SUBORDINATE TRUST IN SUPERVISOR AND ORGANIZATION: EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATE PERCEPTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

International Journal of Business and Management Studies, Jun 2010

This research examines the relationship between psychological empowerment and trust in organization and supervisor. In order to find out about the relationship among study variables, a research group has been formed among the employees of three companies operating in the field of infertility treatment in medicine industry and supplying hormones for follicular development. First, variables of trust in organization and supervisor have been dealt with regarding demographic factors. It has been investigated that there is no significant difference in terms of position, experience and age, whereas, given trust in supervisor, there is a significant difference in terms of gender and education. Then, relationships between the variables have been focused on. The findings have revealed there is a strong and positive relationship between trust in supervisor and the subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment in terms of meaning and competence factors. Trust factor as an intervening variable is thought to have an effect on the perceptions of psychological empowerment

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/255977

SUBORDINATE TRUST IN SUPERVISOR AND ORGANIZATION: EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATE PERCEPTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES Vol 2 1309-8047 SUBORDINATE TRUST IN SUPERVISOR AND ORGANIZATION: EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATE PERCEPTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT JEL Classification: M 0 1 2 0 Fatih SEMERCIOZ School of Business, Istanbul University , Istanbul TR-34320 , Turkey 1 Adem GULDEN Management and Organization, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul University Istanbul , TR-34452 , Turkey 2 Mine Afacan FINDIKLI Management and Organization, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul University Istanbul , TR-34452 , Turkey This research examines the relationship between psychological empowerment and trust in organization and supervisor. In order to find out about the relationship among study variables, a research group has been formed among the employees of three companies operating in the field of infertility treatment in medicine industry and supplying hormones for follicular development. First, variables of trust in organization and supervisor have been dealt with regarding demographic factors. It has been investigated that there is no significant difference in terms of position, experience and age, whereas, given trust in supervisor, there is a significant difference in terms of gender and education. Then, relationships between the variables have been focused on. The findings have revealed there is a strong and positive relationship between trust in supervisor and the subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment in terms of meaning and competence factors. Trust factor as an intervening variable is thought to have an effect on the perceptions of psychological empowerment. psychological empowerment; trust; supervisor; organization 1. INTRODUCTION In an environment of ever-increasing competition, it is vital that employees incorporate their creative and innovative skills for the accomplishment of organizational goals (Randolph ,1995; Pfeffer ,1999; Laschinger et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2008) . Empowerment is one of the concepts taken into consideration in order to construct such an organizational context. Having internalized organizational goals, empowered employees go beyond formally defined roles, feel eager to follow and adapt to changes, and become successful (Berlew, 1986; Conger, 1989; Cole, 1995;Randolph, 1995; Dobbin, 1999; Day, 1999; Kotter, 1999) . Another concept is trust which plays a vital role in employees utilizing the knowledge and competencies they possess so as to realize organizational goals. Furthermore, it is necessary for proper interaction and cooperation between supervisors and subordinates as well as for the proper operation of the organization as a whole (Costa ve BijlsmaFrankema, 2007). Literature review indicates that previous research mainly focused on the effects of empowerment on trust and the relationship between them from the perspectives of managers for organizational effectiveness (Gomez&Rosen, 2001; Laschinger& Finegan, 2005; Moye&Henkin, 2005) . Therefore, these two concepts should also be considered from subordinate perspectives in order to clarify their relationship with each other. It is also vital to understand the nature of empowerment and how it functions and relates to trust for the success of empowerment efforts. Therefore, this research focuses on the relationship between empowerment and trust, and the effects of trust on empowerment. The purpose of this research is to analyze the relationships between subordinate trust in supervisor and organization, and their perceptions of psychological empowerment. 2. THEORATICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES 2.1. Empowerment Empowerment is examined from relational and motivational aspects (Conger& Kanungo, 1988) . Relational empowerment can be regarded as a process in which leaders or managers share the power they have with their subordinates. Feeling empowered, employees start to play their part effectively (Lin, 1998; Herrenkohl et al., 1999) . Thus, empowerment helps them focus on goals, making them concentrate more on their roles, communicate with one another more effectively and act smoothly (Caudron, 1999) . Motivational empowerment refers to the motive to influence and control others (Conger&Kanungo, 1988) . Individuals’ need for power – motivational power – has its essence in an internal need for self-determination or feeling of self-efficacy. Having therefore addressed this need, employees can be motivated in such a way that they contribute to company goals most (Borowski, 1998; Willis, 1999; Arslantaş, 2008) . Thomas&Velthouse (1990) stresses that empowerment involves giving power or energy. In their cognitive model they focus on the question whether employees feel empowered or not, coming up with four cognitive elements to answer this question: sense of impact, competence, meaningfulness, and choice. Spreitzer (1995) uses similar dimensions to those of Thomas and Velthouse: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning, in terms of individual’s own ideals and standards, is the value attached to the goal of the task carried out (Thomas ve Velthouse, 1990). Furthermore, meaning is the harmony between what the role of a task requires and beliefs, values, and behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995). Competence is the equivalent of the concept of self-efficacy in the model Conger&Kanungo (1988) have proposed. It is the belief that an individual has as to the capability of carrying out a task skillfully. Self-determination is individual’s sense of choice in what path to take and how to make way. Impact points to the degree to which an individual can affect strategic, managerial and operational outcomes (Spreitzer, 1995). Research shows that practices of employee empowerment contribute to managerial and organizational effectiveness (Conger&Kanungo, 1988; Laschinger et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2008) , and increase commitment, having employees assume more responsibility and work for higher quality goods and services (Lin, 1998; Hellinghausen & Myers, 1998) . Furthermore, empowered employees, in the long term, help to reduce the costs of organization and increase quality, while in the short term they contribute to improving customer satisfaction, thus helping the organization gain a place in today’s global business world (Hellinghausen& Myers,1998). By this way, it is observed that organizations acquire flexibility for responding quickly to changes around them (Willis, 1999), and sales figures are seen to increase and less compensation demanded by employees (Day, 1999). Among the factors affecting psychological empowerment are organizational rank, leader approachability, group value, group effectiveness (Koberg et al., 1999) , self-leadership (Houghton&Yoho, 2005), ethical leadership behaviors (Zhu et al., 2004), leader-member exchange (Kim&George, 2005), cultural values (Kirkman &Shapiro, 2001). Trust is regarded as another factor affecting psychological empowerment (Tjosvold et al., 1998; Gomez&Rosen, 2001; Ergeneli et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2008; Arslantaş&Dursun, 2008) . 2.2. Trust Trust is a concept which many researchers tried to come up with a definition (Lewicki et al., 2006). In one of them Mayer et al. (1995:712) define trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” In another, Rousseau et al. (1998 :395) define trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.” Lewicki et al. (1998) define trust as confident, positive expectations regarding the action of the other party. Ellis&Shockley-Zalabak (2001) also regard trust as a positive expectation based on the other party’s behavior as to their roles, relationships, experiences, and interdependence. Shapiro et al. (1992) depict trust from an interactional perspective, i.e. in terms of interdependence, risk and vulnerability. Based on some trust definitions and models proposed, it can be said that trust involves at least two parties and a variety of factors affecting the trust relationship between them: ability, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995) , organizational leadership and organizational competence, openness and integrity, concern and reliability the leader shows for the members of the organization, trustworthiness, and identification (Ellis&Shockley-Zalabak, 2001) . Ellis& Shockley-Zalabak state that trust consisting of these factors increases employee identification with the organization, improving organizational performance. Moreover, trust-based relationship between subordinates and supervisors plays an important role in acting for the accomplishment of organizational goals in cooperation, increasing efficiency and productivity in the organization as a whole (Semerciöz et al., 2010, Brower et al., 2009) . This research focuses on subordinate trust in supervisor and organization. 