POWER DISTANCE TRUST AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
Ass.Prof.Dr. Deniz BÖRÜ Marmara University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Department of Business Administration
Ressam Namık İsmail Sok. No:1 Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: 00 90 216 336 52 73 ; Fax: 00 90 216 345 86 29
denizboru@marmara.edu.tr
Ass.Prof.Dr. Güler İSLAMOĞLU Marmara University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Department of Business Administration Goztepe Campus, 34722, Ziverbey, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: 00 90 216 336 52 73 ; Fax: 00 90 216 345 86 29
gislamoglu@marmara.edu.tr
Key words: Power Distance, Trust, Organizational Citizenship Behavior
INTRODUCTION
Even though organizational scholars have been interested in the topic of trust for a long time, a variety of workplace trends has led to a renewed focus on its nature, antecedents, and consequences (Whitney, 1994; Kramer and Tyler, 1995; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). As organizations have become flatter and more team-based, organizational authorities' supervision of their subordinates has become less dictatorial in terms of interpersonal influence. Nowadays, managers' effectiveness depends on their ability to gain the trust of their subordinates more than ever.
of trust includes the trustor's observation of the motivation underlying the trustee's behavior. People considered to be trustworthy behave in ways expected of them in the absence of observation. They do not merely comply with external forces, such as supervision pressures, but have internalized the behaviors (Kelman, 1961:62). Studies have shown that a variety of subordinates' work attitudes and behaviors are affected by trust in organizational authorities. In general, when trust is relatively high, employees are more supportive of or committed to authorities, and the institutions that the authorities represent. People who feel supportive of organizational authorities are likely to be: (a) satisfied with their relationship with the authorities, (b) committed to the organization, and (c) willing to behave in ways that help to further the authorities' goals and, by extension, the goals of the organization. For instance, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that employees were more likely to exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors when they were relatively trusting of their supervisor.
OCB has been defined as individual helping behaviors and gestures that are organizationally beneficial, but are not formally required (Organ, 1990:60).
OCB comprises optional behavior that helps co-workers, supervisors, and the organization. Helping newcomers to the organization, not deceiving the rights of co-workers, not taking extra breaks, attending elective company meetings, and enduring minor pressures that occur when working with others are examples of OCB that help in coping with various organizational uncertainties. A key element to OCB is voluntarily helping others with job-related problems. Conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990: 132) are multidimensional descriptions describing OCB facets. Researchers have divided OCB into two types: behavior that is directed mainly at individuals in the organization (OCBI), and behavior that is concerned more with helping the organization as a whole (OCBO) (Williams & Anderson, 1991:610). Courtesy and altruism are viewed as mainly benefitting coworkers, whereas conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue are directed at the organization (cf. Van Dyne, Cummings & Parks, 1995:223; Williams & Anderson, 1991:612).
Graham (1991,255) defines OCB as a global concept composed of several correlated substantive categories as follows: Organizational obedience is a reflection of the acceptance of the necessity and desirability of rational rules and regulations guiding organizational structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies. Obedience can be shown by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources. Organizational loyalty is identification with and devotion to an organization's leaders and the organization as a whole, surpassing the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments. Representative behaviors involve defending the organization against threats, committing to its good reputation, and collaborating with others to serve the interests of the whole. Organizational participation is interest in organizational affairs governed by ideal standards of virtue, validated by an individual's keeping informed, and expressed through full and responsible active participation in organizational governance. Representative activities include attending nonrequired meetings, sharing informed opinions and new ideas with others, and being willing to deliver bad news or support an unpopular view to resist "groupthink" (Janis, 1982:789).
transactions, thus, would be a prerequisite for an employee's performing OCB that benefits his/her supervisor.
Organizational citizenship behaviors are perceived widely as helping to an organization's overall performance. For example, OCBs (1) provide a means of managing the interdependencies among members of a work unit, which increases the collective outcomes achieved; (2) reduce the need for an organization to devote scarce resources to simple maintenance functions, which frees up resources for productivity; and (3) improve the ability of others (i.e., coworkers and managers) to perform their jobs by freeing up time for more efficient planning, scheduling, problem solving, and so on (Organ, 1988:88; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1989:89 ).
Although organizational citizenship behaviors are defined in several ways, many of the definitions share some key elements implying that OCBs (1) represent behaviors above and beyond those formally assigned by an organizational role, (2) are optional in nature, (3) are not directly or explicitly rewarded within the context of the organization's formal reward structure, and (4) are important for the effective and successful performance of an organization (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter 1991; Organ 1988; Organ and Konovsky 1989; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1989).
