Trust Research Paper

Journal of General Management Research Vol. 10, Issue 1, July 2023, pp.
38-58
JOURNAL OF
GENERAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
TRUST IN WORKPLACE: A CONCEPTUAL STUDY
Abstract
Trust has emerged as a vital concept among
researchers and practitioners in the area of
organisational behaviour and organisational
psychology for developing a healthy workplace
relationship. On the other hand, in spite of its
significance, there is no pervasive definition of the
construct. Researchers from various fields have
Sunil Kumar R*
explored the construct empirically and have developed
Sumitha R** theories, models and measures concerning trust. The
aim of this research paper was to investigate and
*Human Resource Practitioner, Researcher review the extant literature available on trust in the
and Professor workplace. A descriptive literature review method was
adopted as it supports exploring and presenting wide-
**Legal and Human Resource Practitioner
range insights on the construct. The study presents
and Researcher definitions, dimensions, theoretical foundations,
approaches and their importance towards
interpersonal, societal and organisation. This paper
would be useful to researchers and practitioners in
general to understand trust in the workplace,
challenges and the process of trust building. The paper
also discusses the practical and theoretical
implications.
Keywords: Trust in the workplace, Social Trust,

Organisational Trust, Co-worker, Supervisor,
Organisational Behaviour.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(CCBY-4.0).
Journal of General Management Research Vol. 10, Issue 1, July 2023, pp. 38-58
INTRODUCTION
T
rust is an important component of human life available in the atmosphere, no one is concerned and in
either personal or professional. It is observed case it’s insufficient everyone is concerned”.
that trusting employees trims down over-
Putnam's (1993, 1995) decisive research on “civic
heads, enhancing the flourishing experience towards
rendezvous and social trust”, argued that associations at
organisational citizenship behaviour (Srivastava and
organisations are regarded as mutual or collective
Mohaley, 2022; Fischer et al., 2020). Trust is one of the
errands having affirmative outcomes. Employees
factors which has played and has always given way to
participate collectively towards achieving common
perform optimistically at the workplace, such as
objectives though they are diverse. Developing the spirit
employee collaboration, problem resolving, and
of teamwork, mutual benefit and shared responsibility
transparent communication (Taylor et al., 2023).
leads towards having a positive effect (Dinesen and
Researchers have recognised trust (interpersonal) in the
Bekkers, 2017). This is transformed into an instinct,
workplace, among employees helps in the development
guiding towards a healthy interaction at the workplace.
of social capital within the organisation (Dirks and Jong,
Social trust describes an individual’s faith in honesty,
2022; Ferres et al., 2004). This facilitates positive
reliability plus integrity of others that is confidence in
experiences and healthier relationships among
people. But it has always been a concern and never been
employees impacting organisational positive outcomes.
easy to figure out who trusts or why. Social trust
Research indicates that trusting individuals are more
emphasises trust that is relational amid individuals
contented and have healthier lives than mistrusting
rather than straight down or apolitical, flanked by
individuals (Kahkonen et al., 2021).
individuals (Putnam, 1995). It is an essential component
A simple and generic explanation of trust in academic of social capital and in general, used as a key indicator
literature is barely available (Vieira et al., 2021; and sometimes the only single indicator. If trust is
Tomlinson, et al., 2020; Ferres et al., 2005). Trust is without a doubt an important factor, then it should be
frequently demarcated in terms of one’s defencelessness interesting to know more about social trust. “Social
toward actions, faith and intentions of others behaviour capital refers to values in human relations of social
leading to optimistic consequences (Schilke et al., 2023; network and is associated with sustained competitive
Blobaum, 2021; Kahkonen et al., 2021; Ferres et al., advantage (Arup and Svendsen, 2017; Putnam, 1995).
2004). However, individuals choose whom they wish to Through organisational learning, knowledge sharing,
spread out their trust and their selection is grounded on innovation, reducing transaction cost and better
alleged reliability which acts as a foundation of trust financial performance are possible only when the
(Hancock et al., 2023; Vamahala and Tzafrir, 2021; Cui employees effectively work together through trust”
et al., 2015). Organisations enable their employees to (Ramdas and Patrick, 2022; Lau et al., 2014; McAllistar
participate in diverse activities within the organizations 1995). Social capital is the ability that arises
to endorse trusting defiance and workplace behaviour. commencing the occurrence of trust in the social order
This is anticipated to support employees’ nurturing of (community) or assured parts. It belongs to the smallest
their emotion of cheerfulness and to connect emotionally social group which is the family and also the largest
with their team members to foster social trust (Arup and group which is the nation. However, it differs from the
Svendsen, 2017; Putnam, 1995). It is a well-known fact types of human capital, as it is generally formed and
about how relationships are applied at the workplace spread through socio-cultural machinery like local
despite the mechanisms of developing teams within the practices, beliefs and habits. The literature on social
organisation. Research indicates that trusting countries capital suggests that individuals’ social experiences are
are more efficient and develop faster than less trusting developed first and foremost over and done with varied
countries (Lenton et al., 2022). As Warren Buffet (2009) societal relations in the middle age which enhances
says “Trust is similar to the oxygen we inhale, while it is social trust or trust in the workplace (Arup and
ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-5434 Online Page 39 of 58
2023 Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, NOIDA
Journal of General Management Research
Svendsen, 2017; Putnam, 2005; Yamagishi and d) Criteria for inclusion and exclusion
Yamagishi, 1994). Trust in the workplace is an important
e) Summarising the literature based on the research
aspect based on employees' self-confidence in their
question.
ability to manage the workplace status quo.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria ensured that all
Research Questions pertinent research articles were included and those
The aim of this study was to understand the trust which were not relevant to the study topic were
definitions, dimensions, theoretical foundations, excluded. If the inclusion is very broad, there is always
approaches, development and its importance towards a possibility of including sub-standard works which
interpersonal, societal and organisation with reference impacts the overall quality of the study outcomes. In
towards organisational effectiveness. another view, if the inclusion criteria are too stringent,
the outcome would be a small aspect and cannot be
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY generalised (Meline, 2006). The study relied on research
articles, theses, books, reports and internet sources. This
The study presents a literature review of trust in the process enhances the quality, reliability and replicability
workplace based on the available research works. The allowing the amalgamation of the existing research
review is a process of collecting, understanding, towards providing a theoretical framework and
analysing, refining and organizing the available generating future research questions (Witell et al.,
information to present a broad prologue, explanation, and 2016). The method supports to identify of similarities
assessment of an explicit research topic or phenomenon and contradictions in previous research works and
of significance (Keele 2007). The study followed the blends existing research work to summarise and provide
guidelines of Kitchenham (2004) to understand the a new perspective.
available information on trust in the workplace, its
importance and its impact on relationships. During the Definitions of Trust
process, the study adopted subsequent actions to perform
Research indicates the diversity in trust and its
the review-
multiplicity which has led to immense interest and
a) Understanding and defining the research subject. various operational definitions. Despite the petite
accord, Hosmer (1995) acknowledged that different
b) Searching for relevant research articles.
definitions and meanings have contributed to a superior
c) Selection of research materials from the available understanding or consideration of trust. Various authors
literature from various platforms. have defined trust in numerous ways.
Table 1: Lists a few of the trust definitions over a period of time

Trust Definitions Authors/Year
“Willingness to act under circumstances of uncertainty” Currall and Judge (1995)
Albrecht and Travaglione
(2003)
“The extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have Cook and Wall (1980)
confidence in the words and actions of other people”
“Trust pertains to whether or not one individual is able to value what another is Culbert and McDonough
up to and demonstrate respect for him or her particularly when the individual's (1986)
need and those of the person taking the action momentarily compete"
“Trust is the anticipation of ethical, fair, and non-threatening behaviour and Carnevale and Wechsler
concerns for the rights of others" (1992)

