OrgTrust ques n parametr

IABC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
The International Association of Business Communicators Research Foundation is a not-forprofit 501(c) (3) corporation that serves as the research and development arm of IABC. The Foundation provides knowledge and understanding to help organizations become more effective through communication. It helps communicators maximize their contribution to organizational success and serves as a rich source of information and ideas for developing IABC resources.

Research You Can Use
• • • • • • • •

IABC/Watson Wyatt 1999 Communications Study Communicating Change: Ideas from Contemporary Research Key Elements of Effective Supervisor/Employee Communication Organizational Trust and Distrust Across Cultures Communication Competence and Business Success IABC/PRSA Joint Compensation Survey Environmental Scanning Report (2nd edition) Expert Panel Report

Events and Awards
• • •

International Conference Seminar and Luncheon The Sharon Berzok Memorial Lecture The Jake Wittmer Research Award

For more information on the Foundation’s work, call (415) 544-4700 or check IABC’s website: http://www.iabc.com.

Your Support is Needed
The IABC Research Foundation relies on sponsorships and donations to support research projects that promote effective organizational communication practices. To find out about sponsorship opportunities, contact Suzanne Byron at (415) 544-4722 or [email protected]. For more information about making a donation (tax deductible within U.S.), contact Rae Hamlin, ABC, at (415) 544-4713.

International Association of Business Communicators
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 What is Organizational Trust? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Definition of Organizational Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Nature of Organizational Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Concepts of Organizational Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Why is Organizational Trust Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Implications for International Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Implications for Organizational Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 What is the Organizational Trust Model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Openness and Honesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Concern for Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Development of Survey and Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Organizational Trust Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Scoring the Organizational Trust Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Comparing Your Organization to Organizations Across the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Organizational Trust Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Analyzing Your Organizational Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Areas of Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Areas for Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Facilitating Survey Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Creating Action Plan for Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Analysis Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Appendix Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Suggested Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 About the Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST Cross-Cultural Survey and Index
Funded by the IABC Research Foundation and performed by Pamela Shockley-Zalabak, Ph.D., Kathleen Ellis, Ph.D., Ruggero Cesaria "Measuring Organizational Trust" gives communicators not only research findings about the importance of organizational trust, but, perhaps more importantly, a tool to measure the trust in their organization. The latest research from the IABC Research Foundation, performed by professor-consultants and researchers based in Colorado and Italy, shows that trust is more than a social virtue – it is an economic imperative for business resilience in a global marketplace. Today, not only must organizations build relationships with local co-workers, leaders, and customers, they also must be able to create long-distance relationships across national and cultural boundaries, often with strangers. This requires that the organizations and their employees make good efforts and judgments about trust with others. The ability to form trusting relationships with diverse people is an organization’s social capital – a predictor of effectiveness. In the research model, five factors create organizational trust: 1. Competence (co-workers’ and leaders’ effectiveness) 2. Openness and honesty (amount, accuracy and sincerity of information shared) 3. Concern for employees (exhibition of empathy, tolerance and safety) 4. Reliability (consistent and dependable actions) 5. Identification (sharing common goals, values and beliefs) As these five dimensions create organizational trust, trust in turn proves to be statistically significant in creating job satisfaction and perceived organizational effectiveness. In addition, literature reviews show that organizations with high levels of trust continually benefit from more: • Adaptive organizational structures • Strategic alliances • Responsive virtual teams • Effective crisis management • Reduced transaction and litigation costs

1

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

"Measuring Organizational Trust" includes an Organizational Trust Index, which allows communicators to measure their organization’s trust against others internationally. The database for the index was created from survey responses of approximately 4,000 employees in eight countries, producing an instrument that is reliable and valid internationally. Executive Summary "Measuring Organizational Trust" provides a survey for communicators to gather data about trust in their organizations. When compared to the Trust Index, areas of strength and weakness are identified that can be used to develop plans to build or reinforce trust. Step-by-step, the manuscript guides communicators through analysis of data and initiates plans to increase trust – including facilitating survey feedback and leading team efforts to prioritize trust issues and develop action plans.

About the Researchers:
Pamela Shockley-Zalabak, Ph.D., is vice chancellor for Student Success and professor of communication at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and a consultant and author. Kathleen Ellis, Ph.D., is assistant professor of communication at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and a consultant. Ruggero Cesaria is a senior researcher at the Istituto RSO, a leading research and consulting organization in Rome, Italy.

About the IABC Research Foundation:
The IABC Research Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the support and advancement of organizational communication by delivering research findings vital to the profession. The Foundation translates leading-edge communication theory into real-world practice, helping communicators be effective and visionary in their work. Now in its 17th year, the Foundation is building a research portfolio aligned with a new research agenda. The Foundation offers grants for communication research in support of this agenda.

2

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Trust matters! Trust is related to profits, innovation, successful international business, organizational survival and a variety of crucial worker perceptions and behaviors. The Organizational Trust Index (OTI) was developed with a grant from the IABC Research Foundation. The broad purpose of the research was to identify specific organizational attitudes, values, and norms that influence perceptions of organizational trust and distrust; to create an index that measures organizational trust; to empirically examine the relationships among organizational trust/distrust, perceived organizational effectiveness, and job satisfaction; and to identify similarities and differences in trust models for organizations and industries located in various parts of the world. This manual contains the results of the research: the Organizational Trust Index, the model describing the relationships of trust to job satisfaction and perceived organizational effectiveness, normative data collected during instrument validation studies, and guidelines for interpretation and use of your organization’s results.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST INDEX
The Organizational Trust Index (OTI) measures organizational trust by addressing five dimensions: • • • • • Competence Openness and Honesty Concern for Employees Reliability Identification

The Organizational Trust Index assists organizations of any size in understanding the crucial dimensions of trust in particular settings. It provides communication professionals and all organizational leadership a profile for plans ranging from the communication of vision, objectives, and policy to a variety of training and development activities. When a sample or the entire population of an organization completes the trust survey, their scores can be compared to the average scores obtained from organizations, industries, and geographical cultures throughout the world. The OTI results can assist you in determining the level of trust in your organization and where best to build upon your organization’s foundation of trust.

3

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST?
Although we often know intuitively when there is and when there isn’t trust in an organization, we all may define and describe trust differently. While we can all agree that trust is important, we may disagree at times about what builds or destroys trust in our organizations. Sometimes we label a behavior trustworthy, or place high value on it, because it is valued in our specific circumstance, organization, or culture. Or we may do the reverse, and see a behavior as untrustworthy or low in value because of our context. Because it can be based on different values, organizational trust has a complex nature. When we look at thoughtful writing and research on organizational trust, we see a diverse set of definitions, meanings, and behaviors ascribed to it. (For additional insights, you may want to explore the books and articles listed in the Suggested Readings section in this manual.)

Definition of Organizational Trust
While there are many definitions for organizational trust, some key words reoccur. Concepts that continually appear in those definitions are belief, willingness, and vulnerability. Building upon the Mishra Model for Organizational Trust (1996), we define organizational trust as: The organization’s willingness, based upon its culture and communication behaviors in relationships and transactions, to be appropriately vulnerable based on the belief that another individual, group, or organization is competent, open and honest, concerned, reliable, and identified with common goals, norms, and values.

4

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Nature of Organizational Trust
As the definition above demonstrates, organizational trust has many faces. In the past, it has been seen most often as a one-dimensional concept. Now we know that there is more to it. Many experts now describe organizational trust as: • Multi-leveled, meaning that trust results from interactions that span co-worker, team, organizational, and inter-organizational alliances. • Culturally-rooted, meaning trust is closely tied to the norms, values, and beliefs of the organizational culture • Communication-based, meaning trust is the outcome of communication behaviors, such as providing accurate information, giving explanations for decisions, and demonstrating sincere and appropriate openness • Dynamic, meaning trust is constantly changing as it cycles through phases of building, stabilizing, and dissolving • Multi-dimensional, meaning that trust consists of multiple factors at the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral levels, all of which affect an individual’s perception of trust What is Organizational Trust?

