Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study
(USC Thesis Other)
Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Increasing Organizational Trust Within Financial Services During Times of Change: An
Improvement Study
Omar Salah
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2024
© Copyright by Omar Salah 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Omar Salah certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Alison Keller Muraszewski
Eric Canny
Kenneth Yates, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This study employed a mixed-methods improvement plan using the gap analysis framework to
examine the factors affecting organizational trust among middle managers in the retail banking
division of IBG Bank (pseudonym). The study aimed to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers to improving trust during times of organizational change. Data came from
27 participants through surveys and six follow-up interviews to identify and validate the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs that influenced the organization’s trust scores.
Findings revealed that the participants lacked declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge in organizational trust-building, as well as motivational gaps in self-efficacy and goal
orientation. Findings also suggested that organizational support through clear communication
and accessible resources were critical needs. These results suggest that addressing identified
knowledge and motivation gaps, along with targeted organizational interventions, may enhance
trust-building among middle managers, supporting IBG Bank’s broader goal of increasing
organizational trust by 10% by 2026.
Keywords: organizational trust, trust-building, middle management
v
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is the culmination of a multi-year journey, and I am deeply grateful to the
many people who supported me along the way. First and foremost, I want to thank my wife, Elena,
for her unwavering support. This endeavor began when our second child, Enzo, was young, and I
was navigating a critical point in my career. Elena encouraged me to explore this path, sacrificed
countless weekends and evenings, and gave me the space to pursue this dream. To my sons, Enzo
and Alessio, thank you for your curiosity about USC, your understanding of what it means to be
in “doctor school”, and for being such an integral part of Baba’s journey—I am so proud of you
both. To my parents, thank you for instilling in me a strong work ethic, ensuring I rested when
needed, and for always being there as loving grandparents. To my sister, your work with
underprivileged and first-generation college students inspires me. And most importantly, to my
grandmother—Yaya to my boys—thank you for always checking in on my progress, pushing me
to finish, and being a constant source of inspiration in my educational journey. This achievement
is as much for you as it is for me.
I am also deeply grateful to my bank colleagues, who have shaped me into the leader I am
today, and to my dissertation committee for their insight and guidance. Dr. M, you taught me the
power of efficacy from the very start. Dr. Canny, thank you for pushing me to “roar.” And to my
chair, Dr. Yates, your support and mentorship were truly pivotal. Our weekly meetings, where we
explored topics ranging from banking to generative AI, will be deeply missed. You truly care, and
I am forever thankful for your dedication. Finally, I want to thank my incredible classmates.
Learning alongside professionals from diverse industries, government, and the military was an
unforgettable experience. You all enriched my perspective and made this five-year journey so
memorable. To all who were part of this process, thank you for making it possible. Fight on!
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem and Related Literature ............................................................1
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................3
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................3
Organizational Performance Status......................................................................................4
Organizational Performance Goal........................................................................................5
Description of Stakeholder Groups......................................................................................5
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals........................................................................................6
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................8
Conceptual and Methodological Framework.......................................................................8
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................9
Organization of the Project ..................................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................11
Influences on the Problem of Practice: Organizational Trust............................................11
Impacts of Organizational Trust in the Workplace............................................................16
Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Trust.........................................................19
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus: Middle Management at IBG Bank.........................21
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework .........................................................................................................................22
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences...............................23
vii
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context .........................................................................................37
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................38
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................40
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................41
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................43
Survey Data Coding...........................................................................................................46
Interview Data Coding.......................................................................................................46
Use of Generative AI Synthesis of Results and Findings..................................................46
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................48
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................48
Ethics..................................................................................................................................49
Chapter Four: Results and Findings...............................................................................................51
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................51
Determination of Assets and Needs...................................................................................52
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.....................................................................53
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .....................................................................63
Results and Findings for Organization Causes..................................................................71
Summary of Validated Influences .....................................................................................76
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation .............................................79
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................79
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences.....80
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan................................................................89
Implementation and Evaluation Framework......................................................................90
