Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Change and Development of Trust and the Implications for New Leaders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leaders, particularly new leaders, seek to establish high levels of trust, as it has been associated with higher levels of effectiveness and group outcomes. This study is designed to understand how trust changes and develops for leaders in a new role and the implications of that change. Although calls for research on trust over time have been made for the past 2 decades, our knowledge of this phenomenon is still quite limited. The findings indicate that leader and unit performance is a function not only of absolute trust level, but is also affected by the direction and magnitude of change in trust across time periods, with the highest levels of effectiveness being associated with leaders who exhibited an increase in trust from the group over time. The data also suggest that the direction and rate at which trust grew was determined by initial expectations and transformational leadership behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This could be due to a follower miscalibration, leader mistake, or intentional act. All will lead to a drop in trust.

  2. FIML estimation was thus utilized. Covariance coverage was above the recommended .75 threshold (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). To ensure data were MAR, we conducted a series of binomial regression analyses to ensure that missingness of variables at a given time was not predicted from study variables at prior times (for example, that T3 variables were not a function of T1 and T2 variables). No evidence was found to suggest data were not indeed missing at random, supporting our assumptions.

  3. Used with permission of Bruce Avolio.

  4. We started with T1 and T2 measures of trust as the primary periods under comparison, in order to create sufficient temporal separation to alleviate common methods concerns (as the leader effectiveness variable was measured at T3). To ensure, however, that our effects were stable and not contingent on specific measurement periods, we then reran the model utilizing T1 and T3 and then T2 and T3 as the observations comprising the comparisons.

  5. The curvilinear change in trust over time was not significantly predicted by expectations (non-linear γ = 0.10, p < 0.10), but was predicted by transformational leadership (non-linear γ = − 0.13, p < 0.01), but the actual rate of change at one standard deviation above and below the mean for expectations and transformational leadership was only significant for those above the mean in the latter (curve = − 0.09, p < 0.01), and that effect was relatively trivial. Rerunning the model without the curvilinear component resulted in no changes in coefficient sign or significance.

  6. We replicated the baseline analyses utilizing leadership effectiveness ratings reported by the focal leader’s superior, instead of by squad members; these results also produced very similar results, with an exception of a non-significant change slope.

References

  • Allison, P. (2002). Missing data. Sage University papers series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, no. 07–136. Sage.

  • Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). MLQ—Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Menlo Park: Mind Garden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M., & Gambetta, D. (2001). Trust in signs. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 148–184). Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R., & Bonacich, P. (1970). The development of trust and mistrust in mixed mixed-motive games. Sociometry, 33(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 829–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo, S., Premazzi, K., & Zerbini, F. (2010). The meaning(s) of trust: A content analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on business relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 657–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, B., & Dirks, K. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, B., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, B., Gillespie, N., Williamson, I., & Gill, C. (2020). Trust consensus in within culturally diverse teams: A multi-study investigation. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320943658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. W. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2013). How do I trust thee? Dynamic trust patterns and their individual and social contextual determinants. Models for intercultural collaboration and negotiation (pp. 97–131). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Dirks, K. T. (2018). Mutlilevel trust: A theoretical and practical imperative. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2), 137–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessments, 4(1), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, R., & Fetosa, J. (2018). Team trust over time: Modeling reciprocal and contextual influences in action teams. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1995). Multi-level information processing explanations of followers’ leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and Organizational Trust 57 servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44, 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, K. J., Shipp, A. J., & Michael, J. H. (2016). Champions, converts, doubters, and defectors: The impact of shifting perceptions on momentum for change. Personnel Psychology, 69, 673–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology vs. denial for repairing competence- vs. integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, A. M., Kautz, J., Bliese, P., Samson, K., & Kostyszyn, P. (2018). Conceptualising time as a level of analysis: New directions in the analysis of trust dynamics. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2), 142–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 245–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 114–139). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., Foti, R., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 343–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, C. N., & Quadflieg, S. (2010). Perceiving people. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 428–463). Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., Kahai, S. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Team virtues and performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R., Houston, M., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2013). Relationship velocity: Towards a theory of relationship dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 77, 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. C., Dimotakis, N., Cole, M. S., Taylor, S. G., Simon, L. S., Smith, T. A., & Reina, C. S. (2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105, 1181–1206.

