The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a

Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach

Jixia Yang a,, Kevin W. Mossholder b,1
a b

Department of Management, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong Department of Management, College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, United States

a r t i c l e
Keywords: Trust in management Trust in supervisor Cognitive trust Affective trust

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Little empirical research has explored the implications of different bases and foci of trust in leadership within the same study. To rectify this substantive void in the trust literature, we conceptualized variants of employee trust in organizational leadership in terms of two bases (cognitive and affective) and two foci (management and supervisor). Using this dual perspective, we examined the effects of trust in leaders on two work-related attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction) and two work-related behaviors (in-role behavior, extra-role behavior). Using data collected from 210 employees and their supervisors, we found that the four variants of trust in organizational leadership were distinguishable, and had differential effects on employee outcomes. Affective trust in supervisor was a signicant predictor of in-role and extra-role behaviors. Affective trust in management and affective trust in supervisor explained variance in affective organizational commitment. Cognitive trust in management and affective trust in supervisor explained variance in job satisfaction. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Perceptions of trust are central to the process of effective organizational leadership (e.g., Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). In this process, leadership behaviors function to engender trust, which in turn, can greatly affect employees' work outcomes (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Dened as a psychological state comprising a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations about the intentions or behavior of another (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), trust operates as a critical psychological mechanism in realizing leadership effectiveness. Perhaps because of complexities surrounding the concept of trust, the conditions under which the need for trust arises are agreed on only at a relatively high level of abstraction (Rousseau et al., 1998). This creates a research challenge, then, for a more precise understanding of how the enactment of trust contributes to leadership functioning. We believe that closer consideration of the basis for and effect of employees' willingness to become vulnerable to those occupying different positions in the leadership hierarchy is a critical step in meeting this challenge. That trust in leadership affects employee attitudes and behavior can be readily seen in the literature. What has been much less evidenced are the motives explaining why employees are willing to accept greater or lesser vulnerability to those in leadership positions. Theoretically, both cognitive and affective processes should be required for leadership effectiveness across a range of circumstances (Cremer, 2006; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006; Michie & Gooty, 2005). Trust has been considered an indicator of the psychological experiences underpinning employees' perceptions of leadership (Pillai et al., 1999), and has been argued to stem from both a cognitive base grounded on characteristics salient for task-related interactions, and an affective base grounded on

The authors are grateful to Cheryl Adkins, Donald Ferrin, Kwok Leung, and Hettie Richardson for their constructive comments on the paper. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, May 2006, Dallas. Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 3442 4750; fax: +852 3442 7220. E-mail addresses: mgyang@cityu.edu.hk (J. Yang), kmossh@auburn.edu (K.W. Mossholder). 1 Tel.: +1 334 844 6529; fax: +1 334 844 5159. 1048-9843/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

51

socioemotional elements pertinent for interpersonal interactions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Given that the two trust bases have rarely been examined together in the past, it is as yet unknown how subordinates' attitudes and behavior may be linked with cognitive versus affective trust. Relying on cognitive or affective trust represents divergent approaches used by leaders in building relationships with subordinates. It should be noted that some leadership perspectives, particularly leadermember exchange theory (LMX), have considered the relational dynamics occurring between leaders and subordinates (Erdogan & Liden, 2002). However, within this literature, trust has been treated in an undifferentiated manner with respect to its cognitive and affective bases. Moreover, unlike LMX relationships, trust may not necessarily be mutual or reciprocal (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). In sum, we believe that distinguishing between the two trust bases may provide a more nuanced examination of trust in organizational leaders. Given organizations' hierarchical nature, it is likely that employees will be subject to control and inuence from persons at more than one organizational level, and the effects that leaders exert on employees may depend on the level from which inuence originates (Shamir, 1995). Set within the framework of the present study, this notion suggests that employees may develop different degrees of cognitive or affective trust in leaders residing in different levels, and such trust could be associated with different employee outcomes. Thus, in addition to taking trust bases into account, we argue that considering in whom trust is placed (i.e., the focus of trust) could be instructive. An obvious means of differentiating between hierarchical leadership levels would be in terms of whether leaders are more proximal or distal with regard to their subordinates. There is theoretical precedence for this delineation. Researchers in the areas of both leadership and trust have noted that inuence exerted by immediate supervisors is qualitatively different from that exerted by higher level managers (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997; Schoorman et al., 2007). The former are involved in more task-related issues whereas the latter focus more on overall organizational concerns. Shamir (1995) has noted there are substantive differences between close versus distant charismatic leadership. One difference has to do with the magnitude of the importance of trust for the inuence of charismatic leadership to arise. In line with Shamir's observations, we contend that the importance and effects of trust may vary with specied foci. Drawing on Lewin's (1943) eld theory, we argue that trust in the supervisor and trust in management may have differing importance depending on the types of employee-related outcomes (e.g., behavioral versus attitudinal) being considered. In short, two fundamental issuesthe impetus from which positive expectations are formed (i.e., trust's bases) and in whom positive expectations are placed (i.e., trust's foci)must be considered to more precisely understand processes and effectiveness associated with trust in organizational leaders. The need to consider trust foci and bases simultaneously when studying trust in leadership has been recognized only recently (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Addressing these issues is important because, as articulated in the following sections, we suggest that the four combination or variants of trust in leaders formed by crossing affective and cognitive bases with supervisor and management foci may have divergent effects on salient employee outcomes. Uncertainties surrounding such effects need to be claried so that the signicance of trust can be better appreciated (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Schoorman et al., 2007). Thus, we propose that explicitly recognizing and operationalizing these bases and foci together in one study may provide insights into trust's operational role in the context of organizational leadership. 2. Bases and foci: Framing trust in organizational leaders Intention to accept vulnerability is rooted in the conceptualization of trust. When this acceptance is manifested as cognitive or affective trust in either the supervisor or management, differences in employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes could accrue. As is explained below, we expect that high levels of trust should allow for more attentional resources to be devoted to the job, facilitating greater in-role (i.e., task) behavior and extra-role (i.e., helping) behavior (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). With regard to work attitudes, individuals' organizational experiences of being willing to be vulnerable also has a direct impact on their job satisfaction and affective commitment to the organization (e.g., Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck, 1997). Because it has been documented that trust in leaders may be generally associated with these employee outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004), these work behaviors (i.e., in-role task behavior and extra-role helping behavior) and attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment) were chosen for purposes of investigation. Before offering the hypotheses and exploratory research questions, we provide a more complete explication of the bases-and-foci trust perspective. 2.1. Bases of trust in organizational leaders Due to the asymmetries of power and status inherent in hierarchical relationships between employees and organizational authorities (Kramer, 1996), issues of vulnerability and dependency are particularly salient, which makes trust in leaders critical for enhancing positive employee behavior and attitudes at work. Trustworthiness attributions have a strong, widespread inuence upon people's reactions to leaders. Research shows that two distinctive psychological processes underlie employees' trustworthiness attributions, one being instrumental in nature and the other being more relational (Tyler & Degoey, 1996). The former has been recognized as cognitive trust and focuses on another party's characteristics such as ability, dependability, and integrity (e.g., Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), whereas the latter has been considered affective trust and derives more from personal bonds (McAllister, 1995). Leader behavior can help mitigate the risk of opportunism inherent in organizational contexts, thus making followers feel safe to be led by immediate supervisors and top managers (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Specically, cognitive trust allows for comfortable taskrelated exchanges at work, such as work requests given and taken between supervisors and subordinates. Affective trust facilitates socioemotional communication including initiation and reciprocation of care and consideration (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Despite advances in conceptualizing trust and its relationships with other variables, there has been an imbalance in the amount of empirical research devoted to the understanding of the two-base structure of trust (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). To date,

