DISTRUST TOWARDS SUPERVISORS: DISENTANGLING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN OVERPOWERING, EMPOWERING, AND HUMILITY ON DISTRUST.

(1)

DISTRUST TOWARDS SUPERVISORS: DISENTANGLING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN OVERPOWERING, EMPOWERING, AND HUMILITY ON DISTRUST.

14-06-2020

Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen,

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

Abstract

Although it is known that distrust has several negative consequences, distrust towards

supervisors within organizations has been acknowledged to be a common and recurring problem

with all the associated consequences. Previous research on distrust already suggested that

overpowering is a leadership behavior which could elicit distrust. The direct effect of

overpowering on distrust has been repeatedly reported, but little is known about factors

potentially attenuating the effect of servant leadership behaviors such as empowering and

humility. In a cross-sectional, quantitative study, empowering and humility are examined as

possible mediators for the relationship between overpowering and distrust. A bootstrap analysis

of the proposed parallel-mediation model was carried out. The results show no direct effect

between overpowering and distrust. Moreover, no support has been found for the mediating role

of empowering in the relationship between overpowering and distrust. The outcomes of this

study do demonstrate that humility acts a mediator for the relationship between overpowering

and distrust.

(3)

Introduction

Trust is an important determinant for the functioning of organizations as it is highly

beneficial for organizations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Elangovan & Shapira, 1998; Robinson,

1996). Therefore, the concept of trust has been argued to be a pivotal and exemplary

characteristic of organizational leaders (Ginni, 2004; Hu et al., 2012). Trusting employees are

more committed productive, cooperative, less likely to leave an organization and more willing

to share their knowledge (Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, Richardson, & Dunn, 2002; Fulmer &

Gelfand, 2012; Mahajan, Bishop, & Scott, 2012; Tremblay, Cloutier, Simard, Chenevert, &

Vandenberghe, 2010) Hence, trust towards supervisors could lead to competitive advantage

(Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, 2000). Despite the importance of trust for organizations,

distrust towards supervisors within organizations has been acknowledged to be a common and

recurring problem with all the associated consequences (Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016).

Previous research has identified a wide variety of potential consequences for distrust

towards supervisors within organizations. Distrust is argued to be related to feelings of lower

personal responsibility (Jeffcot, Pidgeon, Weyma, & Walls, 2006), a lack of cooperation (Cho,

2006), decreased employee motivation (Shockley-Zalabak, Morreale, & Hackman, 2010), and

increase of self-protective actions resulting in a situation in which an employee manipulates a

situation for their own advantage (Limerick & Cunnington, 1993). In addition, Brown, Gray,

McHardy, and Taylor (2015) argued that higher levels of trust in supervisors are positively related to workplace financial performance and labor productivity by approximately 8-9% compared to lower levels of trust. Hence, one could argue it is important for organizations to

understand the concept of distrust to avoid its consequences. To date, however, little is known

on how to limit distrust towards supervisors within organizations. This is because previous

research mainly focused on the concept of trust rather than distrust, and not considering the

(6)

Causes of Distrust

The amount of trust or distrust someone experiences is determined by multiple factors, such

as knowledge of the other individual, history of interactions, and the context of exchange (Zak,

Borja, Matzner, & Kurzban, 2005). While trust is created by a series of positive interactions, it

may take only a single negative interaction for trust to be broken and result in distrust (Lewicki

& Bunker, 1995). Many of the conceptualizations about distrust suggest that distrust attitudes develop from beliefs about another individual’s trustworthiness (Butler, 1991; Cook & Wall,

1980; Robinson, 1996). Distrust is caused by the expectation or suspicion that someone else will not act in one’s best interest and might even engage in potentially injurious behavior (Govier,

1994). Fien (1996) argued that distrust can be triggered by, for example, situations in which an

individual has suspicions that another might be insincere because their expectations have been

violated.

In a qualitative study by Bijlsma-Frankema, van de Brake and Täuber (2019, under review),

seven distrust-eliciting behaviors in supervisors were identified, namely: overpowering, shirking

responsibilities, deceptive behaviors, broken promises, interfering in relations with colleagues,

and negative reactions to proposing improvements. According to Tepper (2007), a supervisor

who overpowers their subordinates, and thereby is abusing his or her supervision, is more likely

to be distrusted by their followers. Additionally, Bies and Tripp (1996) argued that a common

source for distrust in supervisors is the abuse of authority. Kipnis (1984) proposed that a possible

outcome of abusive exercise of power is a decrease in trust. This suggests that overpowering is

a highly relevant distrust-eliciting behavior. Therefore, the focus of this research is on the

relationship between overpowering and distrust in supervisors.

Servant Leadership

While the direct effect of overpowering on distrust has been repeatedly reported, little is

(7)

towards leaders in the workplace. The concept of servant leadership is argued to be a leadership

style in which leaders are concerned with serving followers (Greenleaf, 1977). This leadership

style allows to create strong and safe relationships within the organization due to its

person-oriented nature (van Dierendock, 2011). An important task for servant leaders is to create an

atmosphere of trust (Ferch, 2005). Hence, elements of servant leadership could help to

understand the relationship between overpowering and distrust. To date, however, no research

has been conducted regarding the relationship between servant-leadership and distrust-eliciting

behaviors. Consequently, this research focuses on unraveling the relationship between

servant-leadership and overpowering.

According to van Dierendonck (2011), six elements of servant leadership can be defined,

namely: (1) empowering and developing people, (2) authenticity, (3) humility, (4) interpersonal

acceptance, (5) providing directions, (6) and stewardship. Both empowering and humility are

likely to have an attenuating effect on the relationship between overpowering and distrust as

they are most contradictory compared to the other elements of servant leadership. Therefore, the

current research focuses solely on empowering and humility as these are elements of servant

leadership most relevant regarding overpowering. Empowering is a concept of enabling people

(van Dierendonck, 2011). It involves sharing power, highlighting the significance of the work,

employee motivation, and limiting bureaucratic constraints (Ahearne, Mathieu & Rapp, 2005).

