items were tested for content validity. Seven organizational behavior faculty, ten graduate students, and eight
nonacademics were asked to classify the items as tapping cognitive, affective, both, or neither base of trust, according to specied
characteristics of cognitive and affective trust. To select items that appropriately sampled the content domain, we allowed only two
dissenting votes among the evaluations.As a result,the itempool was reduced to a setof eight items capturing cognitive trust and a set
of eight items assessing affective trust. Within bothsets, items were appropriately worded to refer to the two foci (the supervisor and
management). This process resulted in a total of 32 items.
The 32 trust items were used in a pilot survey involving a total of 178 participants. Of the participants, 19 were executive MBAstudents, 16 were employees at a local rm, and the rest were traditional MBA students from three universities located in the
54 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
6/14
southeastern U.S. An exploratory factor analysis was performed on the pilot data. Because of the moderate intercorrelations
between trust variants, principle axis factoring with an oblimin rotation was performed (cf. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998). Factor loadings were examined to determine which items would be used in the nal survey. Using the criterion of an
eigenvalue greater than one, four factors were extracted which explained 74% of the variance. Guidelines from Hair et al. (1998)
were adopted for interpreting factor loadings: Factor loadings of .45 or above are considered signicant when sample size falls
between 150 and 200. After examining these factors for low factor loadings or substantial cross-loadings, we retained a total of 20
items (ve for each trust base/foci variation). A second principal axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation was then performed on
these 20 items. Factor loadings ranged from .48 to .85, and the four-factor solution accounted for 77% of the variance. Overall, the
factor structure improved with these 20 items, and they were retained for usein thenal survey. Complete results of pretesting are
available from the rst author. The 20 items comprising the variants of trust in organizational leaders are shown in the Appendix.
All ve-item measurescognitive trust in management (=.95), affective trust in management (=.94), cognitive trust in
supervisor (=.94), and affective trust in supervisor (=.95)demonstrated acceptable reliability.
4.3.2. In-role behavior
A three-item measure (=.95) was utilized for supervisors to assess employees' in-role behavior. Two items from Williams
and Anderson (1991)were usedFullls responsibilities specied in job description,and Performs tasks that are expected of
him/her,along with a third item assessing broad in-role behavior Performs his/her job well.
4.3.3. Extra-role helping behavior
Supervisors rated their subordinates' task-oriented extra-role helping behavior. In comparison to an employee's coworkers,
supervisors could better observe such behavior across a greater number of contexts, and should be more interested in such
behavior because it can contribute directly to success in the overall task environment. The instrument estimating task-focused
citizenship behavior directed toward coworkers developed bySettoon and Mossholder (2002)was used. Person-focused helping
was not assessed for the study because it is more germane for the study of personal trust relationships among coworkers, a topic
beyond the scope of the present study. Coefcient alpha was .96 for the ve-item measure of extra-role helping. Sample items
included items such as Takes on extra responsibilities in order to help coworkers when things get demanding at work, and
Helps coworkers with difcult assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested.
4.3.4. Affective organizational commitment
Affective commitment was measured by a ve-item scale (=.89) developedby Meyer and Allen (1984). A sample item was I
would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
4.3.5. Job satisfaction
A three-item measure of overall job satisfaction (=.83, Hackman & Oldham, 1975) was used. Items were All things
considered, I am satised with my job, I like my job,and I am generally satised with the work I do in this job.
4.3.6. Demographic variables
People with different backgrounds may vary in their propensity to trust ( Mayer et al., 1995). As such, demographic variables,
including age, gender, race, and education were collected. Gender was coded as 0=male and 1=female. Race was coded
0=Caucasian and 1=African-American. Education was coded into four categories (1=High school degree, 2=Some college,
3=College degree, 4=Graduate degree). In addition, it was reasonable to expect that trust relationships at work might also
depend on the amount of time individuals have known and worked with one another ( Becerra & Gupta, 2003). Therefore, tenure
(in years) with the current organization, supervisor, and work unit were also collected in the survey.
4.3.7. Marker variable
Self-reported data raise concerns about the potential effects of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003) on construct relationships under examination. Marker variable partial correlational analysis (Lindell & Whitney,2001) was performed to determine the presence of common method variance (CMV) in the current study. Creative self-efcacy,
dened as the belief that one has the abilityto produce creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), servedas the marker variable.
