The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive
archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
LODJ
26,1
6
Received December 2003
Revised August 2004
Accepted September 2004
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2005
pp. 6-22
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730510575552
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
A correlation of servant
leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust
Errol E. Joseph and Bruce E. Winston
School of Leadership Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Aims to explore the relationship between employee perceptions of servant leadership and
leader trust, as well as organizational trust.
Design/methodology.approach – Uses Laub’s Organizational Leadership Assessment along with
Nyhan and Marlowe’s Organizational Trust Inventory.
Findings – Perceptions of servant leadership correlated positively with both leader trust and
organizational trust. The study also found that organizations perceived as servant-led exhibited
higher levels of both leader trust and organizational trust than organizations perceived as
non-servant-led.
Originality/value – The findings lend support to Greenleaf’s view that servant leadership is an
antecedent of leader and organizational trust, and to aspects of other servant leadership models.
Keywords Leadership, Trust
Paper type Research paper
Servant leadership research has increased from 1999 to 2004 with the emergence of
servant leadership models from Farling et al. (1999), Russell and Stone (2002), Page and
Wong (2000), and Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), as well as the development of instruments
by Laub (1999), Page and Wong (2000), as well as Sendjaya and Sarros (2002). In each of
the servant leadership models presented by these researchers, trust is a common
variable, and thus the focus of this paper. Laub’s (1999) instrument has received the most
use in the current servant leadership research stream as indicated by its use in studies by
Beazley (2002), Ledbetter (2003), Drury (2004), and Irving (2004). Since Laub’s instrument
has gained popularity and appears to have validity for the main factor of servant
leadership as well as high reliability in the studies that have used it, this current paper
chose to use Laub’s instrument to measure organizational servant leadership. Laub’s
focus on the organization led this paper to consider the following aspects of trust in order
to see if either or both forms of trust were related to servant leadership, i.e.:
. trust in the leader; and
.
trust in the organization.
This study presents literature on leader’s trust, organizational trust, servant
leadership, methods/procedures, data, and analysis.
Leader’s trust
According Nyhan and Marlowe (1997), as well as Nyhan (2000), trust is the level of
confidence that one individual has in another’s competence and his or her willingness
to act in a fair, ethical, and predictable manner. Trust is a multidimensional construct Servant
(Cufaude, 1999; Maren et al., 1999; Sparks, 2000) involving interpersonal trust (Davis, leadership and
1999; Gomez and Rosen, 2001; Mikulincer, 1997; Omodei and McLennan, 2000) or
dyadic trust (Gurtman, 1992; Larzelere and Huston, 1980; Matthews and Shimoff, trust
1979), interorganizational trust (Bell et al., 2002; Davenport et al., 1999; Huff and Kelley,
forthcoming), political trust (Hetherington, 1998; Parker, 1989; Parker and Parker,
1993), societal trust (Muller and Mitchell, 1994; Oxendinea et al., 2003; Shah et al., 2001), 7
peer trust in the workplace (Ammeter, 2000; Holton, 2001; McAllister, 1995), trust
between superiors and subordinates (Barling et al., 2003; Cherry, 2000; Costigan et al.,
1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Velez, 2000), and organizational
trust (Armstrong-Stassen et al., 2001; Courtney, 1998; Daley and Vasu, 1998; Gilbert
and Tang, 1998; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). This current study was concerned
particularly with the latter two dimensions of trust, namely trust between superiors
and subordinates (trust in the leader), and trust in the organization.
Leaders generate and sustain trust (Bennis, 2002; DePree, 2002) through the
behavior of the leader. For example, trust seems to be determined primarily by the
behavior of the leader’s communicative and supportive behaviors (Gimbel, 2001;
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998). Woolston (2001) determined that preservation of
cultural norms by the leader engendered trust by faculty of a new dean. Simons (1999)
theorized that behavioral integrity, the perceived degree of congruence between
espoused and enacted values, is critical for the development of employees’ trust in
managers. Behavior is thus the medium for assessing and acting on perceptions of
overall trust in leaders (Sparks, 2000). Trust violations, such as in contract breaches,
decreased trust in employers, resulting in lower employee contributions to the
organization (Braun, 1997). Moreover, in negative encounters, a manager’s behavior
was directly related to employee trust, although this relationship was partly explained
by the extent to which the manager was blamed for the negative event (Korsgaard et al.,
2002). In addition, procedural justice is a significant predictor of trust in a supervisor
(Flaherty and Pappas, 2000; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994).
Leaders’ communication practices affect followers’ trust in the leader. For example,
the amount of information received about the job and organization helped explain the
variance both of trust in top management and trust in immediate supervisors (Ellis and
Shockley-Zalabak, 2001). Similarly, frequent communication both before and after
acquisition by another company and useful information to employees about an
acquired company increased acquired employees’ perceptions of the new
management’s trustworthiness (Nikandrou et al., 2000). From a social exchange
perspective, frequent exchange builds trust between leaders and followers (Cherry,
2000; Kollock, 1994).
Mayer et al.’s (1995) model of dyadic trust in an organizational context proposed
that trust for the trustee will be a function of the trustee’s perceived ability,
benevolence, and integrity, and of the trustor’s propensity to trust. They defined trust
as:
. . . the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. This definition of trust is
applicable to a relationship with another identifiable party who is perceived to act and react
with volition toward the trustor (p. 711).
LODJ Mayer et al.’s model, when applied to the relationship between leaders and followers,
26,1 suggests that trust in the leader will be a function, in part, of the leader’s perceived
ability, benevolence, and integrity. Put differently, trust in the leader is a product of the
leader’s behavior. The foregoing discussion underlines that trust in a leader is
determined to a great extent by various aspects of the behavior of that leader.

