Content uploaded by Holly H. Brower
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Holly H. Brower
Content may be subject to copyright.
A CLOSER LOOK AT TRUST BETWEEN MANAGERS AND SUBORDINATES:
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF BOTH TRUSTING AND BEING TRUSTED ON
SUBORDINATE OUTCOMES
Holly H. Brower, Ph.D.
Calloway School of Business and Accountancy
Wake Forest University
Tel: (336) 758-6174
Fax: (336) 758-6133
E-mail: browerhh@wfu.edu
Scott W. Lester, Ph.D.
Department of Management and Marketing
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
Tel: (715) 836-5159
E-mail: lestersw@uwec.edu
M. Audrey Korsgaard, Ph.D.
Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior
Moore School of Business
University of South Carolina
1705 College St.
Columbia, SC 29208
Voice: 803-777-5967
Fax: 803-777-6876
Brian R. Dineen, Ph. D.
University of Kentucky
Gatton College of Business and Economics School of Management
Tel: (859) 257-2445
Fax: (859) 257-3577
E-mail: brian.dineen@uky.edu
Trust and Being Trusted
2
Keywords: Trust, Mutual Trust, Being Trusted
Trust and Being Trusted
3
ABSTRACT
Despite previous calls to examine trust from the perspectives of both the manager and
subordinate, most studies have focused exclusively on trust in the manager. We propose that trust
in the subordinate has unique consequences beyond trust in the manager. Furthermore, we
propose joint effects of trust such that subordinate behavior and intentions are most favorable
when there is high mutual trust. Findings revealed unique relationships of trust in manager and
trust in subordinate to performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and intentions to quit.
Further, the interaction of trust in manager and trust in subordinate predicted individual-directed
OCB in the hypothesized direction.
Trust and Being Trusted
4
A CLOSER LOOK AT TRUST BETWEEN MANAGERS AND SUBORDINATES:
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF BOTH TRUSTING AND BEING TRUSTED ON
SUBORDINATE OUTCOMES
“Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and
only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police.”
~ Albert Einstein
Trust between parties is an important element of cooperative relationships. In
organizational settings, trust can be an important determinant of productivity in individuals,
groups, and the organization (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). For example, two recent meta-analyses found that trust in the
manager is positively related to job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
and negatively related to counter-productive outcomes, such as the intention to quit the
organization (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
The above quote also emphasizes the importance of mutuality wherein each party trusts
the other. Indeed, Brower, Schoorman and Tan (2000) argue for the importance of examining
trust in manager-subordinate dyads from the perspective of both parties. However, most of the
empirical research to date has focused on only one of these perspectives – subordinates' trust in
their managers (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). That is, among studies seeking to examine the
consequences of trust on subordinate behavior and intentions, the majority have focused
exclusively on the trust the subordinate has in his or her manager. Thus, we know little about the
potential influence of being trusted on subordinates’ behavior and intentions. Further, we have
Trust and Being Trusted
5
little understanding of the combined effects of each party’s trust on subordinate behavior and
intentions.
The focus of this article, then, is interpersonal trust in the context of the manager-
subordinate dyad. In particular, we examine the role of trust in the dyadic context by
simultaneously examining the relationships of the subordinate’s trust in the manager and the
manager’s trust in the subordinate with subordinate job performance, OCB, and intention to quit.
In doing so, we seek to demonstrate the unique relationships that trust in the manager and being
trusted by the manager have with the subordinate’s behavior and intentions, as well as the
potential joint effect of trusting and being trusted. Therefore, we advance the understanding of
trust in two important ways. First, we investigate multiple perspectives of trust, including
perceptions of both the subordinate and the manager. This study demonstrates the importance of
being trusted by one’s manager as a significant predictor of subordinate outcomes in addition to
trusting one’s manager. Second, we examine the interactive effects of these perspectives of trust
on subordinate behavior and intentions.
We propose a model of trust that starts with the subordinates’ trust in the manager
predicting behavioral outcomes and intentions. These relationships are relatively well-established
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). However, we examine these relationships in the context of the manager’s
trust in the subordinate, which we propose will also independently predict subordinate outcomes.
Finally, we examine the joint relationships of subordinate trust in the manager and being trusted
by the manager on subordinate outcomes.
PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS
Much of previous trust research draws upon social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). This
theory suggests that the trust of both parties may be an important influence on the behavior and
Trust and Being Trusted
6
intentions of the subordinate. When subordinates trust their managers, they should be more
willing to provide benefits in the form of extra effort toward job performance and OCB, and
should have more favorable attitudes toward the exchange relationship and be more willing to
maintain it (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Mayer & Gavin, 2005). From a
different perspective, when managers trust their subordinates, the subordinates are likely to be
the recipient of more favorable benefits and to experience feelings of self esteem (Pierce &
Gardner, 2004). As a result, subordinates should be motivated to perform well and should be
more committed to the exchange relationship (Brower et al., 2000; Pierce & Gardner, 2004).
Indeed, it is possible that the effects of these forms of trust are not independent of one another. In
the following section, we develop hypotheses that address the unique as well as joint
relationships involving each form of trust (trust in manager and trust in subordinate) with
employee behavior and intentions. Like much of the research on trust in work dyads, we use the
commonly accepted definition of trust as the “intention to accept vulnerability based on positive
expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau, et al., 1998: 395).
The Relationship Between Trust in the Manager and Subordinate Behavior and Intentions
In a recent meta-analysis, Colquitt et al. (2007) examined the impact of trust on three
broad categories of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002): task performance, citizenship
behavior and counterproductive behavior (including intentions to quit). They found that trust in
managers had moderately strong relationships with all three facets of job performance such that
individuals who trusted their managers tended to engage in better task performance, more
citizenship behaviors, and less counterproductive behavior, including intentions to quit. We
believe that Rotundo and Sackett's (2002) three-facet model of job performance is useful and we
Trust and Being Trusted
7
employ it throughout this paper. Similarly, Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analysis indicated a
small but significant relationship between trust and job performance (ρ = .16).
