Proceso actual de Planeación y Control de la producción

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRUSTWORTHINESS AND TRUST

With the development of the integrative model of trust in the mid-1990s (R. C. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), there was increased focus on research related to trust. Two decades later, the benefits of trust at the individual level are well established. Trust has been shown to positively influence a variety of individual level outcomes including performance (Aryee, Budhwar, & Zhen Xiong, 2002) satisfaction (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Gulati & Sytych, 2007), citizenship behavior (R. C. Mayer & Gavin, 2005) negotiation outcomes (Lee, Yang, & Graham, 2006) and leadership effectiveness (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Given the many positive benefits associated with trust, supervisors should want their employees to trust them as much as possible. However, the steps supervisors must take to obtain higher level of trust may not be as

straightforward as previously thought.

In the integrative trust model, trustworthiness, an antecedent of trust, consists of three components- ability, benevolence and integrity (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995). According to this model, once employees perceive that supervisors have exhibited behaviors consistent with ability, benevolence and integrity, then employees will trust their supervisors (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; R. C. Mayer & Davis, 1999; R. C. Mayer et al., 1995). However, trust is not static, and can fluctuate (Korsgaard, Brower, & Lester, 2015; R. C. Mayer et al., 1995), which suggests that increases in ability, benevolence or integrity should lead to increases in trust.

This relationship between the components of trustworthiness and trust is theorized such that as trustworthiness increases so should trust (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995). In the case of ability, high levels of ability could be beneficial to subordinates. Supervisors with high levels of ability

would be able to share their technical expertise, which could help subordinates improve their own competence and job performance. Furthermore, with good supervision, subordinates may become more integrated within the company and have more opportunities to succeed.

More of a good thing, however, is not always better (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). With trustworthiness, I propose that high amounts of trustworthiness may not always be positively related to trust. While high levels of ability may benefit subordinates, this may not be the case with benevolence and integrity. At high levels of benevolence, subordinates may perceive that their supervisors have become too protective in trying to look out for them and are fostering a closer relationship than what subordinates desire. Supervisors may be perceived as smothering and may alienate their subordinates, which may lead subordinates to trust their supervisors less. As for integrity, at high levels, subordinates may perceive that supervisors are strongly

emphasizing following the rules without considering, perhaps, principles of ethicality and justice in a larger context. Even slight transgressions are not permitted. This obsessive insistence on rule following may isolate subordinates from their supervisors, perhaps making them less likely to trust their supervisors.

Subordinates’ perceptions of ability, benevolence and integrity vary from subordinate to subordinate and with the supervisor that subordinates are evaluating. Subordinates evaluate ability, benevolence and integrity on the effects that they have on their individual relationships with their supervisors. Subordinates may vary in how much of these components they need because subordinates vary in their own skills, abilities and preferences (Schultz, 1961) Therefore, there is an opportunity to compare what subordinates perceive in their supervisors with what they need.

This approach of jointly considering what was supplied relative to was needed has been used in other areas of research such as leadership (Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt, & Barelka, 2012). The value of using such an approach could be seen when employees received less or more than what they needed. When employees received less than what they needed (deficiency), the outcomes were negative because what was provided failed to meet the underlying need (Lambert et al., 2012). However, surprisingly, there were some negative outcomes when employees

received more than what they needed (excess) (Lambert et al., 2012). The results suggest outcomes may not be always be maximized by providing more than what is needed, but instead supervisors should focus on calibrating their behavior to meet their employees’ needs (Lambert et al., 2012).

To be able to evaluate the potential influence of deficient and excess ability, benevolence and integrity on trust, I need a framework that accounts for deficiencies and excesses so I turned to the Person-Environment (P-E) fit literature for guidance. The P-E fit paradigm evaluates the congruence between individuals’ perceived needs and those supplies provided to address the individuals’ needs along with their joint effect on attitudes and behaviors (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Therefore, the P-E framework presents an opportunity to evaluate the amounts of trustworthiness supplied relative to what is needed or beneficial to subordinates.

While my primary focus is the potential joint influence of trustworthiness supplied and needed on trust, the credibility of the model will be stronger if I can demonstrate that the trust variable in my model relates to an outcome variable similar to what previous researchers have found. According to social exchange theory, trust is necessary for the development of an

employees are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) or behavior that is helpful to the supervisors or others within the organization (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Therefore, if my model accurately captures the relationship between trustworthiness and trust, then trust should predict OCB as researchers have previously found (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).

With this paper, I make a contribution to the trust literature by developing a fuller understanding of the trustworthiness-trust relationship by accounting for both the perceived amount of trustworthiness that supervisors supply and the amount of trustworthiness that employees need and how the joint effects may influence trust. Using a P-E fit framework, I will evaluate how deficiencies and excesses in each component of trustworthiness (ability,

benevolence and integrity) can influence trust. Furthermore, I will also explore how the joint effects of trustworthiness supplied and needed may have an influence beyond trust.

Theory Development