The Effect of Different Dimensions of Trust on Employee’s Performance: Fuzzy Logic Model

Abstract

This paper investigates the interaction of the dimensions of interrelated trust with the performance of employees, such as trust in the organization, trust in the manager, and trust in colleagues. In the study, a configuration perspective that evaluates social phenomena and structures with a holistic mindset was adopted while examining the effect of trust perception dimensions on the performance of employees. The researchers analyzed the relationship between variables using fuzzy logic qualitative comparison analysis (fsQCA) and collected the data through in-depth interviews and questionnaire forms. The results show that trust in colleagues plays a key role in Turkey’s law enforcement officers. According to the results of this study, trusting both the manager and the institution at the same time does not increase performance. Performance improvement is related to trusting either the organization or the manager (only one of them) as well as trusted colleagues.

Keywords

• Organizational Trust
• Performance
• Qualitative Research
• Fuzzy Logic Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA)

References

1. Akkoç, İ., & Yılmaz, A. (2019). The mediating role of trust in the effect of perceived organizational support on job performance in nurses. İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (2), 327-345. google scholar
2. Albrecht, S. L., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210158529 google scholar
3. Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Alahakone, R. (2015). Testing additive versus interactive effects of person-organiza-tion fit and organizational trust on engagement and performance. Personnel Review, 45 (6), 1323-1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2015-0029 google scholar
4. Arı, S. G. (2003). Yöneticiye duyulan güven örgütsel bağlılığı arttırır mı? Gazi Üniversitesi Ticaret ve Turizm Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 17-36. google scholar
5. Avram, A., Ionescu, D., & Mincu, C.L. (2015). Perceived safety climate and organizational trust: the mediator role of job satisfaction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 679-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.03.126 google scholar
6. Beraha, A., Bingol, D., Ozkan-Canbolat, E., & Szczygiel, N. (2018). The effect of strategic flexibility con-figurations on product innovation. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 27(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-02-2018-0028 google scholar
7. Bidarian, S., & Jafari, P. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust. google scholar
8. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1622-1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.873 google scholar

9. Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643-663. https://doi.org/10.11772F014920639101700307 google scholar
10. Büte, M. (2011). Etik iklim örgütsel güven ve bireysel performans arasindaki ilişki. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 171-192. google scholar
11. Chen, C. A., Hsieh, C. W., & Chen, D. Y. (2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92, 954-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/ padm.12042 google scholar
12. Cho, Y. J., & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organiza-tional commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.201 0.525033 google scholar
13. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psycho-logy, 84, 445-455. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445 google scholar
14. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 google scholar
15. Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1196-1250. https://doi. org/10.5465/256810 google scholar
16. Duffy, J.A., & Lilly, J. (2013). Do individual needs moderate the relationships between organizational citi-zenship behavior, organizational trust, and perceived organizational support? Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14 (3), 185-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.21818/001c.17930 google scholar
17. Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione,A. (2004). Coworker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee at-titudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551516 google scholar
18. Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586092 google scholar
19. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 google scholar
20. Guinot, J., & Chiva, R. (2019). Vertical trust within organizations and performance: a systematic review. google scholar
21. Human Resource Development Review, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.117721534484319842992 google scholar
22. İslamoğlu, G., Birsel, M., & Börü, D. (2007). Kurum İçinde güven: Yöneticiye, İş Arkadaşlarına ve Kuruma Yönelik Güven Ölçümü (Alan araştırması ve sonuçları). İnkılap Kitabevi. İstanbul. google scholar
23. Jucevicius, G., & Juceviciene, R. (2015). Smart development of organizational trust: dilemmas and parado-xes. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 860-866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.496 google scholar
24. Li, A. N., & Tan, H. H. (2013). What happens when you trust your supervisor? Mediators of individu-al performance in trust relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 407- 425. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.1812 google scholar
25. Lyman, R. L. (2004). The Concept of equifinality in taphonomy. Journal of Taphonomy. 2 (1), 15-26. Retri-eved from http://www.academia.edu google scholar
26. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 google scholar
27. Mc. Alister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in google scholar
28. organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 24-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727 google scholar
29. Meyer, A. D., Tsutu, A. S., & Hinings C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/256809 google scholar
30. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. google scholar
31. Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust. Kramer, R.M. and T. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research: (s. 261-287). Newbury Park, CA SAGE Publications Inc. google scholar
32. Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M., A. (1990). Trust in employee / employer relationships, a survey of West Michigan Managers. Public Personnel Managers, 19(4), 443-486. https://doi.org/10.1177009102609001900408 google scholar
33. Palanski, M. E., Kahai, S. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Team virtues and performance: an examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 201-216. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10551-010-0650-7 google scholar
34. Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J., & Karpen, I. O. (2016). Reputation in higher education: a fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3087-3095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.01.024 google scholar
35. Purba, D. E., Oostrom, J. K., Born, M., & Molen H. T. (2016). The relationships between trust in supervisor, turnover intentions and voluntary turnover. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4), 174 - 183. https:// doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000165 google scholar
36. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative ve Quantitative Strategies. Ber-keley: University of California Press. google scholar
37. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond (Vol. 240). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
38. Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set Relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj019 google scholar
39. Ragin, C. C., & Rihoux, B. (2004). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): State of the art and pros-pects. Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 3-13. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ google scholar
40. Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C.C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analy-sis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage Publications. google scholar
41. Samaddar, S., Nargundkar, S., & Daley, M. (2006). Inter-organizational information sharing: The role of supply network configuration and partner goal congruence. European Journal of Operational Research. 174(2), 744-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.059 google scholar
42. Sarvan, F., Arıcı, E. D., Özen, J., Özdemir, B., & İçigen, E. T. (2003). On stratejik yönetim okulu: biçimleşme okulunun bütünleştirici çerçevesi. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 6, 73-122. google scholar
43. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analy-sis (QCA) and fuzzy sets. Comparative Sociology, 9 (3), 397-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691321 0X12493538729793 google scholar
44. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualita-tive comparative analysis. UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
45. Seco, V. (2016). Trust is not the last to die. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41701528/ google scholar
46. Shen, M. J., & Chen, M. C. (2007). The relationship of leadership, team trust and team performance: A com-parison of the service and manufacturing industries. Social Behavior and Personality: An International google scholar
47. Journal, 35, 643-658. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.5.643 google scholar
48. Singh, K., & Desa, Z. M. (2018). Organizational trust and job performance: a study of land and survey de-partment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 8(11), 1954-1961. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbs2Fv8-i11%2F5559 google scholar
49. Smithson, M., & Verkuilen J. (2006). Fuzzy Set Theory. Terry D. Clark, Jennifer M. Larson, John N. Mo-derson, Joshua D. Portter and Mark J. Wierman (Ed.). Applying Fuzzy Mathematics to Formal Models in Comparative Politics. (S. 29-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications lnc. google scholar
50. Starnes, B. J., Truhan, S.A., & McCarthy, V. (2010). Organizational Trust: Employee-Employer Relations-hips, http://asqhdandl.org/uploads/3/4/6/3/34636479/trust.pdf (erişim:23.10.2016). google scholar
51. Tan, H. H., & Tan, C., S., F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126 (2), 241-260. Retrieved from https://psycnet. apa.org/record/2000-07883-002 google scholar
52. Tüzün, K., İ. (2007). Güven, örgütsel güven ve örgütsel güven modelleri. Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 3(2), 93-118. google scholar
53. Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Mana-gement Review, 23 (3), 513-530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926624 google scholar
54. Wu, J., & Tsang, A. (2008). Factors affecting members trust belief and behavior intention in virtual communi-ties. Behavior and Information Technology, 27(2), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600961910 google scholar
55. Zadeh, L. A., Fu, K., Tanaka, K., & Shimura, M. (1975). Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, New York: Academic Press. google scholar