0
Change recipients’ sensemaking and their responses to
organizational change
An investigation of the attributes determining the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent.
by
ANNABEL CLASING VAN DEN BOSSCHE
MSc in Business administration
- Change Management -
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
June 2015
Supervisor: Dr. B.J.M. Emans
Co-assessor: Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser
Word count: 13566
Santhorstlaan 58
2242BJ Wassenaar
1
ABSTRACT
This study offers insights into what makes a change agent being perceived as trustworthy, which consequently influences change recipients’ readiness to change. This understanding is gained by an investigation of the relationship between attributes of managerial behaviors of change agents, and the resulting perceived trustworthiness of those change agents. Theory was initially developed by reviewing existing literature, to identify the attributes of managerial behavior of change agents that were expected to influence perceived trustworthiness of the change agent. The initial attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent are integrity, two-way communication, information provision, promise fulfilment, caring/emotional commitment, support, efficiency and realistic previews. Subsequently, a case study was conducted which included sixteen interviews within one organization, the ANWB. The interviews where focused on gathering personal stories and events, that illustrated people’s perceptions and feelings, sensemaking. Results showed that all eight initial attributes are of importance when building a trusting relationship. However, eight more attributes could be identified: management’s lack of understanding, lack of visibility of the management, team managers showing insincere behavior, unclear processes, management admitting mistakes, trust of management in employees and team managers showing consistent behavior.
Key words: Attributes, Managerial behavior, Perceived trustworthiness, Sensemaking, Change agent,
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Research question 4
1.2 Outline of the paper 4
2. Theoretical framework 5
2.1 Change recipient responses 5
2.2 Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent 6
2.3 Attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent 7
2.4 Sensemaking 9 2.5 Conceptual model 10 2.5.1 Definitions 10 2.5.2 Framework 11 3. Methodology 12 3.1 Case description 12 3.2 Research approach 13 3.3 Data content 13
3.4 Data collection method 13
3.4 Data analysis method 15
4. Results 16
4.1 Preset codes with a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness 16 4.2 Preset codes with a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness 19 4.3 Preset codes with a neutral impact on perceived trustworthiness 22
4.4 Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent 23
4.5 Emerged codes from the interviews on perceived trustworthiness 24
5. Discussion & Conclusion 27
5.1 The impact of preset attributes on perceived trustworthiness 27
5.2 The impact of emerged attributes on perceived trustworthiness 29
5.3 Conclusion 31
5.3.1 Theoretical implications 32
5.3.2 Practical implications 32
5.3.3 Limitations of this research and suggestions for future research 33
References 35
Appendices 37
3
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the major contributors to the literature focusing on trust are Mayer, David and Schoorman (1995). They defined trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the action of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). It is therefore and in this context important that, in order to gain a trusting relationship, both the trustee and the trustor are mutually involved. On one hand, the trustor has to be willing to make him/herself vulnerable to the trustee and on the other hand, the trustee has to make sure that his/her intentions are not only guided by rational self-interest, but also by the wish to enhance the wellbeing of the trustor (Six and Sorge, 2008). This paper focuses on the trusting relationship between the trustee (the change agent), and the trustor (the change recipient), and the attributes that are conducive to trust.
A trusting relationship is very important because it is influences several positive outcomes, such as better task performance, openness in communication and information sharing, organizational citizenship behavior, less conflict, and acceptance of decisions and goals (Lines et al., 2005, p. 222). Because of these positive outcomes, change recipient readiness is of utmost importance, and is mainly triggered by a high level of trust between the change agent and change recipient. This level of trust is based on preparatory processes, of which one is the behavior of the management. The relationship between the behavior of the change agent and the consequent perceived trustworthiness is the main focus of this research. Within the research, the terms management and change agent are used interchangeably.
Accordingly, Green and Howe (2012) define leadership excellence in their article as “leadership being about a vision, performance, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, maturity, passion, influence, social skills, purposefulness, and moral intelligence” (p. 1). They argue that leaders have to build trust-based relationships where both parties accept each other and each other’s responsibilities. This research is important from a managerial perspective because, according to Lines et al. (2005), a manager needs the knowledge of his/her employees when finding a solution for its problem. When employees don’t trust the manager, they are not likely to offer the information and / or their creative thinking. Therefore, to apply the best solutions, a manager needs the trust of his/her employees and therewith their indispensable knowledge. To achieve this culture, transformational and charismatic leadership is recommended. Willemyns et al. (2003) argued that emotional, appraisal, informational and instrumental support are of importance when aiming to enhance trust. People want to feel appreciated, have to be complemented and praised. They have to feel that it is taken care of them.
4 represented by its management, and non-managerial employees” (Lines et al., 2005, p. 222). As many authors argue, trust can evolve naturally. But an organization, and managers in particular, may also deliberately choose to build up a trusting relationship. This said, several aspects that influence the degree to which trust is determined can be distinguished. Many researchers argue that communication and information are of high importance during organizational change. According to Thomas et al. (2009), trust is based on beliefs about the other party, which is shaped through information (p. 290), and when management focuses on increasing information, satisfaction is likely to increase. People who are in uncertain and vulnerable situations, start active processing of trust-relevant information (Lewis et al., 2013). People want to be informed and both the quality (i.e. accuracy, timelines, and usefulness) and quantity (i.e. whether the receiver feels adequately informed or not) of the information lead to increased levels of trust (Thomas et al., 2009).
Furthermore, as Cho and Perry (2012) state, it is important that there is a trusting relationship between the manager/the organization and his/her employees because organizations are much more profitable and operate much more efficient when managers don’t have to justify themselves all the time. When employees trust their manager, much time is saved and people feel a positive atmosphere which creates comfort. Since they trust the manager or the organization, they also feel that the organization will help and do their best for them.
From the above, it can be concluded that trust is crucial in organizational performance. This, in particular, is determined by different attributes of management behaviors. The goal of this study is to understand what attributes make a change agent be perceived as trustworthy, which consequently and in return influences the change recipients’ readiness to change.
1.1 Research question
In line with the above: “What are the attributes that determine the perceived trustworthiness of a change agent?”
