Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://jlo.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/16/1/6
Articles
Distrust in Leaders
Dimensions, Patterns, and Emotional Intensity
Joann Keyton
North Carolina State University
Faye L. smith
Missouri Western State University
Without prompting, stratified randomly selected employees addressed communication improvements at their manufacturing facility. More than one quarter expressed distrust in their leaders. Responses were coded with two distrust conceptualizations: the opposite features of Butler and Cantrells trust dimensions and Bies and Tripps actions that violate
trust. Narratives were also coded for target of distrust and language intensity. Narratives exposed the communicationdistrust link proposed by scholars, reinforcing the behavioral foundation of distrust as a psychological construct. Results
challenge the position that distrust is the opposite of trust. Peaks of language intensity occurred for various single dimensions and combinations of distrust dimensions.
Keywords: distrust; emotional intensity; leadership; superior-subordinate; trust
elieved to be key to effective organizational relationships (McAllister, 1997; Shamir & Lapidot,
2003) and organizational communication (Ellis &
Shockley-Zalabak, 2001), trust is a fundamental and
ideal characteristic sought by managers (Bennis,
1999; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Gini, 2004; Sherwood
& DePaolo, 2005) and is presumed to result in
organizational benefit (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002;
Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998). Despite the many
advantages of developing and maintaining trusting
relationships, Mishra and Morrissey (1990) demonstrated that organizational ineffectiveness results
when employees distrust management and that a lack
of trust is more negative than the positive results of
the presence of trust.
A better understanding of distrust within the social,
relational, structural, and operational dynamics of
communication within an organization (see Mishra &
Morrissey, 1990) can provide insights into its culture.
With the emphasis on teams and emergent communication networks, distrust among interdependent parties
can be as influential as trust on the interactions that
create work relationships and contribute to work
outcomes (see Butler, 1991; R. M. Kramer & Tyler,
1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).
Because some element of risk must be present for trust
to be extended (Worchel, 1979), distrust can develop
(Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). More importantly,
Conceptualizing Distrust
Much of the conceptualizing about distrust suggests
there is not a consensus about terminology as lack of
trust, distrust, and mistrust are all used, sometimes
interchangeably. Here, we follow the preferred usage of
authors we cite. Our focus however is on distrust
Authors Note: Please address correspondence to Joann Keyton,
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University,
Box 8104, Raleigh, NC 27695; email: jkeyton@ncsu.edu.
6
Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009
Intensity of Emotion
Emotion and trust (or violations of trust) have long
been connected in the literature (see Chua, Ingram, &
Morris, 2008; S. L. Robinson, Dirks, & Ozcelik, 2004),
as have emotions with subordinate-supervisor relationships (Game, 2008). Emotions are socially shared
scripts (Jones, 2001, p. 87). Scripts integrate internal
reactions to events with emotionality elicited in direct
proportion to the degree an organized plan is interrupted and to the degree importance is attached to the
plan (Jones, 2001). Specifically, threats to integrity,
such as personal attacks on ones competence, are the
primary source of emotionality in conflict interactions
(Campbell & Muncer, 1987). Research has demonstrated the link between language that is used to express
oneself and emotional intensity (Bowers, 1964; Rogan,
1995; Whissell, 1989), whereas Donohue (1991) found
evidence that more intense language was used when
conflict was not resolved.
In addition to emotion as a routine expression and
part of employee work roles (e.g., Rafaeli & Sutton,
1987, 1989), emotionality in organizations is also
related to conflict (e.g., Gayle & Preiss, 1998; Morrill
& Thomas, 1992; Ostell, 1996) as well as interactions
between different hierarchical levels (e.g., Wayne,
Shore, & Liden, 1997; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler,
1982). Because organizational norms may suppress
overt expressions of emotions (see M. W. Kramer &
Hess, 2002), most research on emotions in workplace exchanges underemphasizes the intensity of the
emotions surrounding conflictual episodes (Gayle &
Preiss, 1998, p. 281).
Drawing upon Fichmans (2003) position for studying organizational trust, emotion is one of trusts
essential components (see Lewis & Weigert, 1985),
and that emotion guides the development of trusting
behavior. Applied to distrust, an employee who distrusts another, particularly a leader or member of
management in a more powerful role, is likely to feel
vulnerable and therefore emotional. If, as Gayle and
Preiss (1998) found, emotional intensity in language
increases as relationship vulnerability or disparity
increases, then we would expect that emotionality
would be evident when distrust exists.
