SUBORDINATE–SUPERVISOR RELATIONSHIP: THE ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND EMPLOYEE DISTRUST
ABSTRACT
When it comes to the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust, findings of prior research are mixed. Whereas in some cases, deception is socially accepted to manage subordinate-supervisor relationships, other cases of deception may result in damaging the subordinate-supervisor relationship. The data from this study consists of a sample of 201 employees and a parallel mediation analysis was used to analyze the gathered online questionnaire data. As to the mixed findings, this study further examines the
relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust by taking the role of employees’ perception into account. Specifically, this paper assesses whether perceived supervisory authenticity and humility account for the diverse findings regarding the
relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust. The results of this study indicate that supervisors who displayed deceptive behaviors were perceived as
significantly less authentic and humble by their subordinates. Moreover, initial evidence that aspects of servant leadership characteristics, specifically perceived humility, partly accounts for the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust, is provided. However, perceived authenticity was not found to have the same effect. As such, this research contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms leading to employee distrust and provides new insights into aspects of servant leadership characteristics. The study
concludes with contributing implications for practice and with providing guidance for future research.
Keywords
Introduction
Creating a trusting environment in an organization is fundamental for sustainable success and is the primary responsibility of a supervisor (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2000). Trust is an important issue in interpersonal exchanges, which will either develop or depress a relationship (Tanghe, Wisse, & van der Flier, 2010). Being a delicate concept, trust will be easier to breach than to build (Govier, 1998; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Previous studies indicate that trust can lead to the readiness to take risks, increases innovative behavior, and encourages individuals to go the “extra mile” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). Further, trust was found to have a positive effect on group and task performance (Dirks, 2000; Oldham, 1975), organizational performance,
communication as well as behaviors and support (Mosher, Keren, Freeman, & Hurburgh, 2013). Complementing this view, Covey, and Merrill (2006) state that interdependency between being trusted and trusting others exists, which can elicit a positive effect on performance.
Distrust, on the other hand, triggers negative associations and is related to suspicion towards another person (Covey & Merrill, 2006). Moreover, while earlier research proposed distrust and trust to be opposites (Sztompka, 1999), more recent research by
Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, and Weibel (2015) suggests that the concepts are not opposite but differ from each other qualitatively. Distrust can motivate individuals to engage in self-protection (Cassar & Meier, 2018; Colquitt, Lepine, Zapata, & Wild, 2011), hindering them to engage in innovative behavior and eventually lowering job performance. According to Klein (2010), in an organizational context, supervisors often engage in mistreating, breaching, and destroying subordinates' trust, hence, contributing to distrust.
(Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016), to achieve relational power (Turner, Edgley, & Olmstead, 1975), and to enhance or retain self-esteem (Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984). Deceptive supervisory behavior not only leads to distrust and destroys the perception of a supervisor’s honesty, but the supervisor will be perceived as less professional and competent (Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Walker, Kutsyuruba, & Noonan, 2011). Kutsyuruba and Walker (2016)
describe deception by means of dishonesty and the breaching of integrity. Whereas dishonesty concerns the denial of reality, taking advantage and manipulating others, breaching integrity concerns the mismatch between one’s words and behavior. Additionally, a study by Bijlsma-Frankema, van de Brake and Täuber (2019) reveals seven distrust-eliciting behaviors in supervisors, one of them being deception. Other than the corresponding elements of deception already mentioned, the authors add the supervisor's act of shifting the blame, lying, as well as the disclosure of confidential information to the operationalization of deception. The current study is concerned with the latter definition of deception as a distrust-eliciting behavior of supervisors as described by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019).
Despite the alarming consequences of deceptive supervisory behavior on the
relationship between supervisors and subordinates, determining deceptive behavior as being the sole and direct predictor of employees’ distrust may not suffice to explain the relationship in its entirety. Interestingly, a multitude of studies indicate that the circumstances are a factor dictating whether deception is socially acceptable or not (Camden et al., 1984; Hopper & Bell, 1984; Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002). As DePaulo and Kashy (1998) and Pope (2019) show, withholding information strategically can be perceived as an acceptable common practice which is crucial at times. Kagle (1998: 244) complements this line of thought, noting that deception is a “common and socially accepted means of establishing boundaries and managing relationships”. Griffith, Connelly, and Thiel (2011) and Seiter et al. (2002) provide further evidence on the heterogeneous impact deception exerts on the deceived. The
explaining the relationship between deception and distrust exists. One line of argumentation presented by Umphress, Ren, Bingham, and Gogus (2009) proposes that deceptive
supervisory behavior does not violate a positive subordinate-supervisor relationship if the behavior contributes to positive social exchanges. Seiter et al. (2002) agree, stating that deception to benefit others instead of the self was likely to be more acceptable. Accordingly, the current study suggests that the effect of deceptive behavior is indirectly related to changes in levels of employee distrust.
More than any other leadership style, servant leadership is argued to emphasize social responsibility or more explicitly encompasses the need of subordinates (Graham, 1991; Patterson, 2003). Graham (1991) and Patterson (2003) suggest that elements of servant leadership may help to explain the relationship between deceptive behavior and distrust in supervisors. Respectively, Patterson (2003) addresses the “how” of servant leadership. As such, servant leadership, as a particular approach to engage with subordinates, may play a primary role in how trust or distrust is established in the context of subordinate-supervisor relationships. Also, Graham (1991) emphasizes the moral aspects and the supervisor’s sensitivity to the needs of subordinates that a servant leadership implicates. Particularly, Graham (1991) suggests that servant leadership may serve as an instrument for supervisors holding themselves accountable and testing one’s morality. Similarly, Zolin (2002) addresses that servant leadership enhances the subordinate’s trust in subordinate-supervisor
relationships. Following these lines of thought suggests that investigating the mediating role of servant leadership characteristics may indeed provide a valuable prospect on explaining the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust.