“It’s a default expectation of other people’s trustworthiness, is assumed to be a Yamagishi, T. and Yamagishi,
predictor for promotion of health and welfare in individuals as well as for M. (1994)
strengthening of social capital in the community”.
“A willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based Mayer, Davis, and
on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to Schoorman, (1995)
the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party”.
“Trust in the workplace is regarded as a willingness to be transparent and open Mayer, Davis, and
towards co-workers and be positive about their behaviour and intentions in the Schoorman, (1995)
key matters”.
"The extent to which a person is confident in and willing to act on the basis of McAllister (1995)
the words, actions, and decisions of another".
“States that the association at a place of work are observed as mutual duties Putnam (1993)
that are norms of reciprocity. As a result, employees learn to have mutual
admiration, collaborate and dissent”.
“One party's willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief Mishra (1996)
that the latter party is (a) competent, (b) open, (c) concerned, and (d) reliable”.
“A psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and
upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”. Camerer, (1998)
“The attitude that an agent will help achieve an individual’s goals in a situation Lee and See (2004)
characterized by uncertainty and vulnerability”.
“Individual's positive expectations about others' benevolent motives during Yamagishi (2011)
social interactions”.
“An individual’s calculated exposure to the risk of harm from the actions of an Hancock, Billings, Olsen,
influential other”. Chen, de Visser, and
Parasuraman (2011; 2023)
Source: Author’s Compilation
These definitions of trust put forward the guidelines of

the meaning and its significance. Starting with
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
individuals, groups and institutions, a trust may engage Though there has been considerable attention, ‘trust’ has
the belief, intentions and behaviour as expected per the gained in the recent past, yet Mistzal, (1996)
ethical conduct (Hsu, 2022; Kaplan et al., 2020; acknowledged that there has been "uncertainty and it
Engelbrecht et al., 2017; Bowen et al., 2017). Next, it continues with an augmented assortment of approaches
indicates a barter association where the trustor is keen to and perspectives". However, recent literature indicates
interact by demonstrating the behaviour of trust and risk that there have been attempts to put together the
propensity to an extent that none will be oppressed. viewpoints of trust into hypothetical or notional
(Hancock et al., 2023; Kmieciak, 2021; Fisher et al., categories based on the consequence and their
2020; Dias, 2018; Yamagishi, 2011; Ferres contribution toward trust (Taylor et al., 2023; Blobaum,
and Travaglione 2003; Mishra, 1996) For instance, when 2021; Kahkonen et al., 2021; Cook and Santana, 2020:
trust is engaged in excess, the progress of an individual’s Tomlinson et al., 2020; Masacco, 2000; Clark and
trustworthiness and readiness to perform is based on their Payne, 1997; Lewiki and Bunker, 1995; Mishra, 1996:
judgements. Putnam, 1993). Later workplace trust or trust in the
workplace was examined based on early experimental,
dispositional, sociological, psychological, ethical and
generalist organisational perspectives as advocated by

Massaco (2000) and later supported by other researchers 2020). The below table outlines the importance and
works (Metz et al., 2022: Blobaum, 2021; Kahkonen et al., analysis of the theoretical approaches.
2021; Cook and Santana, 2020; Tomlinson et al.,
Table 2: Theoretical Approaches to Trust
Orientation/ Authors Importance Analysis/Censure
Early or Initial Revolutionised trust studies. Considered as an artificial investigational
Experimental/Investig Confirmed trust is concerned with environment. The subjects were strangers.
ation on expectations or hope, exploring Deutsch imprecisely understood that
alternatives towards making ‘cooperation’ was similar to trust (Mayer et al.,
Social Psychologists conscious decisions. Trust may inspire 1995). Cooperation is considered an improved
Deutsch (1958, 1960a, an individual’s prospects and boost version of trust (Power et al., 2018; Masacco,
1960b); Loomis (1959) their potential. It establishes the 2000) and a cognitive-based approach to trust,
significance of assurance in others' disregarding the emotional aspect (Shamin et
framework, collaboration and al., 2023; Tsurumi et al., 2021; Tomlinson et
communication to trust. al., 2020).
Dispositional Trust is based on personality While Rotter stressed that trust was being
Perspective / capricious. Individuals do have a influenced by uncertainty in the situation
Erikson (1963) Rotter tendency to either trust or not. Past (Bigely and Pierce, 1998; Couch and Jones,
(1967, 1971); Johnson- experiences or socialisation can be 1997). However, earlier works did not consider
George, and Swap considered as antecedents to trust. trust as an appropriate variable and there is
(1982); Rempel and partial clarification with reference to other
Holmes (1986) factors which decisively affect the outcome of
trust (Ferres and Travaglione, 2003; Masacco,
2000). Nevertheless, recent work does consider
trust as an important variable which influences
positive outcomes (McCarthy et al., 2017;
Ramdas and Patrick, 2019)
Sociological Trust is entrenched in social systems Not much literature was initially available with
Perspective Luhman that are patterned networks of empirical evidence (Masacco, 2000; Ferres and
(1979, 1988); Barber associations based on cultural Travaglione 2003) making it difficult for
(1983); Lewis, and constructs. It is well–planned, clear researchers to understand the specific
Weigert (1985); Doney, and sensible amid individuals, groups behaviour of individuals within social groups
Cannon, and Mullen and institutions on societal norms (Mayer and Davis, 1999). However, currently,
(1998); Seligman (Albrecht and Sevastos, 1999). It there is quite some work on
(1997); helps to decrease the difficulty in social/psychological dimensions of trust
social life towards an easy process for among individuals or groups (Schilke et al.,
social order and concord. 2023; Cook and Santana, 2020; Power et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2015).

Psychological Trust as a psychological state was There are criticisms based on trust types framed
Perspective recognised by most researchers. Many within the psychological state perspective
Lewicki and Bunker theoretical perspectives on trust exist (Cognition state). That is, the evidence of trust
(1995, 1996); Sheppard within this category, e.g., calculus- is due to a lack of meticulous cognitive
and Tuchinsky, (1996); based, knowledge-based, computations (Bigley and Pierce, 1998). Also,
Tyler and DeGoey identification-based, and rational- affective, social and relational dimensions of
(1996); choice models. Early experimental or trust are not addressed sufficiently in solely
investigational work on trust in the cognitive models earlier (Albrecht and
area of organisational perspective is Sevastos, 1999; Ferres and Travaglione, 2003).
also looked upon, focusing on the In recent times there has been good empirical
psychological perspective. work in this area too (Hsu, 2022; Clement,
2020; Punyatoya, 2019)
Organisational Organisational perspective is always Though a recent entrant has restricted
Perspective an interesting area, inspiring consistency in the understanding, analysis and
Zand (1972) Jones and researchers to investigate trust as a interpretation, with reference to comparability
Bowie, (1998); Shaw, vital component towards and assessment of organisational trust via
(1997); Whitener, organisational effectiveness. Focuses empirical works. It’s the standard pointer for
Brodt, Korsgaard, and on the trust’s theoretical approaches to organisational and employee effectiveness with
Werner (1998); Creed establish its impact and influence on reference to productivity and efforts –
and Miles (1996) employees or supervisors or leaders, intangible.
teams or groups and the structure of an Principle indicators of employee and
organisation and its processes. organisational effectiveness, such as 'effort' or
'productivity' are occasionally intangible and
complex to measure trust. (Karhapaa et
al., 2022: Driks and Jong, 2022; Fisher et al.,
2020; Cohen, 2015; Ferres and Travaglione
2003)
Table 3: Theoretical Approaches - Behavioural and Psychological Trust

Behavioural Psychological
Key Issue Uni-dimensional Two-dimensional Transformational
How trust is Derived from Optimistic trust = optimistic expected costs and
defined and confidence. Measured expectations; scales expectations benefits;
measured? by observable from distrust to high distrust = qualitative
behaviour in trust pessimistic indicators
experiments expectations
At what level From zero or from nought (0) to from low levels begins at the
does trust begin? cooperative behaviour initial trust calculus-based
stage
What causes trust greater number of number of grows with
(distrust) over Enhance due to positive optimistic/ positive
time? cooperative behaviour (negative) pessimistic relationships
(increase in interactions interactions (grows with
competitive behaviour)
disconfirmed
expectations)