Humility refers to the ability of an individual to put one’s own accomplishments and talents in

the right perspective (Patterson, 2003). Hence, servant-leaders who show humility dare to

acknowledge that they can gain from the expertise of others.

Based on these theoretical insights, overpowering has an increasing effect on distrust

towards supervisors. However, it is expected that this relationship weakens when a supervisor

shows servant leadership characteristics such as empowering and humility. Therefore, the

(8)

and empowering on distrust. Specifically, I aim to show that empowering and humility mediate

the effect of overpowering on distrust.

Contribution

This research is likely to contribute to the existing literature, as the relationship between

servant leadership and distrust-eliciting behavior has not been explored to date. Particularly, this

study extends on previous research on distrust, by studying the mediating effect of servant

leadership characteristics. By doings so, it aims to create a better understanding of how servant

leadership characteristics such as empowering and humility explain the relationship between

overpowering and distrust. In addition, this study contributes to the development of a body of

evidence demonstrating that distrust-eliciting behavior such as overpowering influences distrust

towards a supervisor. Furthermore, I extend on the predominantly qualitative existing research

by quantitative research. By combining previous findings into one model, I am to clarify the

mediating effect of empowering and humility on distrust.

In addition to theoretical implications, this research has also practical implications for

researchers and practitioners. According to theory about distrust, it is expected that organizations

will suffer from the negative effects of overpowering. However, as previously mentioned,

distrust towards supervisors within organizations is a common and recurring problem with all

the associated consequences. Hence, the current research is of high practical relevance for

organizations and practitioners as it aims to get a better understanding of overpowering and the

potentially attenuating effect of humility and empowering. Insights that this research generated

can help organizations to limit distrust towards supervisors, whilst on the other hand, foster

(9)

Theoretical background

Antecedents of Distrust in Organizations.

As distrust regarding supervisors within organizations is an issue of high prevalence with

negative consequences for organizations’ functioning, it is of importance for organizations to

understand the concept of distrust. Nevertheless, despite the recognition of its ill effects, little is

understood about how organizations can identify distrust and its antecedents. According to

Grovier (1994, p. 240) distrust can be defined as “lack of confidence in the other, a concern that

the other may act so as to harm one, that he does not care about one’s welfare or intends to act harmfully, or is hostile”. In a qualitative study by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019, under review),

seven distrust-eliciting behaviors in supervisors, including overpowering, were identified. They

describe overpowering as a distrust eliciting behavior in which supervisors overpowered

subordinates by ordering them around by top-down decision making, excessively prescribing

work processes, or by giving their subordinates excessive demands. Bies and Tripp (1996) have

similarly identified overpowering by supervisor to be a source of distrust. For example,

supervisors who abuse their power by making excessive demands, and thereby exploit their

subordinates, elicit distrust. Furthermore, Magee and Galinsky (2008) suggest that if actors with

high status and high power abuse their power, the trust of that others have in them will decrease.

Based on this theoretical perspective, it is logical to expect that overpowering will increase

employee distrust towards their supervisor. In accordance with this reasoning, research has

shown that a supervisor who overpowers their subordinates, and thereby is abusing his or her

authority, is likely to be distrusted by their followers (Tepper, 2007). This leads to the first

hypothesis:

(10)

The Role of Servant Leadership for Distrust

However, it remains unclear in which ways this relationship between overpowering and

distrust is affected by empowering and humility as elements of servant leadership. As described

at the introduction, servant leadership is a leadership style in which leaders are concerned with

serving their followers and thereby creating strong relationships and an atmosphere of trust with

their subordinates (Ferch, 2005; Greenleaf, 1977). Therefore, it is expected that elements of

servant leadership, such as empowering and humility, decrease the negative effects of

overpowering by supervisors. In addition, as overpowering is characterized by abuse of power,

and therefore creates distrust, it is expected that this will have a negative impact on servant

leadership.

One of the characteristics of servant leadership as defined by van Dierendonck (2011) is

empowering. According to Conger (2000), empowering is a concept that focuses on enabling

individuals. Empowering leadership is characterized as leadership that values and motivate

employees, encourage them to develop themselves (Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000), and

emphasizes self-direction and self-motivation of employees (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Neilsen

(1986) argued that, empowering by supervisors contributes to creating an atmosphere of trust

amongst their employees. This suggests that while overpowering creates more distrust towards

the supervisor, empowering, on the contrary, is expected to increase trust towards the supervisor.

Based on this, it is logical to expect that employees that perceive their supervisor as

overpowering, are less likely to see perceive them as empowering. Bijlsma-Frankema et al.

(2019, under review), argued that a leader overpowers subordinates by “ordering them around”.

Whereas one of the elements of empowering, as described before, is an emphasize on

self-direction. Consequently, it can be expected that overpowering has a negative effect on the

perceptions of a leader’s empowering. In addition, because of this negative effect it is predicted

(11)

Hypothesis 2a: Overpowering is negatively related to perceptions of supervisor empowering. Hypothesis 3: Empowering is negatively related to distrust towards the supervisor

Humility is one of the characteristics of servant leadership as defined by van Dierendonck (2011). According to Patterson (2003), humility can be described as the ability of an individual

to put one’s own accomplishments and talents in the right perspective. Supervisors who show

humility recognize that they can benefit from their subordinates and put the interest of others

first. According to Nielsen, Marrone, and Ferraro (2014), humility is an effective behavior to

foster follower identification and trust. This suggests that while overpowering creates more

distrust towards the supervisor, humility, on the contrary, is expected to increase trust towards

the supervisor. On the other hand, Ashforth (1994) argued one of the elements of abuse of power

by supervisors is the use of authority or position for personal gain. This is in contrast with

humility, as supervisors that are perceived as humble put the interest of their subordinates first.

