Distrust in the workplace:
What is the effect of honor violations on the relationship between colleagues?
Master Thesis, Human Resource Management, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economic and Business
June 14, 2020
Michelle Kromowidjojo Student number: 3856879
E-Mail: m.kromowidjojo@student.rug.nl
First assessor: Susanne Täuber s.tauber@rug.nl
Co-assessor: Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema k.m.bijlsma-frankema@rug.nl
Abstract
Trust is an essential part for organizational life. On the work floor it is important that colleagues trust each other and cooperate optimally. But there is still little known about which behaviours trigger distrust between colleagues. Previous literature had seen trust and distrust as opposites on one continuum. To date, little is known about distrust as a distinct concept from trust. In this research an answer will be given on which behaviours trigger distrust between colleagues and specifically what the effect of honor violations is on the relationship between colleagues and supervisor. This study is qualitative based and gathered data through in-depth interviews. The results indicate that behaviours which trigger distrust are placed in the categories: violation of privacy, dishonesty, work ethic and communication. Distrust emerged as the colleague’s behaviour had violated the rules and harmed the trust of the interviewees. The sense of civic order was damaged, or the code of ethics had been broken. Managers need to be aware of these behaviours in order to prevent distrust from happening. When distrust occurs, managers need to facilitate the rebuilding of trust.
Keywords
1 Introduction
Trust in organizations has been associated with an increase in job satisfaction for employees, organizational identification and the objective to stay (Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo, 2008). Further, employees who have trust in their supervisor report higher job satisfaction and lower intentions of turnover (Krasman, 2014). On the other hand, distrust as a distinct concept has been known for its negative consequences such as a lack of cooperation (Cho, 2006), refraining from interaction (Bies & Tripp, 1996), reluctance to share opinions and preferences (Bijlsma-Frankema, 2004; March & Olsen, 1975) and stigmatization (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Moreover, distrust can be costly to the organization as employee commitment contribute to productivity goals declines, and anxiety and destructive behaviour raises (Shockley-Zalabak, Morreale, & Hackman, 2010). Distrust causes direct economic costs such as costs related to time and energy which cannot be spent on the primary task, extra costs for control and cost of noncompliance with agreements made. Additionally, distrust brings indirect psychological costs such as reduced motivation and psychological costs as a result of a damaged and long-term distrust within a relationship (Estarippa, 2010).
2 Because distrust influences the relationship between colleagues and eventually the organization, it is important to understand why people make harmful actions as distrust has the expectation that another person cannot be relied on and will enact in harmful behaviour (Van de Walle & Six, 2014). Tomlinson and Lewicki (2006) stated that if people expect that they have little in common with each other than the other person is out to harm themselves. When this expectation of harm increases to a point where the vulnerability is not accepted anymore and people are unwilling to be vulnerable, distrust arises. These harmful actions can be in the form of trust violations which are expectations that are not met related to another’s behaviour or when a person does not act constantly with one’s values. Bies and Tripp (1996) classify two categories of harm as a result of trust violation which are damaged sense of the civic order and damaged identity. The civic order is breached when infringements of rules and procedures are made, or social expectations and obligations are not met. In the workplace there is a standard of honor which is a prevailing code of ethics or community norms. This code of ethics is used as a criterion to determine the trustworthiness of people in organizations.
As can be seen, distrust can cause harm to the organization and the relationships within the workplace. Therefore, it is important to understand which behaviours cause distrust and whether these triggers will be the same for colleagues and supervisors.
Traditionally, trust and distrust were seen as opposites of each other (Bigley & Pearce, 1998) and low trust was viewed the same as high distrust (Stack, 1988; Tardy, 1988). However, recent research has showed that this is not the case as they treat trust and distrust as different concepts (Liu & Wang, 2010). Distrust is related to trust but qualitatively different (Cho J., 2006; Lewicki, Mcallister, & Bies, 1998; Kramer, 1999).
3 deceptive behaviours, broken promises, harassment, interfering in relationships with colleagues and giving negative reactions when improvements were suggested. Their research focused on the hierarchical relationship between employees and supervisors, but we know little about the effect of distrust in lateral relations and how this distrust is created. It is important to study this relationship as employees spend more time with each other than supervisors-subordinates do. Employees need to trust each other for the team to be productive, unified, and successful. If employees feel valued by their team, they feel more confident and will share more information and ideas (Renzla, Kurt, & Christian, 2005). Therefore, the present research examines the effect of distrust on the relationship between colleagues in the workplace. The focus of this research will be on honor violations as this can occur in lateral relations and supervisor-subordinate relationships, so this will be a good opportunity to see if there are similarities or differences. At the end of this research the findings of Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) for hierarchical relationships and the findings of this research for lateral relationships will be compared. The following research question will be answered: What are the behaviours that trigger distrust between colleagues? This study will use qualitative data in the form of in-depth interviews to find out what the effect of distrust is.
4 Theoretical background
Trust and Distrust. Trust can be defined as “an individual's confidence in another person's intentions and motives, and the sincerity of that person's word” (Mellinger, 1956) or “the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). These definitions conceive trust as the intentions and honesty of a person’s word. Knowing what other people intentions are and whether they are honest is important because people are vulnerable to others’ actions. The conceptualization of Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) distinguishes trust from its outcomes. The outcomes are several types of risk taking in the relationship with the trustee. In this concept trust is the willingness to enact in risk taking with the focal party. Examples of this risk taking are cooperation, sharing confidential information and the trustee who let the trustor get control about matters that are important to him/her out of free will (Mayer & Davis, 1999).
5 constructs due to evidence of early measurement construction and validation studies (Clark & Payne, 1997; Constantinople, 1969; Wrightsman, 1992). Trust and distrust have an effect on the relationship between colleagues which in turn has an effect on the effectiveness of the organization (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2002) (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003)
Because distrust has an effect on the relationship between colleagues and eventually the organization (Shockley-Zalabak, Morreale, & Hackman, 2010) it is important to understand why people make harmful actions. These harmful actions can be in the form of trust violations which are expectations that are not met related to another’s behaviour or when a person does not act constant with one’s values. Personal norms and values can clash with another’s’ norms and values which can feel as a trust violation. Trust violation can be a form of harmful action. As will be explained later, a damaged sense of the civic order is a result of a trust violation. When trust is violated and the violation continues, the calculus-based trust meaning that a person has high positive expectations towards others can turn into calculus-based distrust. Hereby the person has negative expectation towards the other and increases distrust for one or both parties (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000).