As noted above, social exchange theory is a useful framework for understanding these
relationships. Social exchange theory suggests that, when subordinates trust their managers, they
are likely to have a history of successful exchanges (Blau, 1964). These exchanges create in the
subordinate a feeling of obligation to reciprocate as well as high expectations of reciprocation
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). That is, because of the benefits that they have received from
their manager in the past, trusting subordinates should feel obligated to “do right” by the
relationship. As well, trusting subordinates should be motivated by expectations of future
benefits to engage in actions that preserve the relationship and benefit the manager, either
directly or indirectly. Thus, subordinates should be committed to remaining in the relationship
and be motivated to put forth greater effort – both in terms of in-role and extra-role behavior
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). In contrast, subordinates who do not trust their managers should be less
likely to put forth extra effort or even remain in the relationship due to the lack of positive
expectations and no sense of obligation. Further, their in-role performance may be compromised
in that they may be distracted from job performance by concerns about being taken advantage of
by their untrustworthy managers (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) and they should be less motivated to
perform beyond minimum requirements. By way of replication, then, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Trust in the manager will be positively related to subordinate
organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 1b: Trust in the manager will be positively related to subordinate task
performance.
Hypothesis 1c: Trust in the manager will be negatively related to subordinate
intentions to quit.
Trust and Being Trusted
8
The Relationship Between Trust in the Subordinate and Subordinate Behavior and
Intentions
Brower and her colleagues (2000) argue the importance of examining interpersonal trust
from both the manager's and subordinate's perspectives and note that, to this point, little
empirical research has examined the role of the manager’s trust in the subordinate. In fact, we
were unable to locate any published studies that examined the effects of managers' trust in
subordinates on subordinate outcomes. Furthermore, in two meta-analyses of trust research, no
studies of manager trust in subordinate were included (Colquitt et al., 2007; Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). The authors of these meta-analyses located studies of trust in the manager and trust in
fellow colleagues, but did not include studies of managers' trust in subordinates. We argue that
trust in the subordinate (being trusted) will be related to Rotundo and Sackett’s (2002) three
dimensions of subordinate job performance (task performance, OCB, and counter productive
behavior, as indicated by intentions to quit, Colquitt et al., 2007). Note that we propose that the
relationships involving managers' trust in their subordinates exist above and beyond the effect of
subordinates' trust in their managers. Thus, we do not discount the power of trusting one’s
manager to influence job performance, but we examine the otherwise overlooked impact of being
trusted on job performance. Our assumption is that levels of subordinate trust in the manager as
well as being trusted by the manager have independent and significant influences on subordinate
performance, and organizations may be remiss when they attend to only one side of the
relationship. Furthermore, we believe that being trusted operates on performance through
different mechanisms than does trust.
A manager’s trust in the subordinate is likely to influence the way the manager treats the
subordinate, which in turn is likely to affect the subordinate’s behavior. For example, managers
Trust and Being Trusted
9
may be more empowering with subordinates they trust, which should be intrinsically motivating
for subordinates (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Spreitzer, 1996). In addition, research
indicates that managers are more willing to take risks with subordinates whom they trust (Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Also, a manager is more likely to delegate an important task to a
trusted subordinate than to one who is not trusted because the manager has greater confidence
that the task will be competently and conscientiously completed. In fact, belief in the
subordinate’s ability to successfully perform a task has been shown to be a precursor of trust
(Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Using this same line of reasoning,
managers should have lower expectations for the competence and integrity of subordinates
whom they do not trust. To guard against incompetence or shirking, managers are likely to
closely monitor and give limited decision latitude to subordinates who are not trusted. Thus, the
empowerment granted to trusted subordinates should enrich their experience and motivate more
productive and prosocial behavior. In addition, research has found that empowered employees
are more attached to the organization (Kraimer, Siebert & Liden, 1999; Spreitzer & Mishra,
2002) and less likely to voluntarily turnover (Koberg, Boss, Senjem & Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer
& Mishra, 2002).
A manager’s trust in the subordinate may also affect subordinate behavior and intentions
through the Pygmalion effect (Eden, 1990). This effect is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy where
subordinates act in accordance with manager expectations (Kierein & Gold, 2000), and has yet to
be integrated into the trust literature. Several studies have found positive effects for manager
expectations on subordinate performance (see Kierein & Gold, 2000 and McNatt, 2000 for meta-
analyses). This effect has been explained through subconscious leadership behaviors such that
when leaders have higher expectations of subordinates, they are usually better leaders to them by
Trust and Being Trusted
10
providing more encouragement, coaching and supportive behavior (Eden & Shani, 1982; Kierein
& Gold, 2000). Since, by definition, managers who trust their subordinates have positive
expectations of their future behavior based on positive perceptions of subordinate competence
and character (Mayer et al., 1995), the manager’s trust in the subordinate may similarly lead to a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Alternatively, a depressing cycle of events follows when managers have
low expectations that may, even unintentionally, lead employees to leave the organization
(Livingston, 1969).
In short, a manager’s trust in the subordinate should lead to high quality interactions that
convey a sense of empowerment and confidence to the subordinate. Consequently, subordinates
should be motivated to exert greater effort within and beyond their prescribed roles. Moreover,
these exchanges should instill a sense of loyalty to the relationship, motivating the subordinate to
remain in the organization. In summary, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a: Manager’s trust in the subordinate will be positively related to
subordinate organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2b: Manager’s trust in the subordinate will be positively related to
subordinate task performance.
Hypothesis 2c: Manager’s trust in the subordinate will be negatively related to
subordinate intentions to quit.
Joint Effects of Trust in the Manager and Being Trusted
The preceding hypotheses specified unique relationships involving trust from
each side of the manager-subordinate dyad. We also posit that the trust each party has for
the other has a joint effect such that high, mutual trust produces more favorable outcomes
than the additive trust of both parties or the trust of each party alone. Serva, Fuller and
Mayer (2005) specify that mutual trust is complementary trust in which each member of
the dyad has roughly the same level of trust for the other at a given point in time.
Trust and Being Trusted
11
Given that definition, trust does not necessarily translate into mutual in that one party can
trust the other without being trusted in return (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). In fact,
Serva, et al. (2005) found that both parties do not necessarily reach the same level of trust
(mutual trust). Indeed, there are numerous reasons to expect that trust levels of the manager and
subordinate may not be shared. In the exchange relationship, managers and subordinates face
different levels and types of risk (Korsgaard & Sapienza, 2002). Depending on the culture,
reward systems, and organizational policies, the risk faced by one party or the other may be
substantially greater. Managers and subordinates may also interpret the same events differently,
leading to diverse assessments of the fairness of exchanges and consequently, of each other’s
trustworthiness (Cole & Flint, 2005; Lind, Kray & Thompson, 1998; Roberson, 2006).