Servant leadership as proposed by van Dierendonck (2011) encompasses six
Baumeister, Joiner, Krueger, & Kachorek, 2004; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Therefore, this research will focus on examining authenticity and humility as underlying factors mediating the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and subordinates’ distrust in supervisors. The concept of humility comprises the act of putting the interests of subordinates first by actively reinforcing and promoting performance.
Furthermore, granting the benefits of facilitating a subordinate’s expertise and seeking the involvement of others is referred to as part of humility. Authenticity can be related to the consistent representation of the self (Harter, 2002) through coherence of words and action (van Dierendonck, 2011).
A large body of evidence supports the existence of a relationship between deceptive behavior and distrust (Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Walker et al., 2011). However, as shown above, the effects are diverse and oftentimes depend on how the supervisor's act of deception is perceived by the subordinates (e.g. to establish boundaries and maintain relationships or for self-gain).
Rationale
The current study aims to investigate whether the detrimental effects awarded to deception exert their impact on distrust through weakening employees’ perception of their leader as being humble and authentic. Consequently, predominantly those deceptive behaviors which impair impressions of authenticity and humility are thought to increase distrust.
predominantly lies in the way subordinates perceive their supervisors. Specifically, the significant role that employees’ perceptions may take needs to be considered and explored. Consequently, the current study extends previous research and responds to the study by Gray and Densten (2007) by providing insights into aspects of servant leadership (perceived
authenticity and humility) that can account for the mixed findings on the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employees’ distrust.
Theoretical and Practical Contribution
Previous research has focused on the positive outcomes associated with servant leadership characteristics and on how a relationship of trust between supervisors and
subordinates can i.e. benefit organizational outcomes (Dirks, 2000; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Mosher, Keren, Freeman, & Hurburgh, 2013; Oldham, 1975). However, the literature on organizational behavior is lacking a clear and cohesive understanding of whether and how employees’ perception of a supervisor’s servant leadership characteristics can account for a subordinate-supervisor relationship of distrust. The benefits of trust in the workplace are already well-established, however, subordinates’ distrust as an independent concept, going beyond a lack of trust (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015), has yet received little attention in research. Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) found that supervisors often violate their subordinates’ expectations which may trigger employee distrust. Therefore, instead of focusing on relationships of trust, this research takes the commonly observed relationship of distrust between subordinate and supervisor into account and further investigates the
Theoretical Background Deception and Distrust
Deceptive behavior is a universal phenomenon that is part of daily life. Accordingly, DePaulo and Kashy (1998) argue that deception is an ordinary rather than a surprising part of social life. In an organizational setting, deceptive behavior can refer to withholding
information, changing information, changing the subject as well as providing ambiguous information (Eisenberg, 1984; Fulk & Mani, 1986; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016). Similarly, Lindsey, Dunbar, and Russell (2011) state that approximately 45% of employees reported using deception in the workplace, indicating that deception is prevalent in organizations. Deception is intentional behavior that is used strategically and can show without the use of words (Lindsey et al., 2011). However, in many cases, deception may not even be detected. The definition of deception by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019), which the current study will focus on, encompasses all of the elements of deception mentioned and adds the supervisor's act of shifting the blame, lying, and the disclosure of confidential information.
concepts are related, yet distinct phenomena. More specifically, it was found that distrust may prevent the possibility of trust. Distrust has been defined as the negative perception one individual has towards another and has, among others, been linked negatively to effective social exchange (Blau, 1964) and communication (Arnulf, Dreyer, Ketil Arnulf, Dreyer, & Grenness, 2005). The breaching of trust or the act of lying to someone is prevalently referred to as deception in the literature (Flores & Solomon, 2001; Griffith et al., 2011; Grover, 1993; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016). Some authors recognize lying and deception as synonymous and use the words interchangeably (Lindsey et al., 2011). The definition used in this study describes deception as the purposeful attempt to make an individual believe something that one knows to be untrue (Vrij, 2000).
In the past, several studies have linked deceptive behavior to distrust (Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Walker et al., 2011). It is argued that a single incident of deceptive supervisory behavior suffices to elicit distrust between supervisors and subordinates (Braun, 1997; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Luke, 1998). Based on social norms, it may be assumed that deception would be frowned upon in the workplace. Research supports this contention in that both superiors and subordinates believe that organizational deception was generally unacceptable (Lindsey et al., 2011). Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed: Hypothesis 1: Deceptive supervisory behavior increases subordinates’ distrust. Distrust and Servant Leadership
the extent that deception decreases employees’ perceptions of a supervisor’s humility and authenticity.
Perceived Leader Authenticity
One central servant leadership characteristic introduced by van Dierendonck (2011) is authenticity. Authenticity mainly refers to being one’s “true-self” (Harter, 2002), it refers to the ability to show sincere feelings disregarding the consequences it may have (van
Dierendonck, 2011). Specifically, it refers to keeping promises, being honest (Russell & Stone, 2002), and trustworthy (McAuliffe, Bostain, & Witchel, 2019). Authenticity can be observed in the context of subordinate-supervisor relationships. It shows in the sharing of relevant information, openness towards receiving and providing feedback, the displaying of feelings, and being true about one’s strengths and weaknesses (Norman, Avolio, & Luthans, 2010; Rogers, 1987; Vogelsang & Lester, 2009). As such, Yi, Hao, Yang, and Liu, (2017) and Walumbwa et al. (2008) also refer to authenticity as transparency. Peterson and Seligman (2004) agree by adding that authenticity is about the true representation of one’s intentions and commitment. Therefore, authenticity is also characterized by consistency in behavior as perceived by followers (Harter, 2002; Simons, Tomlinson, & Leroy, 2012) and can facilitate meaningful relationships and enhance trust (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Applying this reasoning to an organizational context, McAuliffe et al. (2019) found that a supervisor’s authenticity fosters positive relationships, resulting in enhanced follower trust. Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, and Oke (2011) argue that the trust of followers derives from perceiving supervisors as open and truthful. Therefore, a supervisor has to be considered trustworthy to be considered authentic (McAuliffe et al., 2019). The greater the perceived consistency between a
relationship (Griffith et al., 2011; Seiter et al., 2002). Servant leadership characteristics, such as authenticity, can increase the trust in supervisors (Zolin, 2002). As such, the current study aims to investigate whether the effect of deceptive supervisory behavior on employees’ distrust is attributable to changes in perceived authenticity of the supervisor. The following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: Deceptive supervisory behaviors decrease subordinates’ perception of their leader as authentic.
