Download Examining the Relationship Between Trust in Supervisor–Employee

Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 31, No. 2, April–June 2014, pp. 131–140
Examining the Relationship Between
Trust in Supervisor–Employee
Relationships and Workplace
Dissent Expression
Holly J. Payne
Organizational dissent can be a valuable, constructive form of communication in
organizations and is influenced by a variety of communication factors. This study explores
how employees’ trust in their supervisors relates to dissent expression. Data collected
from 179 full-time employees were analyzed using correlational analysis. Results indicated
trust in supervisors was significantly related to employees’ use of articulated dissent.
Additionally, there was a significant, negative relationship between trust in supervisors
and latent and displaced dissent. Limitations and implications are discussed.
Keywords: Organizational Dissent Expression; Supervisor–Employee Communication;
Trust
At some point, all employees face the difficulty of deciding when, if, and how to communicate disagreement within their organizations (Graham, 1986). Communicating
dissent or expressing an opposing opinion is a way employees can take ownership in
their workplaces and negotiate roles (Gorden, 1988). According to Kassing (1997),
dissent involves ‘‘feeling apart from one’s organization’’ and ‘‘expressing disagreement or contradictory opinions about one’s organization’’ (p. 312). While some
organizations invite and value employee dissent, viewing it as a creative process,
others dole out punishments for such acts (Sprague & Ruud, 1988; Warren, 2003).
Holly J. Payne (PhD, University of Kentucky, 2003) is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Communication at Western Kentucky University. Correspondence: Holly J. Payne, Western Kentucky University,
Department of Communication, 100 Ivan Wilson Fine Arts Center, 1906 College Heights Blvd. #21029,
Bowling Green, KY 42101; E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) # 2014 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2014.907141
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
132
H. J. Payne
Placed in situations where they feel contradiction or disagreement, employees
respond to trigger events based on individual, relational, and organizational factors
(Kassing, 1997). Individual influences include employees’ communication predispositions, relational factors include the quality and types of relationships employees
have at work with supervisors and peers, and organizational influences on dissent
involve communicative practices and patterns regarding participation and voice.
Existing research addressing these components provides great insight into the dissent
process; however, little work has addressed the supervisor–employee relationship,
which is salient to employee communication behaviors.
The relationship quality between supervisors and employees is especially relevant
to dissent expression (Kassing, 2000a). When employees perceive a supportive climate with their supervisor, their work performance benefits and they are likely to
work collaboratively in helping supervisors meet business goals (Dysik & Kuvaas,
2012; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). In order to work collaboratively, employees
should feel a sense of trust and support, which would allow them to communicate
openly even about difficult issues that might be in contrast to the perspective of
the organization or individual supervisor. This study addresses how trust between
supervisors and employees affects the ways in which employees communicate dissent
in their organizations.
Dissent Expression and Trust
Dissent expression is an important form of employee communication practice
that has the potential to improve workplaces and work lives. Employees make
decisions to dissent based on the seriousness of an issue, their personal responsibility
for communicating dissent as part of their role, and their ability or skill in designing
dissent messages (Graham, 1986). Employees also consider the likelihood of corrective action being taken against them, available channels for dissent expression, and
the personal cost of dissenting. Kassing’s (1998) model of dissent expression offers
a systematic approach for studying how employees communicate their contrary
opinions and focuses on employee perceptions of their own communicative behavior
in addition to relational qualities with supervisors or coworkers and general organizational communication practices related to input.
Kassing (1998) identifies three primary types of dissent as articulated, latent, and
displaced. Dissent can be expressed directly to supervisors (articulated dissent), to
coworkers or other members of similar status in the organization (latent or lateral
dissent), or to individuals outside the organization such as friends, family, or the
media (displaced dissent). Multiple research studies provide a sense of how individual
factors impact dissent strategy selection (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Patterson,
2007; Kassing, 2000a, 2000b; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999, 2001; Payne, 2007). Employees
who are argumentative, in managerial roles, and have an internal locus of control
use more articulated dissent strategies, while employees who are verbally aggressive,
have an external locus of control, and low positional status use more latent or lateral
dissent (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999, 2001). More recently, Payne (2007) found that
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
Communication Research Reports
133
employees with high levels of organization-based esteem (feelings of worth to their
organizations) used more articulated dissent strategies, and Avtgis et al. (2007) found
that employees experiencing burnout are less likely to use articulated and latent
dissent tactics.