Concepts of Organizational Trust
Organizational trust is associated with a range of concepts. Given the subjective nature of organizational trust, described in the section above, it is important to understand why individuals can view the same situation and see varying degrees of distrust to optimal trust. Optimal trust requires a willingness to choose to trust even when there are calculated risks connected with a particular situation. Just as organizational trust can range in degree from distrust to optimal trust, it can also vary from fragile to resilient. Fragile trust develops out of perceptions of short-term and low-cost consequences, while resilient trust is based on history and long-term memory of integrity between two parties. Organizational trust can also vary in depth, ranging from shallow to deep levels of involvement. When there is less at stake, more shallow levels of trust exist. In contrast, when the risk levels are high, deeper levels of trust form.

5

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

WHY IS ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST IMPORTANT?
Trust is more than a social virtue. It is an economic imperative for business resilience in a global marketplace (Fukuyama, 1995). For many years trust has been associated with effective organizations (Barnes, 1983; Boss, 1979; Gibb, 1978; Dwivedi, 1983; French & Raven, 1968; Maslow, 1954; and Zand, 1972). Today’s business environment – driven by a global economy, increased competition, emerging technologies, and rapid product development – brings constant change, requiring new measurements of organizational effectiveness. We are faced daily with creating "on-the-spot" agreements and relationships with coworkers, leaders, customers, and other organizations to make things happen. With every business transaction, we create these spontaneous connections – sometimes without faceto-face contact – and we do so in good faith and trust. Our day-to-day work requires that we, and our work teams and organizations, make good efforts and judgments about trust with others. There are serious consequences for not being able to do this well.

Implications for International Business
Given the dynamics of today’s global marketplace, organizational trust is now an economic imperative. To survive and be resilient on the international scene, organizations must be able to create long-distance relationships across national and cultural boundaries, often with strangers. Francis Fukuyama (1995), in a notable interdisciplinary book entitled "Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity," argues that the ability to develop relationships of "spontaneous sociability" predicts whether an organization will compete effectively. The capacity to participate in these transactions of spontaneous sociability – the ability to form trusting relationships with diverse strangers – is an organization’s "social capital." That is, the organization has the ability to make strategic alliances, associations, and partnerships. An organization’s social capital is anchored in its regional, national, or religious culture. In other words, some societal cultures promote flexible networks of business and economic relationships, while others do not. For example, the societal cultures of Japan, Germany, and the United States have a demonstrated record of alliances that are diverse and multinational. In contrast, other cultures have relied historically on relationships with family members or close friends before entering economic transactions that require trust. As a result, they avoid doing business with "outsiders."

6

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Implications for Organizational Effectiveness
Regardless of whether organizations engage in international activities or not, most require enhanced networks of trust. They must have a vertical structure that is flexible and adaptive. Such responsiveness brings improved organizational performance to the daily dramas of business. Research has consistently linked high trust levels with performance. We know that high levels of trust are associated with effective teams and leadership. Likewise, organizations with high trust levels will continually benefit from: (1) More adaptive organizational structures (Barnes, 1983; Bennis, 1997; Crawford, 1998; Dwivedi, 1983; Miles & Snow, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) (2) Strategic alliances (Das & Teng, 1998; Ingham & Mothe, 1998; Jones & Bowie, 1998; Rule & Keown, 1998) (3) Responsive virtual teams (Coutu, 1998; Fukuyama, 1996; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, Leidner, 1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) (4) Effective crisis management (Mishra, 1996; Webb, 1996). High levels of organizational trust can critically reduce litigation charges (Brickner & Siegel, 1996) and transaction costs (Gibbs & Gibson, 1998; Maccoby, 1998; Rousseau, et al, 1998). This results because high-trust cultures minimize the potential for destructive and litigated conflict, unnecessary bureaucratic control and administrative expenditures, and expensive overhead required to sustain operations that have outlasted their need.

Why is Organizational Trust Important?

7

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

WHAT IS THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST MODEL?
Organizational trust is not a simple and unified concept. It requires us to take multiple factors into consideration. To measure organizational trust, we need to assess five distinct dimensions. Four of these come from the Mishra Model for Organizational Trust (1996). They include the concepts of competence, openness and honesty, concern, and reliability. The fifth dimension, contributed by this study, is called "identification." The model tested in this research (depicted below) illustrates the relationships that were found among trust, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational effectiveness. Paths among the factors were statistically significant, and have very strong relationships. The five dimensions of the model are defined on the next page.

MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST, JOB SATISFACTION, AND EFFECTIVENESS

Concern for Employees .91* Openness & Honesty .31* .88*

Perceived Effectiveness

Identification

.84*

ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST
.84*

.80* Reliability .75* .83*

Competence

Job Satisfaction

8

*Indicates statistical significance (p < .01) in relationship between elements. Standardized path parameters range from 0 to 1.00. The higher the parameter, the stronger the path.

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Competence
Competence, as it relates to organizational trust, involves the extent to which we see not only our co-workers and leaders as being effective, but also our organization as a whole. It measures how strongly we believe that our organization will compete and survive in the marketplace.

Openness and Honesty
Openness and honesty are the words used most often when people are asked what contributes to organizational trust. This dimension involves not only the amount and accuracy of information that is shared, but also how sincerely and appropriate it is communicated.

What is the Organizational Trust Model?

Concern for Employees
Concern for employees includes the feelings of caring, empathy, tolerance, and safety that are exhibited when we are vulnerable in business activities. Sincere efforts to understand feelings contribute to high trust levels in any relationship.

Reliability
Reliability is determined by whether or not a co-worker, team, supplier, or organization acts consistently and dependably. In other words, can we count on them to do what they say?

Identification
Identification measures the extent to which we hold common goals, norms, values, and beliefs associated with our organization’s culture. This dimension indicates how connected we feel to management and to co-workers.

9

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND INDEX
For several years a team of researchers at the University of Colorado and in Italy (Pamela ShockleyZalabak, Donald Morley, Ruggero Cesaria, and Kathleen Ellis) have been examining relationships among international organizational communication, culture, a variety of work satisfactions, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. The importance of organizational trust became increasingly evident in their work. The Organizational Trust Index (OTI) was developed using 232 items from the previous work of Shockley-Zalabak, Morley, Cesaria, and Ellis and with the addition of trust-related items identified in current research and in focus groups conducted in both the U.S.A. and Europe. The survey was translated into English, Italian, Spanish, and Chinese. Validation studies were conducted via the World Wide Web and on paper. A total of 53 organizations are represented in the database. Normative comparisons were made from the database which includes data from the U.S.A. (25 states), Italy (11 cities), Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bombay, and Taiwan. The database contains responses from approximately 4,000 supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. The industries represented in the database include banking, telecommunications, manufacturing, computer software and hardware, education, and sales/customer service. Company sizes ranged from approximately 100 to 146,000. Some of the participating companies include: Academy School District #20, Colorado Accelerated Solutions, Ltd. Allied Signal American Association of Retired Persons Banca Populare Pugliese Bristol-Myers Squibb Butera e Partners Checks Unlimited Chen Hsong Machinery Taiwan Co., L.T.D. Colorado First Commercial Mortgage Convex CPS Systems, Inc. Dayton Hudson Corporation The Dow Chemical Company Environmental Resources Management Italia (ERM) Equilon Finsiel Hewlett Packard Holiday Inn ISI Italtel Tecnomeccanica

10

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

J.D. Edwards World Solutions JTM Billing Associates Life Investors Insurance Company of America Lifetouch NSS Lots a’ Bagels Lynn Health Science Institute McDonald’s Medical College of Virginia Hospitals Memorial Hospital Motorola NASA New Century Energies Oklahoma City University Oracle Corporation Overhead Door P.E.T. Net Pharmaceutical Services Pikes Peak United Way Pingtung Taiwan, City Government Pingtung Travel Rutco Enterprises School District 12, Colorado Target Stores TMI Pasta TRACOM Group UCCSA University of Colorado at Colorado Springs United States Air Force USIBWC Western Economic Diversification Canada Widefield School District #3, Colorado The 29-item OTI was tested and validated using LISREL 8 software for confirmatory factor analysis. Rigorous statistical testing demonstrated that the instrument is both reliable and valid internationally. Alpha reliability for the 29-item OTI was excellent at .95, indicating that the instrument is stable over time and internally and externally consistent. Alpha reliabilities for the five subscales, each of which measures one dimension of trust, were also excellent, ranging from .85 to .90. Results of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling provided strong evidence that the OTI is valid. In other words, the instrument measures what it claims to measure – organizational trust. The five dimensions of organizational trust did not differ by geographic culture or industry type. Results strongly support a model which indicates that concern for employees, openness and honesty, identification, reliability, and competence are strong predictors of job satisfaction, which in turn influences perceptions of organizational effectiveness.