2.2.1. Subordinate trust in supervisor That a subordinate trusts his/her supervisor increases work performance and contributes to organizational citizenship behavior, encouraging the subordinate to maintain the relationship and remain with the organization (Colquitt et al., 2007; Brower et al., 2009) and make an extra effort to create value for the organization (Mayer&Gavin, 2005). Tan&Tan (2000) state that there is a positive relationship between trust in supervisor and the factors of ability, benevolence and integrity. Moreover, when a trust-based environment is composed and maintained, subordinate’s sense of responsibility (Cropanza&Mitchell, 2005) and commitment improve (Brower et al., 2009) . Such a trust also increases subordinates’ future expectation of benevolence, leading extra motivation on their side and making them do their best (Dirks& Ferrin, 2002) . Otherwise, subordinates with no trust in their supervisor will not feel encouraged to make any extra effort to carry out their role properly or assume extra responsibility in an excessively structured environment with too much external control and lack of trust and care (Pierce&Gardner, 2004; Mayer&Gavin, 2005) . In this research, it is hypothesized that subordinate trust in supervisor will affect subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment: Hypothesis 1 H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between subordinate trust in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment. 2.2.2. Subordinate trust in organization As organizations grow larger in terms of human resources, so does organizational trust rather than interpersonal trust gain importance; for social relations becomes more complex and differentiation more noticeable, making interpersonal trust insufficient (Lewis&Weigert, 1985; Shamir&Lapidot, 2003) .Organizational trust can be defined as what employees perceive as to organizational trustworthiness (Gambetta, 1988; Tan& Tan, 2000) and it affects organizational perceptions (Muchinsky, 1977) . Trust in organization plays an important role in organizational stability and employee welfare (Cook&Wall, 1980). When perceived trustworthy, organizations are thought to be supportive, constructive and at least harmless. Organizations treating employees unfairly, not appreciating their contributions can decrease employee trust, commitment and job satisfaction, causing turnover (Driscoll, 1978; Tan&Tan, 2000) . To create organizational trust it is vital that organizations make employees feel supported by the organization, providing them with such material rewards as increasing their income and autonomy at work (Tan&Tan, 2000; Kim et al., 2004). Creating a trust-based environment is also functional for organizations themselves as it improves organizational effectiveness and the ability to survive (Whitener et al., 1998; Gilbert&Tang, 1998) . Hubbell&Chory-Assad (2005) propose that organizational trust can be improved through fair assessments based on fair organizational procedures. In this research, it is hypothesized that subordinate trust in organization will positively affect subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment: Hypothesis 2 3. METHOD 3.1. Sample H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between subordinate trust in organization and subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment. The population of the research consists of companies operating in medicine industry in Turkey and supplying hormones for follicular development in the field of infertility treatment. In this field there are totally five companies, three of which have been focused in this research, and they are also international companies with a highly institutionalized level. The three companies had 112 personnel in the marketing of the products at the time this research was being conducted. The participants were qualified managers and employees specialized in their fields, as their target is made up of specialist doctors. Their demographic information can be found in “findings” section. Survey technique was used for data collection and totally 86 survey forms were returned with the percentage of 76%, all of which were considered appropriate for the analysis. 