An additional link between emotional intensity and
distrust is drawn from Campbell and Muncer (1987),
who found that threats to integrity, particularly attacks
on competence, caused substantial anger as well.
Because integrity and competence are presumably
two dimensions of trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1984),
judgments about a persons lack of integrity and
Method
Sample
The organization was a multidivisional Fortune
500 manufacturer with more than 250 operations
throughout the United States; facilities ranged in size
from a few to several hundred employees and represented nine functional operations. Management of
one division asked the first author to conduct a communication audit. The audit questionnaire, which did
not address trust, concluded with an open-ended
question that asked: Heres your opportunity to provide us with your specific feedback. We are particularly interested in anything you have to tell us about
the communication or interaction in your facility.
Participants. A stratified random sample procedure was used to include employees at each facility.
Surveys were distributed directly to participants at
their facility; envelopes were addressed to employees
following the same procedure for distributing benefits and other confidential information. Participants
received written instructions to return the survey in
an enclosed preaddressed, stamped envelope
addressed to the first author. Participants were also
instructed that no one at their facility needed to know
that they participated in the survey and that they need
not return the survey through their facilitys mail
procedures. This division employed 7,500 and was
the population for this study; surveys were distributed to a stratified random sample of 1,500 employees. Of the 582 surveys returned (response rate =
38.8%), all but 2 were usable. No more than 6.5% of
the total sample came from any one facility. Average
organizational tenure of respondents was 14 years
(range 1 to 41 years); 61.9% of employees were
hourly, 13.6% were salary-nonexempt, and 24.4%
were salary-exempt. In all, 46% (n = 268) of respondents responded to the stimulus question.
Results
Singly and in combination, 308 instances of the
opposites of the Butler and Cantrell (1984) trust components were assigned to 155 of the 156 narratives.
Closed was most frequently used (n = 95, 30.84%),
followed by disloyal (n = 71, 23.05%), inconsistent (n
= 67, 21.75%), incompetent (n = 43, 13.96%), and
lacks integrity (n = 32, 10.39%). For the Bies and
Tripp (1996) violation of trust actions, 185 codings
were assigned to 142 of the 156 distrust narratives.
Honor violation was most frequent (n = 126, 68.11%)
with the subcategory of shirking of job responsibilities dominating the identifications (n = 104, 52.61%).
Other actions coded were role violation (n = 31,
16.75%), abusive authority (n = 19, 10.27%), and
damaged identity (n = 9, 4.86%).
Targets of the distrust statements were identified in
143 (91.67%) narratives representing four leadership
levelscorporate management, facility management,
specialty area management, and work area supervisors. Referents to corporate management (n = 43,
30.07%) included use of the companys name and
phrases such as boys in the boardroom or big boss
guys. Referents to facility management (n = 56,
39.16%) included mill, facility, or plant manager;
superintendent; and management group. Referents to
specialty area management (n = 17, 11.89%) included
human resources manager, production manager, operations manager, assistant plant manager, department
head or manager, and area manager. Referents to firstline supervisors (n = 27, 18.88%) included supervisor
or immediate supervisor; floor supervisor or leader;
lead man, team, or people; foreman; and working
crew chief. Relative to language intensity, the narratives contained from 0 to 3 obscure words (M = 0.32,
SD = 0.69), 0 to 10 general metaphors (M = 1.12, SD
= 1.54), and 0 to 27 qualifiers (M = 6.72, SD = 5.00).
There were only 5 statements of profanity and 5
gender-based or race-based statements across all participants narratives. Narratives ranged from 5 to 290
words (M = 86.33, SD = 55.60) written in 1 to 26
sentences (M = 6.15, SD = 4.04). The number of
Table 1
Narrative and Coding Examples
Narrative
Coding
lacking integrity; facility managers as closed communicators, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacking integrity; and supervisors as closed communicators,
inconsistent, and incompetent. Thus, in response to
Research Question 2, different features of distrust are
identified with different targets of distrust, but a clear
pattern relative to levels of organization hierarchy did
not emerge (see Figure 1). We did observe that specialty management was the least frequently mentioned
and facility management was most frequently mentioned across the five features of distrust.
