A correlation of servantleadership, leader trust, and

organizational trustErrol E. Joseph and Bruce E. Winston

School of Leadership Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – Aims to explore the relationship between employee perceptions of servant leadership andleader trust, as well as organizational trust.

Design/methodology.approach – Uses Laub’s Organizational Leadership Assessment along withNyhan and Marlowe’s Organizational Trust Inventory.

Findings – Perceptions of servant leadership correlated positively with both leader trust andorganizational trust. The study also found that organizations perceived as servant-led exhibitedhigher levels of both leader trust and organizational trust than organizations perceived asnon-servant-led.

Originality/value – The findings lend support to Greenleaf’s view that servant leadership is anantecedent of leader and organizational trust, and to aspects of other servant leadership models.

Keywords Leadership, Trust

Paper type Research paper

Servant leadership research has increased from 1999 to 2004 with the emergence ofservant leadership models from Farling et al. (1999), Russell and Stone (2002), Page andWong (2000), and Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), as well as the development of instrumentsby Laub (1999), Page and Wong (2000), as well as Sendjaya and Sarros (2002). In each ofthe servant leadership models presented by these researchers, trust is a commonvariable, and thus the focus of this paper. Laub’s (1999) instrument has received the mostuse in the current servant leadership research stream as indicated by its use in studies byBeazley (2002), Ledbetter (2003), Drury (2004), and Irving (2004). Since Laub’s instrumenthas gained popularity and appears to have validity for the main factor of servantleadership as well as high reliability in the studies that have used it, this current paperchose to use Laub’s instrument to measure organizational servant leadership. Laub’sfocus on the organization led this paper to consider the following aspects of trust in orderto see if either or both forms of trust were related to servant leadership, i.e.:

. trust in the leader; and

. trust in the organization.

This study presents literature on leader’s trust, organizational trust, servantleadership, methods/procedures, data, and analysis.

Leader’s trustAccording Nyhan and Marlowe (1997), as well as Nyhan (2000), trust is the level ofconfidence that one individual has in another’s competence and his or her willingness

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ26,1

6

Received December 2003Revised August 2004Accepted September 2004

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol. 26 No. 1, 2005pp. 6-22q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739DOI 10.1108/01437730510575552

to act in a fair, ethical, and predictable manner. Trust is a multidimensional construct(Cufaude, 1999; Maren et al., 1999; Sparks, 2000) involving interpersonal trust (Davis,1999; Gomez and Rosen, 2001; Mikulincer, 1997; Omodei and McLennan, 2000) ordyadic trust (Gurtman, 1992; Larzelere and Huston, 1980; Matthews and Shimoff,1979), interorganizational trust (Bell et al., 2002; Davenport et al., 1999; Huff and Kelley,forthcoming), political trust (Hetherington, 1998; Parker, 1989; Parker and Parker,1993), societal trust (Muller and Mitchell, 1994; Oxendinea et al., 2003; Shah et al., 2001),peer trust in the workplace (Ammeter, 2000; Holton, 2001; McAllister, 1995), trustbetween superiors and subordinates (Barling et al., 2003; Cherry, 2000; Costigan et al.,1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Velez, 2000), and organizationaltrust (Armstrong-Stassen et al., 2001; Courtney, 1998; Daley and Vasu, 1998; Gilbertand Tang, 1998; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). This current study was concernedparticularly with the latter two dimensions of trust, namely trust between superiorsand subordinates (trust in the leader), and trust in the organization.

Leaders generate and sustain trust (Bennis, 2002; DePree, 2002) through thebehavior of the leader. For example, trust seems to be determined primarily by thebehavior of the leader’s communicative and supportive behaviors (Gimbel, 2001;Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998). Woolston (2001) determined that preservation ofcultural norms by the leader engendered trust by faculty of a new dean. Simons (1999)theorized that behavioral integrity, the perceived degree of congruence betweenespoused and enacted values, is critical for the development of employees’ trust inmanagers. Behavior is thus the medium for assessing and acting on perceptions ofoverall trust in leaders (Sparks, 2000). Trust violations, such as in contract breaches,decreased trust in employers, resulting in lower employee contributions to theorganization (Braun, 1997). Moreover, in negative encounters, a manager’s behaviorwas directly related to employee trust, although this relationship was partly explainedby the extent to which the manager was blamed for the negative event (Korsgaard et al.,2002). In addition, procedural justice is a significant predictor of trust in a supervisor(Flaherty and Pappas, 2000; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994).

Leaders’ communication practices affect followers’ trust in the leader. For example,the amount of information received about the job and organization helped explain thevariance both of trust in top management and trust in immediate supervisors (Ellis andShockley-Zalabak, 2001). Similarly, frequent communication both before and afteracquisition by another company and useful information to employees about anacquired company increased acquired employees’ perceptions of the newmanagement’s trustworthiness (Nikandrou et al., 2000). From a social exchangeperspective, frequent exchange builds trust between leaders and followers (Cherry,2000; Kollock, 1994).