Based on this, it is expected that overpowering negatively affects perceptions of the supervisor’s

humility. In addition, because of this negative effect it is predicted that distrust towards the

supervisor will increase as humility decreases due to increased overpowering behavior by the

supervisor. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2b: Overpowering is negatively related to perceptions of leader humility. Hypothesis 4: Humility is negatively related to distrust towards the supervisor

When taking these hypotheses together, the following hypothesis comprises the complete

model:

Hypothesis 5: The positive effect of overpowering on distrust is mediated by empowering. Hypothesis 6: The positive effect of overpowering on distrust is mediated by humility.

The previously mentioned hypotheses can be visualized in a conceptual framework (see

(12)

FIGURE 1

Conceptual Framework

Method

The Present Research

In order to test the hypotheses as introduced above, I conducted quantitative research by

the means of an online survey as this is argued to be the best option when aiming for as many

respondents as possible (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). The study can be defined as

explanatory inferences, where observations from respondents are used to learn about the

relationship between overpowering and distrust and the mediating effect of the servant

leadership characteristics empowering and humility. The measures used for this study are

multiple-item constructs as well as single-item constructs. For the measures of empowering and

humility multiple-item constructs are used. Multiple items help to average out errors and

specificities (DeVellis, 2003), and therefore increased reliability (Churchill & Peter, 1984). For

(13)

Procedures

The survey was designed in Qualtrics, which is an online survey software. As this study

was carried out by a research group of three students, the survey comprised all constructs that

the students needed to answer their individual research questions. Participants were asked to

answer questions regarding the behaviors of their leaders. Therefore, the survey consisted of

questions covering the concepts of overpowering, distrust, empowering, and humility. The data

collection was also conducted as a group, meaning that each student had to search for

respondents. For the survey, a Dutch as well as a German version were available in order to

contact more possible respondents. The survey was distributed among subordinates of different

organizations by sending them an anonymous survey link via email, for example. In addition,

social media channels such as Facebook and LinkedIn were used. The content and the purpose

of the research were explained to the respondents upon answering questions. Additionally,

respondents were informed about the employee survey being voluntary and that all data derived

from the survey would be confidential as part of a master thesis. The distribution of the survey

started on March 3rd, 2020 and closed approximately one month later on the 6th of April. SPPS

(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was the statistical software used to analyze the data

derived from the survey.

Population and Sample

The target population of the study are (former) employees that have or have had a

supervisor in one of their jobs. This could be Dutch or Germany employees, but also employees

of other countries. A sample of N=213 was collected from respondents that work or have worked

for different companies primarily in the Netherlands and Germany. Out of the 213 respondents,

34.3% was male and 65,7% was female. Most of the respondents were between 25 and 34 years

old. 65.8% of the respondents has a German nationality, 28.1% the Dutch nationality and 6.1%

had other nationality (such as Belgian and Austrian). Regarding the educational background of

(14)

science level, 18.8% has studied at a vocational level and the remaining 18.7% have another

educational background. 62% of the respondents worked fulltime at the time they were working

with their supervisor and 38% were working part time.

Measures

The items of the survey could be answered on a 7-point Likert-scale to create uniformity

regarding response options in the survey. The possible responses ranged from totally disagree to

totally agree. Other response options were also used throughout the survey, such as a 7-point

scale ranging from never to always. The major measures that were used for this study are

supervisor overpowering, humility, empowering and distrust. To analyze the data gathered from

the survey, the ratings on items for every measure were averaged to get an overall score. See

Appendix A for a complete overview of all survey questions.

Overpowering. The variable overpowering was measured according to a scale for distrust-eliciting behaviors. One item was included to measure overpowering. This is: “My supervisor determines how I should do my work too much”.

Empowering. Van Dierendonck (2011) developed a scale with 30 items for measuring servant leadership. For empowering, four different items are included in the survey to gather

data for this variable. These items include statements about the subordinates’ supervisor. An example statement for empowering is: “My manager helps me to further develop myself”. With

α = 0.91 there is an excellent internal consistency between the items measuring empowering.

Humility. Similar to the previous measure, for humility the items are also based on the scale for servant leadership developed by van Dierendonck (2011). For humility, three different

items are included in the survey to gather data for this variable. These items included statements about the subordinates’ supervisor. An example statement for humility is: “My manager learns

from the different views and opinions of others”. With α = 0.92 there is an excellent internal

(15)

Distrust. Distrust that subordinates have towards their supervisor was measured according to one item. This item was: “I distrust my supervisor”. This item could be answered on a 7-point

Likert-scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.

Control variables. To exclude other explanations of the studied relationships (Becker, 2005) the demographic variables gender and age are included as control variable. Previous

research has suggested that men have the tendency to exhibit more trust than women (Buchan,

Croson, & Solnick, 2008; Dittrich, 2015; Slonim & Guillen, 2010). According to Sutter and

Kocher (2007), age does play a role regarding the degree of trust towards another. They found

that trust increases almost linearly from early childhood to early adulthood. Li and Fung (2013)

found that age was positively related to generalized trust arguing that social relationships are

more meaningful to older adults. While gender is coded 1 = male and 2 = female, age was

measured as a categorical variable.