Note: Adapted from Dias 2018; Lewicki, Tomlinson and Gillespie, 2006; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer,
1998; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995; Lewicki and Bunker, 1995, 1996
As per table 3, trust is seen through two theories of a) Dispositional trust is based on behaviour
behavioural and psychological studies, where it is looked predisposition or perspective; as well speaks of the
from three dimensions that is 1) the uni-dimensional tendency to trust. This is enhanced by the
model, where trust and dis-trust are opposites and 2) the experience of teenage years and is steady through
two-dimensional model, where trust and dis-trust are the status quo once imprinted and acts as a
independent and 3) the transformational model, where reference point of trust at the workplace
trust is considered as a dynamic factor. (McCarthy et al., 2017; Cue et al., 2016)
b) Dyadic trust is based on identification or
Trust Dimensions, Theoretical Foundations contributory trust that is based on the information
and approaches or facts engaged toward a specific individual’s
trustworthiness through frequent communication
Studying trust in the workplace can be difficult and
or interaction. It results from their social
challenging. To offer similar views across a number of
distinctiveness, or through a certified third party
conceptualisations based on the multiplicity of
(Breuer et al., 2020: Gupta et al., 2016; Rousseau
approaches (refer to Table 2). Research indicates that
et al., 1998)
efforts have been made to fit the trust viewpoints into
c) Impersonal trust in dissimilarity does not depend
theoretic classifications grounded on the importance
on the information of a specific person nonetheless
towards trust (Dirks and Jong, 2022; Kahkonen et al.,
recounts to people at large. An individual’s ability
2021; Blobaum, 2021; Tomlinson et al., 2020: Dias,
to handle social situations established through
2018; Engelbrecht et al., 2017: Masacco, 2000;
other’s faith or opportunistic behaviours is social
Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994). However, the
trust. Emotional bonds play a pivotal role in
uniqueness of the trust perspectives can be debated, since
developing social trust due to involvement in the
each perspective has endorsed the advancement of
workplace as they are regarded as mutual benefit
construct and its importance towards the examination of
and the norm of the workplace (Evan et al., 2021;
interpersonal, societal and organisational levels as
Safari et al., 2020; Vanhala et al., 2011).
initially argued by Ferres and Travaglione, (2003). Trust
is a multifaceted paradigm in the workplace and it takes Research indicates that cognitive, affective and
time and effort to build trust. Supervisor must first cognitive-affective as the additional three dimensions to
demonstrate their trustworthiness among their followers the integrative trust perspective, that were initially
to instil confidence about the organisation's core values, initiated by Levin (1999). In addition, researchers like
beliefs etc. It reflects the leader's/supervisor’s attitude Shamin et al., (2023); Legood et al., (2023); HSu,
towards creating a trusting work environment for better (2022); Fischer et al., (2020); Reinares-lara et al.,
engagement (Patrick et al., 2022). Researchers have also (2019); Albrecht and Stevastos (2000) suggested that
used various dimensions to frame and structure trust, trust might have a rational, emotional and social basis.
based on the trust dimensions, i.e., dispositional, dyadic Putnam (1993, 1995) advocates that social interactions
and impersonal (Breuer et al., 2020; McCarthy et al., develop emotional bonding among employees which
2017; Gupta et al., 2016; Mayer and Gavin, 2005; Leana nurtures social trust in the organisation by creating
and Van Buren, 1999). positivity and feelings of happiness. Employees with

different objectives come together to collaborate, share these feelings will be reciprocated (Legood et al., 2023;
responsibilities and achieve a common goal (Kleynhans Emad, 2019; Punyatoya, 2019; Cui et al., 2015; Rempel
et al., 2022; Krug et al., 2020; Arup and Svendsen, 2017; et al., 1985). Further, this has been operationalised as an
Putnam, 1993, 1995). They increase an individual’s “emotional trust” component by integrating affective-
competency to handle social encounters with unknown based items in organisational trust investigations (Wu et
individuals (untrustworthy) and facilitate individuals to al., 2023; Legood et al., 2023; Driks and Jong, 2022;
uphold trust in the workplace. The antecedents to trust in Tomlinson et al., 2020; McAllister, 1995).
the workplace are moderately un-mapped as most of the
literature has looked at dyadic trust (Gupta et al., 2016; Cognitive and Affective Systems (CAS)
Cui et al., 2015). The seminal work of McAllister (1995) CAS play a significant part in developing trust in social
distinguished cognition-based trust (confidence about gatherings as they can independently or jointly agree on
others’ consistency and trustworthiness) in addition to individual responses. Trusting individuals without the
affect-based trust (reciprocal, relational and disquiet). necessary information to judge one’s trustworthiness
(i.e., fast thinking) is directed by experiences gained
Cognitive-based Trust
through various social interactions or contexts and after
It is an uncertain choice of approved behaviour reflecting careful evaluation of social conditions with more
self-assured anticipation, that individuals concerned will thoughtful analysis of social encounters is known as a
perform proficiently and devotedly. Individuals believe ‘slow thinking system’ (Kahneman, 2011). When
that philosophies about consistency and trustworthiness individuals understand the importance of social
are interrelated rational methods from a psychological interaction and experience the positive effect of trust in
perspective. Deutsch (1958) stated that an individual’s a positive way, it helps them develop an expectation
expectations from events lead to specific behaviours due towards positive relationships at the workplace which
to cognitive trust and by and large emphasising provides the base for social trust. It contributes to the
anticipations, assessing alternatives over coherent development of equally cognitive and affective
decision-making. It involves a slow thinking structure fundamentals of trust in the workplace (Punyatoya ,
that assigns consideration to thoughtful thinking and 2019; Patrick and Sunil, 2019; Cue et al., 2015).
mindful dispensation of information (Hsu, 2022;
Punyatoya et al., 2019; Reinares-Lara et al., 2019; Cui et Normative-Based Trust (NBT)
al, 2015). A cognitive process is involved in three kinds
Normative anticipation about individuals is motivated
of trust which have a direct impact on an individual’s
by the social system and social norms that are an
trust experience and development of trust based on i.e., i)
essential contributing factor to trusting intentions (Driks
calculus ii) knowledge and iii) identification. In
and Jong, 2022; Evans et al., 2021; Dirks and Ferrin,
inclusion, CBT is necessary but they do not offer an
2002; Albrecht and Sevastos, 2000). NBT is related to
acceptable explanation of trust occurrences (Legood, et
rule-based trust due to socialisation and continues
al., 2023: Shamim et al., 2023; Tomlinson et al., 2020:
adherence to a normative system rather than acquiring
Fine and Holyfield, 1996).
through cautious calculation of consequences. When the
Affect-based Trust (ABT) interaction is restricted between an individual and their
trust referent (e.g., a co-worker or a manager), NBT of
Going up on the CBT model, Fine and Holyfield (1996) trust will likely be more salient than an individual
put forward that “individuals not only think trust but also perceives significance about others in the workplace as
feel and experience it” which highlights the emotive truthful and could have an emotional impact on an
connections and assets among individuals. Research individual’s deliberate actions.
indicates that individuals who believe in emotive
investment in societal relationships genuinely express
disquiets regarding individual’s well-being and trust
Behavioural Based Approach misunderstanding happens due to lack of