Moreover, individual differences in the propensity to trust (Gill, Boies, Finegan, & McNally,
2005; Mayer et al., 1995) can lead the two parties to develop different levels of trust in each
other. Finally, the manager and subordinate may differ in personal attributes associated with
being trustworthy, such as conscientiousness (e.g., Becker, 1998; Konovsky & Organ, 1996),
values (Mayer et al., 1995), or ability to follow through (Mayer et al., 1995). In short, trust levels
of managers and subordinates are relatively independent (Brower et al., 2000; Mayer, et al.,
1995).
Still, organizational researchers have asserted that mutual trust is necessary for stable,
ongoing cooperative relationships (e.g. Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, &
Werner, 1998); however, there is little direct evidence of the impact of mutual trust. In a study
of downsizing experiences, Mishra and Mishra (1994) found that perceptions of mutual trust
were related to macro-level outcomes such as redesign strategy and organizational performance.
However, this study examined perceptions of trust from one member of the dyad rather than
Trust and Being Trusted
12
actual levels of trust from the trustor. In a different study, Smith and Barclay (1997)
demonstrated that perceptions of mutual trustworthiness and trusting behaviors were positively
related to task performance and mutual satisfaction. However, this study looked at behavior such
as open communication and then the authors deduced that there was trust, but actual reports of
mutual trust were not measured.
In this investigation, we approach mutual trust by assessing the trust of the manager and
the subordinate independently. A critical implication of mutual trust approached from this
perspective is that it must have consequences beyond the unique impact of each party’s trust in
the other. That is, when both parties share high levels of trust in each other, there should be a
positive effect on subordinate outcomes above and beyond the effects of trusting and being
trusted on these same outcomes. That is, outcomes are more favorable when high levels of trust
are shared than when only one party exhibits high trust or both parties lack trust. Empirically,
this means that mutual trust should manifest itself in a synergistic interaction (Neter, Kutner,
Nachtscheim, & Wasserman, 1996) between the manager’s trust and the subordinate’s trust. Put
another way, we posit that the relationship between trust in the manager and subordinate
outcomes will be strengthened when manager trust in the subordinate is higher and attenuated
when manager trust in the subordinate is lower.
In the present study, we expect an interaction effect rather than a purely additive effect
because mutual high trust is reinforcing and escalates exchanges between the parties (Blau,
1964). In a work relationship where both parties trust each other, there is an environment that
builds the self esteem of employees and enables performance and extra-role behaviors as well as
intentions to stay (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). On the other hand, when neither party trusts the
other, each will be reluctant to initiate exchanges, effectively stalling the processes of
Trust and Being Trusted
13
reciprocity, empowerment, and self-fulfilling prophecy that lead to performance. Subordinates
then may lack investment in the relationship and be unwilling to exert effort beyond minimum
requirements.
Moreover, the positive impact of trust in the manager is likely to be mitigated by the
level of trust the manager has in the subordinate. When managers do not trust their subordinates,
they are less empowering (Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001), thereby limiting the extent to which
employees can make extraordinary contributions at work. Thus, even when subordinates are
motivated to exert high effort and take initiative, the restriction imposed by untrusting managers
may limit the extent to which these efforts influence subordinate performance and OCB. In
addition, an untrusting manager may create an environment that is less fulfilling (Pierce &
Gardner, 2004), and even stifling, driving a subordinate to investigate options to leave the
organization in spite of the positive effects of trusting the manager. This logic leads us to
predict:
Hypothesis 3a: Trust in the manager and trust in the subordinate will interact
such that the positive relationship between trust in the manager and OCB will be
stronger when manager trust in the subordinate is higher.
Hypothesis 3b: Trust in the manager and trust in the subordinate will interact
such that the positive relationship between trust in the manager and subordinate
task performance will be stronger when manager trust in the subordinate is
higher.
Hypothesis 3c: Trust in the manager and trust in the subordinate will interact
such that the negative relationship between trust in the manager and subordinate
intentions to quit will be stronger when manager trust in the subordinate is
higher.
Trust and Being Trusted
14
METHOD
Sample
The data reported in this study are part of a larger study of employee perceptions and
attitudes. Participants were employees of a company in the hotel and resort industry. This
company owns and operates six separate resort properties, a travel planning center, and a
corporate headquarters. We obtained data from two sources - the employees and their managers
from these eight centers. Employees completed a survey assessing their trust in their managers
and intention to quit. The employee survey was distributed to 197 employees, 172 of whom
completed it, yielding a response rate of 87%.
The majority of participants was female (69%) and spoke English as a first language
(70%). Remaining employees identified Spanish as their native language. Most participants
identified themselves as Caucasian (64%), 32% indicated they were of Hispanic origin, and the
remainder did not indicate their ethnicity. On average, participants were 39 years old and had
been employed by this organization for 2.5 years. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were
high school graduates.
Managers completed a survey in which they assessed the level of in-role performance and
OCB of each of their subordinates, along with their trust in the subordinate. Of the 41 managers
supervising these employees, all but two responded (response rate = 95%). These two managers
supervised a total of seven respondents. In addition, one manager did not provide an evaluation
of one of her subordinates. Thus, in total, we obtained manager ratings for 164 of the 172
employees who responded to our survey (95%). List-wise, our final sample consisted of 155
paired cases (where we had complete data from both manager and subordinate). The number of
direct reports in this final sample ranged from two to eight with a mean of three employees
Trust and Being Trusted
15
reporting to each. Fifty-five percent of responding managers were female and 92% spoke
English as a first language, while remaining managers identified Spanish as their native
language. Most managers identified themselves as Caucasian (92%), 8% were Hispanic. On
average, managers were 42 years old and had been employed by this organization for 3.9 years.
Nature of the Dyadic Relationships
As mentioned above, employees worked at the corporate headquarters, a travel planning
center, or one of six resorts that the company owned. Although participants worked in multiple
facilities and performed a variety of jobs, the structure of the reporting relationships allowed for
regular interaction between managers and their subordinates. Those individuals working in the
corporate headquarters and the travel planning center worked a traditional ‘business hours’
schedule and were usually working during the same hours as their managers.