At the organization level, employees who perceive high levels of workplace
freedom of speech view their workplaces as more participative, which results in
higher levels of employee identification with the organization (Infante & Gorden,
1991). Kassing (2000b) further confirmed this connection and found that employees
who perceive high levels of workplace freedom of speech use significantly more
articulated dissent strategies, while those perceiving low levels of workplace freedom
of speech used more latent dissent.
In addition to the work on individual and organizational influences on dissent
expression, researchers have also explored connections between supervisor–subordinate
relationships and dissent. The quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships affects
employee communication strategies, satisfaction, and commitment (Infante & Gorden,
1991). Kassing (2000a) found that employees in the supervisor’s out-group reported
using more latent dissent tactics. Employees in the supervisor’s in-group, however, used
more articulated dissent strategies. Regarding employees’ with in-group status, he states,
‘‘High levels of involvement, influence, and persuasion create a communication climate
within the superior-subordinate relationship that invites opinion-sharing, apparently
when these opinions may be contradictory’’ (p. 65). According to Graham (1986),
relational and organizational elements of communication climate influence the ways
in which employees choose to express disagreement. Researchers have focused primarily
on the quality of communication as well as the level of involvement supervisors have
with subordinates in determining if employees will use articulated, latent, or displaced
dissent (Kassing, 2000a). This study extends this focus by exploring the role trust plays
in the supervisor–subordinate relationship and its connections with dissent expression.
Research suggests that employees’ trust in supervisors has a more direct connection to
performance and citizenship behaviors than trust in the organization or organization’s
leadership (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Similarly, Tan and Tan (2000) found significant
relationships between supervisor trust and both satisfaction with supervisors and
innovative behaviors. Specifically, when employees had high levels of trust in their
supervisor they were more likely to communicate openly, develop improved interpersonal relationships with supervisors, develop and explore new ideas, and rely
on supervisors for guidance and support. The literature suggests that trust plays
a key role in developing a positive relationship climate with supervisors, which may
facilitate open dissent expression. With this in mind, this study seeks to determine
the degree to which trust relates to dissent expression.
Definitions of trust typically emphasize intentionality and motivation. Lewicki
and Bunker (1995) define trust as ‘‘confident positive expectations about another’s
motives with respect to oneself in situations entailing risk’’ (p. 139). Research on
trust in organizations focuses on behavioral elements in terms of holding positive
expectations about another and becoming vulnerable. When trust is established,
the reciprocation or exchange of positive behaviors increases (Lewicki, McAllister,
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
134
H. J. Payne
& Bies, 1998). A recent study by Huang (2012) explores the connection between
empowerment, supervisor trust, feedback-seeking behavior, and job performance,
finding that supervisor trust is a significant mediator. When employees trust their
supervisor, they are more likely to engage in feedback-seeking behavior, which
enhances their job performance.
A trust relationship evolves when supervisors are open to employee input and
willing to share control. Levels of supervisory support, including care and concern
for employees, an interest in career development, and general valuing of employees’
work, have a stronger connection to trust than employees’ perceived relationship
with their organization (Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008). In other words, support
provided in the supervisor relationship affects overall trust levels more than employees’ perception of support with the organization in general. Employees reciprocate
trust by assisting in meeting important business goals (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard,
& Werner, 1998). To the contrary, when supervisors engage in distrustful behaviors
or are abusive, employees produce less and engage in fewer organizational citizenship
behaviors (Tepper, 2000; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
While research confirms that trusting and supportive supervisor relationships
are related to employee feedback-seeking behaviors (Huang, 2012; Nifadkar, Tsui, &
Ashforth, 2012), little has been done to see if these qualities contribute to feedbackgiving behaviors such as dissent. Gaines (1980) suggests that high levels of trust
in supervisors may encourage employees to voice upward (articulated) dissent.
Trust likely influences employees’ expression of differing opinions with a supervisor;
therefore the following hypothesis was posed:
H1: Employees’ perception of trust with their supervisor is positively related to articulated dissent.
Research suggests that when employees have low-quality relationships with their
supervisors they are less likely to voice their concerns directly because they feel their
ideas will not be well received (Kassing, 2000a). The quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships is connected with fairness perceptions, which influence dissent
expression as well as managerial trust (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005). Goodboy,
Chory, and Dunleavy (2008) found that when employees’ perceived low levels of
interpersonal justice with regard to unfair pay that was explained with sufficient
information but communicated disrespectfully, they were more likely to communicate their dissent with other employees (latent). Kassing and McDowell (2008) also
found that when managers perceived low levels of justice, they were more likely to
communicate their dissent to others outside of the organization (displaced); whereas,
nonmanagers’ justice perceptions negatively related to displaced and latent dissent.