It is argued by many researchers that OCB may be related to employees' dispositional variables. These dispositional variables are self-esteem (SE), organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), the Protestant work ethic (PWE), and need for achievement (n Ach). Of these four variables, OBSE is thought to be more specifically related to the organization than the other three variables.
Self-esteem (SE) is "a global evaluation of the self" (Baumeister & Tice,1985:454) or a sense of worth or value (Rosenberg, 1965:534). People will develop attitudes and behave in ways that will maintain their level of selfesteem (Korman, 1977:531) Self-esteem has "considerable stability from one situation to the next, even from year to year." (Demo, 1985:1491).
Moreover, high self-esteem individuals (high SEs) possess more favorable efficacy beliefs than low SEs (Brockner, J., 1988:534). Tang & Reynolds (1993) state that while low SEs are inclined to prefer an easy task after positive feedback, high SEs tend to prefer a difficult task after positive feedback. High SEs also set high goals, have high certainty, good performance, and take pleasure from challenging and difficult tasks. Organizational citizenship behaviors are performed beyond employees' regular duties and responsibilities and may make their own work more difficult. Therefore, it is expected that only high self-esteem employees will have the emotional strength to perform OCB under difficult and challenging situations.
Based on Coopersmith's (1967) suggestion that self-esteem is a reflection of the extent to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant and worthy Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989) developed the concept of OBSE. Organization-based self-esteem reflects an evaluation of personal adequacy and worthiness as an organizational member. As a result, employees with high organization-based self-esteem believe that they are important, meaningful and worthwhile within their organization.
inclined to be better organizational citizens. OBSE is a relatively new construct and very limited research on this variable is available.
While self-esteem (SE) is a general and global attitude, OBSE is a specific work-related attitude and OBSE may have a stronger relationship with OCB than self-esteem.
Organization-based self-esteem is one component of overall self-esteem that, in turn, is a facet of self-identity that is an even broader construct. OBSE is different from global self-esteem and self-identity, while it is more situation-specific and thus is more responsive to situational factors. For example, although global self-esteem and self-identity are relatively stable individual differences, based in large part on early childhood and socialization experiences (Coopersmith, 1967:314), OBSE evolves over time based on an employee's overall experiences within a specific work organization.
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is a context-specific self-esteem construct specially formulated for organizational research (Gardner and Pierce,1998:55). Self-esteem has been studied at global, organization-based, and task-specific levels. Pierce et al. (1989) point out that, employees form the beliefs about themselves from their roles within an organizational context. These beliefs in turn have strong implications for work-related motivation, attitudes, and behavior. Since organization-based self esteem is stated to be more related with organizational attitudes, its moderating effect on trust and OCB is analyzed in this study.
All organization depends on trust, according to Drucker (1990), and trust is mutual understanding. For instance, in Luhmann's (1995) influential revision of Parson's systems theory, trust and distrust are functionally equivalent strategies for dealing with what he calls the problem of 'double contingency': where counterfactual trust has to be granted, or withheld, in advance of it being confirmed. In other words, trust/distrust compose relevant responses to 'situations where one must enter into risks one cannot control in advance -- or forced to refuse participation' (Luhmann, 1995:). The attempt to 'control in advance' through the exercise of power, (when this option is available to the actor), is, in this sense, an alternative means of influencing 'the selection of actions in the face of other possibilities' (Luhmann, 1979:33). In this view, 'trust' -- which signals a vulnerability of trustor to the actions of the other, the trustee -- and 'power' -- which attempts to control the actions of the other -- are both alternative social mechanisms for untangling problems of order and organization
It is relevant to recognize, however, that systems of control designed principally by managers may also help in predictability and security for employees. Therefore technological monitoring systems are perceived as sources of objective auditable data. These systems are viewed as being more trustworthy than other methods, and 'a protection against unfair work distribution or accusations of dereliction' (Mason et al. 1999: 14; Bloomfield and Coombs 1992).
Based on these findings,a model is developed for this study as shown in Figure 1.
Power Organizational Organizational Distance Trust Citizenship Behavior
Organization-based Self-esteem
Figure-1: Model of the study
Related with the model above the main hypothesis of the study is as follows:
H1: Organizational trust intervenes the relationship between power distance and organizational citizenship behavior while organization-based elf-esteem moderates the relationship between organizational trust and OCB.