At the resort properties, employees worked in one of three areas: guest services,
maintenance, or housekeeping. Each of these areas had one first line manager to whom the non-
managerial staff reported. One resort had a fine-dining restaurant that also was staffed by a
group of non-managerial employees and a first line manager. These groups of employees each
had regular interactions with their managers for a variety of reasons. The housekeeping staff
(and managers) worked mostly in the mornings and afternoons to ensure that the rooms were
ready for the arrival of new guests. The maintenance crew at each resort was the smallest of the
three subgroups and often worked alongside their manager to ensure that pressing tasks were
completed in a timely fashion. The guest services area had both daytime and evening shifts and
the manager at each resort was required to work a varying schedule to allow for personal
interaction with all direct reports.
Trust and Being Trusted
16
The employees at each resort had an indirect line of reporting to corporate headquarters.
First line managers reported to a general manager at each property who in turn reported to the
Vice-President of Operations at the corporate headquarters. All the resorts were within short
driving distance of each other and employees attended company wide training and development
sessions. In summary, the structure of the organization and its reporting relationships enabled its
employees to have similar opportunities to interact and establish a dyadic relationship with their
immediate supervisors and an awareness of the larger organization.
Procedure
As noted above, data were obtained from two different surveys administered to
employees and their managers. Surveys were administered on-site in conjunction with the
company’s Human Resource Director who coordinated survey sessions for all subordinates and
managers. Respondents completed the surveys on company time and returned them directly to
the researcher. Participants were assured that individual responses would remain confidential. To
encourage open and honest responding, separate survey sessions were held for subordinates and
their managers. For employees who did not speak English as a first language, surveys were
translated into Spanish (by Spanish speaking employees of the organization) so that all
employees could complete the survey in their primary language. Two employees were involved
in the translation process to ensure agreement on the appropriate translation of both the
instructions and scale items.
Measures
Employee Measures. Employees provided ratings of their trust in the manager using the
four-item version of a scale published by Mayer and Davis (1999). The items remained largely
the same as the original except that the referent was changed from “top management” to “my
Trust and Being Trusted
17
supervisor”. A sample item is “I would be comfortable giving my supervisor a task or problem
that was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her actions.” Responses were anchored on
a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Employees assessed
their intentions to quit the organization using a three-item scale from Meyer and Allen (1993). A
sample item is “I often think about quitting my job.” This scale also was anchored by a five-point
Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
Supervisory Measures. We employed Williams and Anderson’s (1991) two scales of
individual-directed and organization-directed OCB. Both scales were composed of seven items.
A sample item from the individual-directed scale is “this employee often assists me with my
work even when it is not requested.” A sample item from the organization-directed OCB scale is
“this employee always tries to conserve and protect organizational property.” Supervisors also
provided ratings of subordinates' in-role performance using Williams and Anderson’s (1991)
seven-item scale. A sample item is “this employee consistently fulfills all the aspects of his/her
job that he/she is obligated to perform.” All items for these three supervisory measures were
rated on a five-point, Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
Supervisors used the same Mayer and Davis (1999) scale to provide their ratings of trust in each
of their employees. The wording of these trust items was the same with the exception of the
referent now being identified as “this employee”.
Control Variables. Consistent with prior research on trust (Butler, 1999; Robinson, 1996)
and as a means to rule out the role of participant characteristics as an alternative explanation, we
controlled for subordinate and manager demographics. Specifically, we controlled for gender (1
= female, 0 = male), tenure with the organization in years and first language (1 = English, 0 =
other).
Trust and Being Trusted
18
RESULTS
Preliminary Considerations
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for all measured variables are
listed in Table 1. Because managers each made ratings of multiple subordinates, there was the
potential for dependence in the data. Therefore, we first examined the data for higher level (i.e.,
manager) effects by assessing ICC and tau statistics for all primary study variables. The results,
summarized in Table 2, indicated no significant between-manager differences in the dependent
variables or in trust in the manager. However, there were significant between-manager
differences in manager trust in subordinate, which further suggests that regression parameters
could vary systematically by manager. Thus, because of the nested structure of the data and
associated potential for non-independent observations, and because manager trust in subordinate
was a core predictor and affected all hypotheses, we tested the hypotheses using hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM). Unlike OLS regression, this approach allowed us to simultaneously
model both individual- and manager-level residuals, thereby recognizing the partial
interdependence of individuals who work for the same manager without having to disaggregate
manager-level variables such as the demographic controls included in the current study
(Hofmann, 1997). Specifically, hypotheses were tested as level 1 effects. However, whereas
employee demographic control variables were entered as level 1 effects, manager demographic
control variables were entered as level 2 effects. All predictors were standardized prior to
hypotheses testing.
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
Hypotheses 1a-1c
Trust and Being Trusted
19
Tables 3 and 4 report the effects of the control variables (Model 1), main effects (Model
2) and corresponding interaction terms (Model 3) on the four dependent variables. As indicated
across the Model 2 tests, Hypotheses 1a-1c were supported in that subordinates' trust in the
manager was related to each of the four dependent variables. Specifically, trust in the manager
was positively related to organization-directed OCB (γ = 0.11, t 146 = 3.19, p < .01) and in-role
performance (γ = 0.07, t 146 = 2.05, p < .05), and negatively related to intention to quit (γ = -0.37,
t 146 = -5.26, p < .01). Trust in the manager's relationship with individual-directed OCB reached a
marginal level of significance (γ = 0.06, t 146 = 1.87, p < .07).
Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here
Hypotheses 2a-2c
Tables 3 and 4 (Model 2) also show the previously understudied relationships involving
trust in the subordinate (Hypotheses 2a-2c). As these findings indicate, trust in the subordinate
was positively related to organization-directed OCB (γ = 0.32, t 146 = 8.65, p < .01), individual-
directed OCB (γ = 0.42, t 146 = 11.84, p < .01), and in-role performance (γ = 0.42, t 146 = 11.33, p
< .01), and negatively related to intention to quit (γ = -0.17, t 146 = 2.35, p < .05). Thus each form
of trust (i.e., trust in the manager and manager trust in the subordinate) exhibited independent
effects on each of the outcome variables.
