This component of the theoretical framework is related to RQ3: ‘to what extent is employee trust in top management related to each of the important organisational outcomes, namely affective commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intention, and intention-to-return?’. The first three outcome variables and their relationships with trust in top management are explored in the subsection below, followed by the newly developed intention-to-return variable in the subsection of its own.
Relationships of trust in top management with affective commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention
Affective commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention have been repeatedly found as having important consequences for organisational performance and effectiveness (as evidenced in chapter 2). Thus, they are important organisational outcomes constituting an integral part of the theoretical framework.
Affective Commitment: Affective commitment, a dimension of organisational commitment, refers to the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation (Porter et al. 1974). It is characterized by three psychological factors: a strong desire to remain in the organisation, a willingness to exert considerable effort on its behalf, and a strong belief in and acceptance of its goals and values.
In accordance with social exchange theory and the notion of reciprocity, when trust exists in a relationship, parties involved will choose to respond through greater commitment to their organisation (Blau 1964). This can be thought that employees prefer trusting workplace relationships and will commit themselves to the organisation in which trusting relationships exist (Morgan & Hunt 1994).
Specifically, when trust in organisational authorities exists, employees feel safe and positive, and will reciprocate with loyalty and effort (Eisenberger et al. 2001). In other words, trust in organisational authorities offers employees a sense of security and satisfaction, so that they will show a favourable attitude towards their workplace
and respond with greater commitment to the organisation (Raabe & Beehr 2003;
Ramaswami & Singh 2003).
Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke 1976). It has been viewed as one’s affective attachment to the job either in its entirety (global satisfaction) or in regard to particular aspects (facet satisfaction) (Tett & Meyer 1993). It is operationalized according to the former perspective in the present study.
For the effects of trust on job satisfaction, LMX (Leader–Member Exchange) theory suggests that trust leads to high LMX relationship, thereby increasing subordinate job satisfaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995; Sparrowe & Liden 1997). This means that subordinates will have greater job satisfaction if they have a stronger trusting relationship with their manager. In particular, trust in a manager leads to increased job satisfaction because managers perform many managerial tasks (e.g., performance appraisal, promotion, layoffs) that have a significant effect on an employee’s job satisfaction (Rich 1997). Again, trust in organisational authorities makes employees feel safer and engage in productive behaviours, which in turn enhance job satisfaction (e.g., Brashear et al. 2003; Flaherty & Pappas 2000;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Rich 2001; Mulki, Jaramillo & Locander 2006)
Turnover Intention: Turnover intention is defined as “a conscious and deliberate wilfulness to leave the organisation” (Tett & Meyer 1993, p. 262). It has been thought to be the last in a sequence of withdrawal cognitions, the sequence to which thinking of quitting and intending to search for alternative employment also belong (Mobley, Horner & Hollingsworth 1978).
Reduced employee turnover is closely associated with high levels of trust in organisational authorities (Davis et al. 2000; Mishra & Morrissey 1990; Sonnenberg 1994). In the same vein, employees’ perceived intention to leave an organisation is considerably associated with their levels of trust in organisational authorities (Costigan, Ilter & Berman 1998). As an illustration, when employees trust their top management, they develop an attachment to the organisation and tend to have little
or no intention to leave, for they are likely to pursue a long-term career in the organisation (Tan & Tan 2000). Likewise, when employees trust their manager, they feel safer and develop loyalty towards the organisation, thereby lowering their turnover intention (e.g., Davis et al. 2000; Mulki, Jaramillo & Locander 2006).
All together, the aforesaid theoretical perspectives have been supported empirically. There is abundant empirical evidence suggesting trust in organisational authorities is related positively to affective commitment and job satisfaction, but negatively to turnover intention (as detailed in chapter 2). In particular, Tan & Tan (2000) examine the antecedents and outcomes of trust in supervisor and organisation.
The study indicates that while trust in supervisor is related to increased job satisfaction and innovative behaviour, trust in organisation is related to higher affective commitment and lower turnover intention. Also, Flaherty & Pappas (2000) investigate the relationships of trust in sales manager with its antecedents and organisational outcomes. The results demonstrate that salespeople who trust their managers are more satisfied with their jobs and more committed to the organisation.
Again, Cunningham & MacGregor (2000) examine how subordinate trust in supervisor and job design factors relate to job satisfaction and turnover intention. The results indicate that trust has significant associations with job satisfaction and turnover intention even after the effects of job design factors have been accounted.
In a study investigating Kanter’s (1977) work empowerment theory, Laschinger, Finegan & Shamian (2001) suggest that empowerment impacts trust in management, and in turn, trust in management positively influences job satisfaction and affective commitment. Also, Aryee, Budhwar & Chen (2002) examine the mediating effects of trust in the relationship between organisational justice and work outcomes. The results reveal that organisational justice impacts trust in organisation, which in turn influences job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intention. Again, Connell, Ferres & Travaglione (2003) investigate the predictors and consequences of trust in managers. The study demonstrates that trust in managers is related positively to affective commitment, but negatively to turnover intention.