This three-item measure met criteria proposed by Lindell and Whitney, that is, being theoretically unrelated with other variables
of interest, similar in format and number of items, novel in content, specic in denition, and having high reliability. A sample
creative self-efcacy (=.81) item was I have condence in my ability to solve problems creatively.
5. Results
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all study variables are reported in Table 1. Within each of
the trust foci, levels of cognitive trust were higher than levels of affective trust. According to the correlation matrix, none of
the outcome variables were greatly inuenced by tenure-related differences. Thus, the tenure variables were excluded
from subsequent analyses. A conrmatory factor analysis was used to assess the properties of a measurement model including the
eight substantive study variables, speci
cally four trust variants, in-role behavior, extra-role behavior, affective organizationalcommitment, and job satisfaction. All of the indicators loaded signicantly on their corresponding latent constructs. Overall, the
55J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
7/14
measurement model t the data well, as indicated by several t statistics (2=1086.01, df=566, pb .001, RMSEA=.068,
NFI= .95, CFI= .97).
5.1. Examining the four trust variants
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL8.53 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996) was conducted rst to assess the t ofthefour-
factor trust model as well as alternative models. Because items evoke a response toward both bases and foci of trust, it is difcult to
know whether respondents reacted to foci, bases, or a combination of both. Five possible models by specifying trust foci and
bases separately (cognitive and affective bases for supervisor and management foci, Model I), by collapsing affective and cognitive
bases (Model II), by collapsing supervisor and management foci (Model III), by collapsing cognitive and affective bases of trust in
management (Model IV), and by collapsing cognitive and affective bases of trust in supervisor (Model V) were assessed to
determine the best tting model. In these ve nested models, the management set of items and the supervisor set of items only
differed in the referent. As such, in recognition of the fact that each indicator might have indicator-specic variation as well as
measurement error, we allowed the error terms of each pair of trust items re
ecting either management or the supervisor referentto correlate.
As shown inTable 2, the four-factor model had the lowest chi-square (2) value in relation to its degrees of freedom. Chi-
square difference tests indicated that the four-factor model by specifying trust foci and bases was superior to the two-factor model
by collapsing trust bases (2=338.05, df= 5,pb .01), to the two-factor model by collapsing trust foci (2=1950.60,df= 5,
pb .01), to the three-factor model by collapsing trust bases for management (2=219.19, df= 3, pb .01), and to the three-
factor model by collapsing trust bases for supervisor (2=123.02, df= 3,pb .01). In addition, values for the RMSEA, NFI, and
CFI indicated that the model differentiating trust by two foci and two bases emerged as the best tting model.
From the latent construct correlation (phi) matrix, the high correlations between the two bases of trust in management
(=.81) and in supervisor (=.80) raised discriminant validity concerns between cognitive and affective bases of trust. The
above nested model comparison results lent some support that the two bases of trust were distinguishable either with supervisor
referent or with management referent. In addition, following the suggestions byFornell and Larcker (1981), we further examined
the discriminant validity of the two pairs of latent constructs (cognitive trust and affective trust in management, cognitive trust
and affective trust in supervisor). The variance extracted was computed to assess the amount of variance accountedin the items bythe underlying construct with measurement error taken into consideration. Firstly, a value of .50 or higher is commonly used as a
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Age 42.1 10.79
2. Gender .84 .37 .003
3. Race .27 .44 .06 .11
4. Education 2.14 .93 .07 .07 .32
5. Tenure with
organization
8.0 7.84 .44 .09 .10 .02
6. Tenure with
unit
6.2 6.86 .33 .04 .03 .04 .65
7. Tenure with
supervisor
3.4 4.44 .24 .03 .02 .01 .39 .63
8. Cognitive
trust in
management
3.22 .98 .07 .15 .13 .18 .11 .04 .02
9. Affective
trust in
management
2.91 1.03 .02 .10 .10 .08 .16 .05 .05 .79
10. Cognitive
trust in
supervisor
3.95 .93 .11 .01 .18 .10 .02 .05 .003 .23 .24
11. Affective
trust in
supervisor
3.79 1.06 .11 .05 .21 .10 .02 .003 .04 .26 .34 .85
12. Affective
commitment
3.36 .98 .20 .04 .15 .07 .04 .10 .13 .33 .42 .39 .48
13. In-role
behavior
4.19 .63 .13 .16 .13 .24 .01 .002 .02 .01 ..04 .10 .16 .04
14. Extra-role
behavior
3.87 .82 .06 .06 .14 .21 .02 .02 .02 .01 .08 .28 .33 .12 .64
15. Job
satisfaction
4.03 .80 .21 .04 .03 .05 .001 .04 .10 .44 .41 .39 .46 .69 .07 .01
16. Creative
self-efcacy
4.02 .63 .03 .05 .06 .29 .002 .07 .06 .06 .03 .18 .23 .25 .22 .18 .18
Note. Pairwise sample size ranged from 180 to 210. pb .05. pb .01.
