Trust, Commitment and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour:
trust in co-worker vs. trust in leader.
Master thesis, Msc. specialisation Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organisation
August, 13th 2012 D.B. Niezing Studentnumber: 2235595 Dobbenwal 8 9407 AE Assen tel: +31 (0)6 462 575 72 e-mail: d.b.niezing@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Prof. dr. O. Janssen Co-assessor: T. Vriend MSc.
2 TRUST, COMMITMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR:
TRUST IN CO-WORKER VS. TRUST IN LEADER.
ABSTRACT
This research was conducted in order to examine the relationships between trust, commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Two varieties were subject to research. Firstly, trust in leader, organisational commitment and OCB aimed at the organisation (OCBo). Second, trust in co-worker, team commitment and OCB aimed at the individual (OCBi). The results of the study, performed among 107 employees of a Dutch engineering company, showed that team commitment has a mediating effect on the relationship between trust in worker and OCBi. It was also found that not trust in leader, but rather trust in co-worker, leads to organisational commitment and that organisational commitment has a mediating effect on the relationship between trust in co-worker and OCBo. These results suggest that co-worker trust may play a more important role than was expected in previous publications. Theoretical and practical implications are provided, as well as limitations and suggestions for further research.
3
1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s organisations, employees are often required to collaborate and cooperate more intensively, and work is more often divided among highly interdependent teams (Griffen et al., 2007; Knoll & Gill, 2011). When individuals are required to work so closely together, trust determines to a large extent whether one is willing to interact so intensively with one’s team members. Trust has been found to be a predictor of many organisational processes such as information sharing, communicating, but also team performance in general (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).
The current paper will add to existing literature on trust by focusing on two aspects of interpersonal trust within organisations: the first is trust in one’s superiors and the second is trust in one’s co-workers. Chiaburu and Harrison (2008) argue that many questions with respect to how co-workers influence the individual at work “remain not only unanswered but, in some cases, unasked”. For this reason, the current paper will place an extra focus on the notion of co-worker trust.
Trust in general has been studied many times (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). The review by Dirks and Ferrin in which forty years of trust research has been evaluated, supports the statement by Chiaburu and Harrison claiming that the influences of the co-worker have not been studied in great depth. The study shows that many researchers have been inspired by the concept of trust between subordinate and superior, while neglecting the effect trust has between co-workers.
It has been suggested in previous literature (e.g. Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2007) that an actual difference exists between trust among co-workers and trust between leader and subordinate. Furthermore, there are several individual outcomes associated with trust in organisational settings. However, these outcomes have never been subject to research on whether they should be attributed to a trust relation with the leader or with the co-worker.
4 the relationship between trust and commitment will be examined by, again, distinguishing between two types of commitment: organisational commitment and team commitment. Finally, to complete the study, a third variable will be added to the model, being Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). Also for this variable, a distinction will be made among two types. The first is OCBo, in which beneficial behaviour is aimed at the organisational level and the second is OCBi, where behaviour is directed towards the individual. The model providing an overview of the current study can be found in figure 1.
This study is unique in its design because it not only seeks to answer to Chiaburu and Harisson’s (2008) call to distinguish between two different types of trust, but it also seeks to shed light on the nature of the relationship between trust, commitment and OCB in a special way. The uniqueness of this research lies in its examination of a relationship between these three well discussed concepts of business literature by considering their subparts and how they relate to each other. This has, to my knowledge, never been done before. First, trust will be discussed on a more organisational level by considering trust in one’s leader and its effect on organisational commitment and OCBo. Subsequently, this paper will continue on the team level by examining trust in co-worker and its links to team commitment and OCBi.
After theorising about the different concepts, this paper aims to establish the proposed relationships by conducting an empirical research at a subsidiary of a large technical engineering company.
Trust in
Leader
Trust in
Co-worker
Organisational
Commitment
Team
Commitment
OCB
organisational
OCB
individual
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998) provide the following definition of trust: “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intensions or behaviour of another”. In order to establish trust, there are three characteristics perceived as needed in order to create trustworthiness (Knoll and Gill, 2011). These characteristics are Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity (Mayer et al. 1995). Ability can be explained as the extent to which an individual is perceived to have skills, competencies and characteristics to have influence in the domain in which the relationship takes place. Benevolence is the extent to which one considers another to act in his or hers best interest. And finally, integrity considers the ethical principles one adheres to and whether or not these are perceived to be acceptable. According to Dirks and Ferrin (2001), the perception of trust within an organisation has several benefits for both the organisation itself as well as its members.