The research suggests that when employees have low-quality relationships with their
supervisors and perceive injustice, they are more likely to communicate dissent to
coworkers or with others outside of the organization. These relationships are marked
by a lack of trust; therefore, the following hypotheses were posed:
H2: Employees’ perception of trust with their supervisor is negatively related to latent
dissent.
Communication Research Reports
135
H3: Employees’ perception of trust with their supervisor is negatively related to
displaced dissent.
Method
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
Participants
In order to measure employees’ individual perceptions of climate without bias toward
one single organization or one type of industry (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005),
participants were solicited from a variety of organizations. A total of 179 full-time
employees from various types of workplaces (i.e., education, health care, service,
and manufacturing) in the southern United States participated in this study. The
participants represented a variety of industries, including banking=finance (n ¼ 6),
computers=information technology (n ¼ 3), education (n ¼ 37), engineering (n ¼ 3),
government (n ¼ 12), health care (n ¼ 22), insurance (n ¼ 2), legal (n ¼ 4), manufacturing (n ¼ 12), service (n ¼ 17), retail sales (n ¼ 13), and others (n ¼ 48). Participants
ranged in age from 19 to 64 years (M ¼ 36), and approximately 44.7% were male
(n ¼ 80) and 55.3% were female (n ¼ 99). The average tenure with the organization
for the sample was 7.6 years.
Procedures
Respondents were recruited by undergraduates enrolled in communication courses at
a large south-central university. Students were given the opportunity to earn credit
for recruiting up to three full-time employees to participate. The students themselves
were not allowed to participate even if they had a full-time work status. All students
were given the survey packet, including a project description and consent form or
the Web site instructions for employees opting to complete the online version of
the survey. Each participant completed a separate page with their name and phone
number so that their surveys could be verified. The researcher followed a procedure
similar to that used by Kassing (2002) and contacted 20% of the total sample.
All participants contacted verified personal completion of the surveys.
Measurement of Variables
Employees received a questionnaire packet or took the survey online. A comparison
of Web- versus paper-based surveys revealed no significant differences in responses.
Participants completed scales on organizational dissent, supervisor trust, and support
for innovation. Kassing’s (1998) Organizational Dissent Scale (ODS) was used to
measure articulated, latent, and displaced dissent. This 20-item scale asks participants
to consider how they express concerns at work using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. The ODS consistently produces a stable 3-factor solution
with reliabilities ranging from .66 to .86 (Kassing, 2000a, 2000b; Kassing & Avtgis,
2001). In this study, acceptable Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for each dimension,
including articulated dissent (.83), latent dissent (.72), and displaced dissent (.71).
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
136
H. J. Payne
Supervisor trust was measured using a scale from Koys and DeCotiis’s (1991)
measure of psychological climate, which includes autonomy, cohesion, trust,
pressure, support, recognition, fairness, and innovation. In their initial construction
and validation of the scale, Koys and DeCotiis (1991) found that the items measuring
the perception of supervisor trust and support loaded as 1 factor. Similarly, in a study
of emotional intelligence and psychological climate, Klem and Schlechter (2008)
found that support was not a distinct factor within the climate scale. Their EFA found
that trust explained 35.16% of 61.6% of the total variance. Among their findings,
these researchers found trust significantly related to perceptions of managers’
emotional intelligence (r ¼ .38), explaining 14.14% of the variance, the most robust
relationship of all the psychological climate dimensions. Based on these studies, 10
items were used from the original scale combining trust and support such as ‘‘My
boss has a lot of personal integrity,’’ ‘‘My boss is the kind of person I can level with,’’
‘‘I can count on my boss to help me when I need it,’’ ‘‘My boss is easy to talk to about
job-related problems’’ using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. This scale has shown strong reliabilities of .88 to .94 (Klem &
Schlechter, 2008; Koys & DeCotiis, 1991; Ward, 1998) In the current study, an
acceptable Cronbach alpha was calculated to be .92.
Results
The hypotheses were analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation analysis.1
The means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for each scale, and a correlation
matrix of the variables examined in the study, are noted in Table 1.
