Trust on fire


Material Information

Trust on fire exploring the importance of trust in urgent moments
Physical Description:
v, 69 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Wild, Eric
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Management thesis, Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Management -- UF   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Eric Wild.
General Note:
General Note:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 003163658
System ID:

Full Text






ABSTRA CT ...... ... ..... .......... .. .. .. .. .. iv



. .. .. . .... .. .. .. . . . 1

2 HYPOTHESES ............... ............... .... .. ... .. .10

Differentiating Urgent and Routine Trust ...
Urgent and Routine Trust: Effects on Outcomes
Job Performance ...... . .

Commitment and Withdrawal ....
Moderating Effect of Risk Events ..
Trust Antecedents: Trustworthiness
Propensity to Trust .... .....

. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 10
. .f f . . . . . . 15
.* .a . . . . . a a 17

* a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a . . ft a a a a 23
. .a . . . . . . . . .. 24

. . . . . . . 2 7

. . . . . . . . . 3 1

3 M ETH O D ....... .. .......... .. .. .. ....... .. .. ... ...... 34

Sample ..... .
Time 1 Procedure
Time 2 Procedure
Time 3 Procedure

. .. . .. . .. . . 34

. .a.a a. .a a. .a a. .a..a. .a a. a a

S.. 35
... . . 37

S* 39


Descriptive Statistics

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6

. .a a a

. a . a a a. .. a. .. .. .a. . 4 3
. . . . . . .1 3


. .. . .* .51

DISCUSSION Relationship with Commitment and Withdrawal

Routine Trust's Relationship with Commitment and Withdrawal

Routine Trust's Relationship with Job Perform
Negative Effects of Urgent Trust ........
Citizenship and Counterproductive Behaviors
Trustworthiness ......... . .
Propensity to Trust . . . . .
Practical Implications...................
Study Limitations . .
Suggestions for Future Research ..........


. . .. . 52

ance .. .. . .. . . 53
. . . . . . . . 54
. . C . . . . C 59

. C . . . . . . . . .6 2


. . ....... ...... .... ... .... ... 69

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



Eric Wild

December 2004


Jason Colquitt

Major Department:


Many jobs possess an inherent duality: everyday, traditional actions, with

punctuated instances of emergencies or crises. The purpose of my study was to examine

how this duality affects trust at work. My study explicated two new constructs: routine

trust and urgent trust. I examined the nomological network of these trust variables using a

sample of firefighters. These two forms of trust are hypothesized to be differentially

related to a set of organizationally relevant independent and dependent variables. Risk

was posited to moderate the relationship between trust and the outcome variables of this


Some evidence was found that the two forms of trust are distinct, yet related

constructs. Most of the hypotheses were not supported, possibly due to a lack of

sample. Practitioners should be aware that these two forms of trust exist and that

distinguishing between them may help them achieve organizationally relevant goals.


Trust is an important psychological variable related to key organizational

outcomes. Kramer (1999) noted that "trust is moving from a bit player to center stage in

contemporary organizational theory and research" (p. 238). The changing nature of work

accentuates the importance of this construct. Popular press has called attention to a

plethora of recent situations wherein large corporations have violated the trust of

stockholders and also employees. The names Enron and Worldcom will forever be

synonymous with tricky accounting, abject dishonesty, and vulgar deceit. These trust

"violations" also occur in the opposite direction, as employees today feel less loyalty to

their employers and may therefore be more willing to exploit the vulnerability of the

companies for which they work. Employees steal time and effort by shirking and, in

many cases, actually stealing money in both a literal sense and by pilfering merchandise

and/or supplies.

Whatever the reasons for these deeds, their prevalence does not make for

an environment conducive to the fostering of trust.

Caudron (1996) provided the following examples of how trust breaks down

within an organization: "Management touts open-book communication, for example, but

employees hear about layoffs on the radio. The board talks about the need to cut costs

while handing the CEO a multi-million dollar bonus. Managers promote long-term focus,


In each of these examples, dissonance between what management says and does leaves

employees with little basis for trusting their employers.

Additionally, the physical characteristics of today's work environment highlight

the increased relevance of trust to organizations. For example, the demographic

distribution of employees has become quite diverse, even in careers typically dominated

by one gender or race. Further, self-managed teams have become a popular work unit.

Management has little control over these teams and must therefore trust that they are

functioning effectively. If in fact a team is shirking as a collective for example,

management may not be privy to this fact until it is too late and a project has failed.

Finally, the actual distribution of work within many firms has expanded to include not

only different cities or states but, in some cases, different regions of the world.

Obviously, in these cases, interdependent workers must often substitute trust for

monitoring because of simple geographic differences that make face-to-face observation

difficult to impossible.

In my study, trust is defined as a psychological state comprising the intention to

accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of

another. This definition, put forth by Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer in the 1998

special issue on trust in the Academy of Management Review (AMR), has three key

components. First is the idea that trust is an intention, not an act. Second is the idea of


Without some sort of vulnerability, trust is unnecessary. There is little or

no need to trust someone whose actions have no impact on the trustor. Third is the idea of


urgent they are. Some behaviors are mundane in nature and involve everyday, normal

actions performed at work. Other behaviors are far more urgent in nature and may

include rarer actions, such as behavior in emergency situations. For example, a

convenience store clerk engages in a different psychological event when he trusts the

clerk working the next shift to show up on time, than when he trusts his coworker to

behave properly in the event of an armed robbery. In a related manner, a person who

works in assembly trusting a coworker in engineering to design a product that can in fact

be assembled might be a psychological event quite distinct from that same person

trusting that engineer to point out an critical design flaw that makes the product unsafe

even after the product has gone to market.

In other words, this definition leaves two important questions unanswered: First,

willingness to be vulnerable during what kind of behavior and second, positive

expectations that the person will engage in what type of behavior. These two questions

are important because many jobs possess an inherent duality: everyday, traditional

actions, with punctuated instances of emergencies or crises. Given this distinction, it

seems that trust may take on different forms in these different situations. This form of

trust may be urgent when emergencies occur, but has received very little research

attention. Most research on trust has been conducted in samples (e.g., secretaries, public

utility office employees, sales managers) where these emergency situations simply do not

arise (Butler, 1983; Nicholson & Goh, 1983; Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven,

1997). As a consequence of this sampling, trust often is not studied in jobs where life or


work must trust their coworkers in an everyday sense as well. These jobs involve

situations distinct from those that occur in normal jobs.

Other jobs possess this duality as well, though perhaps not in a life or death sense.

That is, most jobs have every day, traditional actions with punctuated urgent situations.

For example, few jobs are as routinized as those performed by assembly-line workers. In

these situations, each worker on the line must trust the preceding coworkers to do their

jobs correctly in order for the product to be produced. These instances of trust are

psychologically distinct from instances involving these same workers trusting each other

to pull one another to safety should someone become entangled in the moving-parts

assembly line machinery. Given this discussion of the inherent duality of trust, the

purpose of my study was to reconceptualize trust as it is experienced in jobs that possess

this important duality. More specifically, two types of trust were examined: urgent trust

and routine trust.

The construct of trust has been of interest to researchers in a variety of


While disciplines differ in their views of trust, general agreement exists

within different disciplines. Personality researchers see trust as an individual difference.


see trust as an institutional phenomenon. Sociologists see trust as embedded

in relationships among people. Social psychologists see trust as an expectation of another

party in a transaction (Bigley & Pearce, 1998).

Although trust appeared as a variable in the management literature as early as

1946, no work focused specifically on trust until the work of Mellinger (1959). Mellinger

communicator distrusts the recipient of that communication, the communicator will

conceal his real feelings about the subject of the communication.

More influential than Mellinger's

work was that of Deutsch (1958). Deutsch

examined different motivational orientations (cooperative, individualistic, and

competitive) as causes of trusting and trustworthy behavior on the part of participants in

a two-person nonzero-sum game. Later, Deutsch (1960) defined trust as follows:

An individual may be said to have trust in the occurrence of an event if he expects
its occurrence and his expectation leads to behavior which he perceives to have
greater negative motivational consequences if the expectation is not confirmed

than positive motivational consequences if it is

confirmed. (p. 124)

Implicit in this definition is the idea that a person has more to lose than to gain by

trusting another.

Research on trust then slowed more or less to a standstill until Rotter (1967)

developed a scale to measure interpersonal trust. Rotter defined interpersonal trust as an

expectancy held by an individual or group that the word, promise, or verbal or written

statement of another individual or group can be relied on. In later research, Rotter

showed that people higher in interpersonal trust were less likely to lie, cheat, or steal.

Further, people higher in interpersonal trust were less likely to be unhappy or

maladjusted, and more likely to be well-liked and sought out as a friend, than individuals

low in interpersonal trust (Rotter, 1980).

While the early work of Rotter served as a springboard for research on trust in the

literatures of personality and psychology, the work of Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) was
* 1_.l_ t' -I-* 1 ,1 rr, 1 1 m It*

1974 identified trust in superiors as a factor influencing upward communication within


Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) presented an integrative model of

organizational trust. These authors justified the need for an integrated model by citing a

host of problems in the literature on trust. Examples included definitional problems;

uncertainty concerning the relationship between risk and trust; confusion concerning the

referent of trust; and confusion between trust, its antecedents, and its outcomes. Their

model showed that the perception of another's

ability, benevolence, and integrity as well

a person's general trusting propensity influenced how much trust a person extended to

another. This trust determined how much risk the trustor was willing to take in the

relationship. Their work was especially important because it distinguished between

antecedents of trust internal to the trustor (i.e., propensity to trust) and those internal to

the person being trusted (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity).

Hosmer (1995) conducted a cross-disciplinary review of the trust literature in an

attempt to find a unifying definition of trust. Hosmer identified several basic conclusions

that are accepted across the multiple disciplines examined. First, he found that trust was,

for the most part, expressed as an optimistic expectation concerning the outcome of an

event or the behavior of a person. Second, trust tended to occur under conditions of

vulnerability. Third, trust was associated with uncoerced cooperation and was difficult to

enforce. Finally, trust was usually extended with an implicit assumption of an accepted

duty to protect the rights and interests of others. Given these conclusions, Hosmer

rights and interests of all others engaged in a joint endeavor or economic
exchange. (p. 392)

As discussed earlier, trust possesses an inherent duality. For the purposes of my

study, I refer to these two types of trust as urgent trust and routine trust.