Statistical Procedures

After all necessary data was collected from the from the survey, I started analyzing the data

to test the given hypotheses of this research. The reliability of the variables was tested by

calculating Cronbach Alpha for the multiple-item constructs. Furthermore, preliminary analyses

were conducted to measure the descriptive statistics, which provides basic information about the

variables. The hypothesis was tested using the statistical program SPSS (version 23). To test the

predicted parallel-mediation model PROCESS from Hayes (version 3.3) for SPSS was used,

which tests models using a bootstrap approach. The hypothesized parallel-mediation model was

tested with PROCESS model 4 with 5000 bootstrap re-samples. For the analyses, the

significance was determined by 95% confidence intervals. The assumption of normality was not

statistically checked for the hypotheses as the bootstrap approach is robust to samples that do

(16)

Results

This chapter contains a detailed description of the outcomes of this research by describing

the correlation analysis and regression analysis. The original sample size of this research was N

= 213. After checking for missing values, the sample size for the item distrust was N = 76. All other items had a sample of N = 213 and remained unchanged. For all questions, a response was

not compulsory, which resulted in missing values for the item distrust.

Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables. Looking

at the table shows that the correlation results of overpowering and distrust are significant. This

correlation supports the first hypothesis which states that overpowering increases employee’s

distrust towards its supervisor. This positive correlation indicates that if overpowering increases, distrust towards the supervisor also increases.

Looking at the correlation results of overpowering and empowering, one can see that it is

significant. This correlation supports hypothesis 2a which states that overpowering negatively

affects perceptions of leader empowering. The negative correlation implies that if overpowering increases, empowering decreases. The same significant effect can be seen for the correlation

between overpowering and humility. This finding also supports hypothesis 2b which states that

overpowering negatively affects perceptions of leader humility. The negative correlation implies that if overpowering increases, humility decreases.

When examining the correlation between empowering and distrust, the results also show a

significant correlation. This correlation supports hypothesis 3 which states that empowering

negatively affects distrust towards the supervisor. The negative correlation implies that if empowering increases, distrust towards the supervisor also decreases. A significant correlation

(17)

that humility negatively affects distrust towards the supervisor. The negative correlation

indicates that if humility increases, distrust towards the supervisor also decreases.

A significant positive correlation was found between the control variable age and distrust.

Suggesting that an increase in age is correlated with an increase in distrust towards the

supervisor. Additionally, for the control variable gender a significant positively correlation was

found with distrust towards the supervisor, indicating that female subordinates are more likely

(18)

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

Notes. N = 213. +_{p <.10,}*_{p <.05,}**_{p<.01. Age: 1 = below 18 years; 2 = 18 – 25 years; 3 = 26 – 35 years; 4 = 46 – 55 years; 5 = 56 – 65 years ; 6 = above 65 years, Gender:}

(19)

Main Analysis

To examine whether the effect of overpowering on distrust towards supervisors is mediated

by empowering and humility, the extension Process from Hayes (2019; model 4; 5000 bootstrap

samples; CI = 95%) is used on SPSS. Firstly, it is tested whether overpowering is negatively

related to empowering and humility and whether empowering and humility are negatively

related to distrust. Thereafter, it is examined whether empowering and humility act as a mediator

mechanism on the relationship between overpowering and distrust. See table 2 for the details of

the analysis, in which it is additionally controlled for gender.

Table 2

Table 2. Mediation results for empowering

(20)

Dependent variable model

DV = Perceived distrust towards supervisor,

R2_=49.00% Predictor b SE T 95% CI Constant 5.09 1.15 4.41 [2.79; 7.40] Overpowering .13 12 1.03 [-.12; .37] Empowering -.25 .15 -1.73 [-.54; .04] Humility -.60 .16 -3.83 [-.91; -.29] Gender .07 .36 .20 [-.65; .80] Age .40 .13 3.12 [.15; .66]

Relative direct effect IV on DV Effect SE T 95% CI

Overpowering .13 .12 1.03 [-.12; .37]

Relative indirect effect IV on DV Effect BootSE 95% CI

Total effect .22 .10 [.04; .44]

Overpowering Empowering .02 .04 [-.03; .13]

Overpowering Humility .19 .08 [.06; .39]

Notes. IV = Overpowering; Mediator = Empowering and Humility, Control variable = Gender

Hypothesis 2a predicts that overpowering negatively affects empowering. The effect of

overpowering on empowering shows that there is a negative correlation. This means that if

overpowering increases, empowering decreases. However, this effect is statistically insignificant

from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC interval that includes zero (-.31 to .12). These findings are

not in line with the hypothesis 2a, which states that overpowering negatively affects perceptions

(21)

variables gender it is found to be negatively associated with empowering as it is statistically

significant. This indicates that male subordinates experience more empowering behavior than

female subordinates. However, age does not appear to be significantly related to empowering.

For the effect of overpowering on humility there is a negative correlation. Meaning that if

overpowering increases, humility decreases. This effect is statistically significant from zero, as

revealed by a 95% BC interval that is entirely under zero (-.52; -.13). These findings are in line

with the hypothesis 3a. When considering control variables gender is negatively associated with

humility as it is statistically significant. Meaning that men experience more humble behavior

from their supervisor than women. However, age does not appear to be significantly related to

humility.

Hypothesis 3 predicts that empowering negatively affects distrust. The analysis shows that

the effect of empowering on perceived distrust towards supervisor is negatively correlated. This

effect is statistically insignificant from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC interval that includes zero

(-.54; .04). These findings are not in line with the hypothesis 3, and this hypothesis is therefore

rejected. For the effect of humility on perceived distrust towards supervisor it is found that it is

negatively correlated. This effect is statistically significant from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC

interval that is entirely under zero (-.91; -.29). These findings are in line with the hypothesis 4.

