Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

http://jlo.sagepub.com

Distrust in Leaders: Dimensions, Patterns, and Emotional Intensity

Joann Keyton and Faye L. smith
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2009; 16; 6 originally published online Jul 14, 2009;
DOI: 10.1177/1548051809334196
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/6

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/16/1/6

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Articles

Distrust in Leaders
Dimensions, Patterns, and Emotional Intensity

Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
Volume 16 Number 1
August 2009 6-18
2009 Baker College
10.1177/1548051809334196
http://jlos.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Joann Keyton
North Carolina State University

Faye L. smith
Missouri Western State University
Without prompting, stratified randomly selected employees addressed communication improvements at their manufacturing facility. More than one quarter expressed distrust in their leaders. Responses were coded with two distrust conceptualizations: the opposite features of Butler and Cantrells trust dimensions and Bies and Tripps actions that violate
trust. Narratives were also coded for target of distrust and language intensity. Narratives exposed the communicationdistrust link proposed by scholars, reinforcing the behavioral foundation of distrust as a psychological construct. Results
challenge the position that distrust is the opposite of trust. Peaks of language intensity occurred for various single dimensions and combinations of distrust dimensions.
Keywords: distrust; emotional intensity; leadership; superior-subordinate; trust

elieved to be key to effective organizational relationships (McAllister, 1997; Shamir & Lapidot,
2003) and organizational communication (Ellis &
Shockley-Zalabak, 2001), trust is a fundamental and
ideal characteristic sought by managers (Bennis,
1999; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Gini, 2004; Sherwood
& DePaolo, 2005) and is presumed to result in
organizational benefit (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002;
Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998). Despite the many
advantages of developing and maintaining trusting
relationships, Mishra and Morrissey (1990) demonstrated that organizational ineffectiveness results
when employees distrust management and that a lack
of trust is more negative than the positive results of
the presence of trust.
A better understanding of distrust within the social,
relational, structural, and operational dynamics of
communication within an organization (see Mishra &
Morrissey, 1990) can provide insights into its culture.
With the emphasis on teams and emergent communication networks, distrust among interdependent parties
can be as influential as trust on the interactions that
create work relationships and contribute to work
outcomes (see Butler, 1991; R. M. Kramer & Tyler,
1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).
Because some element of risk must be present for trust
to be extended (Worchel, 1979), distrust can develop
(Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). More importantly,

whereas trust is developed over a series of positive

interactions, it may take only one betrayal or violation
for trust to be destroyed (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995).
When distrust is established, the distrusting party may
continue to perceive the other party as a threat, making
it more difficult to break out of the negative cycle.
When this occurs, communication is reduced, making
it even more difficult to deliver messages that can
counter that negativity.
The purpose of this study is to examine two frameworksdistrust as a violation of trust and distrust as
opposite of trust. These two frameworks offered
operationalizations that can be tested empirically in
organizational contexts without experimental manipulation or relying on surveys. Doing so should help
clarify the relationship of distrust to trust.

Conceptualizing Distrust
Much of the conceptualizing about distrust suggests
there is not a consensus about terminology as lack of
trust, distrust, and mistrust are all used, sometimes
interchangeably. Here, we follow the preferred usage of
authors we cite. Our focus however is on distrust
Authors Note: Please address correspondence to Joann Keyton,
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University,
Box 8104, Raleigh, NC 27695; email: jkeyton@ncsu.edu.

6
Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 7

because the prefix mis suggests that trust is applied

inappropriately. To date, the conceptualization of distrust has been grounded in the trust literature; we briefly
explore trust and then move to the conceptual literature
that explores distrust more directly. We conclude with
an examination of the intensity of emotions regarding
expressions of distrust as Mossholder, Settoon, and
Harris (1995) demonstrated that emotional reactions
were revealed through analysis of employee texts.
There are numerous definitions of trust (e.g., Hosmer,
1995; Lewicki et al., 1998; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995; Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000;
Zucker, 1986). Common to them is the trustors positive expectation of the trustee (Rousseau et al., 1998).
For example, Mayer et al. (1995) defined trust as
the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation that
the other will perform a particular action important to
the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or
control that other party. (p. 712)

Other authors propose that trust is comprised of

positively valenced dimensions: integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness (Butler &
Cantrell, 1984); availability, fairness, promise fulfillment, and receptivity (Butler, 1991); behavior consistency, behavioral integrity, sharing and delegation
of control, communication, and benevolence (S. L.
Robinson, 1996); and concern for employees, openness and honesty, identification, reliability, and competence (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Cesaria, 1999).
From these definitions and conceptualizations, scholars have posited that trust is communicatively based
(Shockley-Zalabak et al., 1999), resides in the interpersonal context, and reflects individuals workplacerelevant attitudes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Despite
these contributions, R. M. Kramers (1999) review of
the trust and distrust literature suggests that an integrative theory remains elusive.

Distrust Relative to Trust

Scholars have associated distrust with trust resulting in six competing theoretical formulations. Distrust
has been characterized as: (a) violations of trust (e.g.,
Bies & Tripp, 1996; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998;
Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1997; Sitkin &
Roth, 1993; S. L. Robinson, 1996), (b) low levels of
trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001), (c) absence of trust
(Gilbert & Tang, 1998), (d) one end of a continuum
with optimal trust as the other anchor (ShockleyZalabak et al., 1999), (e) features opposite of trust
(Butler & Cantrell, 1984), or (f) features orthogonal