8 Trust in the organization

The relationship between leader behavior and organizational behavior is well
established (Giberson, 2001; Pillai et al., 1999; Schnake et al., 1995; Schnake et al., 1993;
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Sims and Brinkman, 2002; Townsend et al., 2000; Williams
et al., 1992), as well as the relationship between leader behavior and the values of
organizations (Martinez and Dorfman, 1998; Shadur et al., 1999). Upper echelon
theorists, for example, take the view that top management characteristics can be used
to predict organizational outcomes (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Leaders shape
organizational culture through:
.
what they pay attention to and reward;
.
the way they allocate resources;
.
role modeling;
.
the manner in which they deal with critical incidents; and
.
the criteria they use for recruitment, selection, promotion, and dismissal (Shein,
1992).
Thus, it is worth looking at the relationship of perceived servant leadership and trust,
since trust is part of the organizational culture.
Regarding trust as a part of the organizational culture, Martinez and Dorfman
(1998) identified six core aspects of the role of such leaders in their organizations, one of
which was the establishment of relationships characterized by confidence, trust, and
reliance. Several additional factors (Cufaude, 1999) are associated with a culture of
trust in an organization, including:
.
the depth and quality of interpersonal relationships;
.
clarity of roles and responsibilities;
.
frequency, timeliness, and forthrightness of communication;
.
competence to get the job done;
.
clarity of shared purpose;
.
direction and vision; and
.
honoring promises and commitments.
It is noticeable that several of these factors result from leader behavior. Levin (1999)
confirmed the leader’s role in creating a culture of trust in the organization, in that a
climate of trust exists in organizations when managers do what they say they are
going to do (credibility) and behave in a predictable manner (consistency).
The leader’s behavior is thus more important than that of anyone else in
determining the level of trust that exists within a group or organization (Offerman,
1998). Korthuis-Smith (2002) found that participative leadership, direction, people
decisions, organizational support, and performance feedback and improvement
opportunities were highly related to this dimension of trust. Furthermore, higher Servant
assessments of supervisory performance lead to higher levels of organizational trust leadership and
(Daley and Vasu, 1998). Northouse (2001) supported this link between performance and
trust with regard to integrity and consistency when he stated that transforming leaders trust
build trust in organizations by making their positions clearly known, standing by
them, and by articulating and consistently implementing a particular direction. Since
servant leadership has a strong tie to integrity, it is worth looking at the relationship of 9
servant leadership and trust.

Servant leadership and trust

The concept of servant leadership is not new (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; Spears, 1996).
It has been practiced for centuries upon centuries throughout all cultures (Nyabadza,
2003) and has been described as a fundamental, timeless principle (Covey, 1977). Laub
(1999) defined servant leadership as:
. . . an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the
self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of
people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for
the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each
individual, the total organization and those served by the organization (p. 81).

Greenleaf’s servant leadership

Greenleaf (1977) introduced the concept of servant leadership through an essay entitled
“The servant as leader” and credited Herman Hesse’s The Journey to the East as the
source of his idea of the servant leader. Greenleaf proposed that “the great leader is
seen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (p. 21). For
Greenleaf, servant leadership
. . . begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious
choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader
first [. . .] The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure
that other people’s highest priority needs are being served (p. 27).
Greenleaf (1977), argued that the best test of servant leadership is:
Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the
least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived? (p. 27).
Greenleaf (1977) applied his concept to institutions, trusteeship, business, education,
foundations, and churches. Greenleaf also emphasized that leaders who practiced
servant leadership were more likely to be trusted.

