Page Title

Task and Relationship-Oriented Trust in Leaders

September 25, 2006 

"Multiple studies have focused on outcomes resulting from subordinates'' trust in their leaders.  These studies support that a worker's trust in a leader leads to important positive outcomes including improved individual and organizational performance (Dwivedi, 1983; Earley, 1986; Rich, 1997).  To date, scholars have focused extensive theoretical and empirical attention upon antecedents to trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).  Theory regarding antecedents of interpersonal trust can be broken into three categories.  The first, and the main focus of this study, are the cognitive antecedents (e.g. Butler & Cantrell, 1984; Butler, 1991; Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995).  The second category includes affective antecedents or the trustor's emotional feelings as antecedents to trust (e.g. Holmes, 1991; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995: Rempel, Homes, & Zanna, 1985).  The third category focuses upon the trustor's disposition toward trust: i.e. the trustor has some degree of a trusting personality (Mayer et al, 1995; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998; Whitener, et al, 1998).

For the purpose of this study, we examine cognitive antecedents to trust including competence, consistency and motivational intention. 

H1: A follower's perception of a manager's competence will be more strongly related to task-oriented trust than to relationship-oriented trust.

H2: A follower's perception of a manager's consistency will be more strongly related to task-oriented trust than to relationship-oriented trust.

H3a: A follower's perception of a manager's benevolence will be more strongly related to relationship-oriented trust than to task-oriented trust.

H3b: A follower's perception of a manager's exploitation will be more strongly related to relationship-oriented trust than to task-oriented trust.

We collected data regarding the dependent trust measure and the explanatory variables from adults with work experience with a direct supervisory.  The questionnaires were submitted to students currently taking courses at a university that draws a significant portion of their student body from the working population.  We used paper and pencil  self-administered questionnaires to collect the data from respondents in 27 classes.  The resulting sample consisted of 420 responses that were usable for validity checks on the trust measures.  We screened the data to ensure all respondents had work experience and had accurately filled out questionnaires, resulting in 245 responses containing both dependent and independent data that were usable for testing hypotheses about the effects of the antecedents.  The demographics for the responses used in hypothesis testing are as follows:  57% males; average age of 22 years; 70% currently working and 40% working 30 or more hours per week; average years in job 1.93 years; job level included 74% non-managerial, 22% managers, 4% executives; industry sectors were 56% private service, 23% public service, 16% manufacturing and 5% not-for-profit; average education level was 2.63 years of higher education. 

Six control variables were employed in the research: gender, age, hours worked per week, length of employment, and two binary variables indicating whether the evaluation was being done for a current manager and whether the respondent held a managerial position.

The hypotheses were tested with correlations and multiple regression analysis using as independent variables the control variable and the hypothesized predictor variables (antecedents), with models being run for both task-oriented and relationship-oriented trust. 

In this study we found strong evidence that antecedents do explain differential levels of variation in trust depending upon the dimension/orientation being considered.  First, we hypothesized and found evidence that competence was more strongly related to task-oriented than to relationship-oriented trust.  If a worker perceives the manager to be competent, the worker is more likely to trust the manager within a task context than in a relationship context.  Second, we hypothesized and found support for consistency being more strongly related to task-oriented trust than relationship-oriented trust.  If the worker's perception is that the manager acts in a consistent manner, the worker is more likely to be willing to rely upon the manager in the task context than the relationship context. Third, we hypothesized that benevolence and exploitation would be more strongly related to relationship-oriented trust than task-oriented trust. 

Several limitations of this research should be recognized.  First, we were able to draw conclusions about the relationship between worker's task and relationship-oriented trust and the worker's perceptions of the managers competence, consistency  and motivational intention.  It is possible (and perhaps probable4) that workers' perceptions are not objectively accurate in their assessments of their managers.  Second, our choice regarding the use of self-administered questionnaire using a single source allows for the possibility of common method variance.  Third, we are limited in our ability to conclude about cause-and-effect by the cross-sectional nature of the research.  Finally, new questions regarding the trust-to-outcomes relationship can now be raised (Sherwood & DePaolo, 2005, p. 65-81)."

The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies is available on loan from the Ohio State University Leadership Center.  To borrow this resource or any other resource please go to the resource search page  http://164.107.48.88/winnebago/index.asp?lib=???

If this is the first time you have borrowed resources from the OSU Leadership Center, please contact us at 614-292-3114 and we will register you in our library system.  Once you have been added to the system, you may request resources via the website.

Learn how the Ohio State University Leadership Center is strengthening tomorrow's leaders today at <http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu/>

Back to Top >

Created: 2007-08-28, Updated: 2009-02-17