to trust (Clark & Payne, 1997; J. P. Robinson, Shaver,

& Wrightsman, 1991; Lewicki et al., 1998). Across
these conceptualizations, most privilege trust over
distrust. For example, in order for violations of trust
or low levels of trust to occur, trust first has to exist.
Alternately, Gilbert and Tangs (1998) premise is that
neither trust nor distrust initially exists. The remaining conceptualizations look at the positioning of distrust relative to trust even though they are without
clear assumptions about their nexus.
Despite the inconsistency in definitional features and
of its relationship to trust, the construct of distrust and
its definition are emerging. Lewicki et al. (1998) defined
distrust as the confident negative expectations regarding anothers conduct (p. 439). They framed trust and
distrust as separate but linked dimensions rather than
opposite ends of a continuum. Sitkin and Roth (1993)
defined distrust as a belief that a persons values or
motives will lead them to approach all situations in an
unacceptable manner (p. 373). Other scholars let a
definition emerge from their theorizing. For example,
neither Worchel (1979) nor Bies and Tripp (1996)
defined distrust but treated it as actions that violate trust
while Dirks and Ferrin (2001) treated distrust as low
levels of trust. Common across these varied conceptualizations is the broad notion that distrust embodies a
trustors negative expectation of the trustee.

Empirical Studies of Distrust

Few empirical studies in the organizational context
have been conducted. In these, distrust is (a) a breach
of trust (S. L. Robinson, 1996), (b) irrational or presumptive distrust (R. M. Kramer, 1994), (c) revenge
associated with trust violations (Bies & Tripp, 1996),
(d) escalated by formalized management control systems (Sitkin & Stickel, 1996), and (e) unexpected
dimensions of mistrust (Clark & Payne, 1997). Yet,
no clear operationalization of distrust has gained
prominence. However Bies and Tripps (1996) and
Clark and Paynes (1997) explanations can be contained within the broader perspective that distrust
embodies a trustors negative expectation of the
trustee. The explanations differ in agency. Bies and
Tripp argued that distrust can only occur where trust
once existed. Clark and Payne, who based their examination on Butler and Cantrells (1984) dimensions of
trust, argued that distrust is a different domain than
trust. Both positions are explored next.
Distrust as violation of trust. Bies and Tripp (1996)
defined distrust as violations of trust, categorized as
actions that (a) damage a sense of civic order and
(b) damage personal identity. A damaged sense of civic

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

8 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

order included rule violations (e.g., breach of contract),

honor violations (e.g., shirking job responsibilities), and
abusive authority (e.g., an intolerable boss). Damaged
identity included behaviors such as public criticism.
Although Bies and Tripp based their study on the construct of violations of trust proposed by Sitkin and Roth
(1993), it is unclear from their results whether some of
the categories of damaged civil order are violations of
trust (task specific) or distrust (value incongruence).
Their example of an intolerable boss for instance
appears to be based on value incongruence (felt
exploited and abused and the victim of management
by psychosis), yet it is categorized as a damaged civic
order (Bies & Tripp, 1996, p. 251). Their study however
does provide a set of dimensions that characterize violations of trust that can be tested empirically.
Distrust as a different domain than trust. Clark and
Payne (1997) used Butler and Cantrells (1984) dimensions of trust (competence, integrity, consistency, loyalty, and openness) in conducting pilot interviews to
develop a questionnaire to examine workers trust in
their superiors. From these data, Clark and Payne concluded that (a) mistrust was a different domain than trust
even though they had expected that trust and mistrust
were opposite ends of a continuum and (b) trust and
mistrust have different implications for present and
future behaviors. With such limited empirical tests, it
seems reasonable to examine if opposing and negatively
valenced dimensions (i.e., incompetence, dishonesty,
inconsistency, disloyalty, and closed) characterize distrust. Although simplistic, there is support for this position as Whitney (2001) argued that incompetence (and
the presumption of incompetence) is one of two primary
causes of mistrust in organizations. However, from the
position that distrust requires an action that violates trust,
categories of action that damage a sense of civic order or
personal identity (Bies & Tripp, 1996) is also tenable.
Furthermore, Butler and Cantrell (1984) found that
dimensions of trust differed depending on whether the
target was a superior or a subordinate, suggesting that
distrust may also vary based on the relationship vulnerability or hierarchical disparity perceived by the target.
The following research questions explore these issues:
Research Question 1: To what degree do the opposing
features of Bies and Tripps (1996) violations of trust
and Butler and Cantrells trust dimensions appear in
employee narratives about distrust?
Research Question 2: Are different features of distrust
identified when the targets of the distrust are more
upwardly distal in the leadership hierarchy?

Intensity of Emotion
Emotion and trust (or violations of trust) have long
been connected in the literature (see Chua, Ingram, &
Morris, 2008; S. L. Robinson, Dirks, & Ozcelik, 2004),
as have emotions with subordinate-supervisor relationships (Game, 2008). Emotions are socially shared
scripts (Jones, 2001, p. 87). Scripts integrate internal
reactions to events with emotionality elicited in direct
proportion to the degree an organized plan is interrupted and to the degree importance is attached to the
plan (Jones, 2001). Specifically, threats to integrity,
such as personal attacks on ones competence, are the
primary source of emotionality in conflict interactions
(Campbell & Muncer, 1987). Research has demonstrated the link between language that is used to express
oneself and emotional intensity (Bowers, 1964; Rogan,
1995; Whissell, 1989), whereas Donohue (1991) found
evidence that more intense language was used when
conflict was not resolved.
In addition to emotion as a routine expression and
part of employee work roles (e.g., Rafaeli & Sutton,
1987, 1989), emotionality in organizations is also
related to conflict (e.g., Gayle & Preiss, 1998; Morrill
& Thomas, 1992; Ostell, 1996) as well as interactions
between different hierarchical levels (e.g., Wayne,
Shore, & Liden, 1997; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler,
1982). Because organizational norms may suppress
overt expressions of emotions (see M. W. Kramer &
Hess, 2002), most research on emotions in workplace exchanges underemphasizes the intensity of the
emotions surrounding conflictual episodes (Gayle &
Preiss, 1998, p. 281).
Drawing upon Fichmans (2003) position for studying organizational trust, emotion is one of trusts
essential components (see Lewis & Weigert, 1985),
and that emotion guides the development of trusting
behavior. Applied to distrust, an employee who distrusts another, particularly a leader or member of
management in a more powerful role, is likely to feel
vulnerable and therefore emotional. If, as Gayle and
Preiss (1998) found, emotional intensity in language
increases as relationship vulnerability or disparity
increases, then we would expect that emotionality
would be evident when distrust exists.
An additional link between emotional intensity and
distrust is drawn from Campbell and Muncer (1987),
who found that threats to integrity, particularly attacks
on competence, caused substantial anger as well.
Because integrity and competence are presumably
two dimensions of trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1984),
judgments about a persons lack of integrity and