52

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

less research has dealt with trust grounded in emotional bonds among interdependent individuals, despite evidence highlighting the importance of such bonds (McAllister, 1995; Webber & Klimoski, 2004). Considering the literature on trust in organizational leadership specically, a similar level of inattention on affective trust is also apparent. Although both bases of trust in leadership may be functional for engendering benecial outcomes in organizations, the literature has been skewed toward cognitive explanations (Schoorman et al., 2007). In the present study, we attempt to address this research gap by directly examining the relative contribution of cognitive and affective trust in organizational leaders in predicting employee outcomes. 2.2. Foci of trust in organizational leaders Trust is target-specic in that it varies according to the individual(s) with whom one is interacting. As it is not necessarily transferable across different targets, pinpointing the target of trust is critical for understanding its subsequent effects. In fact, Dirks and Parks (2003) argued that thoughtfully specifying the focus of trust is important, as trust in varying foci may be due to diverse factors and lead to different outcomes across conditions. Generally speaking, targets of trust can be a person, group, or rm. Likewise, Whitener (1997) suggested that employees can have trust in at least two different types of foci, one being specic individuals such as supervisors, and the other being generalized representatives, such as higher level management. Trust in one's supervisor is more immediate and circumscribed, whereas trust in management is more general. When management is the referent of interest in trust studies, it has been considered as an identiable upper-level collective whose actions have a signicant impact on nonmanagerial employees (Mayer & Davis, 1999). Examples of such collectives are: people who make policies, rules, and major decisions in an organization (Scott, 1980); the group comprising an organization's strategic and operational executives, all of whom contribute directly to key business decisions (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003); and those at the business division level (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). Because management is responsible for formulating strategies and allocating organizational resources, decisions and actions made by management have a broad impact on employees over time. In this regard, management's trustworthiness may affect whether employees buy into an organization's objectives and fully engage in management initiatives. On the other hand, decisions and actions by immediate supervisors tend to have greater inuence upon employees in daily operations. Both management and immediate supervisors create concerns for employees about being vulnerable in the hierarchical relationships. As such, these two foci are of prime importance in the discussion of trust in leaders. Leadership demonstrated either by immediate supervisors or by distant executives can have signicant implications for employee attitudes and behavior (e.g., Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Studies that examined both trust in management and immediate supervisors (e.g., Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Morgan & Zeffane, 2003; Tan & Tan, 2000) have offered evidence that employees distinguish between trustworthiness of immediate supervisors and management in general, and that each may affect employee outcomes. 3. Predicting trust outcomes using bases and foci Field theory (Lewin, 1943) suggests that individuals react more strongly to psychologically proximate factors in the environment than to distal factors. Some researchers have suggested that more immediate behavioral demands are best addressed through timely responses appropriate to those creating the demands (e.g., Brandes, Dharwadkar, & Wheatley, 2004). Considering the two types of leaders in the present study, it is obvious that employees could respond more appropriately to ones with whom they work than ones with whom they have infrequent or indirect contact. The immediate supervisor is physically and interpersonally closer to employees than is top management. Thus, trust in the supervisor (whether cognitive or affective), rather than trust in management, should be associated with employees' in-role and extra-role behaviors. We further discuss below the potentially unique inuences of cognitive and affective trust in supervisor on such employee behaviors. 3.1. Trust in the supervisor and work behavior In-role behavior consists of behaviors that are recognized by formal reward systems and xed by job descriptions (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Trust in supervisor has been shown to impact in-role behavior which directly benets the supervisor (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). Completing work goals entails engaging in task-related exchanges with the supervisor, which makes a subordinate vulnerable to the supervisor's decisions and actions for task accomplishment. Accordingly, it appears that having cognitive, as opposed to affective, trust could reduce the diversion of task-related attention and effort due to unnecessary worry and anxiety. Focused use of one's attentional resources is critical for engagement and subsequent task completion (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). When characteristics such as ability, reliability, and integrity are attributed to immediate supervisors, employees should be able to more efciently focus their attentional resources on behaviors for task goal attainment. Conversely, employees having little condence in the immediate supervisor's knowledge and skills in handling task-related problems would be unlikely to comply with the supervisor's directives and requests without some second-guessing. Hypothesis 1. Of the four variants of trust in leaders, cognitive trust in the supervisor will be most strongly related to in-role behavior. Extra-role behavior has been identied as an important form of citizenship behavior that contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social context that supports task performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), so it is important to organizations when work roles are interdependent and employees' cooperation can facilitate overall functioning