56 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
8/14
threshold of acceptability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Secondly, if the squared correlation between the two latent constructs (2)
was smaller than variance extracted estimates of the two constructs, evidence of discriminant validity would exist.
Variance extracted estimates for cognitive trust in management (.75) and for affective trust in management (.72) were larger
than .50, and both were larger than the squared correlation between cognitive and affective trust in management (2=.66).
Likewise, variance extracted estimates for cognitive trust in supervisor (.76) and for affective trust in supervisor (.73) were larger
than .50, and both were larger than the squared correlation between cognitive and affective trust in supervisor (2= .64). Thus,
these results suggested sufcient differentiation between cognitive and affective trust constructs across the two foci examined in
our study. In summary, trust bases and foci were found to be distinguishable.
5.2. Testing hypotheses
Multiple regression analysis was one means used to test the hypotheses. Given problems of interpreting regression coefcients
when predictor variables are intercorrelated, we calculated relative importance indexes (LeBreton, Binning, Adorno, & Melcher,
2004) to determine the unique contribution of each of the four trust variants in predicting outcome variables. The concept of
relative importance refers to the contribution a variable makes to the prediction of a dependent variable considering its effect
alone and in combination with other predictors (Johnson, 2004). The relative importance statistic epsilon (or relative importance
weight) has proved effective in identifying important predictors and decomposing model R-square information among competing
predictors (LeBreton et al., 2004). Relative weights are calculated by (a) transforming the original predictors to obtain the set of
orthogonal variables that have the highest degree of one-to-one correspondence with the original predictors, (b) relating the
orthogonal variables to the criterion, (c) relating the orthogonal variables back to the original predictors, and (d) combining the
information to yield a set of weights reecting the relative contribution each predictor makes to the model when considered by
itself and in the context of the other predictors (Johnson, 2004, p. 284). To compute the relative weights, we used the multiple
regression procedure in SPSS 13.0.
A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted with all the trust variants being entered as a set as independent
variables. The results of these tests are reported inTables 3 and 4. Demographic variables that were signicantly correlated with
the dependent variables under examination were enteredrst in the equation. The relative importance analyses were conducted
to supplement the regression results. Relative importance weights for the control variables and the trust variables entered in the
regression equation at step 2 are reported in the tables. Because relative importance weights sum to the model R-square, they
were rescaled and expressed as percentage ofR-square. This allowed the relative importance weights to be interpreted as a
proportion of the modelR-square attributed to each predictor.
Hypothesis 1 wastestedby regressing in-role behavior onto the control variables (i.e.,genderand education)and thetrust variants.
The regression model explained about 13% of the variance of in-role behavior (F=4.55,pb .001). Contrary to Hypothesis1, only
affective trust in supervisor was a signicant predictor (=.29, pb .05, relative weights index=20%). Note the R-square change
Table 2
Fit indexes ofve trust measurement models.
Measurement Models 2 df RMSEA NFI CFI
Model I-4 Factor by specifying trust foci and trust bases 377.31 154 .08 .96 .98
Model I I- 2 Factor by collapsing the two bases across tru st foci 715.34 159 .15 .93 .95
Model III-2 Factor by collapsing the two foci across trust bases 2327.91 159 .37 .78 .79
Model IV-3 Factor by collapsing the two bases of trust in management 596.50 157 .13 .94 .96
Model V-3 Factor by collapsing the two bases of trust in supervisor 500.33 157 .11 .95 .97
Note. pb .01.
Table 3
Multiple regression and relative importance analysis results for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior.