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 9

incompetence may result in more intense language

use when individuals report about leader behavior.
In an empirical study of emotionality in conflict,
Bodtker and Jameson (2001) identified three components of emotional experience that tie emotional expression directly to distrust. In their work, negative
emotions are the result of a perceived interference or
blockage with ones goals or expectations (p. 260). We
argue that the definition of distrust proposed by Lewicki
et al. (1998) is parallel to Bodtker and Jamesons cognitive component of emotion, as the negative expectations
regarding anothers conduct of distrust is similar to the
negative emotions resulting from blockage of expectations. This parallelism suggests that distrust, which
results from blocked expectations, will be accompanied
by negative emotions. Building on the intensity of emotion reflected in these studies, we propose the following
research questions regarding the intensity of emotion
expressed about distrust:
Research Question 3: What features of distrust elicit
different levels of emotional intensity?
Research Question 4: To what degree does emotional
intensity differ when targets of the distrust are more
upwardly distal in the hierarchy?

Given these research questions, this study examines

distrust using the two different distrust conceptualizations: (a) Bies and Tripps (1996) actions that violate
trust and (b) the opposites of Butler and Cantrells
(1984) dimensions of trust. Both offer operationalization that can be tested in organizational contexts without experimental manipulation or relying on surveys.
In addition, the study examines the intensity of emotion associated with expressions of distrust.

Method
Sample
The organization was a multidivisional Fortune
500 manufacturer with more than 250 operations
throughout the United States; facilities ranged in size
from a few to several hundred employees and represented nine functional operations. Management of
one division asked the first author to conduct a communication audit. The audit questionnaire, which did
not address trust, concluded with an open-ended
question that asked: Heres your opportunity to provide us with your specific feedback. We are particularly interested in anything you have to tell us about
the communication or interaction in your facility.

Participants. A stratified random sample procedure was used to include employees at each facility.
Surveys were distributed directly to participants at
their facility; envelopes were addressed to employees
following the same procedure for distributing benefits and other confidential information. Participants
received written instructions to return the survey in
an enclosed preaddressed, stamped envelope
addressed to the first author. Participants were also
instructed that no one at their facility needed to know
that they participated in the survey and that they need
not return the survey through their facilitys mail
procedures. This division employed 7,500 and was
the population for this study; surveys were distributed to a stratified random sample of 1,500 employees. Of the 582 surveys returned (response rate =
38.8%), all but 2 were usable. No more than 6.5% of
the total sample came from any one facility. Average
organizational tenure of respondents was 14 years
(range 1 to 41 years); 61.9% of employees were
hourly, 13.6% were salary-nonexempt, and 24.4%
were salary-exempt. In all, 46% (n = 268) of respondents responded to the stimulus question.

Data Coding Procedures

Participants write-in comments were transcribed
and verified for accuracy; grammar, spelling, and
abbreviations were retained as written. Four steps
were used to identify data for both manifest and latent
analyses (Berg, 1998). First, word processing software was used to identify narratives that included the
words trust, distrust, or mistrust. Each narrative with
one or more of these occurrences was extracted in its
entirety. A second pass was conducted through these
narratives to eliminate those that addressed trust and
retain those that used trust pejoratively (e.g., I dont
trust the company anymore). To identify those texts
that made implicit references to distrust, one coder
read all remaining narratives. Using a broad definition of distrust (i.e., the negative expectations of
anothers conduct) as a guide, the narratives that
made implicit references to distrust were extracted.
One coder conducted all of the initial passes; a second
coder independently performed the same selection
techniques and achieved 99% unitizing reliability.
Disagreements were discussed until both coders
reached consensus. This process resulted in 156 narratives (or 58.21% of respondents answering the
question). As a comparison, the same processes were
used for identifying trust, resulting in 14 narratives
(or 1.11% of respondents answering the question).

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

10 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Thus, more than 25% of all survey respondents

responded to the stimulus question and wrote explicitly (13.46%) or implicitly (86.54%) about distrust.
These narratives ranged from 5 to 290 words composed in 1 to 26 sentences. Each write-in comment
expressed a complete thought interpretable only as a
whole. Thus, the unit of analysis was an employees
entire narrative.
The second coding step was application of Butler
and Cantrells (1984) five components of trust (integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness).
These terms and their logical opposites were
researched in synonym and antonym dictionaries to
ensure that opposition was achieved in labeling the
five dimensions of distrust (lacks integrity, incompetent, inconsistent, disloyal, and closed). Research
studies that used Butler and Cantrells conceptualization of trust were reviewed to develop oppositional
operationalizations (e.g., lacks integrity = lacks moral
character, lacks basic honesty, dishonest, not truthful).
Two research assistants, blind to the purpose of the
project and the identity of the organization, used the
five distrust terms to code the data set. One author
discussed the distrust concepts with the coders until
both coders could give clear and consistent examples.
Coders then practiced application of the coding categories on five randomly selected pages of data, clarifying their coding decisions with one another and the
first author. Because narratives described complex
situations, were lengthy, or both, some narratives
required multiple codes. The research assistants then
coded the remaining narratives independently; simple
agreement across the five dimensions was sufficient (M = .979, Mdn = .977, range = 0.967 to 1.00).
Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
The third step was application of Bies and Tripps
(1996) actions that violate trust. Their two-category
scheme and conceptualizations was adopted without
modification: (a) Damaged sense of civic order comprised of rule violation (violation of formal rules,
changing the rules after the fact, breach of formal
contract), honor violation (shirking of job responsibilities, broken promises, lying, stealing of ideas,
disclosure of confidences and secrets), and abusive
authority (intolerable boss) and (b) damaged identity
(public criticism, accused wrongly or unfairly, insult
to self or collective). Two different research assistants
blind to the purpose of the project and the organization used the 12 actions to code the data set. The same
instructional, practice, and coding processes were
used. Simple agreement across the 12 codes was sufficient (M = .968, Mdn = 1.0, range = 0.83 to 1.0).