1.2 Outline of the paper
5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this chapter, the theoretical framework, as introduced in the previous chapter, will be elaborated thoroughly. First, change recipient responses will be discussed; this will also be done in relation to the different responses to the different levels of trust. Secondly, the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness of the change agent are elaborated on, after which in the third section the different attributes of managerial behaviors of the change agents are discussed which are expected to influence the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent. In the last section of this chapter, definitions of these concepts are given and the framework is shown graphically to increase understanding.
2.1 Change recipient responses
Sonenshein (2010) conducted a research on employees’ narratives to make sense of responses to change. He identified three main responses of change recipients to the actual change.
The first is resistance to change. Resistance to change is anything that is subverting, slowing down or hindering the implementation of change (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Ford et al., 2008). Within the range of resistance, two distinctions can be made, namely passive resistance versus active resistance. The former is related to a milder form of resistance where employees may block or impede change by voicing opposing views, regressive behavior or other indications of the rejection of change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). The latter, active resistance, is perceived as being a more aggressive form such as protests, slowing down activities, and personal withdrawal. According to Sonenshein (2010), resistance to change is mainly seen when employees feel threatened about their job security, when employees are afraid that they will lose identity, or when the employees perceive the change as not being ambitious enough.
The second response to change identified by Sonenshein (2010) is change championing. Here, employees give their best to make the change a success and often promote the change to others. When employees are championing change, they believe that the change is leading to a beneficial outcome for them as well as/or for the organization and therefore are very willing to participate. It is still possible that employees feel a certain stress due to a higher workload, but they do realize that if they participate in a smooth implementation, the outcome will be more beneficial than when they resist.
6 In the second and third response to change described above, employees show a so called readiness for change. Readiness for change is described by Armenakis (1993) as “an organizational members’ belief, attitude, and intention regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes” (p. 681). According to Bouckenooghe (2010), the gap that exists between the current and the desired state can be assessed by looking at the degree of readiness or resistance to change. The feelings employees have about the change are influenced by behaviors of the change agent that build or disrupt perceived trustworthiness. These two concepts are elaborated more specifically in the next two sections, related to the trustworthiness of change agents.
2.2 Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent
As already tipped on in the introduction, it is a major shortcoming when resistance of change is only looked at from the point of view of the change recipient, without paying attention to the change agent as well (Oreg et al., 2011). Change interrupts the status quo of change recipients and it is therefore from upmost importance to guide them through that process. As Weick (1995) stated, “problems are not givens; they are constructed from novel, discrepant, troubling, or uncertain to participants”. Therefore, this research also looks deeper into the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent to come to an overall view of change recipient responses.
Trustworthiness is defined by Colquitt and Rodell (2011) as the attributes or characteristics of a trustee that inspire trust. Within this research, two dimensions that build trustworthiness are discussed. The first dimension is perceived ability, which reflects with the competencies and experiences that managers or change agents have required for their tasks within the organization (Six and Sorge, 2008; Cho and Perry, 2012). Six and Sorge (2008) suggest that important factors in this dimension could be planning procedures that ensure that the competencies and experiences of the employees are precisely matched to the work tasks that need to be done. Furthermore, change agent performance and development have to be monitored to ensure that the quality is remained. As Cho and Ringquist (2011) state, “trustworthy managers preside over more productive organizations and are better able to maintain and even increase organizational outcomes in agencies challenged by low level of performance” (p. 53). When the trustee is not competent for the tasks he/she has to persuade, it is not likely that the trustors are willing to trust.
7 four policies are creating a culture of high valued relationships in which showing compassion for other people is on the daily agenda, facilitation of relational signaling among colleagues, explicit socialization of new employees, and processes to manage, match and develop an employee’s professional competencies. This also is in line with Goldsmith and Wheeler (2007), who state that the less you focus on yourself and the more you consider what people are feeling, the more people will appreciate and trust you (p. 1).
In the next section, different attributes of change agents are discussed that are expected to influence the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent as described in this section.
2.3 Attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent
As discussed in the previous section, perceived ability and perceived benevolence are the two major dimensions related to perceived trustworthiness of the change agent within this research. It is assumed that those two dimensions are affected by different behaviors of the change agent. In this research, eight attributes of managerial behaviors are highlighted.
The first managerial attribute that is highlighted is efficiency. Efficiency is concerned with the question if the outcomes of actions initiated by the change agent are in line with the initial intentions, processed with the lowest amount of input to create the greatest amount of output. It is argued that change recipients have to be mobilized by conversations about specific performances. When change agents lack ability to do so, they may inappropriately attribute the lack of action to resistance rather than to a failure to use an appropriate mix of conversations (Ford et al., 2008).
Secondly, integrity of the change agent may be of relevance. It involves “the trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719). Here, the purpose of commitment, openness and honesty may be referred to. For example, when a change agent is only committed because he wants to achieve certain profits for him/herself, it is not likely that the employee will increase his/her trust. Consequently, the change agent is expected to be benevolent.
8 The next two attributes are two-communication and information provision. According to Thomas et al. (2009), trust is based on beliefs about the other party, which is shaped through information (p. 290), and when management focuses on increasing information, satisfaction is likely to increase as well. People who are in uncertain and vulnerable situations, start active processing of trust-relevant information (Lewis et al., 2013). People want to be informed and both the quality (i.e. accuracy, timelines, and usefulness) and quantity (i.e. whether the receiver feels adequately informed or not) of the information lead to increased levels of trust (Thomas et al., 2009). Also, message sidedness has to be taken into account. Message sidedness refers to highlighting both points of view, the point of view of the management as well as the point of view of the employees. A lot of managers are tended to avoid such conversations or leave the negative messages aside to avoid resistance of the recipients. As Goldsmith and Wheeler (2007) state, purposely withholding information almost never receives the results wanted, withholding information only decreases trust instead of increasing power. However, presenting bad news is sometimes a strategic way to preview and highlight potential negatives to audiences who will likely discover them later (Lewis et al., 2013, p. 286). Within this research, distinction is made between information and communication to the extent that information is concerned with the question if change agents fulfills in the information needs of the change recipients in the moments where necessary (in the perception of the change recipient), and communication to the extent whether change agents are open for two-way communication and listen actively to the change recipients idea (avoiding message sidedness). This is also in line with what Lines et al. (2005) state, as they found that participation during change significantly increases trust in management. With participation, “the participants in change processes speaking out or use ‘voice’ in order to influence ends and means” (Lines et al., 2005, p. 238).