Hypothesis 3a: Perceptions of supervisory authenticity decrease subordinates’ distrust.
Perceived Leader Humility
Another central servant leadership characteristic represents humility (van
Dierendonck, 2011). Until now, humility has not been accurately defined in the literature (Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005). According to Comte-Sponville (2002), humility regards to the science of the self, therefore, a humble individual may be seen as having a high self-awareness. Furthermore, it is the ability to be critical about oneself in a realistic way (Bowles, 1997), being aware of what one is and what one is not (Comte-Sponville, 2002) and thus, openly handling one’s strength and weaknesses. Accordingly, a clear distinction has to be made between individuals who only state to undervalue themselves and those who are humble (Myers, 2000:174). Moreover, Selladurai and Carraher (2014) add that a humble individual does not fear to show the true self even if it might not be beneficial to them (e.g. fear of loss of power). Comte-Sponville (2002) takes it even further by stating that a humble individual may value the truth more than they value themselves.
likely to view others, rather than themselves, positively. Hence, instead of engaging in competition, humble individuals intend to build complementary relationships and tend to avoid disrespectful behavior (Richards, 1992). Moreover, humility refers to the feeling of responsibility for others (Greenleaf, Frick, & Spears, 1996) and makes individuals less likely to exploit or harm others (Morris et al., 2005). Relating humility to an organizational setting, recent research revealed that one of the consequences of humility is the facilitation of a
positive subordinate-supervisor relationship (Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013). Whereas on the one hand, humility is about being truthful (Comte-Sponville, 2002), on the other hand, humility implies that disrespectful behavior should be avoided (Richards, 1992). However, if the truth means to be disrespectful towards another person, a humble individual may choose to avoid telling the truth. This is in line with the argumentation of Seiter, Bruschke, and Bai (2002) who theorize that in some cases, deceit is socially acceptable and necessary. This behavior can be categorized as white lies, or socially acceptable lies, which are used to prevent undesirable conflict (Camden et al., 1984; Grover, 1993). As such, a less truthful statement will be chosen over a hurtful one. Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that a decrease in humility accounts for the detrimental effect deceptive behavior has on distrust. Thus, the following hypotheses emerge:
Hypothesis 2b: Deceptive supervisory behaviors decrease subordinates’ perception of their leader as humble.
Hypothesis 3b: Perceptions of supervisors’ humility decrease subordinates’ distrust. When combining all hypotheses, the model will test the following hypothesis:
Figure 1
Conceptual model
The present research examines whether perceived supervisory authenticity and humility account for the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust. The conceptual model as graphically depicted in Figure 1 and the developed
hypotheses were tested in an online survey. This method enabled the researcher to transform the researched phenomenon which is not naturally quantitative into a quantitative form. Therefore, the comparability and the analysis of the magnitude of differences between the participants of this study are facilitated. Furthermore, as the data was gathered in different geographical locations and the participants are full-time or at least part-time employed, online surveys are a useful instrument due to its flexibility and convenience for both, researcher and participants.
Method Participants
52 individuals did not complete the entire questionnaire, therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. After having excluded these participants, the final sample contained 201 individuals (Mage = 3.23, SD = 1.28; 65.2 % female). A statistical power analysis was performed for sample size estimation using G*Power 3.1. With an alpha = .05 and the threshold power = .80, the projected sample size needed with the used effect size (f2 = .15) is
approximately N = 77. Thus, the sample size of N = 201 which was used in this study can be considered more than adequate for the purposes of this study. Mainly German (68.1 %) and Dutch (25.4 %) individuals participated (Other = 6.5 %), however, running one-way
ANOVAs revealed that the participants' nationalities did not affect any of the measured constructs in this study. Participants reported working in diverse sectors, namely
Education/Pedagogue (10.9 %); Social sector (3.5 %); Tourism/Catering (14.9 %); Business (41.3 %); Health sector (11.5 %) and Other (17.9%). The majority of the participants was between 26 and 35 years old (45.6 %) and had worked between 6 months and three years for the supervisor in question (61.2 %).
Procedure
consent. No specific requirements for participating in the study were in place, other than that the participants needed to be employed full-time, presently or in the past. The questionnaire was provided in two languages, namely German and Dutch. At the beginning of the
questionnaire, participants were asked to either consider a previous (52.7 %) or a current supervisor (47.3%) when answering questions about the subordinate-supervisor relationship. In total, 60.7% of the considered supervisors were male and 39.3% female. Depending on the degree of trust in the supervisor indicated by the participants, a minimum of 23 and a
maximum of 25 questions had to be answered. Only participants who indicated a low amount of trust towards their supervisors received the question measuring distrust in the
questionnaire. Specifically, if a participant indicated some extent of disagreement (strongly disagree, disagree or somewhat disagree) with the statement “I trust my supervisor”, s/he was asked to indicate the extent of agreement/disagreement with the statements “I distrust my supervisor” and “I have little trust in my supervisor”. By contrast, if a participant indicated some extent of agreement (strongly agree, agree) with the statement “I trust my supervisor”, s/he skipped the statement regarding distrust and continued answering the regular series of questions. Therefore, data from 69 (34.33%) participants is available on the distrust measure and is used for the main analysis. The time required to fill in the questionnaire amounted to about ten minutes. There was no debriefing upon completion of the questionnaire.
