Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Dissertation Defense

Dissertation Defense

Download to read offline

This presentation explores the association between trust variables and workplace outcomes.

This presentation actually took place on May 9th, 2012 in Sanchez School of Business, Texas A&M International University.

This presentation explores the association between trust variables and workplace outcomes.

This presentation actually took place on May 9th, 2012 in Sanchez School of Business, Texas A&M International University.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

Dissertation Defense

  1. 1. Aziz Bakay Dissertation Defense May 9th, 2012
  2. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST BASES PHENOMENON OF TRUST ATTRIBUTES AND TRUST TRUST FOCI • Dispositional Trust • Impersonal Trust • Interpersonal Trust (Erikson, 1968; Kramer, 1999; Schoorman et al., 2007) 2
  3. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST BASES PHENOMENON OF TRUST ATTRIBUTES AND TRUST TRUST FOCI • Benevolent / Caring / Concern • Competence • Goodwill / Intentions • Honesty • Predictability (Butler, 1991; McKnight & Chervany, 1996) 3
  4. 4. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST BASES PHENOMENON OF TRUST ATTRIBUTES AND TRUST TRUST FOCI • Affective / Cognitive • Subordinates / Superiors (Yang, 2005; McAllister, 1995) 4
  5. 5. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF WORKPLACE DIFFERENCES CONTEXT OUTCOMES ACROSS SAMPLES • Psychological Contracts (Rousseau, 1989) • Social exchange norms: Reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) • Over time; • Fulfilling expectations  trust and confidence. • Unmet expectations  dissatisfaction, lower commitments and performance. 5
  6. 6. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF WORKPLACE DIFFERENCES CONTEXT OUTCOMES ACROSS SAMPLES • Changing nature of the work environment (Cascio, 1995) • Emergent properties from collectivities (Blau, 1964) • Avoiding the fallacy of reductionism (Blau, 1964) • Social Psychological factors (Johns, 2006) • Task, social, physical 6
  7. 7. LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF WORKPLACE DIFFERENCES CONTEXT OUTCOMES ACROSS SAMPLES • Manipulation Check: US and Turkey samples • Central tendency OR ecologic (mean scores of items) • Cultural Typology (Hofstede, 2001) • Masculinity/Femininity (consistent) • Power Distance (consistent) • Uncertainty Avoidance (consistent) • Individualism/Collectivism (inconsistent) 7
  8. 8. METHODOLOGY THEORETICAL MODEL MEASURES CONTROL VARIABLES 8
  9. 9. METHODOLOGY THEORETICAL MODEL MEASURES CONTROL VARIABLES • Scales are adopted. • Intention to turnover scale is under a license. • All scales are reflective. • Reported Cronbach's alphas > .7 (Schoorman et al., 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2008; Macdonald & MacIntyre, 1997) 9
  10. 10. METHODOLOGY THEORETICAL MODEL MEASURES CONTROL VARIABLES • Role Ambiguity, Job Autonomy • Number of employees • Non-profit/profit seeking • Age, Tenure, Income • Gender, Marital Status (Rizzo et al., 1970; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) 10
  11. 11. METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION SURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & SAMPLE • Translation & back translation • Rater congruence > .9 • Focus group (3 Ph.D. students) • Survey instructions and help statements • Likert scale (1 to 5) 11
  12. 12. METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION SURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & SAMPLE • Paper and electronic versions • Posted on personal website • Emailed colleagues / contacts • From January 9th to February 16th, 2012 • US Sample size: 150 (initial: 163) • Turkey Sample size: 134 (initial: 140) 12
  13. 13. METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION SURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & SAMPLE 13
  14. 14. METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION SURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & SAMPLE • Partial Least Squares using WarpPLS 3.0 • Allows for non-normal distribution • Smaller sample sizes (i.e. less than 100) • Offers 3 Resampling techniques • Exploratory or confirmatory research • Reflective or formative latent variables • Non-linear relations / cyclicality 14 (Kock, 2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2011c)
  15. 15. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL 15
  16. 16. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL • Mean comparisons within and across samples • T-test (non-matching sample & unequal variance) • Assumptions: Random sampling, normal distribution and equal variance of two samples (Park, 2009). Shapiro-Wilk normality test • Trust variables have higher means in the US compared to Turkey. • Trust in peers & supervisor highest in the US, supervisor alone highest in Turkey 16
  17. 17. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS Across Samples MODEL 17
  18. 18. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS Within Samples MODEL 18
  19. 19. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Convergent Validity • Loadings from structure (i.e. unrotated), cross-loadings from pattern matrix (i.e. rotated) (Kock, 2011c) • Several indicators dropped • Loadings > .5 (except 1 item) • P-values < .01 (Hair et al., 2010) 19