* Routine trust is the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive
expectations of the intentions or behavior of another in situations that have
established rules, procedures, or precedents governing actions. This is not to say
that these situations are unimportant-merely that they are more frequently
encountered and have well-established histories.

* Urgent trust is the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations
of the intentions or behavior of another in situations that are novel or less
common and pose more serious threats to collective interests.

An example may help illustrate this distinction. Police officers must have routine

trust in their fellow officers. A precinct would not function effectively if officers could

not trust one another to engage in routine behaviors such as showing up for work,

following the appropriate chain of command, and completing paperwork in a timely

fashion. These are all examples of behaviors that are frequently encountered and, as such,

are driven by rules and precedents. Interestingly, these are the same behaviors that

coworkers trust one another to exhibit in almost any organization.

The urgent form of trust is also prevalent in a police officer's

career. In fact,

routine events are often punctuated with novel, more serious situations in which one


life is literally in the hands of another. This punctuation often occurs without

warning and can be quite precarious. For example, two patrolling officers might pull over

a vehicle for having an expired tag. This type of occurrence is certainly routine for a

not rr/ 1 1 t nCC oar T .+ tn+ an r. n* kLt nn: na1 1. CC nn .*------ -- ---- t _- -11 -


brandishes a weapon, the officers must trust one another to diffuse the emergency, disarm

the driver, and protect each other's lives. The type of trust needed changes rapidly in a

situation such as this.

What began as a commonplace event where routine trust was key is

now a dangerous and uncertain situation wherein urgent trust has moved to center stage.

In this example, both forms of trust must be present; and it would be difficult to argue

that one is more important than the other.

My intention is not to suggest that urgent trust is only present in life-or-death

situations. In fact, urgent trust is necessary in many situations that are uncommon and

pose serious threats to collective interests. Take the example of burglary suspects and

their lawyers. In these situations, the accused must trust their lawyers in different ways.

At a very basic level, the defendants trust their lawyers to follow proper protocol in terms

of filing all necessary paperwork in a timely fashion, familiarizing themselves with the

facts of the case, and examining case histories to further their understanding of

precedents related to the cases. The defendants thus engage in routine trusting.

Additionally, however, the defendants must trust their lawyers in other fashions. For

example, the suspects must trust their attorneys to act appropriately in novel situations

such as the discovery of surprising and damaging evidence against the accused. In the

face of such situations, the defendants must engage in urgent forms of trust and believe

that their attorneys will handle appropriately these unexpected and serious occurrences.

As before, both forms of trust must be present and are likely equally important.

In the case of firefighters, the type of trust acting at the moment also can change

changes. For example, in the event of an unexpected equipment failure (e.g., a ladder

breaking), firefighters may quickly become dependent on the actions of others to save

their lives. In this way, urgent trust becomes key.

These examples and the preceding discussion generated several interesting

questions that became the guiding research questions for my study. First and most

obvious is the question,

That is,

"Are urgent and routine trust truly distinct from one another?"

"Are the two types of trust simply different levels of some greater construct of

trust or are they psychologically distinct concepts?" Assuming they are, in fact, distinct

constructs, do both urgent and routine trust guide key attitudes and behaviors?

In other

words, do both forms of trust act as important independent variables driving important


Further research questions arise from the inherent presence of risk in most

discussions of trust. According to most of the literature in this domain, trust need not be

present in situations where there is no risk. Given this, are the two forms of trust

differentially moderated by the level of risk present in a situation? Assuming again that

the two forms of trust are distinct from one another, are they differentially predicted by

various dimensions of trustworthiness? For example, do perceptions of ability have a

stronger impact on urgent or routine trust? Similarly, are the two forms of trust

differentially predicted by the propensity to trust?

I argue that urgent and routine trust are psychologically distinct constructs that

are differentially affected by independent variables (such as trustworthiness and



My study tested the model shown in Figure 1. Urgent and routine trust were

predicted to be distinct constructs that have unique, independent effects on a set of

outcome variables. Those effects also were predicted to vary according to the risk level

experienced by the individuals. Moreover, urgent and routine trust were predicted to have

different antecedents in terms of relevant trustworthiness facets and individuals'

propensity to trust. This chapter presents a link-by-link discussion of this model and

presents explicit hypotheses.

t Urgent
--' Trust
,, *s11

Figure 1.

Model of hypothesized relationships

Differentiating Urgent and Routine Trust

to Trust


Perceptions of

Perceptions of

Perceptions of

- Task Performance
- Citizenship Behavior
- Counterproductive Behavior
- Organizational Commitment
- Withdrawal

.* Trust

trust that person to do

?" or "To what extent do I trust that person to do

?" Like any

evaluation, trust evaluations must be created. To describe the process by which trust

evaluations are created, it is helpful to examine the literature on creating of

performance-appraisal evaluations. DeNisi, Cafferty, and Meglino (1984) defined

performance appraisal as the process by which an observer (such as a peer or supervisor)

rates the job performance of an employee. Performance ratings formed by this process

play an important role in enhancing organizational effectiveness. As a result, a large

volume of literature has been produced wherein the intricacies of this cognitive process

are analyzed and theory is put forth (Cooper, 1981; DeNisi et al., 1984; Ilgen & Feldman,


DeNisi et al. (1984) theorized that the performance-appraisal process is the

product of a set of cognitive operations including the acquisition, organization, storage,

retrieval, and integration of information. Their model is laid out as follows. First, the

rater observes behavior. Next, the rater formulates some cognitive representation of that

behavior and stores it in memory. Later this stored information is retrieved, reconsidered,

and integrated with other available information. Finally, the rater uses this information to

assign a formal evaluation to the ratee.

Supervisors often evaluate two separate types of performance either explicitly or

incidentally. These two types are maximum performance and typical performance.

Borman (1991) referred to maximum performance as the "can do" aspects of

performance. Maximum performance is determined by the technical proficiency and/or

performance represents the typical behavior of the job-holder over time and is best

predicted by that job incumbent's level of motivation. Each of these types of

performance is important. and each is predicted by distinct independent variables

I hypothesized that evaluations of trust operate in much the same manner as

evaluations of performance.

When an individual is deciding whether to trust someone

else, the individual must enact cognitive processes similar to those enacted by individuals

appraising performance. As with performance evaluation, trust evaluation requires the

acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, and integration of information. First, an

individual evaluating the trustworthiness of another must acquire information about that


's behavior through some form of direct observation or by listening to others. A

cognitive representation of this behavior must be organized and stored. That is, the

evaluator must decide which behaviors are relevant to an evaluation of trust, and which

are not. At the moment when one individual decides whether to trust another, this

previously stored, relevant information must be retrieved and integrated with other

information. Upon this integration, the individual must ultimately decide whether to trust

the other.

Additionally, trust evaluations, like performance evaluations, may involve

evaluating distinct forms of the same dependent variable. The focus of the evaluation

may be routine trust, urgent trust, or both. As with maximum and typical performance,

evaluations of routine and urgent trust may be driven by different factors. I hypothesize

that routine trust evaluations are driven by typical, repetitive, everyday observed


As in the example of performance evaluation, a person evaluating trust acts as a

human information processor. Given this, trust evaluations can be difficult to make

because, as an information processor, humans have limited cognitive capacity for

acquiring, encoding, and storing sensory information (Newell & Simon, 1972). Even

given this limitation, people must process vast amounts of information in order to

evaluate trust and also to function effectively in their social environments. In other

words, this wealth of information must be processed somehow, but perhaps in a manner

less cognitively complex than that described above. One popular explanation of how

humans overcome this cognitive limitation is that they use cognitive shortcuts to deal

with the onslaught of information for which they are responsible (Abelson, 1976; Hastie,

1981; Tesser, 1978).

This use of cognitive shortcuts is what further distinguishes the process by which

individuals evaluate routine trust from the process by which individuals evaluate urgent

trust. To clarify this distinction, the concept of category prototypes must first be

discussed. A category is a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a

particular stimulus, including its features and the relationships among those features.

These categories allow individuals to efficiently process information about familiar

objects, persons, situations, and behaviors. If a stimulus is similar enough to an existing

category, this stimulus is treated as a category member, and relationships in that category

are assumed to hold true for that particular stimulus. For example, rude behavior may be

a category for an individual.

Within this mental category is a multitude of examples of


any other behavior falling into this category. Routine stimuli are often treated in this way

to conserve cognitive energy.

In the case of routine trust evaluations, common observed behaviors tend to

activate either the "trustworthy behavior" category or "untrustworthy behavior" category.

This is possible because the same or similar behaviors are repeatedly observed and do not

need to be deeply processed repeatedly. In fact, these routine behaviors are what allow

the creations of categories because the knowledge about a stimulus, including its features

and relationships among those features, is based on repeated encounters with that

stimulus. This is why routine trustworthy behaviors are important; they allow the creation

of these prototypes used in routine trust evaluations.

The evaluation of urgent trust operates somewhat differently. Like any evaluation,

the urgent trust evaluation is the product of a set of cognitive operations including the

acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, and integration of information.


distinguishes this urgent trust evaluation from routine trust evaluation is that category

prototypes cannot be used for urgent trust evaluations. An urgent event is uncommon or

novel; thus categorization is either impossible or inaccurate. The literature on cognitive

shortcuts further supports this contention. Hastie and Kumar (1979) suggested that the

more distinct a stimulus from previous mental representations, the more deeply it is

cognitively processed. Other researchers have found that recognition and recall memory

are better for atypical than typical actions (Graesser, Gordon, & Sawyer, 1979; Graesser,

Woll, Kowlski, & Smith, 1980). Further, Lord (1985) argued that while typical stimuli


The preceding discussion shows how routine trust and urgent trust may be

psychologically distinct constructs. Additionally, these two types of trust are predicted by

different independent variables and are evaluated by distinct psychological processes. As

additional support that these two concepts are distinct from one another, I argue that they

explain separate variance in a variety of important organizational and psychological

outcomes. These outcomes include job satisfaction, task performance, citizenship, and

counterproductive behavior. I suggest that each of these outcomes is a reaction to routine

and urgent trust evaluations.