Measures
The complete overview over all measures can be found in Appendix A.
Deceptive supervisory behavior. Employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ deceptive
Distrust. Employees’ distrust towards supervisors was measured with one item
adopted from Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019): “I distrust my manager”. The item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Trust. Employees' trust towards supervisors was measured with one item adopted
from Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019): “I trust my manager”. The item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Authenticity. Employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ authenticity were measured with
three items developed by Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011). Examples of these items are “My manager is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses” and “My manager shows his/her feelings to his/her staff”. The three items of authenticity were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Scale reliability in this study was α = .79.
Humility. Employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ humility were measured with two
items developed by Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011). These items were “My manager learns from the different views and opinions of others” and “If people express criticism, my manager tries to learn from it”. The items of humility were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). For the scale reliability, a correlation of r = .92 was calculated.
Control variables. Age, gender (0 = female and 1 = male) and organizational tenure (0
= less than one year of experience and 1 = more than one year of experience) were measured because research indicates that depending on subordinates' age, gender, and organizational tenure, the perception, and preference for leadership characteristics may differ (Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002).
Data Analysis
Results Analytic strategy
The current study made use of correlation coefficients and a regression technique to test the hypotheses. The mediation model was tested using PROCESS. Whereas data on the distrust variable was only available for a subset of the participants (n = 69), all 201
participants indicated their level of trust. Therefore, to complement the findings and to gain more insights into the mediating role of authenticity and humility in the relationship between supervisor and subordinate, also an exploratory analysis using trust as the dependent variable was conducted and, thus, comprising 201 observations (see Appendix B).
Assumption Testing
To test the hypotheses, a regression analysis was conducted. The regression analysis assumes a normal distribution of the dependent variables, namely distrust. Therefore, a normality test was conducted using SPSS. For the distrust variable, a skewness statistic of -.73 (SE = .29) and kurtosis statistic of -.02 (SE = .57) was found, as the statistics do not exceed the standard error, normality can be assumed. Additional visual examination of the assumptions showed no violation of normality, linearity, or homoscedasticity for the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and supervisor authenticity as well as humility. Moreover, no violations were found for the relationship between distrust and authenticity and between deceptive supervisory behavior and employees’ distrust. Only for the relationship between employee distrust and supervisor humility, the distribution was slightly left-skewed, but no other violations were detected (paths are displayed in Figure 2 below). No outliers could be detected through the visual examination of the boxplots of all variables.
Descriptive Analysis
towards their supervisor were female (N = 50, 72.5%), suggesting that females tend to trust their supervisor less than men do. Furthermore, the results suggest that the older the
participants, the more likely they were to distrust their supervisor. Additionally, the
supervisors who were distrusted by their employees were predominantly male (N = 40, 58%). The internal consistency of the scales used in this study were all in an acceptable range (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .79 to .92). A summary of the reliability coefficients, means, and standard deviations for all variables included in this research can be found in Table 1.
The conceptual model predicted a positive association between supervisors’ deceptive behavior and employees’ distrust in supervisors. As predicted, a significant positive
relationship was found, providing support for Hypothesis 1.
19 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations between Control Variables, Independent and Dependent Variables.
Variables M SD Age Sex Tenure Deceptive
Behavior
AUT HUM Distrust Trust
1. Age 3.23 1.30 1.00 2. Sex - - –.01 1.00 3. Tenure 3.56 1.36 .41** .09 1.00 4. Deceptive Behavior 3.35 1.20 .04 .16* .08 (.87) 5. Authenticity (AUT) 3.73 1.50 –.05 –.10 –.01 –.54** (.79) 6. Humility (HUM) 3.54 1.64 –.08 –.18** –.12 –.76** .62** (.92) 7. Distrust a 5.01 1.69 .33** .12 .12 .54** –.31* –.57** 1.00 8. Trust 4.38 1.92 –.07 –.18** .04 –.75** .51** .72** – 1.00 Notes. N = 201, a N = 69, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Cronbach’s alpha (𝛼) calculated for all variables is shown in the parenthesis.
Hypotheses Testing
Table 2. Regression Results for a Parallel Mediation
Mediator model DV = Authenticity, R2 = 15.36% Predictor b SE t 95% CI Constant 5.10 .93 5.51 [3.25; 6.94] Deceptive Behavior –.51 .16 –3.27 [–.83; –.20] Age –.07 .13 .53 [–.20; .34] Sex –.11 .36 –.31 [–83; .61] Mediator model DV = Humility, R2= 45% Predictor b SE t 95% CI Constant 5.98 .63 9.51 [4.72; 7.23] Deceptive Behavior –.70 .11 –6.63 [–.92; –.49] Age –.04 .09 –.41 [–.22; .14] Sex –.32 .24 –1.29 [–.80; .17]
Dependent variable model DV = Distrust, R2 = 37% Predictor b SE T 95% CI Constant 3.13 1.45 2.15 [.22; 6.05] Deceptive Behavior .45 .20 2.20 [.04; .86] Authenticity –.04 .13 –.27 [-30; .23] Humility –.50 .20 –2.53 [–.99; –.11] Age .37 .13 2.75 [.10; .64] Sex –.03 .37 –.10 [–.77; .70]
Relative direct effect IV on DV Effect SE T 95% CI
Deceptive Behavior .45 .20 2.20 [.04; .86]
Relative conditional indirect effect IV on DV Effect BootSE 95% CI
Deceptive Behavior Authenticity .02 .07 [-.11; .17]
Humility .35 .15 [.08; .65]
To test the hypothesis that the perception of supervisors’ authenticity and humility mediate the effect of deceptive supervisory behavior on subordinates’ distrust in their supervisors, a simple mediation analysis (Model 4 in PROCESS) was conducted (Hayes, 2013). To estimate the indirect effect and the corresponding confidence interval,
bootstrapping was used and standard errors (SE) and unstandardized coefficients (B) were calculated for 5,000 bootstrapped samples through sampling and replacement. Table 2 provides an overview of the regression coefficients and the indirect effects of the mediation model.