Concerning the direct effect there is a negative correlation. However, the direct effect is

not found to be significantly related to distrust towards the supervisor since the 95% BC interval

includes zero. Thus, hypothesis 1 is rejected since no relationship could be found between

overpowering and distrust towards the supervisor.

Finally, looking at the table shows that empowering has a positive indirect effect on

overpowering and distrust. This indirect effect is statistically insignificant from zero, as revealed

by a 95% BC interval that includes zero (-.03; .13). Hence, no support is found for the mediating

effect of empowering on overpowering and distrust. These results are not in line with hypothesis

(22)

95% BC interval is entirely above zero (.06; .39), indicating that humility mediates the effect

between overpowering and distrust. Thus, hypothesis 6 is supported.

Discussion

The primary aim of this research was to further elaborate on previous research by

investigating whether overpowering by supervisors is positively related to distrust towards the

supervisor. Previous qualitative research has already shown that there is a positive relationship

between overpowering and distrust, this research, however, focused on quantitative research

regarding this relationship. Moreover, it was examined whether the servant leadership

characteristics empowering and humility mediate the relationship between overpowering and

distrust towards the supervisor.

It was found that there is no significant positive direct effect between overpowering and

distrust towards the supervisor, meaning that it could not be proven that if a supervisor was

perceived as overpowering directly affected the distrust towards the supervisor. Additionally,

empowering was not found to mediate the effect of overpowering on distrust towards the

supervisor. This implies there was not enough support that employees that perceive their

supervisor as overpowering, are less likely to perceive them as empowering. Furthermore,

humility was found to mediate the effect of overpowering on distrust towards the leader. Thus,

distrust towards the supervisor increases as humility is decreased due to increased overpowering

behavior by the supervisor.

Theoretical Implications

These findings make several important theoretical contributions. First, the present research

extends previous research on distrust (e.g. Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019, under review) by

examining role of servant leadership. Particularly, this study identifies the servant leadership

(23)

understanding of how servant leadership characteristics, such as humility, explain the

relationship between overpowering and distrust. Additionally, previous research has been

predominantly qualitative research, while the current research focusses on quantitative research.

By doing so, this research aims to develop explanatory universal laws by statistically measuring

what is assumed to be reality and underlines the measurement and analysis of causal

relationships between overpowering, distrust, empowering, and humility (Yilmaz, 2013).

Moreover, a quantitative approach provides a first overview of the subject to investigate, which

is in this case the relationship between servant leadership characteristics empowering and

humility and distrust (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009).

First, the results do not confirm the positive direct effect of overpowering with distrust

towards the supervisor, as formalized by hypothesis 1. Nevertheless, previous research has

argued that behavior such as overpowering elicits distrust (Bies and Tripp, 1996; Tepper, 2006).

A possible explanation for this could be that there are mediators to be considered. The current

research suggested that humility acts as a mediator between overpowering and distrust.

Second, as was not expected, no significant relationship has been found between

overpowering and empowering. This means that there is no support showing that subordinates

that perceive their supervisor as overpowering, are less likely to see perceive them as

empowering. This could be the result of the low sample size for the item distrust in this research,

which is N = 76. Having a small sample size decreases the statistical power, and therefore,

increases the chance of assuming as true a false premise (Maccallum, Browne, & Sugawara,

1996). Additionally, as was expected, this research suggested that overpowering negatively

affects perceptions of leader humility. When the overpowering behavior increases, the servant

leadership characteristics humility decreases. This implies that overpowering negatively affects perceptions of the supervisor’s humility.

Third, the relation between empowering and distrust was not supported by the results,

(24)

supervisor. Previous research concerning empowering leadership is particularly focused on its

positive side, however, existing research has also shown mixed results regarding the

effectiveness of empowering leadership (Cheong, Spain, Yammarino, & Yun, 2016; Mathieu,

Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). According to Wong and Giessner (2018), subordinates found

supervisors that show overfulfilling empowering behavior more ineffective and a mismatch of

expectations regarding empowering leadership could trigger a negative interpretation of the

supervisor’s behavior. This could be a possible explanation for the results not supporting the

hypothesis. On the other hand, humility was found to be negatively associated with distrust and

this implies that a supervisor that shows more humility, is likely to be less distrusted by their

subordinate. This finding is in line with previous research findings that suggest that humility

positively influences trust towards a leader (Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010).

No mediation effect has been found of empowering on the relationship between

overpowering and distrust towards the supervisor. This means that it cannot be proven whether

empowering is an explanation of this relationship. This may suggest that empowering plays a

different role for distrust than predicted. Humility, however, was found to mediate the effect

between overpowering and distrust towards the supervisor. This implies that overpowering has a negative effect on the perceptions of a leader’s humility.

Finally, the findings of this research have important implications for organizational research

on trust and distrust. As mentioned before, to date, existing research has offered much

information on how trust can be developed and sustained, comparatively limited attention has

been given to the concept of distrust despite the importance of understanding distrust for

organizations due to its severe consequences (Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006). To conclude, my

findings shine greater light on the concept of distrust by examining the relationship between

overpowering and distrust and how servant leadership characteristics such as empowering and

(25)

Practical Implications

The increasing popularity of servant leadership in organizations makes the findings of this

study importance for practice (Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu, 2014). A practical

implication of this research is that overpowering negatively affects perceptions of the supervisor’s humility. In addition, this research suggests that distrust towards the supervisor

increases as humility is decreased due to increased overpowering behavior by the supervisor.

This means that overpowering leaders may not necessarily need to abandon their overpowering

tendencies if they can instead allow these tendencies to be tempered by showing more humble

behavior.

Another implication of this research is that organizations aiming to lower distrust towards

the supervisors within their organization should emphasize on humility, by, for instance

coaching and training their supervisors according to the servant leadership philosophy.