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................107
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................107
viii
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................108
References....................................................................................................................................111
Appendix A: Survey Items...........................................................................................................129
Appendix B: Interview Instrument and Protocol .........................................................................134
Appendix C: Output of Generative AI Prompt............................................................................136
Factual Knowledge ..........................................................................................................136
Conceptual Knowledge....................................................................................................136
Procedural Knowledge.....................................................................................................137
Motivation Task Value ....................................................................................................139
Self-Efficacy ....................................................................................................................140
Goal Orientation...............................................................................................................141
Cultural Models ...............................................................................................................142
Cultural Settings...............................................................................................................142
Appendix D: Participant Survey Completed Immediately Following Training ..........................144
Appendix E: Participant Survey Distributed Six Months Following Training............................146
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 7
Table 2: Knowledge Influences and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 27
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivational Gap Analysis 32
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis 36
Table 5: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Organizational Trust Scores 54
Table 6: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Contributions of Middle Management 56
Table 7: Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities 59
Table 8: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities
Question 1 61
Table 9: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities
Question 2 62
Table 10: Survey Results for Motivational Task Value of Trust-Building Question 1 64
Table 11: Survey Results for Motivational Task Value of Trust-Building Question 2 65
Table 12: Survey Results for Motivational Self-Efficacy of Trust-Building Question 1 67
Table 13: Survey Results for Motivational Self-Efficacy of Trust-Building Question 2 68
Table 14: Survey Results for Motivational Goal Orientation of Trust-Building Question 1 70
Table 15: Survey Results for Motivational Goal Orientation of Trust-Building Question 2 70
Table 16: Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Models of Fostering Open
Communication 72
Table 17: Survey Results for Organizational Settings of Resources and Tools Question 1 74
Table 18: Survey Results for Organizational Settings of Resources and Tools Question 2 75
Table 19: Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 76
Table 20: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 77
Table 21: Organizational Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 77
Table 22: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 92
x
Table 23: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 93
Table 24: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 95
Table 25: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 101
Table 26: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 102
Table B1: Interview Protocol 135
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: KMO Influences for Organizational Trust 38
Figure 2: Trust Evaluation Dashboard Conceptual Design 106
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Industry research has found that trust in organizations varies greatly across institutions,
with recent data from Gallup revealing that employees who have trust in their organizations are
twice as likely to stay with their companies, whereas employees who do not trust their leadership
are already planning on leaving and have mentally checked out (Harter, 2019). In research on the
neuroscience of trust, employees with high organizational trust reported 76% higher engagement,
74% less stress, and 50% higher productivity (Zak, 2017). After surveying 6,500 employees in
the hospitality industry, researchers found that teams with high trust in their managers were
substantially more profitable than those with lower trust, with trust being the single most
important aspect of manager behavior (Simons, 2002). This evidence indicates the need for
leaders to develop the skills and knowledge to improve trust throughout an organization. Without
trust in an organization’s leadership, the core of its human capital can be dangerously affected,
leaving the future of its workforce in question.
Background of the Problem and Related Literature
The study of organizational trust has been prevalent in academic literature over the past
30 years, with research focusing on its positive effects on workplace cooperation, teamwork,
diversity, job satisfaction, and change management (Brashear et al., 2003; Gambetta, 1988; Jones
& George, 1998; Mayer et al., 1995; D. Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). However, the literature
defines organizational trust differently. In the seminal work, Mayer et al. (1995) defined
organizational trust as a party’s willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based
on the expectation that the other party will perform an action important to the trustor, regardless
of the ability to control the other party. In an examination of organizational trust antecedents,
organizational trust was defined as a feeling of confidence and support in an employer and that
2
the employer will follow through on commitments (Gilbert & Tang, 1998). Additional research
has investigated organizations’ various trust-building practices. Lewicki and Bunker (1995)
developed three trust-building strategies, including calculative, predictive, and identification
processes. The calculative processes focused on the cost and benefits of manager behavior, the
predictive basis of trust focuses on the ability to predict the behavior of others, and the
identification processes discuss how individuals share similar values, interests, and goals
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). Other studies have analyzed trust-building strategies with differing
findings. Brashear et al. (2003) found the identification process to be the most important factor in
trust-building in the workplace, whereas R. M. Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that the
calculative process had a stronger relationship with trust.
Building on the research on trust and trust-building activities in the workplace, the impact
of trust on organizational change is also prevalent in the literature, with studies suggesting a
strong relationship between organizational change and its ability to either improve or degrade
trust in the workplace (Lines et al., 2005; D. Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). Other research on trust
and organizational change has focused on management’s trustworthiness and its impact on the
readiness to change by employees (Kiefer, 2005; Vakola, 2014). In a large-scale organizational
analysis in Australia, researchers found that the more direct managers are with employees in
change initiatives, the greater the level of trust in management is (D. Morgan & Zeffane, 2003).
The impact of change initiatives on trust in management can help support how organizations
assess their change practices.