Dependent variables
In-role behavior Extra-role behavior
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Control variables
Gender .18 .20(25.3%) Education .21 .16(24.2%)
Education .28 .28(46.6%)
Cognitive trust in management .04 (0.8%) Cognitive trust in management .11 (2.1%)
Affective trust in management .002 (1.0%) Affective trust in management .05 (3.1%)
Cognitive trust in supervisor .20 (6.4%) Cognitive tru st in sup er visor .001 (26.0%)
Affective trust in supervisor .29(19.9%) Affective trust in supervisor .33(44.6%)
Fstatistic 10.93 4.55 Fstatistic 9.15 6.77
R2 .11 .13 R2 .04 .15
AdjustedR2 .096 .10 AdjustedR2 .04 .13
R2 .11 .03 R2 .04 .10
Note. Standardized regression coefcients and relative weights (in the parentheses) are reported. N=210. pb .05. pb .01. pb .001.
57J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
9/14
was not signicant, but one of the independent variables was (affective trust in supervisor). This type of result can occur when other
independent variables included in the model have trivial effects on the criterion variable, thereby lowering the overall R-square
(Cohen,Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). When extra-role behavior was the criterion variable, 15% of the total variance was explained by
the regression model (F=6.77, pb .001). In support of Hypothesis2, affective trust in supervisor (=.33,pb .05, relative weights
index=45%) was found to be signicantly related to extra-role behavior, after the effect of education was controlled.
To investigate Research Question 1, affective organizational commitment was regressed onto the four trust variants. After
controlling for the effects of age and race, affective organizational commitment was signicantly associated with affective trust in
management (=.33, pb .01) and affective trust in supervisor (=.43, pb .01). The regression model accounted for a total
amount of 35% of the variance in affective commitment (F=15.81, pb .001). Of this 35%, affective trust in management and
affective trust in supervisor accounted for about 27% and 31%, respectively. In examining Research Question 2, the regression
model accounted for a total of 34% of the variance in job satisfaction (F=20.41,pb .001). Of the four variants of trust in leadership,
cognitive trust in management (=.27,p b .01, relative weights index=25%) and affective trust in supervisor (=.33,p b .01,
relative weights index=29%) incrementally explained the variance in job satisfaction when the effect of age was controlled.
5.3. Assessment of CMV
Common method variance (CMV) was assessed using the marker variable technique and a latent variable approach (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). According toLindell and Whitney (2001), the smallest observed correlation between the marker variable and any
other substantive variable that is theoretically irrelevant is assumed to be due to CMV. A prescribed computational technique was
used to adjust zero-order correlations by partialing out the correlation value reecting CMV from the correlations between any
two substantive variables. The correlation value chosen to reect CMV was the one having smallest value (close to 0) between
correlations of the marker variable with any substantive variable in this study. Two types of partial correlations were computed
using formulas developed by Lindell and Whitney (2001): corrected correlations after partialing out CMV, and disattenuated
partial correlations adjusted for scale reliability.
Correlations between creative self-efcacy, the marker variable in this study (M=4.02, SD =.63), and other substantive
variables were uniformly low. As perLindell and Whitney (2001), we chose the smallest positive correlation coefcient involving
creative self-efcacy with affective trust in management (r=.03) for use in the partial correlation adjustment procedure. Partial
correlation adjustments were then made on the intercorrelations of trust with affective organizational commitment and job
satisfaction as well as on the intercorrelations between job satisfaction and commitment and between in-role behavior and extra-
behavior.The original correlations, the corrected correlations after removing CMV, and the disattenuated partial correlations after
adjusting for scale reliability are reported inTable 5. The corrected correlation coefcients were still statistically signicant after
CMV was controlled.Table 5also shows that the disattenuated partial correlations were slightly higher than the corresponding
partial correlations, a nding consistent with what has been observed by Lindell and Whitney (2001). Although the corrected
correlation coefcients were slightly lower than the original ones, the differences were not substantive and suggested that CMV
effects did not affect study results.
We also used a latent variable approach to estimate the inuence of common method bias. In this approach, a single latent
methodfactor is added to the measurement model, and all items are allowed to load on the substantive constructs as well as on the
method factor. This approach does not require researchers to identify sources of method bias in a given study ( Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Although model t was indeed improved by adding the method factor (2=158.16, df=36,pb .01), partitioning of the
variance indicated that the method factor accounted for only 5.82% of the total variance. Additionally, the 90% condence internal
for RMSEA of the model with the method factor (.055, .068) overlapped with that of the model without the method factor (.062,
.074). Thus, the con
rmatory factor analysis results were consistent with the marker variable technique result. Taken together,CMV was not a problem in the present study.