According to Owens, Johnson, and Mitchell (2013), individuals tend to be humbler when they

see others as key sources of learning and insights about personal development and by achieving

self-awareness through interactions with others. Therefore, training and coaching could be

focused on these aspects of humility, and thus, ensuring that the main goal of the subordinate is

to serve their subordinates, instead of being served by them.

Additionally, organizations could use the findings of this research for their selection of new

employees to hire managers that show more humility. By doing so, organizations can assure that

candidates are hired that show more humble leadership behavior, and therefore tend to be less

distrustful. This could be done by, for example, changing assessment criteria for possible

candidates and executing personality tests including a scale that measures servant leadership

according to 30 items (Van Dierendonck, 2011). In addition, Owens, Johnson, and Mitchell

(2013) developed items for which expressed humility could be measured, which could be used

(26)

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current research is not without limitation, and therefore some facets of this study can be

improved and/or extended. Firstly, this study is characterized by a cross-sectional design,

meaning that causality cannot be inferred from the results (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Hence,

future research could investigate these relationships in a longitudinal manner to possibly

establish temporal precedence. For example, Bowen and Wiersema (1999) suggested the

adoption of analytical methods that make use of pooled time-series to overcome this problem.

Secondly, the sample size for this study for the item distrust was rather low. The original

sample size of this research was N = 213. After checking for missing values, the sample size for

the item distrust was N = 76. A small sample size decreases the statistical power, and therefore,

increases the chance of incorrectly assuming a hypothesis (Maccallum, Browne, & Sugawara,

1996). A possible explanation for the lack of respondents for this item is that filling out all the

answers of the survey was not compulsory. Respondents might have found the survey to lengthy

and stopped at a certain point. In addition, respondents could have avoid answering the question

whether you perceive your supervisor as distrustful because they wanted to avoid giving an

honest answer. Future research could make the survey less lengthy and ensure that answering all

questions is compulsory.

Furthermore, respondents for this research were recruited using personal and work

relationships of the three students contributing to this study. On the one hand, this made it easier

to find respondents that matched the target population, however, the sample is also less

generalizable (Polit & Beck, 2010). To overcome the problem of a lack of generalizability, future

research could make use of random selection to find suitable respondents. Moreover, the

measures for this research are self-reported, which could lead to several biases. In this case,

respondents had to fill out a survey consisting questions concerning their supervisor. Possibly,

(27)

described leader that show different levels of overpowering and servant leadership

characteristics such as empowering and humility.

In addition, nationality was measured for this research and the results indicated that the

respondents primarily consisted of people with a German or Dutch nationality. Previous research

that examines the relationship between nationality and distrust towards supervisors is scarce, but

some studies show evidence of nationality differences and trust (Taylor, Funk & Clark, 2007;

Uslaner, 2002). Future studies could focus on examining these differences more closely to see

whether antecedent of distrust towards supervisors differ across nationalities.

Another limitation of this research is the use of single-item constructs for some of the

measures as previous research has expressed concerns about using single item scales.

Single-item constructs for this research were chosen because they have several practical advantages such as limiting oversurveying, parsimony, and ease of administration (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007). However, according to DeVellis (2003), single-item constructs could purport inherent

errors and specificities that might be averaged out by multiple-item constructs. In addition, they

are also said to fall behind multi-item constructs in terms of reliability or validity (Loo, 2002).

Therefore, future research could include more multiple-item constructs to ensure more reliability

and validity.

The current research examined the mediating role of two elements of servant leadership.

However, Dierendonck (2011) describes six elements of servant leadership. Therefore, future

research could expand on the present model by examining other elements of servant leadership

for the relationship between overpowering and distrust. In addition to the servant leadership

elements of empowering and humility, a supervisor’s authenticity could, for example, act as a

mediator for this relationship. Similarly, as the current research examined the role of the

distrust-eliciting behavior overpowering on distrust, future research could expand on the current research

(28)

For example, future research could focus on the effect of shirking responsibilities of a supervisor

on distrust towards this supervisor.

Conclusion

To conclude, the aim of this study was to elaborate on previous research by examining the

relationship between overpowering and distrust. Additionally, since previous research on the

effect of elements of servant leadership was rather limited regarding this relationship, the servant

leadership elements of empowering and humility were investigated as a possible explanation of

this relationship as a mediating mechanism. According to the current research, there was not

enough evidence to support the prediction that perceived overpowering by the supervisor has a

positive impact on distrust. However, findings of the present research do support the mediating

role of humility for the relationship between overpowering and distrust. This suggests that

distrust towards the supervisor increases as humility is decreased due to increased overpowering

(29)

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945-955. Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778

Becker, T. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3): 274-289.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond Distrust: “Getting Even” and the Need for Revenge. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 246–260. doi: 10.4135/9781452243610.n12

Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Van De Brake, H. J., & Täuber, S. (2019). Subordinates’ Responses to Distrust in Their Supervisor: A Mixed Method Study. Academy of Management

Proceedings

Bowen, H. P. & Wiersema, M. F. (1999). Matching method to paradigm in strategy research: Limitations of cross-sectional analysis and some methodological alternatives. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 625-636.

Buchan, N., Croson, R. T. A., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of

behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior and

Organization, 68, 466–476.

Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557.

(30)

Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 360–375.

Conger, J. A. (2000). Motivate performance through empowerment. The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior, 137-149.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., Morrow, P. C., Richardson, R., & Dunn, S. R. (2002). Using profit sharing to enhance employee attitudes: A longitudinal examination of the effects on trust and commitment. Human Resource Management, 41(4), 423–439.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 563–576.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P. and Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines

for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a

predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3),

434-449.