communication or the inability of the management or
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) behavioural leaders to address the situation in a transparent and
intentions are the most significant predictors of actual logical manner. This leads to mistrust or lack of trust
trust behaviours. It predicts behaviour by assigning which in turn affects the organisation in terms of
relationships between subsequent actions of behavioural employee’s expression of dis-satisfaction towards work
intentions, attitudes and the subjective norm held by the engagement and commitment towards organisational
individual. It’s a central conceptualisation of trust as goals. Decreasing the level of trust in the workplace
appeared in the various literature (de Groote and leads to further implications on organisational
Bertschi, 2021; Tsurumi et al., 2021; Reinares-lara et al., performance, customer satisfaction and organisational
2019; Albrecht and Sevastos, 2000). Trust as behavioural image or brand (Fischer and Walker, 2022; Hough et al.,
intention identifies the trustor’s readiness to perform 2020; Brown et al., 2015).
according to other’s opinions. In the behaviourist
approach, the cognitive, affective and normative Literature reviews have recognised that it is essential to
viewpoints might support the concept of trustworthiness study trust in the workplace within an organisational
reasonably than trust as aforementioned. Since trust is setting. Trust in the workplace is an important feature
about willingness to be vulnerable; it needs to be assessed during the change process and offers individuals with
and measured the willingness. Even though the aptitude to support transformation. Trust in the
researcher’s focus is on measuring the perceptions of workplace and its values do have an influence on the
trustworthiness and both cognitive and affective organisation's functioning and the behaviour of the
dimensions of individuals (Patrick et al., 2022; Tsurumi workforce. Employee and employer obligation and strap
et al., 2021; Reinarea-Lara et al., 2019 and McAllistar, line presented towards organisational values and
1996). objectives, display more degree of trust in the workplace
and cautiousness leading to higher efficiency and
Relationships at the workplace are based on an novelty (Kleynhans et al., 2023; Fischer and Walker,
individual’s clarity in communication and 2022; Men and Jin, 2022). The supervisor plays a
trustworthiness. This is based on the trust that individuals decisive part in developing trust, as they are the ones
develop due to their self-confidence and competence. who regulate the movement of data. Trust in the
Trust in leadership is vital for the effective functioning of workplace upholds cooperation within the workplace
the organization and it shows one’s action which reflects and leads to a better relationship among employees and
beliefs, assumptions and personal commitment involving teams, which allows information sharing, problem-
readiness to perform under the state of activities of solving and skirmish resolving leading to healthier
vagueness (Krug et al., 2020; Bligh, 2017). Effective organisational recital (Taylor et al., 2023; HyeonUk,
leaders understand that for any organisation to move 2020; Maxio et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2015).
forward in terms of being recognised as a great place to Maintaining trust in the workplace among co-workers
work, trust in the workplace acts as a base that holds the and immediate managers is very important and has
organisation together in terms of work engagement and meaningful implications.
flourishing (Kleynhans et al., 2022: Krugs et al., 2020;
Ramdas and Patrick, 2019). It’s also observed that a lack Trust development in the Workplace
of trust in the workplace has been found to be very
The basic model of trust development was developed by
expensive. In an organisation where a perception of lack
Mayer et al., (1995) Refer to Figure 1. The model
of mutual trust exists, the management and employees explores the relationship between trustor and trustee
become distrustful. Communication is an important apart from factors that contribute towards building
medium in an organisation towards building trust among trustworthiness that is
management and employees and most of the a) ability,
b) benevolence,
c) integrity and their integration. have also highlighted the role of contextual factors apart
The ability to take risks is also considered in the from the trustor and the trustee, which has a significant
relationship which has a long-term effect on trust influence in the workplace (Hancock et al., 2023;
development. Recent studies support this model and Hancock et al., 2021; Kaplan et al., 2020).
Figure 1: Adapted from Trust Development Model; Mayer et al., (1995)

Hancock et al., 2023 in their meta-analysis work have trust development (refer to Figure 2). Though the scope
improvised the original model (refer to figure 1) Mayer of the model is limited, the additional characteristics of
et al., (1995) by adding a new dimension which was not the trustor, trustee and contextual factor need to be
integrated earlier in trust research with references to considered or thought about in terms of the development
trustee and trustor characteristics. They argue that of interpersonal trust. These are exhibited in the dashed
contextual elements play a significant role in influencing boxes in the figure 2.
Figure 2: Adapted from Hancock et al., 2023 Meta-analysis work based on the original model by Mayer et al., 1995

Trust in the workplace is an important constituent in employer, for their ways of being ethical, transparent
building institutional processes. The amount of trust in and committed towards the actions taken benefitting
the workplace relies on the management’s decision- employee well-being (Singh, 2019: Jain et al., 2019).
making philosophy, action, structures and employee Employees trust in the organisation is an important
expectations towards mutual benefit. A leader’s positive component which influences the effectiveness,
attitude and approach influence an optimistic approach in productivity and performance of an organization
the organisation leading to employees’ faithfulness and (Ramdas and Patrick, 2019; Costa et al., 2018). A
obligation from the employees. The leader needs to instil theoretical explanation of organisational trust may
trust, and confidence, build reliability and develop shared possibly be constructed using qualitative method.
association. This leads to building mutual admiration and Through the analysis, it is stated as an individual’s
credulous relationships among the team members (Oliver willingness to act on the basis of their perception of a
et al., 2023; Kleynhans et al., 2022: Fisher and Walker, trust referent (peer, supervisor/manager/organisation)
2022; Gara and la Porte, 2020; Miersch, 2017; Mishra being supportive/caring, ethical, competent and
and Mishra, 2013). Research indicates that the cognisant of others’ performance (Fischer and Walker,
uniqueness of each trust perspective has endorsed the 2022). Management plays a vital part in building trust
concept expansion and the aforementioned importance to in the workplace and their responsibility differs from
interpersonal, societal and organisational levels of the those of immediate managers and co-workers. Since the
study (Driks and Jong, 2022; Kahkonen et al., 2021: management team is accountable for formulating the
Costa et al., 2018; Ferres 2003). Further, these business strategies and planning the resource allocation.
dimensions can be explored to measure the possible trust These decisions have a bigger implication over the
modality in the corporate/organisations/institutions as period of time and one of its important tasks is to
workplace trust by classifying them into trust in communicate the organisation's goals to the employees
and how it intends to effectively evaluate their
a) organisation
performance and take care of their well-being (Oliver et
b) managers/supervisor/leaders and al., 2023; Kleynhans et al., 2022; Krug et al., 2020;
c) colleagues/peers/team members Safari et al., 2020; Ramdas and Patrick, 2019; Costa et
al., 2017).
Trust at an Organisation Level
Organisational Trust and Performance
Trust in the workplace is always looked upon by the
management as the solution provider towards Research indicates a significant association
organisational development. It increases work organisational trust and task performance have a
engagement by instilling confidence in employees significant association with Organisational citizenship
towards the organisation (Oliver et al., 2023; Delhey et behaviour, and teamwork (Srivastava and Mohaley,
al., 2023; Schilke et al., 2023; Vanhala and Tzafrir, 2021; 2022; Fischer et al., 2020; De Jong et al., 2016; Colquitt
Dinesen and Bekkers, 2017). However, as per a study by et al., 2007- meta-analysis study), organisational
the APA (American Psychological Association) in 2014 commitment (Srivastava and Mohaley, 2022; Lambert
and the Edelman Trust Barometer (ETB) (2013) indicates et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2020), psychological contract
that 1 out of 4 employees (APA) and 45 percent (ETB) (Lambert et al., 2020), job satisfaction (Srivastava and
don’t trust their employers. A recent study by Elements Mohaley, 2022) and flourishing (Ramdas and Patrick,
Global Services in September 2021 published in Forbes 2019). Organisational trust is the basis for building
magazine also indicates that employees don’t trust their competitive advantage and is expected to create an
organisation, affecting their performance negatively. optimistic experience at the workplace in terms of
Trust at the organisation is about employee faith in their supervisor performance, cooperation and behaviour at