Table 4
Multiple regression and relative importance analysis results for affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Dependent variables
Organizational commitment Job satisfaction
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Control variable Control variable
Age .17 .13(7.9%) Age .21 .15(8.9%)
Race .13 .08 (4.9%)
Cognitive trust in management .02 (12.2%) Cognitive trust in management .27(24.5%)
Affective trust in management .33 (26.8%) Affective trust in management .09 (19.3%)
Cognitive trust in supervisor .07 (17.0%) Cognitive trust in supervisor .004 (18.1%)
Affective trust in supervisor .43(31.1%) Affective trust in supervisor .33(29.3%)
Fstatistic 4.47 15.81 Fstatistic 9.29 20.41
R2 .05 .35 R2 .04 .34
AdjustedR2 .04 .32 AdjustedR2 .04 .32
R2 .05 .30 R2 .04 .30
Note. Standardized regression coefcients are reported. Relative weights are in the parentheses. N=210. *pb .05. **pb .01. ***pb .001.
58 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
10/14
5.4. Supplemental analysis using HLM
In this study, the participating individuals were not entirely independent from one another, as they were nested within
supervisors. As noted earlier, an average ratio of a supervisor to subordinates was ve. We re-examined the trust-outcome
relationships using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM, Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), an analytic tool dealing with nested,
interdependent samples like ours by decomposing variance of the dependent variable into individual level sources and higher
level sources. We ran HLM four times at a lower level model, each time including one outcome variable and a set of four trust
predictors. In such HLM models, the individual level relationships were considered after higher level sources variance was
controlled. The relationship strength between each trust variant and outcome variables revealed from the four HLM model results
was the same as from the multiple regression analyses. Hence, we are condent the study ndings were not affected by
interdependencies in our sample.
6. Discussion
To more completely understand the potential consequences of trust in leaders within organizational contexts, we took a ner-
grained approach to studying employee trust by explicitly recognizing two bases and two foci of trust in leadership. We framed
trust bases as being cognitive and affective, and categorized trust foci into management and immediate supervisors. The study
results demonstrated that the four variants of employee trust in leaders did not function equivalently.
Consistent with proximal and distal tenets ofeld theory, the current study indicated that relations of the trust variants withoutcome variables varied somewhat when outcomes were segregated into behavioraland attitudinalcategories. Affective trust in
supervisor appeared more important to the accomplishment of behavioral outcomes (i.e., in-role and extra-role behavior). This
nding underscores the importance of interpersonal interactions with the supervisor for motivating and energizing positive work
behavior on the part of subordinates. In contrast, results also revealed that trustworthiness attributed to both direct supervisors and
upper management was important for predicting attitudinal outcomes. Specically, affective trust in management and affective trust
in supervisor signicantly predicted affective organizational commitment, and a combination of cognitive trust in management and
affective trust in supervisor was predictive of employees' overall job satisfaction. To our knowledge, this study is the rst to examine
and discover that certain combinations of trust bases and foci may be more inuential than other combinations, depending on the
outcomes of interest. This may provide guidance for organizations to better leverage the effects of trust within the constraints of
organizational resources.
The relative importance technique was used to supplement regular regression analysis results. Although research on relative
importance methodology is still in its infancy, it has progressed in recent years and relative importance statistics are being
reported more frequently (e.g.,Johnson, 2004). It should be noted that we can only make qualitative inferences from the relativeimportance technique results. Thus, we cannot conclude whether one trust variant would be more statistically signicant than
another trust variant for predicting outcomes considered in the study.
6.1. Implications for research and practice
The utility of separating the bases and foci of trust in leaders when considering varying outcome variables is underscored by
this study. First, empirical evidence was provided for a two-base structure of trust within organizational contexts. Research on
trust has been dominated by cognition-oriented propositions, while affect-oriented propositions have been given less attention
(Schoorman et al., 2007). The current study suggested that affective trust may be of considerable importance in a workplace where
care, concern, and nurturance are part of the normal organizational culture. Not surprisingly, affective trust in management
emerged as a signicant predictor for affective commitment to the organization. Moreover, affective, rather than cognitive, trust in
supervisor proved to be important for predicting outcomes of affective commitment, job satisfaction, and in-role and extra-rolebehavior.
Table 5
Assessment of common method variance.