6 the three previous types of trust such as creating a collective idenity and collaborative products or goals, and acting toward shared values to ensure that everyone is dedicated to the same objectives. Identification-based trust is cultivated when someones knows, foresees and shares the same needs and preferences. Through this identification people can integrate parts of the other into their own identity which results in a collective identity (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996).
7 personal identity (Tajfel & Turner, 2001; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This means that sometimes, collective, and individual norms can clash.
Sense of Civic Order. A damaged sense of “civic order” and “damaged identity” are two categories of harm that are the result of trust violations. This research will focus on honor violations which falls under the category of civic order. A damaged sense to the civic order occurs if people get the feeling of rules violations, honor violations, or abusive authority. When one of these actions happened, trust was violated between the employee, its management and the organization (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Dealing honorably, meaning, acting consistently with the prevailing code of ethics or societal norms is an important criterion to evaluate the trustworthiness of people in organizations (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Deviating from this standard, elicits distrust in the violator. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:
H1: A colleague’s behaviour is perceived as an honor violation if the behaviour damages the employee’s sense of civic order and/or makes them feel that the code of ethics has been broken.
8 Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) researched distrust on a hierarchical level, between employees and their supervisors, and identified strategies that subordinates use to cope with distrust. These strategies can also be used on the level of lateral relations, that means, when an employee distrust a colleague. Supervisors showed deceptive behaviour by discrepancies in behaviour and speech, manipulation by making vague expectations, credit taking for task they did not do, transferring blame to the subordinates, lying, or revealing private information. These are all examples of honor violations and generated the feeling of uncertainty and concerns about future actions made by the supervisor and the negatives consequences of these behaviours. The negative consequences are bad reputation, lack of faith of the employee’s reliability and being distrusted by other colleagues.
9 Bies and Tripp (1996) talk about revenge taking as a result of trust violations. Revenge taking can be done in multiple forms such as: do nothing, privately confront, restoration of identity, social withdrawal, feuding and forgiveness. Thus, there are multiple strategies a victim can use to cope with distrust. Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) state that distrusting behaviour showed through manifest behaviour creates a response of negative behaviours by the other group which is called negative reciprocity. Recipients of harm have the feeling of justification to respond back with harm (Gouldner, 1960). Youngs (1986) demonstrated that if negative reciprocity grows, behaviours as a response to this become more harmful. Furthermore, the study of Ijzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci (2007) demonstrated that people with a strong devotion to honor norms may react more aggresively and hostile. Although Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) state that negative reciprocity and revenge taking would not happen in a hierarchical relationship, this research will focus on the lateral relationship. If a person’s honor is violated, he or she will react with a justification that restores his or her honor. I believe that an employee will do what it takes to restore his or her honor as harm is already caused. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:
H3: An employee’s response to perceived honor violation has the purpose to restore the violated honor by revenge taking.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
10 a better understanding of which behaviours trigger distrust between colleagues. The
relationship between colleagues is of a different intensity than supervisor subordinate. Employees spend more time with each other in the workplace and these relationships influence the productivity and outcomes of the team. The added value for practitioners is a better understanding on the strategies employees use to cope with distrust and whether these strategies differ from dealing with distrust caused by the supervisor. The added value for theory is an expansion on the existing theory of distrust. Research has been done on distrust, but most of this have been done on hierarchical relationships and with the idea that trust and distrust are opposites of each other (Bigley & Pearce, 1998). The new view on the concepts of trust and distrust is that these are two separate concepts (Liu & Wang, 2010) and this research treats distrust as a distinct construct from trust.
Methods
This study is qualitative based with a mix of deductive and inductive study as the interview questions had not been based on theory, while the hypothesis had been based on the theory mentioned above. The study focused on specific observations and then moved to broader generalizations and theories (Burney & Saleem, 2008). Data was gathered by interviews, because interviewing is the best technique to find out things that are not directly observed such as feelings, thoughts and intentions (Merriam, 1997). It is difficult to detect distrust between collegeaus and if this is detected respondents may not wanted to discuss it out of fear (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019). This is the reason the sample was drawn from the population of within the personal network of the researcher. The interviewees were selected based on experiences with distrust in lateral relations.
11 permission for recording the interview and ask if the interviewee had any questions before starting the interview. The interviewee should have had the feeling he or she can talk openly in order to feel safe to show emotions and feelings about the situation. Non-directive, open-ended questions were used to discover the experience and feelings of the interviewees after which follow up questions were formulated. The following types of interview questions were used: introductory, follow-up, probing, specifying, indirect, structuring, silence, and
interpreting. The interviewees were asked frequently how and why question to get a better understanding about the feelings or actions. Notes were taken during the interview to track key points to return to later in the interview. The interview ended with a debriefing (Kvale, 2011). The interviews where held in the months of February, March, and April. By recording the interview, the researcher could replay the voice record as often as needed. The control on the quality of the interview is maximum, because no faults were made with the transcription (Baarda, van der Hulst, & de Goede, 2012). The transcripts have been sent as a separate document to the supervisor to secure the anonymity of the interviewees.
Participants and procedure. Data was gathered by conducting 8 interviews (6 female, average age 38.8, all Dutch) of approximately 30 minutes till 1 hour. Five interviews were held in person, two via WhatsApp Videocall and one through Skype. The interviews through WhatsApp Videocall and Skype were an efficient way to connect with the
interviewees due to the distance. The interviewees were working in the following roles: (1) sales promotor, (2) sales in the commercial team, (3) shop assistant, (4) marketing trainee, (5) online marketing for outdoor toy company, (6) team leader housekeeping, (7) team leader customs, (8) employee facility management.