Furthermore, caring is an important attribute of managerial behavior. Caring is the displayed kindness and concerns that the change agent (not) has (McAllister, 1995). As discussed in the introduction, people have to feel that it is taken care of them. That is one of the major components that contribute to an employee’s willingness to pay effort for the management and the organization (Willemyns et al., 2003).
9 The last attribute discussed within this section is the support of the management. Employees need the feeling that the change agent supports for example the need to balance work and life issues, he/she supports the wish for employee development etcetera (Cho and Ringquist, 2011).
2.4 Sensemaking
The two concepts demonstrated before, change recipient responses and attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent are influenced by a change recipients’ sensemaking. “Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing; it is about the interplay of action and interpretation” (Weick et al., 2005, p.409). It is also about turning events and happenings into a logical and explicit explanation of oneself that serves as a starting point for action. As Weick et al. (2005) state, “Within sensemaking, people organize to make sense of equivocal inputs and enact this sense back to the world to make that world more orderly” (p. 410). In other words, sensemaking is simply a tool to shape your own understanding (Sonenshein, 2010). Furthermore, Balogun and Johnson (2005) define sensemaking as “the fundamental shared assumptions that determine the way the members of an organization currently conceive of their organization and their environmental context and how they act in different situations” (p. 1575). Also, Weick et al. (2005) describe the process of sensemaking as an emergent one because it’s a process of “ongoing, instrumental, subtle, swift, social, and easily taken for granted” (p. 409).
This sensemaking is influenced by several sources of information. These sources of information may be from the recipients’ understanding of the nature of the change, the recipient’s appraisal of whether implementation deviates from the actual previous plans, and personal impacts of the change (Bartunek et al., 2006). Furthermore, Balogun and Johnson (2005) state that sensemaking involves through spoken and written, as well as formal and informal communication streams. Individuals make sense through conversations, other persons’ opinions, previous experiences, and other one’s behavior and actions. An important remark of Balogun and Johnson (2005) is that those recipient processes of interaction are key during change, but currently under explored and under developed in various researches.
As Ford et al. (2008) state, change is a situation that interrupts the normal way of doing and requires participants or change recipients to acquire new habits and ways of working. This process is an interplay of planned as well as emergent symptoms that are highly ambiguous. Therefore, it is important to guide change recipients through this process and make sure they feel comfortable, or at least optimistic, about it.
10 recipients as themselves “what will happen to me?” (Ford et al., 2008). Within this research, the focus is on how change recipients make sense of the attributes of managerial behavior, which may result in how they perceive their change agent as being able or benevolent. This link is shown graphically in figure 2.
2.5 Conceptual model
In this section, the definitions of the attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent, which are discussed in the previous chapter, are given. The same is done for the building blocks of perceived trustworthiness of the change agent. These definitions are the result from the literature discussed before, to ensure consensus in everyone’s understanding. Finally, the framework of this research is illustrated in figure 2.
2.5.1 Definitions
In this subsection, the definitions to the attributes of managerial behavior of the change agent and the attributes related to perceived trustworthiness of the change agent are given. These definitions are based on the literature discussed in the previous two chapters.
No. Attribute Definition
1 Integrity Reflects the adherence to a set of acceptable principles or a set of shared values. (E.g. fairness, distributive justice).
2 Two-way
communication
The change agent is open for two-way communication and listens actively to the change recipient’s ideas.
3 Information provision
The change agent fulfills in the information needs of the change recipient in moments where necessary (in the perception of the change recipient). 4 Promise fulfilment The change agent does what (s)he says.
5 Caring/Emotional commitment
The change agent takes care of the change recipient with the purpose that the change recipient feels comfortable.
6 Support Employees feel that the change manager support their behavior and needs. 7 Efficiency The outcomes of initiatives of the change agent are as they were intended
to be.
11
No. Attribute Definition
1 Perceived ability The competencies and experience that managers or change agents have required for their tasks.
2 Perceived benevolence The sense that the trustee wants to “do good” to the trustor, without selfish thinking.
Table 2: Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent
2.5.2 Framework
Below, the framework of this research is illustrated. Because of the sensemaking of change recipients is personally, no fundamental expectations are made what influence the different attributes have on perceived ability and perceived benevolence. No expectations are stated related to the relationship between perceived trustworthiness of the change agent and the level of change readiness, as this is out of the scope of this research.
Attributes of managerial behavior of
the change agent 1. Efficiency 2. Integrity 3. Realistic previews 4. Two/way communication 5. Information 6. Caring 7. Promise fulfilment 8. Support Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent 1. Perceived ability 2. Perceived benevolence Change agent readiness 1. Change acceptance 2. Change championing 3. Change resistance Sensemaking
12
3. METHODOLOGY
As mentioned already in the introduction, this paper aims to give a more thorough insight of the relationship between the interrelated concepts of change recipients’ sensemaking and their responses to organizational change. There is a certain amount of literature available, but the findings are not very elaborate and contradicting each other. Therefore the Theory Development approach is applied. This also goes along with van Aken et al. (2012) who describe that, in situations where the business phenomenon is still very exploratory in nature and where the literature has to deal with unresolved issues in a scattered literature field, the Theory Development approach is most appropriate. In this section, the case at hand is described first. Secondly, the research approach is elaborated on. Thirdly, the data content is explained where after the collection method is further elaborated on. Finally, the data analysis method is explained.
3.1 Case description
In this chapter, the case that was investigated within the organization called ANWB is explained in detail. First, the changes are described and then the reasons for this research are highlighted.
The management implemented three major changes compared to the previous job profiles. First, to capitalize on the strong customer desire, there is now one counselor who helps the client from A to Z. This is in contrast with the work process before, as the previous procedure was that the call came in at the Alarm Central (ALC), after which the employees divided the work among different departments.
The second change pillar was aimed at ‘directing of the customer’. This means that all possible effort has to be given necessary to determine, together with the client, the problem situation of the client, and then define, also together with the client, an appropriate solution for the problem.