Investigating the relationship between the independent variable and the mediators revealed that supervisors who displayed deceptive behaviors were perceived as significantly less authentic (𝛽 = –.51, t = –3.27, = p <.01) and humble (𝛽 = –.70, t = –6.63, p < .01) by their subordinates. Accordingly, Hypotheses 2a and 2b are supported.
Supporting Hypothesis 1, the data show that those leaders who are perceived as deceptive also tend to be distrusted by their subordinates. Accordingly, as displayed in Table 2, the direct effect between deceptive supervisory behavior and distrust in supervisors was statistically significant. On the other hand, supervisors who are perceived as humble are less likely to be distrusted by employees (𝛽 = –.50, t = –2.53, p = .01); however, the perceived authenticity of a supervisor did not have the same effect on the extent to which employees distrusted their supervisors (𝛽 = –.04, t = –.27, p = .79). As such, Hypothesis 3b was supported, whereas no support was found for Hypothesis 3a.
The total indirect effect, i.e. the sum of the indirect effects of authenticity and humility, was significant (total indirect effect = .37) with a 95% confidence interval
supervisor being perceived as authentic (Z = 1.02, p = 0.3). This illustrates that Hypothesis 4 was only partly supported. The mediators account for more than one-third of the overall effect, PM = .45. The overall model was significant, F(4,64) = 12.55, p < .001 and explained 44% of the variance in distrust (R² = .44). Figure 2 presents the paths of model A. In sum, this study provides evidence that the positive relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and distrust was mediated by perceived supervisor humility, not authenticity.
Figure 2.
The parallel mediating effect of Authenticity and Humility in the Relationship Between Deceptive Supervisory Behavior and Distrust in Supervisors
Note. **p<.01; *p<.05; based on 5,000 Bootstrapped samples Discussion
employees’ perception of leader authenticity and humility to fully understand the mechanisms leading from deceptive supervisory behavior to employee distrust. The results of this study provide strong support for most of the hypotheses. It was found that deceptive supervisory behavior was positively associated with employee distrust. Additionally, the analysis
indicated that humility is a significant mediator in this relationship, however, no evidence was found for a mediating role of authenticity.
Firstly, investigating the relationship between deceptive supervisory behaviors and employee distrust indicated a strong positive link. Similarly, previous research by Kutsyuruba and Walker (2016), Tschannen-Moran (2004) and Walker et al. (2011) found that supervisors’ who behave in a deceptive way are likely to compromise employees trust and, thus, increase employee distrust. Comparing the magnitude of the effects suggests that the decrease in trust reported in those studies coincides with the increase in distrust found in this study.
Moreover, deceptive supervisors were associated with lower levels of authenticity and humility. This is in line with previous findings (Griffith et al., 2011; Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013; Seiter et al., 2002) as well as this study’s prediction in hypotheses 2a and 2b.
In line with the idea that humility tends to foster a positive relationship between supervisors and their employees (Owens et al., 2013), it was found in this study that
supervisors who are perceived as humble are likely to be less distrusted. However, in contrast to previous studies (i.e. McAuliffe et al., 2019) which indicated that authenticity facilitates positive relationships, in this study, supervisors’ authenticity was not associated with employee distrust towards their subordinates.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Authenticity. Surprisingly, perceived authenticity did not affect the level of employee
distrust towards the supervisor. As discussed in the literature, authenticity is referred to as the transparency of a person (Yi et al., 2017; Walumbwa et al., 2008) and one’s tendency to display certain behavior consistently (Harter, 2002). However, transparency and consistency may not imply a person’s positive character, but it may be assumed that a supervisor can also act transparently and consistently in a harmful or negative manner. Claiming that being an authentic supervisor does not imply to be a good person may lead to the assumption that a supervisor’s authenticity does not have the same effect of reassurance and security for employees compared to a humble supervisor, which is referred to as a positive virtue by nature (Morris et al., 2005). However, the influence of authenticity on levels of distrust is yet to be understood.
Another possible explanation for why the same effect was not identified for perceived supervisor authenticity as for humility may be justified referring to a recent study in the field of marketing by Becker, Wiegand, and Reinartz (2018). Their study found that being
Tienari, 2018). In sum, it becomes clear that further research is needed to investigate the role of perceived authenticity in subordinate-supervisor relationships.
Humility. Recent research by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) emphasizes that
deceptive supervisory behavior triggers distrust in employees. Whereas the data obtained in the current study are consistent with the findings by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019), the findings also extend the body of literature by indicating how deceptive supervisory behavior in relation to supervisors’ characteristics affect employee distrust. Particularly, the association between deceptive behaviors and distrust can be attributed to changes in the perceived
humility of a supervisor to an important part, with a percent mediation of 42%. In essence, an important implication of this finding is that the extent to which deceptive supervisory acts are associated with employee distrust might partially be explained by the influence deceptive behavior has on the perceived humility of the supervisors.
