Personnel ReviewImpersonal trust: The development of the construct and the scaleMika Vanhala Kaisu Puumalainen Kirsimarja Blomqvist

Article information:To cite this document:Mika Vanhala Kaisu Puumalainen Kirsimarja Blomqvist, (2011),"Impersonal trust", Personnel Review, Vol.40 Iss 4 pp. 485 - 513Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481111133354

Downloaded on: 03 January 2015, At: 22:51 (PT)References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2032 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Riikka Ellonen, Kirsimarja Blomqvist, Kaisu Puumalainen, (2008),"The role of trust in organisationalinnovativeness", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 160-181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060810869848Mika Vanhala, Riikka Ahteela, (2011),"The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational trust",Management Research Review, Vol. 34 Iss 8 pp. 869-888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171111152493Karin Sanders, Birgit Schyns, Graham Dietz, Deanne N. Den Hartog, (2006),"Measuring trust insideorganisations", Personnel Review, Vol. 35 Iss 5 pp. 557-588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480610682299

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 187192 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Impersonal trustThe development of the construct and the scale

Mika Vanhala and Kaisu PuumalainenSchool of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology,

Lappeenranta, Finland, and

Kirsimarja BlomqvistSchool of Business and Technology Business Research Center,Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

Abstract

Purpose – Modern organizations face an increasing need for trust, yet there are fewer opportunitiesfor the development and maintenance of interpersonal trust, so they cannot rely only on that. There istherefore a need for complementary forms of organizational trust. It is believed that the impersonalelement of organizational trust is a useful concept and should be incorporated into the measures. Thispaper seeks to conceptualize and clarify the impersonal element of organizational trust and developscales on which to measure it.

Design/methodology/approach – The hypothesized model is tested on a sample of 166respondents with different organizational backgrounds. Confirmatory factor analysis is used.

Findings – It was found that impersonal trust in the organizational context consists of twodimensions: capability and fairness, the final scales containing 18 and 13 items, respectively.

Research limitations/implications – A more holistic approach to organizational trust is proposedand a measuring instrument for the impersonal element is provided.

Practical implications – It is suggested that organizational trust is critical for contemporaryorganizations. Further evaluation and development of the concept require a comprehensivemeasurement instrument incorporating both interpersonal and impersonal elements. This paperidentifies the conceptual domain for the less studied impersonal element of organizational trust, andprovides a measurement scale.

Originality/value – The construct of impersonal trust and the measurement scale developed andvalidated in this study represent a step forward towards the effective and reliable measurement oforganizational trust. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first study to provide acomprehensive, psychometrically sound, operationally valid measure of impersonal trust.

Keywords Trust, Organizations

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionUntil recently organizational trust has been treated mainly as an interpersonalphenomenon (Mayer et al. 1995; Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Shockley-Zalabak et al.,2000; Tyler, 2003) consisting of lateral trust referring to relations among employeesand vertical trust referring to relations between employees and their immediate

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

The authors would like to thank MSc (Econ and Bus Adm) Sirpa Multaharju for her valuablework in the early stages of the research project. They would also like to thank the twoanonymous reviewers for their valuable and inspiring comments that have been very helpfulduring the development of this paper.

Impersonaltrust

485

Received 9 June 2008Revised July 2008

Accepted 12 February 2010

Personnel ReviewVol. 40 No. 4, 2011

pp. 485-513q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483481111133354

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

superiors, top management or the organization as a whole (McCauley and Kuhnert,1992).

We argue that this social approach to organizational trust is limited. First, the needfor trust in contemporary organizations has strengthened due to the emphasis onknowledge as a focal resource, yet the natural evolution of interpersonal trust is morechallenging due to globalization and virtualization. Knowledge work is increasinglycarried out in temporary and technology-enabled task forces, projects and virtualteams. Furthermore, supervisors and leaders may have dual roles, working as expertsand only part-time as supervisors (Alvesson, 2004). In many cases employees may nothave a shared past or future vision (Axelrod, 1984). Such settings provide limitedopportunities for the natural evolution of interpersonal trust. Consequently, trustamong employees and between employees and supervisors may become very thin andfragile, and employees have actually become less trusting (Zeffane and Connell, 2003;Schoorman et al., 2007).

There is increasing interest in the impersonal element of organizational trust,known as institutional (see, e.g. Costigan et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 1998) or systems(Luhmann, 1979) trust, as we need trust more than ever, yet there are fewer naturalopportunities for interpersonal trust to evolve. Impersonal trust refers to trust inimpersonal organizational factors such as vision and strategy, top management, themanagement group’s goals and capability, technological and commercial competence,justice, fair processes and structures, roles, technology and reputation, and HRMpolicies (Costigan et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 1998; McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992;Kramer, 1999; Tan and Tan, 2000; Atkinson and Butcher, 2003; Kosonen et al., 2008).

Our aim in this paper is to develop a construct and a scale encompassing theimpersonal element of organizational trust. Researchers measuring organizationaltrust have focused on specific dimensions of the impersonal trust. It is characterized inprevious studies mainly as trust in top management (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992;Costigan et al., 1998; Daley and Vasu, 1998; Clark and Payne, 1997; Tyler, 2003; Mayerand Davis, 1999), and also in the employer organization (Tan and Tan, 2000), itscompetence (Lee, 2004) and performance (Robinson, 1996). Previous measures shedlight on some aspects of the impersonal dimension of organizational trust, but there isno comprehensive measurement instrument available.

In this paper we describe a step-by-step approach to developing the construct ofimpersonal trust and a valid measurement scale for assessing employee perception ofimpersonal organizational trust (see Figure 1). We start with a discussion on the roleand nature of the impersonal dimension of organizational trust. Second, we develop theconstruct and the scale on which to measure it, and then demonstrate its validity andreliability. Finally, in our conclusions we discuss the theoretical, methodological andnormative implications.

The conceptual and empirical domains of the impersonal element oforganizational trustTheoretical backgroundIn the context of sociology trust is considered critical in supporting coherence andcoordination in social communities. Luhmann (1979) argued that the opportunities andinterdependencies characterizing modern life demand commitment to and trust in thesystem. He further differentiated system trust or trust in abstract systems and

PR40,4

486

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Figure 1.The development process

Impersonaltrust

487

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

interpersonal trust: complex systems (such as organizations) demand some basic trustor confidence both in the institution and in being a member of it.

In the realm of social psychology, and especially according to social-exchangetheory, justice and the norm of reciprocity are also critical elements in the impersonaldimension of organizational trust. This is visible in the symmetry of the psychologicalcontract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1989; Whitener, 1997; Blau, 1964).Not only may a reciprocal attitude affect the dyadic relationship, it could also become ameta-psychological contract and a generalized level of reciprocity (Parzefall, 2006;Rousseau et al., 1998).

In the research on economics and strategy trust is seen as a higher-order organizingprinciple enhancing knowledge sharing and transfer (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Foss,1996). According to the dynamic-capability view of the firm, operational routinessupport adaptation in complex situations. Modern HRM and leadership practices,organizing principles, and the roles and decision-making processes among topmanagement are critical factors (see, e.g. Tzafrir et al., 2004). According to organizationtheory, the organizational culture in terms of values, norms and identity has an impacton the impersonal nature of organizational trust (Creed and Miles, 1996).

Multi-disciplinary research focusing on organizational trust has identified thevision, strategy, decision-making processes, roles and HRM practices of topmanagement as sources of the impersonal element (Costigan et al., 1998; Atkinsonand Butcher, 2003). Fairness in decision-making and HRM are also critical factors (Tanand Tan, 2000; Kim and Mauborgne, 2003).

Previous literatureIn order to identify the previous research on the impersonal element of organizationaltrust and its measurement we carried out a literature review. We conducted a searchfor journal articles within the Abi/Inform, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, Emerald and Ebscoinformation sites, using key words such as “organizational trust”, “impersonal trust”,“intra-organizational trust” and “trust within the organization”. We then analyzed theresults in order to find research of relevance to our study. Thus, at this stage studiesdealing with inter-organizational trust or trust between an organization and consumerswere left aside. After these restrictions, 20 studies on intra-organizational trust withimpersonal components were left for deeper analysis (see Table I).