Attributes of servant leaders

In addition to being servants first, Greenleaf (1977) identified several other key
attributes of servant leaders. These included initiative, listening and understanding,
imagination, the ability to withdraw, acceptance and empathy, intuition, foresight,
awareness and perception, the ability to persuade, the ability to conceptualize, healing
and serving, and the ability to build community.
LODJ Other proponents of servant leadership have identified various combinations of
26,1 attributes (Farling et al., 1999; Kiechel, 1992; Laub, 1999; McGee-Cooper and Trammell,
2002; Moon, 1999; Pollard, 1996; Rardin, 2001; Rinehart, 1998; Russell, 2001).
Spears (1995 1998) listed, for example, ten characteristics of a servant leader drawn
from Greenleaf’s writings, and Contee-Borders’s (2003) case study confirmed these
characteristics as being critical to servant leadership:
10 .
listening – servant leaders clarify the will of a group by listening receptively to
what is being said;
.
empathy – servant leaders strive to understand and empathize with others;
.
healing – servant leaders have the potential for healing self and others;
.
awareness – servant leadership is strengthened by general awareness, and
especially self-awareness;
.
persuasion – servant leaders rely upon persuasion, rather than positional
authority, in making decisions within an organization;
.
conceptualization – servant leaders seek to nurture their abilities to dream great
dreams;
.
foresight – servant leaders have the ability to foresee the likely outcome of a
situation in the future;
.
stewardship – servant leaders’ first and foremost commitment is to serve the
needs of others;
.
commitment to the growth of people – servant leaders are deeply committed to
the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of each and every individual
within the institution; and
.
building community – servant leaders seek to identify means of building
community among those who work within a given institution.
Lubin’s (2001) work validated nine of these ten servant leadership characteristics as
being congruent with visionary leader behaviors. The ten characteristics were also
used by servant leaders in education administration to compose an educational
environment founded on equality and integrity (Taylor-Gillham, 1998).
A review of the literature yielded a list of 20 distinguishable attributes that formed
the basis of a practical model of servant leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002). Russell
and Stone (2002) asserted that this list built on Spears’ (1995 1998) characteristics and
incorporated the attributes that Greenleaf (1977) identified. They classified nine of the
attributes identified as functional attributes – the operative qualities, characteristics,
and distinctive features belonging to leaders and observed through specific leader
behaviors in the workplace. These included vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service,
modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Along with the
functional attributes, Russell and Stone (2002) also identified 11 accompanying
attributes of servant leadership that supplement and augment the functional
attributes. These were communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility,
influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation.
Servant leadership thus becomes evident through a particular set of leader
attributes and behaviors. This paper proposes that these behaviors impact trust in the
leader and in the organization. This relationship is explored further below.
Trust and servant leadership Servant
Relationships built on trust and service are the basis for the influence of servant leadership and
leadership (Sarkus, 1996; Tatum, 1995). Greenleaf (1977) advanced that trust was
central to servant leadership since leadership legitimacy begins with trust. He noted trust
that “the only sound basis for trust is for people to have the solid experience of being
served by their institutions” (p. 83). He asserted further that in servant leadership,
leadership is bestowed upon persons who are trusted because of their stature as 11
servants (p. 24). Servant leaders are trusted because they empathize with and fully
accept followers (p. 35), because of their dependability, which results from their
exceptional intuitive insight (p. 56), and because they lead by example (p. 342). Trust
and respect are highest in circumstances where a community is created through service
in which the liability of “each for the other” and “all for one” is unlimited (p. 52).
Greenleaf (1977) posited that institutional trust is created when their trustees (leaders)
reach distinction as servants who understand the institution and care for all the
persons touched by it (p. 100). Greenleaf (1977) stated that leaders hold the
responsibility for the level and type of institutional performance that would merit trust
(pp. 127-8). Therefore, from Greenleaf’s perspective, servant leadership is both a
product and an antecedent of leader and organizational trust. This may be due to the
fact that servant leadership increases perceptions of leader trustworthiness, which has
a reciprocal relationship to leader trust (Zolin, 2002).
Trust is an important factor in the interdependence that exists between leaders and
followers in servant leadership (Farling et al., 1999). Concern for others that places the
followers’ self-interests as priorities, a central element of servant leadership, elicits
trust from the followers for the leaders. Leaders’ concern contributes to followers’
concern and to the level of trust that followers will place in leaders (Farling et al, 1999).
Russell and Stone’s (2002) model of servant leadership presented trust as one of the
functional attributes of servant leadership. Russell and Stone (2002) argued further for
the significance of trust to leader-member relations, in that leaders’ concern for people
and the practice of integrity are essential to building interpersonal trust. Russell (2001)
also argued that the values of servant leaders (independent variables that actuate
servant leader behavior) yield both observable attributes and affect the leaders’
organizations. He notes that these values play a primary role in establishing the
interpersonal and organizational trust that holds servant-led organizations together.
Servant leadership impacts trust through its influence on corporate culture
(Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). McGee-Cooper (1998) proposed a new model of
accountability-based servant leadership that she suggested will lead to a new level of
shared trust and interdependence in organizations. This has been demonstrated in
practice in companies such as TDI Industries, at which servant leadership principles
were used to build an organizational culture of trust that resulted in outstanding
organizational performance (Lowe, 1998). When a leader has spirit, the drive behind the
urge to serve takes one into an active role as servant, building trust not only between
the leader and follower but also between followers (Spears, 1998). Servant leaders build
trust by:
. genuinely empowering workers;
.
involving employees early;
.
honoring commitments and being consistent;
LODJ .
developing coaching skills and fostering risk taking (Melrose, 1998);
26,1 .
an appropriate management style; and
.
through trustworthiness that is built on integrity and competence (Covey, 1991).
“Trust given and received creates the climate for service at the deepest level” (Tatum,
1995, p. 312).
12 The relationship between servant leadership and organizational trust is further
underscored by the fact that several of the functional and accompanying attributes
ascribed to servant leaders (Russell and Stone, 2002) are associated with the
development of interpersonal and organizational trust, including:
.
integrity (Bell et al., 2002; Davis, 1999; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Martin, 1999;
Mayer et al., 1995; Simons, 1999);
.
modeling (Podsakoff et al., 1996);
.
communication (Cufaude, 1999; Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; Fisman and
Khanna, 1999; Holton, 2001; Kollock, 1994; Larsen and McInerney, 2002;
Nikandrou et al., 2000; Sparks, 2000; Staples, 2001);
.
competence (Daley and Vasu, 1998; McAllister, 1995; Mechanic and Meyer, 2000;
Ovaice, 2001); and
.
delegation (reflected in empowerment and participative decision-making)
(Korthuis-Smith, 2002; Nyhan, 2000; Spence-Laschinger et al., 2001; Weber
and Weber, 2001).
The foregoing review establishes that a relationship exists between servant leadership
and trust in the leader, as well as servant leadership and followers’ trust in the
organization, and thus proposes the following hypotheses:
H1. There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions of
organizational servant leadership and leader trust.
H1a. Servant-led organizations will have higher levels of leader trust that
non-servant led organizations.
H2. There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions of
organizational servant leadership and organizational trust.
H2a. Servant-led organizations will have higher levels of organizational trust that
non-servant led organizations.