Knoll and Gill (2011) argue that the main limitation of previous trust literature is that it has mainly focussed on trust in upward relationships such as between employee and supervisor. It is important to differentiate between these different types of trust since they may have different outcomes within an organisational context. More specifically, this paper argues that trust in one’s superior may lead to higher organisational commitment and OCB directed at facilitating the organisation since it can be alleged that a leader or boss will be seen as a representative of the company. On the other hand, trust in one’s co-workers may lead to a higher team commitment and OCB aimed at helping individual colleagues within the team.
In the next paragraph, the hypotheses will be proposed. The variables will be categorized based on trust type. Thus, first the relationships between trust in leader, organisational commitment, and OCBo will be explained. Thereafter, the connection between trust in co-worker, team commitment, and OCBi will be discussed.
2.1 Trust in leader, organisational commitment, and OCBo
6 leader in their determination of whether a leader is trustworthy. In other words, employees find it far more important that their superiors score high on friendliness, caring, willingness to help, consistency and credibility than their actual leader performance on the job.
When employees consider their supervisors to score high on the “integrity” and “benevolence” factors of Mayer et al.’s (1995) trustworthiness factors, and thus perceive them (among others) friendly, willing to help and credible, they are more likely to evoke the strong feelings associated with commitment and the willingness to “go the extra mile” for the supervisor, and hence, the organisation.
Even though trust between leader and subordinate is perhaps a less flexible relationship than between co-workers in the sense that subordinates are vulnerable to their supervisors regardless whether they trust them or not, previous research has shown that when this trust relationship exists, it can have many positive effects for the organisation (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).
Also commitment is a research-topic that has received a considerable amount of attention over the last decades (Moreland & Levine, 2006). Because of this, many different approaches towards the subject exist and no single definition is considered appropriate to comprehend all these different views. However, Moreland and Levine (2006) describe that commitment can be regarded as a characteristic of employees explaining their feelings for a company or other entities such as groups. When an employee is committed to the company he or she is more likely to act in a way that is favourable for the organisation and the achievement of its goals. Just for the purpose of defining commitment, one can use this description by Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright (2008): Organisational commitment is
“the degree to which an employee identifies with the organisation and is willing to put forth effort on its behalf”.
Commitment has been associated with several advantageous outcomes. Among these are higher motivation, higher job satisfaction, better job performance and less absenteeism and turnover (Moreland & Levine, 2006). Another outcome of commitment, more important for the research at hand, is that of an increased level of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 1999), a topic that will be discussed in the subsequent paragraph.
7 trust in the supervisor was found to be a predictor of organisational commitment. Also Brockner et al. (1997) conclude that “employees are more supportive of or committed to authorities, and the institutions that the authorities represent, when trust is relatively high”. Even in older studies such as for example Cook & Wall (1980) and Hrebiniak & Alutto (1972), positive correlations were found between interpersonal trust and organisational commitment. These last authors argued that employees who have low levels of interpersonal trust are less likely to be committed to the organisation and found significant support for their hypothesis. From this follows the following hypothesis:
H1: Trust in a leader is positively related to organisational commitment.
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has been described by Organ (1988) using the following definition: “OCB represents individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organisation”. It thus implies all the extra activities within the working sphere of the job but outside the requirements of the job. Two categories of OCB have come forward in previous work (Williams & Anderson, 1991): OCB behaviour benefiting the organisation in general (OCBo) and OCB behaviour which benefits the individual, and through this contributes to the organisation (OCBi). Williams and Anderson (1991) provide the following examples of the two types: an example of OCBo is giving an advanced notice when unable to come to work and adhering to informal rules to maintain order. For OCBi the authors mention the examples of the employee helping a colleague that has been absent, or showing personal interest in the lives of co-workers.
8 and Mehta (2011) propose 6 antecedents of OCB of which also organisational commitment is considered to be one. These authors argue that the strong belief in the organisation’s goals and the desire to sustain the membership to the organisation, all factors associated with organisational commitment, increase the tendency to show organisational citizenship behaviour.
Additionally, by committing to the organisation it can be expected that an employee will be more likely to engage in activities which are essentially beyond the job’s requirement, but do add value to the organisation and improves its effectiveness and efficiency. These are the activities associated with OCBo. Hence the following hypothesis:
H2: Organisational commitment is positively related to OCBo.
