The Impact of Leader Behaviour on Trust in Management and Co-Workers

[pic 1]

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2002, 28 (4), 29-34 SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2002, 28 (4), 29-34

THE IMPACT OF LEADER BEHAVIOUR ON TRUST IN MANAGEMENT AND CO-WORKERS

DEANNE N. DEN HARTOG

Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Economics Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam MICHAELA C. SHIPPERS Work and Organizational Psychology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam PAUL L. KOOPMAN Work and Organizational Psychology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

ABSTRACT

Within organizations, trust is essential for cooperation. One important form of trust is employees’ generalizing of trust in management and co-workers. Leaders may have an important role in enhancing such trust. Previous studies have linked transformational leadership with employees’ trust in their leader. In this study, we test whether such leadership is also related to trust in generalized others (management and co-workers). As expected, trust in the leader and management were highly positively related to transformational and less so to transactional. The same pattern was found for trust in colleagues, although these relationships were less strong.

OPSOMMING

Vertroue is onontbeerlik vir samewerking in organisasies. Een vorm van vertroue wat belangrik is, is werknemers se veralgemening van vertroue in bestuur en medewerkers. Bestuur mag ‘n belangrike rol hê om dié vertroue te versterk. Vorige studies het transformasieleierskap gekoppel aan werknemers se vertroue in hul bestuurder. In hierdie studie word getoets of transformasieleierskap ‘n verband toon met die veralgemening van vertroue (bestuur en medewerkers). Soos verwag, het vertroue in die leier en vertroue in medewerkers ‘n hoogs positiewe verband getoon met transformasieleierskap. Dieselfde patroon het voorgekom by vertroue in medewerkers, alhoewel die verhouding minder sterk is.

Trust has been interpersonal relationships and larger collectivities such as organizations or societies. Trust is seen as an important basis for cooperation. For instance, Gambetta (1988, p. 235) holds that “trust uncovers dormant preferences for cooperation tucked under the seemingly safer blankets of defensive-aggressive revealed preferences”. Also, Williams (1988) relates trust to a “motivation to cooperate” and states that “cooperation requires trust in the sense that the dependent parties need some degree of assurance that the other, non-dependent parties will not defect” (p. 8). Others such as Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) emphasize vulnerabilit y, that is the willingness of a part y to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, as an important part of trust. They propose a model of antecedents and outcomes of organizational trust, integrating research from multiple disciplines and differentiating trust from similar constructs such as cooperation, confidence and predictability.

Different definitions of trust have been proposed from the context of individual expectations, interpersonal relationships, economic exchanges, social structures, and ethical principles (see Hosmer, 1995). For example, Creed and Miles (1996) describe trust as both the specific expectation that another’s actions will be beneficial rather than detrimental and as the generalized ability to take for granted, or to take “under trust”, a wide array of features in the social order. This definition incorporates both individual expectations and social structures. Cook and Wall (1980) hold that trust between individuals and groups within an organization is a highly important ingredient in the long-term stability of the organization. They define trust as the extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people. They view trust as a dimension of interpersonal relationships. The current study focuses on such interpersonal trust within organizations and especially on the relationship between leadership and trust.

Requests for copies should be addressed to: DN Den Hartog, Department of Organisational Psychology, Faculty of Economics, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam. E-mail: D.N.den.Hartog@fppl.psy.vu.nl

described as an important feat ure in both

It extends previous research by looking not only at trust in the focal leader (a specific other), but also at trust in management and co-workers (generalized others) as possible correlates of leadership.

Transformational and transactional leader

Since its introduction over 20 years ago, transformational or charismatic leadership has been strongly emphasized in the management literature (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1997; Den Hartog et al, 1999; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; House, 1996). Such transformational leaders articulate a realistic vision of the future that can be shared, stimulate subordinates intellectually, and pay attention to the differences among the subordinates (Bass, 1985; Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Many hold that the presentation of an ideological vision that describes a better future and is congruent with the dearly held values of followers is central to this type of leadership. By articulating such a vision, transformational leaders may instill pride, gain respect and trust, and increase the sense of optimism and hope (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). The leader’s personal example serves as a model of the kind of behavior required to attain the vision (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Transformational leaders also intellectually stimulate followers, providing them with a flow of challenging, new ideas that should stimulate them into rethinking old ways of doing things (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, while a leader’s charisma may attract subordinates to a vision or mission, the leader’s individualized consideration also significantly contributes to individual subordinates’ achieving their fullest potential (Bass, 1985). In this vein, House (1977) also emphasizes the importance of confidence building and expressing confidence in followers.