21
Foster Trust through Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity
JASON A. COLQUITT AND SABRINA C. SALAM11
Concerns about trust are woven into many aspects of working life. Encounters with new co-workers, leaders, or followers are dominated by questions about trust, setting the tone for future interactions. As relationships develop, trust serves as a guide that paces the openness, investment, and spontaneity of the interactions between individuals at work. As individuals navigate their way through hierarchical relationships, trust influences decisions about whether to cooperate with directives at the risk of exploitation. Finally, trust takes on a renewed importance in times of organizational crisis, as it can help maintain a sense of confidence and optimism during tough times.
The academic literature defines trust as the willingness of a trustor to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee based on positive expectations about the trustee’s characteristics, behaviors, and intentions (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). When employees trust their supervisors, they would be prepared to grant them influence over important issues by, for example, disclosing sensitive or personal information (Mayer and Davis, 1999; Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis, 2007). Note that trust in this example is not the actual disclosing of the information; it is the psychological state that makes the employee willing to do it. The disclosing of information represents risk taking, which can be viewed as one behavioral expression of trust (Mayer et al., 1995).
The Oxford English Dictionary defines trust as confidence in, or reliance on, some quality or attribute of a person. A number of qualities or attributes are capable of inspiring trust in leaders. For example, research has examined attributes like competence, loyalty, concern, consistency, reliability, honesty, openness, and value congruence (Butler, 1991; Butler and Cantrell, 1984; Mayer et al., 1995). Research examines these attributes under the heading of “trustworthiness,” grouping them into three distinct categories or concepts. One of the three concepts is ability. If they want their followers to trust them, leaders must know what they are talking about, meaning they must possess relevant job knowledge and skills (Mayer et al., 1995). Only then will followers be confident that the leader’s ideas are worth taking seriously. Of course, ability is often domain specific (Zand, 1972). Actions that reveal an expertise in one area (e.g. running the advertisement campaign for a new product) do not necessarily signal competence in another (e.g. determining the overall strategy for the entire organization).
The other two aspects of trustworthiness are less domain specific, reflecting more on the person and character of the leader. Benevolence entails the degree to which a leader has a sense of goodwill toward followers, showing concern and loyalty to them for reasons that are not egocentric or solely motivated by profits (Mayer et al., 1995). One could contrast benevolent leaders with narcissistic leaders or Machiavellian leaders who simply want to “use” people as a means to their own personal ends. This facet of trustworthiness is evident in good mentor-protégé relationships, where a dyadic bond exists that goes beyond the formalized relationships reflected in an organizational chart.
Integrity, the third component, captures the degree to which a leader adheres to sound ethical and moral principles (Mayer et al., 1995). Leaders who have integrity keep their promises, exhibit consistent actions and behaviors, and adhere to values such as honesty and openness. Integrity also conveys an alignment between a leader’s words and a leader’s deeds (Simons, 2002). From this perspective, integrity can be gauged by asking whether leaders “do what they say they will do.”
When discussing trust in leaders in organizations, what they most want to know is how to increase trust within their units. If followers do not trust leaders, they react to the leader’s words with skepticism, spending time monitoring the leader, checking up on them, and creating contingency plans in the event that things go wrong (Mayer and Gavin, 2005). Such reactions amount to a “distrust tax” that can reduce the speed and efficiency of the actions, behaviors, and decisions within organizational units (Covey, 2006). In addition, a sense of distrust can undermine the communication and cooperation within the unit while increasing the potential for the kinds damaging forms of group conflict. With that in mind, this chapter focuses on using the concepts of ability, benevolence, and integrity as a means of increasing trust.
Before examining our focal principle in more depth, it is useful to review the importance of trust within work units. That discussion will reveal that leaders should foster trust within their work units because it leads to many beneficial outcomes in organizational life (Colquitt, Scott, and LePine, 2007; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). Those outcomes include:
Redefining the work relationship
The most effective work relationships involve employees who are willing to go beyond the strict definitions of their work roles (Graen and Scandura, 1987). When a leader asks a follower to “go the extra mile,” the follower has to have confidence that those efforts will eventually be rewarded, despite the absence of any formalized schedule or agreement. Followers who trust their leaders are willing to engage in those extra actions because they trust that their leader will eventually reciprocate (Blau, 1964). Put differently, they trust that their leaders will, over the long term, engage in a fair exchange relationship (see Chapter 14 of this volume for more on this issue). The end result of that trust is a work relationship built on evolving role definitions and requirements rather than bureaucratic-ally defined lists of job duties.