Development of Survey and Index

11

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST SURVEY
Instructions: Following are statements about your organization. Please circle the response that best indicates the extent to which the statement describes the current state of your organization.

How much the statement describes my organization:
1 VERY LITTLE 2 LITTLE 3 SOME 4 GREAT 5 VERY GREAT

1. I can tell my immediate supervisor when things are going wrong. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2. My immediate supervisor follows through with what he/she says. 3. I am highly satisfied with the organization’s overall efficiency of operation. 4. My immediate supervisor listens to me. 5. I feel connected to my peers. 6. I am free to disagree with my immediate supervisor. 7. Top management is sincere in their efforts to communicate with employees. 8. My immediate supervisor behaves in a consistent manner from day to day. 9. I feel connected to my organization. 10. I am highly satisfied with the overall quality of the products and/or services of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I have a say in decisions that affect my job. 1 1 1 1 1
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5

12. My immediate supervisor keeps confidences. 5 5 5 5 13. I receive adequate information regarding how well I am doing in my job. 14. I am highly satisfied with the capacity of the organization to achieve its objectives. 15. I receive adequate information regarding how I am being evaluated.

12

How much the statement describes my organization:
1 VERY LITTLE 2 LITTLE 3 SOME 4 GREAT 5 VERY GREAT

16. Top management listens to employees’ concerns. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 17. Top management keeps their commitments to employees. 18. I am highly satisfied with the capability of the organization’s employees. 19. I feel connected to my immediate supervisor. 20. I receive adequate information regarding how my job-related problems are handled. 21. My immediate supervisor is concerned about my personal well being. 22. My values are similar to the values of my peers.

Organizational Trust Survey

23. I receive adequate information regarding how organizational decisions are made that affect my job. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 24. Top management is concerned about employees’ well being. 25. My immediate supervisor keeps his/her commitments to team members. 26. My values are similar to the values of my immediate supervisor. 27. I receive adequate information regarding the long-term strategies of my organization. 28. My immediate supervisor is sincere in his/her efforts to communicate with team members. 5 5 29. My immediate supervisor speaks positively about subordinates in front of others.

13

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

SCORING THE ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST SURVEY
For each organizational trust dimension, average the scores for each question and record in the spaces provided below. To calculate your organization’s overall score, write the "Dimension Total" of each dimension in the appropriate blank. Total these scores and divide by 29. Again, the scale is: 1 = Very little 2 = Little 3 = Some 4 = Great 5 = Very Great

Dimension One: Competence
Item 3 10 14 18 Dimension Total My Organization’s Score _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

Dimension Two: Openness/Honesty
Item 1 6 11 12 13 15 20 23 27 My Organization’s Score __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________

Average Dimension Score (Total/4) _____________

Dimension Total __________________ Average Dimension Score (Total/9) __________________

14

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Dimension Three: Concern for Employees
Item 4 7 16 21 24 28 29 Dimension Total Average Dimension Score (Total/7) My Organization’s Score __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

Dimension Four: Reliability
Item 2 8 17 25 Dimension Total Average Dimension Score (Total/4) My Organization’s Score __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Scoring the Trust Survey

Dimension Five: Identification
Item 5 9 19 22 26 Dimension Total Average Dimension Score (Total/5) My Organization’s Score __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

Overall Organizational Trust
Dimension Competence Openness/Honesty Concern Reliability Identification Overall My Organization’s Score __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

15

Average Overall Trust (Total/29) __________

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

COMPARING YOUR ORGANIZATION TO ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE WORLD
Complete the following report, which gathers detailed information about your organization. In the far left column is each survey item. This is followed by the "MEAN," the "SD" (standard deviation), and "N" (number of respondents) for your organization and for all other organizations surveyed. These scores compare your organization to others.

Mean:
The mean score represents the average of all responses to the item on a 5-point scale, where 1 = very little and 5 = very great. The higher the mean, the higher the trust level. These are the same averages you figured on the previous score sheet.

Standard Deviation (SD):
The standard deviation, a statistic readily available in spreadsheet, database, and statistical packages, indicates the amount of variability around the mean. This is an indication of the spread of the scores and can be interpreted as the extent to which a group of individuals agree or disagree with the average response of the group. A large SD indicates little agreement with the calculated mean. A small SD indicates that most respondents have scored the item fairly close to the mean. In general, SDs greater than 1.00 on a 1-5 scale indicate that organizational members disagree widely on their responses. For example, some answer 1 (very little) and others answer 3, 4, or 5 for the same item. SDs of less than 1.00 indicate more agreement of organizational members on the item. The smaller the SD, the more agreement on the response. The larger the SD, the less agreement on the response.

Number (N):
N represents the total number of respondents who answered the question. Because questions were developed over a period of years, the number of respondents in other organizations varies for each question, with older questions having a large number of responses and newer questions having fewer responses.

Key Point:
It is important to keep in mind that these scores have no meaning in and of themselves. Organizational members must give them meaning through dialogue. The next sections of this manual will help your organization do this.

16

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST INDEX
YOUR ORGANIZATION COMPARED TO ALL OTHERS SURVEYED
YOUR ORGANIZATION ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Dimension One: COMPETENCE
3. I am highly satisfied with the organization's overall efficiency of operation.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.69 0.99 3368

10. I am highly satisfied with the overall quality of the products/ services of the organization.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.86 0.90 2834

14. I am highly satisfied with the capacity of the organization to achieve its objectives.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.97 0.98 3356

18. I am highly satisfied with the capability of the organization's employees.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.36 0.82 2755

17

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

COMPETENCE DIMENSION OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 3.01 0.78 3383 Organizational Trust Index

Dimenstion Two: OPENNESS AND HONESTY
1. I can tell my immediate supervisor when things are going wrong.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.36 1.07 3086

6. I am free to disagree with my immediate supervisor.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.20 1.09 3082

11. I have a say in decisions that affect my job.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.99 1.09 3092

12. My immediate supervisor keeps confidences.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.69 1.19

18
260

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION 13. I receive adequate information regarding how well I am doing in my job. Mean __________ SD N 15. I receive adequate information regarding how I am being evaluated. __________ __________

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

2.44 1.02 3356

Organizational Trust Index

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.07 1.05 3370

20. I receive adequate information regarding how my job-related problems are handled.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.27 0.95 3137

23. I receive adequate information regarding how organizational decisions are made that affect my job.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

1.94 0.99 3529

27. I receive adequate information regarding the long-term strategies of my organization.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.09 1.08 3536

19

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

OPENNESS AND HONESTY DIMENSION OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 2.54 0.72 3590 Organizational Trust Index

Dimension Three: CONCERN FOR EMPLOYEES
4. My immediate supervisor listens to me. Mean __________ SD N 7. Top management is sincere in its efforts to communicate with employees. __________ __________ 3.20 1.13 3078

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.16 1.06 3064

16. Top management listens to employees' concerns.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.92 1.20 283

21. My immediate supervisor is concerned about my personal well being.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.57 1.26 276

20

24. Top management is concerned about employees' well being.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.95 1.22 271

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION 28. My immediate supervisor is sincere in his/her efforts to communicate with team members. Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

3.70 1.20 279 Organizational Trust Index

29. My immediate supervisor speaks positively about subordinates in front of others. Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.41 1.19 266

CONCERN FOR EMPLOYEES DIMENSION OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 2.68 0.89 3098

Dimension Four: RELIABILITY
2. My immediate supervisor follows through with what he/she says. Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 3.53 1.16 278

8.

