Propuesta de implementación estrategia de las 5s´s

Having established the general framework for P-E fit, I now apply that framework to the integrative trust model. I take the position that trust is a function of the joint effects of the amount of trustworthiness supplied and the amount of trustworthiness needed. My

conceptualization of trustworthiness behavior using the P-E fit framework, although new, is consistent with prior research which suggests that subordinates can evaluate non-economic resources such as interpersonal treatment by supervisors for fit in a manner similar to how they evaluate economic resources such as pay (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Lambert, Edwards, & Cable, 2003; Lambert et al., 2012; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999).

Initially, it may not be self-evident why the components of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence and integrity) should be characterized as supplies. However, after focusing on how trustworthiness relates to trust, the connection should become clearer. In looking for evidence of ability, benevolence and integrity, employees are ultimately determining if they are willing to be vulnerable towards their supervisors or trust them (R. C. Mayer et al., 1995). This willingness to be vulnerable towards the supervisor suggests a desire by subordinates to reveal more to their supervisors so that they can know them better. In other words, subordinates are trying to meet an underlying need for belonging, a well-established fundamental need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Since the components of trustworthiness are a resource that may be used to meet an underlying psychological need, they should be considered a supply. Therefore, it would be appropriate to apply the P-E fit paradigm and frame trustworthiness in terms of supplies and needs. In doing so, people can only respond to the level of fit/misfit that they are aware of (French et al., 1982) so this comparison between trustworthiness supplied and trustworthiness needed is framed as a subjective comparison.

Trustworthiness supplied will likely vary between subordinates. Trustworthiness supplied is based upon subordinates’ perceptions regarding the amount of behavior that supervisors supplied that was consistent with ability, benevolence and integrity. Subordinates often have different supervisors so the subordinates’ perceptions will be based upon the behavior

of different individuals. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that the behavior of the supervisor will vary along with the perceptions of that behavior. As for subordinates with the same supervisor, supervisors may not behave the same towards both subordinates. Within the LMX literature, researchers have consistently found evidence that supervisors do not treat all of their subordinates the same (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Matta, Scott, Koopman, & Conlon, 2015). If the supervisor exhibits different behavior towards different employees, then the perceptions of the subordinates will likely vary because subordinates are not observing the same thing. Finally, even if the supervisor’s behavior is the same, individual perceptions of the same behavior can vary (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Sin et al., 2009). Therefore, trustworthiness supplied will likely vary between employees.

All three components of trustworthiness supplied (ability, benevolence and integrity) could be considered together, or each component of trustworthiness supplied could be considered separately. Prior researchers have found that trust correlates with each component of

trustworthiness (ability, benevolence and integrity) (Colquitt et al., 2007), which suggests that all three components of trustworthiness independently influence trust. This conclusion is also consistent with how Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) theorized the model. Therefore, in evaluating trustworthiness supplied, each component of trustworthiness supplied should be considered separately.

Like trustworthiness supplied, trustworthiness needed will likely vary between

subordinates. Trustworthiness needed is an individual perception based upon what is beneficial to the subordinate. Subordinates are different so what is beneficial will likely not be the same for every subordinate (Porter, 1961).

As for evaluating trustworthiness needed, I should use the same approach that I selected for trustworthiness supplied so that supplied and needed trustworthiness match. Furthermore, the rationale for evaluating each aspect of trustworthiness supplied separately would be equally true for trustworthiness needed so each aspect of trustworthiness needed will be evaluated separately.

Having identified my expanded model of trust that includes trustworthiness supplied and trustworthiness needed, I can now examine how supplies and needs of each component of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence and integrity) may jointly influence trust. In comparing supplies relative to needs, there are three possible outcomes-deficiency, excess and fit (Edwards & Shipp, 2007). In the following pages, I will use these ideas of deficiency, excess and fit to examine the expanded integrative trust model.

In discussing the trust relationship, there are two parties the trustor and the trustee. These terms can be confusing as they are not typically used within everyday language. Subordinates do not discuss trusting a trustee. They instead will address whether they trust their supervisors. Therefore, in examining deficiency, excess and fit, I will examine trust from the perspective of subordinates (trustor) trusting their supervisors (trustee).

I am using the terms subordinate-supervisor rather than trustor-trustee to try to make it easier to see the effects of my expanded model of trust. The use of the labels subordinates and supervisors does not imply that the model is only limited to trust from the perspective of a subordinate. To the contrary, I would assert that the expanded model would apply to any trust relationship between individuals.