3.2. Research scales Psychological Empowerment Scale: The empowerment scale developed by Spreitzer (1995) was used in order to measure the perceptions of psychological empowerment of the participant. The scale was translated from English into Turkish and used as it is. It has four dimensions – meaning, competence, self-determination and impact – with a total of 12 statements. Statements were responded through a five-point Likert-type scale – 1, being completely disagree; 5, being completely agree. As the survey was a translated version, a factor analysis was conducted to check its validity. As a result of the analysis, one of the questions was omitted from the survey. The four factors of the original scale were reduced to three, combining self-determination and impact as one: (1) meaning, (2) competence, and (3) self-determination&impact. Meaning factor, whose explained total variance is 27.87, consists of three statements. The factor loads vary from .925 to .753. Competence factor, whose explained total variance is 24.44, consists of five statements. The factor loads vary from .864 to .670. Self-determination& impact factor, whose explained total variance is 20.57, consists of three statements. The factor loads vary from .875 to .755. As a result of the reliability analysis Cronbach alfa coefficient is found to be .77. As a result of the reliability analyses of the sub- factors, their Cronbach alfa coefficients are as follows: that of meaning factor: .88; competence: .80; self-determination&impact: .81. Trust Scale: The trust scale developed by Erdem&Özen (2009) was partly used (trust in supervisor part of their organizational trust scale) in order to measure subordinate trust in supervisor. This part of the scale consists of 19 statements, one of which was left out as its factor loads were overlapped. The Cronbach alfa coefficient of the scale is found to be .97. Considering the sub-factors of the scale, the Cronbach alfa coefficient of the competence factor with eight statements is .97. The explained total variance of the competence factor is 33.49. The factor loads vary from .883 to .622. The Cronbach alfa coefficient of the mentorship factor with seven statements is .91 and the explained total variance is 32.45. The factor loads vary from .861 to .707. The Cronbach alfa coefficient of the fairness factor with tree statements is .91. The explained total variance of the fairness factor is 17.91. The factor loads vary from .818 to .595. Organizational trust scale: The organizational trust scale developed by Nyhan & Marlowe (1997) was used in order to measure subordinate trust in organization. This scale has four statements. The Cronbach alfa coefficient of the scale is found to be .87, indicating that the scale is reliable. As a result of the explanatory factor analysis the explained total variance is 72.54. One factored construct has been confirmed and the factor loads vary from .867 to .818. The collected data have been classified and analyzed in SPSS version 13. Means and standard deviation have been calculated; and correlation, regression analyses and t-test have been implemented. 4. FINDINGS The demographic information of the 86 respondents involved in the analysis is as follows: female 54.7% (N=47), male 45.3% (N=39); regarding age ranges: ages 19-25 8.1% (N=7), ages 26-30 25.6% (N=22), ages 31-40 62.8% (N=54), ages 41-50 3.5% (N=3); regarding average job experience: 1-5 years 26.7% (N=23), 6-10 years 24.4% (N=21), 11-15 years 48.8% (N=42); regarding tenure: 0-5 years 89.5% (N=77), 6-10 years 9.3% (N=8), 11-15 years 1.2% (N=1); regarding positions: sales managers 40.7 (N=35), product managers 10.5% (N=9), sales representatives 30.2% (N=26), HR specialists 8.1% (N=7), sales assistants 10.5% (N=9); regarding education: high school graduates 2.3% (N=2), graduates 74.4% (N=64), postgraduates 11.6% (N=10), PhDs 11.6% (N=10). First, data as to trust in supervisor and organization, meaning, competence, and selfdetermination&impact were analyzed in terms of means, standard deviation and correlations (Table 1). As a result of the correlation analyses, this research has found a positive and significant relationship between trust in supervisor and organization (r=.37, p<.01). There is also a positive and significant relationship between meaning and trust in supervisor (r=.41, p<.01) as well as between competence and trust in supervisor (r=.86, p<.01). Therefore, it partially supports our first hypothesis that there is a positive and significant relationship between subordinate trust in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment in terms of meaning and competence factors of subordinate. On the other hand, correlation matrix shows that there is a low level of positive and significant relationship between self-determination&impact and trust in organization (r=.29, p<.01); consequently it does not support our second