According to McCauley and Kuhnert (1992), trust between employees andmanagement is not interpersonal in nature, but derives from the roles, rules, andstructured relations of the organization. They further argue that trust is determined bythe fairness and efficiency of the organizational structures. Atkinson and Butcher(2003) point out that impersonal organizational trust is based on the roles and systemsof the employer organization, specifically on perceptions of the other’s competence tofulfil the role or task..

McKnight et al.(1998) divide impersonal trust along the dimensions of situationnormality, referring to the belief that success is likely because the situation is normal,and structural assurance, referring to the belief that success is likely because thecontextual conditions, such as promises, contracts, regulations and guarantees, are inorder. Zucker (1986) differentiates institution-based trust from character- andprocess-based trust, which could be built on certification, authorization and insurance.

PR40,4

488

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Au

thor

(s)

Con

tex

tO

bje

ctof

tru

stC

omp

onen

tsof

tru

stO

per

atio

nal

izat

ion

Atk

inso

nan

dB

utc

her

(200

3)C

once

ptu

alp

aper

Org

aniz

atio

nR

oles

,sy

stem

s,te

chn

olog

yan

dre

pu

tati

on–

Blu

nsd

onan

dR

eed

(200

3)A

ust

rali

anw

ork

pla

ces

Org

aniz

atio

nO

rgan

izat

ion

’ste

chn

olog

ical

syst

emn

/a

Bro

ckn

eret

al.

(199

7)E

mp

loy

ees

from

aw

ide

var

iety

ofor

gan

izat

ion

sin

the

US

AO

rgan

izat

ion

and

top

man

agem

ent

Cap

abil

ity

and

fair

nes

s4

item

s,e.

g.

“Itr

ust

the

man

agem

ent

totr

eat

me

fair

ly”

Cla

rkan

dP

ayn

e(1

997)

Bri

tish

Coa

lin

the

UK

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dto

pm

anag

emen

tF

airn

ess,

hon

esty

,co

mm

un

icat

ion

,ca

pab

ilit

yan

dre

liab

ilit

y

23it

ems,

e.g

.“I

bel

iev

eth

atm

anag

ers

app

lyth

esa

me

rule

sto

all

wor

ker

s.”

Cos

tig

anet

al.

(199

8)F

ocal

emp

loy

ees

from

var

iou

sfi

rms

inth

eU

SA

Top

man

agem

ent

Top

man

agem

ent’

sd

ecis

ion

son

vis

ion

,st

rate

gy

and

pro

cess

es6

item

s,e.

g.“

Th

eC

EO

and

the

top

man

agem

ent

ofm

yor

gan

izat

ion

are

sin

cere

inth

eir

atte

mp

tsto

mee

tth

ew

ork

er’s

poi

nt

ofv

iew

.”D

aley

and

Vas

u(1

998)

Nor

thC

arol

ina

stat

eem

plo

yee

sin

the

US

AT

opm

anag

emen

tC

omm

un

icat

ion

,fa

irn

ess

and

cap

abil

ity

4it

ems,

e.g

.“I

feel

pos

itiv

eab

out

the

dir

ecti

onin

wh

ich

up

per

man

agem

ent

isle

adin

gth

eag

ency

/un

iver

sity

.”K

iman

dM

aub

org

ne

(200

3)C

once

ptu

alp

aper

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dto

pm

anag

emen

tF

airn

ess

ofth

ep

roce

sses

–

Kra

mer

(199

9)C

once

ptu

alp

aper

All

org

aniz

atio

nal

mem

ber

sO

rgan

izat

ion

alro

les

and

rule

syst

em–

Lee

(200

4)K

orea

n-U

SA

join

tv

entu

rem

ult

inat

ion

alor

gan

izat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

nO

rgan

izat

ion

’sca

pab

ilit

y(r

esou

rces

,te

chn

olog

y,

com

pet

itiv

enes

s)

3it

ems,

e.g

.“I

amco

nfi

den

tth

atth

isco

mp

any

wil

lbe

con

tin

uou

sly

com

pet

itiv

ein

the

mar

ket

infu

ture

.”M

cCau

ley

and

Ku

hn

ert

(199

2)F

eder

alg

over

nm

ent

trai

nin

gor

gan

izat

ion

sin

the

US

AT

opm

anag

emen

tR

oles

,ru

les

and

stru

ctu

res

6it

ems,

e.g

.“I

feel

qu

ite

con

fid

ent

that

the

org

aniz

atio

nw

ill

alw

ays

try

totr

eat

me

fair

ly.”

McK

nig

htet

al.

(199

8)C

once

ptu

alp

aper

Org

aniz

atio

nal

stru

ctu

res

Str

uct

ure

sth

aten

able

situ

atio

nn

orm

alit

yan

dst

ruct

ura

las

sura

nce

–

(continued

)

Table I.The conceptualization of

impersonal trust in theliterature

Impersonaltrust

489

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Au

thor

(s)

Con

tex

tO

bje

ctof

tru

stC

omp

onen

tsof

tru

stO

per

atio

nal

izat

ion

May

eran

dD

avis

(199

9)S

mal

lm

anu

fact

uri

ng

firm

inth

eU

SA

Top

man

agem

ent

Top

man

agem

ent’

sca

pab

ilit

y,

fair

nes

s,h

ones

tyan

dre

liab

ilit

y.

21it

ems,

e.g

.“T

opm

anag

emen

tis

wel

lq

ual

ified

.”P

erry

and

Man

kin

(200

7)M

un

icip

alfi

red

epar

tmen

tan

dm

anu

fact

uri

ng

firm

inth

eU

SA

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dto

pm

anag

emen

tO

rgan

izat

ion

alg

oals

,v

alu

esan

dsh

ared

iden

tity

;T

opm

anag

emen

t’s

inte

gri

ty,

mot

ives

,in

ten

tion

san

dfa

irn

ess

N/a

for

the

org

aniz

atio

n.

For

top

man

agem

ent

7it

ems,

e.g

.“T

he

chie

fex

ecu

tiv

eis

fair

inre

war

din

gan

dre

cog

niz

ing

all

emp

loy

ees.

”R

obin

son

(199

6)G

rad

uat

esof

aM

BA

pro

gra

min

the

US

AO

rgan

izat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

nal

qu

alit

ies

and

per

form

ance

7it

ems,

e.g

.,“M

yem

plo

yer

isn

otal

way

sh

ones

tan

dtr

uth

ful.”

Sh

ock

ley

-Zal

abak

etal.

(200

0)54

com

pan

ies

inth

eU

SA

and

inIt

aly

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dto

pm

anag

emen

tO

rgan

izat

ion

alca

pab

ilit

y(p

rod

uct

san

dse

rvic

es,

tech

nol

ogy

,com

pet

itiv

enes

s).T

opm

anag

emen

t’s

cap

abil

ity

,fa

irn

ess,

hon

esty

and

reli

abil

ity

.S

har

edid

enti

tyw

ith

the

org

aniz

atio

n

46it

ems,

n/a

Tan

and

Lim

(200

9)L

ife

insu

ran

ceco

mp

any

inS

ing

apor

eO

rgan

izat

ion

Fai

rnes

s,or

gan

izat

ion

alsu

pp

ort

and

shar

edid

enti

tyw

ith

the

org

aniz

atio

n

5it

ems,

e.g

.“I

amw

illi

ng

tod

epen

don

the

org

aniz

atio

nto

bac

km

eu

pin

dif

ficu

ltsi

tuat

ion

s.”

Tan

and

Tan

(200

0)R

esp

ond

ents

wit

hn

oco

mm

onor

gan

izat

ion

alb

ack

gro

un

dO

rgan

izat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

nal

sup

por

tan

dor

gan

izat

ion

alju

stic

e7

item

s,n

/a

Ty

ler

(200

3)n

/aO

rgan

izat

ion

and

top

man

agem

ent

Fai

rnes

san

dsu

stai

nab

ilit

yof

the

org

aniz

atio

n7

item

s,“M

yv

iew

sar

eco

nsi

der

edw

hen

dec

isio

ns

are

mad

e.”