Creativity and innovation
Employees face other risks in their working lives, apart from the extra-mile sorts of behaviors alluded to above. Among those risks is the decision to do their work in a creative and innovative fashion. Being innovative and creative usually entails a greater danger of making mistakes than following tradition. After all, novel ideas and solutions are not always functional, and are not always accepted by an employee’s peers. Despite those dangers, followers may accept the risks involved in creativity and innovation if they trust in the leader’s ability, benevolence, and integrity. When followers view a leader as trustworthy, they know he or she will not take advantage of honest mistakes in a manner that will harm the employee.
Job performance
Trust enhances employee job performance for a number of reasons. Many employees cannot perform their jobs at a truly effective level without the extra-role and risk-taking behaviors that can be fostered by trust. However, trust also impacts an employee’s ability to focus on the task at hand (Mayer and Gavin, 2005). If employees are spending too much time “covering their backsides,” worrying about politics, and drawing up contingency plans, they will not be able to focus enough attention on their job duties. Even if they can somehow remain focused on their jobs, the additional monitoring and backing up chores will heighten their stress level.
Communication
The amount of trust that exists between a leader and a follower affects the communication between them, including the amount of information exchange and the accuracy and efficiency of that exchange. Followers who trust their leaders will share facts and information with them more frequently, and will be less likely to be guarded or secretive in the information that is conveyed. The effectiveness of a work unit often depends on followers being willing to share “bad news” without fears of “shooting the messenger” (i.e. having the leader react punitively and destructively). Trust can enable candor, lessening the likelihood that news will be “spun” in an inaccurate manner. Indeed, the ability of trust to encourage undistorted communication and collaboration is especially important in times of organizational crisis (Zand, 1972). Furthermore, distrustful employees may even withhold good news, thinking in some way it will work to their disadvantage if others somehow claim credit for it.
Commitment to decisions
When a leader is successful in creating trust in employees, these employees are likely to be more committed to decisions developed jointly with the leader and to decisions made by the leader alone (Frost and Moussavi, 1992; Tyler and Degoey, 1996; Zand, 1972). Commitment to decisions is important in order to ensure their successful implementation. Many change programs in organizations, for example, fail because the majority of employees do not trust the motives or do not know the reasons behind them, and thus are not committed to them and do not implement the desired changes in their daily work. Employees revert to the “old way of doing things” with the only difference that they are now using, for example, more expensive tools and systems. Because trust encourages commitment to decisions, developing greater trust in the leader encourages the implementation of changes in the work unit.
Commitment to the organization
The reasons why employees leave an organization are very frequently related to their direct superiors and the trust these employees develop toward their superiors. For example, whether or not a leader follows up on promises made to the employee, whether or not a leader provides competent instruction to the employee, and whether or not a leader keeps promises are all influential in a subordinate’s decision to stay with an organization. Employees may develop an emotional bond with trustworthy leaders (McAllister, 1995) or may feel a sense of obligation to remain with them to further the organization’s work. Regardless of the underlying reasons, retaining such employees is critical to avoid the expense associated with turnover while protecting the knowledge and expertise of the work unit.
How can organizational leaders implement our focal principle by using ability, benevolence, and integrity to foster trust? We will describe a number of actions that flow from the top of the organization - as represented by its culture - down to the leaders themselves - particularly in terms of their traits and skills. The importance of ability, benevolence, and integrity may seem obvious, in hindsight, once leaders are told about the principle. Nevertheless, many leaders fail to act in a trustworthy fashion, either because they lack valuable aptitudes and skills, they are of poor moral character, they lack concern for the employees, or they become distracted by the challenges they face on a daily basis. Besides managing their followers, leaders need to monitor competitor movements, new product developments, government regulations, and technical and process issues in their supply chain. Because those challenges are numerous, organizations need to emphasize issues of trustworthiness throughout their management and staffing decision making.