Hypothesis 1, predicting that trust in supervisors would be positively related to the use
of articulated dissent, was supported (r ¼ .16, p < .04). The second and third hypotheses,
predicting a negative relationship between trust in supervisors and latent dissent
(r ¼ .23, p < .002) and displaced dissent (r ¼ .34, p < .0005), were supported.
Discussion
The present study explores the relationships between employees’ trust in their
supervisors and forms of dissent expression. Although the analysis does not determine causation, significant relationships were found. The findings indicate that
as employees’ trust in their supervisors increases, their use of upward or articulated
Table 1 Correlation Matrix of Study Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
Supervisor trust
Articulated aissent
Latent dissent
Displaced dissent
p < .05;
p < .01.
M
SD
a
1
2
3
3.79
3.50
2.68
3.34
0.75
0.56
0.68
0.79
.92
.83
.72
.71
—
.16
–.34
–.23
—
–.01
–.02
—
.03
4
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
Communication Research Reports
137
dissent also increases, while their use of latent and displaced dissent decreases. This
study lends further support to the significance of supervisor relationships on dissent
expression; however, the low amounts of variance explained for each type of dissent
is indicative of a more complex relationship, which likely includes individual and
organizational factors (Kassing, 1997).
Articulated dissent or disagreements voiced to managers can be an important tool
for improvement. To date, the research supports the idea that when organizations
encourage participation and when supervisors maintain quality relationships where
employees perceive fairness in decision making, employees are more likely to openly
communicate their ideas up the chain of command (Kassing, 2000a; Kassing &
McDowell, 2008). This study extends this work in establishing a significant albeit
small link between supervisor–employee relationships that are marked by high levels
of trust and articulated dissent. The small correlation suggests a more complex
relationship between dissent and the quality of communication between supervisors
and employees. Although trust is a significant component of employees’ perception
of psychological climate, other dimensions may explain more variation in the
expression of disagreement. According to Koys and DeCotiis (1991), perceptions
of psychological climate ‘‘serve as the individual’s cognitive map of how the
organization functions and therefore, help determine what is appropriate behavior
in a given situation’’ (p. 266). Given this, other elements of climate-tapping characteristics of the supervisor–subordinate relationship, such as recognition and fairness,
might provide more robust results. Also, as reviewed earlier, dissent expression is
influenced by individual and organizational variables. While this study highlights
the significance of the supervisor–subordinate relationship, situational and
individual-level variables likely combine to more strongly predict dissent behaviors.
Future research could examine the connection between trust and dissent in
relation to other communication qualities in the supervisor–employee relationship,
such as empowerment and information sharing. Moye and Henkin (2006) make
a connection between employee trust of supervisors with empowerment, claiming
that when employees feel empowered they have higher trust in managers. Additionally,
Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak (2001) connect trust with information receiving. Analysis of
these communication phenomena can provide supervisors with strategies for building
trust and nurturing dissent.
Latent dissent—disagreement expressed to organizational members of equal or
lesser status—significantly decreased as employees’ level of trust in their supervisor
increased. As distrust increases, employees are likely to go to coworkers to communicate disagreement because they lack confidence that their supervisor will listen to
their concerns, take action to initiate change, or avoid forming negative impressions.
This finding is similar to the body of work showing that latent dissent correlates
negatively to commitment, satisfaction, perceptions of out-group membership, and
injustice (Kassing, 1998, 2000a; Kassing & McDowell, 2008). Together these findings
suggest that employees with high trust in supervisors may have less reason to dissent
laterally because they are receiving adequate information, being empowered, not
being coerced, and perceive procedural and distributive justice. When employees
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
138
H. J. Payne
have trusting relationships, they may feel less motivated to communicate dissent to
others because they are comfortable sharing their thoughts with supervisors without
fear of reprisal. This connects with the research on trust in that trusting relationships
build communication climates where employees not only solicit feedback but may be
more inclined to give unsolicited feedback (Huang, 2012; Nifadkar et al., 2012).
Finally, displaced dissent, the expression of disagreement to people outside the
organization, decreased when supervisor trust increased. Displaced dissent is likely
to occur when employees fear retaliation for voicing their concerns. In this sense,
distrust of one’s supervisor or others in the organization would likely push employees
to seek alternative forums for expressing their discontent outside of the organization.
Kassing (1998, 2000b) also found that when employees perceive low levels of
workplace freedom of speech or have lower levels of commitment, they more likely
use more displaced dissent. Similar to the findings on latent dissent, employees
may be more inclined to communicate directly to supervisors when trust is high,
as opposed to going to coworkers or outside parties.