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

53

(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Like in-role behavior, task-oriented extra-role helping has been suggested to benet the supervisor (Aryee et al., 2002) and potentially the organization, even though it may be targeted at coworkers and other peers in the organization. Employees engage in this form of extra-role helping as they assist others in their jobs whenever the situation arises, such as when high workloads and unresolved problems are at hand (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). It has been argued that supervisory trustworthiness can contribute to creating a safe social atmosphere at work. In particular, highly considerate leadership can facilitate coworkers' interactions and group cohesion (Burke et al., 2006). As such leader actions are likely to trigger affective trust as a response, we expect affective, as opposed to cognitive, trust in the supervisor to be effectual in encouraging employees feel comfortable and willing to assist one another. Hypothesis 2. Of the four variants of trust in leaders, affective trust in the supervisor will be most strongly related to extra-role behavior. 3.2. Trust in leaders and work attitudes Persons occupying positions of organizational leadership are expected to inuence employee attitudes, as they shape any number of employee workplace experiences over time. Interactions with the supervisor are part of the more proximate job environment, and events arising in the broader work environment are likely to be connected with management. Arguably, the trust associated with either the immediate leader or distant leaders could inuence important work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been considered both supervisor- and organization-related outcomes (Spector, 1997). Accordingly, we believe both of these work attitudes could be affected by trusting relationships associated with the supervisor and management. Therefore, given the inadequate documentation with respect to the unique effects exerted by cognitive versus affective trust upon job satisfaction and organizational commitment, we decided to examine trust's relations with these attitudes in an exploratory manner. Job satisfaction has been increasingly portrayed as a combination of one's cognitive beliefs and affective work experiences (e.g., Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999), meaning that both cognitive evaluation and affective experiences may affect it. Carr, Schmidt, Ford, and DeShon's (2003) meta-analysis reported that both affective and instrumental facets of the work environment are important for job satisfaction. This observation somewhat suggests that both affective trust and cognitive trust might incrementally explain job satisfaction. A recent meta-analysis (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) showed that cognitive trust correlated with job satisfaction, but did not address the impact of affective trust on job satisfaction because a sufcient number of affective trust studies were not available. On the other hand, trust across each of the two foci should explain some variance in job satisfaction. Evidence has been found supporting the explanatory power of trust in both immediate supervisors and management when examined in separate studies (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002; Pillai et al., 1999). Because of its composite nature, overall job satisfaction is unlikely to be sufciently explained by any single source or referent (Fisher, 1980). Taken together, cognizant of the possibility that each base of trust may be associated with either the supervisor or management, we seek to answer the following question: Research question 1: Of the four variants of trust in leaders, which will be more strongly related to job satisfaction? Affective commitment reects the strength of an individual's identication with and involvement in an organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Leaders' trustworthiness in an organization makes employees believe that they intend to seek employees' best interest and act effectively on employees' behalf. With regard to our four trust variants, the literature provides an incomplete picture of their possible association with commitment. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) have proposed that variables contributing to the likelihood that an individual desires being involved in actions relevant to an organization and derives his or her identity from organizational afliation, will contribute to the development of affective commitment to the organization. In view of their proposal, either cognitive or affective trust vested in both foci could be capable of enhancing such commitment. Dirks and Ferrin's meta-analysis (2002) showed that cognitive trust was related to affective organizational commitment, but their metaanalysis could not address the impact of affective trust on this form of commitment. Trust in management (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991) and trust in immediate manager or supervisor (Simons, Friedman, Liu, & Parks, 2007) have been found to correlate with affective commitment. Unfortunately neither of these studies included separate measures of affective and cognitive trust. Because the affective commitment research stream contains too many uncertainties regarding relations of the four trust variants with the employee outcomes examined, we therefore pose the following question: Research question 2: Of the four variants of trust in leaders, which will be more strongly related to affective organizational commitment? 4. Methods 4.1. Organizational context Data were collected from a state-operated medical healthcare system in the southeastern United States. The state system had been increasingly facing the demands of shrinking budgets and cost containment. The two locations from which we collected data were within 70 miles of each other. The human resources directors at each location had cooperated with one another to improve service by eliminating unnecessary redundancy across the hospitals. For example, some clinics in the communities served by the hospitals had been consolidated. The delivery of certain services was restructured in some cases. And nally, some employees were also asked to change shifts or locations at which services were provided. Thus, it was likely that either directly or indirectly, most study participants

54

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

experienced some uncertainty due to structural changes and retrenchment. These conditions made their vulnerability a salient factor and trust an important consideration in the work setting. Through meetings and organization newsletters, the top system administrator and human resource managers at the medical centers encouraged employee involvement in the survey. Aggregated survey results fed back to employees was offered as a potential benet to encourage greater overall participation. At both locations, the nature of work required individuals within departments to interact on a frequent basis and coordinate closely with the supervisor to complete requisite tasks. Also, we determined through interviews with the human resource managers that management was an identiable group of people (i.e., division directors) that employees distinguished from direct supervisors, suggesting no confusion as to who comprised this group. Departments from the medical centers that participated in the survey included nance and billing services, information technology, human resource services, facility services, and a variety of clinical units (e.g., radiology, intensive care, emergency, and nursing). Employees who participated in the study included registered and practical nurses, lab technicians, pharmacists, data entry personnel, food service workers, accounting specialists, and maintenance personnel. The variability of employee jobs allowed the survey to capture a range of individual perceptions and workplace behaviors. 4.2. Sample and procedure Employees self-reported data on all study variables except for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior, which were evaluated by their immediate supervisors. An employee identication number was used to match subordinate responses with those of their supervisors. Supervisory surveys were dispersed at the managers' council meetings, and employee surveys were distributed by each supervisor after council meetings. Prior to the managers' council meetings, the survey project was publicized through email announcements and the medical center newsletter. A cover letter accompanying the survey explained the purpose of the survey and guaranteed condentiality. Respondents had the choice to return completed questionnaires at a designated collection box or mail them to the researchers using postage-paid envelopes. A majority of the completed questionnaires were returned via mail. In all, surveys were distributed to 864 employees and 96 supervisors. We received 353 completed employee surveys for a response rate of 41% and completed surveys from 47 supervisors for a response rate of 49%. On average, the survey respondents had been working at their locations for 8 years and were 43 years old. About 82% of the survey respondents were female. Based on human resource data from the healthcare system (average age = 43 years old, 80% were female; average organizational tenure = 10 years), it was determined that respondents did not differ from the overall employee population in age, gender, and years of service. Of the 353 employee self-reported surveys, 210 had matched supervisory ratings. The average supervisory span of control among the matched cases was 5.12. Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests were performed on respondent demographic variables and on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes between the respondents who had matched supervisory ratings (n = 210) and those who did not (n = 143). No signicant differences were detected. Of the 210 surveyed employees, the average age was 42, and 84% were female. Seventy-three percent were Caucasian and 27% were African-American. In terms of education, 33% had high school degrees, 22% had some college or vocational degrees, and 44% had college or graduate degrees. Subsequent analyses used the 210 employee responses having matched supervisory ratings. 4.3. Measures A ve-point response format was used for the instruments in this study, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Employees responded to the survey questions including the four types of trust in leaders, affective organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Their corresponding supervisors provided the ratings for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior. 4.3.1. Trust variants The few studies distinguishing between the cognitive and affective trust have adapted McAllister's (1995) measure. However, more work needed to be done regarding a measure of trust using a bases-and-foci framework. The measure developed by McAllister (1995) was for trust between peer managers. In our research, a measure that could reect trusting relationships within organizational hierarchy would be more suitable. To this end, we developed a trust instrument estimating the two substantive bases (cognitive and affective) and two foci (management and immediate supervisor) in a pilot study. The rst step was to generate an initial pool of items measuring trust. Using denitional guidelines of cognitive and affective trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; McAllister, 1995), we developed new items and adapted other items from the literature for use in our study (Clark & Payne, 1997; Cook & Wall, 1980; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Luo, 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1999; McAllister, 1995; Mishra & Mishra, 1994; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Scott, 1980). An initial pool of 44 items measuring trust was generated, with half of them being expected to tap into each base. Next, these items were tested for content validity. Seven organizational behavior faculty, ten graduate students, and eight nonacademics were asked to classify the items as tapping cognitive, affective, both, or neither base of trust, according to specied characteristics of cognitive and affective trust. To select items that appropriately sampled the content domain, we allowed only two dissenting votes among the evaluations. As a result, the item pool was reduced to a set of eight items capturing cognitive trust and a set of eight items assessing affective trust. Within both sets, items were appropriately worded to refer to the two foci (the supervisor and management). This process resulted in a total of 32 items. The 32 trust items were used in a pilot survey involving a total of 178 participants. Of the participants, 19 were executive MBA students, 16 were employees at a local rm, and the rest were traditional MBA students from three universities located in the