12 for your own work?” gave an indication about the interviewees’ own work. Questions three till six were about the relationship with team members concerning trust and distrust. These questions were: “Are you dependent on working with teammates to do your job well?”. Followed by if the cooperation within the team is good. If not, what are those problems, how are they solved, by who and did they believe it was solved in a good way. The next question was: “How would you describe a good teammate? Per characteristic: why do you like that? Is this a teammate you would trust? Does such a teammate make the work easier to do? Well? How?”. This was followed by the next question: “Which characteristic do you dislike in a teammate? Per characteristic: How does it bother you? Can this lead to distrust in a person? How?”. The last question of this theme was about how the distrust started “Did you trust the colleague in the beginning? What did this person do that you started distrusting him/her?”. Follow up questions were asked about the impact of this behaviour and how the interviewee felt by this. Coping with distrust was asked by the questions “Did you behave differently once you distrusted this colleague? What had changed in your behaviour?” and “Do you think that your distrust can be restored? What do you think it takes? How likely do you think this is going to happen?”. The relation with the supervisor was asked in questions nine till thirteen. Questions were asked about the task of the supervisor, support of the supervisor by solving problems and trust in the supervisor. The last question number fourteen concerned the perceived violation of rules.
13 material which can be tested on rough material and lastly, an indication of exceptional
outcomes that require an explanation (Bijlsma-Frankema & Droogleever Fortuijn, 1997). After the data matrix was filled in, the data was analysed by open and axial coding. Analysis started with open coding. This is a process of data breaking down into separate units of meaning (Goulding, 1999). Data was conceptualized and received a label. Concepts were clustered around a connected theme to structure more abstract categories (Brown, Stevenson, Troiano, & Schneider, 2002). After open coding was finalized the axial coding began. The different types of data were put in a core category. This core category had a central theme which relates the other categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The function of the core category is to unite the strands so it can provide an explanation for the behaviour under study
(Goulding, 1999).
Description of work environment. The interviewees worked from a range of eight months till five years at the job where they have experienced distrust. Six of the eight
interviewees stated that they had objectives and that these were feasible. All the interviewees stated that they had enough freedom to act. This shows in autonomy and being free in
deciding how and when to execute the work. Furthermore, all the interviewees state that they have enough resources available to do their job. The interviewees are completely or partially dependent on teammates. Six interviewees noted that the cooperation within the teams are good, but that there are sometimes points of improvement. Positive characteristics of
14 In the remainder, I present the results of this study which are the behaviours of the colleagues which have caused distrust, the interviewees reactions to this behaviour and why they responded this way. This is followed by the consequences of the colleague’s behaviour for the interviewees and whether they considered to have reacted in another way.
Furthermore, restoring distrust and preventing distrust will be discussed and finally the role of supervisor in the relationship between the distrusted colleague.
Results
Colleague distrust-electing behaviours. To find out what has caused the distrust, the interviewees were asked the following question: “You have already indicated that you
distrust/distrusted a colleague. Did you trust him/her in the beginning and what did this person do to cause distrust with you?”. Almost all the interviewees trusted the colleague in the
beginning, or they gave him/her the benefit of the doubt. One interviewee did not trust her colleague in the beginning. M3: “I did not trust her in the beginning, because she was already a customer with us, and I found her strange at that time. Then she joined our team and I thought ‘yeah I do not really know what to think of you’ … I noticed it from her attitude towards everyone. She was very sneaky, and a lot of people thought so”i. The original Dutch quotes can be found in Appendix C. The interviewees stated different reasons why they started to distrust their colleague. The reasons can be classified in the following categories: violations of privacy, dishonesty, work ethic, and communication. Table 1 gives an overview of why these behaviours caused distrust and how the interviewees responded to this. These categories will now be discussed.
15 true. So, she twisted a lot of words and twisted things which were not true”ii. Another
interviewee had private information shared. M6: “By sharing it with someone else while I had asked her to keep it between us”iii. This shows that the interviewees find it important that it is
safe for them to share personal information. Trust between colleagues will be gone if private information will be shared. These are examples of honor violations as confidence information was disclosed.
Dishonesty. M2 her distrusted was caused by dishonest behaviour of her colleague. M2: “This person was not good in following his schedule and once every six months he was completely overflowing because often he had to do things which he did not do … That caused a lot of irritation because of that we had a lot of projects that escalated … In the end everyone had a lot work to do. He did not realize that he had messed up. In that regard you already lost the confidence in the abilities of someone being able to do what he says, cause that is what he did”iv. This was where a lack of trust was created. The real distrust started when his colleague
16 agreements made. She felt he was no longer with the right intentions at the company. It
resulted in that she felt very demotivated by him because she knew that new projects which she created were not followed up by him. The actions of this colleague had an impact on multiple of his colleagues.
Work ethic. Other reasons why the interviewees distrusted their colleague was his or her work attitude which was undesirable. M3: “As a customer she walked in and looked around very sneaky all by herself […] She was watching us”v. M4 said: “He wanted to become friends with the boss. He was always looking for the boss. I have two bosses and he always wanted to be in close contact with one”vi. M7 had several reasons why he distrusted his colleague. It started with a reorganisation whereby there became two team leaders in one team. M7 became responsible for customer service and his colleague for administrative control. An agreement was made between the colleagues that they would give a gratification to their team members and not accept one themselves. However, M7 his colleague said
afterwards: “Oh I have to tell you something. The gratification for the group was not accepted by the management team and they have nominated me for the gratification for the integration of our groups and I have accepted it”vii. On the question if this was the reason why he
distrusted this colleague M7 stated: “Yes but not only that. He was buttering up his bosses so then you also have something different and the fact that at some point he was known for his laziness. That guy himself did nothing and at some point, that...” (“Ja niet alleen. Hij kroop bij een ander in zijn gat waar het ging om zijn bazen. Dus dan heb je al iets anders en het feit dat hij op een gegeven moment gewoon bekend stond vanwege zijn luiheid. Die vent zelf presteerde niks en dat op een gegeven moment die...”). These example of behaviours show that a good working ethic is important for building a trustworthy relationship. The
17 Communication. The last reason why an interviewee started distrusting her colleague was by the way she was communicating. Interviewee M8 said: “It is actually a certain
structure in her way of communicating which makes it why you distrust this person in the sense of is this true or not … The pattern she has is wanting to know everything and, above all, being important and appearing. She is a fine talker”viii. M5 her distrust also had to do with communication, she said: “[…] But in the days when she is not at work it is expected from us (her and another colleague) that we take care of the 2 other colleagues and explain everything without anything having been agreed upon at that is at the expense of the time you need for your own work”ix. Communication is important in a working relationship. Both
interviewees find it important to have an open communication with each other. By being open and transparent both persons know where they stand with each other. This creates a safe feeling and a safe working place.