Originalr Corrected r Disattenuated r
Cognitive trust in managementaffective organi zational commitment .33 .31 .33
Affective trust in managementaffective organi zational commitment .42 .40 .44
Cognitive trust in supervisoraffective organizational commitment .39 .37 .40
Affective trust in supervisoraffective organizational commitment .48 .46 .51
Cognitive trust in managementjob satisfacti on .44 .42 .47
Affective trust in managementjob satisfacti on .41 .39 .44
Cognitive trust in supervisorjob sat isfaction .39 .37 .42
Affective trust in supervisorjob sat isfaction .46 .44 .50
Job sat isfactionaffective organizational commitment .69 .68 .80
In-role behaviorextra-role behavior .64 .63 .66
Note. PairwiseN=210;rdenotes the zero-order correlation coefcient. **pb .01.
59J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
11/14
The strong effects of affective trust in this study were not evident in Dirks and Ferrin's (2002) meta-analysis of trust in leaders and
employee outcomes. Of course, this was expected in that they could not directly examine affective trust in their analysis because a
sufcient number of affective trust studies were not available in the existing literature. The impact of affective trust in our study,
however, does reect Tyler and Degoey's (1996) proposition that trust is more of a social than an economic commodity. The close ties
that are encouraged by affective trust appear to be of considerable importance to employees. Lapidot, Kark, and Shamir (2006) noted
that benevolence, a form of affective trust, was critical in trust building and associated with conditions of less vulnerability. They also
suggested that in conditions of less vulnerability, a promotion self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 2000) is more likely to be adopted by
individuals. A promotion focus differs from a prevention focus in that the former involve greater activation and eagerness in goal
pursuits whereas the latter involves the use of greater caution and vigilance (Higgins, 2000). As such, people's motivation to expend
their energy in pursuit of goals increases as situationally-induced promotion focus increases (Higgins, 1998). We argue that affective
trust in supervisor could in part be responsible for activating a promotion focus in employees. Affective trust in supervisor should
facilitate employees' embracing a promotion focus,and thiscould encourage higher performance and more positive attitudes. Beyond
the issue of trust, transformational leadership, in particular, has also been proposed to be effective in activating followers' promotion
focus (Ilies et al., 2006;Kark& Van Dijk, 2007). More research on the dynamics involved in transformational leadership, affective trust
in supervisor, and promotion focus may advance our knowledge in this regard.
It has been argued that specifying the referent is as important as identifying the base of trust (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Explicitly
recognizing referents for employee trust becomes particularly relevant when investigating the consequences of trust in leaders
within organizations. InDirks and Ferrin's (2002)meta-analysis, the differences in the magnitude of trust-outcome relationships
emerged for management and supervisor foci. However, they were unable to examine differences in the magnitude of found
relationships within a single sample to determine the unique variance attributable to each of the trust foci. With this circumstance
in mind, our study explored the relative impact of trust associated with different leadership foci in conjunction with trust bases.
Given thatorganizational resources arealwayslimited, theresults of thisstudymay informdecision makers on setting prioritiesfor
resource application. In this study, trust in different foci showed different relationships with workplace outcomes, thereby providing
diagnostic guidance regarding the targets at which organizations should focus resources on building trust to achieve benecial effects.
If an organization sees a need to boost employees' affective commitment to the organization, for example, then it should focus on its
efforts in establishing employees' affective trust in management as well as in their supervisors.Considerationleadership manifestedby
both upper managers and immediate supervisors may be needed to optimize trust's inuence upon employees' commitment to the
organization.Of course, more research is required to advance insights concerning conditions under which thefour trust variants would
be most efcacious. With such knowledge, organizations might be able to better leverage the effects of trust in achieving desired
workplace outcomes.
6.2. Limitations and future research
There are caveats associated with the study design. The cross-sectional design utilized makes it difcult to truly discern causal
relationships among study variables. Thus, any causal inferences should be made with caution. Another caveat concerns gen-
eralizabilityof thestudy results. Thestudywas conductedin a healthcarecontext,andit is possible that some characteristics associated
with the healthcare industry (e.g., cross-functional tasking across shifts and units, prominence of care-giving values) might make
certain elements of trust more salient than others. Related to sample-specic concerns, individual differences other than demo-
graphics (e.g., prior performance, career history) might also have inuenced study participants' behavior and work attitudes. These
potential issues should be addressed in future studies of the impact of the four trust variants.
A third limitation is that much of the data were collected by means of self-report. In-role and extra-role behavior data were
collected from supervisors, lessening concerns involving the relationships of in- and extra-role behavior with the trust variants.