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

55

southeastern U.S. An exploratory factor analysis was performed on the pilot data. Because of the moderate intercorrelations between trust variants, principle axis factoring with an oblimin rotation was performed (cf. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Factor loadings were examined to determine which items would be used in the nal survey. Using the criterion of an eigenvalue greater than one, four factors were extracted which explained 74% of the variance. Guidelines from Hair et al. (1998) were adopted for interpreting factor loadings: Factor loadings of .45 or above are considered signicant when sample size falls between 150 and 200. After examining these factors for low factor loadings or substantial cross-loadings, we retained a total of 20 items (ve for each trust base/foci variation). A second principal axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation was then performed on these 20 items. Factor loadings ranged from .48 to .85, and the four-factor solution accounted for 77% of the variance. Overall, the factor structure improved with these 20 items, and they were retained for use in the nal survey. Complete results of pretesting are available from the rst author. The 20 items comprising the variants of trust in organizational leaders are shown in the Appendix. All ve-item measurescognitive trust in management ( = .95), affective trust in management ( = .94), cognitive trust in supervisor ( = .94), and affective trust in supervisor ( = .95)demonstrated acceptable reliability. 4.3.2. In-role behavior A three-item measure ( = .95) was utilized for supervisors to assess employees' in-role behavior. Two items from Williams and Anderson (1991) were usedFullls responsibilities specied in job description, and Performs tasks that are expected of him/her, along with a third item assessing broad in-role behaviorPerforms his/her job well. 4.3.3. Extra-role helping behavior Supervisors rated their subordinates' task-oriented extra-role helping behavior. In comparison to an employee's coworkers, supervisors could better observe such behavior across a greater number of contexts, and should be more interested in such behavior because it can contribute directly to success in the overall task environment. The instrument estimating task-focused citizenship behavior directed toward coworkers developed by Settoon and Mossholder (2002) was used. Person-focused helping was not assessed for the study because it is more germane for the study of personal trust relationships among coworkers, a topic beyond the scope of the present study. Coefcient alpha was .96 for the ve-item measure of extra-role helping. Sample items included items such as Takes on extra responsibilities in order to help coworkers when things get demanding at work, and Helps coworkers with difcult assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested. 4.3.4. Affective organizational commitment Affective commitment was measured by a ve-item scale ( = .89) developed by Meyer and Allen (1984). A sample item was I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. 4.3.5. Job satisfaction A three-item measure of overall job satisfaction ( = .83, Hackman & Oldham, 1975) was used. Items were All things considered, I am satised with my job, I like my job, and I am generally satised with the work I do in this job. 4.3.6. Demographic variables People with different backgrounds may vary in their propensity to trust (Mayer et al., 1995). As such, demographic variables, including age, gender, race, and education were collected. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Race was coded 0 = Caucasian and 1 = African-American. Education was coded into four categories (1 = High school degree, 2 = Some college, 3 = College degree, 4 = Graduate degree). In addition, it was reasonable to expect that trust relationships at work might also depend on the amount of time individuals have known and worked with one another (Becerra & Gupta, 2003). Therefore, tenure (in years) with the current organization, supervisor, and work unit were also collected in the survey. 4.3.7. Marker variable Self-reported data raise concerns about the potential effects of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) on construct relationships under examination. Marker variable partial correlational analysis (Lindell & Whitney, 2001) was performed to determine the presence of common method variance (CMV) in the current study. Creative self-efcacy, dened as the belief that one has the ability to produce creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), served as the marker variable. This three-item measure met criteria proposed by Lindell and Whitney, that is, being theoretically unrelated with other variables of interest, similar in format and number of items, novel in content, specic in denition, and having high reliability. A sample creative self-efcacy ( = .81) item was I have condence in my ability to solve problems creatively. 5. Results The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all study variables are reported in Table 1. Within each of the trust foci, levels of cognitive trust were higher than levels of affective trust. According to the correlation matrix, none of the outcome variables were greatly inuenced by tenure-related differences. Thus, the tenure variables were excluded from subsequent analyses. A conrmatory factor analysis was used to assess the properties of a measurement model including the eight substantive study variables, specically four trust variants, in-role behavior, extra-role behavior, affective organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. All of the indicators loaded signicantly on their corresponding latent constructs. Overall, the

56

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Age 42.1 10.79 Gender .84 .37 .003 Race .27 .44 .06 Education 2.14 .93 .07 Tenure with 8.0 7.84 .44 organization 6. Tenure with 6.2 6.86 .33 unit 7. Tenure with 3.4 4.44 .24 supervisor 3.22 .98 .07 8. Cognitive trust in management 2.91 1.03 .02 9. Affective trust in management 3.95 .93 .11 10. Cognitive trust in supervisor 3.79 1.06 .11 11. Affective trust in supervisor 12. Affective 3.36 .98 .20 commitment 13. In-role 4.19 .63 .13 behavior 14. Extra-role 3.87 .82 .06 behavior 15. Job 4.03 .80 .21 satisfaction 16. Creative 4.02 .63 .03 self-efcacy