Urgent and Routine Trust: Effects on Outcomes

In addition to distinguishing the two forms of trust, my study also intended to

examine how these types of trust relate to important organizational outcomes. One such

outcome is job performance, a broad concept that typically includes multiple dimensions.

In 2002, Rotundo and Sackett conducted an extensive review of the relative importance

of task performance, citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior on

job-performance ratings. The authors suggested that task, citizenship, and

counterproductive performances are all underlying dimensions of the overall construct of

job performance. They defined job performance as those actions and behaviors under an

individual's control that contribute to the goals of the organization. Given the breadth of

this definition, it is not surprising that it subsumes all three types of behaviors as job


Some discussion is warranted at this point about the specific facets of

provision of a service. Clearly, it is not sufficient to study only task-related behaviors

given all of the other actions an employee may take that could help or hinder the

organization that are not obviously task-related. On the more positive end, employees

may engage in behaviors such as demonstrating effort, altruism, spreading goodwill, or

endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Borman & Motowidlo,

1993; Campbell, 1990; George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1997).

Each of these more specific

behaviors belongs to a group of behaviors referred to as citizenship performance. By

definition, citizenship performance is behavior that contributes to the social and

psychological environment of the organization and thus helps the organization achieve its

goals (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). By the very nature of the fact that these behaviors

contribute to organizational success, they should be included in the domain of job


Somewhat paradoxically, behaviors that detract from organizational goals also

belong in the domain of job performance. Examples of these behaviors include substance

abuse, having poor self-discipline, destroying company property, harming coworkers,

and not following rules (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Robinson &

Bennett, 1995). For the purposes of this study, counterproductive performance is defined

as any voluntary behavior that harms the organization. Together, these three forms of

behavior form the basis of job performance.

Of course, organizations value more than just high levels of job performance. It is

also important to keep and retain those employees who are fulfilling their role

are strongly committed to their organization value that membership to a strong degree,

making it less likely that they will explore alternative employment opportunities.

Moreover, high levels of organizational commitment are associated with better job

performance, as meta-analytic reviews have linked commitment to beneficial task and

citizenship behaviors (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &

Topolnytsky, 2002).

An individual's attachment to his or her organization can also be inferred from

the converse of commitment: employee withdrawal.

Withdrawal is defined as a set of

intentions and behaviors that signal a psychological and physical separation from an

organization, usually to avoid some source of dissatisfaction (Hulin, 1991). Examples of

withdrawal range from minor acts like daydreaming, chatting about nonwork topics, or

tardiness, to more major acts, such as absenteeism and intentions to search for alternative


While withdrawal appears in some taxonomies of counterproductive

behavior (Sackett & DeVore, 2001),

it is a much more passive response to dissatisfaction

relative to acts like theft and verbal or physical abuse.

Job Performance

Work examining the relationship between intragroup trust and job performance

was being conducted as early as 1970 (Friedlander, 1970). This study was based on the

notion that the formation of trust, the reduction of fear, and the subsequent growth of

confidence are all interrelated factors which facilitate individual and group development.

Given that accepting self and others facilitates growth, an individual must learn to trust


12 workgroups of varied sizes. Based on correlational analysis, the author concluded that

intragroup trust was, in fact, a strong predictor of later group performance.

A similar rationale prompted a study by Klimoski and Karol (1976). According to

the authors, defensiveness among group members hampered problem-solving

effectiveness. Trust acted to mitigate defensiveness, and, through this mechanism,

enhanced problem-solving effectiveness.

To test this notion, Klimoski and Karol

conducted a laboratory study on a sample of 116 females divided into 29 groups wherein

trust was manipulated through feedback given to group members concerning how they

were evaluated by other members of their group. The belief was that participants seeing

favorable evaluations would have more trust in their group members than members

seeing negative evaluations. The manipulation worked. Those in the high trust and

control conditions outperformed groups in the low trust condition.

Several other studies have examined the relationship between intragroup trust and

some measure of group effectiveness (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999; Jehn & Mannix, 2001;

Zand, 1972). Dooley and Fryxell found a moderate correlation between strategic

decision-making team trust and that teams decision quality in a sample of hospital


Jehn and Mannix found similar results in a sample of full-time employed,

part-time MBA students working in three-person teams. Again, a moderate correlation

was found between intragroup trust and group performance. Zand manipulated trust

before a task in groups of business executives. As in the Dooley and Fryxell study,

shared trust within the group was a significant determinant of managerial problem

different NCAA basketball teams'

trust in their coaches affected their subsequent

winning percentages. Not surprisingly, trust was a strong predictor of team performance

even after controlling for team talent, experience, and coach record. In fact, subsequent

analyses revealed that group trust acted as a mediator between past and future team


These results ran counter to previous work by Dirks wherein trust in leader was

not significantly related to performance. Deeper inspection of the results revealed that a

lack of statistical power was the likely culprit behind this null result given that the sample

was made up of only 41 people (Dirks, 1999). Several other works also yielded a null

result concerning the relationship between trust in management and job performance

(Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Korsgaard, Roberson, & Rymph, 1998). As in the Dirks

study, low statistical power (i.e., a sample size of 41) likely explained the findings of

Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph.

Thus, while some studies demonstrated a nonsignificant relationship between

some form of trust in leaders) and performance, the bulk of the research shows trust to

be, in fact, moderately to strongly related to performance (Dirks, 2000; Earley, 1986;

Jung & Avolio, 2000; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; Pettit, Goris, & Vaught,


Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998.) Still other studies have yielded only weak

relationships between trust and performance (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000;

Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Given these widely varying results, further exploration of

this relationship seemed necessary in this study.


has been done has lead to contradictory results. In fact, negative, positive, and null

relationships have emerged between trust and citizenship.

The bulk of this research treats trust as a mediator (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;

MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Pillia, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999;

Podsazkoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Rich 1997.) In an attempt to shed

light on the relationship between fairness and trust, Konovsky and Pugh conducted a

survey-based study in a sample of 475 hospital employees. The authors suggest that one

source of trust in an employee-employer relationship is procedural fairness. Using fair

procedures is said to demonstrate the supervisor's

respect for the rights and dignity of the

employee. This respect and consideration is suggested to foster an environment

conducive of trust development and, ultimately, citizenship. Trust was also posited as a

mediator between fairness perceptions and citizenship in a study by Pillai et al. As in the

previous study, trust was indeed found to partially mediate the relationship between

fairness and citizenship.

Research conducted by Podsakoff and colleagues showed trust in leader to act as

an intervening mechanism between leader behavior and citizenship (MacKenzie et al.,

2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

The crux of their argument was that transformational or

charismatic behaviors exhibited by supervisors caused followers to respect and trust their

supervisors. This trust and respect, in turn, motivated employees to do more than they

were expected to do (i.e., engage in citizenship behaviors). In this way, the authors

suggested that effective leaders transformed the basic attitudes, beliefs, and values of


Their earlier research was conducted in a field setting using a sample of

petrochemical workers (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The sample was predominately male and

split almost equally between managerial and nonmanagerial job titles. Using

confirmatory factory analysis, the authors found that trust played an important mediating

role in their model. In fact, the aggregate effects of leader behaviors on citizenship were

indirect and mediated almost completely by follower's

trust in their leaders. The latter of

the two previously mentioned studies followed a similar logic but was conducted using a

sample of 477 insurance salespeople (MacKenzie et al., 2001). This study tested a more

complicated model than the former, but trust in manager was again posited to mediate the

relationship between transformational leader behaviors and extra-role performance.

Again, factor analysis results suggested that trust did in fact act as a mediator.

Cumulatively, these results offer strong support for the notion that trust is related to


Other studies have not focused on the relationship between trust and citizenship

specifically, but have offered correlations between the two. Chattopadhyay (1999) found

a moderate positive relationship between the trust employees have in coworkers and their

willingness to engage in citizenship behaviors. Similarly, Thomas (1999) reported a

strong, positive relationship between trust in team and organizational citizenship.

Contrarily, Puffer (1987),

in a sample of 141 retail salespersons, found a nonsignificant

correlation between the faith an employee had in his or her coworkers and their prosocial

behavior. Overall, the research indicates that trust and citizenship are positively related.

(Mellinger, 1959). In this study, Mellinger posited that the way two people feel about one

another should significantly impact how they communicate with each other. Specifically,

he suggested that a person who is not trusted will be regarded as threatening and,

therefore, will make the other person anxious. As a result, the primary goal of

communication with this distrusted individual would be to reduce one's own anxiety

rather than accurately transmitting ideas. In other words, he who is not trusted will not be

communicated with as openly as he who is trusted. The findings of this study lent support

to the theory that if B distrusts but must still communicate with A, then B will

communicate in such a way as to conceal from A information about B's own attitudes

toward an issue, X. Certainly, offering incomplete information to a coworker represents a

form of counterproductive behavior.

Several other studies reported relationships between trust and other forms of

counterproductive behavior. For example, Bies and Tyler (1993) conducted a field study

wherein they examined the relationship between litigation consideration and trust was

examined. In this example, trust referred to the belief that the motives of managers are

sincere and reflect the best interests of the employees. According to their logic, if

employees feel their managers motives are sincere, even if these managers must make

unfavorable decisions, these employees will not feel the need to litigate on the basis of

this decision. In another study, Simons and Peterson (2000) reported a positive

relationship between intragroup trust and a unique counterproductive behavior, loudness.

This variable was measured by the following single item "We raise our voices at one


relationship to overcome this strain. Of all of the research reviewed, this is the only study

to suggest a positive relationship between trust and counterproductive behavior.