hypothesis that there is a positive and significant relationship between subordinate trust in organization and subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment. Mean S.D. Mean Variables 1.Trust in organization 4.26 2. Trust in supervisor 3. Meaning 4. Competence 5.Self-determination& impact * p< .01 ,59 ,54 ,47 ,63 ,55 ,61 ,48 ,63 ,52 ,58 Trust in organization (t values) .30 (p:0,988) 1.74 (p:0,247) .10 (p:0,281) .85 (p:0,418) .59 (p:0,675) *p<.05, **p<.01 Then, t-test has been conducted to find out the differences among the participants in terms of demographics such as gender, position, education, job experience, and age (Table 2). Regarding demographical variables, it has been found that there is a significant difference among groups in terms of gender and education as to the level of trust in supervisor. According to the t-test results, the research has found no significant difference in terms of position, experience, and age of the respondents’ demographics and trust in supervisor and organization. On the other hand, considering trust in supervisor there is a significant difference in terms of gender (p: .001)** and education (p: .034)*. In light of these results, it can be said that female employees trust their supervisors more than male ones, and employees of bachelor level trust their supervisors more than those of graduate level. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis conducted as to the effects of trust in supervisor and organization on the “meaning” factor of psychological empowerment. Regression model is significant (F= 8.58, p< .01). The variables account for 15% of the total variance. Considering trust factors there is a positive and significant relationship only between trust in supervisor and meaning factor (β = .42, p<.01). Trust in supervisor affects psychological empowerment in terms of meaning. empowerment. Regression model is not significant. Trust in supervisor and organization does not affect psychological empowerment in terms of self-determination&impact. According to the results of the analyses, on testing the hypotheses it is seen that Hypothesis 2 has been rejected. There is not a significant relationship between subordinate trust in organization and psychological empowerment. Hypothesis 1 has been partly accepted. Trust in supervisor affects psychological empowerment in terms of meaning and competence. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION According to the research carried out by Chan et al. (2008:461), “subordinates’ trust has been found to be a significant psychological state which relates positively to the extent of perceived empowerment by employees”. Furthermore, another study by Ergeneli et al. (2007:41) revealed “a significant relationship between cognition-based trust in immediate managers and overall psychological empowerment”. Ergeneli and her colleagues found that cognition-based trust related to meaning and competence aspects whereas affect-based trust related to impact only; but no relationship was identified between any types of trust in immediate manager and selfdetermination. Having analyzed the relationships between the variables, Hypothesis 2 has been rejected while Hypothesis 1 has been partially accepted. According to the results of the analysis, trust in supervisor positively affects the participants’ psychological empowerment in terms of meaning and competence, which has been consistent with the results of the research done by Gomez&Rosen (2001). They investigated the relationship between managerial trust and employee empowerment, revealing that managerial trust affected perceived empowerment via manageremployee relationships. In this context, managers of the companies in which this research was conducted play a vital role in raising the employees’ awareness of the importance of their responsibilities for and contributions to the achievement of the organizational goals. Thus, employees attach more importance and meaning to their roles. Also, it has been revealed that trust in supervisor affects psychological empowerment in terms of competence. Considering that the mean of long terms of job experience and competence is high (mean: 4.40), it is understood that they rely on their adeptness. It is conveyed that employees who trust their supervisor and think they have the self-efficacy will be able to use their competencies and focus on their roles more effectively to create value for their organizations (Tan& Tan, 2000; Dirks&Ferrin, 2002; Mayer&Gavin, 2005; Cropanza&Mitchell 2005; Colquitt et al.,2007; Brower et al., 2009) . The results of the research can also be said to be consistent with above-mentioned views. Employees who trust their supervisor’s knowledge of their work, self-discipline and fairness, and feel that they are valued become more responsible toward their supervisor. Thus, they use their skills more effectively to carry