workplace (Karhapaa et al., 2022: Vanhala and Tzafrir, Trust at the Co-worker Level
2021; Ramdas et al., 2022).
The workplace environment can either increase or
Importance of Trust in the Workplace and reduce employee morale and productivity as it’s
its Influence on Organisational Effectiveness important to learn and work towards building trust
among co-workers to improve efficiency, attitude, and
Trust is fundamental to the organisation and confidence at the workplace. Trust in co-workers
organisational change. Jacobs (2014) states that “The characterizes a relational method of trust (Men and Jin,
willingness for somebody to take a risk, to allow 2022; HyeonUk, 2020) and is frequently observed as the
themselves to feel vulnerable, believing the other person symbol of effective relations (Driks and Jong, 2022;
has an attitude of goodwill towards them”. Further, trust Kmieciak, 2021; De Jong et al., 2016; Dirks, 1999) and
in the workplace focuses on trustworthiness, grounded on association with the organisation. The trust of co-
four carters: kindness, capability, expectedness and workers involves the feeling of being confident about
integrity. He concludes by saying that trust in the the competence of their peers and whether they will act
workplace is a “rigorous academic area and it’s ethically while at the same time sharing required
extremely precise”. The management must build trust in information in the organisation. Trust among co-
the workplace by hiring and promoting individuals who workers is optimistically associated with trust in
are capable of forming positive, trusting interpersonal organizations, and it completely mediates the
relationships with individuals by displaying competence relationship with trust in the co-workers and
in his/her domain and exhibiting empathy and sensitivity commitment towards the organisation, as well as
towards the employees. By developing their skills, performance (Dirks and Jong, 2022: Lambert et al.,
mentoring and coaching towards their career progression, 2020) and job satisfaction (Srivastava and Mohaley,
Clark and Payne (1997) first empirically demonstrated 2022). Edelman Trust Barometer Report (2023)
the relationship between the trustworthiness of indicates that employees are more comfortable
management. It clearly distinguishes that management discussing controversial issues with co-workers than
team and reporting supervisors are key towards building with neighbours.
“trust in management or organisation” (Taylor et al.,
2023; Karhapaa et al., 2022; Vanhala and Tzafrir, 2021; Trust in co-workers supports output-efficiency by
Victor et al., 2017). The flip side is, that if there is a lack nourishing social capital first demonstrated by Cook and
of trust in the organisation, there will be in-effectiveness Wall, (1980) within the organisations. Co-workers’
(Oliver et al., 2023: Dinesen and Bekkers, 2017; Delhey trustworthiness influences societal undermining actions
et al., 2023; Patrick and Sunil, 2019), and employees are and plays an important part in influencing employee
likely to demonstrate unwanted behaviour such as behaviours in the workplace (Breuer et al., 2020;
absenteeism, lack of interest and attrition (Vieira et al., Tomlinson et al., 2020; Nowel et al., 2017). Trust
2021). Organizational trust is an important aspect in influences group process and performance when there is
terms of having healthy relationships with channelling of co-workers’ energy toward the
colleagues/peers, supervisors and team members. A realisation of organisational goals (Srivastava and
report in Harvard Business Review (ZAK, 2017) Mohaley, 2022; Dirks and Jong, 2022; De Jong et al.,
indicates that when there is a high level of trust, it 2016). Organisational involvement, identification and
enhances work engagement (76 percent), and job satisfaction have an optimistic association with trust
productivity (50 percent), and reduces work stress (74 at the peer level (Srivastava and Mohaley, 2022:
percent). Trust is relational or institutional in the Lambert et al., 2020; Cook and Wall, 1980). Research
environment. To analyse, understand, and explicate trust indicates that trust in co-workers was associated with
in an organizational background, it is vital to understand organisational citizen behaviour (OCB) (Srivastava and
and classify competence, benevolence, and integrity. Mohaley, 2022; Fischer et al., 2020) and interpersonal
citizenship behaviour (ICB) directed at peers.

Employees, who communicate frequently with co- employee levels all across to address work issues
workers, share a similar construal of organizational towards developing trust.
issues (Fischer and Walker, 2022; Fischer et al., 2020).
Organisational leaders’ aptitude to predict change
Further research indicates that focusing on trust in
reinforces their business knowledge which establishes
management’s viewpoint frequently overlooks the trust
trust among the employees. Leaders can cultivate
association at the co-worker level (Ghosh, 2018). It is
positive associations towards building trustworthiness
important that capitalizing in social capital needs
and respect of team members through their transparency
expansion of trust mutually within and amongst
in communication, ethical values and philosophies
management.
(Valentini, 2020: Hough et al., 2020; Oswald et al.,
Trust at the Manager (Immediate 2019). Craig (2017) indicates that 90 percent of
Supervisor) Level employees have a higher level of trust with supervisors
due to their appreciation and recognition as opposed to
Trust in supervisors has a strong relationship with team 48 percent who were not acknowledged for their work.
members’ performance (Driks and Jong, 2022: Positive leaders always recognise their team member’s
Kahkonen et al., 2021: Ramdas and Patrick, 2019) and competence and acknowledge it by extending trust and
job satisfaction (Srivastava and Mohaley, 2022). want to build trustworthiness to increase work
Employees who trust their supervisors are likely to engagement and well-being by building workplace trust
participate in perform better, have extra citizenship at every opportunity (Patrick et al., 2022).
actions, and fewer counter-productive actions, as well as
The relationship of trust between the immediate
plans to exit the organisation and immediate supervisors'
manager/supervisor and co-workers is of utmost
trust in the team members, would lead to vigorous
importance towards upholding workplace collaboration
communications that express a sense of enablement, self-
and having expressive inferences. To develop trust
assurance and motivation which would inculcate a sense
within leader-follower bonding, practicing transparent
of faithfulness to the affiliation to retain in the
communication, collaboration, readiness to sacrifice,
organisation for longer duration (Men and Jin, 2022,
and expectedness leads to organisational commitment
HyeonUK, 2020).
(Maximo, 2019; Xiong et al., 2016). The best way to
As per the study by APA, 2014 indicates that the build trust in the workplace is to trust one another as
employee's trust in the supervisor was (1:4) ratio and one “trust begets trust” is a good approach to follow. A
of the reasons was that they were not truthful or leader, who is trusted, is looked upon by others as
transparent in their communication. Edelman Trust having integrity (integrity means possession of thought,
Barometer, (2013) indicates that 82 percent of employees word and action) and communicating audaciously of
wanted to be transparent in their communication with what one feels, attempting to keep promises or
their supervisors but due to a lack of trust they weren’t. commitments or what is popularly termed as “walk the
Supervisors’ transparency in their communication builds talk” are indicators of integrity and trust of leaders at
trust and enhances job performance (Campbell, 2015). work place. In conclusion, employees’ social trust in the
Research indicates that when a team member is treated in place of work is certainly linked to their societal
a positive and fair means by the immediate supervisors, collaboration and diversity in both collectivistic and
there is a display of commitment and a positive attitude individualistic philosophies. The diversity of societal
towards the immediate supervisor through the relations in the workplace nurtures social trust
development of trust in the workplace (Kmieciak, 2021; expansion mostly in collectivistic cultures.
Ramdas et al., 2020; Tomilison et al., 2020 and Costa et
al., 2017). Edelman Trust Barometer Report (2023)
indicates that managers are creating teams that represent