Similarly, Mulki, Jaramillo & Locander (2006) examine the integrated effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust on salespeople’s job attitudes and turnover intention. The study indicates that ethical climate is a significant predictor of trust in
supervisor, job satisfaction, and affective commitment; and that trust in supervisor is related positively to job satisfaction, but negatively to turnover intention.
More recently, Ladebo (2006) examines the attitude reactions to trust between employees and management. The study demonstrates that both management-affective and management-cognitive trusts are positively related to group cohesion and affective commitment, but negatively to turnover intention.
Again, Hopkins & Weathington (2006) investigate the relationships between justice perceptions, trust, and employee attitudes in the context of a downsized organisation.
The results indicate strong associations of trust in organisation with affective commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Finally, Gill (2008) examines the effects of trust in manager on employee job satisfaction and dedication in the hospitality industry. The study suggests that higher level of employee trust in manager is associated with higher level of employee job satisfaction and dedication.
In brief, consistent with the above lines of arguments and loads of empirical evidence, employee trust for the top management is expected to be related positively to affective commitment and job satisfaction, but negatively to turnover intention.
This claim is further supported by Mayer, Davis & Schoorman’s (1995) and Dirks &
Ferrin’s (2001; 2002) theoretical treatments of trust as follows.
Central to Mayer, Davis & Schoorman’s (1995) trust model is the fundamental tenet of “willingness to be vulnerable” (p. 712). Also vested in the model is the principle of reciprocity as reflected in the definition of trust suggesting trust in a trustee is based on the expectation that the trustee will perform actions of importance to the trustor, without the trustor having to monitor or control the trustee (Brockner et al. 1997). Taken together, based on top management being specified as the trustee in the theoretical framework, the model essentially suggests that higher levels of trust in top management (trustee) increase employee (trustor) willingness to take risk with the top management, and such risk-taking behaviours, in turn, will lead to positive outcomes (e.g., higher affective commitment, higher job satisfaction, lower turnover intention).
In addition, “trust operates in a straightforward manner: higher levels of trust are expected to result in more positive attitudes, higher levels of cooperation and other forms of workplace behaviour, and superior levels of performance” (Dirks &
Ferrin 2001, p. 451). Accordingly, when employees believe the management is trustworthy, they are more likely to have a sense of security and feel more positive about the management performing managerial tasks that affect their well-being (Dirks & Ferrin 2002). Conversely, low levels of trust in management are likely to cause psychological distress on employees, for the management has authority over important aspects of one’s career. Such distress, in turn, is likely to affect one’s attitudes towards the organisation. For example, when employees do not trust their management owing to perceived lack of competence, fairness, honesty, or integrity, they are more likely to consider quitting, for they may be concerned about the management’s decisions making and may not want to put themselves at risk to the management. It follows that a higher level of trust in top management is likely associated with higher affective commitment, higher job satisfaction, and lower turnover intention.
All in all, following the above lines of reasoning, it is plausible to propose that employee trust in top management is related positively to affective commitment and job satisfaction, but negatively to turnover intention. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2a: Trust in top management is positively related to affective commitment.
Hypothesis 3a: Trust in top management is positively related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4a: Trust in top management is negatively related to turnover intention.
In the subsection that follows, the relationship between trust in top management and intention-to-return is explored.
Relationship of trust in top management with intention-to-return
The newly developed ‘intention-to-return’ variable, thought to have important consequences for organisational performance and effectiveness, constitutes an extension of important organisational outcomes, and hence of the trust–outcome relationships in the theoretical framework.
Intention-to-return is conceptualized as the employee’s perception that he/she has intention to return to the organisation from which he/she will leave upon completion of his/her contract or might leave voluntarily due to personal reasons.
While intention-to-return, conceptualized as an important organisational outcome, lacks theoretical grounding and empirical evidence in the trust literature, its relationship with trust in top management can be deduced by reasoning from analogy of the other outcome variables proposed in the above hypotheses. This means that the theoretical perspectives underlying the above hypotheses for affective commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention also apply to intention-to-return. Accordingly, employee trust for the top management is expected to be related positively to intention-to-return. This claim is consistent with Mayer, Davis & Schoorman’s (1995) theoretical rationale, Brockner et al.’s (1997) view on increased support for organisational authorities, and Dirks & Ferrin’s (2001; 2002) perspectives of trust. In particular, by specifying top management as the trustee in Mayer, Davis &
Schoorman’s (1995) trust model, higher levels of trust in top management will increase employee willingness to take risk with the top management, which in turn results in higher levels of desirable outcomes. Also, trust in management increases support for the management, and which may be manifested in greater desirable outcomes (Brockner et al. 1997). Again, trust operates in a straightforward manner:
higher levels of trust in manager/management are expected to result in more positive attitudes and higher levels of desirable behavioural outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin 2001).
Similarly, employees who believe their management is trustworthy are more likely to have a sense of security leading to more positive attitudes and higher desirable outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin 2002).
Following the above lines of reasoning, it is plausible to propose that a positive relationship exists between trust in top management and intention-to-return.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5a: Trust in top management is positively related to intention-to-return.
In the subsection that follows, the influence of senior manager role-modelling on the trust–outcome relationships is explored.