My immediate supervisor behaves in a consistent manner from day to day.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.61 1.19 282

21

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION 17. Top management keeps their commitments to employees.

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

2.96 1.14 279 Organizational Trust Index

25. My immediate supervisor keeps his/her commitments to team members.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.62 1.13 278

RELIABILITY DIMENSION OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 3.43 0.97 288

Dimension Five: IDENTIFICATION
5. I feel connected to my peers. Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 3.42 1.07 278

9.

I feel connected to my organization.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.31 1.12

22
281

19. I feel connected to my immediate supervisor.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.44 1.20 277

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

YOUR ORGANIZATION 22. My values are similar to the values of my peers.

ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.23 1.08 271 Organizational Trust Index

26. My values are similar to the values of my immediate supervisor.

Mean __________ SD N __________ __________

3.37 1.20 264

IDENTIFICATION DIMENSION OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 3.36 0.93 287

ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST OVERALL
Mean __________ SD N __________ __________ 2.70 0.66 3592

23

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ANALYZING YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
To begin to analyze your results, look for two things about your organization: • Areas of Strength • Areas for Improvement To prepare for this analysis, make copies of Forms 1 and 2 located on page 27 and 28 of this manual.

Areas of Strength – Form 1
1. From the Organizational Trust Index, find the two or three survey items with the highest mean scores for each of the five dimensions of organizational trust. 2. Write the number and key words from the statement of each survey item in the first column, labeled "Organizational Trust Item #". 3. Record the mean score for each survey item you selected in the second column, labeled "High Average Score." 4. Place a check in the third column, labeled "Strong Comparison to Other Organizations," for any item that has a higher average score than the other organizations surveyed. 5. As a result of discussions with others or in specific sessions to facilitate survey feedback (see page 25), place a check in fourth column, labeled "Most Important," for the top three to five items across all dimensions of organizational trust. 6. Rank the top three to five items in the fifth column, labeled "Highest Priority."

Areas for Improvement – Form 2
7. From the Organizational Trust Index, find the two or three survey items with the lowest average scores for each of the five dimensions of organizational trust. 8. Write the number and key words from the statement of each survey item in the first column, labeled "Organizational Trust Item #”. 9. Record the mean score for each survey item you selected in the second column, labeled "Low Average Score." 10. Place a check in the third column, labeled "Weak Comparison to Other Organizations," for any item that has a lower average score than all other organizations. 11. As a result of discussions with others or in specific sessions to facilitate survey feedback, place a check in the fourth column, labeled "Most Important," for the top three to five items across all dimensions of organizational trust. 12. Rank the top three to five items in the fifth column, labeled "Highest Priority."

24

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

FACILITATING SURVEY FEEDBACK
When facilitating survey feedback, the goal is to help participants in a focus group or a team talk about and give meaning to the survey data. Another goal is to guide participants into defining, developing, and implementing action plans for building or reinforcing trust.

1. Introduction:
As participants enter the room, have them record words that they associate with organizational trust and organizational effectiveness on large self-sticking note paper. Have the participants read their notes, clustering common ones on a flip chart. Ask the participants to identity themes across these word associations.

2. Purpose and Objectives:
State that the purpose of the feedback session is to read and analyze data, and form an action plan regarding the patterns of strength and areas to improve for organizational trust and effectiveness.

3. Reading the Organizational Trust Index:
Explain the survey process used in your organization and the five dimensions of organizational trust. Show and describe the layout of the information. Define each of the scores: mean, standard deviation, and number.

4. Analyzing and Discussing the Organizational Results:
Guide the participants in selecting areas of strength and areas that need improvement. You may choose to have participants collectively prioritize strengths and improvement areas. Make copies of Forms 1 and 2 and facilitate the participants through the steps.

5. Creating Action Plans for Trust:
Lead the participants in creating action plans for improving or reinforcing the top priority items for organizational trust and effectiveness. Make copies of Forms 3 and 4 (pages 29 and 30), and facilitate the participants through the steps on the next page.

25

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

CREATING ACTION PLANS FOR TRUST
Step 1 – Area to Reinforce or Improve:
Write a definition and description of the area for reinforcement or improvement. Facilitating Survey Feedback

Step 2 – Analysis of Factors:
Brainstorm factors that contribute to or inhibit effectiveness in the area. Draw arrows of different lengths and thickness for each factor, creating a visual image of the contributing and inhibiting forces associated with the selected area for reinforcement or improvement.

Step 3 – Action Items:
Brainstorm, select, and prioritize action items that can reinforce or improve the area.

Step 4 – Who:
Identify who needs to be involved or be responsible for an action item.

Step 5 – By When:
Agree upon a deadline for completing each action item.

Step 6 – Resources Needed:
Discuss resources that are needed, including those that are readily available and those that are not.

Step 7 – Constraints:
Identify barriers to the plan and strategize ways to manage them.

Step 8 – Assessment and Follow-up:
Define how the action plan will be assessed and how participants will complete follow up regarding the action plan.

Step 9 – Closure:
Ask each person to identify the most important thing they learned during the feedback session. Express your appreciation for everyone’s participation.

26

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ANALYZING ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
Areas of Strength Form 1
Organizational Trust Item # Competence High Average Score Strong Comparison Other Organizations Analysis Form 1 Most Important Highest Priority

Openness & Honesty

Concern

Reliability

27
Indentification

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ANALYZING ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS
Areas of Improvement Form 2
Weak Comparison Other Organizations Analysis Form 2 Most Important Highest Priority

Organizational Trust Item # Competence

Low Average Score

Openness & Honesty

Concern

Reliability

28
Identification

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ACTION PLANNING GUIDE
Areas of Strength for Reinforcement Form 3
1. Area of Strength for Reinforcement: (Define and Describe) Analysis Form 3

2. Analysis of Factors: (Brainstorm and Weight) Contributing Factors

Inhibiting Factors

3. Action Items: (Brainstorm, Select, and Prioritize)

4. Who

5. By When

6. Resources Needed

7. Constraints

29

8. Assessment and Follow-up

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ACTION PLANNING GUIDE
Areas for Improvement Form 4
1. Area to Improve: (Define and Describe) Analysis Form 4

2. Analysis of Factors: (Brainstorm and Weight) Contributing Factors

Inhibiting Factors

3. Action Items: (Brainstorm, Select, and Prioritize)

4. Who

5. By When

6. Resources Needed

7. Constraints

30

8. Assessment and Follow-up

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE REVIEW
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND DISTRUST: Similarities and Differences in Organizations and Industries Across the World
Although acknowledged by scholars and practitioners alike as important for all aspects of organizational life, the issue of trust remains both complex and ambiguous. The following review of research related to organizational trust explores definitional complexity, relates trust to global organizational environments, examines trust and a variety of cultural dimensions, reviews the research on trust and interorganizational relations, relates trust to organizational effectiveness, explores the relationship of trust to job satisfaction, and finally, examines the dimensions of organizational trust on which this research is based.