Building upon the findings by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019), it can be implied that deceptive behavior creates uncertainties in employees about the supervisor’s future behaviors and its consequences for them. Further, they found that employees accept deceptive
supervisory behavior as an inevitable behavior. Consequently, in the study by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019), employees consistently reported to engage in strategies aiming to decrease the perceived threat imposed by their supervisors' behavior. Specifically, the employees’ fear to lose perceived control was found to be a primary reason to approach deceptive supervisory behavior strategically. Deceptive and, thus, unreliable supervisory behavior may undermine subordinates perceived control (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019). However, as discussed in the literature, instead of looking for competition, humble
Therefore, a possible explanation of this finding is that perceiving a supervisor as possessing a positive characteristic such as being humble makes subordinates feel less threatened to lose control which in turn makes them likely to distrust their supervisors to a lower extent in response to a deceptive act. Regarding its positive effects on interpersonal relationships, this finding further supports the idea that humility can be viewed as an essential characteristic that leaders should possess in an organizational context (Owens et al., 2013).
Another way to interpret this finding concerns the positive nature that is associated with humble individuals. According to Morris et al. (2005), a humble leader may rather act in an other-enhancing way than to act selfishly. Additionally, humility is not only argued to be “a positive human trait” (p.1330), but it is believed to be relatively stable over time (Morris et al., 2005). Taking these associations into account, it can be assumed that perceiving a
supervisor as humble inevitably comes with the prospect of that supervisor being more reliable and is, therefore, less likely to do harm. Overall, the findings of this study indicate that humility is important to consider when explaining the effect of deceptive supervisory behavior on employee distrust.
Previous research indicates that deceptive supervisory behavior is prevalent in work environments (Lindsey et al., 2011). Similarly, some authors (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Pope, 2019) claim that deceptive behavior is a common social practice that may be unavoidable at times. Therefore, aiming to eliminate deceit in the workplace would be hardly possible which further emphasizes the importance of pronounced scientific endeavor into the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust.
supervisor-subordinate relationship, positive effects can be accredited to servant leadership characteristics such as humility. An increase in employee distrust may in many cases be caused by supervisors’ deceptive behavior (Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016). However, as discussed in the literature, the negativity of effects accredited to deceptive supervisory behavior may differ. Taking the first steps in unraveling these effects, this study found that the impact of deceptive behavior on employee distrust at least partially depends on whether the deceptive behavior is associated with decreased humility. Accordingly, the next logical step aiming to substantiate these findings would be to explore the question of which specific deceptive behaviors relate to which servant leadership characteristics. This would be valuable as it would help to explain how employees evaluate leader behaviors and whether the relationship changes when considering a list of different deceptive behaviors.
Lastly, recent research indicates (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019) that distrust is triggered by employees' perceived threat towards their perceived job control. According to Weick (2001), leader humility rather than selfishness may be valuable considering the increasing prevalence of uncertainty in the workplace. Hence, facilitating a culture in which honesty and openness are valued may not only lead to a lower perceived threat by employees but managers may be less likely to engage in harmful deceptive behavior.
Limitations
Additionally, it may be that gathering data from a more extreme sample, meaning people who are explicitly known to distrust their supervisor, would increase the validity and
meaningfulness of the data on distrust. Further shortcomings on the sample in this study may be related to the limited generalizability of its data. The sample mainly consisted of German and female participants who are working in the business sector, and the findings might not be generalizable across cultures, sectors, or sex.
Moreover, the study treats a topic that is likely to be viewed as sensitive by
participants. Participants may feel restricted in providing unfavorable information about their supervisors, especially when evaluating a current supervisor. Therefore, it is possible that the provided data do not always fully reflect the truth about the subordinate-supervisor
relationship due to a social desirability bias and participants fearing consequences (van de Mortel, 2008). Another limitation of this research is that some of the items in the
questionnaire, i.e. when assessing perceived authenticity or humility, assume prior
experiences with the supervisor they can relate to. For example, one item asks about whether the supervisor is/was ready to learn from those who think differently. Another example is an item asking about whether the supervisor is/was ready to express his or her true feelings although they may lead to undesired consequences. Hence, having to respond to items about experiences that may or may not have happened could lead to distorted data.
Lastly, another potential limitation of this research involves the identification of causal relationships. Since the current study is correlational, the research design does not permit to draw causal conclusions regarding the relationships between the studied constructs.
Therefore, i.e. this study cannot rule out the possibility that low levels of perceived authenticity and humility may cause employees to view behaviors of their supervisors as deceptive.
Previous research indicates mixed findings in the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust and future research would do well in further exploring this phenomenon. As the current study only investigated a limited range of deceptive behaviors, future research would benefit from examining the complete range of deceptive behaviors and its relationship with perceived humility and authenticity. Moreover, future research further investigating the relationship between deception and distrust would benefit from exploring when supervisory deceptive behavior is perceived as acceptable in an organization and when it is not. Gaining this knowledge could guide future leaders in
establishing an organizational code of conduct that aims to limit harmful deceptive supervisory behaviors.
Besides, research into supervisor authenticity is necessary before obtaining a definitive answer to whether supervisory authenticity would be able to decrease subordinates’ distrust. Unlike hypothesized in this study, the data did not support the positive effect of a supervisor’s authenticity. It would be desirable to find out whether the same insignificant results would be found for authenticity when the questionnaire items would only concentrate on positive aspects of a leader's authenticity or if it would still have the same results. Likewise, it would be valuable to explore the question of whether servant leadership aspects such as humility are causally related to the negative effects of deceptive supervisory behavior on employee
distrust. This could be tested by adopting a pretest-posttest experimental research design. Firstly, participants could be asked to indicate the perceived humility and authenticity of their supervisors as well as their level of distrust towards their supervisors filling in a
would also allow to manipulate the different deceptive behaviors or servant leadership characteristics and the comparison of group means would provide further insights into the links between deceptive behaviors, servant leadership characteristics, and distrust.