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, H. Y. (2014). Business ethics and the development of intellectual capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Man Park, H., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person-environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1986). The social psychology of groups. Transaction Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Military Academy. (2010). Building the capacity to lead: The west point system for leader development. West Point.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Werff, L., & Buckley, F. (2017). Getting to know you: A longitudinal examination of trust cues and trust development during socialization. Journal of Management, 43, 742–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanneste, B. S., Puranam, P., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). Trust over time in exchange relationships: Meta-analysis and theory. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1891–1902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogelgesang, G.R., Crossley, C., Simons, T. et al. (2021). Behavioral integrity: Examining the effects of trust velocity and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Ethics, 172, 175–190.

  • Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Ngo, H. (2016). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sean Hannah, Andrew Knight, and the organizational behavior research group at Washington University for their comments and suggestions. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not reflect the view of the United States Military Academy, the United States Army, or the Department of Defense.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kurt T. Dirks and Patrick J. Sweeney are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to this paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

    Kurt T. Dirks

  2. School of Business, Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7897, Winston-Salem, NC, 27109, USA

    Patrick J. Sweeney

  3. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA

    Nikolaos Dimotakis

  4. United States Military Academy, 606 Thayer Road, West Point, NY, 10996, USA

    Todd Woodruff

Authors
  1. Kurt T. Dirks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick J. Sweeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikolaos Dimotakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Todd Woodruff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kurt T. Dirks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Measures Used in the Study

Initial Expectation of Leader Items

  1. 1.

    I expect to like my squad leader.

  2. 2.

    I expect that my squad leader will contribute to my development.

  3. 3.

    I expect my squad leader to be an effective leader.

  4. 4.

    My squad leader appears to be a leader I want to become.

Trust Items

  1. 1.

    I can depend on my squad leader to meet his/her responsibilities.

  2. 2.

    My squad leader follows through with commitments he/she makes.

  3. 3.

    I see no reason to doubt the competence of my squad leader.

  4. 4.

    My squad leader approaches tasks with professionalism and dedication.

  5. 5.

    I feel confident that my squad leader will always care about my personal needs in the squad setting.

  6. 6.

    If I share a problem with my squad leader, I know he/she will respond constructively and caringly.

  7. 7.

    I can talk freely with my squad leader about difficulties I am having, and he/she will listen.

  8. 8.

    My squad leader cares about my success as a cadet.

Leader Performance Assessment Items

  1. 1.

    Led by example.

  2. 2.

    Built positive relationships within the squad.

  3. 3.

    Created a positive, open environment within the squad.

  4. 4.

    Positively impacted my development as a cadet.

  5. 5.

    Exercised leadership that was instrumental in the squad achieving all assigned objects (i.e., got results).

  6. 6.

    Performed his/her duties in a manner that ensured the squad was successful.

Squad Performance Measures

  1. 1.

    Met or exceeded standards on all assigned tasks (i.e., got results).

  2. 2.

    Exhibited good teamwork with other squads within the platoon.

  3. 3.

    Worked together to enhance each member’s development.

Appendix B

Additional Analyses

See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7.

Table 4 Comparing baseline to alternative time frame comparisons
Full size table
Table 5 Latent growth/change re-analysis
Full size table
Table 6 Effects of change in trust model omitting controls
Full size table
Table 7 Predicting change in trust model omitting controls
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dirks, K.T., Sweeney, P.J., Dimotakis, N. et al. Understanding the Change and Development of Trust and the Implications for New Leaders. J Bus Ethics 180, 711–730 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04902-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04902-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation