The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment.

Abstract

Recent theoretical developments have enabled the empirical study of trust for specific referents in organizations. The authors conducted a 14-month field study of employee trust for top management. A 9-month quasi-experiment found that the implementation of a more acceptable performance appraisal system increased trust for top management. The 3 proposed factors of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust.

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

“…Of these three facets, integrity and benevolence are relevant in the context of FHT (i.e., to assess fears of exploitation; Colquitt & Rodell, 2011). We therefore measured integrity and benevolence perceptions with two scales from Mayer and Davis (1999). We slightly adapted the items to refer to "the top-ranked organization member" rather than, as in the original items, to "my Furthermore, procedural justice affected trustworthiness perceptions more strongly among lowly ranked participants with a high sense of power than among (1) lowly ranked participants with a low sense of power (t = 1.53, p = .06), (2) highly ranked participants with a high sense of power (t = 3.04, p < .01), and (3) highly ranked participants with a low sense of power (t = 1.54, p = .06).…”

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses

“…McEvily and Tortoriello also review five measures of trust that have been replicated in the organizational trust literature and shown to have reasonable psychometric properties (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996;Currall & Judge, 1995;Gillespie, 2003;Mayer & Davis, 1999;McAllister, 1995). They note, however, that these five measures differ in how they resolve the question of dimensionality, with each measure focusing on somewhat different constructs.…”

“…They note, however, that these five measures differ in how they resolve the question of dimensionality, with each measure focusing on somewhat different constructs. For example, whereas Mayer and Davis (1999) define and measure ability, benevolence, and integrity forms of trustworthiness, McAllister (1995) measures cognition-and affect-based types of trust which appear to relate respectively to cognitive evaluations of competence and reputation versus more affective and relational evaluations. Thus, McEvily and Tortoriello emphasize there remains an overarching need to specify what dimensions of trust are "distinct yet related" and to establish empirically and more concretely "the multi-dimensionality of trust" (p. 37).…”

“…For example, items such as "I trust [institution] to perform its functions as it should" or "My confidence in [institution] is high," assess direct/unspecified trust. Other times, however, trust is assessed by explicitly asking people about their willingness to behaviorally support, give control to, rely upon, or otherwise be vulnerable to the trustee in general or specific ways (Gillespie, 2003;Mayer & Davis, 1999). Some have also distinguished between a willingness to support that may be temporary and related to specific policies or actions of the institution, and more diffuse and resilient willingness to support that may withstand disappointments and fluctuations in satisfaction with the trustee (Easton, 1975;Gibson, Caldeira, & Spence, 2003) .…”

Who Am I? How Compelling Self-storytelling Builds Digital Personal Reputation

“…Based on the characterization of Mayer and Davis (1999), parties in transactions are assessed to be trustworthy when they (i) have the required skills, and characteristics that enable to exert influence within a specific domain, (ii) are believed to do good to trustors, setting aside an egocentric motive, (iii) are perceived to adhere to a set of principles that trustors consider important.…”