This study had several limitations, including the regional nature of the survey,
a reliance on self-reported data, and a focus on one-time relational perceptions.
Further, and perhaps not surprisingly, the analysis revealed significant but small
relationships between the variables. This points to the complexity of communication
variables on employee disagreement and highlights the importance of studying
the degree to which different variables impact dissent. The findings from this study
contribute to the creation of a model for communicative variables within the
supervisor–employee relationship that directly impact the enactment of dissent.
Additionally, this study examined a narrow range of communication variables within
the coworker and supervisor relationship. Future research should expand this effort
at identifying key relational issues relevant to dissent expression.
In sum, this study confirms previous research by parceling out the relationships
between dissent behaviors and trust in the supervisor–employee relationship and
provides insight into the significant relationships between trust and the expression
of disagreement.
Note
[1]
While correlational analysis does not provide a causal connection between dissent and
supervisor trust, it is an important step for identifying which relational communication
variables are most salient to the expression of dissent. The work on psychological climate
(Koys & DeCotiis, 1991) and Kassing’s (1997) dissent model detail potential relational
factors influencing dissent and pushes us toward exploratory investigation, which can be
the springboard for more complex multidimensional designs.
References
Avtgis, T. A., Thomas-Maddox, C., Taylor, E., & Patterson, B. R. (2007). The influence of employee
burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication Research
Reports, 24, 97–102. doi:10.1080=08824090701304725
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
Communication Research Reports
139
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2012). Perceived supervisor support climate, perceived investment in
employee development climate, and business-unit performance. Human Resource Management,
51, 651–664. doi:10.1002=hrm.21494
Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: The
relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving.
Communication Quarterly, 49, 382–398.
Gaines, J. H. (1980). Upward communication in industry: An experiment. Human Relations, 33,
929–942.
Goodboy, A. K., Chory, R. M., & Dunleavy, K. (2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reports, 25, 255–265. doi:10.1080=08824090802440113
Gorden, W. I. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1, 283–299.
Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 1–52.
Huang, J. T. (2012). Be proactive as empowered? The role of trust in one’s supervisor in
psychological empowerment, feedback seeking, and job performance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 42(S1), E103–E127. doi:10.1111=j.1559-1816.2012.01019.x
Hubbell, A. P., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their
relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56, 47–70.
doi:10.1080=0008957042000332241
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of an argumentative
and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 294–304.
Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent.
Communication Studies, 48, 311–332.
Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management
Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229.
Kassing, J. W. (2000a). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship
quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58–70.
Kassing, J. W. (2000b). Exploring the relationship between workplace freedom of speech, organizational identification, and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 387–396.
Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management
Communication Quarterly, 16, 187–209.
Kassing, J. W., & Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Examining the relationship between organizational dissent
and aggressive communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 100–116.
Kassing, J. W., & Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Dissension in the organization as it relates to control
expectancies. Communication Research Reports, 18, 118–127.
Kassing, J. W., & McDowell, Z. J. (2008). Disagreeing about what’s fair: Exploring the relationship
between perceptions of justice and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 25,
34–43. doi:10.1080=08824090701831784
Klem, C., & Schlechter, A. F. (2008). The relationship between leader emotional intelligence and
psychological climate: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Business Management,
39(2), 9–23.
Koys, D. J., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human
Relations, 44, 265–285.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline.
In B. B. Bunker, J. Z. Rubin, & Associates (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, justice: Essay inspired
by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 133–174). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–458.
Downloaded by [Ohio University Libraries] at 14:48 26 December 2014
140
H. J. Payne
Moye, M. J., & Henkin, A. B. (2006). Exploring associations between employee empowerment and
interpersonal trust in managers. Journal of Management Development, 25, 101–117.
doi:10.1108=02621710610645108
Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and behave:
Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 1146–1168. doi:10.5465=amj.2010.0133
Payne, H. J. (2007). The role of organization-based self-esteem in employee dissent expression.
Communication Research Reports, 24, 235–240. doi:10.1080=08824090701446609
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695.
Sprague, J., & Rudd, G. L. (1988). Boat-rocking in the high-technology culture. American
Behavioral Scientist, 32, 169–193.
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, 241–260.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178–190.
Ward, E. A. (1998). Managerial power bases and subordinates’ manifest needs as influences on
psychological climate. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12, 361–378.
Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28, 622–632. doi:10.5465=AMR.2003.10899440
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of
trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513–530.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The
employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the
organization. Human Resource Management, 47, 111–132.