When trust in leader is hypothesized to have a positive influence on organisational commitment, and organisational commitment on OCBo, a mediating hypothesis is an obvious next step. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that employees were more likely to exhibit OCB when they had higher levels of trust in their employers or supervisors. However, since we have hypothesized that trust in leader leads to commitment and commitment to OCB, the following mediating hypothesis will be proposed:
H3: Organisational commitment mediates the indirect relationship between trust in leader and OCBo
The following paragraph section will continue the discussion on the relationships between trust in co-worker, team commitment and OCBi.
2.2 Trust in co-worker, team commitment, and OCBi
9 relationships implying the sharing of personal, and sometime sensitive, information (Griffin et al., 2007 & Knoll and Gill, 2011).
Although research on trust in co-workers is limited, its importance has been acknowledged (Knoll & Gill, 2011). Research on Mayer et al.’s three characteristics of trustworthiness has shown considerable differences between studies and between cultures. These studies show that for the establishment of trust among co-workers benevolence and integrity plays an important role. However, in a recent study, Knoll and Gill (2011) found that ability played an equally important role in predicting co-worker trustworthiness compared to benevolence and integrity.
Earlier in this section, commitment has already been explained as the degree to which an employee identifies with the organisation and is willing to put forth effort on its behalf. According to Foote and Li-Ping Tang (2008) the difference between team- and organisational commitment lays in proximity. Organisations in itself may seem more remote for employees, whereas teams are not. Because of this it might be easier to connect to the team, while connecting to the organisation as a whole might be more difficult. Because of this, the authors explain, it is possible that two completely different types of commitment are existent within one company.
According to Costa (2003), work relations among employees having high levels of trust benefit from increased cooperation and a reduced number of conflicts. Furthermore, also a basis for commitment is created. In her study, Costa (2003) found strong evidence for the relationship between trust and team commitment. However, no further distinction has been made between types of trust in her study. In this study we expect that because co-workers are more representative of the team, whereas leaders are considered to be more representative of the organisation as a whole, trust in co-workers will lead to higher team-commitment. Consequently, the next hypothesis reads:
H4: Trust in the co-worker is positively related to team commitment
10 social capital. This, in turn, helps to increase the behaviours associated with OCB. Although Foote and Li-Ping Tang don’t explicitly make a distinction between OCBo and OCBi, their paper and way of reasoning, as explained above, leads to think that a distinction can actually be made. The notion of social capital and interaction among team members as described in the paper of Foote and Li-Ping Tang suggests that when commitment is high, people are more likely to exhibit their extra role behaviour at individuals within their own team.
In another study on citizenship behaviour within teams, Pearce and Herbik (2004) found that being committed to a team also leads to increased citizenship behaviour aimed at the team and its members. Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H5: Team commitment is positively related to OCBi.
The final hypothesis of this study was formulated in order to test the mediating effect of this model. It was hypothesized that trust in co-worker leads to higher team commitment, and that team commitment leads to increased OCB at the individual level. Consequently, the last hypothesis reads:
11
3. METHOD
3.1 Sample and data collection
In order to test the hypotheses, a research was conducted among employees of a subsidiary of a technical engineering company in the Netherlands. Using corporate e-mail, employees were asked to participate in the study and answer the questions in the attached questionnaire. The e-mail was distributed among approximately 170 employees and with a response rate higher than 60 percent, the sample size amounts N=107. Of these 107 respondents, the majority (99 respondents) were male. The age of the employees ranged from 21 to 56, with a mean of 47.43 years (SD = 9.79). On average, the sample had 25 years of working experience (SD = 10.25) with individual experience ranging from 1 to 48 years. Working experience for the current company ranged from less than one to 35 years with a mean of 11.4 years (SD = 7.71).
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Trust in leader and co-worker
In order to measure the employees’ trust in their co-workers and leaders an adapted version of Simon and Peterson’s (2000) scale for intergroup trust has been used. The original scale asks questions such as “we absolutely respect each other’s competence” and “we are all certain that we can fully trust each other”. For the purpose of this study, the five questions were adapted in such a way that “each other” was replaced with “my boss” or “my colleagues” for measuring trust in leader or co-worker, respectively. Obviously, because the questionnaire was spread among Dutch employees, it was translated to Dutch.
Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the statements measuring trust. A 7-point Likert-scale was used ranging from 1 indicating “totally disagree” to 7 “totally agree”. Measuring Cronbach’s alpha resulted in an alpha of .99 for trust in leader and .92 for trust in co-worker.
3.2.2 Organisational Commitment
12 measure commitment and produced a very reliable test. Participant had to answer 15 questions such as “I am proud to tell others I am a part of this organisation”, “I really care about the fate of this organisation” and the mirrored question “Deciding to work for this organisation was a definite mistake on my part”. Participants were asked for their extent of agreement using a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 “completely agree” to 7 “completely disagree”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88.
