1. Aziz Bakay
Dissertation Defense
May 9th, 2012

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. 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. LITERATURE REVIEW
TRUST BASES
PHENOMENON OF
TRUST ATTRIBUTES AND
TRUST
TRUST FOCI
• Affective / Cognitive
• Subordinates / Superiors
(Yang, 2005; McAllister, 1995)
4

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. 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. 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. METHODOLOGY
THEORETICAL MODEL MEASURES CONTROL VARIABLES
8

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. 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. 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. 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. METHODOLOGY
DATA COLLECTION
SURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
& SAMPLE
13

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. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS MODEL
15

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. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS Across Samples MODEL
17

18. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS Within Samples MODEL
18

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. LOADINGS AND CROSS LOADINGS
The US and Turkey Sample
20

21. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS MODEL
Discriminant Validity
21

22. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS MODEL
Discriminant Validity
• AVEs > Correlations with other latent variables
22

23. MODEL ASSESSMENT
GENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT
MEAN COMPARISON
ELEMENTS MODEL
Reliability
• Composite reliabilities > .7 (Hair et al., 1992; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994)
23

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. RESULTS
OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT
CONTROL VARIABLES
RESULTS COMPARISONS
• Estimated coefficients of the path analysis
• The US Sample / Turkey Sample
25

26. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS
Coefficients for the US sample is in bold
26

27. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS
Coefficients for the US sample is in bold
27

28. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS
Coefficients for the US sample is in bold
AFTER ADDRESSING SIMPSON’S PARADOX
28

29. RESULTS
OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT
CONTROL VARIABLES
RESULTS COMPARISONS
The US Sample
• Number of people in the organization & age
29

30. RESULTS
OVERVIEW OF PATH COEFFICIENT
CONTROL VARIABLES
RESULTS COMPARISONS
Turkey Sample
• Role ambiguity, Job Autonomy, Tenure, Non-profit org.
30

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. ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS
Coefficients for the US sample is in bold
32

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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