Mayer et al.’s (1995) model of dyadic trust in an organizational context proposedthat trust for the trustee will be a function of the trustee’s perceived ability,benevolence, and integrity, and of the trustor’s propensity to trust. They defined trustas:

. . . the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on theexpectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. This definition of trust isapplicable to a relationship with another identifiable party who is perceived to act and reactwith volition toward the trustor (p. 711).

Servantleadership and

trust

7

Mayer et al.’s model, when applied to the relationship between leaders and followers,suggests that trust in the leader will be a function, in part, of the leader’s perceivedability, benevolence, and integrity. Put differently, trust in the leader is a product of theleader’s behavior. The foregoing discussion underlines that trust in a leader isdetermined to a great extent by various aspects of the behavior of that leader.

Trust in the organizationThe relationship between leader behavior and organizational behavior is wellestablished (Giberson, 2001; Pillai et al., 1999; Schnake et al., 1995; Schnake et al., 1993;Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Sims and Brinkman, 2002; Townsend et al., 2000; Williamset al., 1992), as well as the relationship between leader behavior and the values oforganizations (Martinez and Dorfman, 1998; Shadur et al., 1999). Upper echelontheorists, for example, take the view that top management characteristics can be usedto predict organizational outcomes (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Leaders shapeorganizational culture through:

. what they pay attention to and reward;

. the way they allocate resources;

. role modeling;

. the manner in which they deal with critical incidents; and

. the criteria they use for recruitment, selection, promotion, and dismissal (Shein,1992).

Thus, it is worth looking at the relationship of perceived servant leadership and trust,since trust is part of the organizational culture.

Regarding trust as a part of the organizational culture, Martinez and Dorfman(1998) identified six core aspects of the role of such leaders in their organizations, one ofwhich was the establishment of relationships characterized by confidence, trust, andreliance. Several additional factors (Cufaude, 1999) are associated with a culture oftrust in an organization, including:

. the depth and quality of interpersonal relationships;

. clarity of roles and responsibilities;

. frequency, timeliness, and forthrightness of communication;

. competence to get the job done;

. clarity of shared purpose;

. direction and vision; and

. honoring promises and commitments.

It is noticeable that several of these factors result from leader behavior. Levin (1999)confirmed the leader’s role in creating a culture of trust in the organization, in that aclimate of trust exists in organizations when managers do what they say they aregoing to do (credibility) and behave in a predictable manner (consistency).

The leader’s behavior is thus more important than that of anyone else indetermining the level of trust that exists within a group or organization (Offerman,1998). Korthuis-Smith (2002) found that participative leadership, direction, peopledecisions, organizational support, and performance feedback and improvement

LODJ26,1

8

opportunities were highly related to this dimension of trust. Furthermore, higherassessments of supervisory performance lead to higher levels of organizational trust(Daley and Vasu, 1998). Northouse (2001) supported this link between performance andtrust with regard to integrity and consistency when he stated that transforming leadersbuild trust in organizations by making their positions clearly known, standing bythem, and by articulating and consistently implementing a particular direction. Sinceservant leadership has a strong tie to integrity, it is worth looking at the relationship ofservant leadership and trust.

Servant leadership and trustThe concept of servant leadership is not new (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; Spears, 1996).It has been practiced for centuries upon centuries throughout all cultures (Nyabadza,2003) and has been described as a fundamental, timeless principle (Covey, 1977). Laub(1999) defined servant leadership as:

. . . an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over theself-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development ofpeople, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership forthe good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of eachindividual, the total organization and those served by the organization (p. 81).

Greenleaf’s servant leadershipGreenleaf (1977) introduced the concept of servant leadership through an essay entitled“The servant as leader” and credited Herman Hesse’s The Journey to the East as thesource of his idea of the servant leader. Greenleaf proposed that “the great leader isseen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (p. 21). ForGreenleaf, servant leadership

. . . begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then consciouschoice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leaderfirst [. . .] The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make surethat other people’s highest priority needs are being served (p. 27).

Greenleaf (1977), argued that the best test of servant leadership is:

Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer,more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on theleast privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived? (p. 27).

Greenleaf (1977) applied his concept to institutions, trusteeship, business, education,foundations, and churches. Greenleaf also emphasized that leaders who practicedservant leadership were more likely to be trusted.

Attributes of servant leadersIn addition to being servants first, Greenleaf (1977) identified several other keyattributes of servant leaders. These included initiative, listening and understanding,imagination, the ability to withdraw, acceptance and empathy, intuition, foresight,awareness and perception, the ability to persuade, the ability to conceptualize, healingand serving, and the ability to build community.

Servantleadership and

trust

9

Other proponents of servant leadership have identified various combinations ofattributes (Farling et al., 1999; Kiechel, 1992; Laub, 1999; McGee-Cooper and Trammell,2002; Moon, 1999; Pollard, 1996; Rardin, 2001; Rinehart, 1998; Russell, 2001).