out their roles properly. This research has found no significant relationship between trust in supervisor and selfdetermination&impact factor, which was grouped as one factor. According to the research data, despite high means of the responses as to self-determination& impact factor there is no significant relationship between this factor and trust in supervisor, which may be an outcome of the acquisition and merger experienced by the companies subject to this research as well as policies and rules made by the top management. Cultural changes might also bear such consequences in the process of badly managed mergers causing uncertainty on the part of employees (Lubatkin, 1983; Killing, 1983) . Stressing the importance of creating an atmosphere of trust, Whitener et al. (1998), propose that organizations be designed in a way that supports trust and managers be encouraged to develop trust-based relations. In addition, a reward system should be developed so that they can respond to such a design. Creating an atmosphere of trust allows employees to feel psychologically empowered. Shamir&Lapidot (2003) stated that subordinate trust in supervisor depends not only on the personal traits and interpersonal skills of the leader, but also on subordinate trust in the system. Lack of organizational trust reduces employees’ job satisfaction (Driscoll, 1978) and affects their performance negatively (Gilbert& Tang, 1998) . In this research it was considered that subordinate trust in organization would positively affect subordinate perceptions of psychological empowerment, thus relationships were analyzed. In spite of high means of subordinate trust in organization (mean: 4.26) and long tenure (mean: 44.31), this research has found no significant relationship between trust in organization and perceptions of psychological empowerment. Considering the companies involved in this research are international, one of the main reasons why employees work for them is thought to be the trust they have in the institutional nature of these companies. According to the result in question, it is considered that respondents have already had the trust in their companies but they do not relate this trust to their psychological empowerment. In light of their cultural characteristics employees tend to trust their supervisors as they are in a oneto-one relationship with them. It is assumed that employees focus on organizational trust at the moment of getting the job but then they turn their focus onto their supervisors’ attitudes towards them; and the more consistent, fair and supportive their managers’ attitudes, the more empowered they feel. Empowerment practices improve employee commitment, managerial and organizational effectiveness, the quality of goods and services, and performance, thus enabling organizations to adapt to environmental changes (Conger& Kanungo, 1988; Lin, 1998, Willis, 1999) . Trust factor as an intervening variable is also thought to be effective on the perceptions of psychological empowerment. Therefore, this research is thought to contribute to literature clarifying the relationship between trust in supervisor and organization from the perspective of subordinates. However, it is not aimed to reach any generalization through this research, as the scope of the research is limited to a small industry in Turkey. Therefore, it is suggested that the relationships between the variables in questions be further analyzed in other fields. Arslantaş, C. C. (2008), “Yöneticiye Duyulan Güvenin ve Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Üzerindeki Etkilerini Belirlemeye Yönelik Görgül Bir Çalışma”, TİSK Akademi, Vol. 1, pp. 101-117. Arslantaş, C. C. and Dursun, M. (2008), “Etik Liderlik Davranışının Yöneticiye Duyulan Güven ve Psikolojik Güçlendirme Üzerindeki Etkisinde Etkileşim Adaletinin Dolaylı Rolü”, Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 111-128. Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New Work Attitude Measure of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personal Need Non-fulfilment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 3952. Costa, A. C. and Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007), “Trust and Control Interrelations: New Perspectives on the Trust Control Nexus”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 392-406. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. S. (2005), “Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 874-900. Day, J. (1999), “Getting the Edge: The Attitude of Ownership”, Supervision, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 35. Erdem, F. and Özen A. J. (2009), “Örgütsel Güven Ölçeği”, TÜBİTAK No. 107K548 (unfinished project). Gomez, C. and Rosen, B. (2001), “The Leader-Member Exchange a Link between Managerial Trust and Employee Empowerment”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5369. Hellinghausen, M. A. and Myers, J. (1998), “Empowered Employees: A New Team Concept”, Industrial Management, Vol.40, No.5, pp. 23-31. Herrenkohl, R.C., Judson, G.T. and Heffner, J. A. (1999), “Defining and Measuring Employee Empowerment”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 373-389. Hosmer, L. T. (1995), “Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 379-403. Houghton, J. D. and Yoho, S. K. (2005), “Toward a Contingency Model of Leadership and Psychological Empowerment: When Should Self-Leadership Be Encouraged?”