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS organisations make it more challenging to develop and

build relationships based on trust. It’s important for
The study highlights the importance of trust in the leaders to focus on employees as individuals rather than
workplace in fostering positive outcomes at the their designation to build trust in the workplace and look
workplace. Research indicates that the theory of trust at organisational trust as a business priority. Leaders
concept is subjugated due to cognitive analysis. must contribute towards the expansion and application
However, the affective-oriented viewpoint has drawn of development programs that nurture relational abilities
minimal awareness though it seems to be important and involved in stimulating trust in the workplace. It plays a
has more influence than cognitive with reference to key role in immediate supervisor’s relations with their
performance and behavioural outcomes at the workplace. team members. Given the significance of trust in the
The study observed that not much empirical work on trust workplace, supervisors ought to vigorously pursue to
is related to employee’s viewpoint (employee and
develop trust within their work group. Trust among
employer). Lack of empirical evidence to identify
individuals in the team creates an effective and cohesive
independent cognitive, affective, behavioural and
group. When individuals trust each other, the workgroup
normative dimensions; the author’s opinion is that it is
prudent to separate them conceptually. For example, can accomplish meaningful objectives. How can
supervisors build trust for team members to flourish? A
organisational leaders wishing to foster trust should focus
few practices that can build trust in the workplace are to
on the impact of their actions on the feelings of
employees, and be aware of the trust norms within the Practice openness: Supervisors who demonstrate
organisation. Affective trust is related to an individual’s behaviour of openness will lead to building trust. It’s
commitment towards the assignment and the about sharing information and listening to opinions and
organisation leading to job satisfaction. At the same time, feedback. Psychological control is an influential and
trust is the key factor for demonstrating citizenship vital quality of a supervisor. It’s important to
behaviour. It is also important to understand factors that demonstrate openness to have enhanced control over the
influence certain positive outcomes with reference to oscillations of thoughts or thought patterns. Act
workplace trust (Legood, 2022; Dirks and Jong, 2022). rationale about the decisions made be candid about
teething troubles, and fully disclose relevant
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS information to build transparency.
Sufficient indications suggest that an environment of Being transparent: The Supervisor’s positive actions
trustworthiness and interpersonal trust is essential for and transparent behaviour enhance his credibility and
organisational growth. The organisation must facilitate trustworthiness. Transparency is an important factor of
and create prospects for more societal interfaces among leadership behaviour and offers trust to develop. It is
employees. By promoting such interactions employees strategic, targeted, and purposeful and not to be looked
develop trusting attitudes and behaviours in the at from an action where one cosset in practising over-
workplace. Immediate supervisors need to recognise the sharing every minute detail (not relevant to the team) or
benefits of the societal and demographic background of putting up his habits and information on social media.
their team members within and outside the work It’s important to provide constructive feedback for
environment. By encouraging supervisors to espouse a improvement consistently towards one’s productivity
positive leadership alignment as trust in the workplace is and career growth.
branded by vagueness and change. It is expected that
positive leaders bring change, a precondition of the Being impartial in management practices:
contemporary towards the survival of the organisation. Supervisors treat team members impartially without
Trust is about relationships and these relationships are ambiguity and allow fair participation. In terms of
developed in the workplace through frequent interactions decision-making, assessment without bias, preferential
and shared interests. The chain of command in the treatment or self-interest; acting objectively in terms of

all relevant facts and fair criteria. This creates respect methodology. There are a variety of studies undertaken
and openness which is vital for the success of the in the area of trust, yet very little focus on trust in the
supervisor. Supervisors must play the role of workplace, its influence on the organisational and an
participative leaders and involve the team during individual’s positive outcomes. This limits the review
decision making etc. at the team level. It is very important analysis and understanding of the literature in the
from a management perspective to understand how team context of trust. Literature review credibility is
members or employees perceive their supervisors and dependent upon the robustness of the literature
management practices in terms of objectivity, reviewed, especially qualitative reviews which may
organizational justice and consideration of equity have multiple outcomes. Trust in the workplace can be
perceptions in terms of reward distributions (appreciation researched further focusing on trust deficits, mistrust in
and recognition) and career prospects. the workplace, and team trust perspective due to
increasing complexities experienced by employees in
Expressing one’s feelings: Individuals are wired to
the organisations.
different types of emotions and it needs to be expressed
properly to avoid any disconnect in the workplace CONCLUSION
relationship. Similarly, emotions connect individuals and
help in workplace bonding towards achieving shared Trust in the workplace is an important component in
objectives. Supervisors are seen as cold and unreachable building institutional processes and is likely to grow in
when they only share hard facts. When team members the workplace environments. Organisation leaders must
express their emotions and demonstrate positivity in the be mindful of the altering features of trust creation and
work environment, this increases mutual respect and trust proliferation. Organisations that make available the
for working together. right to use resources in terms of data, information etc.,
to inspire by empowering participative leadership to
Demonstrate consistency: Supervisors have to
focus on synchronization and amalgamation are more
reproduce positive behaviour and walk the talk day after
expected to nurture trust among employees The
day until it defines one’s personality. This creates a literature reviews highlight the significance of varied
positive environment and things appear more organized societal collaborations in the expansion of societal trust
in times of organizational change. Employees expect
at place of work. Social trust in the workplace is
their supervisors to demonstrate consistent behaviour to
certainly linked to societal collaboration and diversity in
confide in them. Employees need their supervisors to be
both collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
dependable and not send contradictory or confusing
Organisations must promote trusting attitudes and
communications. It might be an exhausting and difficult
behaviours in the workplace, so that the employees,
task for a supervisor to demonstrate consistency;
immediate supervisors and other stakeholders can
however, it’s of vital importance for building trust in the
develop a trust culture in their workplace. Trust in the
workplace. Employees also perform and deliver their
workplace is a sturdy forecaster of employees’ (OCB)
best when the work environments are predictable as organizational citizenship behaviour, which in line
supervisors or management inconsistency leads to
affects enriching employee and supervisor performance.
uncertainty, stress and anxiety leading to negative There are various tools to measure workplace trust
outcomes. which can be further explored for its effectiveness.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY REFERENCES
The scope of the literature review is narrowed only to
1. Abou-Elgheit, E. (2019). Affect-based and
trust in the workplace (interpersonal, societal and
personality-based trust and risk in social
organisation), its perspective and influence on the work
commerce. International Journal of Electronic
environment. The article only gleaned the available
Marketing and Retailing, 10(2), 173-207.
literature which itself is a limitation in terms of
2. Albrecht, S. L., & Sevastos, P. P. (2000, November). 11. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007).
Dimensions and structure of trust and Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-
trustworthiness in senior management. analytic test of their unique relationships with risk
In Proceedings of the Inaugural Newcastle taking and job performance. Journal of applied
Conference Trust in the Workplace-Beyond the psychology, 92(4), 909.
Quick Fix (pp. 35-47).
12. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude
measures of trust, organizational commitment and
3. Bak, H. (2020). Supervisor feedback and innovative
personal need non‐fulfilment. Journal of
work behavior: the mediating roles of trust in
occupational psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
supervisor and affective commitment. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 559160. 13. Cook, S.K., and Santana, J.J. (2020). Trust:
Perspectives in Sociology, The Routledge
4. Bligh, M. C. (2017). Leadership and
Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, 1st Edition,
trust. Leadership today: Practices for personal and
Imprint Routledge.
professional performance, 21-42.
14. Costa, A. C., Ferrin, D. L., & Fulmer, C. A. (2018).
5. Blöbaum, B. (2021). Some thoughts on the nature of
Trust at work. The SAGE handbook of industrial,
trust: Concept, models and theory. In Trust and
work & organizational psychology: Organizational
Communication: Findings and Implications of Trust
psychology, (435–468).
Research (pp. 3-28). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. 15. Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R.
(2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review,
6. Bowen, S. A., Hung-Baesecke, C. J. F., & Chen, Y.
multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of
R. R. (2016). Ethics as a precursor to organization–
Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169-184.
public relationships: Building trust before and
during the OPR model. Cogent Social 16. Cui, V., Vertinsky, I., Robinson, S., and Branzei, O.
Sciences, 2(1), 1141467. (2015). Trust in the workplace: The Role of Social.
The role of social interaction diversity in the
7. Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., Hibben, F., & Hertel, G.
community and in the workplace. Business and
(2020). Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived
Society, 1–35.
trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in
face-to-face and virtual teams. Human 17. de Groote., and Bertschi-M, A. (2021). From
Relations, 73(1), 3-34. Intention to Trust to Behavioural Trust: Trust
Building in Family Business Advising. Family
8. Brown, S., Gray, D., McHardy, J., & Taylor, K.
Business Review, 34(2), 132–153.
(2015). Employee trust and workplace
performance. Journal of economic behavior & 18. De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016).
organization, 116, 361-378. Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of
main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of
9. Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and
applied psychology, 101(8), 1134.
structure of workers' trust in management. Journal
of Organizational Behavior: The International 19. Delhey, J., Steckermeier, L. C., Boehnke, K.,
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Deutsch, F., Eichhorn, J., Kühnen, U., & Welzel, C.
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), (2023). Existential insecurity and trust during the
205-224. COVID-19 pandemic: The case of
Germany. Journal of Trust Research, 1-24.
10. Clement, F.(2020). Trust: Perspectives in
Psychology The Routledge handbook of trust and 20. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of
philosophy. Routledge. Taylor and Francis. conflict resolution, 2(4), 265-279.
21. Dias, M. (2018). Theoretical Approaches on Trust in voluntary organizations. Social psychology
Business Negotiations. Saudi Journal of Business quarterly, 22-38.
and Management Studies, 3(11), 1228-1234.
32. Fischer, S., & Walker, A. (2022). A qualitative
22. Dinesen, P. T., & Bekkers, R. (2017). The exploration of trust in the contemporary
foundations of individuals. Trust in social dilemmas. workplace. Australian Journal of Psychology, 74(1),
Van Lange P., Rockenbach B., Yamagishi T. 2095226.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 77–100.
33. Fischer, S., Hyder, S., & Walker, A. (2020). The
23. Dirks, K. T., & de Jong, B. (2022). Trust within the effect of employee affective and cognitive trust in
workplace: A review of two waves of research and a leadership on organisational citizenship behaviour
glimpse of the third. Annual Review of and organisational commitment: Meta-analytic
Organizational Psychology and Organizational findings and implications for trust
Behavior, 9, 247-276. research. Australian Journal of Management, 45(4),
662-679.
24. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in
leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications 34. Gara, G. L., & La Porte, J. M. (2020). Processes of
for research and practice. Journal of applied building trust in organizations: internal
psychology, 87(4), 611. communication, management, and
recruiting. Church, Communication and
25. Edelman Trust Barometer (2023), Trust in
Culture, 5(3), 298-319.
workplace. Special report; pg 3.
35. Ghosh, K. (2018). How and when do employees
26. Engelbrecht, A. S., Heine, G., & Mahembe, B.
identify with their organization? Perceived CSR,
(2017). Integrity, ethical leadership, trust and work
first-party (in) justice, and organizational (mis) trust
engagement. Leadership & Organization
at workplace. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1152-1171.
Development Journal, 38(3), 368-379.
36. Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016).
27. Evans, A. M., Ong, H. H., & Krueger, J. I. (2021).
A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust:
Social proximity and respect for norms in trust
Individual, dyadic, and cross‐level predictors of
dilemmas. Journal of Behavioral Decision
performance. Journal of Organizational
Making, 34(5), 657-668.
Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292.
28. Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). The
37. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Olsen, K., Chen, J.
development and validation of the workplace trust
Y. C., de Visser, E. J., and Parasuraman, R. (2011a).
survey (WTS): Combining qualitative and
A meta-analysis of factors impacting trust in human-
quantitative methodologies. APROS, Mexico.
robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of
29. Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53,
Co‐worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive 517–527.
employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial
38. Hancock, P. A., Kessler, T. T., Kaplan, A. D., Brill,
Psychology, 19(6), 608-622.
J. C., & Szalma, J. L. (2021). Evolving trust in
30. Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2005). robots: specification through sequential and
The effect of future redeployment on organizational comparative meta-analyses. Human factors, 63(7),
trust. Strategic Change, 14(2), 77-91. 1196-1229.
31. Fine, G. A., & Holyfield, L. (1996). Secrecy, trust, 39. Hancock, P. A., Kessler, T. T., Kaplan, A. D.,
and dangerous leisure: Generating group cohesion in Stowers, K., Brill, J. C., Billings, D. R., ... & Szalma,
J. L. (2023). How and why humans trust: A meta-