Spears (1995 1998) listed, for example, ten characteristics of a servant leader drawnfrom Greenleaf’s writings, and Contee-Borders’s (2003) case study confirmed thesecharacteristics as being critical to servant leadership:

. listening – servant leaders clarify the will of a group by listening receptively towhat is being said;

. empathy – servant leaders strive to understand and empathize with others;

. healing – servant leaders have the potential for healing self and others;

. awareness – servant leadership is strengthened by general awareness, andespecially self-awareness;

. persuasion – servant leaders rely upon persuasion, rather than positionalauthority, in making decisions within an organization;

. conceptualization – servant leaders seek to nurture their abilities to dream greatdreams;

. foresight – servant leaders have the ability to foresee the likely outcome of asituation in the future;

. stewardship – servant leaders’ first and foremost commitment is to serve theneeds of others;

. commitment to the growth of people – servant leaders are deeply committed tothe personal, professional, and spiritual growth of each and every individualwithin the institution; and

. building community – servant leaders seek to identify means of buildingcommunity among those who work within a given institution.

Lubin’s (2001) work validated nine of these ten servant leadership characteristics asbeing congruent with visionary leader behaviors. The ten characteristics were alsoused by servant leaders in education administration to compose an educationalenvironment founded on equality and integrity (Taylor-Gillham, 1998).

A review of the literature yielded a list of 20 distinguishable attributes that formedthe basis of a practical model of servant leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002). Russelland Stone (2002) asserted that this list built on Spears’ (1995 1998) characteristics andincorporated the attributes that Greenleaf (1977) identified. They classified nine of theattributes identified as functional attributes – the operative qualities, characteristics,and distinctive features belonging to leaders and observed through specific leaderbehaviors in the workplace. These included vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service,modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Along with thefunctional attributes, Russell and Stone (2002) also identified 11 accompanyingattributes of servant leadership that supplement and augment the functionalattributes. These were communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility,influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation.

Servant leadership thus becomes evident through a particular set of leaderattributes and behaviors. This paper proposes that these behaviors impact trust in theleader and in the organization. This relationship is explored further below.

LODJ26,1

10

Trust and servant leadershipRelationships built on trust and service are the basis for the influence of servantleadership (Sarkus, 1996; Tatum, 1995). Greenleaf (1977) advanced that trust wascentral to servant leadership since leadership legitimacy begins with trust. He notedthat “the only sound basis for trust is for people to have the solid experience of beingserved by their institutions” (p. 83). He asserted further that in servant leadership,leadership is bestowed upon persons who are trusted because of their stature asservants (p. 24). Servant leaders are trusted because they empathize with and fullyaccept followers (p. 35), because of their dependability, which results from theirexceptional intuitive insight (p. 56), and because they lead by example (p. 342). Trustand respect are highest in circumstances where a community is created through servicein which the liability of “each for the other” and “all for one” is unlimited (p. 52).Greenleaf (1977) posited that institutional trust is created when their trustees (leaders)reach distinction as servants who understand the institution and care for all thepersons touched by it (p. 100). Greenleaf (1977) stated that leaders hold theresponsibility for the level and type of institutional performance that would merit trust(pp. 127-8). Therefore, from Greenleaf’s perspective, servant leadership is both aproduct and an antecedent of leader and organizational trust. This may be due to thefact that servant leadership increases perceptions of leader trustworthiness, which hasa reciprocal relationship to leader trust (Zolin, 2002).

Trust is an important factor in the interdependence that exists between leaders andfollowers in servant leadership (Farling et al., 1999). Concern for others that places thefollowers’ self-interests as priorities, a central element of servant leadership, elicitstrust from the followers for the leaders. Leaders’ concern contributes to followers’concern and to the level of trust that followers will place in leaders (Farling et al, 1999).Russell and Stone’s (2002) model of servant leadership presented trust as one of thefunctional attributes of servant leadership. Russell and Stone (2002) argued further forthe significance of trust to leader-member relations, in that leaders’ concern for peopleand the practice of integrity are essential to building interpersonal trust. Russell (2001)also argued that the values of servant leaders (independent variables that actuateservant leader behavior) yield both observable attributes and affect the leaders’organizations. He notes that these values play a primary role in establishing theinterpersonal and organizational trust that holds servant-led organizations together.

Servant leadership impacts trust through its influence on corporate culture(Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). McGee-Cooper (1998) proposed a new model ofaccountability-based servant leadership that she suggested will lead to a new level ofshared trust and interdependence in organizations. This has been demonstrated inpractice in companies such as TDI Industries, at which servant leadership principleswere used to build an organizational culture of trust that resulted in outstandingorganizational performance (Lowe, 1998). When a leader has spirit, the drive behind theurge to serve takes one into an active role as servant, building trust not only betweenthe leader and follower but also between followers (Spears, 1998). Servant leaders buildtrust by:

. genuinely empowering workers;

. involving employees early;

. honoring commitments and being consistent;

Servantleadership and

trust

11

. developing coaching skills and fostering risk taking (Melrose, 1998);

. an appropriate management style; and

. through trustworthiness that is built on integrity and competence (Covey, 1991).

“Trust given and received creates the climate for service at the deepest level” (Tatum,1995, p. 312).