Method and procedures

To test the hypotheses, this study used a filed-based survey approach to collecting data
on the level of servant leadership in the organization, the level of followers’ trust in the
leader, and the level of followers’ trust in the organization.

Sample
The study used a convenience sample of 69 employed persons, 51 of whom were
employed students attending a small evening Bible college and 15 who were employees
of a small Christian high school in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.
There were 23 (33.3 percent) men and 41 (59.4 percent) women (sex was not indicated Servant
on five – or 7.2 percent – of the questionnaires). Four age groups were represented: leadership and
18-25 (18, 26.1 percent), 26-35 (23, 33.3 percent), 36-50 (22, 31.9 percent) and over 50
(6, 8.7 percent). Years of employment ranged from less than one year to over 15 years. trust
The sample included persons in top leadership (2, 2.9 percent),
management/supervision (18, 26.1 percent), and members of the workforce (42, 60.9
percent). Several types of organizations were represented, including for-profit 13
businesses (20, 29 percent), religious organizations (3, 4.3 percent), government (11, 15.9
percent), medical services (2, 2.9 percent), and education (22, 31.8 percent).

Measures
A cross-sectional survey, consisting of the Organizational Leadership Assessment
(OLA) and the Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI), was used to collect data. In
addition, six demographic questions were added (regarding age, sex, marital status,
tenure, type of organization, and position in the organization) in order to develop a
demographic profile of the sample.
The OLA, a 66-item instrument, initially called the “Servant Organization
Leadership Assessment” (Laub, 1999), was used to distinguish servant leadership from
non-servant leadership. Laub demonstrated that the instrument is a statistically
reliable means for measuring servant leadership in an organizational context
(Cronbach’s a of 0.98). The instrument consists of 33 leader assessment items, 27
organization assessment items, and six items that sought to assess job satisfaction. It
uses a five-point Likert scale anchored on the ends by “strongly disagree” and
“strongly agree”. It has been used successfully elsewhere (Beazley, 2002) to distinguish
between servant leadership and non-servant leadership.
The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) (Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997) was used to
measure the level of both leader trust and organizational trust. The OTI is a reliable
and valid 12-item scale designed to measure an individual’s level of trust in his or her
supervisor and in his or her organization as a whole. Items 1-8 measured trust in the
supervisor and items 9-12 measured trust in the overall organization. The instrument
used a seven-point Likert scale anchored on the ends by “nearly zero” and “near 100
percent” and demonstrated very high reliability (coefficient alphas of between 0.95 and
0.96) (Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997).

Procedure
Questionnaires were distributed to both groups of employees with a set date for their
return. The survey was re-administered, during class time set aside for that purpose, to
those students who did not return the original questionnaire. The high school
employees were asked to complete the questionnaire as a part of an end of year leader
evaluation exercise. Of the 64 questionnaires sent to the employed students, 51 were
returned and usable, while 15 of the 19 questionnaires returned by the high school
employees were usable. These 69 questionnaires provided the data for the analysis and
discussion.
Servant-led and non-servant-led organizations were determined by the mean scores
on the 60 servant leadership items of the OLA. To investigate the relationship between
perception of servant leadership and leader trust and organizational trust (H1 and H2),
separate Pearson’s product moment coefficients of correlation were calculated between
LODJ employee perceptions of servant leadership and leader trust and between employee
26,1 perceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust, respectively. Although not
part of the hypotheses, linear regression was used to determine the amount of variance
of leader trust and organizational trust explained by employee perceptions of servant
leadership. Analysis of variance by demographic categories was used to determine
whether demographic variables had any impact on the relationship between
14 perceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust.
Comparison of means through independent samples t-tests were used to investigate
whether servant-led organizations had a higher level of leader trust than
non-servant-led organizations (H1a) and whether servant-led organizations had a
higher level of organizational trust than non-servant-led organizations (H2a). Analysis
of variance by demographic categories was used to determine whether demographic
variables had any impact on the relationship. The results of the investigation follow.