Definitional Issues
In a time of increased imperatives for change and less certainty about how change can and should occur, it is not surprising that a renewed interest in trust surfaces as scholars and practitioners alike seek to understand relationships between cooperative behaviors and organizational abilities to innovate and adapt to change (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). A general consensus among researchers concludes that trust is important in a range of organizational activities and processes such as team work, leadership, goal setting, performance appraisal, and, in general, cooperative behaviors (Axelrod, 1984; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Gambetta, 1988; Jones & George, 1998; Mayer, David, & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995). Less agreement exists around definitional issues and how trust forms, evolves, and changes through organizational communication and organizational experiences. In recent years, definitions of trust have moved from emphasis on intentions and motivations to behavioral orientations. Hosmer (1995), for example, views trust as one party’s optimistic expectations of the behavior of another when the party must make a decision about how to act under conditions of vulnerability and dependence. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) describe trust as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (p. 712). Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies (1998) define trust as confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct, while distrust is confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct. Bhattacharya, Devinney, and Pillutla (1998) suggest that trust is an expectancy of positive (or nonnegative) outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an interaction characterized by uncertainty. Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) merge several existing definitional approaches reflecting three basic facets of trust: (1) trust in another party reflects an expectation or belief that the other party will act benevolently; (2) a party cannot control or force another party to fulfill the expectation – that is, trust involves a willingness to be vulnerable and risk; and (3) trust involves some level of dependency on the other party so that the outcomes of one party are influenced by the actions of another. Mishra (1996) defines trust as "one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the latter party
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

31

is (a) competent, (b) open, (c) concerned, and (d) reliable" (p. 265). These four dimensions operate collectively to create the perception of trust. Fukuyama (1995), in focusing on trust across cultures in international economic exchanges, defines trust as "the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms on the part of other members of that community" (p. 26). In defining trust in an organizational context, Cummings and Bromiley (1996) anchor their definition in the assertion that trust involves three components of belief (affective, cognitive, and intended behavior) and three dimensions of trust (whether an individual keeps commitments, negotiates honestly, and avoids taking excessive advantage). In developing one of the few current empirical assessments of organizational trust, they define trust as integrating their three dimensions and three components: "Trust will be defined as an individual’s belief among a group of individuals that another individual or group (a) makes good-faith efforts to behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit or implicit; (b) is honest in whatever negotiations preceded such commitments; and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another even when the opportunity is available" (p. 303). Taken as a whole, the foregoing definitions suggest that uncertainty, dependency, influence, and behavior expectations undergird perceptions of trust. Therefore, in this current work, trust is viewed as positive expectations about the intent and behaviors of others based on roles, relationships, experiences, and interdependencies.

Literature Review

Trust and Global Organizational Environments: International Business
In today’s global economy, virtual connections are commonplace, increasing, and of growing importance for both individuals and organizations. In these telemediated relationships, often reflecting national and cultural differences, transactions based on trust among strangers are accomplished. Coleman (1988) has referred to these telemediated relationships as spontaneous sociability relying on social capital or the ability to form trusting relationships. Fukuyama (1995) suggests that organizational relationships among diverse strangers are made possible with social capital anchored in relationships of trust. Fukuyama (1995) describes the relationship of social capital to economic exchange, "Social capital, the crucible of trust and critical to the health of an economy, rests on cultural roots" (p. 33). Unlike other forms of human capital, such as intellectual capital, which result from education, social capital emerges from cultural processes, such as religion, rituals, and tradition. Therefore, Fukuyama proposes that "the ability of companies to move from large hierarchies to flexible networks of smaller firms will depend on the degree of trust in the social capital in the broader society" (p. 25). On a global and international level, research generally supports the proposition that different national and or regional cultures will be successful to varying degrees in their ability to provide a context for the economic demand of spontaneous sociability. Fukuyama (1995), for example, views the societal cultures of Japan and the United States as examples of economic systems that already exemplify the ability to support spontaneous sociability.
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

32

This is shown by their multi-national alliances and diverse network of business transactions. Other societal cultures such as China, Italy, and France historically have been characterized by economic systems relying on familial or clan-based relationships for economic transactions of trust. Doney, Cannon, and Mullen (1998) have noted the influence of societal or national culture on trust. Kiong and Kee (1998) and Tsang (1998) have explored how some cultures, especially in China, are not conducive to the types of business networks needed in a global economy. For example, these researchers point out that in China one contributing factor lies in the importance and complex nature of "guanxi" or good connections, especially among familial relations for economic transactions. In this societal context, the impetus for business partnerships is culture-driven rather than market-driven. Fukuyama (1995), in referring to similar societal contexts, concludes that connections, clans, and familial-based partnerships as trust-based relationships do not readily foster a spontaneous, or virtual, network of transactions among unfamiliar, diverse business partners. However, Fukuyama considers spontaneous and virtual networks as a necessity for the global marketplace of the 21st century.

Literature Review

Trust and Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede (1984, 1991) was among the first to describe dimensions of culture based on national identifications. His pioneering work identified dimensions of national culture such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Subsequently scholars have utilized these dimensions to better understand the dynamics of a variety of international business relationships including a variety of trust processes. For example, Harris and Moran (1996), employing the Hofstede dimensions, suggest the influence of national cultures in organizational life is far more than superficial, complicating the development and maintenance of trusting relationships. According to Harris and Moran, those engaged in international collaborative opportunities must not only learn customs, courtesies, and business protocols, but must seek to understand the national character that supports the mind sets of the people. Adler (1997) cautions that cross-cultural miscommunication frequently results from subconscious cultural blinders which result from the lack of conscious attention to cultural assumptions. Additionally, Adler suggests that many lack cultural self-awareness based on an ignorance associated with not knowing one’s own cultural conditioning and projecting on others a similarity that is unwarranted. Kirkman and Shapiro (1997), in extending the work of Hofstede (1984, 1991) and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), describe how cultural value differences impact a variety of managerial initiatives including, in particular, moves to self-management and global self-managing teams. Maruyama (1984) and Adler (1997) provide linkages among national cultural values, cognitive blueprints for interpreting the world, differences in the very structure of perceiving, thinking, and reasoning, and trust. Adler addresses the consideration for the nature of the individual as good or evil and relates those considerations to trust. Some societies see people as mixtures of good and evil; other cultures see people as basically evil or as basically good. Adler contends trust is associated with these world views. Fukuyama

33

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

(1995) relates societal approaches to communal life with how much trust exists among its members. Parkhe (1998) in an explanation and extension of Fukuyama suggests: Higher trust societies include Japan, Germany, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the U.S. These countries enjoy relatively high levels of ‘social capital,’ ‘spontaneous sociability,’ and trust. People tend to form and join a range of voluntary organizations, from sports societies to religious groups. These in turn prepare citizens to work cooperatively in large, private companies that are able to amass capital and develop technologies efficiently, leading to high economic performance and the creation of prosperity. In contrast, citizens of lower trust societies such as Italy, China, and France tend to avoid people who are not part of their immediate families, thus crippling attempts to build large, private business organizations. Whereas high-trust societies benefit from their lower costs in forming large enterprises, low-trust societies confront higher costs that impede the formation of such enterprises. Persons from low- versus high-trust countries are likely to focus on subtle but important differences in criteria in evaluating partners and partnerships. For example, persons from low-trust societies tend to assess alliances more on person-specific trust, where socio-psychological factors play a larger role (p. 230-231).

Literature Review

Trust and Interorganizational Relations
New organizational forms and relationships frequently rely on collaboration with other organizations. Clegg and Hardy (1996) conclude, "Collaboration often depends upon trusting relationships between partners. Trust serves to reduce uncertainty and the likelihood of cheating in ways that contracts cannot.Trust thus reduces complexity by ensuring that the social system is based on mutual expectations about actors’ future behaviour, encouraging social actors to select specific options of social action and reaction. The basic function of coordinating social interaction is achieved, and cooperation, rather than opportunistic behaviour is the result" (p. 678). Ring and Van de Ven (1992) suggest that reliance on trust by organizations can be expected to emerge between business partners only after they have successfully completed transactions in the past and they perceive one another as complying with norms of equity. Other scholars (Blumer, 1971; Laumann & Knoke, 1987; Pasquero, 1991; Rainey, 1983; and Waddock, 1989) describe the initiation of collaborative activities where partners have very different goals, values and ideologies, resulting in problematic processes to understand the dynamics of building trust. Still others (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Geertz, 1973; and Schutz, 1970) contend that interorganizational trust and other trust relationships might be better conceptualized as communicative, sense-making processes.

Trust and Organizational Effectiveness
A plethora of research relates enhanced networks of trust to general conceptualizations of organizational effectiveness. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998), in synthesizing much of this work, conclude networks of trust hold important implications for the ability to participate in virtual networks, adaptive organizational forms, crisis management, productive conflict, and decreased transaction costs. Specifically, high levels of organizational trust have been associated with (a) more adaptive organizational forms and structures (Barnes, 1983; Bennis & Bierderman, 1997; Crawford, 1998; Dwivedi, 1983; Miles & Snow, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), (b) strategic alliances (Das & Teng, 1998; Ingham & Mothe, 1998; Jones & Bowie, 1998;
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All right reserved.

