Exploring the antecedents and consequences of impersonal trust

Abstract

Purpose Trust and impersonal trust, in particular, are of significant importance both for organizations and for innovative personnel, who are regarded human assets to organizations. The purpose of this study is to investigate the antecedents and consequences of impersonal trust in organizations. Design/methodology/approach The population of this study constituted the managers, specialists and personnel of a pharmaceutical company in Iran. Out of a total of 200 questionnaires having been administered, 187 were returned; and structural equation modelling (SEM) was used for data analysis. Findings The findings of the study indicate that personal learning has a significant positive effect (β = 0.64) on impersonal trust, that interpersonal communication has a significant positive effect (β = 0.14) on impersonal trust, and that organizational justice perception, also, has a significant positive effect (β = 0.14) on impersonal trust. In addition, the findings show that impersonal trust has a significant positive effect both on job satisfaction (β = 0.47) and on innovation (B = 0.42) and job satisfaction has a significant positive effect (β = 0.39) on innovation. Moreover, impersonal trust, through job satisfaction, has a significant indirect effect (β = 0.18) on innovation; and personal learning, through organizational justice perception, does not have a significant indirect effect (β = 0.014) on impersonal trust. Originality/value This study is among only a few studies having investigated the antecedents and consequences of impersonal trust together. Also, in a developing country like Iran, impersonal trust has rarely been studied.

Do human resource management practices boost up employees' impersonal trust? Evidence from the banking sector of Bangladesh

“…Focus of the current study is on the latter one, organizational trust as an impersonal phenomenon. Impersonal trust is defined as having trust in organizational factors and process which is impersonal in nature such as vision and strategy, organization's goals and capability, justice, fair processes, technology and reputation and so on (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003; Costigan et al ., 1998; Tan and Tan, 2000; Vanhala and Ritala, 2016; Safari et al , 2020).…”

“…Along with the same line, Vanhala and Ahteela (2011) and Vanhala and Ritala (2016) authenticated the idea that HRM practices is a matter of developing organizational trust which is impersonal in nature. In particular, it has been shown that HRM practices heavily affect the formation and existence of trust in organizations because it affects all levels of an organization and shapes employment relationships (Gould-Williams, 2003; Searle and Dietz, 2012; Alfes et al ., 2012; Safari et al , 2020; Searle et al , 2011; Nishanthi and Kulathunga, 2018). Organizations use HRM practices in order to enhance the impersonal trust of their personnel (Vanhala and Ritala, 2016; Nishanthi and Kulathunga, 2018).…”

“…As impersonal trust is one of the significant issue, therefore, measuring impersonal trust signify the greater value. Earlier studies have mentioned that a number of factors such as interpersonal communication, perception of organizational justice and personal learning can affect the impersonal trust (Safari et al , 2020). Besides these, some of the earlier studies mentioned that HRM practices is one of the important factor that can affect impersonal trust (Nishanthi and Kulathunga, 2018; Vanhala et al , 2011).…”

Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: empirical evidence from Poland

“…As previous studies show, a high level of trust among employees greatly benefits an organization. Results show that (interpersonal) trust among employees is positively related to job satisfaction (Guinot et al, 2014;Safari et al, 2020;Straiter, 2005), organizational commitment (Curado and Vieira, 2019), task performance (Kim et al, 2018) and team performance (De Jong et al, 2016), and negatively related to stress (Guinot et al, 2014). Research also suggests that trust is significantly positively associated with knowledge sharing (KS) in the workplace (Abdelwhab Ali et al, 2019;Hsu and Chang, 2014;Nerstad et al, 2018;Ouakouak and Ouedraogo, 2019;Renzl, 2008;Rutten et al, 2016; Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior Staples and Webster, 2008), although contrary findings were also found (Bakker et al, 2006;Chow and Chan, 2008).…”

Successful collaboration between smart city consortium and Hong Kong Government in Covid-19 dashboard: the case of leadership in practice

“…These keywords project a similar connotation to the trustworthiness and dedication of the leader and the organisation they represent. Researchers have linked personal trust and interorganisational personal trust as key leadership attributes (antecedents) for organisational trust (Safari et al , 2020). Besides SCC being able to instill some form of interpersonal and interorganisational trust, there is evidence that the proactiveness of the SCC leadership team who pledged their support early into the pandemic with professional technical knowhow and a willingness to offer Samaritan support has removed a lot of friction in the collaboration.…”