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No.4, pp. 65-83. Hubbell, A. P. and Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005), “Motivating Factors: Perceptions of Justice and Their Relationship with Managerial and Organizational Trust”, Communication Studies, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 47-70. Killing, J.P. (1983), Strategies for Joint Venture Success, New York: Praeger. Kim, B. P. and George, R. T. (2005), “The Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Psychological Empowerment: A Quick Casual Restaurant Employee Correlation Study”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 468-483. Kim, S., O’Neill, J. W. and Jeong, S. (2004), “The Relationship among Leader-Member Exchange, Perceived Organizational Support, and Trust in Hotel Organizations”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 59-70. Kirkman, B. L. and Shapiro, D. L. (2001), “The Impact of Team Members’ Cultural Values on Productivity, Cooperation, and Empowerment in Self-managing Work Teams”, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 597-617. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H. and Cheraskin, L. (1992), “Business on a Handshake”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 365-377. Tan, H. H. and Tan C. (2000), “Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in Organization”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126, No. 2, pp. 241260. Thomas, K. W. and Velthouse B. A. (1990), “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An ‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 666-681. Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Law, K. S. (1998), “Empowerment in the Manager-Employee Relationship in Hong Kong: Interdependence and Controversy”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138, No. 5, pp. 624-636. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A. and Werner, J. M. (1998), “Managers as Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 513-530. Willis, A. K. (1999), “Breaking through the Barriers to Successful Empowerment”, Hospitality Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 69-80. Zhu, W., May, D. R. and Avolio, B. J. (2004), “The Impact of Ethical Leadership Behaviour on Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Authenticity”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 16-26. Berlew , D. E. ( 1986 ), “ Managing Human Energy: Pushing versus Pulling”, (in: S . Srivastva-Ed., Executive Power) , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 33 - 50 . Borowski , P.J. ( 1998 ), “ Manager-Employee Relationship: Guidedby Kant's Categorical Imperative or by Dilbert's Business Principle” , Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 17 , No. 5 , pp. Brower , H. H. , Lester , S. W. , Korsgaard , M. A. and Dinen , B. R. ( 2009 ), “A Closer Look at Trust between Managers and Subordinates: Understanding the Effects of Both Trusting and Being Trusted on Subordinate Outcomes” , Journal of Management , Vol. 35 , No. 2 , pp. 327 - 347 . Caudron , S. ( 1999 ), “Drop the business babble” , Workforce , Vol. 78 , No. 9 , pp. 25 - 28 . Chan , Y. H. , Taylor , R. R. and Markham , S. ( 2008 ), “ The Role of Subordinates' Trust in a Social Exchange-driven Psychological Empowerment Process” , Journal of Managerial Issues , Vol. 20 , No. 4 , pp. 444 - 467 . Cole , N. ( 1995 ), “ How Employee Empowerment Improves Manufacturing Performance” , Academy of Management Executive , Vol. 9 , No. 1 , pp. 80 - 81 . Colquitt , J. A. , Scott , B. A. and Le Pine J. A. ( 2007 ), “Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance” , Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 92 , pp. 902 - 927 . Conger , J. A. and Kanungo R. N. ( 1988 ), “ The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice” , Academy of Management Review , Vol. 13 , No. 3 , pp. 471 - 482 . Conger , J.A. ( 1989 ), “Personal Growth Training - Snake Oil or Pathway to Leadership?”, Organizational Dynamics , Vol. 22 , No. 1 , pp. 19 - 30 . Dirks , K. T. and Ferrin , D. L. ( 2002 ), “ Trust in Leadership: Meta-analytic Finding and Implications for Research and Practice” , Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 87 , No. 4 , pp. 611 - 628 . Dobbin , F. and Boychuk , T. ( 1999 ), “ National employment systems and job autonomy: Why job autonomy is high in the Nordic countries