1. METHOD
1.1. Instruments
The inventory utilized in this study for investigating the existing power distance in the organization is developed by the researchers based on the literature survey. The inventory consists of 27 items. Items inquire about empowerment, autonomy, feedback, supervisory supportiveness, communication with employees and privileges such as private parking, cellular phones etc assigned to managers. Participants rated 27 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior is measured by using the Inventory prepared by Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994). The inventory consists of 54 items. The response scale for the items was a five-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” (5) to “strongly disagree” (1).
Pierce et al.'s (1989) 10-item scale was used to measure organization-based self-esteem. The respondents were asked to indicate what they believe to be true in each of the 10 items (e.g., "I count around here", "I am taken seriously around here", and "I can make a difference around here") anchored on 5-point Likert-type scales (strongly disagree -1- to strongly agree -5- ).
1.2. Sampling
The participants of the study were selected on the basis of convenience of access. Participants were professional employees (N = 240) who were working regularly in an office environment of different corporations in Turkey. According to self-reported demographics, they had a mean of 6,25 years of tenure in work life and a mean of 3,12 years of tenure in the current organization.. Of all participants, 59 % were men, and 41 % were women. Of all participants, 40 % were married whereas 60 % were single. 32 % had children while 68 % had no children. 91 % of the participants were university graduates and 7% had master degree. Only 2% were high school graduates.
Participants represented a variety of industries, including service, manufacturing and education. Questionnaires were distributed by the researchers to each employee in different organizations. Totally 300 subjects participated in the study by answering the complete questionnaire. However, due to invalid answers, total numbers of the participants are 240.
1.3. Procedure
Participation in the study was voluntary. Participants were approached in person in their offices or the surveys were e-mailed to them on a one-on-one basis. Participants were told that their surveys would be collected on a particular future date and that they could complete them at their own leisure before that time.
300 questionnaires have been distributed to the employees in different organizations. The questionnaire included a cover letter where the researchers stressed the confidentiality of the participants. 240 questionnaires have been properly answered. The response rate is approximately 80 %.
2. RESULTS
Table-1: Cronbach's alpha coefficients of instruments
Mean Cronbach Alfa Coeff.
Organizational trust 3,515 ,9640
Organizational citizenship behavior 3,995 ,9089
Power distance 3,5316 ,8070
Organization-based self-esteem 4,0659 ,9100
Factor Analysis was conducted to investigate the subcomponents of the instrument of “organizational trust". The method of principle component was utilized for this purpose. For the instrument of organizational trust, KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy was found as , 906. This value indicates that the items of instrument are homogenous and that estimating the variance of each variable in correlation matrix by all of the other variables in the matrix is significantly high, so these items are appropriate for factor analysis. The value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found as 4988,839 with the significant value of ,000 which indicates that computed factor analysis is significant. 40 items were piled into 5 factors which have explaining power of 69,612 % of total variation. But, 15 of the items were excluded from the instrument because of their loading falling below ,50. Five organizational trust factors labeled as trust towards the immediate supervisor, openness, trust towards the colleagues, trust towards the organizational policy and managerial supportiveness. The percentage of variance, of five factors is presented in Table 2.
Table-2: Factors of Organizational Trust Factor
No Factor Labels
% of
var. Mean
1 Trust towards the immediate supervisor 19,911 3,3744 ,9250 2 Trust towards the organizational policy 16,385 2,9643 ,8802
3 Communication and openness 11,767 3,3446 ,8330
4 Trust towards the colleagues 10,816 3,3911 ,7801
5 Training and development 10,734 3,3036 ,8621
Reliability Analysis was performed for each of the factors of "organizational trust”. The five factors of organizational trust were found as satisfactorily reliable. The instrument of organizational trust is highly reliable. The cronbach's alpha coefficients are shown in Table 2.
Table-3: Factors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Factor
No Factor Labels % ofvar. Mean
1 Sharing of knowledge and ideas 25,316 3,9854 ,9030
2 Organizational loyalty 14,975 4,1743 ,8353
3 Perseverance and high performance 10,401 4,3250 ,8495
4 Principled behavior 8,066 4,4161 ,7268
5 Working hard willingly 8,021 4,1875 ,7379
In order to test the hypothesis of the study stating “Organizational trust intervenes the relationship between power distance and organizational citizenship behavior while organization-based elf-esteem moderates the relationship between organizational trust and OCB” the first step of the regression analysis conducted taking total organizational citizenship behavior as the dependent variable and the power distance as the independent variable. Table 4 present the results of the regression analyses where the significant contributions of the power distance on the total organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are calculated.