The third change is concerned with the ‘direction of the implementation’. This contains all the proceedings necessary to accomplish the chosen scenario of the client. Before the change, there were seven different job profiles, they are reduced now to one job profile with three levels. The levels are determined based on the complexity of the job. The changes of the job profiles did not affect any employee negatively regarding their salary; all salaries stayed the same or increased, no employee earned less after the change.
13 individual experiences at work, was introduced. The outcome of the questionnaire showed that it lacked trust in management enormously, which was a perfect starting point for this research.
3.2 Research approach
For finding answers to the research question, split up according to the conceptual model depicted in figure 1, a case analysis was conducted. As Bamford (2008) stated, there are several advantages, as enabling researchers to develop practical as well as relevant grounded theories, and it gives a broad environmental picture of real-world phenomena (p. 114).
According to Eisenhardt (1989), there are eight specific steps for theory development. Namely, getting started, selecting cases, crafting instruments and protocols, entering the field, analyzing data, shaping hypotheses, enfolding literature, and reaching closure. First, the research focus was defined as can be read in the introduction, then the case at ANWB was selected. Thirdly, interview protocols were made to ensure consistency of the interviews and increase reliability. Fourthly, the interviews were held in the organization which gave the researcher an advantage of the flexible data collection. Fifthly, the data were thoroughly analyzed by more researchers, after which propositions were concluded. Then, the propositions were compared to the literature and the research was closed at its saturation.
3.3 Data content
The goal was to gain more information about experiences employees had during and after the change at the organization, and the sense they made concerning different approaches and habits/characteristics of the management/ the change agents. The researcher was highly motivated to gain special stories and examples because these provide more in depth understanding of the process of sensemaking and the referring arguments. Events are crucial in understanding why certain behaviors have that particular impact on whether they develop trust in their management or not. To summarize, the information the researcher aimed to gather was: what attributes had a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness when present, what attributes had a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness when absent, or what attributes had a neutral impact when being absent or present.
3.4 Data collection method
14 To be able to gain more inside information of employees’ experiences, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with open ended questions, which took on average approximately 45-60 minutes. It was chosen for semi-structured interviews to be able to guide the interviews on one hand, but also leave room for interpretation and input for the interviewee to gain the most valuable information on the other hand. These interviews were conducted within the unit of analysis, namely the employees of the alarm central of the ANWB, including people carers and vehicle assistants from the The Hague-site, and vehicle carers from the Assen-site.
An interview protocol (see Appendix I) was developed to increase the reliability of the study. The interview protocol was first tested with a pilot interview to make sure that the desired information was gathered and no misinterpretations arose. In the interview protocol, the variables that were expected to influence the trustworthiness of the change agent were taken into consideration as well as the room for possibilities that were not anticipated beforehand.
Employees were invited to participate via several ways. On one hand, managers asked the employees during meetings to participate. On the other hand, an initial e-mail was send to introduce the researcher and making everyone aware of the research and the opportunity to participate for those who didn’t knew by that time. Also, managers selected interviewees with widely divergent opinions to increase the validity of the research. Therefore, a mixture between random sampling and judgment sampling was at hand.
15
3.5 Data analysis method
To be able to analyze the data received from the interviews discussed in the previous paragraph, they were transcribed and coded both deductively and inductively by using the Atlas.ti software that was made accessible by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The transcriptions were very precisely as the interviews were taped with ‘Dictafoon’, which is an application available on electrionic devices of Apple Inc., and could therefore be typed literally.
Coding is used often within qualitative research and it involves reading through transcripts of interviews held and marking ideas, words, themes etcetera that occur frequently within these transcripts (van Aken et al., 2012). The analysis starts by defining the deductive codes. Deductive coding refers to codes derived from the literature discussed in the introduction and in the theoretical framework. They were set beforehand and implicated the codes that were expected to pop up during the interviews, these can be found in table 2, 3 and 4.
The inductive codes were derived from the transcripts and are the codes that were not anticipated for. It concerns for example events and ideas that were risen by the interviewees which were not expected. These inductive codes were added to the coding scheme, table 5, and transformed into a comprehensive table.
To ensure conformity and to increase the reliability and validity of the researcher, a second researcher was asked to follow the same coding procedure. The outcomes of both researchers were compared and discussed where after the coding scheme was optimized. Finally, the discussed coding scheme was presented to a third researcher to ensure the table was correct and all researchers had the same understanding.
An important notification is that all interviews were treated confidentially and the results were made anonymously afterwards. The abbreviations presented in the following table will be used throughout the paper from now on.
No. Interviewee Abbreviation
1 Assen ASS
2 PersonenHulpVerlening (People Care) PHV 3 VoertuigHulpVerlening (Vehicle Assistance) VHV
16
4. RESULTS
In this section, the information gathered from the interviews will be discussed. First, interview outcomes that are related to preset codes of attributes of managerial behavior and that stand for the positive impact on perceived trustworthiness of the change agent, will be presented. A coding scheme (including the code, one or two examples, the specific interviewees and the frequency of the number of respondents) is displayed to give a clear overview, subsequently a short elaboration is given to clarify the findings. Secondly, interview outcomes that are related to preset codes of attributes of managerial behavior and that stand for the negative - as well as neutral - impact on perceived trustworthiness will be presented. Subsequently the same is done for codes of perceived trustworthiness of the change agent. For clarification, the definitions of the preset codes can be found in table 1 on page 10 and 11. Lastly, a short comparison is made between the three interview respondent categories. The sections will all have the same structure as indicated earlier. The interviews revealed no information regarding ability and benevolence as it was intended, therefore these two variables are not discussed in this chapter.
4.1 Preset codes with a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness
In this subsection, the interview outcomes related to preset codes of attributes of managerial behavior that stand for the positive impact on perceived trustworthiness will be presented. Positive impact in this context implies that, the more a change agent shows a specific behavior named under the codes, the better the change agent is experienced by the interviewee as being trustworthy.
No. Code Example Specific interviewees Freq.