Commitment and Withdrawal

One of the most commonly examined consequences of trust is organizational

commitment. It seems intuitive that employees who hold confident, positive expectations

about their colleagues and are willing to be vulnerable to them will develop a deeper

psychological attachment to the organization. Support for this linkage has been

confirmed in number of field studies across several industries. For example, Aryee,

Budhwar, and Chen (2002) conducted a field study of employees in a public sector coal

mining firm, with employees ranging from miners to engineers to marketing and sales

professionals. Their results revealed strong correlations between trust in organization,

trust in supervisor, and organizational commitment. Similar findings have been yielded

by a number of other studies (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002; Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, &

Martin, 1997

Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991

Pillai et al., 1999).

With respect to employee withdrawal, intention to quit has been the focus of

several studies wherein trust was also measured (Christiansen,

Villanova, & Mikulay,

1997; Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Farh, Tsui, Xin, & Cheng, 1998; Konovsky &

Cropanzano, 1991). In each of these instances, trust in superiors was negatively related to

intention to quit, but to varying degrees. For example, Fahr et al. found a weak negative

relationship between trust in supervisor and intention to quit in a sample of Taiwanese

insurance salespeople. In their study, Christiansen et al. looked at the same relationship


field study of 195 employees. Thus, while the strength of the relationship varies between

studies, all support the contention that trust should be negatively related to intentions to

quit. Trust has also been linked to objective measures of actual absenteeism and turnover

(Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1993; Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Robinson & Rousseau,



Hypothesis 3.

Routine trust will be positively related to (a) task performance, (b)
citizenship, (c) counterproductive behavior, (d) organizational
commitment, and (e) withdrawal, independent of urgent trust.

Urgent trust will be positively related to (a) task performance, (b)
citizenship, (c) counterproductive behavior, (d) organizational

commitment, and (e) withdrawal, independent of routine trust.

Moderating Effect of Risk Events

In a recent review of the trust literature, Rousseau et al. (1998) compared the

manner in which various disciplines conceptualize trust.

Within this discussion, the

authors pointed out that there was some agreement across disciplines, particularly with

regard to the conditions necessary for trust to arise. One such condition was the presence

of risk, which is a key ingredient in psychological, sociological, and economic

conceptualizations of trust (Bhattacharya, DeVinney, & Pillutla, 1998; Bradach & Eccles,

1989; Coleman, 1990; Rotter, 1967

Williamson, 1993). In fact, Lewis and Weigert

(1985) argued that if action could be taken without risk or uncertainty, trust would be

unnecessary. Similarly, Kee and Knox (1970) argued that trust need only be present in

situations where one party has something meaningful at stake and is aware of the

potential of betrayal and harm from the other. Further supporting this contention,


Further strengthening the tie between risk and trust is the reciprocal nature of the

relationship between the two. Put simply, a trustee is only able to demonstrate their

trustworthiness if a trustor takes some initial risk. If the trustor is not disappointed by the

result of this assumption of risk (i.e., the person being trusted behaves as expected), then

the level of trust grows stronger (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). This increased level

of trust, in turn, allows further assumption of risk. Risk and trust enhance one another in

a positively reinforcing spiral.

Given that some level of risk is necessarily present in any trusting situation, it

logically follows that the presence of different levels of risk may make trust more or less

important. In fact, risk may moderate the relationship between trusting behavior and

important outcomes. A previously discussed example may help illustrate this idea. Police

officers must trust one another in a variety of ways. Much like any situation where

coworkers must trust one another; the more a police officer can trust his fellow officers,

the more job satisfaction he is likely to have. This relationship between trust and job

satisfaction may vary in strength depending on the level of risk present in the specific

trusting situations.

For example, when an officer trusts his partner to show up for work on time and

that partner does indeed show up on time, the trusting officer's

job satisfaction is

enhanced but probably only to a small degree, as little risk is associated with his partner

being late for work. In fact, the only real risk assumed is that both officers may get in

trouble or not be able to respond to a call on time.

However, a more serious situation in

of the officer, the officer's

satisfaction is likely to be enhanced to a greater degree than in

the example where his partner simply shows up to work on time. The trusting officer, as a

result, can feel a sense of calm and security that makes work life more pleasant, as

opposed to being constantly worried about the next dangerous event. In this way, the

level of risk present moderates the relationship between trust and an important

organizational outcomes.

Given the presence of this moderator effect, it seems logical that different types

of trust (i.e., routine trust and urgent trust) may be more or less important when more risk

is present in a situation. Routine trust was defined earlier as the intention to accept

vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another in

situations that have established rules, procedures, or precedents governing actions.

Urgent trust was defined earlier as the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive

expectations of the intentions or behavior of another in situations that are novel or less

common and pose more serious threats to collective interests. Situations that are less

common and pose more serious threats, by their very nature, involve a greater level of

risk. As such, urgent trust is likely more important than routine trust in situations where

risk is high.

By their nature, situations that have established rules and procedures are not

saturated with risk and uncertainty. On the other hand, novel situations that pose more

serious threats involve a heightened level of risk. Given this distinction, when risk is

high, routine trust is not likely to be important or even activated at all. Similarly, when

Hypothesis 4.


The relationship between urgent trust (independent of routine trust) and
(a) task performance, (b) citizenship, (c) counterproductive behavior, (d)
organizational commitment, and (e) withdrawal will be moderated by risk,
such that the relationship will be stronger when risk is higher.

The relationship between routine trust (independent of urgent trust) and

(a) task performance, (b) citizenship, (c) counterproductive behavior, (d)
organizational commitment, and (e) withdrawal will be moderated by risk,
such that the relationship will be weaker when risk is higher.

Trust Antecedents: Trustworthiness

Discussion to this point has focused primarily on distinguishing between the two

forms of trust and how these forms of trust differentially drive important organizational

outcomes. Logically, these distinct forms of trust may also have distinct antecedents.

Sheppard and Sherman (1998) stated,

"Trust is partially the product of one's capacity to

assess the trustworthiness of one's potential partner"

(p. 426). Put simply, the

trustworthiness of an individual drives the extent to which others will trust them. This is

somewhat of an understatement, however. Complications arise because trustworthiness,

much like trust, is a multidimensional construct. Several authors have argued this idea,

but there is some disagreement about what the exact dimensions of trustworthiness are

(Butler, 1991; Lieberman, 1981).

In an attempt to simplify this aforementioned literature, Mayer et al. (1995)

reviewed the different conceptualizations of trustworthiness and were able to collapse

most previous conceptualizations into three primary dimensions, ability, benevolence,

and integrity. According to these authors, these three dimensions provide a parsimonious

yet complete foundation for the study of trust in another party.


that exact term, as a dimension of trustworthiness (Cook & Wall, 1980, Deutsch, 1960;

Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Other authors have identified terms synonymous with ability as

dimensions of trustworthiness. For example, Butler (1991) and Lieberman (1981)

identified the dimension of competence. This construct is similar to the same as the

ability dimension of Mayer et al. Giffin (1967) as another example, identified the

expertness of an individual as a factor contributing to how much they are trusted.

Whatever term is used, the idea is the same; trust is extended to an individual based

somewhat on their skills within some specific domain.

Benevolence has also been identified as a key dimension of trustworthiness. For

the purposes of this paper, the definition by Mayer et al. will be utilized and is as follows:

"Benevolence is the perception of a positive orientation of the trustee toward the trustor"

(p. 719). In other words, a benevolent trustee has good intentions regarding the trustor

and is not merely motivated by what profit they can gain by being trusted. As was the

case with ability, several authors have identified dimensions highly similar to

benevolence, but have assigned different names to this construct. For example, Butler

and Cantrell (1984) proffered loyalty as a determinant of dyadic trust. Frost, Stimpson,

and Maughan, 1978 identified altruism as an antecedent condition to trust. In both of

these examples, the idea of good intentions and motives toward the trustor underlies the

construct of interest. As such, each of these conceptualizations reflects, to some extent,

the construct of benevolence.

The final trustworthiness dimension of interest is integrity. In order for a trustor


well as that individual's actions being consistent with his or her words. Several previous

authors have used integrity as a dimension of trustworthiness (Butler, 1991; Butler &

Cantrell, 1984; Lieberman, 1981) Other authors have identified characteristics highly

similar to the construct of integrity as determinants of trust (Hart, Capps, Cangemi, &

Caillouet, 1986; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). For example, Gabarro, 1978, discussed character

as an important dimension of trustworthiness. As a whole, the dimensions of ability,

benevolence, and integrity have appeared repeatedly in discussions of antecedents of

trust, albeit using slightly different jargon or definitions. Mayer et al. (1995) argue that

together, these dimensions efficiently explain the within-trustor variation in trust for

others. As such, these three factors will operate as the antecedents to trust in the model.

However, their model further distinguishes these dimensions of trustworthiness.

The relevancy of these distinct dimensions may differ depending on the situation.

Sheppard and Sherman (1998) spoke of four types of trust. In their view, trust is not a

singular construct but takes one of four distinct forms based on the nature and depth of

the interdependence in a given relationship. Trust takes on different forms in different

relationships, and so does the nature of the relevant trustworthiness traits. In fact, in their

discussion, these authors present a table wherein the different forms of dependence, the

risks associated with each form, and the qualities of trustworthiness that are important

given each from are presented.

With regard to the form of dependence most closely linked with urgent trust, the

risk that another will not perform proficiently is cited as key. One dimension of


On the other hand, with regard to the form of dependence most closely associated

with routine trust, there are two central risks: the risk of cheating and the risk of neglect.

The integrity dimension of trustworthiness is most closely tied to the risk of cheating. An

individual's actions being consistent with his or her words partially defines the integrity

dimension and is diametrically opposed to the definition of cheating. That is to say

cheating suggests that some violation of previous promises has taken place, and

individuals high in integrity are likely to follow their word. The risk of neglect is most

closely tied to the benevolence dimension of trustworthiness. An individual who is

benevolent towards someone trusting them is motivated to help that trustor regardless of

personal gain. Neglect is often the result of a lack of vested interest in an outcome.

Because a benevolent person takes on the interests of the trustor as their own, they

maintain motivation to see things through and not neglect their responsibilities, even

when they do not profit directly from this motivation.