Research Question 3 asks if different features of
distrust elicit different levels of emotional intensity.
Because the narratives could only be interpreted in
their entirety, it was not possible to assess emotional
intensity relative to a specific dimension. Thus, all
possible permutations of the opposites of Butler and
Cantrells (1984) trust categories were assessed for
the degree of emotional intensity in the narrative. The
frequency and the mean language intensity scores are:
One dimension (e.g., closed) was coded to 64 narratives (M range = 1.72 to 9.76), two dimension permutations (e.g., closed, disloyal) were coded to 53
narratives (M range = 4.25 to 13.48), three dimension
permutations (e.g., closed, disloyal, inconsistent)
were coded to 23 narratives (M range = 6.27 to 14.03),
four dimension permutations (closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent) were coded to 9 narratives (M
range = 9.86 to 15.80), and the saturated model
(closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacks
integrity) was coded to 6 narratives (M = 14.00).
Mean scores are displayed in Figure 2 and demonstrate no progression of emotional intensity scores relative to the number of dimensions coded. Different
features of distrust (independently and in combination)
were revealed in the five highest levels of emotional
intensity: incompetent (one dimension), lacks integrity/
disloyal (two dimensions), lacks integrity/inconsistent/
closed and incompetent/inconsistent/closed (three dimensions), lacks integrity/incompetent/disloyal/closed (four
dimensions), and the saturated model of lacks integrity/
incompetent/inconsistent/disloyal/closed (five dimensions). For Research Question 4, language intensity was
not greater when targets of distrust were more upwardly
distal in the hierarchy, F(3, 139) = 0.90, p = 0.44.
Discussion
Giving employees the opportunity to write anything they desired about the communication or interaction in their facility prompted more than one quarter
of those who participated in the divisions communication audit to write comments that were identified as
expressing some aspect of distrust with one or more
levels of management. Participants revealed what and
how leaders had communicated to create what management and psychology scholars have implicitly
agreed is a psychological state (see Rousseau et al.,
1998).
Our intention to analyze the five opposing dimensions
of Butler and Cantrells (1984) conceptualization of
Figure 1
Distrust by Target
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Lacks Integrity
Incompetent
Corporate
Inconsistent
Facility Management
Disloyal
Closed
Specialty Management
First Line
Figure 2
16
Lacks Integrity-Disloyal
14
Language Intensity
IncompetentDisloyal-Closed
Lacks IntegrityInconsistent-Closed
12
Incompetent
10
8
Saturated Model;
All Dimensions
6
4
2
LP C
SD
C
PS
LS
LP
LP
S
SD
PD
PS
PS
LD
D
LS
C
LS
LP
C
D
LP
SC
SD
PC
PD
PS
LD
LS
trust as compared to Bies and Tripps (1996) violations of trust was not realized. Both coding schemes
could be applied; no conflict or relationship between
the two coding schemes was discernable. But, coding
on Bies and Tripps trust violations resulted in more
than half on one feature (others shirking their job
responsibilities) of honor violation. A plausible integration of the two perspectives suggests that the distrust dimensions drawn from Butler and Cantrells
operationalization of trust provide a more interpersonal orientation of distrust features, whereas Bies
and Tripps conceptualization provides an explanation
of how distrust was generated, or what lines or boundaries were perceived to be crossed.
Early empirical research suggested that there was a
rank ordering of dimensions of trust, where competence was most important to the establishment of
trust, followed by integrity, consistency, loyalty, and
openness (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). If trust and distrust were polar opposites, it could be expected that a
similar ranking of opposing dimensions would exist.
For distrust, incompetence would be the most important, followed by lack of integrity, inconsistent, disloyalty, and closed. However, this pattern did not
emerge. Rather, these data presented a reversed rather
than opposing structure, suggesting that distrust is a
different domain than trust. For example, Butler and
Cantrell (1984) found that competence was more frequently related to trust, but these data revealed that
incompetence was less frequently related to distrust.
Conversely, Butler and Cantrell found that openness
contributed only marginally to a trusting relationship,
but these data revealed that being closed contributed more significantly to distrust. Interpretation of
our results is further complicated by Oesch and
Murnighans (2003) finding that competence and
trustworthiness may be more easily separated than
incompetence and untrustworthiness (p. 70). That is,
being incompetent can be a trigger for judgments of
being untrustworthy, whereas being competent may
not trigger judgments of being trustworthy. Together,
their findings and ours suggest that trust and distrust
are not polar anchors of a continuous dimension and
that different qualities are associated with trust than
distrust.