3.2.3 Team Commitment
In order to measure team commitment, a 9-item scale from Bishop and Scott (2000) was used and translated to Dutch. Respondents were asked questions such as “I find that my values and the team’s values are very similar” and “I am extremely glad that I chose this team to work with over other teams”. Using a 7-point Likert-scale, respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement. Cronbach’s alpha for the team commitment scale was .9.
3.2.4 OCBo and OCBi
For measuring Organisational Citizenship Behaviour on both the individual as well as the organisational level, the scales from Lee and Allen (2002) were used. These scales comprised questions such as “I keep up with development in the organisation” and “I take action to protect the organisation from potential problems” for OCBo, and “I help others in my team who have been absent” and “I assist others in my team with their duties” for OCBi. Cronbach’s alpha for the OCBo and OCBi scales amounted, correspondingly, .86 and .81.
3.2.5 Control Variables
13 Table 1 Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD) and Pearson correlations of the variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Gender 1.15 .358 a a 2 Age 47.37 9.79 -.25** 3 Working Exp. 24.98 10.25 -.24** .93** 4 Exp. at current employer 11.4 7.71 -.05 .34** .29** 5 Years in current position 7.46 6.61 -.02 .42** .38** .30** 6 Team size 12.3 20.06 -.12 .09 .06 .22* -.03 7 Trust in leader 5.85 1.24 .05 -.15 -.17 .09 .06 .03 (.99) 8 Org. Commitment 5.02 .82 .02 -.12 -.13 .17 -.11 -.05 .32** (.88) 9 OCBo 5.22 .87 .1 -.14 -.13 .01 -.2 .06 .26** .75** (.86) 10 Trust in Co-worker 5.8 .79 .1 -.3** -.35** .08 -.2 .03 .40** .53** .53** (.92) 11 Team Commitment 4.72 .98 .12 -.21 -.22 .1 -.17 -.02 .40** .73** .66** .68** (.9) 12 OCBi 5.52 .66 .07 -.19 -.17 .01 -.01 .02 .16 .37** .62** .42** .5** (.81) Notes: Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficients for each of the variables are in parentheses along the main diagonal.
14
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Table 1 provides an overview of the means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables. As can be seen in this table, the mean scores for organisational commitment (M = 5.02), OCBo (M = 5.22) and OCBi (M = 5.52) indicate that the respondents slightly agreed with the statements measuring these aspects. With a mean score of 4.72, one can say that the respondents did still slightly agree with the statements measuring team commitment, however, their responses are more towards being neutral. The mean scores for trust in leader (M = 5.85) and trust in co-worker (M = 5.8) were higher compared to the rest, indicating that the respondents more or less agreed with the statements on both sorts of trust.
As was expected, trust in leader and organisational commitment were positively correlated (r = .32, p < .01) as were organisational commitment and OCBo (r = .75, p < .01). Similarly, trust in co-worker was also positively related to team commitment (r = .68, p < .01) as were team commitment and OCBi (r = .5, p < .01).
Among the control variables, the only two significant correlations were between trust in co-worker and the variables of age and working experience. Interestingly, the two correlations were negative, indicating that as age or experience increases, trust in co-workers decreases.
4.2 Hypothesis testing
4.2.1 Hypothesis 1
In order to test whether trust in the leader actually has a positive effect on organisational commitment, a regression analysis was conducted. The first step of the regression comprised all the control variables with organisational commitment as a dependent variable. Only working experience at the current employees appeared significant with a beta of .03 and p <. 05. This indicates that the number of years which one works for a company also influences one’s commitment to the organisation.
15 2. Interestingly, the beta of trust in leader was only .09 and was not significant. This indicates that no support can be found for hypothesis 1. However, it should be noted that the control variable trust in co-worker, with a beta of .47, was significant. Thus, whereas trust in leader does not predict organisational commitment, co-worker trust is a significant predictor.