The remaining measures were obtained from subordinates themselves. As several of the hypothesized relationships were subject
to perceptpercept ination, marker variable and latent variable analyses were used to estimate this possibility. The results of
these analyses results indicated that perceptpercept ination was not problematic in the study. Lastly, to address the issue of
multicollinearity among the four trust variants in multiple regression analyses, we computed relative importance indexes ratherthan relying only on regression coefcients to determine the trust variants' explanatory contributions. Nevertheless, given that
relative importance indexes cannot resolve inherent problems with correlated predictors (Baltes, Parker, Young, Huff, & Altmann,
2004), caution should be exercised when interpreting relative importance results.
The current study sought to examine the consequences of trust in leaders using a dual approach to bases and foci in
conceptualizing trust. Future research should extend this line of inquiry by examining other work-related outcomes, such as
turnover intentions, organization-directed citizenship, and withdrawal behavior. As this study showed that the trust variants do
not function equivalently, it may be worthwhile to discover the relative strength of each in predicting such outcomes. Additional
work should also explore the relationship of trust bases over time. The interplay of these two bases in an evolving work
relationship would be an interesting avenue for future research. It has been argued that a trust relationship at early stages may be
more cognitively-based, whereas at latter stages it may become more affectively-based. Young and Daniel's (2003) study revealed
that at early stages of relationship building, trust tended to be more cognitively determined by levels of competence and goal
congruence, whereas in later stages it depended more on personal feelings. Questions such as how trust develops with the passage
of time and how it evolves from a cognitive to an affective base have not as yet been examined. Therefore, research addressing thisissue would prove to be fruitful.
60 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
12/14
We identied trust foci in the context of trust in leadership. Future research may benet by examining whether the two-base
structure of trust can be expanded to other realms of work relationships. For example, it has been argued that employees can
develop a generalized trust in coworkers (Hartog, 2003). Such generalized trust does not rest with knowledge of particular
individuals but rather with implicit, normative behavior that occurs within the social unit as a whole. This kind of trust is relevant
when employees' power and status are more similar rather than when power dependencies exist, such as between leaders and
subordinates. Trust in coworkers/peers has been investigated as a group level variable in a few studies dealing with relations
among intragroup conict, intragroup trust, and group performance (e.g., Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Considering the results of the
present study, incorporating the cognitiveaffective trust distinction in examining of the effects of coworker trust in groups could
prove enlightening. Additionally, it may be interesting to explore whether group peer trust would exert a contextual inuence on
the trust effects observed in this study.
In conclusion, the aim of this study was to highlight and demonstrate the importance of understanding workplace trust from a
dual bases-and-foci perspective. Toward this end, the distinctiveness and importance of bases and foci of trust in leaders in
predicting salient consequences were investigated. Our ndings point toward a greater need of understanding how to optimize
employee trust in organizations. It is hoped that this study will serve as an impetus for more research in this direction.
Appendix A
Survey instruments for measuring trust in leaders by its foci and bases
Cognitive trust in management
1. I can depend on management to meet its responsibilities.2. I can rely on management to do what is best at work.
3. Top managers follow through with commitments they make.
4. Given management's track record, I see no reason to doubt its competence.
5. I'm condent in management because it approaches work with professionalism.
Affective trust in m anagement
1. I'm condent that management will always care about my personal needs at work.
2. If I shared my problems with management, I know they would respond with care.
3. I'm condent that I could share my work difculties with management.
4. I'm sure I could openly communicate my feelings to management.
5. I feel secure with management because of its sincerity.
Cognitive trust in supervisor
1. I can depend on my supervisor to meet his/her responsibilities.
2. I can rely on my supervisor to do what is best at work.
3. My supervisor follows through with commitments s(he) makes.4. Given my supervisor's track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence.
5. I'm condent in my supervisor because (s)he approaches work with professionalism.
Affective trust in s upervisor
1. I'm condent that my supervisor will always care about my personal needs at work.
2. If I shared my problems with my supervisor, I know (s)he would respond with care.
3. I'm condent that I could share my work difculties with my supervisor.
4. I'm sure I could openly communicate my feelings to my supervisor.
5. I feel secure with my supervisor because of his/her sincerity.
References
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management,14, 7692.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchangemodel. Journal of Organizational Behavior,23, 267285.
Avolio, B. J.,Zhu, W.,Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadershipand organizational commitment: Mediatingrole of psychological empowermentandmoderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25, 951968.
Baltes, B. B., Parker, C. P., Young, L. M., Huff, J. W., & Altmann, R. (2004). The practical utility of importance measures in assessing the relative importance of work-related perceptions and organizational characteristics on work-related outcomes. Organizational Research Methods,7, 326340.