Results
Perception of servant leadership was calculated from the total score of the 60 servant
leadership items of the OLA. The six items measuring job satisfaction were eliminated
to allow a more focused servant leadership score. Eleven of the organizations were
identified as servant-led organizations (mean of 4.00 or above), while the remaining 58
were identified as non-servant led organizations (mean of less than 4.00).
Both H1 and H2 were strongly supported. A moderate positive correlation
(r ¼ 0:64, p ¼ 0:000) was found between perception of organizational servant
leadership and leader trust, indicating that a substantial relationship exists between
the variables. H1 was thus supported. There was also a high correlation between
perception of organizational servant leadership and organizational trust (r ¼ 0:72,
p ¼ 0:000). Analysis of variance by demographic categories revealed that the
relationship between perception of servant leadership and both leader trust and
organizational trust remained the same for most demographic categories. The only
exceptions were age, Fð1; 56Þ ¼ 4:07, p ¼ 0:005, and sex, Fð5; 64Þ ¼ 9:42, p ¼ 0:014, in
relation to leader trust.
The regression models of the relationship between perception of servant leadership
and leader trust, Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 47:22, p ¼ 0:000, and perception of servant leadership and
organizational trust, Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 70:27, p ¼ 0:000, were both significant. The models
indicated that perception of servant leadership accounted for 41 percent of the variance
in leader trust and for 51 percent of the variance in organizational trust.
H1a and H2a were also supported. The independent-samples t-test revealed a
statistically significant difference, tð67Þ ¼ 3:47, p ¼ 0:001, in the means for leader trust
of organizations perceived as servant-led (M ¼ 6:44, SD ¼ 0:34) and those
organizations perceived as non-servant-led (M ¼ 5:14, SD ¼ 1:23), providing support
for H1a. There was a positive mean difference in leader trust of 0.130 between
organizations identified as servant-led and those identified as non-servant-led,
providing further support for H1a.
Similarly, the independent-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant
difference, tð21:3Þ ¼ 6:20, p ¼ 0:000, in the means for organizational trust of
organizations perceived as servant-led (M ¼ 5:98, SD ¼ 0:72) and those perceived as
non-servant-led (M ¼ 4:34, SD ¼ 1:16), providing support for H2a. There was a
positive mean difference in organizational trust of 0.164 between organizations
identified as servant-led and those identified as non-servant-led, providing further Servant
support for H2a. leadership and
The positive correlation between perceptions of servant leadership and leader trust,
and between perceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust, mentioned trust
earlier, also supports H1a and H2a, respectively. Analysis of variance by demographic
categories did not reveal any statistically significant influence of these demographic
variables on either the level of either leader or the level of organization trust. 15