Hypotheses 3a-3c
Model 3 in Tables 3 and 4 reports the tests of interactions for each of the dependent
variables. As indicated, the interaction of trust in the manager and trust in the subordinate was
significant only for individual-directed OCB (γ = 0.08, t 145 = 2.59, p < .05; see Figure 1). To
interpret this interaction, we estimated the simple slopes for the relationship between trust in the
manager and OCB one standard deviation above and below the mean on trust in the subordinate
Trust and Being Trusted
20
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The pattern of findings was consistent with the
hypothesis in that we found a significant positive relationship between trust in the manager and
individual-directed OCB when manager trust in the subordinate was high (t 145 = 3.13, p < .01).
Conversely, the relationship between trust in manager and individual directed OCB was not
significant when manager trust in the subordinate was low (t 145 = -.25, p > .10). Moreover, as
predicted, the highest level of individual-directed OCB was exhibited when both the manager
and subordinate had high levels of trust in one another. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was partially
supported in that the expected pattern of interaction was obtained for one dimension of OCB.
Insert Figure 1 about here
DISCUSSION
This study extends the trust literature and deepens our understanding of the importance of
trust between a manager and subordinate by simultaneously examining the role of trust from both
perspectives. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of trust in the manager on
subordinate behavior and intentions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), but these relationships have been
investigated without regard to the manager’s trust in subordinate. The results replicate and
extend prior research on trust in the manager by demonstrating the unique relationship between
trust in the manager and subordinate behavior and intentions beyond the influence of the
manager’s trust in the subordinate.
More importantly, the results of this study add to our understanding of trust by
demonstrating the power of being trusted (manager trust in the subordinate) on subordinate
behavior and intentions. Specifically, we found strong support for the relationship of the
manager’s trust in subordinate to subordinate behavior and intentions, beyond the effect of trust
Trust and Being Trusted
21
in the manager. These findings are an important extension to the trust literature as there have
been calls to examine trust from both perspectives (e.g., Brower et al., 2000), but empirical
examination of the effects of managers’ trust has been lacking to date.
Furthermore, we investigated the joint effects of trust in the manager and trust in the
subordinate in an effort to understand the nature and consequences of mutual trust.
Organizational researchers have asserted that mutual trust is necessary for stable, ongoing
cooperative relationships (e.g. Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Smith & Barclay, 1997). Our findings
offer support for this assertion in that we obtained a significant interaction for individual-directed
OCB. This result supported the hypothesized pattern, with the relationship between subordinate
trust in the manager and subordinate individual-directed OCB being stronger when the
manager’s trust in the subordinate was higher, with the highest level of individual-directed OCB
occurring when both parties’ trust levels were high.
This pattern supports our arguments in that subordinates’ trust had little impact on
individual-directed OCB if the manager did not trust the subordinate, presumably because the
manager did not provide sufficient discretion and resources to exhibit such behavior. This
interaction is also indicative of the mitigating effect of subordinates’ lack of trust on manager’s
trust in the subordinate. That is, managers may grant greater autonomy and resources to trusted
subordinates, but if subordinates do not trust the manager, they may be less willing to utilize
these benefits. Indeed, subordinates may interpret the manager’s efforts toward empowerment as
attempts to off load the manager’s own work on them.
Mutual Trust and the Joint Effects of Trust in Manager and Trust in Subordinate
Overall, we obtained mixed findings regarding the interaction of trust measures.
Although null results should be interpreted cautiously, these findings may call into question the
Trust and Being Trusted
22
implicit assumption of the importance of mutual trust. That is, while the findings provide strong
support for the independent effects of each party’s trust, their trust levels may not interact in a
synergistic fashion as suggested by the concept of mutual trust. In short, dyadic trust may be an
additive rather than interactive phenomenon.
Alternatively, these findings may be explained in part by the relatively low instance of
mutual trust, as indicated by the small correlation between trust in manager and trust in
subordinate (r = .16). To further illustrate this issue, we created groups based on whether the
manager-subordinate ratings were both above the median (high mutual trust), both below the
median (low mutual trust), or mixed. Only 26% of the sample was classified as high mutual trust,
22% was classified as low mutual trust, and the remaining 51% was mixed, (trust in manager
exceeded trust in subordinate in 22% of the cases, and the opposite occurred in 29% of the
cases).1 This finding suggests that mutual trust (or lack thereof), as indicated by shared high trust
levels, may be a relatively uncommon phenomenon.
The relatively low occurrence of mutual trust obtained in this sample, coupled with the
cross-sectional design, may have contributed to the null findings regarding the hypothesized
interactions. Indeed, future work should seek to employ longitudinal designs over a period of
several months or years to better assess the development (or derailment) of mutual trust through
repeated exchanges. This approach might enable the effects of mutual trust to unfold over time.
The pattern of significant and non-significant interactions may also reflect the substantive
differences in the outcome variables. Our examination of dyadic trust implies an interpersonal
phenomenon, making it more likely that mutual trust would affect interpersonal forms of OCB
such as individual-directed OCB. This logic is consistent with a mutli-foci view of social
exchange relationships (Lavalle, Rupp & Brockner, in press) whereby the behavioral
Trust and Being Trusted
23
consequences of trust in exchange relationships are stronger when the focus of the exchange is
also the target of the behavioral response (see also Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). For
example, this principle would suggest that mutual trust between individuals likely maps more
strongly onto individual-related discretionary outcomes (i.e. individual-directed OCB), whereas
institutional trust, or an employee’s trust in the organization, for example, might be related more
strongly to organizational-directed OCB. In general, additional research on mutual trust is
necessary, because, although there is theoretical appeal to its benefits, empirical support is scant.
Finally, these findings have resulted from our choice to assess mutual trust by examining
convergence in actual trust levels. Measuring actual trust from each perspective allows for
investigation into the effects of actual trust reported from the trustor, but there is not assurance
that mutuality is perceived. Another option is to directly measure perceptions of mutual t rust.
We were able to locate three studies that have empirically investigated the effects of mutual trust.
Zand (1972) manipulated high versus low mutual trust. Mishra and Mishra (1994) examined
subordinates’ perceptions of high versus low mutual trust. Smith and Barclay (1997) captured
mutual trust as the aggregate of the two parties’ trust levels. Although these operationalizations
varied, all three studies essentially contrasted high mutual trust with low mutual trust, ignoring
circumstances when trust levels did not converge. In light of our findings that convergence on
trust was not common (r = .16) and that each party’s trust had a unique relationship to behavior
and intentions, we believe it is important to examine the effects of shared trust as well as
unbalanced trust.