The relationship between servant leadership and organizational trust is furtherunderscored by the fact that several of the functional and accompanying attributesascribed to servant leaders (Russell and Stone, 2002) are associated with thedevelopment of interpersonal and organizational trust, including:

. integrity (Bell et al., 2002; Davis, 1999; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Martin, 1999;Mayer et al., 1995; Simons, 1999);

. modeling (Podsakoff et al., 1996);

. communication (Cufaude, 1999; Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; Fisman andKhanna, 1999; Holton, 2001; Kollock, 1994; Larsen and McInerney, 2002;Nikandrou et al., 2000; Sparks, 2000; Staples, 2001);

. competence (Daley and Vasu, 1998; McAllister, 1995; Mechanic and Meyer, 2000;Ovaice, 2001); and

. delegation (reflected in empowerment and participative decision-making)(Korthuis-Smith, 2002; Nyhan, 2000; Spence-Laschinger et al., 2001; Weberand Weber, 2001).

The foregoing review establishes that a relationship exists between servant leadershipand trust in the leader, as well as servant leadership and followers’ trust in theorganization, and thus proposes the following hypotheses:

H1. There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions oforganizational servant leadership and leader trust.

H1a. Servant-led organizations will have higher levels of leader trust thatnon-servant led organizations.

H2. There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions oforganizational servant leadership and organizational trust.

H2a. Servant-led organizations will have higher levels of organizational trust thatnon-servant led organizations.

Method and proceduresTo test the hypotheses, this study used a filed-based survey approach to collecting dataon the level of servant leadership in the organization, the level of followers’ trust in theleader, and the level of followers’ trust in the organization.

SampleThe study used a convenience sample of 69 employed persons, 51 of whom wereemployed students attending a small evening Bible college and 15 who were employeesof a small Christian high school in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.

LODJ26,1

12

There were 23 (33.3 percent) men and 41 (59.4 percent) women (sex was not indicatedon five – or 7.2 percent – of the questionnaires). Four age groups were represented:18-25 (18, 26.1 percent), 26-35 (23, 33.3 percent), 36-50 (22, 31.9 percent) and over 50(6, 8.7 percent). Years of employment ranged from less than one year to over 15 years.The sample included persons in top leadership (2, 2.9 percent),management/supervision (18, 26.1 percent), and members of the workforce (42, 60.9percent). Several types of organizations were represented, including for-profitbusinesses (20, 29 percent), religious organizations (3, 4.3 percent), government (11, 15.9percent), medical services (2, 2.9 percent), and education (22, 31.8 percent).

MeasuresA cross-sectional survey, consisting of the Organizational Leadership Assessment(OLA) and the Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI), was used to collect data. Inaddition, six demographic questions were added (regarding age, sex, marital status,tenure, type of organization, and position in the organization) in order to develop ademographic profile of the sample.

The OLA, a 66-item instrument, initially called the “Servant OrganizationLeadership Assessment” (Laub, 1999), was used to distinguish servant leadership fromnon-servant leadership. Laub demonstrated that the instrument is a statisticallyreliable means for measuring servant leadership in an organizational context(Cronbach’s a of 0.98). The instrument consists of 33 leader assessment items, 27organization assessment items, and six items that sought to assess job satisfaction. Ituses a five-point Likert scale anchored on the ends by “strongly disagree” and“strongly agree”. It has been used successfully elsewhere (Beazley, 2002) to distinguishbetween servant leadership and non-servant leadership.

The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) (Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997) was used tomeasure the level of both leader trust and organizational trust. The OTI is a reliableand valid 12-item scale designed to measure an individual’s level of trust in his or hersupervisor and in his or her organization as a whole. Items 1-8 measured trust in thesupervisor and items 9-12 measured trust in the overall organization. The instrumentused a seven-point Likert scale anchored on the ends by “nearly zero” and “near 100percent” and demonstrated very high reliability (coefficient alphas of between 0.95 and0.96) (Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997).

ProcedureQuestionnaires were distributed to both groups of employees with a set date for theirreturn. The survey was re-administered, during class time set aside for that purpose, tothose students who did not return the original questionnaire. The high schoolemployees were asked to complete the questionnaire as a part of an end of year leaderevaluation exercise. Of the 64 questionnaires sent to the employed students, 51 werereturned and usable, while 15 of the 19 questionnaires returned by the high schoolemployees were usable. These 69 questionnaires provided the data for the analysis anddiscussion.

Servant-led and non-servant-led organizations were determined by the mean scoreson the 60 servant leadership items of the OLA. To investigate the relationship betweenperception of servant leadership and leader trust and organizational trust (H1 and H2),separate Pearson’s product moment coefficients of correlation were calculated between

Servantleadership and

trust

13

employee perceptions of servant leadership and leader trust and between employeeperceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust, respectively. Although notpart of the hypotheses, linear regression was used to determine the amount of varianceof leader trust and organizational trust explained by employee perceptions of servantleadership. Analysis of variance by demographic categories was used to determinewhether demographic variables had any impact on the relationship betweenperceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust.

Comparison of means through independent samples t-tests were used to investigatewhether servant-led organizations had a higher level of leader trust thannon-servant-led organizations (H1a) and whether servant-led organizations had ahigher level of organizational trust than non-servant-led organizations (H2a). Analysisof variance by demographic categories was used to determine whether demographicvariables had any impact on the relationship. The results of the investigation follow.