.11 .07 .09 .04 .03 .15

.32 .10 .03 .02 .13

.02 .04 .01 .18 .65 .39 .11 .63 .04 .02

.10

.10

.08

.16

.05

.05

.79

.01

.18

.10

.02

.05

.003

.23 .24

.05

.21

.10

.02

.003

.04

.26 .34 .85

.04

.15

.07

.04

.10 .002 .02 .04 .07

.13 .02 .02 .10 .06

.33 .42 .39 .48 .01 .01 ..04 .08 .10 .16 .04 .64 .01 .18 .18

.16 .13 .06 .04 .05 .14 .03 .06

.24 .01 .21 .05 .29 .02 .001 .002

.28 .33 .12

.44 .41 .39 .46 .69 .07 .06 .03 .18 .23 .25 .22

Note. Pairwise sample size ranged from 180 to 210. p b .05. p b .01.

measurement model t the data well, as indicated by several t statistics (2 = 1086.01, df = 566, p b .001, RMSEA = .068, NFI = .95, CFI = .97). 5.1. Examining the four trust variants Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.53 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996) was conducted rst to assess the t of the fourfactor trust model as well as alternative models. Because items evoke a response toward both bases and foci of trust, it is difcult to know whether respondents reacted to foci, bases, or a combination of both. Five possible modelsby specifying trust foci and bases separately (cognitive and affective bases for supervisor and management foci, Model I), by collapsing affective and cognitive bases (Model II), by collapsing supervisor and management foci (Model III), by collapsing cognitive and affective bases of trust in management (Model IV), and by collapsing cognitive and affective bases of trust in supervisor (Model V)were assessed to determine the best tting model. In these ve nested models, the management set of items and the supervisor set of items only differed in the referent. As such, in recognition of the fact that each indicator might have indicator-specic variation as well as measurement error, we allowed the error terms of each pair of trust items reecting either management or the supervisor referent to correlate. As shown in Table 2, the four-factor model had the lowest chi-square (2) value in relation to its degrees of freedom. Chisquare difference tests indicated that the four-factor model by specifying trust foci and bases was superior to the two-factor model by collapsing trust bases (2 = 338.05, df = 5, p b .01), to the two-factor model by collapsing trust foci (2 = 1950.60, df = 5, p b .01), to the three-factor model by collapsing trust bases for management (2 = 219.19, df = 3, p b .01), and to the threefactor model by collapsing trust bases for supervisor (2 = 123.02, df = 3, p b .01). In addition, values for the RMSEA, NFI, and CFI indicated that the model differentiating trust by two foci and two bases emerged as the best tting model. From the latent construct correlation (phi) matrix, the high correlations between the two bases of trust in management ( = .81) and in supervisor ( = .80) raised discriminant validity concerns between cognitive and affective bases of trust. The above nested model comparison results lent some support that the two bases of trust were distinguishable either with supervisor referent or with management referent. In addition, following the suggestions by Fornell and Larcker (1981), we further examined the discriminant validity of the two pairs of latent constructs (cognitive trust and affective trust in management, cognitive trust and affective trust in supervisor). The variance extracted was computed to assess the amount of variance accounted in the items by the underlying construct with measurement error taken into consideration. Firstly, a value of .50 or higher is commonly used as a

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063 Table 2 Fit indexes of ve trust measurement models. Measurement Models Model I-4 Factor by specifying trust foci and trust bases Model II-2 Factor by collapsing the two bases across trust foci Model III-2 Factor by collapsing the two foci across trust bases Model IV-3 Factor by collapsing the two bases of trust in management Model V-3 Factor by collapsing the two bases of trust in supervisor Note. p b .01. 2 377.31 715.34 2327.91 596.50 500.33 df 154 159 159 157 157 RMSEA .08 .15 .37 .13 .11 NFI .96 .93 .78 .94 .95

57

CFI .98 .95 .79 .96 .97

threshold of acceptability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Secondly, if the squared correlation between the two latent constructs (2) was smaller than variance extracted estimates of the two constructs, evidence of discriminant validity would exist. Variance extracted estimates for cognitive trust in management (.75) and for affective trust in management (.72) were larger than .50, and both were larger than the squared correlation between cognitive and affective trust in management (2 = .66). Likewise, variance extracted estimates for cognitive trust in supervisor (.76) and for affective trust in supervisor (.73) were larger than .50, and both were larger than the squared correlation between cognitive and affective trust in supervisor (2 = .64). Thus, these results suggested sufcient differentiation between cognitive and affective trust constructs across the two foci examined in our study. In summary, trust bases and foci were found to be distinguishable. 5.2. Testing hypotheses Multiple regression analysis was one means used to test the hypotheses. Given problems of interpreting regression coefcients when predictor variables are intercorrelated, we calculated relative importance indexes (LeBreton, Binning, Adorno, & Melcher, 2004) to determine the unique contribution of each of the four trust variants in predicting outcome variables. The concept of relative importance refers to the contribution a variable makes to the prediction of a dependent variable considering its effect alone and in combination with other predictors (Johnson, 2004). The relative importance statistic epsilon (or relative importance weight) has proved effective in identifying important predictors and decomposing model R-square information among competing predictors (LeBreton et al., 2004). Relative weights are calculated by (a) transforming the original predictors to obtain the set of orthogonal variables that have the highest degree of one-to-one correspondence with the original predictors, (b) relating the orthogonal variables to the criterion, (c) relating the orthogonal variables back to the original predictors, and (d) combining the information to yield a set of weights reecting the relative contribution each predictor makes to the model when considered by itself and in the context of the other predictors (Johnson, 2004, p. 284). To compute the relative weights, we used the multiple regression procedure in SPSS 13.0. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted with all the trust variants being entered as a set as independent variables. The results of these tests are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Demographic variables that were signicantly correlated with the dependent variables under examination were entered rst in the equation. The relative importance analyses were conducted to supplement the regression results. Relative importance weights for the control variables and the trust variables entered in the regression equation at step 2 are reported in the tables. Because relative importance weights sum to the model R-square, they were rescaled and expressed as percentage of R-square. This allowed the relative importance weights to be interpreted as a proportion of the model R-square attributed to each predictor. Hypothesis 1 was tested by regressing in-role behavior onto the control variables (i.e., gender and education) and the trust variants. The regression model explained about 13% of the variance of in-role behavior (F = 4.55, p b .001). Contrary to Hypothesis 1, only affective trust in supervisor was a signicant predictor ( = .29, p b .05, relative weights index= 20%). Note the R-square change
Table 3 Multiple regression and relative importance analysis results for in-role behavior and extra-role behavior. Dependent variables In-role behavior Step 1 Control variables Gender Education Cognitive trust in management Affective trust in management Cognitive trust in supervisor Affective trust in supervisor F statistic R2 Adjusted R2 R2 .18 .28 Step 2 .20 (25.3%) .28 (46.6%) .04 (0.8%) .002 (1.0%) .20 (6.4%) .29 (19.9%) 4.55 .13 .10 .03 Control variables Education Cognitive trust in management Affective trust in management Cognitive trust in supervisor Affective trust in supervisor F statistic R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Extra-role behavior Step 1 .21 Step 2 .16 (24.2%) .11 (2.1%) .05 (3.1%) .001 (26.0%) .33 (44.6%) 6.77 .15 .13 .10

10.93 .11 .096 .11

9.15 .04 .04 .04

Note. Standardized regression coefcients and relative weights (in the parentheses) are reported. N = 210. p b .05. p b .01. p b .001.

