Over the past few years, the topic of trust in management has received much scholarly attention. The fall of Enron and other such recent scandals where hundreds of employees lost their jobs may explain

However, there is more to gaining trust than simple task assignments. Managers must consider five factors that influence subordinate’s perceived trust. First, behavioral consistency is important because consistency leads to predictability in behavior. Knowing that a manager will respond well to a new idea is important to an employee’s sense of importance and security. Next, behavioral integrity should be displayed through telling the truth and keeping one’s promises. Thirdly, the sharing and delegation of control is a direct demonstration of a manager’s trust in an employee, and may compel the employee to reciprocate that trust. This also affirms the employees importance in an organization. Next, the factor of communication involves three stipulations, that managers communicate accurate information, include their explanations for decisions, and express openness. Lastly, to establish perceived trust, a manager must demonstrate concern for employees. This is accomplished in three ways, firstly by showing sensitivity for employee needs, secondly by acting in a way that protects employees, and thirdly by refraining from exploiting others for one’s own benefit. (Whitener p. 516-518) The use of these influence tactics is a direct form of persuasion on the part of the manager. If all these behaviors are demonstrated by a manager, then it is likely the employee will develop a sense of perceived trust.

It is not hard to see why so much scholarly attention has been given to managerial trust. Benefits of establishing this form of trust seem endless. However, it is a complex subject, very hard to establish, and a very difficult form of persuasive discourse. Furthermore, I question the extent to which organizations actually use this influence process. A study by Kipnis et al. (1980) found that while trust and rationality are preferred within organizations, in practice, most managers simply assert their authority to motivate employees.

Fourteen of the fifteen surveys were collected. Of the fourteen surveys, 8 respondents rated their manager as highly trustworthy with a score of four or five. Two respondents were neutral with a rating of 3, and four respondents reported low trustworthiness with a rating of 1 or 2. In response to the question of the importance of trusting a manager, 85% of the respondents did not think it was important.

The fact that trusting employees sometimes think their managers lie may be because the question was in reverse order from the others. Employees might also think lying is a necessary evil. The somewhat mixed response to the questions of rewards and punishments may be attributed to the inapplicable nature of the question (he/she may not have been working there long enough to be rewarded or punished, therefore he/she was neutral).

In an experiment by Dong Jung et al. (2000) trust was found to be a very important in leadership. This study involved two leaders who either established a trusting relationship with a group, or did not. It was found that the group with the trustworthy leader had greater productivity, a better quality of ideas, and the subjects reported liking the trustworthy leader more (Jung p. 960). This research suggests that trust should be actively and consciously pursued by management.

Some topics in this essay:
Ellen Whitener, Discourse Analysis, David Kipnis, Diner Cop-ez, Andrew Wicks, Anderson Consulting, Adriatico’s Pizza, Dong Jung, Literature Review, , perceived trust, et al, managerial trust, trust managers, employee trust, trust manager, social exchange, social exchange theory, tactics measured, survey distributed, kipnis 2001, trust managers employees, employee trust manager, plays pivotal role, trust plays pivotal,