and low in the United States, Canada and Australia.”, Organization Studies , Vol. 20 , No. 2 , pp. 257 - 291 . Driscoll , J. W. ( 1978 ), “Trust and Participation in Organizational Decision Making as Predictors of Satisfaction” , Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 21 , No. 1 , pp. 44 - 56 . Ellis , K. and Shockley-Zalabak , P. ( 2001 ), “ Trust in Top Management and Immediate Supervisor: The Relationship to Satisfaction, Perceived Organizational Effectiveness , and Information Receiving”, Communication Quarterly , Vol. 49 , No. 4 , pp. 382 - 398 . Ergeneli , A. , Arı , G. S. and Metin , S. ( 2007 ), “ Psychological Empowerment and its Relationship to Trust in Immediate Managers” , Journal of Business Research , Vol. 60 , pp. 41 - 49 . Gambetta , D. ( 1988 ), “Can We Trust Trust?”, (Ed. By D. Gambetta-Ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations) , Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Gilbert , J. A. and Tang , T. L. P. ( 1998 ), “An Examination of Organizational Trust Antecedents” , Public Personnel Management , Vol. 27 , No. 3 , pp. 321 - 338 . Koberg , C. S. , Boss , R. W. , Senjem , J. C. and Goodman , E. A. ( 1999 ), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Empowerment: Empirical Evidence from the Health Care Industry” , Group & Organization Management , Vol. 24 , No. 1 , pp. 71 - 79 . Kotter , J. ( 1999 ), “Change Leadership”, Executive Excellence , Vol. 16 , No. 4 , pp. 16 - 17 . Laschinger , H.K.S. , Finegan , J. and Shamian , J. ( 2001 ), “ The Impact of Workplace Empowerment Organizational Trust on Staff Nurses' Work Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment” , Health Care Management Review , Vol. 26 , No. 3 , pp. 7 - 23 . Laschinger , H.K.S. and Finegan , J. ( 2005 ), “ Using Empowerment to Build Trust and Respect in the Workplace: A Strategy for Addressing the Nursing Shortage” , Nursing Economics , Vol. 23 , No. 1 , pp. 6 - 13 . Lewicki , J. R. , Tomlinson , E. C. and Gillespie , N. ( 2006 ), “ Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions” , Journal of Management , Vol. 32 , No. 6 , pp. 991 - 1022 . Lewicki , J. R. , McAllister , D. and Bies , R. ( 1998 ), “Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 23 , No. 3 , pp. 438 - 458 . Lewis , J. D. And Weigert , A. ( 1985 ), “ Trust as a Social Reality” , Social Forces , Vol. 63 , No. 4 , pp. 967 - 985 . Lin , C. ( 1998 ), “ The Essence of Empowerment: A Conceptual Model and a Case Illustration” , Journal of Applied Management Studies , Vol. 7 , No. 2 , pp. 223 - 238 . Lubatkin , M. ( 1983 ), “Mergers and the Performance of the Acquiring Firm” , Academy of Management Review , Vol. 8 , pp. 218 - 225 . Mayer , R. C. , Davis , J. H. and Schoorman , F. D. ( 1995 ), “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust” , Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 , No. 3 , pp. 709 - 734 . Mayer , R. C. and Gavin , M. B. ( 2005 ), “ Trust in Management and Performance: Who Minds the Shop while the Employees Watch the Boss?”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 48 , No. 5 , pp. 874 - 888 . Moye , M. J. and Henkin , A. B. ( 2005 ), “ Teacher-Principal Relationships: Exploring Linkages between Empowerment and Interpersonal Trust” , Journal of Educational Administration , Vol. 43 , No. 3 , pp. 260 - 277 . Muchinsky , P. M. ( 1977 ), “Organizational Communication: Relationships to Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction” , Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 20 , No. 4 , pp. 592 - 607 . Nyhan , R. C. and Marlowe , H. A. Jr ( 1997 ), “Development and Psychometric Properties of the Organization Trust Inventory” , Evaluation Review , Vol. 21 , No. 5 , pp. 614 - 637 . Pfeffer , J. and Veiga , J.F. ( 1999 ), “ Putting People First for Organizational Success” , Academy of Management Executive , Vol. 13 , No. 2 , pp. 37 - 48 . Pierce , J. and Gardner , D. ( 2004 ), “ Self-esteem within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization-based Self-esteem Literature” , Journal of Management , Vol. 30 , No. 5, pp. 591 - 622 . Randolph , W. A. ( 1995 ), “Navigating the Journey to Empowerment”, Organizational Dynamics , Vol. 23 , No. 4 , pp. 19 - 32 . Rousseau , D. M. , Sitkin , S. B. , Burt , R. S. and Camerer , C. ( 1998 ), “ Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust” , Academy of Management Review , Vol. 23 , No. 3 , pp. 393 - 404 . Roy , M.H. and Dugal , S.S. ( 1998 ), “ Developing Trust : The Importence of Cognitive Flexibility and Co-operative Contexts“ , Management Decision , Vol. 36 , No. 9 , pp. 561 - 567 .


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/255977

Mine AFACAN FINDIKLI, Adem GULDEN, Fatih SEMERCIOZ. SUBORDINATE TRUST IN SUPERVISOR AND ORGANIZATION: EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATE PERCEPTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2010, 55-67,