analysis and elaborated model. Frontiers in 49. Karhapää, S. J., Savolainen, T., & Malkamäki, K.
Psychology, 14. (2022). Trust and performance: a contextual study of
management change in private and public
40. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link
organisation. Baltic Journal of Management, 17(6),
between organizational theory and philosophical
35-51.
ethics. Academy of management Review, 20(2), 379-
403. 50. Keele, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing
systematic literature reviews in software
41. Hough, C., Sumlin, C., & Green, K. W. (2020).
engineering.
Impact of ethics, trust, and optimism on
performance. Management Research Review, 43(9), 51. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing
1135-1155. systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele
University, 33(2004), 1-26.
42. Hovmand, M. A., & Svendsen, G. T. (2017). Can
Putnam's theory explain high levels of social 52. Kleynhans, D. J., Heyns, M. M., Stander, M. W., &
trust?. Belgeo. Revue belge de géographie, (1). de Beer, L. T. (2022). Authentic Leadership, Trust
(in the Leader), and Flourishing: Does
43. Hsu, L. C. (2022). The Role of Cognitive and
Precariousness Matter?. Frontiers in
Affective Trust on Promoting Unethical Pro-
Psychology, 13, 798759.
Organizational Behavior. Journal of Human
Resource and Sustainability Studies, 10(3), 600-616. 53. Kmieciak, R. (2021). Trust, knowledge sharing, and
innovative work behavior: empirical evidence from
44. Jacobs. K(2014). how-to-build-trust-in-
Poland. European Journal of Innovation
organisations. http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-
Management, 24(5), 1832-1859.
details/how-to-build-trust-in-organisations
54. Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust
45. Jain, P., Duggal, T., & Ansari, A. H. (2019).
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research.
Examining the mediating effect of trust and
Sage.
psychological well-being on transformational
leadership and organizational 55. Krug, H., Geibel, H. V., & Otto, K. (2020). Identity
commitment. Benchmarking: An International leadership and well-being: Team identification and
Journal, 26(5), 1517-1532. trust as underlying mechanisms. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 42(1), 17-31.
46. Kähkönen, T., Blomqvist, K., Gillespie, N., &
Vanhala, M. (2021). Employee trust repair: A 56. Lambert, L. S., Bingham, J. B., & Zabinski, A.
systematic review of 20 years of empirical research (2020). Affective commitment, trust, and the
and future research directions. Journal of Business psychological contract: contributions matter,
Research, 130, 98-109. too!. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 29(2), 294-314.
47. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and
slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 57. Lau, D. C., Lam, L. W., & Wen, S. S. (2014).
Examining the effects of feeling trusted by
48. Kaplan, A. D., Kessler, T. T., & Hancock, P. A.
supervisors in the workplace: A self‐evaluative
(2020, December). How Trust is Defined and its use
perspective. Journal of Organizational
in Human-Human and Human-Machine Interaction.
Behavior, 35(1), 112-127.
In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 64, No. 1, 58. Leana III, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999).
pp. 1150-1154). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Organizational social capital and employment
Publications. practices. Academy of management review, 24(3),
538-555.
59. Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., den Hartog, organizations. Academy of management
D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2023). A critical review journal, 38(1), 24-59.
of the conceptualization, operationalization, and
69. McCarthy, M. H., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G.
empirical literature on cognition‐based and affect‐
(2017). Dispositional pathways to trust: Self-esteem
based trust. Journal of Management Studies, 60(2),
and agreeableness interact to predict trust and
495-537.
negative emotional disclosure. Journal of
60. Lenton, T. M., Boulton, C. A., & Scheffer, M. personality and social psychology, 113(1), 95.
(2022). Resilience of countries to COVID-19
70. Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systemic
correlated with trust. Scientific reports, 12(1), 75.
review: Inclusion and exclusion
61. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in criteria. Contemporary issues in communication
relationships: A model of development and decline. science and disorders, 33(Spring), 21-27.
Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
71. Men, L. R., Qin, Y. S., & Jin, J. (2022). Fostering
62. Masacco, S. L. (2000). The relationship between employee trust via effective supervisory
organizational trust and organizational productivity: communication during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Understanding the centrality of trust in an Through the lens of motivating language
organisational setting. Doctoral Dissertion, Walden theory. International Journal of Business
University. Communication, 59(2), 193-218.
63. Mascarenhas, S. O. A. (2019). The Ethics of 72. Metz, A., Jensen, T., Farley, A., Boaz, A., Bartley,
Corporate Trusting Relations. In Corporate Ethics L., & Villodas, M. (2022). Building trusting
for Turbulent Markets (pp. 77-111). Emerald relationships to support implementation: a proposed
Publishing Limited. theoretical model. Frontiers in health services, 2,
71.
64. Maximo, N., Stander, M. W., & Coxen, L. (2019).
Authentic leadership and work engagement: The 73. Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (2013). The research
indirect effects of psychological safety and trust in on trust in leadership: The need for context. Journal
supervisors. SA Journal of Industrial of Trust Research, 3(1), 59-69.
Psychology, 45(1), 1-11.
74. Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in modern societies: The
65. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of search for the bases of social order. John Wiley &
the performance appraisal system on trust for Sons.
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of
75. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules,
applied psychology, 84(1), 123.
N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the
66. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in trustworthiness criteria. International journal of
management and performance: Who minds the shop qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
while the employees watch the boss?. Academy of
76. Patrick, H. A., & Sunil, K. R. (2019). Does trust in
management journal, 48(5), 874-888.
the workplace influence work engagement? An
67. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. investigation among information technology
(1995). An integrative model of organizational employees. International Journal of Advance and
trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709- Innovative Research, 6(1), 126-133.
734.
77. Patrick, H. A., Ramdas, S. K., & Kareem, J. (2022).
68. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based Positive Leadership Experiences of Software
trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in Professionals in Information Technology