Wh

iten

er(1

997)

Con

cep

tual

pap

erO

rgan

izat

ion

Str

ateg

y,f

airn

ess

ofth

ep

roce

sses

(e.g

.,H

RM

)an

dor

gan

izat

ion

alsu

pp

ort

–

Wh

iten

eret

al.

(199

8)C

once

ptu

alp

aper

Org

aniz

atio

nC

omm

un

icat

ion

and

fair

nes

sof

the

pro

cess

es–

Table I.

PR40,4

490

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

The trustworthiness of an organization is also evaluated based on its leadership styleand behavior. For most employees the decision to trust top management depends moreon the outcomes of its actions (Costigan et al., 1998). Moreover, it is argued that trust intop management is usually based on the outcomes of its decision-making. Perceivedorganizational justice has an impact on experienced organizational trustworthiness(McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992; Tan and Tan, 2000).

Whitener (1997) states that competent decisions made in the organization produceincreased trust in its top-level management. Employees feel they have exchangerelationships with the organization as an entity, and their trust in it is partially basedon its decision history, possibly in the hands of higher-level superiors with whom theyhave no interpersonal relationships. They evaluate organizational trustworthiness onthe basis of their experience of these decisions, routines and activities.

According to Blunsdon and Reed (2003), characteristics of the production systemdefine the context in which work occurs, and are therefore included among theorganization’s values, as is trust. Moreover, Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000) argue thattrust in an organization entails having confidence that it is capable of deliveringquality products in terms of reliable production technology.

Perry and Mankin (2007) argue that organizational trust incorporates theacceptance of goals and values as well as a strong desire to identify with theorganization. According to Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000), identity concerns howindividuals manage the paradox of separation and association as a member of anorganization: those who identify with it are more likely to consider it more worthy oftrust.

Employees observe how outsiders such as customers, employees of other companiesand the media value their employer. Its reputation may derive from the reliability of thecompany and its products or services, how familiar the brand is or its position in thebranch or the stakeholder’s networks. A good external reputation as perceived byemployees leads to trust in the employer (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009; Atkinson andButcher, 2003).

According to Whitener (1997) the experience of decisions, routines and activitiesrelated to fairness in HRM practices has an impact on experienced organizationaltrustworthiness. In a similar vein, Kim and Mauborgne (2003) argue that fair processrefers to the human need to be valued as human beings and not as mere personnel orhuman assets. Also Tan and Tan (2000) argue that employee trust may change if theorganization does not compensate fairly or recognize employee contributions.

Perceived organizational support also has an impact on experienced organizationaltrustworthiness (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992; Tan and Tan, 2000). The norm ofreciprocity is discussed in earlier research, especially in terms of the psychologicalcontract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1989; Whitener, 1997; Blau, 1964).

According to Whitener et al. (1998) accurate information, explanations for decisionsand openness in communication affect perceptions of the organization’strustworthiness. Finally, open communication in the form of honest information andthe exchange of thoughts and ideas enhances perceptions of trust.

Focus groupsWe used the focus-group approach in order to further understanding of how employeesperceive the impersonal element of organizational trust. Perceptions of impersonal

Impersonaltrust

491

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

trust in four focus groups comprising employees from eight different organizations anddifferent positions in the ICT, forest and transport industries as well as the publicsector. Each group contained people in the same kind of organizational position. A totalof 22 people participated, of which five were planning staff, six were experts, six weremanagers and five worked within HR development. The participants were first askedto discuss “What kind of trust there is in your organization and in organizations ingeneral”. It should be noted that in all of the groups they raised the issue of impersonaltrust naturally (without the moderator’s probing). Once the issue had been raised theywere asked to discuss in more detail the question: “What are the objects of impersonaltrust in organizations?” The focus-group data were subjected to content analysiswherein the components of the data on impersonal trust were extracted. Atlas.tisoftware was used for the analysis of the empirical data.

Identification of the components of impersonal trustInductively collected components of the impersonal organizational trust were thenconnected to components taken from the literature review in the fields of sociology,social psychology and economics, as well as from a separate review of the emerginginter-disciplinary research on trust. On the basis of the literature review and ourqualitative focus-group research we defined the impersonal element of organizationaltrust as “the individual employee’s expectation about the employer organization’scapability and fairness”. The capability dimension consists of six and the fairnessdimension of five components (see Table II).

Item development and content validityBefore constructing the scale we carried out an extensive review of published measuresdealing with impersonal organizational trust and other related aspects. About half ofthe items comprising the original version of the scale were drawn from the earlystudies, the other half being generated by the researchers based on the model ofimpersonal trust.

The items characterize specific aspects of impersonal trust. The response format forthem all was a five-point Likert scale, anchored by “I totally disagree” and “I totallyagree”. A neutral option “neither disagree nor agree” was introduced in order to reduceuninformed response.

A total of 132 items were generated. The item pool was then further refined by agroup of PhD students and their supervisors. The questionnaire was then pre-tested ona group of PhD students, which led to the removal of about half of the items. Thewording of some of the items was also refined. Thus the final version included 60 itemsgrouped in the six components of the capability dimension (37 items) and the fivecomponents of the fairness dimension (23 items) of impersonal trust (see AppendixTables AI and AII).

Expert panelAn expert panel capable of understanding the construct further evaluated the 60 items.The panel consisted of seven members, five people with PhDs and two PhD students.The instructions and a list of items (in Finnish) were sent by e-mail to the panelmembers, who individually assigned each item to one of the eleven components. Therewas also the option of putting the items in a “no class” category. The items were listed

PR40,4

492

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Dim

ensi

onC

omp

onen

tD

escr

ipti

onof

the

com

pon

ent

Ap

pea

ran

cein

the

focu

sg

rou

ps

Ap

pea

ran

cein

the

lite

ratu

re

Cap

abil

ity

Org

aniz

ing

the

oper

atio

nal

acti

vit

ies

Th

eg

ener

alop

erat

ion

s,th

eor

gan

izat

ion

’sab

ilit

yto

cop

ein

exce

pti

onal

situ

atio

ns

and

how

its

reso

urc

esar

eex

plo

ited

Yes

Yes

Atk

inso

nan

dB

utc

her

(200

3);K

ram

er(1

999)

;L

ee(2

004)

;M

cKn

igh

tet

al.

(199

8)S

tab

ilit

yan

dp

red

icta

bil

ity

ofth

eop

erat

ion

alen

vir

onm

ent

Ch

ang

esin

the

oper

atio

nal

env

iron

men

tan

dem

plo

ym

ent

outl

ook

Yes

Yes

Atk

inso

nan

dB

utc

her

(200

3);

McK

nig

htet

al.

(199

8);

Rob

inso

n(1

996)

;Sh

ock

ley

-Zal

abak

etal.

(200

0);

Ty

ler

(200

3)M

anag

emen

tof

the

bu

sin

ess

and

peo

ple

Top

man

agem

ent’

sca

pab

ilit

ies

and

dec

isio

n-m

akin

gp

ract

ices

Yes

Yes

Cos

tig

anetal.

(199

8);D

aley

and

Vas

u(1

998)

,M

ayer

and

Dav

is(1

999)

;S

hoc

kle

y-Z

alab

aket

al.

(200

0)T

he

org

aniz

atio

n’s

tech

nol

ogic

alre

liab

ilit

yE

qu

ipm

ent

that

iscr

uci

alfo

rit

sop

erat

ion

s,th

ere

spon

den

ts’p

erso

nal

tool

s,w

ork

ing

con

dit

ion

san

das

sist

ance

wit

hte

chn

ical

pro

ble

ms

Yes

Yes

Atk

inso

nan

dB

utc

her

(200

3);

Sh

ock

ley

-Zal

abak

etal.