Create a culture of trustworthiness
Organizational culture is the shared values (i.e. what is important; see Chapter 20, this volume) and beliefs (i.e. how things work) that interact with an organization’s processes, structures, and control systems to create behavioral norms (i.e. how things are done around here) (Uttal, 1983). Developing and maintaining the “right” kind of organizational culture is a complex process that depends on multiple factors. The founders of an organization often set the tone for the culture, while actively managing staffing decisions so that the right people are selected and promoted over time. The leaders in an organization become the agent of that culture and therefore need to exhibit consistent actions that model the beliefs and values reflected in the culture. After all, employees look to the actions of the leader in order to understand the beliefs and values that are rewarded in the organization. If leaders’ actions and words are in conflict with one another, it is likely that the actions will loom larger in the minds of followers than the words as they seek to understand the “true” culture.
There are a number of organizational activities that leaders can undertake to create a culture of trustworthiness in their organization. Probably one of the most crucial steps is to communicate and formalize the ethical principles that underlie integrity by creating fair and consistent procedures, and ensuring that adherence to those procedures is transparent to every member of the organization. This can be aided through the involvement of at least some of the affected and involved employees whenever an organization makes critical decisions, plans activities, or initiates changes. Furthermore, the decision procedures that precede and accompany any organizational changes should be communicated widely so that employees can review these procedures whenever desirable.
Additionally, during the planning and implementation of any organizational changes, employees should often have the opportunity to have a dialog with the decision makers of the organization. This includes the opportunity to voice disagreements with organizational practices and the willingness of management to listen to disagreements. That sort of exchange will give leaders the opportunity to highlight the ethical standards and business considerations that have guided the organizational change and its implementation. Without that level of two-way communication, employees may react based on mistaken impressions that undercut perceptions of trustworthiness.
A culture of trustworthiness can also be created by emphasizing competence throughout the organization. One of the first steps in such an effort is gaining a more complete and valid understanding of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other factors that are vital to success in the various jobs in the organization. Extensive job analyses should be conducted, with the results flowing into specific and accurate job descriptions. Unfortunately, many organizations suffer from unclear roles and responsibilities, which lead to an unclear definition of job functions. Colleagues, supervisors, or employees may develop distrust towards particular individuals because they expect them to have skills in areas that are not part of their job descriptions. Every member of the organization needs to understand their own roles and responsibilities, and those of their colleagues.
Emphasizing competence within the culture also requires leaders to identify the incompetent behaviors of employees and demonstrate that such behaviors will not be tolerated or rewarded in the organization. One means of accomplishing this goal is utilizing the results of job analyses to inform the development and use of performance evaluation procedures (see Chapter 5 of this volume). That practice will ensure that leaders are knowledgeable about what it means to “do a good job” in a particular area. In cases where performance behaviors are not adequate, the organization’s training and development programs need to be implemented in order to increase the right kinds of competencies (see Chapter 4 of this volume). Such programs need to be comprehensive, long term, and available to all the employees who need them. Furthermore, a process needs to be in place where the programs are continuously updated based on changes in the organization, the market, relevant technologies, consumer demands, and so forth.
Increase leader ability
Having emphasized the importance of the larger organizational culture, we now focus on the leaders themselves. A leader’s trustworthiness can depend on both technical skills and general managerial competencies. Technically speaking, a leader needs to possess the competence, knowledge, and skills to perform certain actions and make certain decisions in their area of expertise. That ability is needed for followers to accept leader decisions and commit to them. Leaders therefore need extensive training in both technical and managerial skills. In addition to that training, leaders need to keep up to date with the most recent developments in their area, committing to employee development and continuous learning activities. This is something that is increasingly difficult given the high frequency of innovations and changes in any business area. Of course, leaders who are high in general intelligence will be more likely to attain and maintain high levels of technical ability (see Chapter 1, this volume).
Aside from their technical skills, however, leaders need to maintain high levels of general managerial competencies. Those competencies include being able to plan a career path with followers, setting the right kinds of goals with followers, evaluating follower performance accurately, providing coaching and development, and effectively managing conflict within the unit. Those competencies also include interpersonal skills, such as developing a knowledge and understanding of one’s employees and their unique abilities. In many units, these managerial competencies have a stronger impact on unit performance than the leader’s own technical skills.