As with trust-building, middle management plays an important role in impacting
organizational trust, influencing change, supporting company-wide initiatives, and contributing
to performance (Burgelman, 1988; Georgiades, 2015; Godkin, 2015; Nielsen & González, 2010;
3
Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). As suggested by several recent studies, middle managers contribute
to an employee’s sense of organizational trust, employee commitment, and employee
participation within an organization (Lampaki & Papadakis, 2018; Lleo et al., 2017; A. Y. Zhang
et al., 2008). Several studies have examined middle managers’ roles during organizational
change and their impact on employee sensemaking (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Beatty & Lee,
1992; Huy, 2002). The interaction between middle managers and their role in improving
employee trust, in particular, is a key focus of this study.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of low organizational trust is important to solve for a variety of reasons. In a
2002 meta-analysis, trust in an organization’s leadership suggests a positive correlation to job
attitudes and intentions, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and low intention
to quit (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). These factors also positively influence organizational
performance and effectiveness, with early studies by Ostroff (1992) investigating the relationship
between job satisfaction and performance at the organizational level. Furthermore, organizational
commitment, which has a strong association with organizational trust, has been frequently
studied and continues to show an influence on positive behaviors in organizations, such as
performance and employee retention (Riketta, 2002). Thus, organizational trust is a key factor in
organizational performance, and its deficit in an organization is an important problem to focus on
and solve.
Organizational Context and Mission
International Banking Group (IBG or IBG Bank), a pseudonym, is one of the world’s
largest financial institutions. It has offices located throughout the world, with its U.S. offices
headquartered on the West Coast. It provides financial services to all sectors of the economy,
4
including consumer banking, commercial banking, corporate banking, asset management,
investment banking, and wealth management. IBG’s mission is to serve society while reliably
meeting its customers’ needs. In the United States, the largest division is the retail bank, which
serves over a million consumer, business, and commercial clients. The retail bank’s footprint
spans the West Coast, with more than 600 retail and commercial offices and over 10,000
employees. The retail bank’s core mission is to be a premier West Coast banking institution. The
retail bank generates nearly $5 billion in revenue and nearly $1 billion in net income.
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the center of this study is low organizational
trust across IBG Bank’s retail banking group. Employee engagement has been a core focus of the
retail banking group since 2014, with little improvement in the past decade, and organizational
trust is a primary component of IBG Bank’s employee engagement scores. Organizational trust,
along with other employee engagement factors, is measured on a biennial basis by a third-party
provider of employment survey data services. The biennial survey is called the state of the
employee survey and is conducted across all IBG groups globally. As part of its survey, the third
party provides IBG with industry benchmarks for comparison purposes. Across the retail
banking industry, organizational trust scores have remained relatively consistent since 2014 with
benchmark scores at approximately 80%.
During the 2022–2023 calendar year, IBG Bank conducted a state of the employee survey
across all departments globally and released its results in January 2024. Results revealed that the
retail department’s organizational trust scores were 70%, representing a gap of 10% to retail
banking industry benchmarks. To continue to realize its mission of building trust, serving
society, and reliably meeting its customers’ needs, IBG Bank must improve organizational trust
5
scores among its retail banking group. Decreased levels of trust may interfere and discourage
employees from supporting ongoing change management initiatives, ultimately leading to a miss
in financial targets, increased cost cutting, and lower levels of revenue growth.
Organizational Performance Goal
IBG Bank’s goal is to achieve 80% or higher in organizational trust scores among the
retail banking group by January 2026. After analyzing the results of the 2022–2023 state of the
employee survey, IBG Bank’s U.S.-based executive committee established and published a goal
of increasing organizational trust scores by 10% by the next survey reporting period in 2026. The
executive committee determined the retail banking group’s goal against industry survey
benchmark data for similar size banks during the same period. Given that the state of the
employee survey is administered only every other year, there are no interim measures to track
progress toward the goal.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The primary U.S.-based stakeholders at IBG Bank include the executive committee (EC),
the senior management team (SMT), and middle managers in the retail banking group. The EC
consists of the company’s top 10 executives with the corporate title of vice chairman. The
members of the EC all report directly to the chief executive officer (CEO) and are designated as
Hierarchy 1 (H1) leaders since they are one level down from the CEO. This stakeholder group is
also referred to as the C-suite because their functional titles generally start with the word “chief”
(e.g., chief financial officer, chief human resource officer, chief marketing officer, etc.). The EC
has policy-making authority for the company, is responsible for leading the major divisions
across the bank, and is accountable to annually published objectives and key results, including
6
employee engagement scores. The organization that reports up through each EC member
generally consists of several thousand employees.
