Antecedents of trust in managers: a “bottom up” approach
| Published date | 01 October 2003 |
| Pages | 638-664 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488388 |
| Date | 01 October 2003 |
| Author | Katinka M. Bijlsma,Gerhard G. van de Bunt |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Antecedents of trust in
managers: a “bottom up”
approach
Katinka M. Bijlsma
European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM),
Bnrussels Belgium and Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences,
Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences, Free University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and
Gerhard G. van de Bunt
Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Social Cultural Sciences,
Department of Social Research Methodology, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Keywords Trust, Managers, Performance monitoring, Supports
Abstract Research on antecedents of trust has, so far, yielded results that do not easily stand up
to confrontation with the widely-held assumption of bounded rationality. By employing complex
constructs as indicators of antecedents, it is implied that actors, in pondering on trust in
managers, can deal with many complex cues, instead of a few single ones, as bounded rationality
suggests. This study proposes a different approach, by searching for a parsimonious set of
managerial behaviours that serve as cues for subordinates regarding trust in managers. Interview
and survey data were combined in this search. Regression analysis and a Boolean pattern analysis
were used to arrive at a parsimonious model with high explanatory power.
In response to changes in the social structure of societies, economic exchange
relations and organisational forms, attention to trust as characteristic of social
relations that promotes co-operation and extra-role behaviours in a wide array
of social processes has been growing in the past decades. In this issue Tyler
discusses these changes in more detail. Due to deterioration in the binding
power of reciprocal obligations (Kramer, 1996) and of hierarchical relations
(Sheppard and Tuchinsky, 1996), other mechanisms seem to be needed to
sustain co-operative behaviour (Kramer, 1996). In contrast to hierarchical
relationships, lateral relationships and alliances are getting more important
(Sheppard and Tuchinsky, 1996). Between firms, new linkages are formed that
make organisations move towards network forms and alliances (Lewicki and
Benedict Bunker, 1996). These forms require high levels of trust to function
effectively (Creed and Miles, 1996). Furthermore, increasing occurrence of
organisational change promotes the relevance of trust to organisational
performance and to the well-being of organisational members (Mishra, 1996;
Gilkey, 1991).
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
PR
32,5
638
Personnel Review
Vol. 32 No. 5, 2003
pp. 638-664
qMCB UP Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480310488388
By now it is widely acknowledged that trust works as a lubricant in
economic transactions, by smooth ing relations between actors and
reducing transaction costs, related to control (Williamson, 1975; Powell,
1990; Creed and Miles, 1996). A recently published meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of trust in leadership resulted in the
following consequences, of which several were also found in the studies
presented in this issue:
.belief of information;
.organisational commitment;
.decision commitment;
.organisational citizenship behaviour;
.job satisfaction;
.satisfaction with leaders;
.leader-member exchange; and
.intention to stay.
Other authors found trust to be related to acceptance of influence (Blau, 1964;
Tyler and Degoey, 1996), absence of monitoring, attribution of positive motives
(Kramer, 1996), mutual learning (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Boisot, 1995;
Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 1999; Janowicz and Noorderhaven, 2002), and to
positive outcomes such as high levels of co-operation and performance (Morgan
and Hunt, 1994; Gambetta, 1988; Costa et al., 2001; Costa, 2000). These studies
do support the theoretical idea that trust lubricates a wide array of
organisational processes.
A matter that comes to the fore is what managers can do or refrain from to
earn trust of employees in order to reap these benefits? Based on insights in
antecedents of trust in managers gathered so far, this question is hard to
answer. Some general insights have been produced that can be worked upon. In
studies of subordinates’ trust in managers, Kramer (1996) and Tyler and
Degoey (1996) conclude that relational issues have a stronger impact on
subordinates’ trust in managers than task-focused issues. If subordinates feel
they are treated fairly, with respect and with dignity, they perceive their
manager as benevolent and thus trustworthy. Yet, respect, dignity, and
fairness are quite general terms that do not reveal much about what managers
can do to generate these experiences.
In the study of Dirks and Ferrin (2002), a first systematic review of empirical
evidence for antecedents of trust is presented. Trust in leaders is found to be
significantly related to transformational leadership, perceived organisational
support, interactional justice, procedural justice, transactional leadership,
distributive justice, participative decision making, and meeting expectations of
followers (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002, p. 622). These complex constructs, however,
are measured as multi-item variables. Therefore, they cannot serve directly as
Antecedents of
trust in
managers
639
To continue reading
Request your trial