ResultsPerception of servant leadership was calculated from the total score of the 60 servantleadership items of the OLA. The six items measuring job satisfaction were eliminatedto allow a more focused servant leadership score. Eleven of the organizations wereidentified as servant-led organizations (mean of 4.00 or above), while the remaining 58were identified as non-servant led organizations (mean of less than 4.00).

Both H1 and H2 were strongly supported. A moderate positive correlation(r ¼ 0:64, p ¼ 0:000) was found between perception of organizational servantleadership and leader trust, indicating that a substantial relationship exists betweenthe variables. H1 was thus supported. There was also a high correlation betweenperception of organizational servant leadership and organizational trust (r ¼ 0:72,p ¼ 0:000). Analysis of variance by demographic categories revealed that therelationship between perception of servant leadership and both leader trust andorganizational trust remained the same for most demographic categories. The onlyexceptions were age, Fð1; 56Þ ¼ 4:07, p ¼ 0:005, and sex, Fð5; 64Þ ¼ 9:42, p ¼ 0:014, inrelation to leader trust.

The regression models of the relationship between perception of servant leadershipand leader trust, Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 47:22, p ¼ 0:000, and perception of servant leadership andorganizational trust, Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 70:27, p ¼ 0:000, were both significant. The modelsindicated that perception of servant leadership accounted for 41 percent of the variancein leader trust and for 51 percent of the variance in organizational trust.

H1a and H2a were also supported. The independent-samples t-test revealed astatistically significant difference, tð67Þ ¼ 3:47, p ¼ 0:001, in the means for leader trustof organizations perceived as servant-led (M ¼ 6:44, SD ¼ 0:34) and thoseorganizations perceived as non-servant-led (M ¼ 5:14, SD ¼ 1:23), providing supportfor H1a. There was a positive mean difference in leader trust of 0.130 betweenorganizations identified as servant-led and those identified as non-servant-led,providing further support for H1a.

Similarly, the independent-samples t-test revealed a statistically significantdifference, tð21:3Þ ¼ 6:20, p ¼ 0:000, in the means for organizational trust oforganizations perceived as servant-led (M ¼ 5:98, SD ¼ 0:72) and those perceived asnon-servant-led (M ¼ 4:34, SD ¼ 1:16), providing support for H2a. There was apositive mean difference in organizational trust of 0.164 between organizations

LODJ26,1

14

identified as servant-led and those identified as non-servant-led, providing furthersupport for H2a.

The positive correlation between perceptions of servant leadership and leader trust,and between perceptions of servant leadership and organizational trust, mentionedearlier, also supports H1a and H2a, respectively. Analysis of variance by demographiccategories did not reveal any statistically significant influence of these demographicvariables on either the level of either leader or the level of organization trust.

DiscussionThe major distinctive of this research is the establishment of the strong relationshipbetween servant leadership and leader and organizational trust. All four hypotheses ofthis study were supported, suggesting that servant leadership affects organizations byhelping to establish the interpersonal and organizational trust that holds servant-ledorganizations together (Russell, 2001). The first two relate to the relationship betweenleaders and followers, while the latter relate to the relationship between leaders and theorganization, in servant leadership and trust theory.

There was a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizationalservant leadership and leader trust. That employee perceptions of organizationalservant leadership resulted in higher levels of leader trust than perceptions ofnon-servant leadership sheds light on the relationship between leaders and followers inservant leadership and trust theory. Trust theory has established that leader behaviorplays a significant role in the development of trust in the leader (Bennis, 2002;Courtney, 1998; DePree, 2002; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Flaherty and Pappas, 2000;Gimbel, 2001; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Mayer et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996;Sparks, 2000; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998). This particular finding is significantbecause it provides empirical support for models proposing that servant leadership isone of the specific leadership behaviors that elicits trust from others (Farling et al.,1999; McGee-Cooper, 1998; Russell and Stone, 2002). Greenleaf (1977) himself perceivedservant leadership as both a product and an antecedent of leader and organizationaltrust. This may be due to the fact that servant leadership increases perceptions ofleader trustworthiness, which has a reciprocal relationship to leader trust (Zolin, 2002).Relationships built on trust and service form the basis of influence for servantleadership (Sarkus, 1996).

There is a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizationalservant leadership and organizational trust. That employee perceptions oforganizational servant leadership result in higher levels of organizational trust thanperceptions of non-servant leadership sheds light on the relationship between leadersand organizations in servant leadership and trust theory. The impact of servantleadership on corporate culture is confirmed (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). Servantleadership builds trust not only between the leader and follower, but also betweenfollowers (Spears, 1998) and may thus lead to new levels of shared trust andinterdependence in organizations (McGee-Cooper, 1998). Servant leadership is thusestablished as an important variable in understanding, development, and maintenanceof organizational trust.