1 Integrity plus “An integer manager is crucial in the building of confidence for me.”(PHV4)
PHV1, PHV3, PHV4, ASS2, ASS3, ASS4, ASS5, ASS6, VHV2, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5 12 2 Two-way commu-nication plus 2.1 Of the organization
“In the beginning we had three times in three months meetings in the board room with the board of directors, which was very nice.”(VHV3); “I
think it’s important that caregivers are involved in
making plans.”(ASS4) PHV3, PHV4, ASS1, ASS4, ASS6, VHV1, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5 9 2.1 Of the team manager
“Good communication contributes greatly to the building of trust.” (PHV3); “I have the feeling that my team manager takes the time to listen to me and my opinion, and that it is also taken into consideration when necessary. It gives a good
feeling that you are being taken seriously.”(PHV4)
PHV3, PHV4, ASS4, ASS7, VHV4, VHV5
17
3 Information provision plus “I highly value the information since I want to know what I’m up to.”(ASS4); “I think it’s very
important that I have the information at times
when I need it, because that’s the basis you work
8with.”(VHV5)
PHV3, ASS4, ASS5, ASS6, ASS7, VHV1, VHV2, VHV4, VHV5
9
4 Promise fulfilment plus “I attach great importance to keeping
appointments, as you build some confidence on it.”(PHV2); “Keeping promises is an important factor in building trust, because that’s how you
know you can rely on a person.”(ASS4)
PHV1, PHV2, ASS2, ASS4, ASS5, ASS7, VHV4, VHV5 8 5 Management engagement plus 5.1 Caring/ Emotional commitment
“Having a personal relationship with my team manager is important in the building of trust because sometimes you cannot keep work and private life separate.”(PHV4); “She often comes by to chat, which I truly appreciate and which is important to me.”(ASS4)
PHV1, PHV4, ASS1, ASS2, ASS3, ASS4, ASS5, ASS6, ASS7, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5
12
5.2 Support “My team manager earns credits when he supports me. That proofs to me that he’s taking into account existing needs.”(PHV3); "My manager thinks together with me about what I can try, I feel very
supported."(VHV4)
PHV1, PHV3, ASS1, ASS2, ASS3, ASS7, VHV2, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5
10
6 Efficiency plus “[…]. If they would have more time for us and if they would behave more efficient, I think there
would be more trust.”(ASS1)
PHV1, ASS1, ASS2, ASS3, ASS4
5
7 Realistic previews plus “Someone’s trustworthiness increases when he sets realistic goals, then you are open to it.”(ASS2)
ASS2 1
Table 4: Positive impact of attributes of managerial behavior on perceived trustworthiness
First, out of 16 interviewees, 12 saw a strong positive relationship between integrity and the level of trust they have in the change agent, which means that they perceive the change agent as adhering to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable, and which increases the level of trust they have. For example one team manager is highly valued for her integer behavior when she had a conflict with another employee. The employee was pregnant and asked for extra days off, but, in consultation with the HR-department, the team manager couldn’t unfortunately fulfil her wish. The upset employee told all her colleagues stories and she stirred them up, trying to illustrate she wasn’t treated fairly. The team manager spoke to no one about the issue and didn’t venture to tell her side of the story, which was perceived very amazing positive at the end. As interviewee PHV4 explained, “an integer behaving manager is crucial in the building of trust”.
18 in the board room with the board of directors, which was very nice.” The same holds for two-way communication of the team managers, of which employees get a “very good feeling” as interviewee PHV4 explained. Even though both sources of two-way communication, the organization and the team manager, are important, more interviewees stressed the importance of two-way communication of the organization.
Thirdly, the interviewees indicated that the fact that the change agent provides information when needed, employees value it as “highly valuable since they want to know what they’re up to”, as interviewee ASS4 explained. Also, interviewee VHV4 highlighted that “the provision of clear information is important, since you then know what you’re up to, even if the message is negative.” The exact substance of the message is less important for the employees than knowing what they’re up to!
Fourthly, interviewees indicated that they attach great importance (i.e. interviewee PHV3) on keeping one’s promises. The more a change agent shows he / she can be relied up on, the more he / she is perceived as trustworthy. Where integrity was crucial for interviewee PHV4, keeping promises is crucial for interviewee ASS2 as it is stated that “keeping promises is very important in the building of trust. Crucial!”. At this point it’s all about reliability. It is important for people to know that the change agent is reliable. They don’t mind if the change agent honestly says that he/she doesn’t make that promise because he is uncertain about the outcome, but if a promise is made it should be kept.
Next, the interviewees indicated that caring/emotional commitment is highly important in the building of trust. The feeling that one counts, that one’s worth it, is what makes employees feel comfortable at work and fosters confidence. An interviewee indicated that she has been actively benefiting from healthcare schemes since a while, because of her medical situation. Her team manager showed compassion, and calls or texts her now and then to enquire about how she feels. When change agents show compassion, trust is build. This is also acknowledged by interviewee ASS4 who stated: “She often comes by to chat, which I truly appreciate and which is important to me”. Furthermore, the feeling that the change agent supports the employee is perceived as an important conducive indicator for trustworthiness. Employees attach great importance to the feeling that the change agent supports their personal situation and needs. Employees don’t wait for the optimal solution, but they appreciate it when their change agent thinks along with them in certain issues. An interviewee notified her team manager that she would like to work 40 hours a week during the next 4 months. Her team manager facilitated her request, by proposing possible solutions and also tried to help achieve / realize / implement those solutions.
19 Employees appreciate this change and as interviewee ASS1 stated: “If they would have more time for us and would behave more efficiently, I think there would be more trust”.
Finally, interviewees indicated that making realistic projections does help in building trust, but only one interviewee (ASS2) indicated it explicitly by stating: “Someone’s trustworthiness increases when he / she sets realistic goals, […]”. Because every interviewee is considered important as stated previously in the methodology section, all clear statements are taken into consideration, and so is this one.
In sum, it can be said that predefined attributes set beforehand based on the literature, have a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness when they are present. From the statements given by the interviewees, it seems that the presence of caring/emotional commitment, support and integrity are the most important attributes when building trustworthiness.
4.2 Preset codes with a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness
In this subsection, the coding scheme emerged from interview outcomes that related to preset codes of attributes of managerial behavior and that stand for negative impact on perceived trustworthiness, will be presented. Negative impact means here that the less a change agent shows a specific (positive) behavior named under the codes, the less the change agent will be perceived as being trustworthy. Several interviewees can be seen in table 2 as well as table 3, because the presence of a specific code is positively related to the building of trust, as well as the absence of that specific code is negatively related to the building of trust. As this section is almost the opposite of the previous section and therefore relatively clear, this section and the next section will be explained more concisely.