An example involving emergency personnel may help clarify how the relevancy

of each of the previously discussed dimensions of trustworthiness may differ depending

on the situation. First, imagine a situation where two firefighters must enter a burning

building to save civilian lives. In this situation, not only are the lives of the civilians in

the hands of the firefighters, but the firefighters must trust each other with their lives.

This is an example of a urgent situation where the greatest risk to each firefighter is that

the other will not behave in a proficient, correct manner. In order for the firefighters to

integrity or benevolence are not likely present in this type of situation, while concerns

about the other's competence are central.

However, in a less severe, more routine situation, the importance of these

dimensions of trustworthiness is likely to be reversed. Take, for example, a situation in

which two firefighters are severally liable for filing an incident report following an

emergency call. Given that only one incident report must be filed, but two firefighters are

responsible, it is likely that only one person (Firefighter A) will actually fill out the

report. The firefighter not filling out the report (Firefighter B) must trust that the other

will, in fact, fill out the report and turn it in. In order to decide whether or not to trust

Firefighter A to fill out the report and not neglect his responsibilities, Firefighter B will

likely focus on Firefighter A'

benevolence as opposed to his integrity or ability.

Further, Firefighter A likely believes that, next time, Firefighter B will assume the

responsibility of filling out the incident report to keep things equitable.

This belief is

likely to be based more on an evaluation of firefighter B's integrity than on his ability or

benevolence. In each of these examples given above, the relevant trustworthiness

dimension varies depending on the situation. This differential relevance is likely to be

present in any situation; not just those described above.

Hypothesis 6.

Hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 8.

Ability will be a stronger predictor of urgent trust than routine trust.

Benevolence will be a stronger predictor of routine trust than urgent

Integrity will be a stronger predictor of routine trust than urgent trust.


drives the trust evaluation? One suggestion is that characteristics of the trustor influence

the decision to trust. Specifically, each person has some propensity to trust. This trait is

viewed as a general willingness to trust others and is believed to be a stable within-party

factor (Mayer et al., 1995). The propensity of an individual to trust others has a stronger

effect on trusting behavior in earlier encounters with potential trustees. Basically, when

there is little data about the trustworthiness of a potential trustee, the trustor tends to

default to their own propensity when making decision whether or not to trust.

With the

passage of time and acquisition of information about the trustworthiness of the trustee,

the propensity of the trustor to trust becomes less meaningful. This is likely the case

because even if an individual is a "trusting person," they will not tend to trust others who

they know for certain and through experience are untrustworthy.

Given that the importance of propensity to trust is situationally and temporally

specific, it logically flows that propensity will be differentially important with regards to

urgent and routine trust. One distinction between urgent and routine trust is time and

frequency. Specifically, routine trust involves typical, repetitive, everyday observed

behaviors. Given that these behaviors are frequent and repetitive, a potential trustee has

ample information about how trustworthy the observed individual is. In a situation such

as this, direct observation is likely to drive trust evaluations to a much greater degree

than an individual'

propensity to trust is.

On the other hand, urgent trust involves novel, less common, and more serious

observed behaviors.

While these observed behaviors are more serious in nature, they are

evaluation is more likely to be influenced by their own level of trusting propensity in

urgent as opposed to routine trust evaluation instances.

Hypothesis 9.

Propensity to trust will be a stronger predictor of urgent trust than

routine trust.



Data were obtained on 126 employees of a North-Central Florida city fire

department. The sample consisted of 29 lieutenants, 33 drivers/apparatus operators, and

64 firefighters. Each of these participants belongs to one of 7 different stations within the

city with an average of 18 firefighters per station working in one of three different shifts.

Each firefighter works a full 24-hour shift and then is off for 48 hours.

Everyone included in this sample began his or her career with the fire department

as a firefighter. The work of a firefighter includes combating, extinguishing, and

preventing fires as well as maintaining fire department equipment and quarters.

Additionally, firefighters are required to render first aid when necessary, respond to

hazardous materials incidents, attend company drills and training, maintain required

certifications (e.g., CPR), and prepare written and computerized reports after fire and

emergency medical incidents. The work itself requires physical strength and agility and

may have to be performed in and around heavy traffic, in proximity with hazardous and

noxious chemicals, and under a wide range of climatic conditions.

Becoming a fire driver-operator necessitates a promotion from firefighter. The

work of a driver-operator involves the specialized task of driving and operating heavy


and crew to and from emergency incidents, operating pumps, raising ladders and booms,

laying hose line, and making necessary pumper hook-ups to hydrants. Additionally,

driver operators may be required to perform fire fighting, rescue, and other emergency

duties as needed. Essentially, when conditions necessitate, driver-operators may be

required to perform the functions of a firefighter. Given that the driver operators are

performing their jobs in the same situations as a firefighter, their work also requires

physical strength and agility and may have to be performed in and around heavy traffic,

in proximity with hazardous ands noxious chemicals, and under a wide range of climactic


To become a fire lieutenant, one must be promoted from driver-operator. The

work of a fire lieutenant involves inspection and supervisory work promoting fire safety

as well as performing skilled fire fighting and providing emergency medical treatment.

Essentially, the lieutenant is involved in all the duties listed in the brief job descriptions

above, but his or her role is a supervisory one. Additionally, a fire lieutenant participates

in training activities and leads company drills. At the actual scene of an emergency, it is

the lieutenant who acts as the primary decision-maker. Given that the fire lieutenants are

performing their jobs in the same situations as firefighters and driver-operators, their

work also requires physical strength and agility and may have to be performed in and

around heavy traffic, in proximity with hazardous ands noxious chemicals, and under a

wide range of climactic conditions.

Time 1 Procedure


ability, benevolence, integrity, and propensity to trust measures were administered.

Discussion of each measure follows.

Trustworthiness (Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity)

Given the argued differential importance of the three dimensions of

trustworthiness, the Mayer and Davis (1999) measure of trustworthiness was used. This

measure includes distinct items for each dimension and asks participants to rate the

extent to which they agree with the items using a 5-point likert-type scale with anchors of

= agree and

= disagree. The items for ability are as follows:

My coworkers are very capable of performing their jobs.
My coworkers are known to be successful at the things they try to do.
My coworkers have much knowledge about the work that needs done.
I feel very confident about my coworkers' skills.

My coworkers have specialized capabilities

that can increase our performance.

* My coworkers are well qualified.

The items for benevolence are as follows:

* My coworkers are very concerned about my welfare.
* My needs and desires are very important to my coworkers.
* My coworkers would not knowingly do anything to hurt me.
* My coworkers really look out for what is important to me.
* My coworkers will go out of their way to help me.

Finally, the items for integrity are as follows:

* My coworkers have a strong sense of justice.
* I never have to wonder whether my coworkers will stick to their word.
* My coworkers try hard to be fair in dealing with others.
* My coworkers actions and behaviors are not very consistent.
* I like my coworkers' values.

Sound principles seem to guide my coworkers'


Propensity to Trust

I believe that most people are basically well-intentioned.
I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them.
I think most of the people I deal with are honest and trustworthy.
I'm suspicious when someone does something nice for me.
My first reaction is to trust people.
I tend to assume the best about people. 8. I have a good deal of faith in human

Time 2 Procedure

Approximately 6 weeks after the collection of the Time 1 data, Time

2 data were

collected via self-report survey administered to each shift separately at each station.

Again, all firefighters and driver-operators were surveyed. At Time 2, our firefighter

specific measures of urgent and routine trust, and a measure of perceived risk

encountered on the job, were administered. Discussion of each measure follows:

Urgent and Routine Trust

An ad hoc measure specific to firefighters was designed for the purposes of this

study. The first step in designing the measure consisted of meeting with the fire chief to

conduct a job analysis of the firefighter's

job duties. This analysis resulted in the

identification of five major job dimensions for firefighters: responding to fire calls,

responding to auto accidents, training drills, continuing education, and maintaining

physical fitness. The fire chief also identified specific tasks within each of those broad

dimensions, informally rating those tasks on three criteria: importance, danger, and

unpredictability. The chief's ratings illustrated that all of the major dimensions were

important, with each being labeled an important part of a firefighter's

job. The

dimensions of danger and unpredictability seemed to be a better source of separation for

To provide additional evidence in support of the chief

ratings of importance,

danger, and unpredictability, the Time 1 survey also asked the respondents to rate the

five job dimensions on those three criteria on a 5-point scale. The ratings for responding

to fire calls supported the urgent nature of those tasks, with ratings of 4.67 for

importance, 4.54 for danger, and 4.56 for unpredictability. The ratings for responding to

auto accidents also supported categorizing that as an urgent dimension, with ratings of

4.18 for importance, 3.14 for danger, and 3.60 for unpredictability. In contrast, the

ratings for training drills, continuing education, and maintaining physical fitness revealed

patterns that suggested a routine classification. The ratings were as follows: (a) 4.30 for

importance, 2.82 for danger, and 2.85 for unpredictability for training drills; (b) 4.20 for

importance, 1.62 for danger, and

for unpredictability for education; and (c) 4.07 for

importance, 2.08 for danger, and 2.12 for unpredictability for physical fitness. These

latter three dimensions were about as important as responding to fire calls and auto

accidents, but were significantly less dangerous and unpredictable.

Having established some empirical foundation for the separation of urgent and

routine trust, I developed specific scale items for the tasks within those five job

dimensions. Participants were asked to rate how comfortable they were trusting their

coworkers to complete certain tasks, on a 7-point likert-type scale with anchors of "I

always feel comfortable trusting my coworkers to complete this task.

" and "I never feel

comfortable trusting my coworkers to complete this task." The physical fitness items

included: "Lifting weights to improve and maintain strength," "Performing stretching

drills" and "Increasing proficiency in pumping evolutions drills."

included "Collect medical data at accident scenes,"

The auto accident items

"Feel for injuries on accident


"Administer medical treatment to accident victims,"

and "Survey accident

scene for safety considerations.

entering a burning building," "(

The fire call items included "Size up the situation before

Conduct a primary search for people trapped in a burning


" "Protect and rescue civilians in and around fire location,"

"Protect and rescue

fellow firefighters in and around fire location," "Use tools and procedures to extinguish

the fire,

""Performing property salvage during and after the fire,

" and "Conduct overhaul

procedures to look for other fires in building."