These findings support Greenleaf’s (1977) view that servant leadership is anantecedent of leader and organizational trust. It also supports the models developed byRussell and Stone (2002) and by Farling et al. (1999). Both models proposed that leader

Servantleadership and

trust

15

and organizational trust are the products of servant leadership. Farling et al. (1999)proposed that leader concern contributes to follower concern and to the level of trustthat followers will place in leaders, while Russell and Stone’s model of servantleadership presented trust as one of the functional attributes of servant leadership.Russell (2001) also argued that the values of servant leaders yield observable attributesand play a primary role in establishing the interpersonal and organizational trust thatholds servant-led organizations together.

Interpretation of the findings of this study should bear its limitations in mind. Onelimitation is the narrowness of the sample – comprised of members of the Pentecostalreligion located in a particular country. It is possible that Pentecostals as a group havea greater propensity to trust than other groups. The same may be said of thecountry-specific sample, since nationality and cultural differences might moderatetrust relationships (Banai and Reisel, 1999; Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1995; Huff andKelley, in press; Park et al., 2002). The study should be replicated with a more diversesample. Furthermore, this study did not take into account other moderating variablessuch as organizational communication and the organizational context. The study couldalso be improved by the use of a larger sample.

The foregoing discussion suggests several opportunities for future research. Thelimitations identified earlier suggest a need to replicate this study with a larger, morereligiously, nationally, and culturally diverse sample. There is also a need toinvestigate the effect of trust moderators such as leader and organizationalcommunication on the relationship between servant leadership and trust.Furthermore, research should also explore the relationship between particularattributes of servant leadership and leader and organizational trust.

The findings of this study have practical implications for managers andorganizations. Servant leadership has the potential to improve organizationalperformance, including:

. organizational satisfaction (Laub, 1999);

. safety practices (Sarkus, 1996);

. productivity (Osborne, 1995); and

. financial performance (Melrose, 1998; Ruschman, 2002).

This study suggests that this relationship is mediated through its impact on leader andorganizational trust. Trust theory has clearly established the important role of trust inorganizational effectiveness (Nyhan, 2000; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000), including:

. job satisfaction;

. organizational commitment;

. turnover intentions;

. belief in information provided by the leader; and

. commitment to decisions (Costigan et al., 1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Iversonet al., 1996; Spence-Laschinger et al., 2001).

Managers can improve organizational performance through the practice of servantleadership behaviors that increase trust in the manager and in the organization.

LODJ26,1

16

References

Ammeter, A.P.F. (2000), “Determinants of interpersonal trust in workgroup relationships”,Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3004207.

Armstrong-Stassen, M., Cameron, S.J., Mantler, J. and Horsburgh, M.E. (2001), “The impact ofhospital amalgamation on the job attitudes of nurses”, Revue Canadienne des Sciences del’Administration, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 149-62.

Banai, M. and Reisel, W.D. (1999), “Would you trust your foreign manager: an empiricalinvestigation”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 477-87.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Iverson, R.D. (2003), “Accidental outcomes: attitudinalconsequences of workplace injuries”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8No. 1, pp. 74-85.

Beazley, D.A. (2002), “Spiritual orientation of a leader and perceived servant leader behavior: acorrelational study”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3049889.

Bell, G.G., Oppenheimer, R.J. and Bastien, A. (2002), “Trust deterioration in an internationalbuyer-supplier relationship”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 36 No. 1/2, pp. 65-78.

Bennis, W. (2002), “Become a tomorrow leader”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership:Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 101-9.

Braun, C. (1997), “Organizational infidelity: how violations of trust affect the employee-employerrelationship”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 94-5.

Cherry, B.W. (2000), “The antecedents of trust in a manager: the subordinate tells the story oftime”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 9965903.

Contee-Borders, A.K. (2003), “A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace”,Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3069348.

Costigan, R.D., Ilter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust inorganizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-17.

Courtney, S.L. (1998), “Impact of trust on employee perceptions of organizational and leadereffectiveness”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 9821684.

Covey, S.R. (1977), “Foreword”, in Greenleaf, R.K., Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Natureof Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

Covey, S.R. (1991), Principle-Centered Leadership, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Cufaude, J. (1999), “Creating organizational trust”, Association Management, Vol. 51 No. 7,pp. 26-35.

Dahlstrom, R. and Nygaard, A. (1995), “An exploratory investigation of interpersonal trust innew and mature market economies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 339-62.

Daley, D.M. and Vasu, M.L. (1998), “Fostering organizational trust in North Carolina: the pivotalrole of administrators and political leaders”, Administration and Society, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 62-85.

Davenport, S., Davies, J. and Grimes, C. (1999), “Collaborative research programmes: buildingtrust from difference”, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 31-40.

Davis, G.M.W. (1999), “A test of an interpersonal trust model”, Dissertation AbstractsInternational, UMI No. 9935685.

DePree, M. (2002), “Servant leadership: three things necessary”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus onLeadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 89-97.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implicationsfor research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.

Servantleadership and

trust

17

Drury, S. (2004), “Employee perceptions of servant leadership: comparisons by level and with jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, RegentUniversity School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.

Ellis, K. and Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001), “Trust in top management and immediate supervisor:the relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and informationreceiving”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 382-99.

Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage forempirical research”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1/2, pp. 49-72.

Fisman, R. and Khanna, T. (1999), “Is trust a historical residue: information flows and trustlevels”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 38, pp. 79-92.