Table-4: Result of the regression analysis between power distance and total organizational citizenship behavior
citizenship behavior ,126 ,012 4,495 ,035 -,126 -2,120 ,035
Results reveal that the power distance has significant contribution on total OCB. This contribution is negative because while the power distance increases OCB decreases. This finding shows that power distance has significant contributions on organizational citizenship behavior.
In the second step, another regression analysis was conducted taking power distance as the independent variable and total organizational trust as the dependent variable (Table 5).
Table-5: Result of the regression analysis between power distance and organizational trust
In
trust ,229 ,089 27,169 ,000 -,487 -5,212 .000
The results given in Table 5 reveal that the power distance has significant contributions on total organizational trust. Also, it can be seen that there is a negative relationship between the variables. So, it can be said that the organizational trust decreases as power distance increases.
In the third step, another regression analysis was conducted to test the intervening effect of total organizational trust between power distance and total OCB. For this purpose, power distance and organizational trust are taken as independent variable and OCB as the dependent variable. Table 6 summarizes the findings of the analysis.
Table-6: Result of the regression analysis between power distance, organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior
It is revealed that when regressed with total organizational trust, the power distance has no contribution on OCB which means that total organizational trust plays an intervening role between power distance and OCB.
Table-7: Result of the regression analysis between organizational trust, organization-based
377 139 45982 000 247 6781 000
Total
.530 .275 53,777 ,000 ,122 3,228 ,001
A regression analysis revealed that OBSE moderates the relationship between organizational trust and OCB since the adjusted R square increases with the OBSE (sig. F change = ,000 and sig t < ,005) (Table 7).
Since organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior have been found to have five factors, separate regression analysis were carried out with these factors to test the main model of the study.
The relationship between factors of organizational citizenship behavior and power distance has been tested taking each factor separately (Table 8).
Table-8: Results of the regression analyses between power distance and organizational
knowledge and ideas ,203 ,038 11,970 ,001 -,203 -3,460 ,001
Organizational
loyalty ,023 -,003 ,153 ,696 -,023 -,392 ,696
Perseverance and
high performance ,028 -,003 ,212 ,646 ,028 ,461 ,646
Principled behavior ,142 ,017 5,733 ,017 ,142 2,394 ,017
Working hard
willingly ,103 ,007 2,973 ,086 -,103 -1,724 ,086
The results reveal that power distance has an effect only on the two factors of OCB namely “sharing of knowledge and ideas” and “principled behavior”.
Table-9: Results of the regression analyses between power distance and organizational trust
,334 ,108 34,757 ,000 -,658 -5,895 .000
Openness ,144 ,017 5,887 ,016 -,317 -2,426 .016
Trust towards
colleagues ,334 ,108 34,849 ,000 -,694 -5,903 .000
Trust towards
organizational policy ,148 ,018 6,236 ,013 -,261 -2,497 .013
Managerial
supportiveness ,104 ,007 3,069 ,081 -,221 -1,752 .081
The results given in Table 9 reveal that although the explaining power of the models is not high (Adjusted R squares around 0.1), all the models, except managerial supportiveness, seem to be significant.
As it can be seen in the tables above “the power distance” has significant contributions on factors of organizational trust namely “trust towards the immediate supervisor, openness, trust towards the colleagues and trust towards the organizational policy”.
Since the intervening effect of total organizational trust between power distance and total organizational citizenship behavior has been proved in the previous analyses (Table 6), another regression analysis has been conducted to test the intervening effect of factors of organizational trust between power distance and factors of organizational citizenship behavior (Table 10).
Trust towards
,190 ,033 10,404 ,001 ,151 3,225 ,001
The power distance
Principled
behavior ,145 ,017 5,946 ,015 ,278 2,438 ,015
Trust towards immediate supervisor
Working hard
willingly ,171 ,026 8,368 ,004 ,177 2,893 ,004
The results of the analysis reveal that organizational trust has no intervening effect between power distance and only one factor of organizational citizenship behavior namely “principled behavior”. With all the the otherfactors of organizational citizenshipo behavior itrust intervenes between power distance and OCB.