34

Rule & Koewn, 1998), (c) responsive virtual teams (Coutu, 1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), and (d) effective crisis management (Mishra, 1996; Webb, 1996). High levels of organizational trust can critically reduce litigation charges (Brockner & Siegel, 1996) and transaction costs (Gibbs & Gibson, 1998; Maccoby, 1998; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). This results because high-trust cultures minimize the potential for destructive and litigated conflict, unnecessary bureaucratic control and administrative expenditures, and expensive overhead required to sustain operations that have outlasted their need. Tsai and Ghoshal (1998), using data collected in a large multinational electronics company, examined relationships among the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of social capital and between those dimensions and the patterns of resource exchange and product innovation within the company. Their findings supported a complex set of processes where social interaction (a manifestation of the structural dimension of social capital) and trust (a manifestation of social capital’s relational dimension) were significantly related to the extent of interunit resource exchange, which in turn had a significant effect on product innovation. Finally, in a cross-country investigation of the relationship of social capital to economic performance, Knack and Keefer (1997) found that trust and civic norms are related to measurable economic performance. Specifically, Knack and Keefer found that trust and civic norms are stronger in nations with higher and more equal incomes, with institutions that restrain predatory actions of chief executives, and with better-educated and ethnically homogeneous populations. Their work did not support previous findings that related memberships in formal groups to trust or with improved economic performance.

Literature Review

Trust, Communication Exchanges, and Job Satisfaction
Although not specifically referenced in the above definitions and processes, communication is inferred as central to the behavioral dimensions of trust processes. The research generally supports (a) accurate information, (b) explanations for decisions, and (c) openness as communication factors affecting perceptions of trustworthiness and overall job satisfaction. Previous research suggests that information flow has the strongest relationship with trust in supervisor (Muchinsky, 1977; O'Reilly, 1977; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1974, 1977). Adequate explanations and timely feedback on decisions are associated with higher levels of trust, as is communication that is accurate and forthcoming (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996). Butler (1991) found that managers who freely exchanged thoughts and ideas with their employees enhanced overall perceptions of trust. The majority of recent work relating trust to types of organizational relationships deals directly with managers and their immediate direct reports. Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) conclude five categories of behavior capture the variety of factors that influence employees' perceptions of managerial/supervisory trustworthiness: behavioral consistency, behavioral integrity, sharing and delegation of control, communication, and demonstration of concern. Finally, communication and trust have both been linked to a range of perceptions of overall job satisfaction (Barnard, 1938;

35

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Clampitt & Downs, 1983; Goldhaber, Yates, Porter, & Lesniak, 1978; Lewis, Cummings & Long, 1981; Morley, Shockley-Zalabak, & Cesaria, 1997; Pincus, 1986; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1994).

Dimensions of Organizational Trust
As the foregoing research review suggests, the nature of organizational trust is complex, communication-based, dynamic, multi-faceted, and not adequately understood across cultures. A review of diverse literatures suggests no single approach or discipline dominates the inquiry into trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). If trust is to be measured across national cultures and industries, the model selected must reflect multiple dimensions, not a single unified one. Congruent with this perspective, Mishra’s (1996) definition and model for organizational trust identifies four distinct dimensions broadly supported in various literatures: competence, openness, concern, and reliability. An additional dimension, identification, is proposed in this research as an addition to the Mishra model based on a review of the communication and job satisfaction literature. This fifth dimension highlights the importance of whether or not organizational members associate with an organization’s goals, values, norms, and beliefs. Recently, several researchers have suggested the cultural resilience that sustains high trust in organizations is closely linked with the concepts of associability (Leana & Van Buren, 1999) and identification (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999). In other words, if individuals associate or identify with an organization’s goals, norms, values, and beliefs, they are more likely to attribute higher levels of trust to the organization. The following is a discussion of five dimensions of an expanded version of Mishra’s (1996) model for organizational trust. Literature Review

Competence Dimension
The first dimension of organizational trust is competence (Mishra, 1996). As applied to organizational trust, competence is a generalized perception that assumes the effectiveness not only of the leadership, but also of the organization’s ability to survive in the marketplace. At an organizational level, competence connects with the extent to which employees see the organization as effective: whether it will survive and be able to compete (Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). Today, having faith in an organization’s competence might include faith in its ability to deliver quality products or services, to compete dynamically, to survive in an ever-changing global economy, or to embrace disruptive technological developments, such as e-business (Christensen, 1997; Collins & Porras, 1994). In other words, a firm might exemplify the dimensions of organizational trust such as openness or caring, but if it does not have the expertise or competence to embrace new technology to remain competitive, its ability to engender trust with its employees, customers, and business partners would be diminished. The competence dimension of organizational trust also refers to the extent that employees have confidence in the competence of their organization’s leadership (Barnes, 1983; Dwivedi, 1983). This refers not only to leadership at the top management level, but also at the supervisory and co-worker levels. Here, workers judge whether their supervisors and

36

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

co-workers are competent – and therefore, trustworthy. At a general level, Gabarro (1987) links the perception of competence to trust. With regard to leadership, competence can encompass such qualities as intelligence and clarity of thinking, great communication skills, and a focus on "doing the right things right" (Neff & Critin, 1999). Overall, Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak (1999) have found that trust in the top management level of an organization, compared to trust in lower levels, is the most critical factor that correlates with perceived work satisfaction and organizational effectiveness.

Literature Review

Openness Dimension
The second dimension of Mishra's (1996) model of organizational trust is openness. This dimension is referred to the most frequently. At an organizational level, perceptions of openness and honesty have been linked to trust (Gabarro, 1987; Ouchi, 1981). To verify this link further, Butler (1991) found that openness was an empirical measure for trust. Employees are most likely to hold trust in their organization when they see the organizational leadership as open and honest (Atwater, 1988; Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Nanus, 1989; Schutz, 1994; Whitener, Brodt, Karsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Significantly, Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak (1999) found it is not just the amount of information shared, but whether or not the leadership’s efforts are perceived as being sincere. And while openness and sincerity are important among all levels (top management, supervisors, and co-workers), the perception of trust in top management had more predictive power for whether or not followers had trust in the organization as a whole. With regard to openness with sincerity, Cooper & Sawaf (1996) build upon the concept that effective leaders in an organization need to model emotional intelligence, as defined by Goleman (1995, 1998). With increased self-awareness, effective leaders communicate with increased authenticity, which leads to enhanced credibility. This authenticity and credibility contribute to their ability to foster a "trust radius," building a network of trusting relationships where openness and honesty are the social norm for membership (Cooper & Sawaf, 1996; Fairholm, 1994). And as French and Raven (1968) argued, a network of relationships based upon "referent power" – who do you know and trust, and who knows you and trusts you – generates one of the strongest sources for power and influence. In such networks, members share information with increased accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness. Organizations with communication networks of referent trust, where decisions can be made based upon effective exchange of information, can better respond to crisis, changes, or challenges in a corporate landscape. When an organization’s leadership exemplifies behaviors associated with openness and honesty, it fosters effectiveness in teamwork. Empirically, Larson & LaFasto (1989) defined openness in teams as the strongest predictor of team effectiveness. They see openness in teams, along with caring, concern, and affection, as the behaviors that contribute most to the perception of team trust and effectiveness. Other researchers have also described the

37

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

importance of openness and honesty and information received as major contributors to team success (Bennis & Bierderman, 1997; Gibb, 1964; Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Schutz, 1994; Smith & Berg, 1987; Shockley-Zalabak and Morley, 1989; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1994; Shockley-Zalabak, Morley, & Cesaria, 1997). It is important to note, however, as Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) also emphasize, that openness and honesty alone are not enough. With openness comes responsibility and ethical behavior. First, responsibility has to do with "social deftness," the emotional intelligence to assess not only when openness is appropriate, but also how to communicate that openness (Cooper & Sawaf, 1996; Gibb, 1964; Goleman, 1995, 1998; Neff & Citrin, 1999; Schutz, 1994). Appropriate self-disclosure is inevitably intertwined with the development of self-awareness and social deftness. At an organizational level, trust is enhanced to the extent that an organization’s members, from co-workers to top management, demonstrate openness and honesty with practiced self-awareness and social deftness. These practices will build trust at interpersonal, team, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. Second, organizational trust requires the historical foundation of ethical behavior in its corporate relationships (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; and Hosmer, 1995). Without ethical behavior, organizational trust is severely diminished. Literature Review