Table 2 Regression results for hypothesis 1 & 4
Dependent variable: Organisational Commitment Dependent variable: Team Commitment Step and independent variable β Step and independent variable β Step 1: Control Variables Step 1: Control Variables
Sex .00 Sex -.01
Age .11 Age .07
Working Experience -.01 Working Experience -.01 Exp. current employer .03* Exp. current employer .03 Years current position -.01 Years current position -.02
Team size -.00 Team size -.00
Step 2: Main effect Step 2: Main effect
Trust in leader .09 Trust in leader .13* Trust in co-worker .47** Trust in co-worker .76**
Total R² .31** Total R² .50**
Notes: N=107 *= P<0.05 **= P<0.01
4.2.2 Hypothesis 2
The results of the regression analyses conducted to explore the relationship between organisational commitment and OCBi are shown in table 3. The first step of the regression showed no significant relationship between the control variables and OCBi. When entering organisational commitment and team commitment as independent variables, both appeared to be significant at a one percent confidence level. However, the beta of organisational commitment is still considerably larger, supporting hypothesis 2.
4.2.3 Hypothesis 3
16 Table 3 Regression results for hypothesis 2 & 5
Dependent variable: OCBo Dependent variable: OCBi Step and independent variable β Step and independent variable β Step 1: Control Variables Step 1: Control Variables
Sex -.02 Sex -.03
Age -.05 Age -.04
Working Experience .00 Working Experience .00 Exp. current employer .01 Exp. current employer .01 Years current position -.02 Years current position .01
Team size .00 Team size .00
Step 2: Main effect Step 2: Main effect
Organisational commitment .60** Organisational commitment -.02 Team commitment .24** Team commitment .35**
Total R² .64** Total R² .31**
Notes: N=107 *= P<0.05 **= P<0.01
4.2.4 Hypothesis 4
Table 1 also provides the results of the regression analysis for hypothesis 4. This hypothesis attempts to establish a relationship between trust in one’s co-worker and team commitment. The regression analysis of the control variables did not suggest any significant relations. However, when trust in leader and trust in co-worker were inserted as independent variables, both showed a significant relationship (trust in leader: β = .13, p < .05; trust in co-worker: β = .76, p < .01). Nonetheless, as the beta already indicates, a strong relationship exists between trust in co-worker and team commitment supporting hypothesis 4.
4.2.5 Hypothesis 5
17
4.2.5 Hypothesis 6
This last hypothesis suggested the mediating effect of team commitment on the relationship between trust in co-worker and OCBi. This test was conducted using a Sobel test of which the results can be found in table 4. As the results of this test indicate, strong support was found for hypothesis 6.
Table 4 Test of Mediation effect of Team Commitment Indirect effect of trust in co-worker on OCBi
through team commitment Indirect Effect Sobel Z p
.24 2.66 .01
Notes: N=107
4.2.6. Additional test
Given the surprising result of hypothesis 1, indicating that not trust in leader leads to organisational commitment but instead trust in co-worker defines this relationship, an additional test was conducted. This time, the mediating effect of organisational commitment was tested on the relationship between trust in co-worker and OCBo using, again, a Sobel Z-test. The results of this test, which were in support of this extra hypothesis, can be found in table 5.
Table 5 Test of Mediation effect of Organisational Commitment Indirect effect of trust in co-worker on OCBo through
organisational commitment Indirect Effect Sobel Z p
.24 3.55 .00
18
5. DISCUSSION
The results of this study were in a way mixed. The hypotheses regarding trust in co-workers, team commitment and OCBi were supported, as was the hypothesis of organisational commitment and OCBo. However, the hypotheses suggesting the relationship between trust in leader and organisational commitment, and the mediating effect of organisational commitment on trust in leader and OCBo were not supported. This is not in accordance with earlier research, stating that leader trust is a predictor of organisational commitment (Pillai et al. 1999). The reason why no significant result was found was mainly due to the strong effect of trust in workers on organisational commitment. As the test has shown, trust in co-workers can explain organisational commitment, but trust in leader does not. A possible explanation for this result lays in a different way of reasoning. This paper expected that employees would see their leaders as representatives of the organisation in general and a higher degree of trust in this leader would thus explain a higher sense of organisational commitment. Instead, it may actually be the case that employees identify themselves as being the organisation together with their colleagues. This way, a higher degree of trust in co-workers may actually explain a higher level of organisational commitment.
Even though this first hypothesis was not supported, a significant relationship between organisational commitment and OCBo was found. This finding is in line with earlier research by Pillai et al. (1999) who also advocated this relationship. It suggests that those employees who identify with the company and find their values comparable, are also more likely to put in more effort on the organisation’s behalf even though this was not expected of them.
The second part of the study was focused on a more team-based setting instead of the organisation as a whole. It was found that trust in one’s colleagues indeed explains a higher level of team commitment. The results in this study confirmed earlier research by Costa (2003) who also found a positive relationship between trust and organisational commitment. Even though both trust in leader and trust in co-worker turned out to be significant predictors, the greater part of the relationship can be attributed to co-worker trust. Also team commitment appeared to be an important predictor for OCBi, indicating that those employees who share values with their team members and identify with them, are also more likely to help each other and exchange favours and resources, hence, social capital is increased.