Rule violation. In order to find support for H1 it was important to find out if the interviewees perceived that their colleagues had broken a rule for them. After the interviewees had given their answer, they were asked whether this is related with norms and values. Seven interviewees find that their colleague has violated a rule. This could have been a written formal rule or an unwritten rule such as code of conduct. The violated rules can be placed in the category of norms and values.
18 violated a rule by blaming her and not discuss it within her presence. M5 thinks that there is no rule violated, but that there is a difference between their norms and values. She thinks that there were expectations who cannot be met and that moment and this caused frustration. According to M6 her colleague has violated multiple rules. She stated: “A rule of treating everybody with respect. I think that rule has been broken. Taking seriously. Those are rules and credibility. Credibility is completely gone”x. These are examples of honor violations because her colleague was violating the rules and did not treat M6 with respect. The colleague from M7 had let his own interests prevail and ignored the interest of the group and was not collegial towards M7. M8 also finds that her colleague had violated her respect. This colleague had created turbulence within the group through her way of communicating. The experiences of M1, M2, M4, M6, M7 and M8 can be categorized as honor violations. By this behaviour, the colleagues have violated a rule on how the interviewees expected you should behave with and towards each other.
19 In short, distrust is caused by the behaviour of the colleague. It is the experience the interviewee had with the colleague which made him/her start to distrust. The distrust electing behaviour which the interviewees have experienced are violation of privacy, dishonesty, work ethic, and communication. As has been mentioned, the interviewees have perceived that a rule has been broken for them. It is contrary to their code of ethics and against their norms and values.
Interviewee’s reactions to colleague distrust-electing behaviours. Interviewees have responded in different ways to cope with the distrust. Three strategies were used which are unchanged behaviour, distance and being on guard.
Unchanged behaviour. In reaction to the distrust created by violating his privacy M1 responded with unchanged behaviour. He said: “I still behave normally towards her. If we meet each other in the canteen I will have a short chat with her, but I would never volunteer to walk over or be super fun or anything. I just act socially and if I have the chance, I will sit somewhere else”xi. M5 and M7 did not changed their behaviour after the distrust occurred. M5 did not have much direct contact with this colleague and said: “No that is because we always lunch in shift and I never really sit with her. So, it is not that we see each other less or anything and I can still have fun with her”xii. M7 also said that he did not change his
behaviour when he started to distrust his colleague. However, after the incident which made him very angry, he left work and never returned. He already had some concerns regarding his colleague, but he gave him the benefit of the doubt. On the question if he changed his
behaviour once he distrusted his colleague, he firmly answered no.
20 need for it. Get out of here goofball”xiv. For M2 it was important that there was distance between her colleague so that it would not affect her as she became demotivated by his behaviour. She wants to work with people who have a similar working culture.
Be on guard. Interviewees M3, M4, M6 and M8 stated that the were holding back and be on guard with their behaviour and what they say. M3 and M6 both noted that they were holding back in their own behaviour. M3: “I noticed I became more reserved. I was aware of the things I was saying”xv. M6 said: “You become reluctant and start to doubt your own knowledge”xvi. M8 also became reserved “I am just very careful then. I only say the necessary things but with a smile”xvii. So, the interviewees were more aware of their own behaviour and how they came across.
To summarize, interviewees had their own way of coping with distrust. Three interviewees did not change their behaviour towards the colleague. Another interviewee reacted by taking distance from her colleague. The contact left was only in the professional relationship. The remaining interviewees became on guard with their own behaviour. They became more aware of how their behaviour was perceived by others.
21 make clarity between her and her colleague. She said: “Well clarity about my limits. I mean, in my eyes the company is at the first place and a colleague is a side issue. You have to work together and have fun in your work, but there are limits”xix.
Interviewee code
Behaviour leading to distrust Why has it led to distrust Interviewee reaction to distrust
M1
M6
Violation of privacy
I have had conversations with her when I worked with her on the street. She had completely twisted them and said other things which I did not have mentioned, because she is good friends with the boss (M1)
By sharing it with someone else while I had asked her to keep it between us (M6)
This put me in a bad light while it was actually not true (M1)
I have lost confidence, but also a bit of freedom to spar and try and do things (M6)
I still behave normally towards her. If we meet each other in the canteen I will have a short chat with her, but I would never volunteer to walk over or be super fun or anything. I just act socially and if I have the chance, I will sit somewhere else (M1)
You become reluctant and start to doubt your own knowledge (M6)
M2
Dishonesty
He was during his working time with us while our schedule was messed up because he did not do his job in time because he was working for his own company (M2)
At that time, I completely distrusted him, and I no longer believed he was with the right intentions at our company (M2)
I went to the management team and said that this no longer could go on (M2)
M3
M4
Work ethic
As a customer she walked in and looks around very sneaky all by herself. […] She was watching us (M3)
Becoming good friends with the boss (M4)
She joined our team and I thought ‘yeah I do not really know what to think of you’ … I noticed it from her attitude towards everyone. She was very sneaky, and a lot of people thought so (M3)
Because later he started accusing me of things just to show that he was not wrong but I, so that the bosses would have a good impression of him (M4)
I noticed I became more reserved. I was aware of the things I said all the time. I noticed that very much and I started to watch her what she was doing (M3)
22
M7
The colleague accepted a
gratification while they had made the agreement that they would give it to their team members and would not accept the gratification themselves
Yes, but not only that. He was buttering up his bosses so then you also have something different and the fact that at some point he was known for his laziness. That guy himself did nothing and at some point that...”