Concern Dimension
As the previous discussion on openness stressed, sincerity and caring coupled with openness contribute to the perception of concern. This dimension occurs when organizational members perceive concern for them from their leadership. As a result, they have more trust in the organization. Cummings and Bromiley (1996) address concern as being demonstrated when a party, (whether a co-worker or the organization), does not take advantage when another party is vulnerable. Mishra (1996) describes concern as when one’s self-interests are balanced with others’ interests, whether at a team, organizational, or societal level. Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak (1999) directly linked sincerity to trust in all levels of management. Edmondson (1999) describes organizations where the culture and network of relationships, which is its social capital, exemplify psychological safety. In this context, members describe an environment of caring, empathy, and tolerance, in which a learning organization (Senge, 1990) can thrive. Here again, the importance of sincerity in communication also plays a critical role regarding the amount of trust that employees will give to an organization (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999). An attunement to feelings – caring and empathy – not only enhances team trust (Larson & LaFasto, 1989), but also enhances trust in top leadership (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999; Nanus, 1989), and subsequently, in the organization as a whole.

38

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Reliability Dimension
This dimension deals with the expectation for consistent and dependable behavior. Consistency and congruency between words and actions build trust. Inconsistencies and incongruencies decrease trust. This linkage of reliable behavior, or the matching of words to actions, to organizational trust is not new (McGregor, 1967; Ouchi, 1981). However, there have been new attempts to define in greater specificity the individual communication behaviors and their impact on perceptions of organizational trust, satisfaction, and effectiveness. For example, Gabarro (1987) explains how trust develops in working relationships as the result of a historical pattern of reliability across events and experiences. When studying the behavior of executives and top management, scholars see the congruence between what they do and what they expect and ask of their employees as having immense impact on credibility and organizational trust (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Nanus, 1989; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). The themes of reliability, dependability, and consistency also permeate the level of trust between an organization and its suppliers, customers, and business partners (Mishra, 1996). Literature Review

Identification Dimension
The fifth proposed dimension of organizational trust is identification. The concept of identification essentially is concerned with how individuals manage the paradox of separation (or is concerned with individuation) and association (affiliation) as an organizational member (Burke, 1954; Cheney 1983a, 1983b; Tompkins & Cheney, 1983). If members identify with an organization, they will be more likely to report higher levels of organizational trust and effectiveness. In contrast, if they feel more alienated from the organization, they are more apt to describe lower levels of organizational trust and effectiveness (Dwivedi, 1983; Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Morley & Shockley-Zalabak, 1991; Schall, 1983). This dimension of identification highlights that trust is inherently the result of communication behaviors and interpretative processes (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999). Through a generalized perception of identification – affiliation and association – with an organization, leaders and members will be more likely to communicate with increased trust than without this generalized view of common ground (Fukuyama, 1995; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). With increased communication, organizational members also share more accounts with each other, giving meaning to activities and fostering shared sense-making regarding events (Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Weick, 1995). This management of meaning up and down through the organizational ranks or across inter-organizational partnerships will determine the amount of shared meaning in the organization (Burke, 1954). With increased shared meaning, organizational members will identify more with the organization and, thereby, will contribute to higher levels of trust in the organization. From these sense-making activities, organizational members then generate opportunities to examine the extent to which they share and identify with the goals, values, norms, and beliefs associated with organizational culture (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999; Morley & Shockley-Zalabak, 1991; Schall, 1993; Schein, 1985; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989, 1994; Shockley-Zalabak, Morley, & Cesaria, 1997.) When this depth of identification occurs, organizational trust and organizational effectiveness prosper.
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

39

SUGGESTED READINGS
Adler, N. J. "International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior." Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 1997 Atwater, L. E. "The Relative Importance of Situational and Individual Variables in Predicting Leader Behavior: The Surprising Impact of Subordinate Trust." Group and Organizational Studies, 13 (1988): 290-310. Axelrod, R. "The Evolution of Cooperation." New York, NY: Basic Books, 1984. Barnard, C. "The Function of the Executive." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Barnes, L.B. "Managing the Paradox of Organizational Trust." Harvard Business Review, March-April 1983: 107-116. Bennis, W., & Bierderman, P. W. "Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. "The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge." Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. "A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 459-472. Blumer, H. "Social Problems as Collective Behaviour." Social Problems, 19 (1971): 298-306. Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. G. "The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust: Resolving Uncertainty in the Face of Risk." Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships. R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel Eds. Oxford, UK: Basin Blackwell, 1991. Boss, R.W. "Trust and Managerial Problem-Solving Revisited." Group and Organizational Studies, 3 (1978): 331-342. Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. "Relationships and Unethical behavior: A Social Network Perspective." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 14-31. Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. "Understanding the Interaction between Procedural and Distributive Justice: The Role of Trust." Trust in Organizations: Frontier of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyle, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Burke, K. "Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose." Los Altos, CA: Hermes, 1954.

40

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Butler, J.K., Jr "Towards Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of Conditions for Trust Inventory." Journal of Management, 17 (1991): 643-663. Christensen, C. M. "The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail." Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. "Communication and Productivity." Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, November, Washington, D.C., 1983. Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. "Handbook of Organization Studies." London: Sage, 1996. Coleman, J. S. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988 Supplement): S95-S120. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. "Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies." New York: Harper Business, 1994. Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. "Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations." New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1996. Coovert, M. D., Penner, L. A., & MacCallum, R. "Covariance Structure Modeling in Personality and Social Psychological Research." Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology. C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990: 185-216. Coutu, D.L. "Organization: Trust in Virtual Teams." Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998: 20-21. Crawford, D. "A Matter of Trust." British Journal of Administrative Management, November 1998: 240. Cummings, L.L., & Bromiley, P. "The Organizational Trust Inventory: Development and Validation." Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. 302-330. Das, T.K. & Teng, B. "Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 491-512. Doney, P.M., Cannon, P., & Mullen, M. R. "Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 601-620. Dwivedi, R.S. "Management by Trust: A Conceptual Model." Group and Organizational Studies, 8 (1983): 375-402. Edmondson, A. "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams." Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1999): 350-383.
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Suggested Readings

41

Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. "Betrayal of Trust in Organizations." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 547-566. Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1999) "Communicating with Management: Relating Trust to Job Satisfaction and Organizational Effectiveness." Paper presented at National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL, November, 1999. Fairholm, G. "Leadership and the Culture of Trust." Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. "Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions." Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1989): 115-130. French, J.R., & Raven, B. "The Bases of Social Power." Group Dynamics: Research and Theory." Dorwin Cartwright & Alvin Zander, Eds. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Fukuyama, F. "Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity." New York: Free Press, 1995. Gabarro, J. "The Dynamics of Taking Charge." Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987. Gambetta, D. G., Ed. "Can We Trust, Trust?" New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Geertz, C. "The Interpretation of Cultures." New York: Harper Collins, 1973. Gibb, J. R. "Climate for Trust Formation." T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method. Leland Bradford, Jack Gibb, & Kenneth Benne, Eds. New York: Wiley, 1964. Gibb, J.R. "Trust: A New View of Personal and Organizational Development." Los Angeles: The Guild of Tutors Press, 1998. Gibbs, J., & Gibson, S. "Organizational Effectiveness." Internal Auditor, 55 (1998): 34-36. Goldhaber, G., Yates, M., Porter, D., & Lesniak, R. "Organizational Communication: 1978 State of the Art." Human Communication Research, 5 (1978): 76-96. Goleman, D. "Emotional Intelligence." New York: Bantam Books, 1995. Goleman, D. "Working with Emotional Intelligence." New York: Bantam Books, 1998.