Flaherty, K.E. and Pappas, J.M. (2000), “The role of trust in salesperson-sales managerrelationships”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, p. 271.

Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, S.J.M.N. and Kubasek, N. (1998), “Do we really wantmore leaders in business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 15, pp. 1727-36.

Giberson, T.R. (2001), “Transferring of leader values: the creation of organizational culture”,Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3010085.

Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, T.L. (1998), “An examination of organizational trust antecedents”, PublicPersonnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 321-38.

Gimbel, P.A. (2001), “Understanding principal trust-building behaviors: evidence from threemiddle schools”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3018320.

Gomez, C. and Rosen, B. (2001), “The leader-member exchange as a link between managerialtrust and employee empowerment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 53-69.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power andGreatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

Gurtman, M.B. (1992), “Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 989-1002.

Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of itstop managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 193-206.

Hetherington, M.J. (1998), “The political relevance of political trust”, The American PoliticalScience Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 791-808.

Holton, J.A. (2001), “Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team”, Team PerformanceManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3/4, pp. 36-47.

Huff, L. and Kelley, L. (forthcoming), “Is collectivism a liability? The impact of culture onorganizational trust and customer orientation: a seven-nation study”, Journal of BusinessResearch, p. 5836.

Irving, J.A. (2004), “Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: findings and implications”,paper presented at the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent UniversitySchool of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA, August 2-3.

Iverson, R.D., McLeod, C.S. and Erwin, P.J. (1996), “The role of employee commitment and trustin service relationships”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 36-44.

Kiechel, W. III (1992), “The leader as servant”, Fortune, Vol. 125 No. 9, p. 121.

Kollock, P. (1994), “The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertaintycommitment and trust”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 313-45.

Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, p. 656.

LODJ26,1

18

Korsgaard, M.A., Brodt, S.E. and Whitener, E.M. (2002), “Trust in the face of conflict: the role ofmanagerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 312-9.

Korthuis-Smith, W.A. (2002), “Organizational trust: the influence of contextual variables”,Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3041822.

Larsen, K.R.T. and McInerney, C.R. (2002), “Preparing to work in the virtual organization”,Information and Management, Vol. 39, pp. 445-56.

Larzelere, R.E. and Huston, T.L. (1980), “The dyadic trust scale: toward understandinginterpersonal trust in close relationships”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 595-604.

Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the ServantOrganizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument”, Dissertation AbstractsInternational, UMI No. 9921922.

Ledbetter, D.S. (2003), “Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: reliability of theOrganizational Leadership Assessment”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, RegentUniversity School of Leadership Studies, Virginia Beach, VA.

Levin, S.L. (1999), “Development of an instrument to measure organizational trust”, DissertationAbstracts International, UMI No. 9920326.

Lowe, J. (1998), “Trust: the invaluable asset”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service,Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 68-76.

Lubin, K.A. (2001), “Visionary leadership behaviors and their congruency with servantleadership characteristics”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3022943.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonalcooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.

McGee-Cooper, A. (1998), “Accountability as covenant: the taproot of servant-leadership”, inSpears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, andServant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 77-84.

McGee-Cooper, A. and Trammell, D. (2002), “From hero-as-leader to servant-as-leader”, in Spears,L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley, New York,NY, pp. 141-51.

Maren, R.S., Wicks, A.C. and Huber, V.L. (1999), “Cooperating with the disempowered usingESOPS to forge a stakeholder relationship by anchoring employee trust in workplaceparticipation programs”, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 51-83.

Martin, D.F. (1999), “The impact of trust on leader-member exchange relationships”, DissertationAbstracts International, UMI No. 9933461.

Martinez, S.M. and Dorfman, P.W. (1998), “The Mexican entrepreneur: an ethnographic study ofthe Mexican ‘empresario’”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 28No. 2, p. 97.

Matthews, B.A. and Shimoff, E. (1979), “Expansion of exchange: monitoring trust levels inongoing exchange relations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 538-60.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizationaltrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.

Mechanic, D. and Meyer, S. (2000), “Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness”, SocialScience and Medicine, Vol. 51, pp. 657-68.

Melrose, K. (1998), “Putting servant-leadership into practice”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights onLeadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY,pp. 279-96.

Servantleadership and

trust

19

Mikulincer, M. (1997), “Attachment working models and the sense of trust: an exploration ofinteraction goals and affect regulation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1209-24.

Moon, S.M. (1999), “A study of servant leadership in Korea”, Masters Abstracts International,UMI No. 1393928.

Muller, E.N. and Mitchell, A.S. (1994), “Civic culture and democracy: the question of causalrelationships”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 635-53.

Nikandrou, I., Papalexandris, N. and Bourantas, D. (2000), “Gaining employee trust afteracquisition: implications for managerial action”, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4,pp. 334-55.

Northouse, P.G. (2001), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA.

Nyabadza, G.W. (2003), “Leadership at the peak – the 10th trait of effective leaders: ServantLeadership”, Zimbabwe Independent – AAGM, February 7.

Nyhan, R.C. (2000), “Changing the paradigm: trust and its role in public sector organizations”,American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-109.