Discussion
The major distinctive of this research is the establishment of the strong relationship
between servant leadership and leader and organizational trust. All four hypotheses of
this study were supported, suggesting that servant leadership affects organizations by
helping to establish the interpersonal and organizational trust that holds servant-led
organizations together (Russell, 2001). The first two relate to the relationship between
leaders and followers, while the latter relate to the relationship between leaders and the
organization, in servant leadership and trust theory.
There was a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational
servant leadership and leader trust. That employee perceptions of organizational
servant leadership resulted in higher levels of leader trust than perceptions of
non-servant leadership sheds light on the relationship between leaders and followers in
servant leadership and trust theory. Trust theory has established that leader behavior
plays a significant role in the development of trust in the leader (Bennis, 2002;
Courtney, 1998; DePree, 2002; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Flaherty and Pappas, 2000;
Gimbel, 2001; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Mayer et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996;
Sparks, 2000; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998). This particular finding is significant
because it provides empirical support for models proposing that servant leadership is
one of the specific leadership behaviors that elicits trust from others (Farling et al.,
1999; McGee-Cooper, 1998; Russell and Stone, 2002). Greenleaf (1977) himself perceived
servant leadership as both a product and an antecedent of leader and organizational
trust. This may be due to the fact that servant leadership increases perceptions of
leader trustworthiness, which has a reciprocal relationship to leader trust (Zolin, 2002).
Relationships built on trust and service form the basis of influence for servant
leadership (Sarkus, 1996).
There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational
servant leadership and organizational trust. That employee perceptions of
organizational servant leadership result in higher levels of organizational trust than
perceptions of non-servant leadership sheds light on the relationship between leaders
and organizations in servant leadership and trust theory. The impact of servant
leadership on corporate culture is confirmed (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). Servant
leadership builds trust not only between the leader and follower, but also between
followers (Spears, 1998) and may thus lead to new levels of shared trust and
interdependence in organizations (McGee-Cooper, 1998). Servant leadership is thus
established as an important variable in understanding, development, and maintenance
of organizational trust.
These findings support Greenleaf’s (1977) view that servant leadership is an
antecedent of leader and organizational trust. It also supports the models developed by
Russell and Stone (2002) and by Farling et al. (1999). Both models proposed that leader
LODJ and organizational trust are the products of servant leadership. Farling et al. (1999)
26,1 proposed that leader concern contributes to follower concern and to the level of trust
that followers will place in leaders, while Russell and Stone’s model of servant
leadership presented trust as one of the functional attributes of servant leadership.
Russell (2001) also argued that the values of servant leaders yield observable attributes
and play a primary role in establishing the interpersonal and organizational trust that
16 holds servant-led organizations together.
Interpretation of the findings of this study should bear its limitations in mind. One
limitation is the narrowness of the sample – comprised of members of the Pentecostal
religion located in a particular country. It is possible that Pentecostals as a group have
a greater propensity to trust than other groups. The same may be said of the
country-specific sample, since nationality and cultural differences might moderate
trust relationships (Banai and Reisel, 1999; Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1995; Huff and
Kelley, in press; Park et al., 2002). The study should be replicated with a more diverse
sample. Furthermore, this study did not take into account other moderating variables
such as organizational communication and the organizational context. The study could
also be improved by the use of a larger sample.
The foregoing discussion suggests several opportunities for future research. The
limitations identified earlier suggest a need to replicate this study with a larger, more
religiously, nationally, and culturally diverse sample. There is also a need to
investigate the effect of trust moderators such as leader and organizational
communication on the relationship between servant leadership and trust.
Furthermore, research should also explore the relationship between particular
attributes of servant leadership and leader and organizational trust.
The findings of this study have practical implications for managers and
organizations. Servant leadership has the potential to improve organizational
performance, including:
.
organizational satisfaction (Laub, 1999);
.
safety practices (Sarkus, 1996);
. productivity (Osborne, 1995); and
.
financial performance (Melrose, 1998; Ruschman, 2002).
This study suggests that this relationship is mediated through its impact on leader and
organizational trust. Trust theory has clearly established the important role of trust in
organizational effectiveness (Nyhan, 2000; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000), including:
.
job satisfaction;
.
organizational commitment;
.
turnover intentions;
.
belief in information provided by the leader; and
.
commitment to decisions (Costigan et al., 1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Iverson
et al., 1996; Spence-Laschinger et al., 2001).
Managers can improve organizational performance through the practice of servant
leadership behaviors that increase trust in the manager and in the organization.
References Servant
Ammeter, A.P.F. (2000), “Determinants of interpersonal trust in workgroup relationships”, leadership and
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3004207.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., Cameron, S.J., Mantler, J. and Horsburgh, M.E. (2001), “The impact of
trust
hospital amalgamation on the job attitudes of nurses”, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l’Administration, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 149-62.
Banai, M. and Reisel, W.D. (1999), “Would you trust your foreign manager: an empirical 17
investigation”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 477-87.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Iverson, R.D. (2003), “Accidental outcomes: attitudinal
consequences of workplace injuries”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 74-85.
Beazley, D.A. (2002), “Spiritual orientation of a leader and perceived servant leader behavior: a
correlational study”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3049889.
Bell, G.G., Oppenheimer, R.J. and Bastien, A. (2002), “Trust deterioration in an international
buyer-supplier relationship”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 36 No. 1/2, pp. 65-78.
Bennis, W. (2002), “Become a tomorrow leader”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership:
Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 101-9.
Braun, C. (1997), “Organizational infidelity: how violations of trust affect the employee-employer
relationship”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 94-5.
Cherry, B.W. (2000), “The antecedents of trust in a manager: the subordinate tells the story of
time”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 9965903.
Contee-Borders, A.K. (2003), “A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace”,
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3069348.
Costigan, R.D., Ilter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-17.
Courtney, S.L. (1998), “Impact of trust on employee perceptions of organizational and leader