The mutual understanding was completely destroyed. He actually stood on a higher pedestal. At one point, how should I say, at one point I was an
employee while I was not (M7)
deal with him outside the professional relationship (M4)
I snapped. He went away a then at one point I thought two things can happen. If I stay, I will attack him. Then I will really attack him, and no one is served with that. Then I thought I will do it otherwise I report myself sick. So, I went home and that was my last working day (M7)
M5
M8
Communication
“[…] But in the days when she is
not at work it is expected from us (her and another colleague) that we take care of the 2 other colleagues and explain everything without anything having been agreed upon at that is at the expense of the time you need for your own work (M5)
It is actually a certain structure in her way of communicating which makes it why you distrust this person in the sense of is this true or not … The pattern she has is wanting to know everything and, above all, being important and appearing. She is a fine talker (M8)
A piece of time which you do not have but it is expected from you that you make time for it (M5)
That makes that you distrust the person in the sense of is this true or not what she says (M8)
We don’t see each other less and we can still have fun with each other […] In retrospect I sometimes thought we should have said to her that it is fine that she worries about the new colleagues, but they could say it themselves and on the other hand, I think I do not spend time of effort in this. I can spend that better (M5)
I am just very careful. I only say the necessary, but with a smile […] Well clarity about my limits. I mean, in my eyes the company is at the first place and a colleague is a side issue. You have to work together and have fun in your work but there are limits (M8)
Table 1 Axial coding colleagues
23 their colleague’s behaviour. M1 and M4 found that they have been put in bad daylight. M1: “Your boss will look at you differently if he suddenly thinks that you are not working hard because someone else says so”xx. M4 noted: “Disadvantaged cause every time we received something or I did the same task people watched me every time and asked are you sure you are doing it the right way”xxi. M6 feels disadvantaged because she is trying to avoid
unnecessary contact. If she can contact someone else or do the job by herself, she will not contact her colleague. M8 feels disadvantaged by the way her colleague is communicating with others. She said: “If you feel harmed it has to do with the person, but I always try to distance myself from it. It has to do with work and to not take it personally. Except reflecting cause then it is a behaviour. Still I believe that work is the reason why you show this kind of behaviour” (“Als je het gevoel hebt dat je geschaad bent dan is het de persoon maar ik probeer altijd beetje van me af te houden van hé het heeft met het werk te maken en niet persoonlijk trekken. Behalve reflecteren dan is het een gedrag. Dan nog heb ik zoiets van het werk doet het hem toe waarom je dan dit soort gedrag toont”).
24 prevents people of doing their job well. They had less time to do their own job because of extra work or they were avoiding their colleague which created a risk on making decisions based on the wrong or insufficient information.
Interviewee code
Second-order themes Interviewee Perspective: Causes of distrust
Interviewee Perspective: Consequences of distrust
M1, M6 Privacy By sharing it with someone else
while I had asked her to keep it between us (M6)
Ultimately yes, because I have lost confidence, but also a bit of freedom to spar and try and do things (M6)
M2 Dishonesty He was during his working time
with us while our schedule was messed up because he did not do his job in time because he was working for his own company (M2)
Unpleasant consequences because we suffered because he did not keep his agreement […] A lot of extra work (M2)
M3, M4, M7 Work ethic Yes, but not only that. He was buttering up his bosses so then you also have something different and the fact that at some point he was known for his laziness. That guy himself did nothing and at some point that...” (M7)
At some point I was not able to function anymore. It was killing me (M7)
M5, M8 Communication It is actually a certain structure in her way of communicating which makes it why you distrust this person in the sense of is this true or not … The pattern she has is wanting to know
everything and, above all, being important and appearing. She is a fine talker (M8)
Well you feel unconsciously that you come back to yourself like oh I do not like this […] I had less fun in doing my job (M8)
Table 2 Overview causes and consequences of distrust
25 a direction to answer (Kvale, 2011). By asking them if they wanted or considered to
responded in a different way, they have given the opportunity to open up about this. Five interviewees said that the did not considered it. M1: “No I think it is fine”xxiii. M3 thought
about telling her colleague that she does not trust her but that would change the relationship with her. M3: “I thought on the one hand I could say it to her but not straightforward as in I do not trust you. I could talk normal with her and otherwise it would make our connection weird. I would have come across in a very aggressive way as in I do not trust you at all. In terms of behaviour that would be strange for me towards each other (“Ik dacht aan de ene kant je zou het tegen haar kunnen zeggen maar niet zo straight forward van joo ik vertrouw je niet. Ik kon opzich wel normaal met haar praten maar anders maakte de band raar dan kom ik op een hele agressieve manier op haar over van ik vertrouwen je voor geen meter. Dat zou qua gedrag tegenover elkaar beetje raar zijn voor mij”). M6 said she thought about it but did not find it is worth it. She finds it annoying and it affects her, but it is a small part and she can act fine without it. That is why she did not respond in a different way. M6 reported: “[…] If I really need it every day and if it blocks me or affects me that I cannot longer do my work than I would take other actions. For now I think it is goodxxiv. M8 said she will count to ten to figure out what exactly is going on as a reflection for herself “[…] Would you like to tell me from beginning to end so that I know of I can visualize why I have reacted that way” (“[…] Wil je mij gelijk van het begin tot het einde vertellen zodat ik weet van oh kan ik even visualiseren waarom ik zo gereageerd heb eigenlijk”).
26 everything is going to be fine “I think it will eventually be fine again. Soon after the high season is over, we will look back at it with a smile”xxvi. M6 finds that distrust can be restored by having an open conversation together by finding out the question. She states: “[…] The question behind the question. What is it that you made this decision? What makes that what we have agreed upon to share it with others?”xxvii. However, she did not have this
conversation with the colleague because she did not have time for it yet and she believes it will not make any difference.
