Aziz BakayDissertation Defense    May 9th, 2012
LITERATURE REVIEW                                                           TRUST BASES  PHENOMENON OF                    ...
LITERATURE REVIEW                                                         TRUST BASESPHENOMENON OF                        ...
LITERATURE REVIEW                                            TRUST BASESPHENOMENON OF                 TRUST ATTRIBUTES    ...
LITERATURE REVIEW    TRUST AND                                              CULTURAL                              IMPORTAN...
LITERATURE REVIEWTRUST AND                                            CULTURAL                        IMPORTANCE OFWORKPLA...
LITERATURE REVIEWTRUST AND                                           CULTURAL                       IMPORTANCE OFWORKPLACE...
METHODOLOGYTHEORETICAL MODEL      MEASURES   CONTROL VARIABLES                                                      8
METHODOLOGY THEORETICAL MODEL                 MEASURES                CONTROL VARIABLES         • Scales are adopted.     ...
METHODOLOGYTHEORETICAL MODEL      MEASURES               CONTROL VARIABLES                            • Role Ambiguity, Jo...
METHODOLOGY                             DATA COLLECTION   SURVEY DESIGN                               STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...
METHODOLOGY                       DATA COLLECTIONSURVEY DESIGN                                     STATISTICAL ANALYSIS   ...
METHODOLOGY                  DATA COLLECTIONSURVEY DESIGN                       STATISTICAL ANALYSIS                      ...
METHODOLOGY                  DATA COLLECTIONSURVEY DESIGN                              STATISTICAL ANALYSIS               ...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                     MEASUREMENT                MEAN COMPARISON   ELEMENTS                   ...
MODEL ASSESSMENT    GENERAL MODEL                                          MEASUREMENT                               MEAN ...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                     MEASUREMENT                MEAN COMPARISON   ELEMENTS      Across Sample...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                     MEASUREMENT                MEAN COMPARISON   ELEMENTS      Within Sample...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                                         MEASUREMENT                          MEAN COMPARISON...
LOADINGS AND CROSS LOADINGS   The US and Turkey Sample                              20
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                        MEASUREMENT                MEAN COMPARISON   ELEMENTS                ...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                                       MEASUREMENT                         MEAN COMPARISON   ...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                                           MEASUREMENT                           MEAN COMPARI...
MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL                                           MEASUREMENT                          MEAN COMPARIS...
RESULTS OVERVIEW OF                                    PATH COEFFICIENT                          CONTROL VARIABLES   RESUL...
ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS     Coefficients for the US sample is in bold                                 ...
ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS     Coefficients for the US sample is in bold                                 ...
ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS     Coefficients for the US sample is in bold    AFTER ADDRESSING SIMPSON’S PA...
RESULTS   OVERVIEW OF                                   PATH COEFFICIENT                             CONTROL VARIABLES    ...
RESULTS   OVERVIEW OF                                            PATH COEFFICIENT                             CONTROL VARI...
RESULTSOVERVIEW OF                                      PATH COEFFICIENT                       CONTROL VARIABLES  RESULTS ...
ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTS OF THE PATH ANALYSIS     Coefficients for the US sample is in bold                                 ...
DISCUSSION                   Warped and Linear Relationships  AFFECTIVE                              JOB PERFORMANCE      ...
DISCUSSION                   Warped and Linear Relationships    AFFECTIVE                             JOB PERFORMANCE     ...
DISCUSSION                    Warped and Linear Relationships     AFFECTIVE                              JOB PERFORMANCE  ...
DISCUSSION                   Warped and Linear Relationships   AFFECTIVE                              JOB PERFORMANCE     ...
CONCLUSION• Dispositional trust is a strong predictor of trust.• Trust holds its importance in organizations supporting th...
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESERACH• Nature of relationship between trust variables and outcomes (Dirks,  1999)    • Main effe...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dissertation Defense

1,514 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,514
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
140
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Dissertation Defense

    1. 1. Aziz BakayDissertation 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 BASESPHENOMENON 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 BASESPHENOMENON 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 REVIEWTRUST AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OFWORKPLACE DIFFERENCES CONTEXTOUTCOMES 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 REVIEWTRUST AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OFWORKPLACE DIFFERENCES CONTEXTOUTCOMES 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. METHODOLOGYTHEORETICAL 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 Cronbachs alphas > .7(Schoorman et al., 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2008; Macdonald & MacIntyre, 1997) 9
    10. 10. METHODOLOGYTHEORETICAL 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 COLLECTIONSURVEY 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 COLLECTIONSURVEY DESIGN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & SAMPLE 13
    14. 14. METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTIONSURVEY 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 ASSESSMENTGENERAL 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 ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS Across Samples MODEL 17
    18. 18. MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS Within Samples MODEL 18
    19. 19. MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL 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 ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Discriminant Validity 21
    22. 22. MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Discriminant Validity • AVEs > Correlations with other latent variables 22
    23. 23. MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL MODEL MEASUREMENT MEAN COMPARISON ELEMENTS MODEL Reliability• Composite reliabilities > .7 (Hair et al., 1992; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) 23
    24. 24. MODEL ASSESSMENTGENERAL 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. RESULTSOVERVIEW 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

    ×