The SMT is the top 75 senior managers in the company, and all have the title of executive
vice president. The SMT members report directly to an EC member and are designated as
Hierarchy 2 (H2) leaders since they are two levels down from the CEO. The SMT is responsible
for overseeing, managing, and steering the strategic planning process for the various departments
throughout the bank. The organization that reports up through each SMT member generally
consists of several hundred employees.
The last stakeholder group consists of middle managers in the retail banking group.
Approximately 45 of them hold the title of senior vice president. All report directly to an SMT
member and are designated as Hierarchy 3 (H3) leaders since they are three levels down from the
CEO. They are responsible for implementing, executing, and carrying through on the strategic
plans and policies put forward by the SMT and EC. The departments that report through them
generally consist of 15 to 50 employees, although some may oversee fewer.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1 presents the goals for both the larger organization and the stakeholders of focus
in this study.
7
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational mission
To build trust, to serve society, and to reliably meet the needs of our customers, stakeholders, and
shareholders.
Organizational performance goal
By the next employee engagement measurement period in January 2026, IBG Bank will achieve a
10% increase in organizational trust scores as a part of the company-wide employee
engagement survey.
Executive committee (H1)
By October 2023, the EC. Will
sponsor and publish an action
plan to improve
organizational trust across all
IBG Bank divisions within
the United States, including
the retail bank, by 10%.
Senior management team
(H2)
By January 2024, the SMT.
Will identify middle
managers in departments
where improvement in trust
scores is most needed.
Middle managers (H3)
By January 2026, retail
banking middle managers
will increase trust-building
activities within their teams
by 100% to drive a 10%
increase in organizational
trust scores.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes I selected only one stakeholder as the key focus for this study: retail banking middle
managers. At IBG Bank, these stakeholders are commonly known as H3 leaders. Specifically,
they play an integral role by directly leading the line staff functions as well as communicating
and securing appropriate resources made available by H1 and H2 leadership. This connector
between the senior ranks of the organization and the front-line employees is essential in broad
change efforts (Lewis, 2018). Retail banking middle managers are generally closest to the action,
participating in most company-wide change efforts as both leaders and contributors. This
proximity to the front line also helps with their credibility in communicating initiatives from
8
executive and senior leadership (Gabris & Ihrke, 2007). As such, their role is of most importance
in ensuring organizational trust scores are improved by 10%.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on middle managers in improving organizational trust
during times of constant change by incorporating trust-building activities in their departments.
The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible or assumed causes and then by examining
these systematically to focus on actual or validated causes. While a complete gap analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus in this analysis are
middle managers in the retail banking group.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What is the middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to incorporating
trust-building activities?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for middle managers to help improve trust deficits in
their organization?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study implemented Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework to
help clarify organizational goals, establish a baseline, and identify the gap between the two. The
methodological framework is a mixed-methods case study with descriptive statistics. I generated
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with organizational
9
goal achievement based on personal knowledge and related literature. I assessed these influences
using surveys, interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Lastly, I will recommend
research-based and comprehensively evaluated solutions.
Definition of Terms
● Organizational trust refers to the definition by Gilbert and Tang (1998) as a feeling of
confidence in an employer in which the employer will follow through on
commitments.
● Trust-building activities refer to a combination of stages and activities a manager or
leader goes through to influence the amount of trust an employee has in their leader
and/or in their organization.
● Constant change is when an organization engages in frequent organizational change
initiatives such as downsizing and structural changes to its business model (Littler et
al., 1997; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about employee trust in leadership and middle
management. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts
of gap analysis, were introduced. Chapter 2 provides a review of current literature surrounding
the scope of the study. It will address topics of organizational trust, trust-building, and middle
management. Chapter 3 details the assumed interfering elements as well as the methodology
when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter 4, the data
and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter 5 provides solutions, based on data and literature,
10
for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation
plan for the solutions.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study focuses on organizational trust and its impact on the workplace during times
of change. Without trust in the workplace, employees are less engaged, less productive, and more
likely to leave their company (Harter, 2019; Zak, 2017). When orchestrating organizational
change, the more trust employees have in their leadership, the more ready employees are to
embrace change in their company (Lines et al., 2005). Higher levels of trust in leadership also
suggest that organizations can perform more effectively with higher levels of profitability
(Brown et al., 2015; Gambetta, 1988, 2000; Simons, 2002). Hence, organizational trust can
produce several benefits for the workplace and consequently can also undermine an
organization’s achievement of its goals.