Additionally, having solely tested and discussed two out of six servant leadership characteristics as introduced by van Dierendonck (2011), namely authenticity, and humility, it may be of value to engage in investigating the remaining characteristics in future research. Specifically, building on the current research model, future research should examine the mediating role of empowering and developing people (van Dierendonck, 2011). Recall the finding (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019) that employees' threat to perceived control may play an important role in triggering distrust. Therefore, it may be assumed that examining the role of empowering and developing people, and, thus, providing employees with a sense of personal power, may be of interest for future research and would help to further explore how supervisors’ characteristics influence the relationship of distrust between supervisors and employees.
Finally, as having discussed that the outcomes of the current study may be influenced by a social desirability bias, future studies aiming to replicate this study could implement social desirability scales to identify and reduce social desirability biases (van de Mortel, 2008).
Conclusion
behaviors of their supervisors. Therefore, this study's most important contribution is to show how changes in distrust may be considered to be attributable to changes in perceived humility, rather than it is entirely being affected by deceptive supervisory behavior in itself.
Specifically, this paper shows that aspects of servant leadership characteristics indeed, at least partly, account for the relationship between deceptive supervisory behavior and employee distrust. This paper makes practical contributions aiming at hindering an increase in
References
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (n.d.). Essay: authentic leadership critically reviewed. Authentic Leadership, 39–54. doi:10.4337/9781781006382.00010
Arnulf, J. K., Dreyer, H. C., Ketil Arnulf, J., Dreyer, H. C., & Grenness, C. E. (2005). Trust and knowledge creation: How the dynamics of trust and absorptive capacity may affect supply chain management development projects. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 8(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560500224233 Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust.New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University
Press
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021 Becker, M., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. J. (2018). Does It Pay to Be Real? Understanding
Authenticity in TV Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 24–50. doi:10.1177/0022242918815880
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., van de Brake, J., Täuber, S. (2019). Distrust in Supervisors (under review). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
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. Organization Science, 26(4), 1018–1039. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0977
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bowles, M. (1997). The myth of management: Direction and failure in contemporary
organizations. Human Relations, 50(7), 779–803. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016912507723
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1997.9712024843
Camden, C., Motley, M. T., & Wilson, A. (1984). White lies in interpersonal communication: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of social motivations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48(4), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318409374167 Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2018). Week 3:Nonmonetary incentives and the implications of work
as a source of meaning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.3.215
Cho, E., & Cho, J. (2006). The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Article in Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.11.002
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., Zapata, C. P., & Wild, R. E. (2011). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241
Comte-Sponville, A. (2002). A small treatise on the great virtues: The uses of philosophy in everyday life. Metropolitan Books.
Covey, S. R., & Merrill, R. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon and Schuster.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200401
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.1004
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, 7, 21–40.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197
Exline, J., Campbell, W., Baumeister, R., Joiner, T., Krueger, J., & Kachorek, L. (2004). Humility and modesty. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 21(2), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010318192
Flores, F., & Solomon, R. C. (2001). Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, And Life. Retrieved from http://pubs.ebookssale.info/?book=
Fulk, J., & Mani, S. (1986). Distortion of Communication in Hierarchical Relationships. Annals of the International Communication Association, 9(1), 483–510.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1986.11678621
Govier, T. (1998). Dilemmas of trust. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woo followers in the romance of leadership.
Applied Psychology, 56, 558-581.
Greenleaf, R. K., Frick, D. M., & Spears, L. C. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Grover, S. L. (1993). Lying, Deceit, and Subterfuge: A Model of Dishonesty in the
Workplace. Organization Science, 4(3), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.478 Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (p. 382–394). Oxford University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation,
moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hopper, R., & Bell, R. A. (1984). Broadening the deception construct. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383698
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22. doi:10.1108/01437730510575552
Kagle, J. D. (1998). Are We Lying to Ourselves about Deception? Social Service Review, 72(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1086/515752
Klein, S. R. (2010). Toxic Leadership and the Erosion of Trust in Higher Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852415-16
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
Kutsyuruba, B., & Walker, K. D. (2016). The destructive effects of distrust: Leaders as brokers of trust in organizations. Advances in Educational Administration, 26, 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-366020160000026008
Ladkin, D. & Taylor, S.S. (2010). Enacting the “True Self”: Towards a Theory of Embodied Authentic Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64-74.
Lindsey, L. L. M., Dunbar, N. E., & Russell, J. C. (2011). Risky Business of Managed Event? Perceptions of power and deception inthe workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture Communications and Conflict, 15(1).
Marsh, S., & Dibben, M. R. (2005). Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust - An exploration of the dark(er) side. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3477, pp. 17–33). https://doi.org/10.1007/11429760_2
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McAuliffe, N., Bostain, N. S., & Witchel, A. D. (2019). The Relationship Between Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Engagement in Library Personnel. Journal of Library
Administration, 59(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1562822 Mellinger, G. D. (1956). Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048100 Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership:
Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929
Mosher, G. A., Keren, N., Freeman, S. A., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2013). Measurement of Worker Perceptions of Trust and Safety Climate in Managers and Supervisors at
Commercial Grain Elevators. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 19(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.19.9977
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 350– 364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.002
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.005
Oldham, G. R. (1975). The Impact of Supervisory Characteristics on Goal Acceptance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.5465/255677 Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations:
Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517– 1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral dissertation, Regent University.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Pope, P. C. (2019). The Trust Imperative in the Workplace: Leveraging Diversity and
Inclusion. Design Management Review, 30(3), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12182 Read, W. H. (1962). Upward Communication in Industrial Hierarchies. Human Relations,
15(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676201500101
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4).