No. Code Example1 Specific interviewees2 Freq.3
1 Integrity minus “If you don’t have the feeling that you are treated with integrity, the trust you have in your team manager is immediately a lot less.”(PHV1); “I'm always very open and honest and at the time I showed it, I got confronted negatively with it again the next time so I won’t tell anything anymore.”(ASS1)
PHV1, PHV3, ASS1, ASS2, ASS3, ASS5, ASS6, VHV2, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5 11 2 Two-way commu- nication minus Of the organization
“There was no consultation concerning the Barcelona-issue, which caused a lot of
frustration.”(PHV4) PHV3, PHV4, ASS1, ASS2, ASS7, VHV1, VHV4 7
1 Statements of interviewees clarifying the code
20
Of the team manager
“Not enough happens in consultation between us and the team managers, which make people feel unheard.”(PHV2)
PHV2, PHV3, ASS6, ASS7, VHV1, VHV4
6
3 Information provision minus “We hadn't had the information on the times we needed it, which didn't stop the gossip and the
turmoil unfortunately.”(ASS1)
PHV3, ASS, ASS2, ASS6, VHV2, VHV4, VHV5
7
4 Promise fulfilment minus “My manager is lacking here. He keeps saying that he's working on it, but I haven’t seen changes the last few months.”(PHV3); “The ALC has a glorious history regarding not fulfilling
plans, which results in people thinking “first see, and then believe”.”(VHV3)
ASS2, ASS3, ASS7, VHV3, VHV4, VHV5 6 5 Management engagement minus Caring/ Emotional commitment
“Despite her personal situation, there was no opportunity to modify her schedule, and then I tell myself “what a circus”.”(PHV2). “She never asked for my personal situation after the accident again, then you are truly out of touch!”(VHV2)
PHV2, ASS1, ASS7, VHV2, VHV5
5
Support “If she would support me less, I would trust her
less: that’s interrelated.”(ASS7)
ASS1, ASS2, ASS7, VHV1, VHV2, VHV3, VHV5
7
6 Efficiency minus “If a system doesn’t work due to bad management, as FLOW for example, it’s not
efficient and your level of trust decreases.”(ASS7)
PHV1, ASS1, ASS3, ASS7
4
7 Realistic previews minus “The last few years plans are made that couldn’t be accomplished because they were unrealistic which makes me think “Bullshit. Start acting and delivering rather than talking”.”(ASS1)
ASS1, VHV3, VHV4 3
Table 5: Negative impact of attributes of managerial behavior on trustworthiness
First, the absence of integrity is very negatively related to perceived trustworthiness. One team manager unveiled data publicly at the time the people concerned weren’t there and hence couldn’t defend themselves. It brought the trust to the lowest level for interviewee VHV2. Also, when employees don’t feel treated equally, they perceive it as unfair and trust decreases.
21 Moreover, the interviewees indicated that the absence of information caused gossip and unrest, as interviewee ASS1 also explained. In the beginning, many questions concerning the change process arose, but there were no answers. More than half of the interviewees confirmed the negative relationship between information provision and the perceived trustworthiness.
Furthermore, interviewees are irritated when things are said, but nothing happens. A team manager always promises to look into questions the team members ask, but after two months, still nothing happened which causes frustration. Another attitude people get is “first see, then believe” as interviewee VHV3, amongst others, explained. Consequently, when things are then announced, people sometimes don’t even react anymore or don’t take it seriously, which undermines the growth of trust.
Next, whereas 12 out of 16 interviewees say that if a team manager is caring/emotional committed, trust is build, only 5 out of 16 interviewees say that if there is no care/emotional commitment, there is less trust. The same goes for the feeling of being supported. Nevertheless, there are respondents who state, as interviewee ASS7, that “if she would support me less, I would trust her less”.
Additionally, if every little thing provokes a meeting, it is perceived as very ineffective. Also, team managers go to communication trainings, after which they behave differently for a short while, but after three weeks everything is back to square one again. It is perceived as unnecessary and unfair that the management is allowed to ‘behave ineffectively’ whereas they are watched closely on their own telephone figures.
Finally, it is expected that interviewee VHV is fully able to do the work of interviewee PHV and also the other way around. The interviewees indicated that this is highly unrealistic as these are two complete different worlds. The one, VHV, is concerned with materialistic aspects, whereas PHV is concerned with people. Also, the systems in which they work are completely different and instead of specialists you create generalists, which decreases quality. Those plans decrease the level of trust (that) employees have. As interviewee VHV4 also explained: “You should let people do what they are good at, then you can warrant quality and people feel comfortable instead of angry and upset”.
22
4.3 Preset codes with a neutral impact on perceived trustworthiness
In this subsection, the coding scheme is presented that emerged from interview outcomes related to preset codes of attributes of managerial behavior, that stand for the neutral impact on perceived trustworthiness. Neutral impact means here that there is no specific relation between a specific behavior named under the codes on the one hand, and the level of perceived trustworthiness of the change agent on the other hand.
No. Code Example4 Specific interviewees5 Freq.6
1 Integrity neutral “Integrity isn’t such a big thing to me. It doesn’t keep me awake during the night.”(VHV1)
VHV1 1
2 Promise fulfilment neutral “Failure to comply with agreements doesn’t greatly
affect the level of trust I have.”(PHV3)
PHV3, ASS1 2 3 Management engagement neutral Caring / Emotional commitment
“This factor doesn’t have to matter in the process of building trust, […].”(ASS6)
ASS6 1
4 Efficiency neutral “Even though some things are not very efficient in my opinion, the trust in my team manager is there because I eventually got complete trust of him as
well.”(PHV4); “It’s not important to me if my team manager is efficient in building trust, […].”(ASS5)
PHV4, ASS5 2
5 Realistic previews neutral “I don’t think that realistic previews (not) build trust.”(PHV2); “The trust I have doesn’t decrease
only because of unrealistic previews, unrealistic
previews are normal in organizations.”(VHV2)
PHV2, VHV2 2
Table 6: Neutral impact of attributes of managerial behavior on perceived trustworthiness
A few interviewees indicated that either presence or absence of a specific code doesn’t influence the level of trust they have. For some interviewees it was not that specific code that made / made not them trust their team manager. Interviewee ASS5 explained that other attributes were more important to her, rather than how efficient her team manager was. Also, interviewee PHV3 attaches more importance on the personal bond he has with his team manager, than the fulfilment of promises. When a promise isn’t fulfilled but you have a good relationship, he explains, there is room to talk about the issue and come to a good result. Furthermore, interviewee VHV2 argues that some things are ‘normal’ within organizations, making unrealistic previews is one of them so that doesn’t really matter.