Successfully managing ability levels requires leaders to show self-awareness and a realistic judgment about their strengths and weaknesses. Overestimating one’s ability often results in failure, which can hamper the development of trust among followers. Thus, leaders should demonstrate to followers that they know what they do (and do not) know. It is a sign of objectivity to know when to ask for help and input in a particular task. Leaders should strive to approach the followers who possess helpful knowledge and abilities to solve a particular problem, admitting that they would not be able to accomplish this task successfully alone. This sort of participative leadership can effectively capitalize on the variations in information and competencies across followers within a work unit (see Chapter 24, this volume).
Build leader benevolence
Although followers can judge a leader’s ability rather quickly and reliably, gauging a leader’s benevolence requires more time and attention. One way to demonstrate benevolence is to be supportive - to show concern for follower welfare, to consider follower needs, and to help followers on work tasks when necessary (Mayer and Davis, 1999). Managerial training can emphasize the importance of leader supportiveness, and relevant personality traits could also be considered in the context of selection and placement decisions.
For example, leaders who are particularly Machiavellian or narcissistic are unlikely to engage in the kinds of behaviors needed to build a sense of benevolence.
Over time, continued demonstrations of benevolence can deepen the trust felt by a follower for a leader. Eventually, the dyad becomes characterized by a mutual investment of time and attention, and a mutual sense of fondness and respect. Role definitions become broadened, with the follower willing to “back up” the leader if necessary, or “stick his/her neck out” to support the leader (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Because it depends on frequent demonstrations of goodwill and frequent interactions between the leader and follower, this deepened sense of trust may only develop in a few select work relationships (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995). Still, if it does develop, it can serve as a robust and long-lasting foundation for extra-role and risk-taking behaviors within those relationships.
Demonstrate leader integrity
As with benevolence, gauging a leader’s integrity can be difficult for employees in the early days and weeks of a working relationship. One way for a leader to demonstrate integrity is to show full consistency between words and deeds (Simons, 2002). In simple terms, leaders need to keep their promises - to “walk the walk”, not just “talk the talk.” Unfortunately, a number of factors can result in a disconnect between a leader’s words and deeds. For example, some leaders are too quick to revise their espoused values and aspirations in response to fads, fashions, and changes. Those tendencies can result in a sense of confusion on the part of followers, damaging leader credibility (Simons, 2002). Some leaders are also too quick to make promises they cannot keep, which further undermines credibility.
Another way for leaders to demonstrate integrity is to adhere to sound ethical principles. Although a number of principles are relevant to integrity, principles of organizational justice are particularly strong drivers of trust levels (for a review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, and Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Procedural justice, for example, encompasses a number of principles that describe how decision-making procedures should be structured (see Chapter 14 of this volume). Such procedures should be accurate, consistent, unbiased, correctable, and provide opportunities for employee voice and input. Whenever followers see a leader engage in decision making - whether in the context of a hiring decision, a performance evaluation, a conflict resolution procedure, or some other event - they can gauge adherence to these principles as evidence of trustworthiness (Lind, 2001; Tyler and Lind, 1992).
Other justice principles describe how procedures should be communicated and discussed with employees as decision making occurs (Bies and Moag, 1986). Interpersonal justice encompasses two principles - that communication should be respectful and that it should refrain from improper or prejudicial statements. Informational justice also encompasses two principles - that communications should be honest and trustful and that adequate explanations should be offered for key decisions (note that scholars have debated whether it is appropriate to classify interpersonal and informational justice as forms of “justice” per se - for more on that debate, see Locke, 2003, Bies, 2005, and Colquitt, Greenberg, and Scott, 2005). When leaders speak to followers disrespectfully or use derogatory remarks, followers will rightly question the standards and principles that guide leader behaviors. When leaders are dishonest about decision-making procedures, or remain guarded and tight-lipped about their details, followers may similarly begin to doubt or question the integrity and character of the leader.