Nyhan, R.C. and Marlowe, H.A. (1997), “Development and psychometric properties of theorganizational trust inventory”, Evaluation Review, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 614-35.

Offerman, L.R. (1998), “Leading and empowering diverse followers”, in Hickman, G.R. (Ed.),Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 397-403.

Omodei, M.M. and McLennan, J. (2000), “Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonalmistrust-trust”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 279.

Osborne, R. (1995), “Company with a soul”, Industry Week, May 1.

Ovaice, G. (2001), “The relationship of individualism and collectivism to perceptions ofinterpersonal trust in a global consulting firm”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMINo. 3017176.

Oxendinea, A., Borgidab, E., Sullivana, J.L. and Jackson, M.S. (2003), “The importance of trustand community in developing and maintaining a community electronic network”,International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 671-96.

Page, D. and Wong, T.P. (2000), “A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership”, inAdjibolosoo, S. (Ed.), The Human Factor in Shaping the Course of History andDevelopment, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

Park, H., Gowan, M. and Hwang, S.D. (2002), “Impact of national origin and entry mode on trustand organizational commitment”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 52-61.

Parker, G.R. (1989), “The role of constituent trust in congressional elections”, Public OpinionQuarterly, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 175-96.

Parker, S.L. and Parker, G.R. (1993), “Why do we trust our congressmen?”, The Journal of Politics,Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 442-53.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust asmediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journalof Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, p. 897.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviorsand substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 259-99.

LODJ26,1

20

Pollard, C.W. (1996), “The leader who serves”, in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Beckhard, R.(Eds), The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era,Drucker Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 241-8.

Rardin, R. (2001), The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles, Selah Publishing,Pittsburgh, PA.

Rinehart, S.T. (1998), Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership, NavPress, ColoradoSprings, CO.

Ruschman, N.L. (2002), “Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in America”, inSpears, L.C. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley,New York, NY, pp. 123-40.

Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 76-84.

Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing apractical model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-57.

Sarkus, D.J. (1996), “Servant-leadership in safety: advancing the cause of and practice”,Professional Safety, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 26-32.

Schnake, M., Cochran, D. and Dumler, M. (1995), “Encouraging organizational citizenship: theeffects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership”, Journal of Managerial Issues,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 209-52.

Schnake, M., Dumler, M.P. and Cochran, D.S. (1993), “The relationship between ‘traditional’leadership, ‘super’ leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior”, Group andOrganization Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 352-65.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1990), “Toward a theory of the universal content and structure ofvalues: extensions and cross-cultural replications”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 878-91.

Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.C. (2002), “Servant leadership: its origin, development, and applicationin organizations”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 57-65.

Shadur, M.A., Kienzle, R. and Rodwell, J.J. (1999), “The relationship between organizationalclimate and employee perceptions of involvement: the importance of support”, Group andOrganization Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 479-503.

Shah, D.V., Kwak, N. and Holbert, R.L. (2001), “‘Connecting’ and ‘disconnecting’ with civic life:Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital”, Political Communication,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 141-62.

Shein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organizational trust: what it means,why it matters”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 35-48.

Simons, T.L. (1999), “Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformationalleadership”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-104.

Sims, R.R. and Brinkman, J. (2002), “Leaders as moral role models: the case of John Gutfreund atSalomon Brothers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 327-39.

Sparks, J. (2000), “Exploring trust: a dynamic and multidimensional model of interpersonal trustdevelopment in a task setting”, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3059879.

Spears, L. (1996), “Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership”, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 33-5.

Servantleadership and

trust

21

Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1995), Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory ofServant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY.

Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, andServant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY.

Spence-Laschinger, H.K., Finegan, J. and Shamian, J. (2001), “The impact of workplaceempowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizationalcommitment”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 7-23.

Staples, D.S. (2001), “A study of remote workers and their differences from non-remote workers”,Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 3-14.

Tatum, J.B. (1995), “Meditations on servant-leadership”, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Reflections onLeadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’sTop Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 308-12.

Taylor-Gillham, D.J. (1998), “Images of servant leadership in education”, Dissertation AbstractsInternational, UMI No. 9839549.

Townsend, J., Phillips, J.S. and Elkins, T. (2000), “Employee retaliation: the neglectedconsequence of poor leader-member exchange relations”, Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 457-63.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W. (1998), “Trust in schools: a conceptual and empiricalanalysis”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 334-52.

Velez, P. (2000), “Interpersonal trust between supervisor and subordinate”, DissertationAbstracts International, UMI No. 3002301.

Weber, P.S. and Weber, J.E. (2001), “Changes in employee perceptions during organizationalchange”, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 291-300.

Williams, M.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Huber, V. (1992), “Effects of group-level and individual-levelvariation in leader behaviours on subordinate attitudes and performance”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 115-30.

Woolston, R.L. (2001), “Faculty perceptions of dean transitions: does trust matter”, DissertationAbstracts International, UMI No. 3007300.

Zolin, R. (2002), “Trust in cross-functional, global teams: developing and validating a model ofinter-personal trust in cross-functional global teams”, Dissertation Abstracts International,UMI No. 3048641.

LODJ26,1

22