Dierendonck van, D. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1228–1261.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., Hu, J. (2014). Leadership

theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing

perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Dittrich, M. (2015). Gender differences in trust and reciprocity: evidence from a large-scale experiment with heterogeneous subjects. Applied Economics, 47(36), 3825–3838. Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of Trust in Organizations. The Academy

(31)

Ferch, S. (2005). Servant-leadership, forgiveness, and social justice. International Journal of Servant-Leadership. International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 1, 97–113.

Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2011). At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787–798.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Grovier, T. (1994). An Epistemology of Trust. International Journal of Moral Social Studies, 8(2), 155–174.

Govier, T. (1994). Is It a Jungle Out There? Trust, Distrust and the Construction of Social Reality. Dialogue, 33(2), 237–252.

Hu, M., Ou T., Chiou, H. J., & Lin, L.C. (2012). Effects of social exchange and trust on

knowledge sharing and service innovation. Social Behavior & Personality: An

International Journal, 40(5),783–800.

Jeffcott, S., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A., Walls, J. (2006). Risk, trust and safety culture in the U.K.

train operating companies. Risk Analysis, 26, 1105–1121.

Kipnis, D. (1984). The Use of Power in Organizations and in Interpersonal Settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 179–210.

Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trust, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering

leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-313.

Kutsyuruba, B. and Walker, K.D. (2016), "The Destructive Effects of Distrust: Leaders as

Brokers of Trust in Organizations", The Dark Side of Leadership: Identifying and

Overcoming Unethical Practice in Organizations (Advances in Educational

(32)

Lazányi, K., & Bilan, Y. (2017). Generetion Z On The Labour Market – Do They Trust Others Within Their Workplace? Polish Journal of Management Studies, 16(1), 78–93. doi: 10.17512/pjms.2017.16.1.07

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and

decline. Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton

Deutsch (pp. 133-173).

Li, T., & Fung, H. H. (2013). Age Differences in Trust: An Investigation Across 38 Countries.

The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 347–355.

Limerick, D., & Cunnington, B. (1993). Managing the new organization. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in

cross-sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.

Loo, R. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 68–75.

Maccallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and

determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,

1(2), 130-149.

Mahajan, A., Bishop, J W., & Scott, D. (2012). Does trust in top management mediate top

management communication, employee involvement and organizational commitment

relationships? Journal of Managerial Issues, 24, 173–190.

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness:

An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Ferraro, H. S. (2014). Leading with humility. New York:

(33)

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the

humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership

& Organizational Studies, 17(1), 33–43

Neilsen, E. (1986). Empowerment Strategies: Balancing Authority and Responsibility. S. Srivastva, 78–110.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral dissertation, Regent

University.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451–1458. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students.

Pearson Education.

Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985). Work-at-home and the quality of working life. Academy of

Management Review, 10(3), 455-464

Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization

Management, 40(2), 193–237.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Morreale, S. P., & Hackman, M. Z. (2010). Building the high-trust

organization: Strategies for supporting five key dimensions of trust.

Slonim, R., & Guillen, P. (2010). Gender selection discrimination: Evidence from a Trust

game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(2), 385–405.

(34)

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

Tomlinson E, Lewicki RJ (2006) Managing distrust in intractable conflicts. Conflict Resolution

Quart. 24(2):219–228.

Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Chênevert, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). The role of HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3), 405–433.

Uslaner, E. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vanderstoep, S., & Johnston, D. (2009). Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 530–542.

Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1), 40–56.

Wong, S. I., & Giessner, S. R. (2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire

leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 757–783.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions:

Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of

Education, 48(2), 311-325.

(35)

Appendix

Appendix A MA 2020 Distrust Wat is uw leeftijd?

o

Jonger dan 18 jaar

o

18 tot 25 jaar

o

26 tot 35 jaar

o

36 tot 45 jaar

o

46 tot 55 jaar

o

55 tot 65 jaar

o

66 jaar en ouder Wat is uw geslacht?

o

Man

o

Vrouw Wat is uw nationaliteit?

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?

o

Basisschool

o

VMBO

o

MBO

o

HAVO

o

VWO

o

HBO

o

Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (Universitair)

(36)

leidinggevende in gedachten te nemen die u als het minst prettig heeft ervaren. Neemt u uw huidige leidinggevende in gedachten of een vroegere?

o

Mijn huidige leidinggevende

o

Een vroegere leidinggevende

Werkte/werkt u in voltijd of deeltijd onder deze leidinggevende?

o

Voltijd

o

Deeltijd

Hoe lang werkte/werkt u onder deze leidinggevende?

o

Korter dan 3 maanden

o

3-6 maanden

o

6-12 maanden

o

in jaren _______________________________________________ Was/Is deze leidinggevende een man of een vrouw?

o

man

o

vrouw

Gaf/Geeft u leiding aan anderen toen u onder deze leidinggevende werkte?

o

Ja

o

Nee

Was/Is de organisatie waarin u deze leidinggevende had/heeft profit of non-profit?

o

Profit

o

Non-profit

o

Weet ik niet

In welke sector werkte/werkt u?

(37)

volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens De doelstellingen die voor mijn team waren/zijn geformuleerd waren/zijn haalbaar

o

De doelstellingen

die voor mijn eigen werk waren/zijn geformuleerd waren/zijn haalbaar

o

Ik werd/word vaak geconfronteerd met problemen die maakten/maken dat ik mijn werk

minder goed kon/kan doen dan ik wilde.

o

Ik had/heb voldoende middelen om mijn werk goed te kunnen doen.

o

Ik had/heb genoeg vrijheid van handelen om mijn werk goed te kunnen doen.

o

De volgende vragen gaan over hoe vaak de door u in gedachten genomen leidinggevende bepaald gedrag vertoonde.