Suggested Readings

42

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Golembiewski, R.T., & McConkie, M. "The Centrality of Interpersonal Trust in Group Processes." Theories of Group Processes. Gary Cooper, Ed. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1975. Handy, C. "Trust and the Virtual Organization." Harvard Business Review, May-June 1998: 40-50. Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. "Managing Cultural Differences." Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1996. Hofstede, G. "Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values." Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984. Hofstede, G. "Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind." New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. Hosmer, L. T. "Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics." Academy of Management Review, 20 (1995): 379-402. Ingham, M., & Mothe, C. "How to Learn in R & D Partnerships?" R & D Management, 28 (1998): 249-261. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D.E. "Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams." Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (1998): 29-64. Jones, T.M. & Bowie, N.E. "Moral Hazards on the Road to the ‘Virtual’ Corporation." Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (1998): 273-292. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. "The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 531-546. Kiong, T. C., & Kee, Y. P. "Guanxi Bases, Xinyong and Chinese Business Networks." British Journal of Sociology, 49 (1998): 75-96. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. "The Impact of Cultural Values on Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of Globalized Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness." Academy of Management Review, 22 (1997): 730-757. Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?" Academy of Management Executive, 52 (1991): 48-60. Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. "Variations in Value Orientations." Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1961. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1997): 1251-1288.

Suggested Readings

43

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. "Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1991): 698-707. Kouzes, J. H., & Posner, B. Z. "The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations." San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987. Kramer, R.M., & Tyler, T.R. "Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, M. J. "TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong." Newberry Park, CA: Sage, 1989. Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. "The Organizational State." Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Leana, C.R., & Van Buren, H.J. "Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices." Academy of Management Review, 24 (1999), 538-555. Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, D.J. "Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 438-458. Lewis, M., Cummings, H., & Long, L. "Communication Activity as a Predictor of the Fit Between Worker Motivation and Worker Productivity." Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Mineapolis, MN, 1981. Maccoby, M. "Making Values Work." Research-Technology Management, 41 (1998): 55-57. Maslow, A. "Motivation and Personality." New York: Harper & Row, 1954. Maruyama, M. "Alternative Concepts of Management: Insights from Asia and Africa." Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1 (1984): p 100-111. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F.D. "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust." Academy Management Review, 20 (1995): 709-734. McAllister, D. J. "Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations." Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1995): 24-59. McGregor, D. "The Professional Manager." New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. "Swift Trust and Temporary Groups." Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Suggested Readings

44

Mishra, A.K. "Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust." Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Mishra, A.K. & Spreitzer, G.M. "Explaining How Survivors Respond to Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 567-588. Morley, D.D., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. "Setting the Rules: An Examination of the Influence of Organization Founders' Values." Management Communication Quarterly, 4 (1991): 422-449. Morley, D.D., Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Cesaria, R. "Organizational Communication and Culture: A Study of Ten Italian High-Technology Companies." The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (1997): 253-268. Muchinsky, P. M. "An Intraorganizational Analysis of the Roberts and O’Reilly Organizational Communication Questionnaire." Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1977): 184-188. Nanus, B. "The Leader’s Edge: The Seven Keys to Leadership in a Turbulent World." Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books, 1989. Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J.M. "Lessons from the Top: The Search for America’s Best Business Leaders." New York: Currency Doubleday, 1999. O’Reilly, III., C. A. "Supervisors and Peers as Information Sources, Group Supportiveness, and Individual Decision-Making Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1977): 632-635. O’Reilly, III., C. A., & Roberts, K. H. "Information Filtration in Organizations: Three Experiments." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (1974): 253-265. O’Reilly, III., C. A., & Roberts, K. H. "Task Group Structure Communication and Effectiveness in Three Organizations." Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1977): 674-681. Ouchi, W. G. "Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge." New York, NY: Avon, 1981. Parkhe, A. "Understanding Trust in International Alliances." Journal of World Business, 33 (1998): 219-240. Pasquero, J. "Superorganizational Collaboration: The Canadian Environmental Experiment." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (1991): 38-64. Pincus, J. "Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance." Human Communication Research, 12 (1986): 395-419. Rainey, H. G. "Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentive Structures, Goals, and Individual Roles." Administration and Society, 15 (1983): 207-242.
© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Suggested Readings

45

Rindskopf, D. "Latent Variable Models: Applications in Education." Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9 (1984): 104-121. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. "Structuring Cooperative Relationships Between Organizations." Strategic Management Journal, 13 (1992): 483-498. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. "Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 393-404. Rule, E., & Keown, S. "Competencies of High-Performing Strategic Alliances." Strategy and Leadership, 26 (1998): 36-37. Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M.A. "Managing Investor Relations: The Impact of Procedural Justice in Establishing and Sustaining Investor Support." Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1996): 544-574. Schall, M. S. "A Communication-Rules Approach to Organizational Culture." Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1983): 557-581. Schein, E.H. "Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Schutz, A. "On Phenomenology and Social Relations." Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Schutz, W. "The Human Element." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. Senge, P. M. "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization." New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. "Business on a Handshake." Negotiation Journal, 8 (1992): 365-377. Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D.D. "Adhering to Organizational Culture: What Does It Mean, Why Does It Matter?" Group & Organizational Studies, 14 (1989): 483-500. Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D.D. "Creating a Culture: A Longitudinal Examination of the Influence of Management and Employee Values on Communication Rule Stability and Emergence." Human Communication Research, 20 (1994): 334-355. Shockley-Zalabak, P., Morley, D.D., & Cesaria, R. "Organizational Influence Processes: Perceptions of Values, Communication and Effectiveness." Paper presented on Top Three Panel in Organizational Communication at the National Communication Association Convention, November, Chicago, 1997. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. "Leadership: The Management of Meaning." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18 (1982): 257-273. Suggested Readings

46

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. X. "Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics." San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987. Thompkins, P.K., & Cheney, G. "Account Analysis of Organizations: Decision Making and Identification." Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach. L. Putnam, & M. Pacanowsky, Eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. "Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks." Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1998): 464-476. Tsang, E. W. K. "Can Guanxi Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage for Doing Business in China?" Academy of Management Executives, 12 (1998): 64-73. Waddock, S. A. "Understanding Social Partnerships: An Evolutionary Model of Partnership Organizations." Administration and Society, 21 (1989): 78-100. Webb, E.J. "Trust and Crisis." Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Weick, K.E. "Sensemaking in Organizations." Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995. Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. "Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models." D.R. Heise, Ed. Sociological Methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Whetten, D.A., & Godfrey, P.C. "Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. "Managers as Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behavior." Academy of Management Review, 23 (1998): 513-530. Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. "The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic Implications." Academy of Management Review, 24 (1999): 99-116. Zand, D.E. "Trust and Managerial Problem-Solving." Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (1972): 229-239. Zand, D.E. "The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, Trust, and Power." New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Suggested Readings

47

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE RESEARCHERS
Dr. Pamela Shockley-Zalabak
is vice chancellor for Student Success and professor of communication at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her research interests include organizational cultures as they relate to individual employee values and overall organizational effectiveness. She has consulted with diverse organizations, including 20 Hewlett Packard divisions and operations, AARP, Digital, J.D.Edwards, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, City of Colorado Springs, and IRI Group (Rome, Italy). She specializes in diagnosing organizational management and leadership problems and working with team-based organizations. She is the author of four books and numerous articles on organizational communication.

Dr. Kathleen Ellis
is an assistant professor of communication at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs where she teachers undergraduate and graduate courses in organizational communication, research methods, and statistics. Her research interests include organizational culture, job satisfaction, and superior-subordinate communication. She has consulted with both public and private sector organizations, including Hewlett Packard, AARP, Bristol-Myers Squibb, City of Colorado Springs, Penrose-St. Francis Healthcare System, and IRI Group (Rome, Italy).

Ruggero Cesaria
is a senior researcher at the Istituto RSO in Rome, Italy. IRSO is Italy’s leading research and consulting organization, working throughout Europe and the Pacific Rim. As a leading consultant to European industries, Cesaria has assisted Dr. Shockley-Zalabak with European and Asian data collection involving 30 organizations. Together they have co-edited "Communication Is Communication," a compilation of papers published from one of the first international conferences on organizational communication held in Rome, Italy, in 1994.

48

© Copyright 2000, IABC Research Foundation. All rights reserved.