Relationships Between Leader-Contingent and Non-contingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Justice and Satisfaction, and Evaluation of the Moderating Influence of Trust Propensity, Pay Level, and Role Ambiguity

Tremblay, Manon; Vandenberghe, Christian; Doucet, Olivier

doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9275-4

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Mayer et al (1995) describe TP as a “stable within party factor” (p. 715) and their interpersonal trust model positions TP as an independent variable, which is not influenced by contextual factors or the outcomes of trust decisions. In line with this, literature consistently identifies TP as a “stable individual difference” (Gill et al, 2005, p. 289; Van Dyne et al, 2000, p. 6), “stable variable” (Alarcon et al, 2016, p. 313); “stable disposition” (Bernerth and Walker, 2009, p. 218), “stable individual variable” that is distinct from “trust as a situational state” (Tremblay et al, 2013, p. 237). Similarly, trust propensity has been described as an “enduring trait related to temperament and genetics, which is not person, context or lifetime dependent” (Mooradian et al, 2006, p. 3; Ashleigh et al, 2012, p. 362).…”

Section: Theoretical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 68%

A Trait-State Model of Trust Propensity: Evidence From Two Career Transitions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust propensity is typically conceptualized as a stable, trait-like, exogenous variable. Drawing on the social investment principle of personality change, we argue that trust propensity has situationally specific components and is likely to be less stable during periods of career transition. Using a latent curve-latent state-trait model, we present evidence that suggests that trust propensity has stable (trait) and unstable (state) components during career transition periods and that it has the potential to change over time. Our results are replicated across two, transitional workplace populations during a process of (re)socialization into an organization. In our second study, we also expand our focus to examine correlates of trust propensity and demonstrate the relationship between state and trait trust propensity and cognitive depletion. Our paper significantly extends knowledge of the nature of trust propensity and raises questions about the stability of this construct, one of the core tenets of trust theory.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 68%

A Trait-State Model of Trust Propensity: Evidence From Two Career Transitions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fear of punishment Drummond (1998); Tremblay et al (2013); Bugdol (2018a) Formal and informal punishments (including a progressive punishment system)…”

Section: Types Of Fear Causes Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The problem of fear in TQM – causes, consequences and reduction methods – a literature review

Bugdol

2020

TQM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe primary objective of the paper is to present the role and meaning of fear in organizations implementing TQM. The author's intention is to identify the causes of fear in the TQM components as well as the main types of fear, their causes, consequences and methods of reduction.Design/methodology/approachThe main research method applied is a systematic review of the literature on the subject. The applied systematic review procedure takes into consideration the indicated research objective, the selection of the basic literature and publications, the presentation of the publication database and content analysis. The author also makes use of his own observations ensuing from his acting in the capacity of a TQM consultant and a juror of the Polish Quality Award.FindingsThe paper presents the causes of fear in the TQM components, the main types of fear and its consequences. The limited possibilities of eliminating fear are also indicated. Fear appears when, for various reasons, TQM is improperly implemented and maintained, but also when resources are allocated incorrectly (e.g. a wrong selection of quality team members), and it is included in social processes (e.g. in the quality team forming process). It appears when only structural empowerment rather than mental empowerment is applied, when there exist contradictory expectations with regard to empowerment, in case of excessive and/or “have to” commitment in particular employees, and when too much emphasis is placed on commitment.Research limitations/implicationsThe reflections included in the paper may become useful for quality management practitioners, as such knowledge allows them to avoid mistakes which are the cause of fear, that is an emotion making quality improvement difficult. The paper does not present the manifestations and sources of fear in all TQM components, and they are certainly included in a broadly understood quality culture. Nevertheless, the gathered and arranged knowledge can be the source of further research.Originality/valueBeing the result of the studies of the literature on the subject, this paper is one of few publications discussing in a detailed manner one of the principles of effective quality management formulated by E. Deming, namely “driving fear out”.

show abstract

“…Leaders showing consideration are more likely to express encouragement and appreciation (Holtz & Harold, 2013). These social aspects should be viewed as valuable social rewards, further reinforcing the perception of distributive justice (Tremblay, Vandenberghe, & Doucet, 2013). Research on transformational leadership theory offers additional insights into the positive relationship between consideration and distributive justice (e.g., De Cremer, van Dijke, & Bos, 2007; Gaudet et al, 2014; Gaudet, Tremblay, & Doucet, 2009).…”

Section: Review Of the Literature And Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Things Are Not Eternal: How Consideration Leadership and Initiating Structure Influence the Dynamic Nature of Organizational Justice and Extra-Role Behaviors at the Collective Level

Tremblay

Gaudet

Parent‐Rocheleau³

2017

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between leader behaviors and follower performance and unit effectiveness is one of the most important research topics in management and organizational behavior. Four types of leader behaviors have dominated leadership research: contingent rewards, transformational leadership, consideration, and initiating structure. Much of the research on initiating structure and consideration was developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and then forgotten in favor of a new school of leadership approaches dominated by transformational leadership (Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio, & Eagly, 2017). Despite this, the two Ohio State leadership behaviors have ceased to be overlooked and are now the subject of growing interest. This emerging interest is explained in large part by the increasing evidence showing that Ohio State University's two-factor leadership model predicts important individual and organizational outcomes (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004), above and beyond other leadership constructs such as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and servant leadership (

show abstract

Relationships Between Leader-Contingent and Non-contingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Justice and Satisfaction, and Evaluation of the Moderating Influence of Trust Propensity, Pay Level, and Role Ambiguity

Cited by 35 publications

References 78 publications

A Trait-State Model of Trust Propensity: Evidence From Two Career Transitions

A Trait-State Model of Trust Propensity: Evidence From Two Career Transitions

The problem of fear in TQM – causes, consequences and reduction methods – a literature review

Good Things Are Not Eternal: How Consideration Leadership and Initiating Structure Influence the Dynamic Nature of Organizational Justice and Extra-Role Behaviors at the Collective Level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About