The fourth step was to apply Bowerss (1964)

scheme to evaluate language intensity as an index of
emotionality. Frequently used to code retrospective
narrative reports, including conflict descriptions
(Donohue, 1991; Gayle & Preiss, 1998, 1999; Rogan,
1995), the coding system identifies six significant
correlates of language intensity. These are word
length (r = .10), obscure language (r = .59), qualifiers
(r = .89), general metaphors (r = .83), sex-based
metaphors (r = 1.0), and death-based metaphors (r =
1.0). Two modifications were made based on previous
research results: (a) Word length was dropped, as it
was not found to be a strong predictor of intensity,
and (b) profanity (r = 1.0) was added. The correlations established by Bowers are used as a weighting
system to produce a summed intensity score.
The authors practiced using the coding decision
rules on three random pages of data to learn the procedure and to reach agreement in applying the six
decision rules. The first rule was that obscure words
included the use of uncommon words and phrases,
foreign words, polysyllabic words, and rarely used
words (e.g., obsolete, abounds, preferential,
advocation [sic]). The second rule was for coding
general metaphors, or when the denotative meaning
of the phrase does not reveal the meaning conventionally associated with the terms (e.g., tried and true
practices, bottom of the manufacturing process,
left hand doesnt know what the right one is doing,
wet behind the ears).
The third coding rule identified qualifiers, adjectives
or adverbs that would accentuate or diminish word
meaning (e.g., regularly, little, highly, especially). The fourth rule was used to identify profanity
(e.g., crap, hell hole, damn). The fifth and sixth
rules were used to identify gender and race-based statements and death-based statements. Race-based statements have not been included in previous uses of
language intensity coding, but we believed that in
this case they were equal to gender-based statements. Examples of gender-based statements include
suck-ups, screw, and didnt put out. Race-based
statements were confined to the use of blacks in a
derogatory manner. No death-based instances occurred.
After practice coding and establishing sufficient reliability (across the six coding rules, M = .935, Mdn =
.945, range .80 to 1.0), authors split the remaining narratives and independently coded for language intensity
markers.
Because the language intensity coding scheme did
not distinguish between the positive and negative
valence, the authors calculated the proportion of

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 11

negative to positive sentences for each narrative. The

decision rule was that the sentence had to be explicitly
negative. For example, the sentence I worked over 48
hours this week was not counted as negative because
the writer did not explicitly provide a negative evaluation of this work condition. Thus, this rule provided a
conservative estimate of negative emotional tone.

Results
Singly and in combination, 308 instances of the
opposites of the Butler and Cantrell (1984) trust components were assigned to 155 of the 156 narratives.
Closed was most frequently used (n = 95, 30.84%),
followed by disloyal (n = 71, 23.05%), inconsistent (n
= 67, 21.75%), incompetent (n = 43, 13.96%), and
lacks integrity (n = 32, 10.39%). For the Bies and
Tripp (1996) violation of trust actions, 185 codings
were assigned to 142 of the 156 distrust narratives.
Honor violation was most frequent (n = 126, 68.11%)
with the subcategory of shirking of job responsibilities dominating the identifications (n = 104, 52.61%).
Other actions coded were role violation (n = 31,
16.75%), abusive authority (n = 19, 10.27%), and
damaged identity (n = 9, 4.86%).
Targets of the distrust statements were identified in
143 (91.67%) narratives representing four leadership
levelscorporate management, facility management,
specialty area management, and work area supervisors. Referents to corporate management (n = 43,
30.07%) included use of the companys name and
phrases such as boys in the boardroom or big boss
guys. Referents to facility management (n = 56,
39.16%) included mill, facility, or plant manager;
superintendent; and management group. Referents to
specialty area management (n = 17, 11.89%) included
human resources manager, production manager, operations manager, assistant plant manager, department
head or manager, and area manager. Referents to firstline supervisors (n = 27, 18.88%) included supervisor
or immediate supervisor; floor supervisor or leader;
lead man, team, or people; foreman; and working
crew chief. Relative to language intensity, the narratives contained from 0 to 3 obscure words (M = 0.32,
SD = 0.69), 0 to 10 general metaphors (M = 1.12, SD
= 1.54), and 0 to 27 qualifiers (M = 6.72, SD = 5.00).
There were only 5 statements of profanity and 5
gender-based or race-based statements across all participants narratives. Narratives ranged from 5 to 290
words (M = 86.33, SD = 55.60) written in 1 to 26
sentences (M = 6.15, SD = 4.04). The number of