(200

0),

Blu

nsd

onan

dR

eed

(200

3)Id

enti

tyT

he

org

aniz

atio

n’s

pro

du

cts

and

serv

ices

asw

ell

asth

eor

gan

izat

ion

itse

lfco

mp

ared

wit

hit

sco

mp

etit

ors

Yes

Yes

Per

ryan

dM

ank

in(2

007)

;S

hoc

kle

y-

Zal

abak

etal.

(200

0)E

mp

loy

erre

pu

tati

onP

erce

pti

ons

ofw

hat

outs

ider

sth

ink

abou

tth

eem

plo

yer

org

aniz

atio

nY

esY

es

Atk

inso

nan

dB

utc

her

(200

3)(continued

)

Table II.The dimensions and the

components ofimpersonal trust

Impersonaltrust

493

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Dim

ensi

onC

omp

onen

tD

escr

ipti

onof

the

com

pon

ent

Ap

pea

ran

cein

the

focu

sg

rou

ps

Ap

pea

ran

cein

the

lite

ratu

re

Fai

rnes

sH

RM

pra

ctic

esS

alar

y,

rew

ard

syst

ems,

edu

cati

onan

dca

reer

Yes

Yes

Bro

ckn

eret

al.

(199

7);

Dal

eyan

dV

asu

(199

8);

Wh

iten

er(1

997)

;W

hit

ener

etal.

(199

8)T

he

nor

mof

reci

pro

city

Top

man

agem

ent’

sb

ehav

ior,

rew

ard

syst

ems

and

the

emp

loy

er’s

pro

mis

esan

dob

lig

atio

ns

Yes

Yes

Cla

rkan

dP

ayn

e(1

997)

;M

ayer

and

Dav

is(1

999)

;P

erry

and

Man

kin

(200

7);

Tan

and

Lim

(200

9);

Tan

and

Tan

(200

0)C

omm

un

icat

ion

Tru

stw

orth

ines

sof

the

info

rmat

ion

,su

ffici

ency

ofin

form

atio

n,

info

rmat

ion

that

isre

lev

ant,

and

over

all

inte

rnal

com

mu

nic

atio

n

Yes

Yes

Cla

rkan

dP

ayn

e(1

997)

;D

aley

and

Vas

u(1

998)

;W

hit

ener

etal.

(199

8)C

ult

ure

Inte

rnal

com

pet

itio

nan

dop

por

tun

ism

Yes

Yes

Bro

ckn

eret

al.

(199

7);

Tan

and

Lim

(200

9)V

alu

esan

dm

oral

pri

nci

ple

sT

he

org

aniz

atio

n’s

val

ues

and

eth

ical

ity

Yes

Yes

Per

ryan

dM

ank

in(2

007)

;K

iman

dM

aub

org

ne

(200

3)

Table II.

PR40,4

494

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

in random order in the Excel sheet and the panellists were instructed to assign eachitem to only one component.

Items placed in the wrong category by four of the seven panellists were taken underreview. There were 14 items that the experts classified differently than the researchershad originally done. However, all of the 60 items were included in the questionnairebecause there was inconsistency among the panel members: they placed these 14 itemsin various categories.

Data collectionThe respondents comprised a heterogeneous group: working adult students withdifferent kinds of organizational backgrounds. They were not randomly selected, andthe questionnaire was sent to all current and former students in the Master’s degreeprogramme whose e-mail addresses were available.

An internet questionnaire was used for data collection. A covering letter includinga personal link to the questionnaire (in Finnish) was sent to 356 potential respondentsvia e-mail. The initial e-mail was followed up with two reminders, the first after tendays and the second after another three days. A total of 166 completed questionnaireswere received, representing a 46.6 percent response rate. The majority of therespondents were women (54 percent) and 48 percent were in the 31-40 year agegroup. Almost half of them (49 percent) had a higher university degree, one third (35percent) had a lower university degree, and a few had a vocational education (7percent). The majority were officials (43 percent) or managers (30 percent), the thirdmajor group comprising ordinary employees (10 percent). In terms of employmentduration, the majority had worked in the organization for less than ten years: one tofive years (36 percent), six to ten years (28 percent) and under one year (15 percent).The major fields of activity were education (13 percent), state administration (10percent), telecommunications (8 percent) and information technology (8 percent),followed by the metal industry (8 percent), the forest industry (6 percent), trade (5percent), and health care and social services (5 percent). One third of the respondents(30 percent) worked in organizations with over 1,000 employees, 16 percent withbetween 500 and 999, 11 percent with between 250 and 499, and 8 percent withbetween 100 and 249.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was carried out in order to confirm theabsence of non-response bias. The respondents were divided to into three groups:

(1) the first mailing;

(2) the first follow-up; and

(3) the second follow up.

It was assumed that the last group most closely resembled non-respondents(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The three groups were compared on all items, and itwas found that there was no significant (at the five-per-cent level) difference betweenthem.

Item reduction – exploratory factor analysisThe first stage in the item reduction was to carry out exploratory, principal-componentfactor analysis (PCA), the objective being to cull items that did not load on the

Impersonaltrust

495

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

appropriate component of the dimensions of impersonal trust. SPSS 14 for Windowssoftware was used for the analysis, with direct oblimin rotation. As a result, nine itemsfrom the capability dimension and four items from the fairness dimension wereremoved (see Appendix Tables AI and AII). In addition, some modifications were madeto the original construct. On the capability dimension (see Table III). Identity andEmployer reputation were originally different components, but in the PCA their itemsloaded together to comprise one component referring to the organization’s reputationas an employer. On the fairness dimension (see Table IV) Values and morals and theNorm of reciprocity were combined into one component, which refers to fair play in theorganization. Items concerning salary loaded onto a different component than otherHRM items.

Items Mgm Tech Emre Opact Openv Communality Msa

Mgm5 0.924 0.848 0.962Mgm3 0.898 0.779 0.949Mgm11 0.897 0.737 0.951Mgm7 0.876 0.849 0.940Mgm4k 0.859 0.768 0.958Mgm10 0.847 0.817 0.963Mgm1 0.837 0.769 0.961Mgm8 0.823 0.745 0.946Mgm12k 0.813 0.723 0.938Mgm2k 0.775 0.614 0.938Mgm9k 0.711 0.649 0.965Mgm6k 0.564 0.618 0.970Tech2 0.901 0.826 0.817Tech4 0.883 0.778 0.811Tech3 0.747 0.715 0.915Tech5 0.699 0.610 0.917Emre1 0.819 0.793 0.861Emre2 0.694 0.667 0.858Iden2k 0.656 0.696 0.898Iden1 0.611 0.682 0.935Opact5k 0.750 0.575 0.920Opact4 0.678 0.463 0.907Opact6 0.622 0.587 0.921Opact9 0.543 0.570 0.949Opact2 0.462 0.494 0.910Openv5k 0.923 0.811 0.856Openv1 0.688 0.679 0.875Openv4k 0.483 0.607 0.945Eigenvalue 12.556 2.781 1.824 1.295 1.011% of variance 44.843 9.932 6.514 4.624 3.611

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with KaiserNormalization; Rotation converged in 9 iterations; Loadings under 0.40 are not presented; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.932 and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: sig. 0.000; Opact¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stability and predictability of the operationalenvironment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people; Tech ¼ The organization’stechnological reliability; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation

Table III.Results of the PCA on thecapability dimension

PR40,4

496

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Dimensionality – confirmatory factor analysisWe carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to test the dimensionalityof the scale, separately for the capability and fairness dimensions. According to thetheoretical conceptualization and exploratory factor analysis the capability scaleshould exhibit the latent structure of a second-order model, in which five componentsare first-order factors and are collectively accounted for by a second-order factor. Thefairness scale, in turn, should consist of three first-order factors and a second-orderfactor. A total of 141 cases were processed by means of LISREL 8.50. PRELIS 2.50 wasused to compute the covariance matrix and the Maximum Likelihood estimationmethod was applied.