Table-12: Results of the regression analyses between organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior
,296 ,084 26,686 ,000 ,236 5,166 ,000
Each factor of organizational citizenship behavior has been regressed with organizational trust factors and OBSE separately. As shown in Table 11, OBSE moderates the relationship between;
Trust towards the colleagues and sharing of knowledge and ideas
Trust towards the organizational policy, training and development and organizational loyalty
3. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Results of the study reveal that power distance has a negative effect on organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior. As power distance increases organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior decreases.
The findings also support the hypothesis of this study, which states that organizational trust plays an intervening role between power distance and organizational citizenship behavior. As power distance increases, organizational trust gets less leading to a decrease in organizational citizenship behavior.
The findings of the study are consistent with the literature since trust is associated with more democratic styles of leadership, or philosophies of managing, which lead to the relative autonomy of the employee as opposed to methods and systems that depend on close supervision or direct control (Friedman 1977). Democratic styles of leadership are related with mentoring and coaching where employee choices and creativity are praised and promoted. Trust and control have been conceptualized as opposing alternatives according to the long tradition of management thought. As a result, power distance which is a facet of power and control is more associated with autocratic style of leadership and could be thought as a factor leading to a decrease in trust.
Folger (1993) states that trust is a key determinant of OCB. For an employee to perform OCB, he/she should have developed trust in the fairness of transactions leading to trust.
As a result, the support of the hypothesis of this study is in line with the literature and it can be concluded that power distance has an effect on organizational trust which in turn affects organizational citizenship behavior.
In the study, it is also found that OBSE moderates the relationship between OCB and organizational trust. Pierce et al (1989) define OBSE as "the degree to which organizational members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the context of an organization" and they state that employees with a high level of OBSE are inclined to be better organizational citizens.
employee mood (Williams & Wong, 1999). In this study, the positive effect of organizational trust on organizational citizenship behavior has been found.
Van Yperen, den Berg, and Willering (1999) have investigated the relationship between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior and concluded that participation in decision-making promotes employees' sense of supervisory support to them, which in turn leads to increase in employees’ OCB.
The findings of this research have many implications for the organizations. For trust to be developed in organizations management might try to design low power distance structures emphasizing the importance of teams or work groups in organizations.
The results also indicate that trust is an important factor in organizations. Trust in management and organization can affect an employee to develop positive attitudes toward the organization. Positive employee attitudes would lead to less turnover, less absenteeism and organizational citizenship behavior. It is also clear that employees with positive attitudes would be more likely to remain with the organization.
Organizations should conduct activities that build, develop, and sustain trust in supervisors. Open, honest, accurate, and sincere communication which is a characteristic of low power distance is one method for building trust. General concern for employees, consistent and dependable actions and behaviors all lead to low power distance and thus to organizational trust. Managers should spend more time with their employees, asking their opinions and suggestions to problems. As a result, this would enable them to build stronger relationships with their subordinates. If this relationship is not built, it is difficult to build trust.
Recently, organizations are moving towards flatter and more team-oriented structures where employees have greater autonomy and participation in decision making. As a result, employees are more involved in management practices to build an atmosphere of trust leading to positive attitudes toward the organization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baumeister, R. E, & Tice, D. M. (1985), Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation," Journal of Personality, 3 (3), 450-467. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor.International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Bloomfield, Brian P. & Coombs Rod (1992) 'Information technology. Control and power: The centralisation and decentralisation debate revisited'. Journal of Management Studies 29/4: 459-484. Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Cited in Gardner, G. Donald, Dyne Van Linn, Pierce, L. Jon (2004) The effects of pay level on organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology Leicester,Sep, Vol. 77, Part 3 p. 307-322.
Demo, D. H. (1985), "The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1490-1502. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Drucker, Peter (1990). Managing the non-profit organization. London: Butterworth. Cited inKnights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Folger, Robert (1993) Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. Keith Murnighan (ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research: 161-183. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cited in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph & Martin, Christopher & Tyler, Tom (1997). When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administartive Science Quarterly, Sept.
Fox, Alan (1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust relations. London: Faber & Faber. Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Friedman, Andrew (1977) Industry and labour. London: Macmillan. Cited inKnights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Gardner, D. G, & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 23, 48-70.
Graham, J. W. 1991. An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4: 249-270. Cited in Van Dyne, Linn, Graham, Jill W, Dienesch, Richard M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy Of Management Journal Briarcliff Manor:Aug, Vol. 37, Iss. 4, p. 765 (38 pp).