4 Statements of interviewees clarifying the code
23
4.4 Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent
In this subsection, the coding scheme emerged from interview outcomes related to the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent will be presented.
No. Code Example7 Specific interviewees8 Freq.9
1 Perceived ability minus
"[…], it is lack of knowledge which makes it difficult."(PHV1); “A
lack of confidence can emerge where managers cannot speak the
top of their mind.”(PHV2)
PHV1, PHV2, ASS6 3
2 Perceived benevolence
plus
“The trust is there, since they’re not ill-willed and their intentions are good.”(PHV4)
PHV4, VHV2 2
Perceived benevolence
minus
“There is only one TM who shows willingness to make things better, and that doesn’t contribute to the building of trust off course.”(ASS1)
ASS1, PHV4 2
Table 7: Perceived trustworthiness of the change agent
The interviewees indicated that a team manager, who is unable to reach the desired end states in such a way that employees feel positively about it, influences negatively his / her perceived trustworthiness. Sometimes team managers are not able to achieve results, simply because the information needed is not available. This irritates employees and makes them uncomfortable. Also, as interviewee PHV1 explained, “the lack of confidence can emerge where managers cannot speak the top of their mind”. No example was given however to the contrary, where the presence of ability is positively related to the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent.
The interviewees indicated that the presence of benevolence is positively related to the perceived trustworthiness, as well as that the absence of benevolence is negatively related to the perceived trustworthiness. On one hand, the presence of benevolence is positively related to the growth of the level of trust. This is also explained by interviewee PHV4, who stated that: “The trust is there, since they’re not ill-willed and their intentions are good”. On the other hand, the absence of benevolence is negatively related to the growth of the level of trust. Interviewee ASS1 stated that “there is only one team manager who shows willingness to make things better”. When plans were made at the Barcelona-site in the beginning and suddenly these plans got changed, there was no communication at all about this issue. There was no explanation about the underpinning reasons for this change of plans, even if the information was available but the management was simply unwilling to share it, which caused frustration.
7 Statements of interviewees clarifying the code
24
4.5 Emerged codes from the interviews on perceived trustworthiness
In this section, the coding scheme, which emerged from the interview outcomes related to the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent but were not known beforehand, will be presented. As these codes are new and no description was given earlier, descriptions are given in the following paragraphs.
No. Code Example10 Specific
interviewees11
Freq.12
1 Management’s lack of understanding
“I do have the feeling that the management doesn’t really know what we’re doing here on the shop floor.”(ASS1); “The
management is on another island than we are, which causes
frustration.”(VHV4) PHV1, PHV4, ASS1, ASS2, ASS3, ASS6, ASS7, VHV4 8 2 Lack of visibility of management
“As caregiver, you only see that the team managers are very busy, but you have no idea what they are doing which causes that we sometimes feel left to our own devices.”(PHV3)
PHV3, PHV4, ASS6, ASS7, VHV2, VHV4 6 3 Team managers showing insincere behavior
"It is very often that a team manager stands beside someone to ask how things are going and you know that it is fake behavior, terrible."(PHV2)
PHV2, ASS3, VHV5
3
4 Management changing plans too often
"In one week it is decided to go left, the other week it can be completely different again which causes confusion and
uncertainty."(ASS6) PHV3, PHV4, ASS1, ASS6, VHV3 5 5 Unclear processes formulated by the management
“The management is angling contracts, throws it over the fence and we have to deal with it without any guiding, that doesn’t seem very reliable.”(ASS6) ASS6, VHV1, VHV4 3 6 Management not admitting mistakes
“I admire team managers who dare to admit that they have made a miscalculation that builds trust.” (PHV2)
PHV2, ASS2, ASS6, VHV1
4
7 Trust of management in employees
“When the management trusts you, and they allow you to think along in the process, then you build trust in them as well. It goes
both ways.”(ASS3) PHV4, ASS2, ASS3, VHV5 4 8 Team managers showing inconsistent behavior
“I don’t dare to tell her anything anymore because on one moment she behaves like this and the other moment she behaves like that.”(ASS1); “If someone has two faces, you cannot trust him or her.”(ASS2)
ASS1, ASS2, VHV1
3
Table 8: Negative impact of emerged codes from the interviews on perceived trustworthiness
The interviewees indicated feeling a gap between them and the management. That the management doesn’t really know what happens on the shop floor in the opinion of the interviewees. This has a negative impact on the level of trust they have in the management. Employees get extensions of their job descriptions all the time. An example is the management deciding to switch tasks and jobs of employees,
10 Statements of interviewees clarifying the code
25 causing them to change from the business market to the consumer market or the other way around. Some employees would prefer to do both or one of them, but they don’t have an option anymore. Interviewees are sure that by changing job profiles without any consultation, people will quit their job. The management doesn’t know what the job means to the employees. Also, as ASS1 explained, “I do have the feeling that the management doesn’t really know what we’re doing here on the shop floor”. This is also based on the fact that the management adds tasks upon tasks, but meanwhile doesn’t understand that people are already at their limit of what they can do in one working day. This feeling of missing understanding causes despair, which doesn’t build trust.
Secondly, the interviewees indicated that they don’t know who the management is, what they do and if the employees are allowed to contact the management directly. This has a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness. Caregivers are too shy to walk to the management and talk to them, they are too shy to ask questions or to start a discussion. This is also illustrated by interviewee PHV3 who stated that “you only see that the team managers are very busy, but you have no idea what they are doing”. They would appreciate it if the management were to introduce themselves at a given time, indicating who they are and what they do. An email including the sentence that “they are always welcome if they have any questions” would also help, in the opinion of interviewee PHV3.