Indeed, giving honest information may be particularly relevant to integrity because honesty is so fundamental in discussions of trustworthiness (Butler, 1991; Butler and Cantrell, 1984). Unfortunately, leaders are often reluctant to tell the truth. During times of crisis and change, business leaders are often faced with the challenge of either telling an uncomfortable truth, remaining silent, or downplaying the severity of the situation. There are plenty of other situations in which, in the short term, it may be more comfortable not to tell the truth to followers. Ultimately, however, even dishonesty that was meant to protect employee morale will eventually be exposed, undermining trustworthiness at a time when commitment to the organization is most vital. Even concerted efforts at secrecy can backfire, as employees may simply “fill in the gaps” in their understanding with there own theories about the leader’s behavior. Therefore, leaders need to take steps to explain the true reasons for their decisions to those individuals affected by it, leaving less room for negative interpretations of leader behavior.
Are there times when increasing ability, building benevolence, and demonstrating integrity will fail to foster trust? Research has repeatedly supported the impact of the three trustworthiness aspects on employee trust (Colquitt et al., 2007). However, there are times when taking steps to increase trustworthiness will have a weaker impact on actual trust levels. Three factors comprise relevant exceptions to our focal principle.
Visibility of the leader’s behavior
Increases in ability, benevolence, and integrity will only result in increases in trust when those efforts are noticed. For a follower to make an assessment of a leader’s trustworthiness, the follower must be aware of and familiar with the leader’s actions and decisions. Increasing the visibility of a leader’s behavior is therefore necessary for the fostering of trust. The leader can ensure visibility through frequent contact and exchange of information with followers. Such contact can be face to face or through other means (e.g. telephone, memos, e-mail, etc.). However, greater face-to-face contact leads to richer and more high-quality information exchanges, which can only encourage the building of trust (Salam, 1998).
When leaders communicate face to face rather than through other means, they are able to convey information in greater detail, thereby preventing any misinterpretations by followers. Moreover, face-to-face communication allows followers to ask for immediate clarification. This, in turn, may trigger further explanations of a situation by the leader, which increases overall quality of communication. In this way, data that is relevant to ability, benevolence, and integrity can be described, discussed, and explained. Face-to-face communication also allows the leader to directly demonstrate competence in a particular task and offer shows of support, both of which makes leader trustworthiness more salient.
Personality of followers
Individuals differ in their tendency to trust others. Trust propensity is a personality trait that affects the amount of trust an individual feels towards others (Mayer et al., 1995). Individuals who are dispositionally trusting have a general belief that the words and promises of others can be relied upon. Individuals who are dispositionally suspicious are fundamentally skeptical of “human nature,” doubting the trustworthiness of others as a sort of default position. Trust propensity is an important factor that affects trust early on in a relationship, before valid data on ability, benevolence, and integrity have been gathered.
Negative personal experiences, where individuals learned that trusting others can have adverse consequences, can lead to the development of a low trust propensity. Similarly, positive experiences where trust has been rewarded can lead to a high trust propensity. Early childhood experiences are particularly impactful to trust propensity, as it is believed to be one of the first personality traits to develop within individuals. National culture also has an impact, as some cultures have a higher general level of trust propensity than others. Although this trait is difficult to change, experiences over a long period of time that are incompatible with the existing disposition can lead to a modification of the trait.
An individual’s trust propensity likely serves as somewhat of an anchor that binds their trust around a particular level. If a leader takes steps to increase ability, build benevolence, or demonstrate integrity, trust levels may adjust around that anchor. Still, even large increases in trustworthiness may have minimal impact on individuals who are dispositionally suspicious. Such individuals may react to such efforts with skepticism, looking for hidden motives behind leader actions or alternative explanations for the relevant changes.
Follower information processing
The development of trust depends on how the followers perceive their environment and what attributions they make based on these perceptions (Kramer, 1996). Although leaders might have an “objective” level of trustworthiness, trust depends on a personal assessment of trustworthiness by the follower. In other words, while clear and visible data about the leader’s past and current actions may be available, the development of trust depends on how the follower processes and interprets this information.
There is a large stream of research studying attribution theory (Weiner, 1974). One lesson learned from this research is that cognitions and mental frameworks affect what individuals perceive and the vast amounts of information relevant to social interactions is interpreted. Theory and research on decision making also identifies how individuals differ in their “mental accounting” (Kramer, 1996). For example, how certain scenarios are framed is likely to affect the perceptions of trustworthiness in an individual. Thus, aside from influencing what the follower knows about the leader’s actions, a leader can also influence how the follower processes that information by providing the appropriate framing. For example, a particular set of actions may not immediately seem consistent to an employee, until they are attuned to the common goal that those actions may have been leading towards.