19 favour beyond what is expected of them, simply because they are more committed to the team they are working in.
Lastly, an extra test was conducted following the interesting finding of hypothesis one stating that not trust in leader but rather trust in co-worker explains a higher degree of organisational commitment. This time, a test was conducted examining whether trust in co-worker has, through organisational commitment, an effect on OCBo. As this happens to be the case, one can also state that when trust increases among co-workers, they appear to become more committed to the company they are working for, increasing their extra role-behaviour.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
The present study attempts to answer to Knoll and Gill’s (2011) suggestion that more research should be conducted studying the differences between horizontal and upward trust relationships. As the present study has showed, differences can indeed be found between the two types of trust. The current study is an indication that, while previous literature mainly suggested the importance of upward trust relationships, co-worker trust may play a more important role than was previously expected.
Another contribution of this study is to OCB research. Williams and Anderson (1999) theorized about the relationship between organisational commitment and OCBo because of the link in their definitions. Their argument was that organisational commitment helps when no directions are givens or when formal expectations are not met, hence the link with extra-role behaviour on organisational level, or OCBo. This study confirmed this theory and found evidence for its existence.
Lastly, while Costa (2003) already conducted a study on trust and team commitment, she did not distinguish between different types of trust. Even though both trust types appeared to be significantly related to team commitment while controlling for the other, the study shows that co-worker trust is the main indicator of team commitment.
20 An important limitation to this study lays in its design: it was conducted among employees of one single company, in one single subsidiary. Thus, no differentiations were made among industries or job categories. In order to generalize the findings of this study, it should be reproduced within different types of organisational settings.
Furthermore, it should be noted that this study was conducted within The Netherlands, and that it can thus not be generalized to other cultures or contexts. As Janssen (2012; unpublished) points out, trust studies may yield strong perceptions within the Netherlands because of the expressive and individualistic culture, whereas these perceptions may be weaker in countries with a more collectivistic nature. In order to test its viability in other cultures, this research should be examined within different cultural contexts.
An important limitation of the study regards the design of the study. Because of its cross-sectional design, no conclusive assumptions can be made about the direction of causality between the variables. However, it should also be noted that all variables have been researched before, be it in different settings, and that this line of reasoning has been well documented. Furthermore, because self-ratings were used in order to gather the necessary data, common method variance cannot be ruled out.
An important suggestion for further research would be to make clear distinctions between trust in leader and trust in co-worker. As this research suggests, trust in co-workers seems to play an important role in the organisation. Therefore, I would suggest that for further trust research, the potential effects of interpersonal trust should not be assigned to trust in itself but rather account for the contribution of each type of interpersonal trust.
5.3 Practical implications
21 mitigate the harm of others and allow them to trust. Other suggestions are done by Six and Sorge (2008), who examined how organisations can deliberately influence the creation of trust through enhancing organisational policies. The authors based their research on the three trust characteristics of Mayer et al. (1995): Ability, Benevolence and Integrity (see also literature review). Six and Sorge argue that a culture should be created in which interpersonal relationships are considered to be important and care and concern is shown for others’ needs. Furthermore, these values should be communicated throughout the company, especially to newcomers. Lastly, these authors also argue that the professional competencies of employees should be managed and that signalling among colleagues should be unambiguous.
CONCLUSION
22 REFERENCES
Bishop & Scott. 2000. “An Examination of Organisational and Team Commitment in a Self-Directed Team Environment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 3, 439-450.
Bolino, Turnley & Bloodgood. 2002. “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organisations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 505-22.
Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler & Martin. 1997. “When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability". Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, p. 558-583
Chahal & Mehta. 2011. “Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB): A conceptual Framework in Reference to Health Care Sector”. Journal of services research, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 25-44.
Chiaburu & Harrison. 2008. Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effects on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 93. No. 5, p. 1082-1103.
Colquitt, Scott & LePine. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analystic test of their unique relationship with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 92, p. 909-927.
Cook & Wall. 1980. “New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment”. Journal of occupational psychology. Vol53, p. 39-52.
Costa. 2003. Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review. Vol. 32, No. 5, p. 605-622.
Davis, Schoorman, Laver, Tan. 2000. Trusted unit manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 21, p. 563-576.