Perceived Risk

After an extensive review of the risk literature, it was determined that an ad hoc

measure of perceived risk would be most appropriate for this study. Participants were

asked to rate their extent of agreement with each of the following items:

* The past couple months have been more dangerous than normal.
* These past two months have been anything but routine.
* The calls we have had lately have been quite risky.
* Things have been uneventful at work lately.
* There hasn't been a dangerous situation at work in quite a while.
* In general, these last couple months have been more safe than normal.

Time 3 Procedure

Approximately 6 weeks after the collection of the Time

data, Time 3 data were

collected via self-report survey administered to each shift separately at each station.

Again, all firefighters and driver-operators were surveyed.

At Time 3, only a measure of

job satisfaction was administered. However, at Time 3, supervisors also were surveyed


Task Performance

To measure task performance, Williams and Anderson's 1991 measure of in-role

behavior was used. This referent of this particular measure is an employee and the rater is

intended to be a superior. The items for this measure are as follows:

* Adequately completes assigned duties.
* Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description.
* Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.
* Meets formal requirements of the job.
* Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance.
* Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform(R).
* Fails to perform essential duties (R).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Lee and Allen (2002) measure was used to measure organizational

citizenship behavior. Again, the referent is an employee and the rater is intended to be a

supervisor. This measure captures not only those citizenship behaviors aimed at helping

the organization, but also those citizenship behaviors aimed at helping specific

individuals within the organization. The rater is asked to rate how frequently the target

person engaged in these behaviors using anchor points of 1 = never and 7 = always.

The first eight items of the scale refer to citizenship behaviors intended to help

individuals within the organization and are as follows:

* Help others who have been absent.
* Willingly give your time to help others who have work-related problems.
* Adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees' requests for time
* Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group.
* Show genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most
trying business or personal situations.
4-' 4 -


The remaining eight items refer to citizenship behaviors aimed at helping the

organization as a whole rather than a specific individual within the organization and are

as follows:

* Attend functions that are not required by that help the organizational image.
* Keep up with the developments of the organization.
* Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.
* Show pride when representing the organization in public.
* Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.
* Express loyalty toward the organization.
* Take action to protect the organization from potential problems.
* Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization.

Counterproductive Behavior

A measure developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) was used to measure

counterproductive behavior. This measure was also self-report and asked participants to

rate how often they had engaged in certain behaviors in the past 12 months. Participants

used the following anchors for the scale: 1 = never, 2 = once a year, 3 = twice a year, 4 =

several times a year, 5 = monthly, 6 = weekly, and 7 = daily. The items are as follows:

* Made fun of someone at work.
* Said something hurtful to someone at work.
* Cursed at someone at work.
* Played a mean prank on someone at work.
* Acted rudely toward someone at work.
* Publicly embarrassed someone at work.
* Taken property from work without permission.
* Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.
* Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace.
* Come in late to work without permission.
* Littered your work environment.
* Neglected to follow your boss's instructions.
* Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked.
* Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person.
f^-^l&A nI .4 4 i


Organizational Commitment

The revised version of Meyer and Allen's (1997) affective commitment scale was

used to measure organizational commitment. This scale assesses an emotional (as

opposed to economic-based) attachment to an organization. The scale for rating each

item was a 5-point likert-type scale with anchors of 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly

disagree. The items are as follows:

* I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
* I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own.
* I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. (R)
* I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. (R)
* This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
* I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R).


Withdrawal was assessed using the 12-item instrument developed by Lehman and

Simpson (1992). Participants were asked to indicate how often they performed the

actions in each statement. The scale for rating each item was a 5-point likert-type scale

with anchors of 1 = almost never and 5 = very often. The actions included:

* Thought of being absent.
* Chatted with coworkers about nonwork topics.
* Left work situation for unnecessary reasons.
* Daydreamed.
* Spent work time on personal matters.
* Put less effort into the job than should have.
* Thought of leaving current job.
* Let others do your work.
* Left work early without permission.
* Taken longer lunch or rest breaks than allowed.


Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and zero-order correlations among

all the study variables are shown in Table 1. Most notable is the .61 correlation between

urgent and routine trust, suggesting that the two are highly correlated yet still empirically

distinguishable. The correlations among the trust antecedents were all moderate to strong

and consistent with past work by Mayer and Davis (1999). The three facets of job

performance were also strongly related, supporting the notion that they are multiple

dimensions of the same performance construct (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Similarly,

organizational commitment and employee withdrawal were strongly negatively

correlated, as expected. These correlations, together with the coefficient alphas on the

diagonal, provide some support for the construct validity of the measures used to test my


Hypothesis 1

I first conducted a factor analysis to verify the a priori separation of urgent and

routine trust. I subjected the 17 trust items to a principal components analysis with

varimax rotation. The scree plot supported a two-factor solution. The first factor, which

corresponded to urgent trust, explained 60% of the variance in the 17 items. The items

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and zero-order intercorrelations for study variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Ability 4.32 .64 .92
2. Benevolence 4.09 .67 .62** .88
3. Integrity 3.89 .61 .63** .66** .81
4. Propensity to Trust 3.62 .54 .27** .34** .48** .78
5. Urgent Trust 6.02 1.02 .18 .17 .29** .12 .97
6. Routine Trust 4.88 1.11 .33** .39** .44** .19* .61** .93
7. Task Performance 4.30 .63 .11 .40** .08 -.06 -.09 .19 .87
8. Citizenship Behavior 4.11 .57 .14 .24* .05 .21 -.07 .06 .57** .94
9. Counterproductive Behavior 1.48 .49 .02 -.27* .00 -.23* .08 -.05 -.49** -.52** .9
10. Organizational Commitment 3.57 .84 .16 .24* .21* .29** .17 .41** .19 .32** -.1
11. Withdrawal 2.20 .60 -.09 -.07 -.11 -.27** -.17 -.39** -.08 -.10 .0


= 104.

Coefficient alphas are presented in boldface along the diagonal.

explained an incremental 14% of the variance in the 17 items. The items pertaining to

fitness, education, and training all loaded on this routine trust factor.

The average loading

across those 7 items was .78, with no significant cross loadings on the other factor.

Further, the zero-order correlation between urgent and routine trust was .60.

While this

correlation is strong enough to suggest that these two concepts are related, the magnitude

of this relationship is not great enough to suggest that they should be considered one

concept.Taken together, these results provide some support for the distinction between

the urgent and routine trust categories.

Hypothesis 2

Hypotheses 2a-c stated that routine trust would be significantly related to task

performance, citizenship, and counterproductive behavior, independent of urgent trust.

The results of the regression analyses are shown in Table

Hypothesis 2a was

supported, as routine trust was significantly related to task performance in the predicted

direction (Ip

.43, significant at p

.01). However, routine trust did not explain

significant variance in citizenship behavior or counterproductive behavior, failing to

support Hypotheses lb-c.


Regression results



1. Urgent Trust
2. Routine Trust

p R2
-.35** .12

3 R2

(3 R2



***p< .01

Hypotheses 2d-e predicted that routine trust would be significantly related to


(p13 = .45, significant at p

(p = -.42, significant at p

: .01, supporting Hypothesis Id) and lower levels of withdrawal

< .01, supporting Hypothesis le).

Regression results

- 1' '> 1 -t


1. Urgent Trust
2. Routine Trust

w Imnarawal

1 R3
-.11 .15



** p < .05.

*** p

< .01

Hypothesis 3

Hypotheses 3a-c stated that urgent trust would be significantly related to task

performance, citizenship, and counterproductive behavior, independent of routine trust.

The results of the regression analyses are shown in Table

None of these hypotheses

were supported. Contrary to predictions, higher levels of urgent trust were associated

with lower levels of task performance (P = -

significant at p

< .05). There were no

other significant unique effects.

Hypotheses 3d-e predicted that urgent trust would be significantly related to

organizational commitment and withdrawal, independent of routine trust. The results of

the regression analyses are shown in Table 3. Urgent trust did not explain significant

variance in either of these two outcome variables. Therefore, neither hypothesis was


Hypothesis 4

Hypotheses 4a-c predicted that the relationships between urgent trust

(independent of routine trust) and (a) task performance, (b) citizenship, and
... C C C

Table 3.

- R


regressed on urgent trust and routine trust in the first step of the regression. In step two,

the direct effects of risk were assessed. Step three entered both the urgent trust x risk

interaction as well as the routine trust x risk interaction. The results of these regressions

can be found in Table 4. The interaction of urgent trust and risk was not significant for

any of the three outcomes, failing to support these predictions.

Hypotheses 4d-e predicted that the relationships between urgent trust

(independent of routine trust) and (d) organizational commitment, and (e) withdrawal

would be moderated by risk, such that the relationships would be stronger when risk was

higher. The results of these moderated regressions can be found in Table

interaction of urgent trust and risk was not significant for either of the outcomes, failing

to support these predictions.

Hypothesis 5

Hypotheses 5a-c predicted that the relationships between routine trust

(independent of urgent trust) and (a) task performance, (b) citizenship, and

(c) counterproductive behavior would be moderated by risk, such that the relationship

would be weaker when risk was higher. The results of these moderated regressions can

be found in Table 4. The interaction of routine trust and risk was not significant for any

of the three outcomes, failing to support these predictions.

Hypotheses 5d-e stated that the relationships between routine trust (independent

of urgent trust) and (d) organizational commitment, and (e) withdrawal would be

moderated by risk, such that the relationship would be weaker when risk was higher. The

Table 4.

Moderated regression results

1 AR2 R2


P AR2 R2

13 A


. Urgent Trust (UT)
Routine Trust (RT)



x Risk
x Risk



<.10 **p

< .05.






Moderated regression results

13 AR2 R2



1 AR2 R2

Urgent Trust (UT)
Routine Trust (RT)

UT x Risk







x Risk


N= 104.