Implications
This study reinforces the importance of considering the trust perceptions of both dyadic
members. Leaders and subordinates are partners in a social exchange. If either member of the
Trust and Being Trusted
24
dyad has a lack of trust, it is difficult to maximize the potential outcomes evolving from this
relationship. The literature is now full of recommendations to managers to establish trusting
relationships with subordinates (e.g. Mayer & Gavin, 2005); however, these results demonstrate
that effective leaders not only need to gain the trust of their subordinates but also learn to trust
their subordinates. Specifically, this study demonstrates that when they trust their subordinates,
managers get employees who are more productive, extend help beyond the requirements of their
jobs, and remain longer. Consequently, we can conclude that it is in the best interest of
managers to trust their subordinates and to behave accordingly.
Learning to trust poses particular problems because research suggests that the sorts of
controls that would protect managers from subordinates who are not trusted also limit
subordinates’ opportunities to demonstrate their trustworthiness. For example, Strickland (1958)
found that the monitoring of persons in a subordinate role (a mechanism used to reduce risk;
Korsgaard & Sapienza, 2002), led to less trust in the person. In a study of a prisoner’s dilemma-
type game, Maholtra and Murnighan (2002) found that individuals who initially played under a
binding agreement, which minimizes risk of non-reciprocation, were less likely to cooperate
when that binding agreement was removed than individuals who had played without the control
of a binding agreement. Therefore, managers may benefit from extending trust to subordinates
even before they have gained enough experience with subordinates to assess their
trustworthiness. An additional benefit may be that managers who learn to trust and act on that
trust enhance their own perceived trustworthiness. That is, as Whitener and her colleagues
(1998) argued, gaining the trust of subordinates may involve acting as a trusting manager.
This reasoning suggests that organizations need to take steps to increase both the
trustworthiness of managers and the willingness of managers to act in a prudently trusting
Trust and Being Trusted
25
manner. Scholars have suggested that certain management practices affect the development of
trust in the manager (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Whitener, 1997). These trust-building
practices involve exchange of information and the empowerment of employees (Cummings,
1983; Deluga, 1994; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Whitener, 1997), which puts the manager in a
more vulnerable position. Helping managers learn to use these procedures wisely may be one
path to building mutual trust.
Limitations and Future Directions for Trust Research
Although the proposed relationships in this study were largely supported, the current
investigation had some methodological limitations. One limitation was the small sample size.
Because of the nature of this research and the difficulty of getting both members of a dyad to
respond, large sample sizes are difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, these larger samples are
necessary to verify the robustness of these findings.
A second concern is the possible role of common method variance on our results. Our
strongest results occurred in situations where a single party assessed both the independent and
dependent measures (e.g., the relationship between the subordinate’s trust in manager and his/her
assessments of intentions to quit). However, it is important to note that all but one of the
hypothesized main effects of trust that involved multiple sources were significant. That is,
manager’s trust in the subordinate was significantly related to subordinate’s self-reported
intentions to quit, and subordinate’s trust in the manager was related to the manager’s ratings of
OCB and performance. Furthermore, these relationships still held after controlling for the
common method relationships (e.g., manager’s trust in subordinate still related to intentions to
quit, even after accounting for subordinate trust in manager).
Trust and Being Trusted
26
A key contribution of the study is that it provides strong support for the importance of
being trusted. The findings highlight the significant role that manager trust in the subordinate has
in determining subordinate performance. An important next step in this stream of research would
be to examine how this trust in subordinate works. While our findings provide a first look at
these relationships, we did not directly examine these underlying processes. We encourage future
researchers to examine explanatory mechanisms for these relationships.
Finally, as noted earlier, there are alternative approaches to examining mutual trust, such
as perceived mutual trust. Given attempts to assess perceived mutual trust in the past have not
included perception of lack of mutuality (Mishra & Misrha, 1994; Smith & Barclay, 1997; Zand,
1972), developing a direct measure of perceived mutual trust may prove useful in understanding
the effects of mutual trust beyond actual trust levels. Another approach to mutual trust is to
assess the individuals’ trust in the other party and their perceptions of being trusted (felt trust).
To some extent, this operationalization captures a different phenomenon. The subordinates’ felt
trust may not be consonant with the manager’s actual trust in the subordinate and hence, its
effects would not necessarily be communicated through the manager’s trusting behavior. Thus,
the combined effect of trusting and feeling trusted may be unique from the joint effects of each
party’s trust and thus represents a promising area for future research. In a similar research vein,
Lester and Brower (2003) found that felt trustworthiness—perceiving that one’s manager
assesses one’s trustworthiness highly—significantly predicted subordinate behavior and
attitudes, even after accounting for perceived manager trustworthiness. Perceptions of
trustworthiness and felt trustworthiness were distinct constructs with differential effects on
subordinate behaviors and attitudes.
Trust and Being Trusted
27
Another option is to directly measure perceptions of mutual t rust. We were able to
locate three studies that have empirically investigated the effects of mutual trust. Zand (1972)
manipulated high versus low mutual trust. Mishra and Mishra (1994) examined subordinates’
perceptions of high versus low mutual trust. Smith and Barclay (1997) captured mutual trust as
the aggregate of the two parties’ trust levels. Although these operationalizations varied, all three
studies essentially contrasted high mutual trust with low mutual trust, ignoring circumstances
when trust levels did not converge. In light of our findings that convergence on trust was not
common (r = .16) and that each party’s trust had a unique relationship to behavior and intentions,
we believe it is important to examine the effects of shared trust as well as unbalanced trust.
Measuring the actual trust from both perspectives, as we have done, allows for
investigation into the effects of actual trust reported from the trustor, but there is not assurance
that mutuality is perceived. Perceived mutual trust, then, provides an interesting avenue for
future research as investigators examine the mechanisms by which mutual trust influences
performance.
In conclusion, this study highlighted the value of taking into account the trust perceptions
of both dyadic members in the manager-subordinate relationship. Most prior research has
measured trust from the subordinate’s perspective alone. Our results demonstrate that being
trusted is a significant predictor of subordinate work outcomes. Furthermore, our findings also
suggest that the interaction of trust in the manager and being trusted by the manager has potential
explanatory power. It is our hope that these findings will spark an increased interest in defining,
measuring and examining the effects of trust in dyadic relationships.