  20. 20. LOADINGS AND CROSS LOADINGS The US and Turkey Sample 20
  21. 21. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Discriminant Validity 21
  22. 22. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Discriminant Validity • AVEs > Correlations with other latent variables 22
  23. 23. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Reliability • Composite reliabilities > .7 (Hair et al., 1992; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) 23
  24. 24. MODEL ASSESSMENT GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Collinearity • Variance Inflation Factors • Relaxed threshold: VIFs < 5 (Hair et al., 2009) • Conservative threshold: VIFs < 3.3 (Kock, 2011c) 24
  25. 25. RESULTS OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT CONTROL VARIABLES RESULTS COMPARISONS • Estimated coefficients of the path analysis • The US Sample / Turkey Sample 25
  26. 26. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS Coefficients for the US sample is in bold 26
  27. 27. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS Coefficients for the US sample is in bold 27
  28. 28. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS Coefficients for the US sample is in bold AFTER ADDRESSING SIMPSON’S PARADOX 28
  29. 29. RESULTS OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT CONTROL VARIABLES RESULTS COMPARISONS The US Sample • Number of people in the organization & age 29
  30. 30. RESULTS OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT CONTROL VARIABLES RESULTS COMPARISONS Turkey Sample • Role ambiguity, Job Autonomy, Tenure, Non-profit org. 30
  31. 31. RESULTS OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT CONTROL VARIABLES RESULTS COMPARISONS • T-test (W. Chin’s discussion online, and an application on WarpPLS blog) 31
  32. 32. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS Coefficients for the US sample is in bold 32
  33. 33. DISCUSSION Warped and Linear Relationships AFFECTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE JOB SATISFACTION COMMITMENT • Healthy, trusting relationships among coworkers • As social catalyst that improves individual and organizational effectiveness (Ferres et al., 2004) US Sample TURKEY Sample 33 Trust in Peers
  34. 34. DISCUSSION Warped and Linear Relationships AFFECTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE JOB SATISFACTION COMMITMENT • “the emotional closeness aroused by management’s genuine care and consideration” (Yang, 2005, p. 137) • Top management’s treatment of their employees, (i.e. emphasizing the importance of employee) can be considered social exchange. US Sample TURKEY Sample 34 Trust in Top Management
  35. 35. DISCUSSION Warped and Linear Relationships AFFECTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE JOB SATISFACTION COMMITMENT • Interdependency among peers can translate to existence of teams • High trust & low monitoring, team performance suffers (Langfred, 2004) • Deductive reasoning • Turkey: Termination of employment and Uncertainty Avoidance 35 Trust in Peers in the US Sample – Trust in Top Mgmt in TURKEY Sample
  36. 36. DISCUSSION Warped and Linear Relationships AFFECTIVE JOB PERFORMANCE JOB SATISFACTION COMMITMENT • Turkey: Highest trust is in supervisor, however there is limited social exchange between the employee and the supervisor. Power Distance • Higher authorities may mean higher vulnerability therefore impact is observed from organizational members with higher levels (Yang, 2005). 36 Trust in Supervisor in the US Sample – Trust in Top Mgmt in TURKEY Sample
  37. 37. CONCLUSION • Dispositional trust is a strong predictor of trust. • Trust holds its importance in organizations supporting the Social exchange • New evidence for normative point of view • Similarities and differences across samples • Social exchange vs. economic exchange • Team effect 37
  38. 38. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESERACH • Nature of relationship between trust variables and outcomes (Dirks, 1999) • Main effects / moderating / mediating effects • Sample homogeneity – Simpson’s paradox • Relationship among outcome variables (Tett & Meyer, 1993) • Affective commitment and Intention to Turnover  Job Satisfaction • Self-reported data (Vandenabeele, 2009) • Longitudinal analysis to test causality • Specific measurement for “trust in supervisor” (Wat & Shaffer, 2005) • Referent specific factors (i.e. supervisor tenure) 38

Editor's Notes

  • Steps involved: interaction, communication, expectations, and obligation
  • Size of the organization Meyer and Allen (1997) of “broader “roles” that require a greater variety of skills and ability to adapt to the demands of situation” (p. 5). Higher complexity, higher job requirements, organization commits more resources (i.e. training). Reciprocity perspective.
  • Social exchange theory acknowledges that “only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, and trust; purely economic exchange as such does not” (Blau, 1964, p. 94) intention to turnover may not be a function of the actual trust in organizational members which is characterized by a process of give and take behavior among organizational members. Intention to turnover could be explained as a function of economic exchange.

×