<.10 **p

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 predicted that ability would be a stronger predictor of urgent trust

than routine trust. Ability was significantly related to both urgent trust (r =

significant at p < .10) and routine trust (r

.33, significant atp < .01). The correlations

suggest that, contrary to predictions, ability is more strongly associated with routine trust

than urgent trust. However, the two correlations were not found to be significantly

different (p =

.21). Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 7

Hypotheses 7 predicted that benevolence would be a stronger predictor of routine

trust than urgent trust. Benevolence was significantly related to both urgent trust (r

significant atp < .10) and routine trust (r

.39, significant at p

< .01). Additionally, these

correlations were significantly different at a .10 level (p = .08). The correlations suggest

that benevolence is more strongly associated with routine trust than urgent trust, as

predicted. Therefore, this hypothesis was supported.

Hypothesis 8

*** p .01



suggest that integrity is more strongly associated with routine trust than urgent trust.

However, the two correlations were not found to be significantly different (p

Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 9

Hypothesis 9 stated that propensity to trust would be a stronger predictor of

urgent trust than routine trust. Propensity to trust was not significantly related to urgent

trust (r =

.12). However, propensity to trust was significantly related to routine trust.

.19., significant at p

<.10). The correlations suggest that, contrary to predictions,

propensity to trust is more strongly associated with routine trust than urgent trust.

However, the two correlations were not found to be significantly different (p = .61).

Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported.



Kramer (1999) said "trust is moving from a bit player to center stage in

contemporary organizational theory and research" (p. 594).

Reasons for the increased

importance of trust include the changing nature of work, increased use of teams, and

more geographic dispersion of employees working together. The purpose of this paper

was not to discuss the importance of trust per

se, but rather to delineate two important

types of trust, urgent trust and routine trust.

For the purposes of this study, the definition of trust put forth by Roussseau,

Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer in the 1998 special issue on trust in the Academy of

Management Review was used.

They define trust as a psychological state comprising the

intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or

behavior of another.

Unfortunately, definition leaves two important questions unanswered:


willingness to be vulnerable during what kind of behavior and second, positive

expectations that the person will engage in what type of behavior. These two questions

are important because many jobs possess an inherent duality: everyday, traditional

actions, with punctuated instances of emergencies or crises. It seems likely that trust may

take on different forms in these different situations. Given this possibility, the purpose of


important duality. More specifically, this study examined two types of trust: urgent trust

and routine trust.

Routine Trust's Relationship with Commitment and Withdrawal

While the study predicted that organizational commitment and withdrawal would

be driven by both urgent and routine trust, independent of one another, this was not the

case. Routine trust had a significant impact on both outcomes controlling for urgent trust.

The same was not true in the opposite direction. This result suggests that an individual's

desire to engage in behaviors such as shirking, absenteeism, or even leaving the

organization is driven by reactions to the behavior of one's coworkers in situations that

have established rules, procedures, or precedence governing actions.

Perhaps trust concerning everyday behaviors of coworkers was more important

because of the sample used in this particular study. Firefighter training is difficult,

extensive, and ongoing throughout a firefighter's career. Further, the nature of this

training focuses specifically on the urgent, critical nature of the job. As such, training

simulations often accentuate expecting the unexpected and reacting to it well. Because of

the nature of firefighter training and education, perhaps there is a restriction in range

concerning those specific abilities most strongly related to urgent trust.

The descriptive statistics of this study suggest that this explanation may have

credence. On a 7-point scale, the average score for urgent trust was 6, suggesting that

these firefighters, on average,

"almost always" trusted their coworkers concerning

behaviors associated with urgent trust. For example, given that each and every firefighter


Given the likely relative stability of urgent trust across fire departments, it seems

likely that what would drive firefighters to be more or less committed to their particular

fire department, or want to leave their particular fire department, would be the day to day

nuances of life in these departments. In fact, the items used to measure commitment and

withdrawal are all organization specific, not career specific. Thus, each measure

attempted to capture feelings concerning the particular department for which these

firefighters work.

Individuals are not likely to physically or emotionally withdraw from their

organization when they can trust their coworkers to do their share as related to the typical

tasks for the day's work, especially if these same coworkers can be generally trusted in

novel situations that pose serious threats to collective interests. On the other hand, if

urgent trust can be assumed across all organizations in the field, individuals may be

particularly sensitive to not being able to trust their coworkers to complete the more

monotonous and routine tasks of the job. This certainly may lead them to withdraw

themselves from their work.

Organizational commitment works in a similar fashion, but perhaps the logic is

even simpler. If those factors related to the formation of urgent trust are stable within the

career a person has been extensively trained for, then the desire to leave a particular

organization would certainly be driven by the extent to which an individual is able to

trust their coworkers to complete the more common tasks of the job.

Routine Trust's Relationship with Job Performance


established rules, procedures, or precedence governing actions. Behaviors related to

evaluations of routine trust involve situations that also have established rules, procedures,

or precedence governing actions.

This result suggests a possible, positively reinforcing, cycle of routine trust and

job performance. To illustrate, assume a particular individual trusts their closest

coworkers to complete the most common, routine tasks of a job. To reciprocate, this

individual performs his or her job well, with respect to their assigned duties. Other


see this trustable, solid job performance, and trust this individual. They, in

turn, fulfill their responsibilities of their job description and the cycle perpetuates.

Negative Effects of Urgent Trust

Study findings concerning urgent trust differed not only from routine trust, but

also from expectations. Urgent trust was, in fact, found to be negatively related to task

performance, controlling for routine trust.

While this result was probably specific to this

study and not likely to be replicated, some explanation is necessary. Perhaps those who

perform the worst in a general sense have to trust others in urgent situations because they

do not possess enough competencies themselves. For example, if a firefighter knows that

they cannot check a person's vital sign correctly under pressure, they would likely have to

trust their coworkers to pick up the slack.

Citizenship and Counterproductive Behaviors

Somewhat surprisingly, neither routine nor urgent trust were related to citizenship

or counterproductive behaviors. Again, the sample of this particular study may be


hours on these days with their coworkers. In fact, the stations are called firehouses. This

is because they function much like a household. For example, there are chores to be done,

decisions to be made about the living environment, and a social environment that must be


As such, the firefighters of a specific shift often function like a family. Each task

is done as much out of concern and respect for others as it is by necessity. For an

individual to engage in counterproductive behavior in a work environment such as this is

comparable to an obvious and motivated attack on the "family" that is that particular shift

at that particular station. Similarly, not engaging in citizenship behavior such as showing

concern and courtesy towards one's coworkers may also be seen as apparent and

deliberate disregard for the working unit. In other words, for a firefighter to engage in

counterproductive behaviors and not engage in citizenship behaviors is a much bigger

deal than for a normal employee at a typical job to do the same. In other words, there are

powerful norms in this sample concerning these behaviors that may trump the effects of



To assess trustworthiness, this study used the model presented by Mayer et al.,

1995, which identifies ability, benevolence, and integrity as the key dimensions of

trustworthiness. To the key dimensions of trustworthiness. To begin, these authors define

ability as a domain specific group of skills or competencies that an individual possesses.

While the correlations suggested that ability is more strongly associated with routine trust


task. As such, the notion that some sort of ability is required to perform any task on the

trust measures may be constant across both forms of trust evaluations. In other words,

perhaps ability of the trustee is a necessary but insufficient condition for any type of

trusting behavior to occur.

By definition, a benevolent individual has good intentions regarding the trustor.

In this study, it seems logical that these good intentions would drive everyday, repetitive

tasks as these tasks often benefit the entire station. Consequences of not engaging in

these behaviors are existent, but probably not severe. It is in fact, the severity of

consequences of not engaging in urgent behaviors that overrides the impact of


For example if a firefighter does not lift weights, few short-term effects are likely.

Contrarily, this same firefighter failing to survey an accident for safety concerns can

immediately lead to severe consequences including injury or death. In other words,

behaviors related to urgent trust evaluations usually occur in strong situations where

feelings of benevolence may not be able to manifest themselves.

With regard to integrity, an individual is seen as having integrity if they adhere to

a set of moral principles that a trustor sees as acceptable. Put simply, integrity involves

moral character.

While integrity had a stronger relationship with routine trust than with

urgent trust, the correlations were not significantly different. This suggests that

evaluations of an individual's moral character do not drive subsequent feelings of urgent

and routine trust to a different degree.

Interestingly, part of what determines integrity is consistency of action over time


situations, be they urgent or routine. As such, their integrity will effect trust evaluations

of both types to an approximately equal degree.

Propensity to Trust

In another contrary finding, propensity to trust was significantly related to routine

trust, but not urgent trust. Closer analysis, however, revealed that propensity was not

found to be related to urgent and routine trust to a different degree. This suggests that an

individual's general willingness to trust others in fact generalizes across types of trust.

Given the non-specific nature of propensity to trust, it is not altogether surprising that the

strength of its relationship with trust was not specific to a certain from of trust.

Practical Implications

The results of this study suggest that routine trust had significant effects on both

commitment and withdrawal. Specifically, higher levels of routine trust were associated

with higher levels of commitment and lower levels of withdrawal. Both of these

outcomes are important to the fire service. To begin, firefighter training is not only time

intensive but also expensive. For this reason, it is important that those firefighters who

complete this training do not intend to leave the organization. Further, given the

sporadically dangerous nature of the job, it is critical that firefighters are not mentally

withdrawn from their work, as this could lead to injuries or even death.

Fortunately, there are actions that the fire department can take to foster the

development of routine trust. In order to do so, the department can conduct more frequent

assessments of routine task performance and/or conduct more training on routine tasks.


possess high levels of integrity and benevolence, the two dimensions of trustworthiness

most closely associated with routine trust.

Study Limitations

Perhaps the greatest limitation of this study was its small sample size and

resulting lack of statistical power. This lack of power did not affect the strength of

relationships between study variables, but rather the statistical significance of these

relationships. In other words, though some effect sizes were of reasonable strength, the

small sample size of the study made them non-significant. This affected not only the

relationship of independent and dependent variables, but also the statistical significance

of the difference between correlations between the two types of trust with respect to other

study variables.