The capability dimensionFirst, CFA was conducted separately for each component in order to verify that theitems were, in fact, grouped together. During this phase three items were removed (instages, i.e. one item at a time) from the Management component because of the largestandardized residuals with the other Management items.

In the next phase all five components were tested together. The initial model fitindices indicated that the original model needed to be re-specified to fit better with thesample data. Seven items were sequentially removed according to the values of thestandardized residuals. From pair of items with a large standardized residual the one

Items Commu Pay Cult Fair Hrm Communality Msa

Commu1 0.897 0.836 0.880Commu2 0.863 0.831 0.887Commu6 0.824 0.796 0.924Commu7k 0.681 0.745 0.930Commu4 0.680 0.630 0.948HRM2k 0.958 0.901 0.672HRM1 0.896 0.891 0.710Cult1k 20.858 0.858 0.797Cult2k 20.798 0.844 0.825Valmo2k 20.747 0.693 0.863Valmo3k 20.715 0.679 0.890Valmo1 20.639 0.624 0.948Reci2k 20.634 0.599 0.857Reci1k 20.570 0.594 0.854Valmo4 20.542 0.437 0.915HRM5 20.823 0.785 0.902HRM4 20.718 0.648 0.925HRM6 20.710 0.668 0.883HRM3 20.495 0.509 0.940Eigenvalue 8.336 1.930 1.305 1.065 0.930% of variance 43.876 10.156 6.866 5.608 4.895

Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with KaiserNormalization; Rotation converged in 10 iterations; Loadings under 0.40 are not presented; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.876 and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: sig. 0.000; HRM¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fair play in theorganization

Table IV.Results of the PCA on the

fairness dimension

Impersonaltrust

497

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

with lower squared multiple correlation was removed and the one resulting in moreimprovement in the model fit was retained. As a result of the above steps, a total of tenitems were removed.

The following three absolute-fit measures were obtained: the likelihood-ratiochi-square value, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA). Even though all the measures fell within acceptable levels,incremental i.e. the normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) andparsimonious i.e. the adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI), the normed chi-square(chi-square/df), and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) fit indices were needed toensure acceptability of the model from other perspectives. In sum, the variousmeasures of overall goodness-of-fit gave sufficient support to deem the results anacceptable representation of the hypothesized construct (see Table V).

In order to further establish the dimensionality, we compared three competingmodels:

Items R 2 Loading t-value Cr Ave Alpha

OPACTOpact2 0.469 0.685 a

Opact4 0.231 0.481 5.037Opact5k 0.240 0.490 5.117Opact6 0.448 0.669 6.769Opact9 0.472 0.687 6.920

0.743 0.372 0.763OPENVOpenv1 0.339 0.582 a

Openv4k 0.684 0.827 5.7090.670 0.511 0.674

MGMMgm1 0.721 0.849 a

Mgm4k 0.701 0.837 12.630Mgm5 0.817 0.904 14.512Mgm9k 0.664 0.815 12.070Mgm10 0.834 0.913 14.573

0.937 0.747 0.928TECHTech2 0.789 0.888 a

Tech4 0.682 0.826 10.070Tech5 0.442 0.665 8.148

0.839 0.637 0.841EMREIden1 0.716 0.846 a

Iden2k 0.666 0.816 10.581Emre1 0.539 0.734 9.330

0.842 0.640 0.829

Notes: aThe t-value is not available because the coefficient is fixed at 1; Chi-square ¼ 140.505; df ¼125; chi-square/df ¼ 1.12, p ¼ 0.162; GFI ¼ 0.900; AGFI ¼ 0.863; RMSEA ¼ 0.0298; NFI ¼0.904; CFI ¼ 0.985; AIC ¼ 232.505; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼Stability and predictability of the operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business andpeople; Tech ¼ The organization’s technological reliability; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation

Table V.The results of the CFA onthe capability dimension

PR40,4

498

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

(1) Model 1. The five correlated factors model: Covariance among the items isaccounted for by five first-order factors, each factor representing a distinctcomponent of capability and each item being reflective of only a singlecomponent. The five factors are correlated.

(2) Model 2. The one-factor model: capability is conceptualized as auni-dimensional construct, the covariance among the 18 items beingaccounted for by a single factor.

(3) Model 3. The second-order factor model: responses to each item are reflective oftwo factors, a general capability factor and a specific component factor.

The summary statistics for these three models are shown in Table VI. Model 1 wasfound to outperform Model 2 on all measures.

As shown in Figure 2, all the first-order factors loaded quite well onto thesecond-order construct. Moreover, the t-values associated with each of the loadingsexceeded the 0.01 significance levels (critical value ¼ 2:576). The fit indices of Model 3showed similar results (see Table VI). All of the second-order measures presented inTable VI are close to the first-order measures, indicating acceptance of thesecond-order factor structure.

The fairness dimensionCFA was first conducted separately for each component on the fairness dimension.Three items were removed during this phase due to large standardized residuals withother items. Then all the components were tested together. The initial model fit indicesindicated the original model needed to be re-specified. First, the Culture and Paycomponents were combined with the Fair play component: the contents of all of theitems are similar and the model worked better that way. In addition, three more itemswere sequentially removed because of the high modification indices. These stepsresulted in the removal of a total of six items. Based on absolute, incremental andparsimonious fit measures the hypothesized construct can be accepted (see Table VII).

In order to further establish the dimensionality we compared three competingmodels: Model 1 – the three correlated factors model, Model 2 – the one-factor model,and Model 3 – the second-order factor model. The summary statistics for the three

Model 1:five correlated factors

Model 2:one general factor

Model 3:second-order model

Absolute measuresGFI 0.900 0.676 0.889RMSEA 0.0298 0.158 0.0391

Incremental-fit measuresCFI 0.985 0.742 0.976NFI 0.904 0.679 0.892

Parsimonious-fit measuresAGFI 0.863 0.589 0.854Normed chi-square 1.12 4.48 1.21AIC 232.505 677.075 239.835

Table VI.A comparison of thecapability dimension

models

Impersonaltrust

499

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Figure 2.The second-order CFA forthe capability dimension

PR40,4

500

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

competing dimensionality models are shown in Table VIII. Model 1 was found tooutperform Model 2 on all measures.

As shown in Figure 3, the first-order factors load quite well onto the second-orderconstruct. Moreover, the t-values associated with each of the loadings exceed the 0.01significance levels (critical value ¼ 2:576). The Model-3-fit indices show similar resultsas Model 1 (see Table VIII). All of the second-order measures are the same as those inthe first-order model, indicating acceptance of the second-order factor structure.

Model 1:three correlated factors

Model 2:one general factor

Model 3:second-order model

Absolute measuresGFI 0.925 0.849 0.925RMSEA 0.0365 0.103 0.0365

Incremental-fit measuresCFI 0.975 0.897 0.975NFI 0.904 0.829 0.904

Parsimonious-fit measuresAGFI 0.890 0.788 0.890Normed chi-square 1.19 4.48 1.19AIC 131.535 214.402 131.535

Table VIII.A comparison of the

fairness dimensionmodels

Items R 2 Loading t-value Cr Ave Alpha

HRMHRM3 0.493 0.702 a

HRM4 0.457 0.676 7.108HRM5 0.599 0.774 7.979HRM6 0.397 0.630 6.661

0.790 0.486 0.789FairHRM2k 0.108 0.328 3.422Reci2k 0.465 0.682 a

Cult2k 0.333 0.577 5.762Valmo3k 0.493 0.702 6.750Valmo4 0.266 0.516 5.220

0.702 0.333 0.725CommuCommu2 0.704 0.839 a

Commu4 0.520 0.721 9.599Commu6 0.743 0.862 12.428Commu7k 0.755 0.869 12.567

0.894 0.680 0.888

Notes: aThe -value is not available because the coefficient is fixed at 1; Chi-square ¼ 73.535; df ¼62; chi-square/df ¼ 1.19, p ¼ 0.150; GFI ¼ 0.925; AGFI ¼ 0.890; RMSEA ¼ 0.0365; NFI ¼0.904; CFI ¼ 0.975; AIC ¼ 131.535; HRM ¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fair play in the organization

Table VII.The results of the CFA on

the fairness dimension

Impersonaltrust

501

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Construct reliability and validityReliabilityWe evaluate the reliability of the items by their path coefficients and squared multiplecorrelations (R 2). Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (also known as constructreliability) are used for assessing the reliability of each latent component.A complementary measure is the average variance extracted, which directly showsthe amount of variance that is captured by the construct in relation to the amount ofvariance due to measurement error.