Although the category labels we used are logical
opposites (e.g., open and closed), the constructs may
not be so confined. For example, the characteristics of
the open construct are distinct from but linked to the
characteristics of the closed construct in that the
leaders absence of openness is not necessarily interpreted as being closed. There simply may not be
managers were more function specific. More compelling is the lack of pattern among distrust features and
hierarchy. For example, closed communication, the
strongest feature of distrust in this study, was associated with facility management, whereas incompetence, one of the weaker features, was also associated
with facility management. This is a compelling finding. Facilities of this organization were located in all
geographic regions of the country, making it unlikely
that employees had personal contact with or exposure
to the CEO and other corporate management. Not
surprisingly, employees overwhelmingly identified
facility management as controlling the degree of communication openness in facilities. That closed communication was the most frequently identified
characteristic of distrust and most frequently associated with facility management reinforces the notion
that a subordinates trust in a superior reflects not
only interpersonal trust but also trust in the system the
superior represents (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003). Thus,
if a participant distrusts a facility manager, we would
expect he or she also distrusts the organization. The
importance of closed communication to distrust is
reinforced by Ellis and Shockley-Zalabaks (2001)
finding that the amount of job and organizational
information employees received is correlated to both
trust in top management team members and immediate supervisors.
That the closed category was highly identified suggests that communication and distrust are related in
some fashion and that communication has a greater
impact on distrust than it does on trust (cf. Butler &
Cantrell, 1984). Furthermore, we would argue that
other features of distrust, such as incompetence, disloyalty, inconsistency, and lacks integrity, are attitudes based on behavioral interactions between
people. For example, a subordinate can only assess a
supervisors disloyalty if the supervisor said or did
something that caused the subordinate to believe that
the supervisor would not provide protection or support. Likewise, a subordinate can only assess a supervisors lack of integrity if the supervisor says he or
she will do something and then does not follow
through with it. We argue therefore that employees
intuitively link distrust to communication and information.
To examine that link, we asked (a) if language
intensity was greater when leaders were more distal in
the hierarchy and (b) did language intensity increase
for particular dimensions of distrust or particular
combinations of features of distrust. No evidence of a
linear relationship for language intensity existed. Nor
Conclusion
These findings suggest that a plausible integrative
analytical perspective may exist between distrust
dimensions (closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacks integrity) and categories of distrust
(e.g., honor violations). Doing so would provide a
more interpersonal orientation and an explanation of
how distrust is generated. Analysis of the narratives
exposed the communication-distrust link proposed by
scholars, reinforcing the behavioral foundation of
References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003).
Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks.
Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
Bennis, W. (1999). Five competencies of new leaders. Executive
Excellence, 16(7), 4-5.
Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. (1996). Beyond trust: Getting even and
the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 246-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict
formation and its transformation: Application to organizational conflict management. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 12, 259-275.
Bowers, J. W. (1964). Some correlates of language intensity.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 415-420.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of conditions of trust inventory.
Journal of Management, 17, 643-661.
Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.
framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.
Whitney, J. O. (2001). The economics of mistrust. Boston
University Law Review, 81, 687-705.
Worchel, P. (1979). Trust and distrust. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional
sources of economic structures, 1840-1920. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
Vol. 8, (pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Joann Keyton (PhD, The Ohio State University) is a professor of
communication at North Carolina State University. Her current
research examines the process and relational aspects of communication in organizations and interdisciplinary teams. In addition to publications in scholarly journals and edited collections, she has published
three textbooks for courses in group communication, research methods, and organizational culture as well as co-editing an organizational
communication case book. She was editor of the Journal of Applied
Communication Research, Volumes 31-33; currently she is editor of
Communication Currents and co-editor of Small Group Research.
faye l. smith, earned her PhD from the University of Iowa in the discipline of strategic management. She has business work experience
in the social expression and banking industries. She is a professor
at Missouri Western State University, and has also held academic
positions at Oklahoma State University, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, and Emporia State University. Her research in strategic
management assesses competitive dynamics and cooperative strategies. She is also interested in organizational identity and work/life
balance issues, as well as systems effects within organizations.