Dirks & Ferrin. 2001. The role of trust in organisational settings. Organisation Science, vol. 12, p. 450-467
Dyne, Graham, Dienesch. 1994. “Organisational citizenship behavior: Contruct redefinition, measurement, and validation”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 37, No. 4, p. 765-802.
23 Foote & Li-Ping Tang. 2008. Job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behavior (OCB); Does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams? Management Decision. Vol. 46, No. 6, p. 933-947.
Griffin, Neal & Parker. 2007. “A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 327-47.
Heavey, Halliday, Gilbert & Murphy. 2011. Enhancing performance. Bringing trust, commitment and motivation together in organisations. Journal of General Management. Vol. 36, No. 3
Hrebiniak & Alutto. 1972. “Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organisational Commitment”. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 7, No. 4, p. 555-573.
Janssen. 2012. “Interpersonal trust and employee creativity: test of a main effect and moderator effect model”. Unpublished manuscript.
Konovsky & Pugh. 1994. “Citizenship behaviour and social exchange”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 37, No. 3, p. 656-669.
Knoll & Gill. 2011. Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol 26, No. 4, p. 313-330
Lee & Allen. 2002. “Organisational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 1, 131–142.
Mayer, Davis & Schoorman. 1995. “An integrative model of organisational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Moreland & Levine. 2006. Socialization in organisations and work groups. In John M. Levine & Richard L. Moreland (Eds.). Small Groups (pp. 469 – 499). Psychology Press. New York and Hove.
Mowday, Steers & Porter. 1979. The measurement of Organisational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol. 14, p. 224 - 247
Organ. 1988. Organisational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books
Pearce & Herbik. 2004. “Citizenship behaviour at the team level of analysis: the effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size”. The journal of social psychology. Vol. 144, No. 3, p. 293-310.
24 Rafferty & Simons. 2006. An examination of the antecedents of readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of Business and Psychology. Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 325 – 350.
Rich. 1997. The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction and performance of salespeople. Journal of Academic Marketing Science. Vol 25, p. 319-328.
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 23, p. 387-392.
Scholl. 1981. Differentiating organisational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Acadamy of management review. Vol. 6 , p. 589 - 599
Self, Armenakis & Schraeder. 2007. Organziational change content, process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change Management. Vol. 7, p. 211-229.
Simons & Peterson. 2000. Task conflict and relational conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 83, p. 102-111.
Six & Sorge. 2008. Creating a High-Trust Organisation: An Exploration into Organisational Policies that Stimulate Interpersonal Trust Building. Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 45, No. 5, p. 857 – 854.
Stahl & Voigt. 2008. Do Cultural Differences Matter in Mergers and Acquisitions? A Tentative Model and Examination. Organisation Science, 19, 160-176.
Williams. 2007. Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management reviews. Vol. 32, p. 595-621
Williams & Anderson. 1991. Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors of OCB and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management. Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 601-617
25 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
VRAGENLIJST WERK MONITOR
De hierna volgende vragenlijst is onderdeel van een onderzoek werk kenmerken en ervaringen. Uw medewerking wordt zeer gewaardeerd. U wordt gevraagd om de vragen zo goed mogelijk naar waarheid in te vullen. De vragenlijsten zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden: het zal onmogelijk zijn om vanuit de uiteindelijke resultaten van de studie een link te maken met een respondent. Om uw vertrouwelijkheid te garanderen vragen we u geen naam op dit papier te schrijven.