Another weakness of this study was that scores on most of the variables were

collected via self-report. In other words, study participants decided their own scores on

most measures. To partially mitigate the negative effects of a self-report design, data

were collected over three time periods separated by the passage of at least 6 weeks. This

delay is a necessary but insufficient condition for assessing causality. That is, the

independent variables were measured prior to the intervening trust variables and the

dependent variables.

One limitation of this study will be particularly difficult to overcome in future

research, family type samples. Because of the living environment in the jobs most

enriched with urgent trust situations, a strong group identification results. Because of the


to that described above. For example, military personnel are often stationed together and

share the bulk of not only their work hours, but also their leisure time with other military

personnel. A similar identification amongst workers seems likely with police officers as

well. This sweeping camaraderie likely acts to restrict range on negative outcome


These aforementioned jobs where urgent trust related behaviors are most

prevalent also create another potential problem, restriction in range in those behaviors

related to urgent trust. Police, firefighters, and military personnel all receive extensive

training involving how to handle emergency situations. If members of these

organizations cannot pass this training, they are generally replaced. As such, in these

types of jobs, at least the competency component of trusting others may be assumed.

Suggestions for Future Research

First and foremost, future research should examine the same research questions

addressed in this paper using other relevant, larger samples. Perhaps a police or military

sample might have more participants and therefore more statistical power to more closely

examined the relationships of interest in this study. Also, these samples will likely yield

different and interesting results specific to these professions.

Further, urgent and routine trust should be examined in more traditional jobs, to

see if this distinction exists in more commonplace work environments. The argument was

made earlier in this paper that this duality of tasks (urgent and routine) is present in

nearly all jobs to some degree. Some careers where this distinction may be more readily


In other careers, this distinction may not be immediately recognizable, but still

present. Certainly, teachers, mechanics, lawyers, realtors, contractors and other

professionals frequently encounter situations that are novel and pose serious threats to

collective interests, even if not in a life or death sense. It would be interesting to see if

urgent and routine trust behave differently in these types of jobs.

Future research should also look at urgent and routine trust in a more extensive

nomological network. Many other independent variables than those included in this study

likely drive the formations of trust evaluations. For example, an individual's tenure with

an organization may effect how much they differentially trust their coworkers. Also, as

alluded to earlier, a person's career choice itself may be related to the manner in which

they trust. It could be that those who are most willing to trust others, especially with

regard to urgent trust, self- select themselves into jobs where emergency situations are

more likely.

It also seems likely that an individual's personality (in a big

sense) may impact

that individual's level of trust in others. Specifically, trustworthiness is a subfactor of the

personality dimension of agreeableness. It would be valuable to see if a person's own

trustworthiness is related to their trust in others. Also, it seems logical that more

conscientious people may trust others less because they are used to doing more than their

fair share. Additionally, affect is liable to effect trust reactions.

Whether or not a person

is in a positive mood will certainly affect their opinions of others.

Finally, given the recent proliferation of justice research, future research should


trust these individuals. On the other hand, not being able to trust one's coworkers may

lead to feelings of injustice at the workplace. In other words, a person might feel that it is

unfair that they should have to work with untrustworthy people.


Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J.

Carrol & J.

Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ:


Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002).

Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: A special

group of layoff survivors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
75: 1-13.


Budhwar, P.

& Chen,

(2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship

between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267-285.


G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Justice and organizational
punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events. Social Justice Research, 6,


Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, R. J.,

& Robinson,

L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,


Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M.,

Pillutla, M. M. (1998).

A formal model of trust

based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review,


Bies, R. J., & Tyler, T

.R. (1993).

The litigation mentality in organizations: A test of

alternative psychological explanations. Organization Science,


Bigley, G., & Pearce, J. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science:

Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review,



. C. (1991). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In

M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bradach, J., & Eccles, R. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural
forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97-118.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P.

Daly, J. P., Tyler, T.,

& Martin, C. (1997).

When trust

matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science



Butler, J. K. (1983). Reciprocity of trust between professional and their secretaries.

Psychological Reports,

Butler, J. K. (1991).
of a conditions (

Butler, J. K., & Cant


Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution
)f trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.

rell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to

modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette &
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1
Consulting Psychologists Press.

L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA:



Rebuilding employee trust. Training & Development,


Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of
demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of




stiansen, N., Villanova, P., & Mikulay, S. (1997). Political influence compatibility:
fitting the person to the climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 709-730.

Coleman, J.

(1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Conger, J. A.,

Kanungo, R. N.

& Menon,

T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and

follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,


Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment, and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational




. H., (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244.

-_ -- -Id-

Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work:
Complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53,

DeNisi, A.

Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive review of the

performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360-396.

Deutsch, M. (1958).

Trust and Suspicion. Conflict Resolution,


Deutsch, M.

(1960). The effects of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion.

Human relations, 13,


Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on workgroup performance.

Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84,

Dirks, K. T. (2000).


Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA

basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology,


Dooley, R.

& Fryxell, G. E. (1999).

Attaining decision quality and commitment from

dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-

making teams. Academy of Management Journal,


Earley, P. C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work
performance: An examination of feedback in the United States and England. Journal

of Management, 12,

Farh, J., Tsui, A.


Xin, K., & Cheng, B. (1998). The influence of relational

demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9, 471-488.

Friedlander, F. (1970). The primacy of trust as a facilitator of further group
accomplishment. Journal of Applied behavioral Science, 6, 387-400.

Frost, T

., Stimpson, D.

., & Maughan, M. R. C. (1978). Some correlates of trust.

Journal of Psychology,

99, 103-108.

Gabarro, J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A. G. Athos
& J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in
relationships (pp. 290-303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-Doing good: A conceptual analysis

Hart, K. M., Capps, H. R., Cangemi, J. P., and Caillouet, L. M. (1986). Exploring
organizational trust and its multiple dimensions: A case study of General Motors.

Organizational Development Journal,

4, 31-39.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E. Higgins, C. Herman, &
M. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hosmer, L. T. 1995. Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and
philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.

Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette & L.
psychology (V(

M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational


pp. 445-506). Palo-Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In B. M.

Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
64). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001).

pp. 26-

The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal

study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 238-251.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation
of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.

Kee, H.

., & Knox, R. E. (1970). Conceptual and methodological considerations in the

study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14, 357-366.


A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core

charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 36-51.

Klimoski, R. J., & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving

groups. Journal ofApplied Psychology,

61, 630-633.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing
as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 698-707.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh,

D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.

J- I r V .1 r r rr n


Korsgaard, M.

Schweiger, D. M.,

Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment,

attachment, and trust, in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural
justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-589.



E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance abuse and on-the-job
5s. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309-321.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces,

Lieberman, J. K. (1981). The litigious society. New York: Basic Books.

Lord, R. G. (
on raters



). Accuracy in behavioral measurement: An alternative definition based

' cognitive schema and signal detection theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 70, 66-71.


B., Podsakoff, P. M.,

Rich, G.

A. (2001).

Transformational and

transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of




Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 171-194.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on
trust for management: A field-quasi experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6

Mayer, R. C.,

Davis, J. H.,

organizational trust. Acac

Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
lemy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

Mellinger, G. D. (1959). Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology,


Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and


Thousand Oaks, C


Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
-4i-- l --_-- _- I ** t1 T r Y w* *. T A


Simon, H.

(1972). Human problem solving. Englewodd Cliffs, NJ:


Nicholson, P. J., & Goh,

C. (198

The relationship of organization structure and

interpersonal attitudes role conflict and different work environments. Academy of

Management Journal,


Nooteboom, B.,

Berger, H.,

Noorderhaven, N.

G. (1997).

Effects of trust and

governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal,

40, 308-338.

Organ, D.


Organizational citizenship behavior: It'

construct clean-up time.

Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

Pettit, J.

, Goris, J

., & Vaught, B.

(1997). An examination of organizational


as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job

performance. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 81-98.


, Schriesheim, C. A.,

& Williams, E.

S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust

mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.

Journal of Management,


Podsakoff, P.

., MacKenzie,

., Moorman, R. H.,

& Fetter, R. (


Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in


satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1,



Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance

among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology,


, Holmes, J.

Zanna, M.

P. (1985). Trust in close relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.

Rich, G. A.

(1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction,

and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Roberts, K. H

& O'Reilly, C.


Measuring organizational communication.

Journal ofApplied Psychology,

59, 321-326.


., & Bennett, R. J.


typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study

Academy of Management Journal, 38,


Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-

capturing approach. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87,


Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin,

B., Burt, R.

& Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after

all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review,


Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
implications. Academy of Management Review, 23, 422-437.

Simons, T

L., & Peterson, R.

(2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top

management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 102-111.



B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic
dies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.

Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in

11, pp. 290-338). New York: Academic Press.

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 30, 242-263.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson,

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Management, 17,


Williamson, O. E. (1993).

Calculativenesss, trust, and economic organization. Journal of

Law and Economics, 30, 131-145.


McEvily, B., & Perrone,

(1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects

of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,
9, 141-159.

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 229-239.

experimental social psychology (Vol.


I was born in Mobile, Alabama, and moved to Florida at the age of 2. I attended

grade school and high school in Pensacola, Florida. In 1996, I graduated from Booker T.

Washington High School. I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in business

administration from the University of Florida in August 1999. Immediately after

graduation, I began working toward my Ph.D., also at the University of Florida.

Upon graduation, I intend to continue to work for my current employer, Alligator

Properties. I currently work as both a property manager and a realtor for this

organization. I hope to eventually return to a University setting in a teaching position, but

probably only part time.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Jason A. Colquitt, Chair
Associate Professor of Management

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. /

J.4rey'. LPme
Associate Professor of Management

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Amir Erez
Associate Professor of Management

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophyr-) A .N

Stuart E. Sjhwartz
Professor of Education

This dissertation was submitted to
Management in the College of Bus
was accepted as partial fulfillment

the Graduate Faculty of the Department of
iness Administration and to the Graduate School and
of the requirements for the degree Doctor of

December, 2004

Dean, Graduate School


11111 11111Il IIIIlIIl l IIll 11111 i il llllllllli I