Thirdly, some team managers are not perceived as being free from pretence or deceit, truly open or honest. This has a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness. It is important for employees that they are treated transparently and honestly. That if they are asked about how they are doing, that it genuinely comes from the person and not because the manager ‘has to’ ask that question. Interviewee PHV2 is very clear on this point: “If you know that it is fake behavior, it is terrible”.
Fourthly, it often happens that initial plans are changed after a while, which decreases the trustworthiness of the positions taken by the management. “The plan was that midland was implemented in Flow at the beginning of this year, now the plan is to implement it before June but as it almost is June, the plans will be changed to the end of august” (VHV3). Also, the Barcelona-site would take over a lot of tasks of the The Hague-site. Three months later, plans were changed again and things were the old way again.
26 Next, when the management is not open and honest about their mistakes, it has a negative impact on the perceived trustworthiness. Interviewees indicate that they would appreciate it when it has been a very busy day and the caregivers had a shitty day, the management would admit that they made a miscalculation. Also, when the management does admit mistakes, it has a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness. Interviewee ASS6 also explains: “Admitting “we have taken a certain way but we realized halfway that it doesn’t work as intended” does contribute to the building of trust.
Furthermore, the presence of trust of the management in the employees has a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness, as well as that the absence of trust of the management in the employees does negatively impact perceived trustworthiness. On one hand, employees need the trust of the management to trust the management: the circle is round. Interviewee VHV5 adds to this point: “I would like her to trust me doing the utmost possible to work as fast and as effective as possible”. On the other hand illustrates interviewee PHV4 the negative impact of the lack of trust of management in employees by explaining: “If you’re working at your maximum, you can’t do more. Then you need the trust of your team manager that you are doing whatever you can instead of a team manager who is standing behind you and tells that there are people queuing. That’s terrible”.
Finally, when managers don’t show consistent behavior over a longer period, it has a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness. It also works the other way around, when a manager shows consistent behavior, it has a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness. Since last year, ASS1 is on sick leave and is integrating again now. At one point, her manager says that it’s important that she takes care of herself, that she should take it easy because she’s the most important. At another point, the manager says that she can go fully back to work again. Interviewee VHV1 does experience a negative relationship between changing behaviors and the level of trust he has in his team manager. He explains: “Sometimes I come in and I only get a neutral ‘hi’, the other day I get a warm welcome and she asks how I’m doing and how I’m feeling. This influences negatively the level of trust I have in her because this inconsistency makes me feel uncertain”. People want to know what they are up to, whatever it is, but they want clarity.
27
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
In this chapter, the research question of this research, namely “What are the attributes that determine the perceived trustworthiness of the change agent?” will be answered. This is done by linking and interpreting the results to the literature described in the introduction and to the theoretical framework. First, the impact of preset attributes on perceived trustworthiness of the change agent will be discussed, then the same will be done for emerged attributes from the interviews, and subsequently a conclusion will be drawn. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications will be discussed, as well as limitations of this research and suggestions for future research.
5.1 The impact of preset attributes on perceived trustworthiness
During the interviews, integrity seemed to be the most important attribute in determining a trustworthy relationship, as it is also often explained as being crucial by the interviewees. As Mayer et al. (1995) indicated, “the trustor has to behave to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable”. Treat others in the same way you want to be treated yourself is the main message interviewees give, fairness is what is being valued. For example, the team manager that was part of the assessment was perceived as being very integer as she didn´t participate in the gossiping. Clearly, employees attach great importance to a team manager who is not influenced by others and situations, but holds on to its own norms and values instead of saving her face. When a manager is not handling integerly, trust is damaged and becomes very difficult to repair. It is concluded that integrity has a positive, negative and neutral impact on perceived trustworthiness.
The second attribute, two-way communication, is also important. When employees have the feeling that they are valued and therefore allowed to provide input to plans, they are more likely to build a trusting relationship. On the other hand, interviewees also point out that when there is no consultation, frustration arises because people feel not listened to. Therefore, it is concluded that two-way communication has a positive as well as negative impact on perceived trustworthiness, depending on their either presence or absence.
28 negative relationship to trust arises. In conclusion, the presence of information provision positively impacts perceived trustworthiness and the absence of information provision negatively impacts perceived trustworthiness.
As to the fourth attribute, most of the interviewees indicated that they attach great importance to promise fulfilment. Interviewees link this attribute to reliability because you then know that you can rely on the promises someone makes. Also, when promises are not kept, subsequent announcements or agreements are not taken seriously anymore. For others, fulfilling promises doesn’t affect the level of trust they have in their manager, as they attach more importance on other attributes as honesty and two-way communication for example. This can be explained due to the fact that, as long as it is communicated that a promise cannot be kept, employees are willing to accept it. It is concluded that the presence of promise fulfilment has a positive impact on perceived trustworthiness, that the absence of promise fulfilment has a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness, or no impact by either presence or absence of this attribute.
Fifthly, caring and support are found to have a positive, neutral as well as a negative impact on perceived trustworthiness of the change agent, depending on their presence or absence. According to Willemyns et al. (2003), caring is one of the major components that contribute to an employee’s willingness to put extra efforts into the organization and what allows the employee to build trust. Employees need to feel that they count and that they are taken care of. This is in line with Cho and Ringquist (2011) who argue that “employees need to feel supported in for example employee development or personal issues”. Interviewees clearly state that if there were less care and support, there would be less trust. For others, caring is not the attribute that determines trust, because they attach more importance to other attributes that compensate caring. A way of compensation could be support. When an employee gets more job opportunities, they tend to accept that less care is given.
The next attribute, efficiency, does also have the three sides of impact. On one hand, several interviewees state that the more efficient a team manager is, the more trust they have in their team manager. This is because they know that the outcome will be fine when this team manager does something. This takes away worries and uncertainties, which gives people confidence. On the other hand, interviewees perceive ineffective team managers as unfair because the employees are also expected to be efficient. According to Ford et al. (2008), when a change agent fails to behave in an efficient way, resistance rather than acceptance may emerge. Other interviewees, too, indicate that the level of trust isn´t dependent on the team manager being efficient, because there are other trusting attributes that they value more.