The reliability statistics for the capability dimension are shown in Table V. All theitems were significantly related to their specified constructs, verifying the positedrelationships among the indicators and constructs. The Cronbach’s alphas vary from

Figure 3.The second-order CFA forthe fairness dimension

PR40,4

502

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

0.67 to 0.93 and the construct reliabilities range from 0.67 to 0.94, both exceeding theminimum recommended level of 0.60. The average variance-extracted meets therecommended 50 percent (see Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; Hair et al., 1998) in allbut one component (Organizing the operational activities). The squared multiplecorrelations (R 2) were also mainly over or near the limit of 0.50.

The reliability measures for the fairness dimension are shown in Table VII. Most of theloadings of the items turned out to be high, and the t-values associated with each of theloadings exceeded the critical values for the 0.01 significance level, implying goodreliability on the item level. All of the constructs exceeded the recommended level of 0.60for Cronbach’s alpha and for the construct reliability. The average varianceextracted is ator above the recommended level in all but one component (Fair play). Thus the modelprovides a reliable measurement of the fairness dimension of impersonal trust.

Construct validityConvergent validity. According to Bagozzi and Yi (1991), weak evidence of convergentvalidity results when the factor loading on an item of interest is significant. Strongevidence is achieved when the squared factor loading is greater than 0.5 (i.e. more thanhalf of the total variation in the measures is due to the trait). Second, convergentvalidity can be assessed in terms of the degree to which the components, i.e. factors(which could be considered different measures of the construct) are correlated (Smithet al., 1996; Bagozzi and Yi, 1991).

As shown in Table V, the factor loadings for almost all of the items (15 out of 18) ofthe capability dimension were greater than 0.6, and all were statistically significant atthe 0.01 significance level. In addition, 11 of the 18 items turned out to have a squaredfactor loading (R 2) greater than 0.5. Table IX gives more evidence of convergentvalidity in that the correlations between the components of capability are allsignificant, ranging from 0.28 to 0.78. This suggests that the five components allmeasure some aspect of the same construct.

On the fairness dimension (Table VII) ten of the 13 items turned out to have a factorloading of over 0.60, all of the loadings being statistically significant at the 0.01significance level. In addition, five items showed a squared factor loading greater than0.5, and four items almost reach the limit. Furthermore, the correlations among thecomponents (Table X) all turned out to be significant and thus they all measure thesame construct.

Discriminant validity. Assessment of discriminant validity requires examination ofthe components to ensure that they are not perfectly correlated i.e. correlations equal to1 (Smith et al., 1996; Bagozzi and Yi, 1991). Discriminant validity exists if thecorrelations are two or more standard errors below 1.0 (Schmitt and Stults, 1986).Further, more rigorous evidence is obtained from the average variance extracted (AVE)by each factor relative to that factor’s shared variance with other factors in the model(see Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

As shown in Table IX, all of the component correlations on the capability dimensionturned out to be significantly different from one ( p , 0.05). This suggests that whenthe components measure aspects of the same construct they measure uniquedimensions of it. The AVE is greater than or almost equal to the squared correlation inall but one component (Organizing the operational activities).

On the fairness dimension, too, all of the component correlations are significantlydifferent from one (see Table X). Analysis of the AVE by each component relative to

Impersonaltrust

503

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

that component’s shared variance with the other components reveals some problemswith discriminant validity, however: only Communication has greater AVE than thesquared correlation with the other components.

The final construct and the scale for impersonal trustImpersonal trust in the organizational context consists of two dimensions, capabilityand fairness. From the scale-development process described above it could be assumedthat these dimensions consist of the components presented in Figure 4. The itemsmeasuring these dimensions are presented in the Appendix (Tables AI and AII).

Discussion and conclusionsIn theoretical and methodological terms, our interest was in organizational trust as amore comprehensive concept incorporating both the inter-personal and impersonal

Factors Opact Openv Mgm Tech Emre

Opact 0.372Openv 0.652 0.049 0.511Squared correlation 0.425t-value 3.923Mgm 0.776 0.034 0.680 0.045 0.747Squared correlation 0.602 0.462t-value 5.444 4.376Tech 0.428 0.069 0.290 0.077 0.276 0.078 .637Squared correlation 0.183 0.084 0.076t-value 3.648 2.475 2.822Emre 0.681 0.045 0.706 0.042 0.619 0.052 0.517 0.062 0.640Squared correlation 0.464 0.498 0.383 0.267t-value 4.960 4.363 5.336 4.606

Notes: The AVE associated with a factor is presented diagonally; The standard errors are inparentheses; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stability and predictability ofthe operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people; Tech ¼ Theorganization’s technological reliability, Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation

Table IX.The factorintercorrelations on thecapability dimension

Factors Hrm Fair Commu

Hrm 0.486Fair 0.790 0.032 0.333Squared correlation 0.624t-value 4.910Commu 0.796 0.031 0.742 0.038 0.680Squared correlation 0.634 0.551t-value 5.551 5.193

Notes: AVE associated with a factor is presented diagonally; Standard errors are in parentheses;HRM ¼ HRM practices; Commu ¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Pay ¼ Pay; Fair ¼ Fairplay in the organization

Table X.The factorintercorrelations on thefairness dimension

PR40,4

504

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

aspects of trust. From the normative and managerial perspectives, the morecomprehensive measure we developed could be used to analyze, evaluate and developthe concept of organizational trustworthiness. This has value especially for thestrategic-management and HRD functions, which increasingly strive to differentiatethe organization in terms of human capital. If a company is able to set itself apart fromits competitors and to build a higher level of trust, it could exploit the benefits relatedto organizational trust in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness, and also toattract and retain the most competent employees (see also Barney and Hansen, 1994;Blomqvist, 1997).

The construct and the scales of impersonal trust developed and validated in thisstudy represent a step forward towards the effective and reliable measurement oforganizational trust. Despite the increasing research attention in this area, to date novalid, comprehensive operational measure of impersonal trust has been developed. Tothe best of the researchers’ knowledge this is the first study to provide such a measurethat is psychometrically sound and operationally valid.

This study provides two major contributions to the research on organizational trust:first a framework describing the construct of impersonal trust and second aninstrument for measuring it.

Managerial implicationsGiven current organizational and management challenges, organizations cannot relyonly on interpersonal trust. Hence, there is a need to develop complementary forms oforganizational trust. Even if a supervisory role and interpersonal trust are critical,organizations could benefit from complementary impersonal forms of trust. If anemployee is able to trust the organization s/he works for, s/he can trust her/his future init even if co-workers and supervisors cannot provide sufficient support for theevolution of strong interpersonal trust. If employees could trust the organizationwithout having personalized knowledge of each decision maker and key actor, theorganization should be more efficient (Kramer, 1999). Further, if the impersonal

Figure 4.The structure ofimpersonal trust

Impersonaltrust

505

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

element of organizational trust were embedded in its measurement, a more holisticunderstanding of employee perceptions could be reached.

LimitationsOverall, it could be said that the steps reported in this study fulfil the requirements ofsuccessful scale development. However, there are some limitations, the most severe onebeing that the same data sample was used throughout. The optimum solution wouldhave been to use one data set for item reduction through PCA, and another for CFA, inorder to allow comparison of the models and assessment of the construct reliability andvalidity. However, the problem in finding another sample and being forced in usingonly one dataset is not uncommon. (see, e.g. Wang and Ahmed, 2004; Plank et al., 1999).