Organisations. In Leadership in a Changing World- 87. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985).
A Multidimensional Perspective. IntechOpen. Trust in close relationships. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 49(1), 95-112.
78. Power, S. A., Velez, G., Qadafi, A., & Tennant, J.
(2018). The SAGE model of social psychological 88. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., &
research. Perspectives on Psychological Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
Science, 13(3), 359-372. cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of
management review, 23(3), 393-404.
79. Punyatoya, P. (2018). Effects of cognitive and
affective trust on online customer 89. Safari, A., Barzoki, A. S., & Heidari Aqagoli, P.
behavior. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(1), (2020). Exploring the antecedents and consequences
80-96. of impersonal trust. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 28(6), 1149-1173.
80. Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community:
Social capital and public life. The american, 13, 35- 90. Schilke, O., Powell, A., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2023).
42. A review of experimental research on organizational
trust. Journal of Trust Research, 1-38.
81. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The
strange disappearance of social capital in 91. Shamim, S., Yang, Y., Zia, N. U., Khan, Z., &
America. PS: Political science & politics, 28(4), Shariq, S. M. (2023). Mechanisms of cognitive trust
664-683. development in artificial intelligence among front
line employees: An empirical examination from a
82. Ramdas, S. K., & Patrick, H. A. (2019). Positive
developing economy. Journal of Business
leadership behaviour and flourishing: the mediating
Research, 167, 114168.
role of trust in information technology
organizations. South Asian Journal of Human 92. Singh, R. (2020, February). Organisational
Resources Management, 6(2), 258-277. embeddedness as a moderator on the organisational
support, trust and workplace deviance relationships.
83. Ramdas. S. K., Patrick. H. A. & Sumitha. R. (2022).
In Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for
Positive leadership and trust- vital to a flourishing
Empirical Scholarship (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-17).
workplace. Proceeding of Fostering Resilient
Emerald Publishing Limited.
Business Ecosystems and Economic Growth:
Towards the Next Normal (ISBN: 978-81-950596-1- 93. Srivastava, U. R., & Mohaley, S. (2022). Role of
4). Dr. D. Y. Patil B-School, Pune, India trust in the relationship between authentic leadership
and job satisfaction and organizational commitment
84. Ramdas. S. K., Patrick. H. A., & Sumitha. R. (2020).
among indian bank employees. American Journal of
Positive Leadership and Trust in Pandemic Times.
Industrial and Business Management, 12(4), 616-
Proceedings of International Conference on
664.
Business, IT and Enterprise Architecture (ICBIT-
2020)MDI Musheerabad, India. 94. Taylor, L. A., Nong, P. A. I. G. E., & Platt, J. O. D.
Y. N. (2023). Fifty years of trust research in health
85. Reinares-Lara, P., Rodríguez-Fuertes, A., & Garcia-
care: a synthetic review. The Milbank
Henche, B. (2019). The cognitive dimension and the
Quarterly, 101(1), 126-178.
affective dimension in the patient’s
experience. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2177. 95. Tobias-Miersch, Y. (2017). Beyond trust: towards a
practice-based understanding of governing ‘network
86. Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986). How do I
organizations’. Journal of Management &
trust thee. Psychology today, 20(2), 28-34.
Governance, 21, 473-498.

96. Tomlinson, E. C., Schnackenberg, A. K., Dawley, 102. Vieira, P. D. S., Dias, M. D. O., Lopes, R. D. O. A.,
D., & Ash, S. R. (2020). Revisiting the & Cardoso, J. (2021). Literature Review on Trust,
trustworthiness–trust relationship: exploring the Psychological Well-Being, and Leadership Applied
differential predictors of cognition‐and affect‐based to the Workplace Commitment. British Journal of
trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), Psychology Research, 9(2), 20-37.
535-550.
103. Wang, Y., Wang, X., and Zuo, WL. (2015).
97. Tsurumi, T., Yamaguchi, R., Kagohashi, K., & Research on Trust Prediction from a Sociological
Managi, S. (2021). Are cognitive, affective, and Perspective. Journal of Computer Science
eudaimonic dimensions of subjective well-being Technology, 30, 843-858.
differently related to consumption? Evidence from
104. Witell, L., Snyder, H., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P.,
Japan. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 2499-2522.
& Kristensson, P. (2016). Defining service
98. Valentini, C. (2021). Trust research in public innovation: A review and synthesis. Journal of
relations: an assessment of its conceptual, theoretical Business Research, 69(8), 2863-2872.
and methodological foundations. Corporate
105. Wu, W., Wang, S., Ding, G., & Mo, J. (2023).
Communications: An International Journal, 26(1),
Elucidating trust-building sources in social
84-106.
shopping: A consumer cognitive and emotional trust
99. Vanhala, M., & Tzafrir, S. S. (2021). Organisational perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
trust and performance in different Services, 71, 103217.
contexts. Knowledge and Process
106. Xiong, K., Lin, W., Li, J. C., & Wang, L. (2016).
Management, 28(4), 331-344.
Employee trust in supervisors and affective
100. Vanhala, M., Puumalainen, K., & Blomqvist, K. commitment: The moderating role of authentic
(2011). Impersonal trust: The development of the leadership. Psychological reports, 118(3), 829-848.
construct and the scale. Personnel Review, 40(4),
107. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and
485-513.
commitment in the United States and
101. Victor, J., & Hoole, C. (2017). The influence of Japan. Motivation and emotion, 18, 129-166.
organisational rewards on workplace trust and work
108. Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard
engagement. SA Journal of Human Resource
business review, 95(1), 84-90.
Management, 15(1), 1-14.


Trust Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust Research Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of General Management Research Vol. 10, Issue 1, July 2023, pp.

TRUST IN WORKPLACE: A CONCEPTUAL STUDY

Keywords: Trust in the workplace, Social Trust,

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

Table 1: Lists a few of the trust definitions over a period of time

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

These definitions of trust put forward the guidelines of

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

Table 3: Theoretical Approaches - Behavioural and Psychological Trust

Source: Author’s Compilation

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

Behavioural Based Approach misunderstanding happens due to lack of

Figure 1: Adapted from Trust Development Model; Mayer et al., (1995)

Source: Author’s Compilation

Source: Author’s Compilation

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS organisations make it more challenging to develop and

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

ISSN 2348-2869 Print

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.