Preventing distrust. It has shown that distrust on the work floor has negative effects. In order to prevent this from happening it is asked to the interviewees how they think distrust can be prevented. Answers on this can be classified in the following categories: own
behaviour, being open and cannot be prevented. M1 said “[…] Maybe first look at you as a person yourself. Maybe be less open. For her less likely to provoke behaviour and not talking about yourself instead of someone else” (“Misschien eerst zelf naar jou als persoon kijken. Misschien jezelf minder openstellen. Voor haar minder snel juist gedrag gaan uitlokken en dan niet over jezelf praten maar over iemand anders gaan praten”). M3 said: “In my case how it could be prevented is being open towards each other. What I just mentioned, I think open to each other is important” xxviii. M3 her code of ethics was being open and friendly
towards each other. Her colleague did not match with this as she performed sneaky behaviour. M6 beliefs that distrust can be prevented if both parties take time and effort to get to know each other. M6: “If you are open towards each other in the beginning and taking the time to get to know each other you are able to prevent it. Distrust arises when you do not take enough time for each other. It is has something to do with communication”xxix. Four interviewees said that they think distrust cannot be prevented. M8: “Distrust cannot be prevented” xxx.
27 the colleague he or she distrusts. M1, M4, M6, M7 and M8 find that the supervisor could have reacted in a different way. Further, this resulted in distrust towards the supervisor for M6 and M7. Table 3 summarizes the causes and consequences for this type of distrust. M1 found that his supervisor reacted in a good way meaning that he asked what the situation was. M1 could explain it to him and the supervisor believed him. What could have been improved is if there would have been a conversation between the colleagues and the supervisor. M4 found that her supervisor could understand that her colleague was also responsible for that task. Her
28 Discussion
The aim of this research was to find an answer to the research question regarding which behaviours triggers distrust between colleagues. Furthermore, the goal was to find out whether the three hypotheses are supported. The first hypothesis is whether the behaviour of the colleague was perceived as an honor violation when he or she broke the sense of civic order or the code of ethics. The first hypothesis can be confirmed as seven interviewees have perceived the behaviour of their colleague as a violation of a rule. This violation can be categorised under norms and values. The interviewees had the perception that written and/or unwritten rules had been breached. So, the sense of the civic order has been breached and the interviewees were negatively affected by this as they either felt disadvantaged or harmed. The code of ethics has been breached for the interviewees as there is a culture on how to behave on the work floor and the colleagues did not held to this culture. It has felt as an honor violation for the interviewees as they were not treated with respect. This is an important rule which is either directly or indirectly violated by the colleagues.
The second hypothesis expected that honor violations made by the colleague would trigger distrust. Support for this hypothesis is shown by all the interviewees who distrusted his or her colleague by the actions the colleague had taken. Six interviewees believe that the
Interviewee code
Second-order themes
Interviewee Perspective: Causes of distrust Interviewee Perspective: Consequences of distrust M6 Privacy She is not offering help and is not authentic
… She is not open towards feedback (M6)
I keep my distance. Whoever I am talking to I will first ask how you are and how is home. I do not want to share that with her anymore because I think even that she can use against me (M6)
M7 Work ethic A supervisor does not have to know everything about the execution of the work but must have such insight into the execution of the work that he knows what it means. The latter was missing. From about 1995 util later, this was sorely missing (M7)
Well, I hardly saw him every in person. So, I only ran into him in the management group meetings. In meetings with several people (M7)
29 distrust will always stay. They will not be able to completely trust their colleague again. The colleague has showed his or her true colours by the action he or she had taken.
Lastly, the third hypothesis stated that the interviewees would respond with revenge taking as a way of restoring their honor. No support has been found for the third hypothesis regarding revenge taking as a manner to restore honor. Although interviewees did nothing or seek avoidance these were not revenge strategies to restore honor. Interviewees reacted by not changing their behaviour, creating distance towards the colleague or being on guard with their own behaviour. The interviewees do not want to spend time and effort on the other person. They do what is best for themselves. Some interviewees were angry and thought about saying something to the person. However, nobody wanted to take revenge on the other person. They deliberately choose to not take revenge but do what is best for their own interest.
Some of the behaviours which have been found in this study replicated the distrust eliciting behaviours by Bies & Tripp (1996) and Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019): lying, disclosing private information and broken promises. Similar reactions which have been found as response to distrust between this study and Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) are: enduring, being on guard, looking elsewhere for support and avoiding troublesome actions. Negative reciprocity and avoidance have also been found in another study on lateral relations (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). This is not found in the study of Bijlsma-(Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) on hierarchical relations as this could harm oneself.
30 This research contributes to the research of Bies and Tripp (1996) for hypothesis 1 and 2 as this study shows that distrust is elicited when honor was violated. Further studies which have built on Bies and Tripp (1996) support hypothesis 1 and 2 meaning that when an honor code had been broken a honor violation had occurred which cause distrust (Huotari & Iivonen, 2004; Kramer & Cook, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2014).
The findings for hypothesis 3 challenges the theory of De Cremer (2006) as he stated that unfair procedures leads to acts of revenge when collective identification is high. De Cremer (2006) supports the findings of Bies and Tripp (1996) stating that the need for revenge occurs after unfair treatment as it is in violation with positive expectations of the enacting party. People have beliefs about how the future will be (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1996) and these beliefs can be socially shared, so they can apply to larger groups. In other words, people can have expectations regarding their own group or organization and their representative i.e. their supervisor. Brewer (1979) found that members of the group are
expected to be more trustworthy and honest than out-group members. The study of De Cremer (2006) showed that the level of disappointment is higher for people who strongly identify with a group when respect and fairness was violated. Adding, the need for revenge was higher if procedures were unfair rather than fair. Emotions such as anger and blame had already been detected to play a role in revenge taking (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001; Bies & Tripp, 2002), but De Cremer (2006) also found that disappointment as a negative emotion may be involved in revenge taking. The results of the present study challenge this theory. Interviewees have felt angry and disappointed, but did not take revenge.
31 and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction. Using this model, it reduces distrust
because it generates congruence between the words of an individual and his/her subsequent actions. It also builds creditability to an individual intentions of benevolence. In order to reduces distrust small steps need to be taken with limited cooperative gestures before moving on to important issues and trust building. The initiating party need to make a statement to signify to deescalate the conflict and start rebuilding trust (Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006). Both parties need to engage in costly signalling, meaning that the trustworthy party need to do something which the untrustworthy party is uncertain to do. The cooperated actor is at risk for exploitation by the other party. However, this risk is not as high as when the party was
cooperating completely. The amount of risk varies with the extent of the cooperative gesture. In order to find reassurance, a risk should be taken which the untrustworthy type is unwilling to bear, but that the trustworthy party finds acceptable. The trustworthy party will make a gesture which the untrustworthy party will not and the uncertainty about who is trustful is resolved (Kydd, 2000).
Another strategy mentioned by Tomlinson and Lewicki (2006) is to increase the awareness of the other person of how other people perceive their behaviour. Dishonest people still value a reputation for being honest. If a person knows that he or she is being watched and believe that others may distrust them, they may feel an incentive to behave more trustworthy. In order to restore trust, it is important to emphasize the importance of promise keeping (Schweitzer, Hershey, & Bradlow, 2006).
32 (2012). This model is trying to reinforce and stregthening broken trust through honor,
inclusion, valuing and participating followers, information sharing, developing others and going through uncertainty to follow opportunities.
Furthermore, a manager could take the following steps to manage distrust within the team. Firstly, both parties should address the behaviours which elicited distrust. Second, have each person responsible for the violation of trust and let the person apologize for this violation and explain it. Thirdly, let both persons discuss expectations for one another and agree on this. Fourth, establish a way of evaluation where both parties agree on. Lastly, help both parties to build alternative ways to meet each other needs (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000).
A last practical implications is that the manager could start the process of rebuilding trust by observing and acknowledging the violation of trust. This can be done by encouraging the colleagues by describing the situation or context on how the trust was violated. Let the two parties describe the behaviour they have observed during the situation and let them explain how this affected them. The manager should be a supportive listener and not give judgement. It is best to let both parties to come up with their own solutions instead of giving them a solution. Give the parties positive feedback when they enact in new ways. Positive feedback strengthens this behaviour. Acknowledge the challenge they have faced and learn them to rebuild trust and start over with their confidence, commitment and energy (Reina & Reina , 2010).
33 This because the connection was not good, or the interviewee had turned the webcam off. Interviews had been held with eight people all from a different age and occupation. However, this means that the results are not representative for the entire population. They had been recruited by convenience sampling. They had been chosen based on easy accessibility, experience with distrusting of a colleague, availability, and willingness to participate. A disadvantage of this method is the possibility of selection bias (Mackey & Gass, 2005).
The sample size for this research were six women and two men. This can have
affected the results of the research as men and women have difference in values. Women tend to value affective factors such as esteem, relationship with colleagues and ability to interact with people higher than men (Elizur, 1994).
Lastly, unintentional errors could have been made by the researcher. Information could have been misinterpreted or questions in the survey or interview could have not been clear for the respondents. If the researcher gave an example of an answer on the question it could be that the interviewee did not had an objective answer, because it could be unintentionally steered towards an answer. The researcher tried to prevent this from happening by concluding the answers that were given.
Future research. Future research should consider that the different methods of taking an interview could have an influence on the outcomes and interpretations of the interview. It is recommended when possible to hold all the interviews in person to see the complete body language of the interviewee.
A recommendation for further research to avoid selection bias of the convenience sampling method is to use the purposive sampling method. This is also a non-random
sampling technique whereby the research continues with adding people to the sample until no new substantive information is received (Huberman & Miles, 1994).
34 population. More research should be done, and a recommendation will be to focus this on a specific business or industry. By focusing on one business or industry it is easier to compare the results and draw a conclusion which is representable. Also, more people, especially men, need to be interviewed in order to receive more information as research showed that men have difference in values than women on the work floor (Elizur, 1994). Additionally, further
research can be done with the focus on honor cultures to see if there is difference in response to honor violations (Ijzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci, 2007; Wasti & Erdaş, 2019).
A last recommendation for the researcher is to be as objective as possible paraphrase the answers given by the interviewee to ensure that both parties have the same understanding about the answer.
Conclusion. The focus of this research was to find out which behaviours trigger distrust between colleagues and whether the data would support the three hypothesis. H1 expected that a honor violation would be perceived if it had damaged the sense of civic order or broken the code of ethics. H2 stated that honor violation would trigger distrust towards the colleague who made the violation. To begin with, hypothesis 1 and 2 are both supported. The interviewees experienced a breach of the civic order or that the code of ethics had been broken. It affected the interviewees by feeling disadvantaged or harmed. The second hypothesis is supported by the result of all the interviewees distrusting their colleague.
Thirdly, no support had been found for the last hypothesis. The interviewees did not engage in revenge taking. There was no change in behaviour, tried to create a distance or be on guard with their own behaviour. Behaviours that have triggered distrust can be placed in the
following categories: violation of privacy, dishonesty, work ethic and communication. These behaviours triggered distrust as they had violated the rules and harmed the trust of the
35
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How Employees Respond to Personal Offense: The Effects of Blame Attribution, Victim Status, and Offender Status on Revenge and Reconciliation in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52-59.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1-8.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
Baarda, B., van der Hulst, M., & de Goede, M. (2012). Basisboek interviewen. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers bv. Retrieved March 20, 2018
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.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). "Hot flashes, open wounds": Injustice and the tyranny of its emotions. In D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & S. W. Gilliland, Emerging
perspectives on managin organizational justice (pp. 203-221). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
36 Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2004). Dilemmas of managerial control in post‐acquisition processes.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 252-268.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Droogleever Fortuijn, E. (1997). De kwalitatieve datamatrix als analyse instrument.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Sitkin, S. B., & Weibel, A. (2015). Distrust in the Balance: The
Emergence and Development of Intergroup Distrust in a Court of Law. Organizational Science, 26(4), 1-22.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Susanne, T., & van de Brake, J. (2019). Study 1: Distrust of supervisor. Groningen.