Another limitation is that the discriminant validity of the fairness dimension is nottotally established. This should be tested on a new set of data and, if necessary, itemsin the “HRM practices” and “Fair play in the organization” components should bemodified and/or deleted/added. The average extracted variance measures in the“Organizing of the operational activities” and “Fair play in the organization”components should also be tested on another set of data, and if necessary items shouldbe modified and/or deleted/added.

Directions for future researchThe development and validation of the scales require retest and replication in asystematic manner (Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1998). This construct of impersonal trust isthe first step and it should be subjected to further research.

Discriminant, nomological, and convergent validities of the scale were not part ofthis research, and should therefore be tested in future studies. For example,discriminant validity between scales of impersonal trust and scales that measureinterpersonal trust should be assessed. In order to ensure generalizability of theconstruct and the scales, scales measuring impersonal trust should also be tested:

. in different kinds of organizations;

. with respondents from different organizational levels; and

. in different countries and cultures.

Another recommendation would be to test the causal relationships between impersonaltrust and other organizational parameters. This would allow the further assessment ofnomological validity.

References

Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University PressInc., New York, NY.

Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Atkinson, S. and Butcher, D. (2003), “Trust in managerial relationships”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 282-304.

Axelrod, R.M. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1991), “Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 426-39.

PR40,4

506

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Barney, J.B. and Hansen, M.H. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, special issue, Winter, pp. 175-90.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Blomqvist, K. (1997), “The many faces of trust”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 271-86.

Blunsdon, B. and Reed, K. (2003), “The effects of technical and social conditions on workplacetrust”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 12-27.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J.P., Tyler, T. and Martin, C. (1997), “When trust matters: themoderating effect of outcome favorability”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42,pp. 558-83.

Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.

Churchill, G., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. (1974), “Measuring the job satisfaction of industrialsalesmen”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 254-60.

Clark, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997), “The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management”,Journal of Organisational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 205-24.

Costigan, R.D., Ilter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust inorganizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-17.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I.. (2000), “Consequences of the psychological contract for theemployment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37No. 7, pp. 903-30.

Creed, W.E.D. and Miles, R.E. (1996), “Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linkingorganizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control”,in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and

Research, Sage Publications, London, pp. 16-38.

Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) –development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in

Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.

Daley, D.M. and Vasu, M.L. (1998), “Fostering organizational trust in North Carolina: the pivotalrole of administrators and political leaders”, Administration and Society, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 62-84.

Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: Guide for the Uninitiated, SagePublications, London.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation ofperceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Puumalainen, K. (2008), “Trust in organizational innovativeness”,European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 2.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Foss, N.J. (1996), “Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: some criticalcomments”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 470-6.

Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009), “Trust repair after an organization-level failure”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-45.

Impersonaltrust

507

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Gould-Williams, J. (2003), “The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving

superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations”, International Journal of

Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-54.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,

Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-21.

Hunt, S.D., Wood, V.R. and Chonko, L.B. (1989), “Corporate ethical values and organizational

commitment in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 79-90.

Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003), “Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy”,

Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 3-11.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the

replication of technology”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.

Korthuis-Smith, W. (2002), Organizational Trust: The Influence of Contextual Variables, Seattle

University, Seattle, WA.

Kosonen, M., Blomqvist, K. and Ellonen, R. (2008), “The impersonal nature of trust”,

in Putnik, G.D. and Cunha, M.M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual

Organizations, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring

questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 69-98.

Lee, H.-J. (2004), “The role of competence-based trust and organizational identification in

continuous improvement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 623-39.

Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, Wiley, Chichester.

McCauley, D.P. and Kuhnert, K.W. (1992), “A theoretical review and empirical investigation of

employee trust in management”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 265-85.

McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.I. and Chervany, N.I. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new

organisational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-90.

Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for

management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,

pp. 123-36.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, D.F. (1995), “An integrative model of organisational

trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.

Neveu, V. (2005), Organisational Trust: Definition and Measurement, available at: www.argh.

org/english/neveu_uk.doc (accessed March 12, 2007).

Parzefall, M.-R. (2006), Exploring the Role of Reciprocity in Psychological Contracts, London

School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, London.

Perry, R.W. and Mankin, L.D. (2007), “Organizational trust: trust in chief executive and work

satisfaction”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 165-79.

Plank, R.E., Reid, D.A. and Pullins, E.B. (1999), “Perceived trust in business-to-business sales:

a new measure”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 61-71.

Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.

PR40,4

508

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-39.

Rousseau, D.M., Sim, B., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all:a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 393-404.

Schmitt, N. and Stults, D.M. (1986), “Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethodmatrices”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An integrative model of organizationaltrust: past, present and future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 344-54.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organisational trust: what it is, why itmatters”, Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 35-48.

Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J. and Burke, S.J. (1996), “Information privacy: measuring individuals’concerns about organizational practices”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 167-96.

Tan, H.H. and Lim, A.K.H. (2009), “Trust in coworkers and trust in organization”, The Journal ofPsychology, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 45-66.

Tan, H.H. and Tan, C.S.F. (2000), “Toward a differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust inorganization”, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126 No. 2,pp. 241-60.

Tyler, T.R. (2003), “Trust within organisations”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 556-68.

Tzafrir, S.S., Harel, G.H., Baruch, Y. and Dolan, S.L. (2004), “The consequences of emerging HRMpractices for employees’ trust in their managers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 No. 6,pp. 628-47.

Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organisationalinnovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal ofInnovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-13.

Whitener, E.M. (1997), “The impact of human resource activities on employee trust”, HumanResource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 389-404.

Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators oftrust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthybehaviour”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.

Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M., Park, H.J., Gerhart, B. and Delery, J.E. (2001),“Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: additionaldata and suggestions for future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 875-901.

Zeffane, R. and Connell, J. (2003), “Trust and HRM in the new millennium”, International Journalof Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-11.

Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure”,in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 53-111.

Impersonaltrust

509

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Appendix

Code Item Mean SD Used byRemovedin

Opact1 The operations in our organization areorganized in the most functional way

2.89 1.097 Churchill et al.(1974)

PCA

Opact2 Our organization is capable of adapting tochanging conditionsb

3.29 1.123 Self-generated

Opact3 There are routines in our organization thatmake it easy to perform daily work tasks

3.69 0.884 Self-generated PCA

Opact4 There are routines in our organization thathelp us to overcome exceptional situationsb

3.39 1.045 Self-generated

Opact5k It is difficult for me to handle things in ourorganizationa, b

3.59 1.033 Korthuis-Smith(2002)

Opact6 Our organization efficiently utilizes theexpertise of its staffb

2.93 1.249 Self-generated

Opact7 Our organization has the technologicalresources to function successfully

3.63 1.242 Lee (2004) PCA

Opact8 Our organization possesses the resourcesand competences that enable it to operatesuccessfully

3.71 0.946 Lee (2004) PCA

Opact9 Work is well organized in our organizationb 3.01 1.021 Self-generatedOpact10k Our organization does not possess sufficient

resources or abilities to functionsuccessfullya

3.59 1.017 Self-generated PCA

Openv1 Our organization functions on such a firmfoundation that changes in our operatingenvironment do not threaten its operationsb

2.92 1.140 Self-generated

Openv2 Our organization’s operations take futurechallenges into consideration

3.66 0.999 Self-generated PCA

Openv3 I believe that I will have a job in thisorganization in the future as well

3.68 1.142 Self-generated PCA

Openv4k People employed by our organization have apoor employment outlook for the future withthis employera, b

3.72 1.048 Wright et al.(2001)

Openv5k Changes in the operating environment willthreaten the operation of our organization inthe futurea

3.09 1.139 Self-generated CFA2

Mgm1 Our organization’s top management has avision of the course in which to take theorganization in the futureb

3.64 1.185 Self-generated

Mgm2k Our organization’s operations suffer as aresult of the incompetence of the topmanagementa

3.47 1.242 Daley and Vasu(1998)

CFA1

Mgm3 I trust the top management’s ability to keepour organization competitive

3.44 1.144 Neveu (2005) CFA2

Mgm4k Changes have to take place in ourorganization’s top management for ouroperations to developa, b

3.07 1.267 Self-generated

(continued )Table AI.