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.
Rogers, D. P. (1987). The Development of a Measure of Perceived Communication Openness. Journal of Business Communication, 24(4), 53–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368702400404
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Psychologist, 35(1), 1–7. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/35/1/1/
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, G. A. (2002, May 1). A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424
Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66(2), 158–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310209374731
Selladurai, R., & Carraher, S. (2014). Servant leadership: Research and practice. Servant Leadership: Research and Practice. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5840-0
Shaw, R. B. (1997). Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern. Retrieved from https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. F. (2002). An Intentions–Based Model of Entrepreneurial Teams’ Social Cognition*. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00005
Simons, T., Tomlinson, E. C., & Leroy, H. (2012). Research on Behavioral Integrity: A Promising Construct for Positive Organizational Scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0025
Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge University Press.
Tanghe, J., Wisse, B., & van der Flier, H. (2010). The Role of Group Member Affect in the Relationship between Trust and Cooperation. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00643.x
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.70
Turner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69–89.
Umphress, E. E., Ren, L. R., Bingham, J. B., & Gogus, C. I. (2009). Influence of distributive justice on lying for and stealing from a supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9861-6
van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The, 25(4), 40–48.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 327–342. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984302001182
Vogelsang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2009). Transparency: How Leaders Can Get Results by Laying it on the Line. Organizational Dynamics, 38(4), 252–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.07.003
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit : The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. John Wiley.
Välikangas, L., & Tienari, J. (2018). Lifting the veil: Seeking and contesting authenticity in CEO work. Management, 21(4), 1264-1277.
Walker, K., Kutsyuruba, B., & Noonan, B. (2011). The fragility of trust in the world of school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 471–494.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159502
Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.653
Weick, K. E. (2001). Leadership as the legitimization of doubt. In W. Bennis, G. M.
Spreitzer, & T. G. Cummings (Eds.), The future of leadership: Today's top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow's leaders (p. 91–102). Jossey-Bass.
Yi, H., Hao, P., Yang, B., & Liu, W. (2017). How Leaders’ Transparent Behavior Influences Employee Creativity: The Mediating Roles of Psychological Safety and Ability to Focus Attention. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(3), 335–344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816670306
Zolin, R. (2002). Trust in cross-functional, global teams: Developing and validating a model of inter-personal trust in cross-functional global teams.
Appendices APPENDIX A: Measurement scales
Deceptive behavior (adopted by Bijlsma-Frankema, et al., 2019) I that feel my manager…
DEB1. decided / decides too much how I have to do my job DEB2. evaded his / her responsibilities
DEB3. says /said one thing and does / did another DEB4. does not keep his / her promises
DEB5. influences / influenced my self-confidence DEB6. undermines / undermined my job security
DEB7. treats / treated the members of my team unequally DEB8. plays / played off team members against each other
DEB9. responds / responded to our suggestions for improving work processes as if it were an attack.
Distrust (adopted by Bijlsma-Frankema, et al., 2019 ) DTSUP1. I distrust my manager
Authenticity (based on Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) I that feel my manager …
AUT1. is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses AUT2. shows his/her true feelings to his/her staff
AUT3. is prepared to express her/his feelings even if this might have undesirable consequences.
Humility
I that feel my manager… HUM1. learns from criticism
HUM3. admits his/her mistakes to his/her subordinates.
APPENDIX B – Exploratory analysis with trust as dependent variable Figure 3
The parallel mediating effect of Supervisor Authenticity and Humility in the Relationship Between Deceptive Supervisory Behavior and Distrust in Supervisors
Table 3.
Regression Results for a Parallel Mediation
Mediator model DV = Authenticity, R2 = 29.13% Predictor b SE t 95% CI Constant 6.15 44.23 13.90 [5.27; 7.02] Deceptive Behavior –.67 .08 –8.82 [–.82; –.52] Age –.03 .07 –.41 [–.17; .11] Sex –.04 .19 –.24 [–.42; .33] Mediator model DV = Humility, R2= 58.73% Predictor b SE t 95% CI Constant 7.59 .37 20.52 [6.86; 8.32] Deceptive Behavior –1.03 .06 –16.16 [–1.15; –.90] Age –.07 .06 –1.21 [–.19; .04] Sex –.23 .16 –1.44 [–.54; .09]
Dependent variable model DV = Trust, R2= 61.93% Predictor b SE T 95% CI Constant 5.62 .76 7.37 [4.12; 7.12] Deceptive Behavior –.73 .11 –6.61 [–.94; –.51] Authenticity .07 .07 .99 [–07; .21] Humility .39 .09 4.45 [.22; .56] Age –.04 .07 –.61 [–.17; .09] Sex –.19 .18 –1.05 [–.54; .17]
Relative direct effect IV on DV Effect SE T 95% CI
Deceptive Behavior –.73 .11 –6.61 [–.94; –.51]
Relative conditional indirect effect IV on DV Effect BootSE 95% CI Deceptive Behavior Authenticity –.44 .09 [–.63; –.28]
Humility –.40 .09 [–.59;–.23]
Exchanging the dependent variable distrust with trust and thereby increasing the number of observations to N = 201 showed similar results regarding the effects of perceived supervisors’ authenticity and humility and similar conclusions can be drawn.
Similarly, as in model A, the indirect effect in model B was found to be significant (total indirect effect = –.44) with a 95% confidence interval between –.63 and –.28. Also, in model B the indirect effect through humility was significant whereas it was also significant through authenticity.