Bottery, M. (2003). The management and mismanagement of trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(3), 245-261.
Bottery, M. (2004). The challenges of educational leadership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. Brown, S. C., Stevenson, R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring
complex phenomena: Grounded theory in students affairs research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 173-183.
Burney, S. A., & Saleem, H. (2008). Inductive & Deductive Research Approach. Karachi: University of Karachi.
37 Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of worker’s trust in
management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 205-224.
Constantinople, A. (1969). An Eriksonian measure of personality development in college students. Developmental Psychology, 1(4), 357-372.
De Cremer, D. (2006). Unfair Treatment and Revenge Taking: The Roles of Collective Identification and Feelings of Disappointment. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 10(3), 220-232.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and Suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.
Elizur, D. (1994). Gender and Work Values: A Comparative Analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 201-212.
Ellemers, N., & van den Bos, K. (2012). Morality in Groups: On the Social-Regulatory Functionsof Right and Wrong. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(12), 878-889.
Estarippa, C. (2010). Wantrouwen in organisaties. Retrieved from Estarippa:
http://estarippaconsultancy.nl/images/downloads/artikel%20wantrouwen%20in%20or ganisaties.pdf
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2002). The trusted leader: Bringing out the best in your people and your company. New York: Free Press.
Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: some reflections on Paradigm, Procedures and Misconceptions. Telford: University of Wolverhampton.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
38 Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65-72.
Haidt, J. (Psychologial Review). 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment, 108(4), 814-834.
Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P. Ø., Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the Psychosocial Work Environment: Workplace Norms and Work–Family Conflict as Correlates of Stress and Health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 83-97.
Hartman, E. (1996). Organizational Ethics and the Good Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huotari, M.-L., & Iivonen, M. (2004). Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Organizations. London: Idea Group Inc.
Ijzerman, H., van Dijk, W. W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A Bumpy Train Ride: A Field Experiment on Insult, Honor, and Emotional Reactions. Emotion, 4, 869-875. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Social group identity and the emergence of cooperation in resource conservation dilemmas. In H. Wilke, C. Rutter, & D. M. Messick, Experimental Studies of Social Dilemmas. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and Distrust In Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
39 Kutsyuruba, B., & Walker, K. D. (2016). The destructive effects of distrust: Leaders as
brokers of trust in organizations. In A. T. Normore, & J. S. Brooks, The Dark Side of Leadership: Identifying and Overcoming Unethical Practice in Organizations (pp. 133-154). Emerald.
Kvale, S. (2011). Doing Interviews. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Kydd, A. (2000). Overcoming Distrust. Rationality and Society, 12(4), 397-424. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and Maintaining Trust in Working
Relations. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler, Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. In M.
Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman, The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., Mcallister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.
Liu, M., & Wang, C. (2010). Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on
negotiators' Interaction Goals: An Assessment of Trust and Distrust as Two Distinct Mediators. Communication Research, 37(4), 443-472.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.
Lyman, A. (2012). The trustworthy leader: Leveraging the power of trust to transform your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40 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(1), 123-136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An intergrative model of organizational distrust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734. Mellinger, G. D. (1956). Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of
Abnormal Social Psycholog, 52, 304-309.
Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectations. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 211-238). New York: Guilford Press.
Reina, D., & Reina , M. (2010). Rebuilding Trust in the Workplace: Seven Steps to Renew Confidence, Commitment and Energy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Renzla, B., Kurt, M., & Christian, M. (2005, March). Impact of Trust in Colleagues and
Management on Knowledge Sharing within and across Work Groups. Retrieved from Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kurt_Matzler/publication/228413672_Impact_of _trust_in_colleagues_and_management_on_knowledge_sharing_within_and_across_ work_groups/links/0912f50bc60cb1af6f000000.pdf
Restubog, S. L., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the Group Value Model. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1377-1400.
41 Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a Handshake.
Negotiation Journal, 8(4), 365-377.
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., Morreale, S., & Hackman, M. (2010). Building the high-trust
Organization: Strategies for Supporting Five Key Dimensions of Trust. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392.
Stack, L. C. (1998). Trust. In H. London, & J. E. Exner, Dimensionality of personality (pp. 561-599). New York: Wiley.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tajfel, H., & Tuner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Warchel, & W. G. Austin, Psychology of intergroup relations (2 ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams, Intergroup relations: Essential readings, Key readings in social psychology (pp. 94-109). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tardy, C. H. (1988). Interpersonal evaluations: Measuring attraction and trust. In C. H. Tardy, A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 269-283). Norwoord: Ablex Publishing.
42 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van de Walle, S., & Six, F. (2014). Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying. Journal of Comprative Policy Analysis, 16(2), 158-174.
Wasti, S. A., & Erdaş, K. D. (2019). The Construal of Workplace Incivility in Honor
Cultures: Evidence From Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50, 130-148. Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions About Human Nature: A Social Psychological
Analysis. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications Inc.
43 Appendix A
Introductie
Goedemorgen / middag, hartelijk dank dat u mee wilt werken aan ons onderzoek. Ik zal mij eerst even voorstellen. Mijn naam is … , ik ben assistent-onderzoeker in dit project en student aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Ik wil benadrukken dat er vertrouwelijk met uw antwoorden wordt omgegaan.. Uw naam wordt van het interviewverslag verwijderd en vervangen door een code. De gegevens worden anoniem verwerkt, in zinnen zoals: ‘Sommige geïnterviewden zeiden wel wraakgevoelens te hebben, maar niet naar die gevoelens te handelen.’
Om de verwerking van de antwoorden te vergemakkelijken, zou ik ons gesprek graag opnemen. Na afloop van het onderzoek worden alle opnames gewist. Heeft u er bezwaar tegen als ik het gesprek opneem?