PR40,4

510

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Code Item Mean SD Used byRemovedin

Mgm5 In my opinion, the top management is takingour organization in the right directionb

3.41 1.110 Daley and Vasu(1998)

Mgm6k Our organization does not possess sufficientcompetencies in managing peoplea

2.79 1.290 Neveu (2005) CFA2

Mgm7 I trust the top management’s ability to makethe right decisions for the future

3.42 1.119 Neveu (2005) CFA1

Mgm8 The decisions taken by the top managementare well-founded

3.40 1.106 Self-generated CFA2

Mgm9k The top management makes decisions thatwill endanger the operations of ourorganization in the futurea, b

3.52 1.096 Cummings andBromiley (1996)

Mgm10 I have faith in the professionalism of the topmanagementb

3.50 1.080 Cummings andBromiley (1996)

Mgm11 The decisions made by the top managementfollow a clear goal

3.44 1.133 Self-generated CFA2

Mgm12k The top management is unable to makedecisions on important issues regarding theoperations of our organizationa

3.59 1.179 Self-generated CFA1

Tech1k Problems in the equipment we use(e.g. computer hardware and productionequipment) cause interruptions in ourorganization’s operationsa

3.57 1.130 Self-generated PCA

Tech2 The tools I need to do my work (e.g. tools orequipment) work properlyb

3.96 1.023 Self-generated

Tech3 My working conditions are in order 4.00 0.952 Self-generated CFA2Tech4 The equipment that is crucial for the

operation of our organization (e.g. computerhardware and production machines)functions reliablyb

3.86 1.036 Self-generated

Tech5 I receive assistance with technical problemswhenever I need itb

4.26 0.852 Self-generated

Iden1 I believe that we have products and servicesthat allow us to match the competitionb

3.95 0.908 Self-generated

Iden2k I believe that the other players in the field areahead of our organizationa, b

3.48 1.028 Self-generated

Iden3 We are able to do what other organizationscannot

3.75 1.057 Self-generated PCA

Emre1 Outsiders consider my employer to be asuccessful player in its field

3.82 1.003 Self-generated

Emre2 Outsiders consider my organization to be agood place to workb

3.78 0.936 Self-generated CFA2

Notes: aNegated items; bItems included in the final scale; PCA is principal component analysis; CFA1is confirmatory factor analysis conducted separately for each factor; CFA2 is confirmatory factoranalysis conducted on the model; Opact ¼ Organizing the operational activities; Openv ¼ Stabilityand predictability of the operational environment; Mgm ¼ Management of the business and people;Tech ¼ The organization’s technological reliability; Iden ¼ Identity; Emre ¼ Empoyer reputation Table AI.

Impersonaltrust

511

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

Code Item Mean SD Used byRemovedin

HRM1 I receive a fair salary in comparison withother employees in our organization who dothe same work

3.39 1.243 Coyle-Shapiro(2000)

CFA2

HRM2k My salary is unfair in comparison with thatreceived by other employees in ourorganization who do the same worka, b

3.52 1.233 Self-generated

HRM3 The people rewarded for the success of ourorganization are those who deserve to berewardedb

2.80 1.180 Self-generated

HRM4 My employer offers me opportunities toeducate myself and develop myself in myprofessionb

3.69 1.267 Self-generated

HRM5 Skilled employees have the possibility oftaking up more responsible positionsb

3.25 1.251 Wright et al.(2001)

HRM6 My employer has kept the promises theymade with regard to my careerb

3.38 1.118 Gould-Williams(2003)

Reci1k I do not receive respect for my achievements,but instead the top management takes thecredit for thema

3.61 1.130 Eisenberger et al.(2001)

CFA2

Reci2k The top management puts its success aheadof that of the employeesa, b

3.23 1.243 Neveu (2005)

Reci3 If I work hard, I am also rewarded for doingso

2.73 1.173 Daley and Vasu(1998)

PCA

Reci4 I believe that my employer keeps itspromises and lives up to its duties towardsthe employees

3.35 1.100 Gould-Williams(2003)

PCA

Commu1 I receive sufficient information on the stateof the organization

3.35 1.206 Gould-Williams(2003)

CFA1

Commu2 I receive information on changes in theorganization that are important to meb

3.50 1.180 Daley and Vasu(1998)

Commu3 The information that is distributed in ourorganization is valid

3.98 0.836 Self-generated PCA

Commu4 The information that is distributed in ourorganization is up-to-dateb

3.61 1.011 Self-generated

Commu5k The information that is distributed in ourorganization cannot be trusteda

3.88 1.099 Self-generated PCA

Commu6 Information on matters important to me iscommunicated openly in our organizationb

3.14 1.223 Ellonen et al.(2008)

Commu7k Our organization’s internal communicationfunctions poorlya, b

3.13 1.236 Ellonen et al.(2008)

Cult1k There is internal competition in ourorganization, which is detrimental to theorganization’s operationsa

3.02 1.276 Self-generated CFA2

Cult2k In our organization there is opportunismthat harms the organization’s operationsa, b

3.12 1.248 Self-generated

Valmo1 I accept the prevailing values in ourorganization

3.75 1.044 Self-generated CFA1

(continued )Table AII.

PR40,4

512

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

About the authorsMika Vanhala, MSc (Econ), is a Doctoral Student and a researcher in the School of Business andTechnology Business Research Center at Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. Hisprimary research interest is the relationship between organizational trust, HRM practices andorganizational performance. Mika Vanhala is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:mika.vanhala@lut.fi

Kaisu Puumalainen, DSc (Tech), is a Professor in Technology Research in the School ofBusiness at Lappeenranta of Technology, Finland. Her primary areas of research interest arediffusion of innovations, organizational innovation, international marketing, and small business.She has published about 30 refereed articles, for example, in Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, R&D Management, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Kirsimarja Blomqvist, DSc (Econ), is a professor of knowledge management in the School ofBusiness and a vice-director for Technology Business Research Center at LappeenrantaUniversity of Technology, Finland. Her research interests include the emerging theory of trustand its applications, R&D and innovation management, strategic alliances as well as inter- andintra-organizational collaboration. Her research has been published in R&D Management,Technovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management, Creativity and Innovation Management, Industrial MarketingManagement, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Journal of Strategic Change, Journal ofInternational Production Economics, International Journal of Management Concepts andPhilosophy, Journal of Workplace Learning, as well as book chapters in several international andFinnish books.

Code Item Mean SD Used byRemovedin

Valmo2k In my opinion, our organization functionsunethicallya

3.89 1.110 Hunt et al. (1989) CFA1

Valmo3k I have to compromise my ethical principlesin order to succeed in our organizationa, b

4.12 1.038 Hunt et al. (1989)

Valmo4 The top management has made it clear thatunethical action is not tolerated in ourorganizationb

3.37 1.216 Hunt et al. (1989)

Notes: aNegated items; bItems included in the final scale; PCA is principal component analysis; CFA1is confirmatory factor analysis conducted separately to each factor; CFA2 is confirmatory factoranalysis conducted to the model; HRM ¼ HRM practices; Reci ¼ The norm of reciprocity; Commu¼ Communication; Cult ¼ Culture; Valmo ¼ Values and moral principles Table AII.

Impersonaltrust

513

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Husni Kharouf, Donald J. Lund, Harjit Sekhon. 2014. Building trust by signaling trustworthiness inservice retail. Journal of Services Marketing 28:5, 361-373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Heiner Evanschitzky, John Rudd. 2013. Aligning employee service recoveryperformance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of Marketing Management29:9-10, 981-1006. [CrossRef]

3. Francesco Schiavone, Roy K. Smollan. 2013. Trust in change managers: the role of affect. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management 26:4, 725-747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Mika Vanhala, Riikka Ahteela. 2011. The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational trust.Management Research Review 34:8, 869-888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

APP

EE

NR

AN

TA

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

At 2

2:51

03

Janu

ary

2015

(PT

)