Below we provide real-life examples from businesses where trust has been a major issue determining the success of various endeavors. These examples illustrate how the principle explained in this chapter can be translated into real business situations. The first case illustrates factors that influence trust in interpersonal relationships while the second case illustrates factors that influence trust at an organizational level.
Moving from a functional to a product-oriented structure
The maintenance department of a large European logistics and transportation company, responsible for three products, used to be organized according to technical expertise. The department had one director. Three functional managers reported to this director, with their functions being mechanical, information technology, and hydraulics. Several technicians and operators worked within each of the functional groups. This operational structure, however, often functioned poorly in terms of cost and quality of service, so a new structure was put in place. In this new structure, teams were organized around products, rather than functions. Now the individuals reporting to the director were the expert technicians. For the first time in their career, technicians were given responsibility for an entire product line and the management of a multi-functional team.
After six months of operation, the results varied widely between the teams, with none of them functioning according to the outlined principles. The director was surprised at the high degree of operating disparity between the teams, particularly because his trust in the different team leaders was inconsistent with the actual performance of the teams. Furthermore, within the teams, the atmospheres differed from being motivated and productive to dissatisfied and demoralized. The explanation for this confusing situation lay in the different types of behaviors the team leaders exhibited toward their supervisors and subordinates - behaviors which impacted the perceived trustworthiness of the team leaders.
Product team 1 delivered the best results of all the teams. The director, however, was not happy with the leader of product team 1. As a result, he did not trust the team leader’s belief that the favorable results were going to last over the long term. Product team 1’s leader had no experience whatsoever in writing management reports, and therefore avoided submitting regular reports and communications to his director. That lack of management-related ability led the director to form doubts about the leader’s trustworthiness. Moreover, the lack of communication itself harmed trustworthiness because the director received no information that helped him attribute the positive results of the team to the team leader’s ability. Furthermore, the director interpreted the lack of communication from the leader of team 1 as a sign of low conscientiousness, harming perceptions of integrity.
Nevertheless, the members of product team 1 did develop high trust in their team leader. The leader organized many occasions for communication and information exchange within the team. Those actions fostered knowledge of one another, encouraged exchanges of helpful information, and increased the support the team members gave one another. Furthermore, the team leader did demonstrate high ability in the work content while providing team members with some decision-making power over their work. The leader also utilized fair and consistent performance evaluations and demonstrated support and concern for member needs. These actions fostered perceptions of integrity and benevolence, making the leader appear trustworthy to the team.
The performance of product team 2 was lower than that of product team 1. Nevertheless, the director trusted the leader of product team 2. In the director’s opinion, it was only because of the leader that product team 2 achieved any good results at all. This situation, where the director trusted the leader of product team 2 more than the leader of product team 1, despite its lower performance, can be explained by perceptions of trustworthiness. The leader of product team 2 provided regular and detailed management reports to the director. Furthermore, the team leader frequently met with the director formally as well as informally and told him about the work of the team. The team leader told the director that the poor results of the team were due to the low performance of the operators. Often, the team leader himself had to jump in and get the operator’s work done in order to compensate for their low performance. These actions painted a favorable picture of the leader’s technical and managerial abilities. In addition, the leader demonstrated his integrity toward the director by honestly communicating to him the problems of the team and by being willing to exceed his responsibilities by personally assisting in the team workload.
Within product team 2, however, the atmosphere had gone sharply downhill. The operators in the team felt that the team leader unfairly provided all the bonuses to his former colleagues, namely, the mechanics in the team. This fostered conflict between the operators and the mechanics and reduced trust between the operators and the leader, and between the operators and the mechanics. The mechanics, on the other hand, felt that their team leader rightfully evaluated them more favorably than the operators and felt fairly treated. In addition, the leader spent more time coaching the mechanics than the operators, resulting in differential perceptions about the leader’s benevolence. These differences created a clear division within the team. Moreover, the trust felt by only a subset of the team’s members was not enough to create high performance for the team as a whole.