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trusteeeffects.Organization Science,14, 3244.
Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Wheatley, K. (2004). Social exchanges within organizations and work outcomes: The importance of local and global relationships.Group & Organization Management,29, 276301.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader member exchange.Leadership Quarterly,11, 227250.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis.Leadership Quarterly,17, 288307.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, andindividual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 605619.
Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of workers' trust in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior,18, 205224.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd Ed. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
13/14
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 andjob performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 909927.
Cook, J.,& Wall, T. (1980). Newwork attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment andpersonal need non-fulllment.Journal of Occupational Psychology,53, 3952.
Cremer, D. D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly,17,7993.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security's direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,18,323349.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic ndings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,611628.
Dirks,K. T.,& Parks,J. M.(2003).Conictingstories:The state of thescienceof conict. In J. Greenberg(Ed.), Organizationalbehavior:The state of the science (pp.283324).2nd. Ed. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues. In R. M. Kramer, & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations:Dilemmas and approaches(pp. 2140). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future developments in leader member exchangetheory. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),Leadership(pp. 65114). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Fisher, C. D. (1980). On the dubious wisdom of expecting job satisfaction to correlate with performance. Academy of Management Review,5, 607612.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18,
3950.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job design diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,60, 159170.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hartog, D. (2003). Trustingothers in organizations: Leaders,management,and co-workers. In B. Nooteboom & F. Six (Eds.),The trustprocess in organizations(pp.125146).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ,30, 146.Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from t.American Psychologist,55, 12171230.House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management,23, 409473.Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies,13, 122.Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conict and group performance.Academy of Management
Journal,44, 238251.Johnson, J. W. (2004 ). Factors affecting relative weights: The inuence of sampling and measurement error.Organizational Research Methods,7, 283299.Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specic interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specic other.
Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology,43, 13061317.Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software International.Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management
Review,32, 500528.Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993).Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top managementcompliancewith multinationals' corporatestrategic decisions.
Academy of Management Journal,36, 502526.Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.Journal of Applied
Psychology,76, 698707.Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities andconvergent disappointments in thehierarchic relation: Trust andthe intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer& T. R.
Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 216245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2006). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. Leadership
Quarterly,18, 1634.
LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., Adorno, A. J., & Melcher, K. M. (2004). Importance of personality and job-specic affect for predicting job attitudes and withdrawalbehavior.Organizational Research Methods,7, 300325.
Lewin, K. (1943). Dening the eld at a given time.Psychological Review,50, 292310.Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.
Journal of Management,32, 9911022.Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 114121.Luo, Y. (2002). Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management,28, 669694.Mayer,R. C.,& Davis, J. H. (1999).The effects of theperformanceappraisalsystem on trust formanagement: A eld quasi-experiment.Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 123136.Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,20, 709734.Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management
Journal,48, 874888.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,38, 2459.Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theoryof organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 372378.Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review,11, 299326.Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? Leadership Quarterly,16, 441457.
Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (1994). The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing strategies. Human Resource Management,33, 261279.Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14, 5575.Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample
study. Journal of Management,25, 897933.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879903.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,26, 513563.Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T.,& Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, andturnoveramongpsychiatric technicians.Journal
of Applied Psychology,59, 603609.Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002).Hierarchical linear models (2e). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49, 95112.Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23 ,
393404.Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal
of Applied Psychology,84, 514528.
Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. (2004). Reexamining the job satisfaction
performance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. Journal of AppliedPsychology,89, 165177.
62 J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063
-
8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Trust in Leader
14/14
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review,32,344354.
Scott, D. (1980). The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of Management,6, 157175.Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 255267.Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly,6, 1947.Simons, T., Friedman, R.,Liu, L. A.,& Parks, J. M. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivityto behavior integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-groupseffects, and trick
downamong black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 650665.Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra,A. K. (2002). To stay or to go:Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing.Journal of Organizational Behavior,23,
707729.Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization.Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,126,
241260.Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance.Academy of Management Journal,45,
11371148.Tyler, T., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The inuence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and perceived validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
108119.Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Clientproject manager engagements, trust, and loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25, 9971013.Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in
affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,78, 124.Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review,7, 389404.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, 513530.Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.Journal of
Management,17, 601617.
Young, L., & Daniel, K. (2003). Affectual trust in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management,14, 139155.
63J. Yang, K.W. Mossholde r / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063