negative sentences ranged from 0 to 11 (M = 2.14, SD

= 2.08), proportionally representing 0 to 100% of the
sentences written.
The language intensity coding and proportion of
negative sentences was collapsed into a composite
intensity score for each narrative following the procedures of Gayle and Preiss (1999). This was accomplished by multiplying the frequency count of each
category by the weighted intensity marker correlation
(e.g., 3 qualifiers multiplied by .89 correlation =
2.67). A composite language intensity score was computed by adding all the categories together with the
proportion of negative sentences (M = 7.65, SD =
5.00, range 0.43 to 26.85). Examples of narratives and
their respective codings are displayed in Table 1.
For Research Question 1, we evaluated the manner
in which the opposites of Butler and Cantrells (1984)
dimensions of trust and Bies and Tripps (1996) actions
that violate trust could be applied to the narratives.
More than half of the Bies and Tripp coding identifications were labeled within one subcategory of honor
violation. This outcome made it impractical to compare
the two conceptualizations or to evaluate the Bies and
Tripp actions to emotional intensity. Further data interpretations are confined to the five-dimension operationalization of distrust that is opposite of Butler and
Cantrells conceptualization of trust. Interestingly, the
ordering of distrust dimensions found in these data
challenge the ordering of trust dimensions. For these
distrust narratives, the most frequent category was
closed (30.84%), followed by disloyal (23.05%), inconsistent (21.75%), incompetent (13.96%), and lacks
integrity (10.40%). To answer Research Question 1,
this rank ordering is nearly opposite Butler and
Cantrells order of trust dimensions (competence,
integrity, consistency, loyalty, and openness), which
were based on participants perceptions of importance
of these dimension in lab studies.
Because multiple categories could be applied to the
same narrative, two different analyses were used to
answer Research Question 2, Are different features of
distrust identified when the targets of the distrust are
more upwardly distal in the leadership hierarchy?
First, ANOVA was used as a general test of the influence of distrust target (IV) upon the frequency of the
opposites of Butler and Cantrells (1984) categories
(DV). The test was not significant, F(3, 139) = 1.15,
p = 0.33. That is, the hierarchical level of the target of
distrust did not predict the number of distrust categories revealed in narratives. A more detailed analysis for
each distrust category revealed that participants more
frequently identified corporate leaders as disloyal and

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

12 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Table 1
Narrative and Coding Examples
Narrative

Coding

This facility no longer places any value or trust in expiereced

individuals judgement. Upper level management is convinced that
all systems are obsolete and 70 years of tried & true practices are
WORTHLESS. All supervisors over the age of 50 are being
eliminated regardless of their dedication or value.
If upper management were rated on a scale of 1-10 for honest with
a used car salesman a ten, and a lawyer at five, I would give ours
a 2.
managers should get out of their ivory towers and manage and
communicate by walking around with the workers. managers can
not manage vicariously, i.e., through surveys like this one. put
another way, do the job they are getting paid for or kick them out.
old style management practices, ingrained in the corporate culture,
will kill the competitiveness of [company name] in the global
economy. I could go on and on but the kernel of my message has
been expressed.

Incompetent, inconsistent, disloyal; referent = facility

management; 48 words; 3 sentences (3 negative);
1 obscure; 1 metaphor;
5 qualifiers; intensity = 1.1222
Lacks integrity; referent = facility management; 30 words;
1 sentence (0 negative); 1 metaphor; 1 qualifier;
intensity = 0.0573
Incompetence, closed; referent = facility management;
79 words; 5 sentences (1 negative); 4 metaphors;
intensity = 0.2644

Note: Grammar, spelling, and abbreviations retained as written.

lacking integrity; facility managers as closed communicators, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacking integrity; and supervisors as closed communicators,
inconsistent, and incompetent. Thus, in response to
Research Question 2, different features of distrust are
identified with different targets of distrust, but a clear
pattern relative to levels of organization hierarchy did
not emerge (see Figure 1). We did observe that specialty management was the least frequently mentioned
and facility management was most frequently mentioned across the five features of distrust.
Research Question 3 asks if different features of
distrust elicit different levels of emotional intensity.
Because the narratives could only be interpreted in
their entirety, it was not possible to assess emotional
intensity relative to a specific dimension. Thus, all
possible permutations of the opposites of Butler and
Cantrells (1984) trust categories were assessed for
the degree of emotional intensity in the narrative. The
frequency and the mean language intensity scores are:
One dimension (e.g., closed) was coded to 64 narratives (M range = 1.72 to 9.76), two dimension permutations (e.g., closed, disloyal) were coded to 53
narratives (M range = 4.25 to 13.48), three dimension
permutations (e.g., closed, disloyal, inconsistent)
were coded to 23 narratives (M range = 6.27 to 14.03),
four dimension permutations (closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent) were coded to 9 narratives (M
range = 9.86 to 15.80), and the saturated model
(closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacks
integrity) was coded to 6 narratives (M = 14.00).

Mean scores are displayed in Figure 2 and demonstrate no progression of emotional intensity scores relative to the number of dimensions coded. Different
features of distrust (independently and in combination)
were revealed in the five highest levels of emotional
intensity: incompetent (one dimension), lacks integrity/
disloyal (two dimensions), lacks integrity/inconsistent/
closed and incompetent/inconsistent/closed (three dimensions), lacks integrity/incompetent/disloyal/closed (four
dimensions), and the saturated model of lacks integrity/
incompetent/inconsistent/disloyal/closed (five dimensions). For Research Question 4, language intensity was
not greater when targets of distrust were more upwardly
distal in the hierarchy, F(3, 139) = 0.90, p = 0.44.

Discussion
Giving employees the opportunity to write anything they desired about the communication or interaction in their facility prompted more than one quarter
of those who participated in the divisions communication audit to write comments that were identified as
expressing some aspect of distrust with one or more
levels of management. Participants revealed what and
how leaders had communicated to create what management and psychology scholars have implicitly
agreed is a psychological state (see Rousseau et al.,
1998).
Our intention to analyze the five opposing dimensions
of Butler and Cantrells (1984) conceptualization of

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 13

Figure 1

Distrust by Target
45

Number of Distrust Identifications

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Lacks Integrity

Incompetent
Corporate

Inconsistent

Facility Management

Disloyal

Closed

Specialty Management

First Line

Figure 2

Language Intensity by Opposing Butler and Cantrells (1984) Trust Dimensions

18
Lacks Integrity-IncompetentDisloyal-Closed

16
Lacks Integrity-Disloyal

14

Language Intensity

IncompetentDisloyal-Closed
Lacks IntegrityInconsistent-Closed

12
Incompetent

10
8

Saturated Model;
All Dimensions

6
4
2

Single and Permutations of Opposing Trust Dimensions

Note: L = lacks integrity; P = incompetent; S = inconsistent; D = disloyal; C = closed.

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

LP C
SD
C

PS

LS

LP

LP
S

SD

PD

PS

PS

LD

D
LS
C

LS

LP

C
D

LP

SC

SD

PC

PD

PS

LD

LS

14 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

trust as compared to Bies and Tripps (1996) violations of trust was not realized. Both coding schemes
could be applied; no conflict or relationship between
the two coding schemes was discernable. But, coding
on Bies and Tripps trust violations resulted in more
than half on one feature (others shirking their job
responsibilities) of honor violation. A plausible integration of the two perspectives suggests that the distrust dimensions drawn from Butler and Cantrells
operationalization of trust provide a more interpersonal orientation of distrust features, whereas Bies
and Tripps conceptualization provides an explanation
of how distrust was generated, or what lines or boundaries were perceived to be crossed.
Early empirical research suggested that there was a
rank ordering of dimensions of trust, where competence was most important to the establishment of
trust, followed by integrity, consistency, loyalty, and
openness (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). If trust and distrust were polar opposites, it could be expected that a
similar ranking of opposing dimensions would exist.
For distrust, incompetence would be the most important, followed by lack of integrity, inconsistent, disloyalty, and closed. However, this pattern did not
emerge. Rather, these data presented a reversed rather
than opposing structure, suggesting that distrust is a
different domain than trust. For example, Butler and
Cantrell (1984) found that competence was more frequently related to trust, but these data revealed that
incompetence was less frequently related to distrust.
Conversely, Butler and Cantrell found that openness
contributed only marginally to a trusting relationship,
but these data revealed that being closed contributed more significantly to distrust. Interpretation of
our results is further complicated by Oesch and
Murnighans (2003) finding that competence and
trustworthiness may be more easily separated than
incompetence and untrustworthiness (p. 70). That is,
being incompetent can be a trigger for judgments of
being untrustworthy, whereas being competent may
not trigger judgments of being trustworthy. Together,
their findings and ours suggest that trust and distrust
are not polar anchors of a continuous dimension and
that different qualities are associated with trust than
distrust.
Although the category labels we used are logical
opposites (e.g., open and closed), the constructs may
not be so confined. For example, the characteristics of
the open construct are distinct from but linked to the
characteristics of the closed construct in that the
leaders absence of openness is not necessarily interpreted as being closed. There simply may not be

enough interaction to make an evaluation. Or the

interaction may be so ambiguous as to preclude
evaluation. The open and closed constructs are linked
because both deal with the accessibility of the leader
and the availability of information. But the constructs
differ in the way accessibility and information is presented. For example, a subordinate making an open
evaluation of a leader would perceive him or her as
making accessibility and information overtures. Doing
nothing would not necessarily be closed. A subordinate making a closed evaluation of a leader would
perceive him or her as purposely restricting information or minimizing information access.
It may be that trust and distrust are vectored in
space and may be orthogonal (Lewicki et al., 1998).
Whereas some trust inventory instruments (e.g.,
Butler, 1991; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000) treat low
scores as mistrust and distrust, these findings question
that assumption, reinforcing Lewicki et al.s (1998)
position that low levels of trust are not the same as
distrust. Perhaps researchers should be asking whether
distrust is understood better as a separate construct or
related to a construct other than trust.
The results of this study also suggest that the target
of distrust matters. For these narratives, four levels of
management were identified as targets of distrust.
Facility management was the most common target of
distrust, followed by work area supervisors, corporate
management, and specialty area management. As
Mayer and Gavin (2005) argued, employees who lack
trust in management are likely to spend both time and
mental energy speculating about their future and that
of the organization. As their findings in a small nonunion manufacturing firm indicated, trust in plant
management had a stronger effect on employee proorganization behaviors than trust in top management
team. The high frequency of distrust codings referencing facility management echoes survey findings of
Ellis and Shockley-Zalabak (2001), who found that
trust in top management was more closely related to
satisfaction and perceived organizational effectiveness than trust in immediate supervisor.
The open-ended question did not focus or limit
employee responses, thus overcoming weaknesses of
other research designs that focus on one level of management. Although different features of distrust were
identified with different management targets, no pattern was evident except that specialty management
was mentioned least and facility management was
mentioned most. It is likely that employees at all levels held facility management more responsible for the
climate and culture of their facility, whereas specialty