58

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

Table 4 Multiple regression and relative importance analysis results for affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Dependent variables Organizational commitment Step 1 Control variable Age Race Cognitive trust in management Affective trust in management Cognitive trust in supervisor Affective trust in supervisor F statistic R2 Adjusted R2 R2 .17 .13 Step 2 .13 (7.9%) .08 (4.9%) .02 (12.2%) .33 (26.8%) .07 (17.0%) .43 (31.1%) 15.81 .35 .32 .30 Control variable Age Cognitive trust in management Affective trust in management Cognitive trust in supervisor Affective trust in supervisor F statistic R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Job satisfaction Step 1 .21 Step 2 .15 (8.9%) .27 (24.5%) .09 (19.3%) .004 (18.1%) .33 (29.3%) 20.41 .34 .32 .30

4.47 .05 .04 .05

9.29 .04 .04 .04

Note. Standardized regression coefcients are reported. Relative weights are in the parentheses. N = 210. * p b .05. ** p b .01. *** p b .001.

was not signicant, but one of the independent variables was (affective trust in supervisor). This type of result can occur when other independent variables included in the model have trivial effects on the criterion variable, thereby lowering the overall R-square (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). When extra-role behavior was the criterion variable, 15% of the total variance was explained by the regression model (F = 6.77, p b .001). In support of Hypothesis 2, affective trust in supervisor ( = .33, p b .05, relative weights index= 45%) was found to be signicantly related to extra-role behavior, after the effect of education was controlled. To investigate Research Question 1, affective organizational commitment was regressed onto the four trust variants. After controlling for the effects of age and race, affective organizational commitment was signicantly associated with affective trust in management ( = .33, p b .01) and affective trust in supervisor ( = .43, p b .01). The regression model accounted for a total amount of 35% of the variance in affective commitment (F = 15.81, p b .001). Of this 35%, affective trust in management and affective trust in supervisor accounted for about 27% and 31%, respectively. In examining Research Question 2, the regression model accounted for a total of 34% of the variance in job satisfaction (F = 20.41, p b .001). Of the four variants of trust in leadership, cognitive trust in management ( = .27, p b .01, relative weights index = 25%) and affective trust in supervisor ( = .33, p b .01, relative weights index = 29%) incrementally explained the variance in job satisfaction when the effect of age was controlled. 5.3. Assessment of CMV Common method variance (CMV) was assessed using the marker variable technique and a latent variable approach (Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to Lindell and Whitney (2001), the smallest observed correlation between the marker variable and any other substantive variable that is theoretically irrelevant is assumed to be due to CMV. A prescribed computational technique was used to adjust zero-order correlations by partialing out the correlation value reecting CMV from the correlations between any two substantive variables. The correlation value chosen to reect CMV was the one having smallest value (close to 0) between correlations of the marker variable with any substantive variable in this study. Two types of partial correlations were computed using formulas developed by Lindell and Whitney (2001): corrected correlations after partialing out CMV, and disattenuated partial correlations adjusted for scale reliability. Correlations between creative self-efcacy, the marker variable in this study (M = 4.02, SD = .63), and other substantive variables were uniformly low. As per Lindell and Whitney (2001), we chose the smallest positive correlation coefcient involving creative self-efcacy with affective trust in management (r = .03) for use in the partial correlation adjustment procedure. Partial correlation adjustments were then made on the intercorrelations of trust with affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction as well as on the intercorrelations between job satisfaction and commitment and between in-role behavior and extrabehavior. The original correlations, the corrected correlations after removing CMV, and the disattenuated partial correlations after adjusting for scale reliability are reported in Table 5. The corrected correlation coefcients were still statistically signicant after CMV was controlled. Table 5 also shows that the disattenuated partial correlations were slightly higher than the corresponding partial correlations, a nding consistent with what has been observed by Lindell and Whitney (2001). Although the corrected correlation coefcients were slightly lower than the original ones, the differences were not substantive and suggested that CMV effects did not affect study results. We also used a latent variable approach to estimate the inuence of common method bias. In this approach, a single latent method factor is added to the measurement model, and all items are allowed to load on the substantive constructs as well as on the method factor. This approach does not require researchers to identify sources of method bias in a given study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although model t was indeed improved by adding the method factor (2 = 158.16, df = 36, p b .01), partitioning of the variance indicated that the method factor accounted for only 5.82% of the total variance. Additionally, the 90% condence internal for RMSEA of the model with the method factor (.055, .068) overlapped with that of the model without the method factor (.062, .074). Thus, the conrmatory factor analysis results were consistent with the marker variable technique result. Taken together, CMV was not a problem in the present study.

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063 Table 5 Assessment of common method variance. Original r Cognitive trust in managementaffective organizational commitment Affective trust in managementaffective organizational commitment Cognitive trust in supervisoraffective organizational commitment Affective trust in supervisoraffective organizational commitment Cognitive trust in managementjob satisfaction Affective trust in managementjob satisfaction Cognitive trust in supervisorjob satisfaction Affective trust in supervisorjob satisfaction Job satisfactionaffective organizational commitment In-role behaviorextra-role behavior Note. Pairwise N = 210; r denotes the zero-order correlation coefcient. ** p b .01. .33 .42 .39 .48 .44 .41 .39 .46 .69 .64 Corrected r .31 .40 .37 .46 .42 .39 .37 .44 .68 .63

59

Disattenuated r .33 .44 .40 .51 .47 .44 .42 .50 .80 .66

5.4. Supplemental analysis using HLM In this study, the participating individuals were not entirely independent from one another, as they were nested within supervisors. As noted earlier, an average ratio of a supervisor to subordinates was ve. We re-examined the trust-outcome relationships using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM, Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), an analytic tool dealing with nested, interdependent samples like ours by decomposing variance of the dependent variable into individual level sources and higher level sources. We ran HLM four times at a lower level model, each time including one outcome variable and a set of four trust predictors. In such HLM models, the individual level relationships were considered after higher level sources variance was controlled. The relationship strength between each trust variant and outcome variables revealed from the four HLM model results was the same as from the multiple regression analyses. Hence, we are condent the study ndings were not affected by interdependencies in our sample. 6. Discussion To more completely understand the potential consequences of trust in leaders within organizational contexts, we took a nergrained approach to studying employee trust by explicitly recognizing two bases and two foci of trust in leadership. We framed trust bases as being cognitive and affective, and categorized trust foci into management and immediate supervisors. The study results demonstrated that the four variants of employee trust in leaders did not function equivalently. Consistent with proximal and distal tenets of eld theory, the current study indicated that relations of the trust variants with outcome variables varied somewhat when outcomes were segregated into behavioral and attitudinal categories. Affective trust in supervisor appeared more important to the accomplishment of behavioral outcomes (i.e., in-role and extra-role behavior). This nding underscores the importance of interpersonal interactions with the supervisor for motivating and energizing positive work behavior on the part of subordinates. In contrast, results also revealed that trustworthiness attributed to both direct supervisors and upper management was important for predicting attitudinal outcomes. Specically, affective trust in management and affective trust in supervisor signicantly predicted affective organizational commitment, and a combination of cognitive trust in management and affective trust in supervisor was predictive of employees' overall job satisfaction. To our knowledge, this study is the rst to examine and discover that certain combinations of trust bases and foci may be more inuential than other combinations, depending on the outcomes of interest. This may provide guidance for organizations to better leverage the effects of trust within the constraints of organizational resources. The relative importance technique was used to supplement regular regression analysis results. Although research on relative importance methodology is still in its infancy, it has progressed in recent years and relative importance statistics are being reported more frequently (e.g., Johnson, 2004). It should be noted that we can only make qualitative inferences from the relative importance technique results. Thus, we cannot conclude whether one trust variant would be more statistically signicant than another trust variant for predicting outcomes considered in the study. 6.1. Implications for research and practice The utility of separating the bases and foci of trust in leaders when considering varying outcome variables is underscored by this study. First, empirical evidence was provided for a two-base structure of trust within organizational contexts. Research on trust has been dominated by cognition-oriented propositions, while affect-oriented propositions have been given less attention (Schoorman et al., 2007). The current study suggested that affective trust may be of considerable importance in a workplace where care, concern, and nurturance are part of the normal organizational culture. Not surprisingly, affective trust in management emerged as a signicant predictor for affective commitment to the organization. Moreover, affective, rather than cognitive, trust in supervisor proved to be important for predicting outcomes of affective commitment, job satisfaction, and in-role and extra-role behavior.

60

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

The strong effects of affective trust in this study were not evident in Dirks and Ferrin's (2002) meta-analysis of trust in leaders and employee outcomes. Of course, this was expected in that they could not directly examine affective trust in their analysis because a sufcient number of affective trust studies were not available in the existing literature. The impact of affective trust in our study, however, does reect Tyler and Degoey's (1996) proposition that trust is more of a social than an economic commodity. The close ties that are encouraged by affective trust appear to be of considerable importance to employees. Lapidot, Kark, and Shamir (2006) noted that benevolence, a form of affective trust, was critical in trust building and associated with conditions of less vulnerability. They also suggested that in conditions of less vulnerability, a promotion self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 2000) is more likely to be adopted by individuals. A promotion focus differs from a prevention focus in that the former involve greater activation and eagerness in goal pursuits whereas the latter involves the use of greater caution and vigilance (Higgins, 2000). As such, people's motivation to expend their energy in pursuit of goals increases as situationally-induced promotion focus increases (Higgins, 1998). We argue that affective trust in supervisor could in part be responsible for activating a promotion focus in employees. Affective trust in supervisor should facilitate employees' embracing a promotion focus, and this could encourage higher performance and more positive attitudes. Beyond the issue of trust, transformational leadership, in particular, has also been proposed to be effective in activating followers' promotion focus (Ilies et al., 2006; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). More research on the dynamics involved in transformational leadership, affective trust in supervisor, and promotion focus may advance our knowledge in this regard. It has been argued that specifying the referent is as important as identifying the base of trust (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Explicitly recognizing referents for employee trust becomes particularly relevant when investigating the consequences of trust in leaders within organizations. In Dirks and Ferrin's (2002) meta-analysis, the differences in the magnitude of trust-outcome relationships emerged for management and supervisor foci. However, they were unable to examine differences in the magnitude of found relationships within a single sample to determine the unique variance attributable to each of the trust foci. With this circumstance in mind, our study explored the relative impact of trust associated with different leadership foci in conjunction with trust bases. Given that organizational resources are always limited, the results of this study may inform decision makers on setting priorities for resource application. In this study, trust in different foci showed different relationships with workplace outcomes, thereby providing diagnostic guidance regarding the targets at which organizations should focus resources on building trust to achieve benecial effects. If an organization sees a need to boost employees' affective commitment to the organization, for example, then it should focus on its efforts in establishing employees' affective trust in management as well as in their supervisors. Consideration leadership manifested by both upper managers and immediate supervisors may be needed to optimize trust's inuence upon employees' commitment to the organization. Of course, more research is required to advance insights concerning conditions under which the four trust variants would be most efcacious. With such knowledge, organizations might be able to better leverage the effects of trust in achieving desired workplace outcomes.

6.2. Limitations and future research There are caveats associated with the study design. The cross-sectional design utilized makes it difcult to truly discern causal relationships among study variables. Thus, any causal inferences should be made with caution. Another caveat concerns generalizability of the study results. The study was conducted in a healthcare context, and it is possible that some characteristics associated with the healthcare industry (e.g., cross-functional tasking across shifts and units, prominence of care-giving values) might make certain elements of trust more salient than others. Related to sample-specic concerns, individual differences other than demographics (e.g., prior performance, career history) might also have inuenced study participants' behavior and work attitudes. These potential issues should be addressed in future studies of the impact of the four trust variants. A third limitation is that much of the data were collected by means of self-report. In-role and extra-role behavior data were collected from supervisors, lessening concerns involving the relationships of in- and extra-role behavior with the trust variants. The remaining measures were obtained from subordinates themselves. As several of the hypothesized relationships were subject to perceptpercept ination, marker variable and latent variable analyses were used to estimate this possibility. The results of these analyses results indicated that perceptpercept ination was not problematic in the study. Lastly, to address the issue of multicollinearity among the four trust variants in multiple regression analyses, we computed relative importance indexes rather than relying only on regression coefcients to determine the trust variants' explanatory contributions. Nevertheless, given that relative importance indexes cannot resolve inherent problems with correlated predictors (Baltes, Parker, Young, Huff, & Altmann, 2004), caution should be exercised when interpreting relative importance results. The current study sought to examine the consequences of trust in leaders using a dual approach to bases and foci in conceptualizing trust. Future research should extend this line of inquiry by examining other work-related outcomes, such as turnover intentions, organization-directed citizenship, and withdrawal behavior. As this study showed that the trust variants do not function equivalently, it may be worthwhile to discover the relative strength of each in predicting such outcomes. Additional work should also explore the relationship of trust bases over time. The interplay of these two bases in an evolving work relationship would be an interesting avenue for future research. It has been argued that a trust relationship at early stages may be more cognitively-based, whereas at latter stages it may become more affectively-based. Young and Daniel's (2003) study revealed that at early stages of relationship building, trust tended to be more cognitively determined by levels of competence and goal congruence, whereas in later stages it depended more on personal feelings. Questions such as how trust develops with the passage of time and how it evolves from a cognitive to an affective base have not as yet been examined. Therefore, research addressing this issue would prove to be fruitful.

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

61

We identied trust foci in the context of trust in leadership. Future research may benet by examining whether the two-base structure of trust can be expanded to other realms of work relationships. For example, it has been argued that employees can develop a generalized trust in coworkers (Hartog, 2003). Such generalized trust does not rest with knowledge of particular individuals but rather with implicit, normative behavior that occurs within the social unit as a whole. This kind of trust is relevant when employees' power and status are more similar rather than when power dependencies exist, such as between leaders and subordinates. Trust in coworkers/peers has been investigated as a group level variable in a few studies dealing with relations among intragroup conict, intragroup trust, and group performance (e.g., Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Considering the results of the present study, incorporating the cognitiveaffective trust distinction in examining of the effects of coworker trust in groups could prove enlightening. Additionally, it may be interesting to explore whether group peer trust would exert a contextual inuence on the trust effects observed in this study. In conclusion, the aim of this study was to highlight and demonstrate the importance of understanding workplace trust from a dual bases-and-foci perspective. Toward this end, the distinctiveness and importance of bases and foci of trust in leaders in predicting salient consequences were investigated. Our ndings point toward a greater need of understanding how to optimize employee trust in organizations. It is hoped that this study will serve as an impetus for more research in this direction. Appendix A Survey instruments for measuring trust in leaders by its foci and bases
Cognitive trust in management 1. I can depend on management to meet its responsibilities. 2. I can rely on management to do what is best at work. 3. Top managers follow through with commitments they make. 4. Given management's track record, I see no reason to doubt its competence. 5. I'm condent in management because it approaches work with professionalism. Affective trust in management 1. I'm condent that management will always care about my personal needs at work. 2. If I shared my problems with management, I know they would respond with care. 3. I'm condent that I could share my work difculties with management. 4. I'm sure I could openly communicate my feelings to management. 5. I feel secure with management because of its sincerity. Cognitive trust in supervisor 1. I can depend on my supervisor to meet his/her responsibilities. 2. I can rely on my supervisor to do what is best at work. 3. My supervisor follows through with commitments s(he) makes. 4. Given my supervisor's track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence. 5. I'm condent in my supervisor because (s)he approaches work with professionalism. Affective trust in supervisor 1. I'm condent that my supervisor will always care about my personal needs at work. 2. If I shared my problems with my supervisor, I know (s)he would respond with care. 3. I'm condent that I could share my work difculties with my supervisor. 4. I'm sure I could openly communicate my feelings to my supervisor. 5. I feel secure with my supervisor because of his/her sincerity.

References
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 7692. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267285. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951968. Baltes, B. B., Parker, C. P., Young, L. M., Huff, J. W., & Altmann, R. (2004). The practical utility of importance measures in assessing the relative importance of workrelated perceptions and organizational characteristics on work-related outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 326340. Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14, 3244. Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Wheatley, K. (2004). Social exchanges within organizations and work outcomes: The importance of local and global relationships. Group & Organization Management, 29, 276301. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leadermember exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227250. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288307. Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605619. Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of workers' trust in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 205224. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd Ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

62

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & 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, 909927. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulllment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 3952. Cremer, D. D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 7993. Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security's direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 323349. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic ndings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611628. Dirks, K. T., & Parks, J. M. (2003). Conicting stories: The state of the science of conict. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 283324). 2nd. Ed. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues. In R. M. Kramer, & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 2140). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future developments in leadermember exchange theory. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65114). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Fisher, C. D. (1980). On the dubious wisdom of expecting job satisfaction to correlate with performance. Academy of Management Review, 5, 607612. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job design diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159170. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hartog, D. (2003). Trusting others in organizations: Leaders, management, and co-workers. In B. Nooteboom & F. Six (Eds.), The trust process in organizations (pp. 125146). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 146. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from t. American Psychologist, 55, 12171230. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409473. Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 122. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238251. Johnson, J. W. (2004). Factors affecting relative weights: The inuence of sampling and measurement error. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 283299. Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specic interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specic other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 13061317. Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software International. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500528. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals' corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502526. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698707. Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 216245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2006). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 1634. LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., Adorno, A. J., & Melcher, K. M. (2004). Importance of personality and job-specic affect for predicting job attitudes and withdrawal behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 300325. Lewin, K. (1943). Dening the eld at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292310. Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 9911022. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114121. Luo, Y. (2002). Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management, 28, 669694. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effects of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A eld quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874888. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 2459. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372378. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299326. Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 441457. Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (1994). The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing strategies. Human Resource Management, 33, 261279. Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 5575. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897933. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513563. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603609. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2e). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95112. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393404. Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514528. Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. (2004). Reexamining the job satisfactionperformance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 165177.

J. Yang, K.W. Mossholder / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 5063

63

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344354. Scott, D. (1980). The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of Management, 6, 157175. Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255267. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 1947. Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & Parks, J. M. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavior integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-groups effects, and trick down among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 650665. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (2002). To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 707729. Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 241260. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 11371148. Tyler, T., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The inuence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and perceived validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108119. Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Clientproject manager engagements, trust, and loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 9971013. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 124. Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 389404. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513530. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601617. Young, L., & Daniel, K. (2003). Affectual trust in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 139155.