Product team 3 also demonstrated poor results. The results of the team were worse than those of product teams 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the director trusted the management capabilities of the leader of product team 3, revealing a further disconnect between the director’s assessment of leader trustworthiness and the actual performance of the three teams. Again, however, the director’s perception of the ability and integrity of the team leader can explain the favorable impressions of the leader. The leader of product team 3 had great skills in monitoring performance and in writing very detailed and informative reports. The leader was also very skilled in managing his budget, planning resources, and in setting performance goals based on this monitoring system. The director greatly appreciated this detailed information and demonstration of consistent management skills over an extended time period.
Within product team 3, however, the atmosphere was very strained. All of the members of the team were unhappy with their leader and had very low perceptions of his trustworthiness. This was clearly due to the leader’s poor interpersonal, communication, and coaching skills. He avoided communication with his team members whenever he could. Furthermore, he was unable to provide valuable coaching, not only because he did not communicate with the team members, but also because he was assigned a product he had very little experience with. His members complained that the leader was a former member of the information technology team, with little experience in producing this product. The team leader was always in his office doing paperwork, preparing detailed work schedules and charts to give to management, but never spent any time with his team members to help them accomplish their jobs. These actions led to doubts about the leader’s managerial abilities, while never creating the opportunity to build a sense of leader benevolence.
This case illustrates a number of principles. First, it shows the relevance of the ability, benevolence, and integrity facets of trustworthiness in driving trust levels. Second, it shows how difficult it sometimes is to judge trustworthiness. Both the director and the team members were frequently operating off different data. The trust-relevant experiences that the director could observe were different than the trust-relevant experiences that the team members could observe. The director also prioritized different aspects of ability than the team members. Taken together, these variations resulted in a disconnect in perceived trustworthiness between the director and the team members. Indeed, perceptions of trustworthiness even varied within teams, with some factions perceiving favoritism that undermined integrity whereas other factions felt that treatment was fair and just.
Managing organizational change
An international chemicals company had recently gone through the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. The purpose of implementing this tool was to optimize the supply chain processes by having all of them based on the same kind of information technology system. Through that system, the company hoped for greater integration and a resulting increase in efficiency and productivity in its supply chain. A few months after the implementation of this tool, however, none of the desired results had been achieved. Processes were still ineffective and employees had to work with the new tools, even though they were applying their old work approaches. Overall, morale was low and employees developed greater and greater distrust in their management, doubting the success of the ERP system implementation.
Detailed interviews with employees provided insights into why this low level of trust had emerged. Employees did not understand why they had to go through this change and therefore perceived the transition as something that was imposed on them by their leadership team. This lack of perceived control made employees feel both unsupported and unfairly treated, which in turn triggered doubts about leadership’s benevolence and integrity. The perception that this new system was imposed on employees was due to a lack of communication from management explaining the need for a new information technology system, and a lack of dialog with employees about the change.
The management team also neglected to inform and educate employees in how and why their roles and responsibilities had changed with this new system being in place. Management never explained to employees how the entire business process had changed and what each employee’s new part in the enterprise was going to be. That lack of information, in turn, triggered perceptions that management itself did not know why it was making these changes. As a result, employees doubted the implementation capabilities of their leadership team, harming perception of the leadership team’s ability.
All of these struggles were occurring in a larger context that lacked any vision or strategy for employees - something desperately needed during hard and difficult times (see Chapter 20, this volume). Furthermore, employees felt that management was “talking the talk” but not “walking the walk.” In other words, there was a great deal of discussion and complaining from management about the problems that needed to be fixed, but none of this talk was followed up by action. That lack of alignment between words and deeds further clouded perceptions of the leadership team’s integrity, just as management’s own struggles with the new system reinforced concerns about ability.
This case further illustrates how ability, benevolence, and integrity combine to influence employees’ trust in leadership. More importantly, the case reveals how the importance of trustworthiness becomes magnified in times of organizational change. Change efforts create a great deal of uncertainty and insecurity among employees, and those feelings prompt employees to take a fresh, careful, and sometimes skeptical look at their work environment (Lind, 2001). Any data that conveys questionable levels of trustworthiness will be noticed and discussed among employees, restricting their trust at precisely the time when management needs them to take risks by utilizing new methods or procedures. As a result, leaders need to take extra steps to showcase their ability, benevolence, and integrity during times of change.
CONCLUSION
Ability, benevolence, and integrity are the most critical facets of trustworthiness. They foster a sense of trust in the leader by followers. Ability reflects the knowledge, skills, and aptitudes of a leader, in both technical areas and general management competencies. Benevolence and integrity are aspects of the leader’s character, and require more time and attention on the part of followers before they can be reliably judged. Benevolence reflects a desire to be considerate of the follower and can be fostered by displays of concern and support. Integrity captures an adherence to moral and ethical principles and can be fostered by aligning words with deeds and adhering to standards of organizational justice.
When ability, benevolence, and integrity do combine to increase trust levels, a number of beneficial outcomes can result. For example, followers are more likely to redefine their work relationships, understanding that they can go beyond the boundaries of their job description because they believe that their leaders will reciprocate in turn. A sense of trust also allows followers to take the risks needed to engage in creative and innovative behaviors. Job performance can benefit because employees are free to focus on the tasks at hand, as opposed to worrying about monitoring, politics, contingency plans, and “covering one’s backside.” High levels of trust also improve communication, as followers feel freer to share sensitive information. Finally, trust increases follower commitment to leader decisions while enhancing their desire to stay with the organization.
In order to increase trust, leaders need to take steps to increase their ability, build their benevolence, and demonstrate their integrity. Leaders can do so on a follower-by-follower basis, but can also take steps to create a culture of trustworthiness within their organizations. Although such efforts will typically result in increases in trust, there are some potential exceptions to that trend. First, leader behaviors must be sufficiently visible, otherwise followers will not be able to evaluate ability, benevolence, and integrity levels. Second, followers’ trust propensities will anchor trust levels, as some followers will be more dispositionally trusting or suspicious than others. Third, follower information processing may create a disconnect between “objective” increases in trustworthiness and follower perceptions of the leader’s characteristics and behaviors.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), The Handbook of Organizational Justice ( pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, and M. H. Bazerman (eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations ( Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
Butler, J. K., Jr., and Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., and Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: where do we stand? In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), The Handbook of Organizational Justice ( pp. 589-619). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., and Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (eds), The Handbook of Organizational Justice ( pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., and LePine, 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, 92, 909-927.
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything. New York: The Free Press.
Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Frost, T. F., and Moussavi, F. (1992). The relationship between leader power base and influence: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8, 9-14.
Graen, G. B., and Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior ( Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research ( pp. 216-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lewicki, R. J., and Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In B. B. Banker and J. Z. Rubin (eds), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice ( pp. 133-173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (eds), Advances in Organizational Justice ( pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Good definitions: the epistemological foundation of scientific progress. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science ( pp. 415-444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 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, 48, 874-888.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
Salam, S. (1998). The effects of subordinate competence, leader competence, leader integrity, and technology on subordinate participation seeking, performance, satisfaction, and agreement. UMI Dissertation Information Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344-354.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: the perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-35.
Tyler, T. R., and Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. D. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research ( pp. 331-356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Snyder (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ( Vol. 25, pp. 115-192). New York: Academic Press.
Uttal, B. (1983). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune, October 17.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem-solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.
Appraising the trustworthiness of others
One valuable exercise for teaching students about trust requires them to consider how they themselves weigh information on ability, benevolence, and integrity. Students should try to think of a classmate or work colleague that fits each of the following profiles:1. Particularly low levels of ability but seemingly acceptable levels of benevolence and integrity.
2. Particularly low levels of benevolence but seemingly acceptable levels of ability and integrity.
3. Particularly low levels of integrity but seemingly acceptable levels of ability and benevolence.
After thinking about these three classmates or colleagues, students are asked to rate how comfortable they would be turning over important duties and responsibilities to each one. Differences in that rating can then be used to explore the relative importance of the three trustworthiness facets.
Reacting to trustworthy and untrustworthy leaders
Another valuable exercise asks students to consider their experiences with trustworthy and untrustworthy leaders. Students are first asked to picture a leader that was particularly trustworthy - having a particularly strong mix of ability, benevolence, and integrity. In thinking about this leader, students should consider:1. How did that high level of trustworthiness affect their motivation?
2. How did that high level of trustworthiness affect their tendency to take risks on the job.
Next, students should picture the opposite sort of leader - an untrustworthy leader with a particularly weak mix of ability, benevolence, and integrity. The same two questions should be considered in reference to that leader, in order to examine how trustworthiness impacts reactions to leadership.