effectiveness”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 9821684.
Covey, S.R. (1977), “Foreword”, in Greenleaf, R.K., Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature
of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Covey, S.R. (1991), Principle-Centered Leadership, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Cufaude, J. (1999), “Creating organizational trust”, Association Management, Vol. 51 No. 7,
pp. 26-35.
Dahlstrom, R. and Nygaard, A. (1995), “An exploratory investigation of interpersonal trust in
new and mature market economies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 339-62.
Daley, D.M. and Vasu, M.L. (1998), “Fostering organizational trust in North Carolina: the pivotal
role of administrators and political leaders”, Administration and Society, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 62-85.
Davenport, S., Davies, J. and Grimes, C. (1999), “Collaborative research programmes: building
trust from difference”, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 31-40.
Davis, G.M.W. (1999), “A test of an interpersonal trust model”, Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 9935685.
DePree, M. (2002), “Servant leadership: three things necessary”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus on
Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 89-97.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.
LODJ Drury, S. (2004), “Employee perceptions of servant leadership: comparisons by level and with job
satisfaction and organizational commitment”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent
26,1 University School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.
Ellis, K. and Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001), “Trust in top management and immediate supervisor:
the relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information
receiving”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 382-99.
18 Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage for
empirical research”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1/2, pp. 49-72.
Fisman, R. and Khanna, T. (1999), “Is trust a historical residue: information flows and trust
levels”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 38, pp. 79-92.
Flaherty, K.E. and Pappas, J.M. (2000), “The role of trust in salesperson-sales manager
relationships”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, p. 271.
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, S.J.M.N. and Kubasek, N. (1998), “Do we really want
more leaders in business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 15, pp. 1727-36.
Giberson, T.R. (2001), “Transferring of leader values: the creation of organizational culture”,
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3010085.
Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, T.L. (1998), “An examination of organizational trust antecedents”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 321-38.
Gimbel, P.A. (2001), “Understanding principal trust-building behaviors: evidence from three
middle schools”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3018320.
Gomez, C. and Rosen, B. (2001), “The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial
trust and employee empowerment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 53-69.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and
Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Gurtman, M.B. (1992), “Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 989-1002.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its
top managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 193-206.
Hetherington, M.J. (1998), “The political relevance of political trust”, The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 791-808.
Holton, J.A. (2001), “Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team”, Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3/4, pp. 36-47.
Huff, L. and Kelley, L. (forthcoming), “Is collectivism a liability? The impact of culture on
organizational trust and customer orientation: a seven-nation study”, Journal of Business
Research, p. 5836.
Irving, J.A. (2004), “Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: findings and implications”,
paper presented at the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University
School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA, August 2-3.
Iverson, R.D., McLeod, C.S. and Erwin, P.J. (1996), “The role of employee commitment and trust
in service relationships”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 36-44.
Kiechel, W. III (1992), “The leader as servant”, Fortune, Vol. 125 No. 9, p. 121.
Kollock, P. (1994), “The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty
commitment and trust”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 313-45.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, p. 656.
Korsgaard, M.A., Brodt, S.E. and Whitener, E.M. (2002), “Trust in the face of conflict: the role of Servant
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 312-9. leadership and
Korthuis-Smith, W.A. (2002), “Organizational trust: the influence of contextual variables”, trust
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3041822.
Larsen, K.R.T. and McInerney, C.R. (2002), “Preparing to work in the virtual organization”,
Information and Management, Vol. 39, pp. 445-56. 19
Larzelere, R.E. and Huston, T.L. (1980), “The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding
interpersonal trust in close relationships”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 595-604.
Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the Servant
Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument”, Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 9921922.
Ledbetter, D.S. (2003), “Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: reliability of the
Organizational Leadership Assessment”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent
University School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.
Levin, S.L. (1999), “Development of an instrument to measure organizational trust”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, UMI No. 9920326.
Lowe, J. (1998), “Trust: the invaluable asset”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service,
Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 68-76.
Lubin, K.A. (2001), “Visionary leadership behaviors and their congruency with servant
leadership characteristics”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3022943.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McGee-Cooper, A. (1998), “Accountability as covenant: the taproot of servant-leadership”, in
Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and
Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 77-84.
McGee-Cooper, A. and Trammell, D. (2002), “From hero-as-leader to servant-as-leader”, in Spears,
L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York,
NY, pp. 141-51.
Maren, R.S., Wicks, A.C. and Huber, V.L. (1999), “Cooperating with the disempowered using
ESOPS to forge a stakeholder relationship by anchoring employee trust in workplace
participation programs”, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 51-83.
Martin, D.F. (1999), “The impact of trust on leader-member exchange relationships”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, UMI No. 9933461.
Martinez, S.M. and Dorfman, P.W. (1998), “The Mexican entrepreneur: an ethnographic study of
the Mexican ‘empresario’”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 28
No. 2, p. 97.
Matthews, B.A. and Shimoff, E. (1979), “Expansion of exchange: monitoring trust levels in
ongoing exchange relations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 538-60.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.
Mechanic, D. and Meyer, S. (2000), “Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness”, Social
Science and Medicine, Vol. 51, pp. 657-68.
Melrose, K. (1998), “Putting servant-leadership into practice”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on
Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 279-96.
LODJ Mikulincer, M. (1997), “Attachment working models and the sense of trust: an exploration of
interaction goals and affect regulation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