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 15

managers were more function specific. More compelling is the lack of pattern among distrust features and
hierarchy. For example, closed communication, the
strongest feature of distrust in this study, was associated with facility management, whereas incompetence, one of the weaker features, was also associated
with facility management. This is a compelling finding. Facilities of this organization were located in all
geographic regions of the country, making it unlikely
that employees had personal contact with or exposure
to the CEO and other corporate management. Not
surprisingly, employees overwhelmingly identified
facility management as controlling the degree of communication openness in facilities. That closed communication was the most frequently identified
characteristic of distrust and most frequently associated with facility management reinforces the notion
that a subordinates trust in a superior reflects not
only interpersonal trust but also trust in the system the
superior represents (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003). Thus,
if a participant distrusts a facility manager, we would
expect he or she also distrusts the organization. The
importance of closed communication to distrust is
reinforced by Ellis and Shockley-Zalabaks (2001)
finding that the amount of job and organizational
information employees received is correlated to both
trust in top management team members and immediate supervisors.
That the closed category was highly identified suggests that communication and distrust are related in
some fashion and that communication has a greater
impact on distrust than it does on trust (cf. Butler &
Cantrell, 1984). Furthermore, we would argue that
other features of distrust, such as incompetence, disloyalty, inconsistency, and lacks integrity, are attitudes based on behavioral interactions between
people. For example, a subordinate can only assess a
supervisors disloyalty if the supervisor said or did
something that caused the subordinate to believe that
the supervisor would not provide protection or support. Likewise, a subordinate can only assess a supervisors lack of integrity if the supervisor says he or
she will do something and then does not follow
through with it. We argue therefore that employees
intuitively link distrust to communication and information.
To examine that link, we asked (a) if language
intensity was greater when leaders were more distal in
the hierarchy and (b) did language intensity increase
for particular dimensions of distrust or particular
combinations of features of distrust. No evidence of a
linear relationship for language intensity existed. Nor

was there a cumulative effect in language intensity as

more components of distrust were mentioned. Instead,
there were peaks of intensity for various single
dimensions and combinations of distrust dimensions,
suggesting that each of these features of distrust can
elicit negative emotional reactions. Moreover, negative emotional reactions can be targeted to different
hierarchical roles. This suggests a promising avenue
for further research should distrust result in psychological fear, just as trust is expected to create psychological safety (Edmondson, 2004).
Our positionthat distrust is communicatively
based and is more dynamic than staticis supported
by our narratives and other scholars (Ellis & ShockleyZalabak, 2001; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner,
1998) and consistent with the literature on trust building. The position that communication is critical to
expressing trust is also being advocated in articles for
management practices. Based upon interviews in forprofit, nonprofit, and government organizations,
Abrams, Cross, Lesser, and Levin (2003) identified
10 management behaviors that promote interpersonal
trust. The authors recommended that managers make
interactions meaningful and memorable, develop
close relationships, engage in collaborative communication, and disclose your expertise and limitations
(p. 67). Additional research is needed to determine
how managers can decrease distrust through their
communication with others in the organization.
In a summary of a special issue devoted to trust,
Rousseau et al. (1998) noted that trustand we argue
that the same could be proposed about distrusthas
been viewed statically. This has occurred, we believe,
because the phenomenon has been explored in management and psychology disciplines in the bounded
interaction of laboratory studies (often using prisoners
dilemma games) or in communication and management disciplines through surveys and questionnaires.
As a result, trust and distrust have not been explored in
their embedded organizational contexts in which relationships build and decline and in which interactions
and their outcomes become the basis for the positive or
negative expectations of future interactions.

Limitations and Future Research

One potential limitation of the study was reliance
on one organization. Despite having employees from
nine functional operations, no more than 6.5% represented any one facility. Future research should explore
the cultural features that facilitate or inhibit distrust
from developing. Methodological limitations also

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

16 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

exist. If employees mentioned trust or distrust, we

could code for its presence. But if they failed to report
it, we had no means for capturing its absence. This
limitation raises methodological considerations. How
would a study examine the absence of trust or the
absence of distrust? Lewicki et al. (1998) suggested
that distrust may be the absence of trust. To study the
absence of trust, it would seem that it would first have
to exist. Furthermore, trust may be removed in small
steps, resulting in a condition more closely depicted
as low levels of trust. Our study begins to illuminate
that low levels of trust and distrust are not the same
conceptually, and this finding deserves additional
exploration.
Kramer and Cook (2004) said trust theorists have
long argued the benefits of face-to-face interaction and
direct experience with others in the trust building process (p. 12). Alternately, our findings suggest that
distrust is more prominent with those with whom
employees are likely to have less face-to-face interaction (e.g., facility management). But these two positions cannot be resolved if we assume that trust and
distrust are opposites of a continuum and face-to-face
interaction is also placed on continuum from low to
high. Kramer and Cooks relationship is direct; the
other relationship revealed implies an interaction
effect and deserves more attention.
These data also raise questions about the relationship between distrust and emotion. Questions we
believe should be pursued include: How does the
degree of emotional intensity differ with respect to the
time it takes for a distrusting relationship to develop or
dissipate? How does emotional intensity differ when
the source of distrust is task or relationally oriented?
To what extent is emotional intensity grounded in the
existing hierarchical relationship and influenced by
demographic characteristics and differences? Finally,
we propose the study of emotional intensity and distrust examine the characteristics of communication
(e.g., medium, distance, formality) between parties.

Conclusion
These findings suggest that a plausible integrative
analytical perspective may exist between distrust
dimensions (closed, disloyal, inconsistent, incompetent, and lacks integrity) and categories of distrust
(e.g., honor violations). Doing so would provide a
more interpersonal orientation and an explanation of
how distrust is generated. Analysis of the narratives
exposed the communication-distrust link proposed by
scholars, reinforcing the behavioral foundation of

distrust as a psychological construct. Distrust can

only develop if one party in a relationship says or
does something to which the other party assigns
meaning of a negative expectation. If future research
continues to find that the closed feature is highly
identified with distrust, then leaders may be encouraged to pay greater attention to their communication.
Distrust may create dissatisfaction by its mere
presence, a process complementary to the satisfaction
that trust creates (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000).
Yet when distrust is not present, its absence may not
contribute to satisfaction. Distrust is believed to be
resistant to change due to the vicious cycles and selffulfilling prophecies it propels. Once established,
distrust discourages the use or development of communication channels through which credible messages can be transmitted and trust developed (Worchel,
1979). Common wisdom purports that trust is built
over time during multiple interactions between people, whereas distrust may result from one infraction.
When coupled with emotional intensity, it may be
much more difficult to correct distrust in organizations than it is to build trust (see Kim, Ferrin, Cooper,
& Dirks, 2004). This suggests that it may be equally,
or more, important for leaders to focus on preventing
distrust as it is in building trust. The resistance of
distrust to change suggests that managers may want to
focus on communication opportunities where early
signs of distrust can be identified.

References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003).
Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks.
Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
Bennis, W. (1999). Five competencies of new leaders. Executive
Excellence, 16(7), 4-5.
Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. (1996). Beyond trust: Getting even and
the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 246-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in conflict
formation and its transformation: Application to organizational conflict management. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 12, 259-275.
Bowers, J. W. (1964). Some correlates of language intensity.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 415-420.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of conditions of trust inventory.
Journal of Management, 17, 643-661.
Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Keyton, smith / Distrust in Leaders 17

Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression in the social talk of women and men. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behavior, 17, 489-511.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head
and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in
managers professional networks. Academy of Management
Review, 51, 436-452.
Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of
workers trust in management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 205-224.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Metaanalytic findings and implications for research and practice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing
research and emerging issues. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook
(Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
approaches (pp. 21-40). New York: Russell Sage.
Donohue, W. A. (1991). Communication, marital disputes, and
divorce mediation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.),
Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches
(pp. 239-272). New York: Russell Sage.
Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23,
547-566.
Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information
receiving. Communication Quarterly, 49, 382-398.
Fichman, M. (2003). Straining towards trust: Some constraints on
studying trust in organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 133-157.
Game, A. M. (2008). Negative emotions in supervisory relationships:
The role of relational models. Human Relations, 61, 355-393.
Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (1998). Assessing emotionality in
organizational conflicts. Management Communication
Quarterly, 12, 280-302.
Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (1999). Language intensity plus: A
methodological approach to validate emotions in conflicts.
Communication Reports, 12, 43-50.
Gilbert, A. J., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27,
321-338.
Gini, A. (2004). Business, ethics and leadership in a post Enron era.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 9-15.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 379-403.
Jones, T. S. (2001). Emotional communication in conflict:
Essence and impact. In W. F. Eadie & P. E. Nelson (Eds.), The
language of conflict and resolution (pp. 81-104). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004).
Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology
versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based
trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104-118.
Kramer, M. W., & Hess, J. A. (2002). Communication rules for
the display of emotions in organizational settings. Management
Communication Quarterly, 16, 66-80.

Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Paranoid

cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation
and Emotion, 18, 199-230.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations:
Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, S. K. (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. In R. M. Kramer &
K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations:
Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 1-18). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations:
Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A
model of development and decline. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z.
Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays
inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 133-173). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, D. J. (1998). Trust and
distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 438-458.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social
Forces, 63, 967-985.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 709-734.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and
performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch
the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.
McAllister, D. J. (1997). The second face of trust: Reflections on
the dark side of interpersonal trust in organizations. In R. J.
Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on
negotiation in organizations (pp. 87-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in employee/
employer relationships: A survey of West Michigan managers.
Public Personnel Management, 19, 443-486.
Morrill, C., & Thomas, C. K. (1992). Organizational conflict
management as disputing process: The problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research, 18, 400-428.
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Harris, S. G. (1995).
Measuring emotion in open-ended survey responses: An application of textual data analysis. Journal of Management, 21,
335-355.
Oesch, J. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Egocentric perceptions
of relationships, competence, and trustworthiness in salary
allocation choices. Social Justice Research, 16, 53-78.
Ostell, A. (1996). Managing dysfunctional emotions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 525-557.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part
of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in
organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11,
1-42.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991).
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological
contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
Robinson, S. L., Dirks, K. T., & Ozcelik, H. (2004). Untangling
the knot of trust and betrayal. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook
(Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
approaches (pp. 327-341). New York: Russell Sage.

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

18 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Rogan, R. G. (1995). Language intensity: Testing a content-based
metric. Communication Reports, 8, 128-135.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. M., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998).
Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization
Studies, 14, 463-491.
Sherwood, A. L., & DePaolo, C. A. (2005). Task and relationshiporiented trust in leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 12, 65-81.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (1999). Measuring
organizational trust: Trust and distrust across cultures: The
organizational trust index. Colorado Springs: University of
Colorado at Colorado Springs.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000).
Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization
Development Journal, 18, 35-48.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. R. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization
Science, 4, 367-392.
Sitkin, S. B., & Stickel, D. (1996). The road to hell: The dynamics
of distrust in an era of quality. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 196-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and
guilt: An attributional analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226-232.
Whissell, C. M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In
R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), The measurement of emotion (pp. 113-131). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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, 513-530.
Whitney, J. O. (2001). The economics of mistrust. Boston
University Law Review, 81, 687-705.
Worchel, P. (1979). Trust and distrust. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional
sources of economic structures, 1840-1920. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
Vol. 8, (pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Joann Keyton (PhD, The Ohio State University) is a professor of
communication at North Carolina State University. Her current
research examines the process and relational aspects of communication in organizations and interdisciplinary teams. In addition to publications in scholarly journals and edited collections, she has published
three textbooks for courses in group communication, research methods, and organizational culture as well as co-editing an organizational
communication case book. She was editor of the Journal of Applied
Communication Research, Volumes 31-33; currently she is editor of
Communication Currents and co-editor of Small Group Research.
faye l. smith, earned her PhD from the University of Iowa in the discipline of strategic management. She has business work experience
in the social expression and banking industries. She is a professor
at Missouri Western State University, and has also held academic
positions at Oklahoma State University, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, and Emporia State University. Her research in strategic
management assesses competitive dynamics and cooperative strategies. She is also interested in organizational identity and work/life
balance issues, as well as systems effects within organizations.

Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009