Trust and Being Trusted
28
FOOTNOTE
Comparisons of these groups provide an alternative approach to examining the effects of
mutual trust. We therefore conducted pair-wise t-tests among these groups on subordinate OCB,
in-role performance and intention to quit. With the exception of intention to quit, the results
generally indicated that high mutual trust was significantly superior to mixed trust, which in turn
was superior to low mutual trust. We also examined this trend by creating a continuum of high
mutual trust to low mutual trust with mixed trust levels in the middle. This index was created by
estimating the rwg (within dyad agreement) for each dyad, and weighting it by the sum of the
trust rating of both parties. This index was significantly related to all four subordinate outcomes
(organization-directed OCB: r = .25; individual-directed OCB: r = .30; in-role performance: r =
.29; intention to quit: r = -.19). It is also noteworthy that there was a wide range of agreement,
with only 48% of the dyads having rwg’s greater than .80. These findings provide further
evidence of the importance – and potential scarcity – of mutual trust.
Trust and Being Trusted
29
REFERENCES
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. 1989. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel
dyads. Marketing Science, 8: 310-323.
Becker, T. E. 1998. Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy
of Management Review, 23: 154-161.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
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: 227-250.
Butler, J. K. 1999. Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation
effectiveness and efficiency. Group and Organization Management, 24(2): 217-239.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, N. D., & Flint, D. H. 2005. Opportunity knocks: Perceptions of fairness in employee
benefits. Compensation & Benefits Review, 37: 55-62.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A
meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 902-927.
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.
Cummings, L.L. 1983. Performance-evaluation systems in context of individual trust and
commitment. In F. J. Landy, S. Zedrick, & J. Cleveland (Eds.) Performance
Measurement and Theory: 89-93. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deluga, R. J. 1994. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational
citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67:
315-326.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12: 450-467.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-Analytic finding and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.
Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion in management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. 1982. Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and
trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 194-199.
Trust and Being Trusted
30
Einstein, Albert (1950, February 12) “Today with Mrs. Roosevelt,” National Broadcasting
Company (NBC), New York NY, 30 minutes, TV documentary.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, K., & McNally, J. 2005. Antecedents of trust establishing a
boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 287-302.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D. A. & Roth, P.L. 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy
of Management Journal, 49: 305-325.
Hofmann, D.A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models.
Journal of Management, 23: 723-744.
Hofmann, D.A., & Morgeson, F.P. Gerras, S.J. 2003. Climate as a moderator of the relationship
between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an
exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 170-178.
Kierein, N. M, & Gold, M. A. 2000. Pygmalion in work organizations: a meta-analysis. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21: 913-928.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjen, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. 1999. Antecedents and outcomes
of empowerment: empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and
Organization Management, 24: 71-91.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. 1996. Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 253-266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 656-669.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Sapienza, H. J. 2002. Economic and non-economic mechanisms in
interpersonal work relationships: Toward an integration of agency and procedural justice
theories. In D. Steiner, D. Skarlicki, & S. Gilliland (Eds.) Research in Social Issues in
Management vol. 2: 3-33, Greenwich, CT: IAP Inc.
Kraimer, M. L., Siebert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Psychological empowerment as a
multidimensional construct: a test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 59: 127-142.
Kramer, R., & Tyler, T. 1996. Trust in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lavalle, J.J., Rupp, D.E., & Brockner, J. (In press). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of
justice, social exchange, and cCitizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal
of Management.
Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Black
Formatted: Space After: 12 pt
Trust and Being Trusted
31
Lester, S. W. & Brower, H. H. 2003. In the eyes of the beholder: The relationship between
subordinates’ felt trustworthiness and their work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of
Leadership and Organization Studies, 10 (2): 17 – 33.
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. 1998. The social construction of injustice: Fairness
judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 75: 1–22.
Livingston, J. 1969. Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 81-89.
Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 534-559.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123-136.
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: 874-888.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.
McNatt, D. B. 2000. Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: a meta-analysis of the
result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 314-322.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test
of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 538-551.
Mishra, A. K, & Mishra, K. E. 1994. The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing strategies.
Human Resource Management, 33: 261-279.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical
Models, Chicago: Irwin.
Pierce, J. & Gardner, D. 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review
of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30: 591-622.
Roberson, Q. 2006. Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence of
justice climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 177-192.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41: 574 – 599.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245-259.
Trust and Being Trusted
32
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 66-80.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393-404.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational
trust: Past, present, and future, Academy of Management Review, 32: 344-354.
Seibert, S. E.; Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47: 332-349.
Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. 2005. The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal
study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 625-648.
Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. 1997. The effects of organizational differences and trust on the
effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61: 3–21.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy
of Management Journal, 39: 483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M. & Mishra, A. K. 2002. To stay or to go: voluntary turnover following an
organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 707-729.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 2001. A company of leaders: Five disciplines for unleashing
the power in your workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strickland, L. H. 1958. Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26: 200-215.
Whitener, E. M. 1997. The impact of human resource activities on subordinate trust. Human
Resource Management Review, 7: 389-405.
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: 513-530.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and job behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.
Zand, D. E. 1972. Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17:
229-239.
Trust and Being Trusted
33
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities for Study Variables
Variable Mean
SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Manager gender 0.62
0.49
2. Manager tenure 3.30
2.16
-.15
3. Manager language 0.93
0.26
.25
-.09
4. Employee gender 0.32
0.47
.08
-.07
.08
5. Employee tenure 2.49
2.15
.10
-.02
-.07
-.16
6. Employee language 0.68
0.47
.12
-.02
.35
.22
.02
7. Trust in manager 3.52
0.88
.00
-.05
.07
.05
.14
.09
(.84)
8. Trust in employee 3.40
0.71
.03
-.07
-.23
-.14
.07
-.15
.16
(.82)
9. Organization-directed OCB
3.95
0.54
-.02
-.08
-.07
-.00
.02
-.05
.33
.60
(.85)
10. Individual-directed OCB 3.86
0.58
-.04
.03
-.16
-.24
.05
-.12
.26
.68
.71
(.89)
11. In-role performance 4.01
0.60
.04
-.12
-.08
-.20
.04
-.12
.28
.68
.70
.71
(.95)
12. Intention to Quit 2.22
0.93
-.02
.08
.10
.09
-.18
.02
-.42
-.26
-.31
-.30
-.23
(.88)
Notes: Reliabilities are reported in parentheses. n = 155. Correlations greater than .15 are significant at p < .05. Correlations greater
than .21 are significant at p < .01. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Language is coded 1 = English, 0 = other.