26,1 Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1209-24.
Moon, S.M. (1999), “A study of servant leadership in Korea”, Masters Abstracts International,
UMI No. 1393928.
Muller, E.N. and Mitchell, A.S. (1994), “Civic culture and democracy: the question of causal
20 relationships”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 635-53.
Nikandrou, I., Papalexandris, N. and Bourantas, D. (2000), “Gaining employee trust after
acquisition: implications for managerial action”, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 334-55.
Northouse, P.G. (2001), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Nyabadza, G.W. (2003), “Leadership at the peak – the 10th trait of effective leaders: Servant
Leadership”, Zimbabwe Independent – AAGM, February 7.
Nyhan, R.C. (2000), “Changing the paradigm: trust and its role in public sector organizations”,
American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-109.
Nyhan, R.C. and Marlowe, H.A. (1997), “Development and psychometric properties of the
organizational trust inventory”, Evaluation Review, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 614-35.
Offerman, L.R. (1998), “Leading and empowering diverse followers”, in Hickman, G.R. (Ed.),
Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 397-403.
Omodei, M.M. and McLennan, J. (2000), “Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonal
mistrust-trust”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 279.
Osborne, R. (1995), “Company with a soul”, Industry Week, May 1.
Ovaice, G. (2001), “The relationship of individualism and collectivism to perceptions of
interpersonal trust in a global consulting firm”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI
No. 3017176.
Oxendinea, A., Borgidab, E., Sullivana, J.L. and Jackson, M.S. (2003), “The importance of trust
and community in developing and maintaining a community electronic network”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 671-96.
Page, D. and Wong, T.P. (2000), “A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership”, in
Adjibolosoo, S. (Ed.), The Human Factor in Shaping the Course of History and
Development, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Park, H., Gowan, M. and Hwang, S.D. (2002), “Impact of national origin and entry mode on trust
and organizational commitment”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 52-61.
Parker, G.R. (1989), “The role of constituent trust in congressional elections”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 175-96.
Parker, S.L. and Parker, G.R. (1993), “Why do we trust our congressmen?”, The Journal of Politics,
Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 442-53.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, p. 897.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-99.
Pollard, C.W. (1996), “The leader who serves”, in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Beckhard, R. Servant
(Eds), The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era,
Drucker Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 241-8. leadership and
Rardin, R. (2001), The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles, Selah Publishing, trust
Pittsburgh, PA.
Rinehart, S.T. (1998), Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership, NavPress, Colorado
Springs, CO. 21
Ruschman, N.L. (2002), “Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in America”, in
Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 123-40.
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 76-84.
Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a
practical model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-57.
Sarkus, D.J. (1996), “Servant-leadership in safety: advancing the cause of and practice”,
Professional Safety, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 26-32.
Schnake, M., Cochran, D. and Dumler, M. (1995), “Encouraging organizational citizenship: the
effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership”, Journal of Managerial Issues,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 209-52.
Schnake, M., Dumler, M.P. and Cochran, D.S. (1993), “The relationship between ‘traditional’
leadership, ‘super’ leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 352-65.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1990), “Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of
values: extensions and cross-cultural replications”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 878-91.
Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.C. (2002), “Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application
in organizations”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 57-65.
Shadur, M.A., Kienzle, R. and Rodwell, J.J. (1999), “The relationship between organizational
climate and employee perceptions of involvement: the importance of support”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 479-503.
Shah, D.V., Kwak, N. and Holbert, R.L. (2001), “‘Connecting’ and ‘disconnecting’ with civic life:
Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital”, Political Communication,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 141-62.
Shein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organizational trust: what it means,
why it matters”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 35-48.
Simons, T.L. (1999), “Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational
leadership”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
Sims, R.R. and Brinkman, J. (2002), “Leaders as moral role models: the case of John Gutfreund at
Salomon Brothers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 327-39.
Sparks, J. (2000), “Exploring trust: a dynamic and multidimensional model of interpersonal trust
development in a task setting”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3059879.
Spears, L. (1996), “Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 33-5.
LODJ Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1995), Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of
Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY.
26,1 Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and
Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY.
Spence-Laschinger, H.K., Finegan, J. and Shamian, J. (2001), “The impact of workplace
empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational
22 commitment”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 7-23.
Staples, D.S. (2001), “A study of remote workers and their differences from non-remote workers”,
Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 3-14.
Tatum, J.B. (1995), “Meditations on servant-leadership”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Reflections on
Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s
Top Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 308-12.
Taylor-Gillham, D.J. (1998), “Images of servant leadership in education”, Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 9839549.
Townsend, J., Phillips, J.S. and Elkins, T. (2000), “Employee retaliation: the neglected
consequence of poor leader-member exchange relations”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 457-63.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W. (1998), “Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical
analysis”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 334-52.
Velez, P. (2000), “Interpersonal trust between supervisor and subordinate”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, UMI No. 3002301.
Weber, P.S. and Weber, J.E. (2001), “Changes in employee perceptions during organizational
change”, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 291-300.
Williams, M.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Huber, V. (1992), “Effects of group-level and individual-level
variation in leader behaviours on subordinate attitudes and performance”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 115-30.
Woolston, R.L. (2001), “Faculty perceptions of dean transitions: does trust matter”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, UMI No. 3007300.
Zolin, R. (2002), “Trust in cross-functional, global teams: developing and validating a model of
inter-personal trust in cross-functional global teams”, Dissertation Abstracts International,
UMI No. 3048641.