Vul a.u.b. volgende algemene gegevens in: Leeftijd:
Geslacht:
Aantal jaren werkervaring:
Aantal jaren werkervaring bij huidige werkgever: Aantal jaren in huidige positie:
Aantal personen in team:
Geef a.u.b. aan hoe vaak u het eens bent met onderstaande uitspraken
Vraag: Nooit...Zo nu en dan...Altijd 1. Mijn baas en ik respecteren elkaars bekwaamheid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Mijn baas handelt integer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Mijn baas en ik verwachten de volledige waarheid van
elkaar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Mijn baas en ik zijn er zeker van dat we elkaar
kunnen vertrouwen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Mijn baas en ik verwachten van elkaar dat we onze
26 Hieronder vindt u gevoelens die een individu mogelijk kan hebben over de organisatie waar hij of zij voor werkt. Geef a.u.b. aan in welke mate u het eens of oneens bent met betrekking tot uw eigen gevoelens omtrent deze uitspraken
Vraag Volledig neutraal Helemaal oneens mee eens 6. Ik ben bereid om meer moeite in mijn werk te
steken dan wat van mij verwacht wordt om dit bedrijf succesvol te laten zijn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Ik praat over dit bedrijf tegen mijn vrienden als een
geweldig bedrijf om voor te werken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Ik voel weinig loyaliteit jegens dit bedrijf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Ik zou bijna elke positie accepteren om maar voor dit
bedrijf te mogen blijven werken. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Ik vind dat de waarden van dit bedrijf en mijn eigen
waarden veel op elkaar lijken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Ik ben trots om te zeggen dat ik onderdeel ben van
dit bedrijf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ik zou net zo goed voor een ander bedrijf kunnen werken, zolang de inhoud van de baan maar min of meer gelijk is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Dit bedrijf inspireert mij om het beste in mij naar boven te halen (met betrekking tot werk prestaties)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Er hoeft maar weinig te veranderen in de huidige situatie om ervoor te zorgen dat ik dit bedrijf verlaat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Ik ben heel blij dat ik voor dit bedrijf heb gekozen in plaats van de andere bedrijven die ik overwoog voordat ik in dienst kwam
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Je hebt er niet veel voordeel van om voor altijd voor dit bedrijf te blijven werken
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Ik ben het niet vaak eens met het beleid van dit bedrijf omtrent belangrijke zaken met betrekking tot de werknemers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Ik geef veel om het lot en de toekomst van dit bedrijf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Voor mij is dit het beste bedrijf om voor te werken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Mijn besluit om voor dit bedrijf te gaan werken was
een grote fout.
27 Geef a.u.b. aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken
Vraag Volledig neutraal Helemaal oneens mee eens 21. Ik woon meetings of sociale evenementen bij die niet
van mij verwacht worden, maar die wel ten gunste zijn van het bedrijf.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Ik houd alle ontwikkelingen binnen de organisatie in de gaten.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Ik neem het op voor de organisatie wanneer andere werknemers het bekritiseren.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Ik ben er trots op als ik mijn organisatie publiekelijk representateer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. Ik kom met ideeën om het functioneren van het bedrijf te verbeteren
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. Ik ben loyaal jegens het bedrijf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Ik onderneem actie om dit bedrijf voor potentiële
problemen te beschermen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. Ik toon belangstelling voor het imago van het bedrijf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Geef a.u.b. aan hoe vaak u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken met betrekking tot de relatie met uw collega’s.
Vraag: Nooit...Zo nu en dan...Altijd 29. Mijn collega’s en ik respecteren elkaars
bekwaamheid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. Mijn collega’s handelen integer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Mijn collega’s en ik verwachten de volledige
waarheid van elkaar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. Mijn collega’s en ik zijn er zeker van dat we elkaar
kunnen vertrouwen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. Mijn collega’s en ik verwachten van elkaar dat we
28 Geef a.u.b. aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken met betrekking tot het werken in teams.
Vraag Volledig neutraal Helemaal oneens mee eens 34. Naar mijn vrienden toe schep ik op over dit team als
een geweldig team om in te werken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Ik zou praktisch elke baan aannemen zolang ik maar
binnen dit team mag blijven werken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. De waarden van dit team en mijn eigen waarden
komen overeen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. Ik ben er trots op om anderen te vertellen dat ik deel ben van dit team
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. Het werken in teams haalt het beste in mij naar boven met betrekking tot werk prestaties
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
39. Ik ben blij dat ik dit team heb gekozen om in te werken in plaats van andere teams
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. Ik geef veel om het lot van dit team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Voor mij is dit het best mogelijke team om in te
werken
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. Ik ben bereid om meer moeite te steken in mijn werk (buiten wat van mij verwacht wordt) om het team te helpen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29 Geef a.u.b. voor de laatste zeven uitspraken aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de uitspraak.
Vraag Volledig neutraal Helemaal oneens mee eens 43. Ik help anderen als ze afwezig zijn geweest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Ik geef vrijwillig mijn tijd op om anderen in het team
te helpen met werk-gerelateerde problemen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Ik pas mijn werk planning aan wanneer anderen een
verzoek indienen voor verlof
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. Ik doe extra moeite zodat nieuwe team leden zich welkom voelen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. Ik ben oprecht belangstellend en vriendelijk tegenover mijn team leden, zelfs in de meest uitdagende zakelijke of persoonlijke situaties
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. Ik geef tijd op om anderen in mijn team te helpen met werk of niet-werk gerelateerde problemen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. Ik help anderen in mijn team met hun verplichtingen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Ik deel persoonlijke eigendommen met andere team
leden om hen met hun werk te helpen.