Trust and Being Trusted
34
TABLE 2
Intraclass Correlations for Study Variables
Variable ICC1 τ00 z
Trust in manager 0.09 0.07 1.15
Trust in employee 0.22 0.11 2.07*
Organization-directed OCB 0.07 0.02 0.98
Individual-directed OCB 0.06 0.02 1.04
In-role performance 0.10 0.04 1.37+
Intention to Quit 0.00 0.00 0.00
+ p < .10, * p < .05.
Trust and Being Trusted
35
TABLE 3
HLM Results for the Relationships between Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Variable Organization-Directed OCB Individual-Directed OCB
Level 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Manager gender 0.01 (0.06) -0.02 (0.04) -0.02 (0.04) 0.01 (0.06) -0.02 (0.05) -0.03 (0.05)
Manager tenure -0.04 (0.06) -0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) 0.05 (0.05)
Manager language -0.04 (0.06) 0.03 (0.04) 0.03 (0.04) -0.08 (0.06) 0.01 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05)
Level 1
Intercept 3.94 (0.05)** 3.95 (0.04)** 3.94 (0.04)** 3.85 (0.05)** 3.84 (0.05)** 3.83 (0.05)**
Subordinate gender 0.00 (0.05) 0.03 (0.04) 0.03 (0.04) -0.13 (0.05)* -0.08 (0.03)* -0.08 (0.03)*
Subordinate tenure 0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) 0.00 (0.05) -0.02 (0.03) -0.02 (0.03)
Subordinate language -0.03 (0.06) -0.02 (0.04) -0.02 (0.04) -0.01 (0.06) -0.00 (0.05) -0.01 (0.05)
Trust in manager 0.11 (0.04)** 0.11 (0.04)** 0.06 (0.03)+ 0.07 (0.03)*
Trust in subordinate 0.32 (0.04)** 0.32 (0.04)** 0.42 (0.04)** 0.43 (0.03)**
Trust x trust 0.01 (0.03) 0.08 (0.03)*
R2a .28 .55 .55 .30 .69 .71
Variance Components
Between Groups .03 .01 .01 .02 .04 .05
Within Groups .27 .17 .17 .30 .13 .13
Note. Unstandardized parameter estimates are reported in the body of the table, with standard errors reported in parentheses.
a Consistent with past research (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003), we report R2’s estimated from ordinary least squares (OLS)
regression that include a manager fixed effect. This approach provides an effect size comparable with moderator research.
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Trust and Being Trusted
36
TABLE 4
HLM Results for the Relationships between Trust and Performance and Intention to Quit
Variable In-Role Performance Intention to Quit
Level 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Manager gender 0.03 (0.06) -0.01 (0.05) -0.01 (0.05) -0.02 (0.08) -0.04 (0.09) -0.04 (0.09)
Manager tenure -0.07 (0.06) -0.03 (0.05) -0.04 (0.05) 0.08 (0.08) 0.04 (0.09) 0.04 (0.09)
Manager language -0.04 (0.06) 0.05 (0.05) 0.05 (0.05) 0.09 (0.08) 0.08 (0.09) 0.08 (0.09)
Level 1
Intercept 4.00 (0.06)** 4.00 (0.05)** 4.01 (0.05)** 2.22 (0.07)** 2.24 (0.08)** 2.23 (0.09)**
Subordinate gender -0.11 (0.05)* -0.07 (0.04)+ -0.07 (0.04)+ 0.06 (0.08) 0.05 (0.07) 0.05 (0.07)
Subordinate tenure -0.00 (0.05) -0.03 (0.04) -0.03 (0.04) -0.15 (0.08)+ -0.08 (0.07) -0.08 (0.07)
Subordinate language -0.03 (0.06) -0.02 (0.05) -0.01 (0.05) -0.02 (0.08) 0.02 (0.09) 0.01 (0.09)
Trust in manager 0.07 (0.04)* 0.07 (0.04)+ -0.37 (0.07)** -0.36 (0.07)**
Trust in subordinate 0.42 (0.04)** 0.42 (0.04)** -0.17 (0.07)* -0.17 (0.07)*
Trust x trust -0.04 (0.03) 0.02 (0.07)
R2a .28 .68 .68 .25 .45 .45
Variance Components
Between Groups .03 .04 .04 .00 .08 .08
Within Groups .32 .15 .15 .84 .63 .63
Note. Unstandardized parameter estimates are reported in the body of the table, with standard errors reported in parentheses.
a Consistent with past research (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003), we report R2’s estimated from ordinary least squares (OLS)
regression that include a manager fixed effect. This approach provides an effect size comparable with moderator research.
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Trust and Being Trusted
37
FIGURE 1
Interaction Results of Trust in Manager and Trust in Subordinate on Individual-Directed OCB
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00
Trust in the Manager
High Trust in Subordinate
Low Trust in Subordinate
Individual-Directed OCB
Trust and Being Trusted
38
Holly H. Brower is an Associate Professor in the Calloway School for Business and
Accountancy at Wake Forest University. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior and
human resources from Purdue University. Her research interests include trust, leadership, ethical
decision making and governance.
Scott W. Lester is an Associate Professor of Management and the Director of the Center for
Leadership at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire. He received his Ph.D. in organizational
behavior from the University of South Carolina. His current research interests include dyadic
trust, prosocial orientation, and psychological contracts.
M. Audrey Korsgaard received a PhD from the New York University and is currently professor
of management and organizational behavior at the University of South Carolina. Her research
addresses the topics of prosocial orientation, trust and organizational justice and their
relationship to interpersonal and intragroup cooperation. She has studied these issues in a variety
of work settings, including supervisor-subordinate relationships, investor-entrepreneur relations,
work teams, and joint ventures.
Brian R. Dineen (brian.dineen@uky.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Gatton
College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky. He received his Ph.D. from
The Ohio State University. His research interests include recruitment, person-environment
congruence, and discretionary behavior among members of collectives.