(38)

nooit bijna

nooit zelden soms regelmatig

bijna

altijd altijd … bepaalde/bepaalt

teveel hoe ik mijn werk moet doen.

o

… onttrok/onttrekt zich aan zijn/haar verantwoordelijkheden

o

...hielp/helpt me als ik problemen had/heb bij het uitvoeren van mijn

werk

o

… zei/zegt het een en

deed/doet het ander

o

... kwam/komt haar/zijn

beloften niet na

o

… tastte/tast mijn

zelfvertrouwen aan

o

...hield/houdt rekening met mijn belangen bij het nemen van besluiten

o

… ondermijnde/ondermijnt mijn baanzekerheid

o

… behandelde/behandeld leden van mijn team op

ongelijke wijze

o

...hield/houdt me op de hoogte van zaken die

mijn werk betroffen/betreffen

(39)

… zette/zet teamleden

tegen elkaar op

o

… reageerde/reageert op onze voorstellen tot

verbetering van werkprocessen alsof

zij/hij werd/wordt aangevallen

o

De volgende vragen gaan over hoe u tegenover uw werk stond in de tijd dat u onder deze leidinggevende werkte/werkt. volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens Ik voelde/voel me in staat om de meeste doelen die

ik mezelf stelde/stel te

behalen

o

Bij moeilijke taken had/heb ik het gevoel dat het me zou/gaat lukken ze

(40)

De volgende vragen gaan over hoe u de stijl van leidinggeven van de leidinggevende die u in gedachten hebt genomen hebt ervaren

Deze leidinggevende … volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens ... stimuleerde/stimuleert me om mijzelf te ontwikkelen

o

... bood/bied me hulp en begeleiding om mijn prestaties te verbeteren

o

... moedigde/moedigt haar/zijn medewerkers

aan om met nieuwe ideeën te komen

o

... bood/biedt me volop mogelijkheden om nieuwe vaardigheden te leren

o

Deze leidinggevende … volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens … hield/houdt mij en mijn collega’s verantwoordelijk voor de wijze waarop wij het werk aanpakken

o

… hield/houdt mij verantwoordelijk

(41)

Deze leidinggevende … volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens … was/is open over haar/zijn beperkingen

o

… liet/laat zijn/haar ware gevoelens aan zijn/haar medewerkers zien

o

… was/is bereid haar/zijn ware gevoelens te uiten ook al zou dit tot ongewenste gevolgen leiden

o

Deze leidinggevende … volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens ... leerde/leert van kritiek

o

... leerde/leert van anderen die anders denken dan hij/zijn denkt

o

... gaf/geeft zijn fouten toe

aan zijn/haar leidinggevende

(42)

Deze leidinggevende … volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens ... had/heeft een

langere termijn visie

o

...

benadrukte/benadrukt de maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid

van ons werk

o

...

benadrukte/benadrukt het belang van kijken

(43)

De volgende vragen gaan over vertrouwen in deze leidinggevende (die u in gedachten nam).

Ik vertrouwde/vertrouw deze leidinggevende

o

volledig mee oneens

o

mee oneens

o

beetje oneens

o

neutraal

o

beetje eens

o

mee eens

o

volledig mee eens

U hebt neutraal of beetje mee eens op de vorige vraag geantwoord. Daarom zijn er een aantal vervolgvragen opgesteld. Kunt u in uw eigen woorden toelichten waarom u geen volledig vertrouwen in deze leidinggevende had/hebt?

Wat deed/doet deze leidinggevende zodat uw vertrouwen minder werd/wordt?

U hebt op de vorige vragen een beetje oneens, oneens of helemaal oneens geantwoord. Daarom een paar vervolgvragen.

Ik had/heb weinig vertrouwen in deze leidinggevende

o

volledig mee oneens

o

mee oneens

o

beetje oneens

o

neutraal

o

beetje eens

o

mee eens

o

volledig mee eens

Ik wantrouwde/wantrouw deze leidinggevende

o

volledig mee oneens

(44)

o

neutraal

o

beetje eens

o

mee eens

o

volledig mee eens

Kunt u in uw eigen woorden toelichten waarom u een (beetje) wantrouwen in deze leidinggevende had/hebt? Wat deed/doet deze leidinggevende zodat uw (beetje) wantrouwen ontstond/ontstaat? Zou u willen zeggen dat u een laag vertrouwen had/hebt in deze leidinggevende of zou u het wantrouwen noemen?

o

laag vertrouwen

o

wantrouwen

(45)

volledig mee oneens mee oneens beetje oneens neutraal beetje eens mee eens volledig mee eens Ik kon/kan erop

rekenen dat mijn leidinggevende mij zou/zal helpen als ik problemen had/heb bij het uitvoeren van

mijn werk

o

Ik ging/ga ervan uit dat mijn leidinggevende rekening zou/zal houden met mijn belangen bij het nemen van besluiten

o

Ik

vertrouwde/vertrouw erop dat mijn leidinggevende me op de hoogte zou/zal houden van zaken die

mijn werk aangaan

o

Ik kon/kan ervan op aan dat mijn leidinggevende zich aan haar/zijn woord

zou/zal houden

o

De laatste vragen gaan over het effect op uw werk van de eerder genoemde gedragingen van de leidinggevende.

(46)

Volledig mee eens Mee eens Beetje eens Neutraal Beetje oneens Mee oneens Helemaal niet mee eens ...deze leidinggevende teveel bepaalde/bepaalt hoe ik mijn werk moest/moet doen.

DISTRUST TOWARDS SUPERVISORS: DISENTANGLING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN OVERPOWERING, EMPOWERING, AND HUMILITY ON DISTRUST.

Abstract

Table of Contents

Introduction

Theoretical background

Method

Results

Discussion

References

Appendix

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o