Hirst, Paul & Zeitlin, Jonathan (1991) Flexible specialisation versus post-Fordism. Economy and Society, 20, pp.1-57. Cited in Knights, , David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March
Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston. Cited in Van Dyne, Linn, Graham, Jill W, Dienesch, Richard M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy Of Management Journal Briarcliff Manor:Aug, Vol. 37, Iss. 4, p. 765 (38 pp)
Konovsky, Mary & Pugh S. Douglas (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656-669. Cited in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph & Martin, Christopher & Tyler, Tom (1997). When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administartive Science Quarterly, Sept.
Korman, A. K. (1977), "Organizational behavior," Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Kramer, Rod M., and Tyler, R. Tom (1995) Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Cited in Brockner, J., Siegel, A.P., Daly, P.J., Martin, C., Tyler, M. (1997) When trust matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administrative Science Quartely, September.
Leadbeater, Charles (2000) Living on thin air: The new economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Cited in Knights, , David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Luhman, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley. Cited in McAllister J. Daniel (1995) Affect and Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 38, No.1, 24-59.
Luhmann, Niklas (1995) Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cited inKnights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P M., & Fetter, R. (1991), Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50,123-150. Cited inNetemeyer, Richard G & Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Mason, David, Gloria Lamkshear, and Sally Coates (1999) Technology, work and surveillance: Organizational goals, privacy and resistance' in Virtual society? The social science of electronic technologies profile '99. London: ESRC. Cited inKnights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis. K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis and F. D. Schoorman: (1995), An Integration Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, July, pp. 709-729. Cited in Caldwell, Cam & Clapham, E..Stephen (2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal Of Business Ethics, Dordrecht, :Nov, Vol. 47, Iss. 4, pp. 349-364.
Misztal, Barbam (1996) Trust in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity. Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58
Moss-Kanter, Rosabeth (1996) Can giants dance in cyberspace?. Forbes, Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Organ, D. W (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Cited in Netemeyer, Richard G & Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology. 48, 775-788. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali ( 2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Organ, D. VaC, & Konovsky, M. (1989), Cognitive vs. affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164. Cited inNetemeyer, Richard G & Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in organizational behavior, 12: 43-72. Cited in Kidwell, E. Roland Jr. & Mossholder, W. Kevin & Bennett, Nathan (1997). Cohesiveness and Organizatioanl Citizenship Behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals - A Special Issue.Focus on Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Journal of Management, Nov. -Dec.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989), Organization-based selfesteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 32 (3), 622-648.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142. Cited in Kidwell, E. Roland Jr. & Mossholder, W. Kevin & Bennett, Nathan (1997). Cohesiveness and Organizatioanl Citizenship Behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals - A Special Issue.Focus on Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Journal of Management, Nov. -Dec.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior (Working Paper).Indiana University, Bloomington. Cited in Netemeyer, G. Richard & Boles, S. James & McKee, O. Daryl & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of Marketing Chicago, Jul., Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Ritzer, George (1993) The McDonaldization of society. London: Sage. Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Rosenberg M. (1965), Society and the adolescent self-image, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550
Tang, T L. P, & Reynolds, D. B. (1993), "Self-esteem and perceived goal difficulty as related to goal setting, certainty, task performance, and attributions," Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 153-170. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid, Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Tyler, Tom R. & Lind, E. Allan (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. In Mark Zanna ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 115-192. San Diego: Academic Press. Cited in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph & Martin, Christopher & Tyler, Tom (1997). When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administartive Science Quarterly, Sept.
Van Dyne, Lynn, Jill W. Graham, and Richard M. Dienesch (1994), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4), 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215-285. Cited in Kidwell, E. Roland Jr. & Mossholder, W. Kevin & Bennett, Nathan (1997). Cohesiveness and Organizatioanl Citizenship Behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals - A Special Issue.Focus on Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Journal of Management, Nov. -Dec.
Whitney, John O. (1994) The Trust Factor: Liberating Profits and Restoring Corporate Vitality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cited in Brockner, J., Siegel, A.P., Daly, P.J., Martin, C., Tyler, M. (1997) When trust matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administrative Science Quartely, September.
Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychlogy, 142, 33-44. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Williams, S., & Wong, T. S. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intensions, Journal of Psychology, 133, 656-668. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