In this chapter, I will review the literature on the topics of organizational trust, starting
with a general review of the influences on organizational trust, the impacts of organizational trust
in the workplace, and the effects leadership style has on organizational trust. Following the
general review of the literature, I will then review the role of IBG Bank middle managers and
explain the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences lens used in this study. I will
then turn to their knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and complete the chapter
by presenting Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework.
Influences on the Problem of Practice: Organizational Trust
Trust has been defined within many contexts across disciplines. In the foundational work
of Cook and Wall (1980), the authors theorized that trust can be described in two ways. Affective
trust is having mutual interpersonal care for one another, and cognitive trust is the confidence
one has in another’s reliability and competence. In the context of the workplace, there are two
common definitions of organizational trust. The frequently cited work of Mayer et al. (1995)
12
summarizes organizational trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party. Another common definition comes from Gilbert and Tang (1998), which is that
organizational trust as a feeling of confidence that the employer will follow through on
commitments. The following sections will examine research on organizational trust that has
revealed several powerful influences at play in the workplace: transparent communication,
knowledge and information sharing, and organizational change (Casimir et al., 2012; DiFonzo &
Bordia, 1998; Gilbert & Tang, 1998).
Transparent Communication
Over the years, several studies have emerged highlighting the strong association between
transparent communication and trust in organizational leadership. Rawlins (2008) reviewed
transparency at a large healthcare organization with 25,000 employees and found that
transparent, open communication and organizational trust were strongly related. In that study, the
researchers found that the components of trust (competence, integrity, and goodwill) were
positively related to the components of transparency (participation, substantial information, and
accountability). Similarly, in a random sample of 391 employees across industry sectors,
transparent organizational communication significantly influenced the amount of trust employees
had in the company (Jiang & Luo, 2018). Jiang and Luo outlined the ingredients for transparent
communication which included truthfulness, being relevant and useful, as well as soliciting
employee feedback. The authors’ findings suggest that these key ingredients of transparent
communication ultimately lead to employees having higher levels of organizational trust.
Building on these findings of transparent communications, Yue et al. (2019) reinforced that
increasing communication transparency builds more organizational trust, specifically
13
highlighting the influences that open, honest, and ethical communication has on minimizing
information gaps between employees and organizations, thus improving trust.
Prior research has also found transparent communication within different channels
throughout an organization. Channels such as mentorships, informal networks, and interpersonal
relationships cultivate an environment of open communication and may enhance employees’
feelings of organizational trust (Gilbert & Tang, 1998). Having a mentor may provide open
communication to information not privy to others (Chao et al., 1992), whereas informal networks
and interpersonal relationships help foster an open flow of communication about what is
happening in the organization (Sias et al., 2012; X. Zhang & Venkatesh, 2013). Thus,
organizational trust depends on leaders’ abilities to disseminate communication that is honest,
substantial, and relevant, as well as building the framework for relationships to thrive in the
workplace (Chao et al., 1992; Gilbert & Tang, 1998; Rawlins, 2008). In addition to transparent
communication, the literature regarding the role of knowledge and information sharing is also to
be considered.
Knowledge and Information Sharing
Research has found that the sharing of knowledge and information within an organization
is a strong influencer of organizational trust. The literature generally refers to knowledge sharing
in the context of social exchange and social capital theory; social exchange theory posits that
knowledge sharing occurs due to the exchange of organizational favors, wherein social capital
theory argues that knowledge sharing occurs to provide benefits for both parties (Casimir et al.,
2012; Hau et al., 2013; Tsai & Cheng, 2012; Yan et al., 2016). Information sharing with an eye
toward acting with discretion is key to trustworthiness (Abrams et al., 2003). For example,
interviewees surveyed from 20 organizations across industries indicated that managers were
14
more trustworthy when they kept sensitive information to themselves in confidence as a result of
knowledge sharing with a colleague (Abrams et al., 2003). In the same study, the researchers
found that employees who provided knowledge seekers access to information such as
experiential and tacit knowledge was a sign that the sharing employee deemed the knowledge
seeker as trustworthy which created reciprocal trust (Abrams et al., 2003).
Studies in the for-profit sector have confirmed the relationship between information
sharing and trust in leadership, with studies generally reflecting the relationship between
employees and their leader (Alsharo et al., 2017; Holste & Fields, 2010; P. Lee et al., 2010). In a
recent study of 193 employees in the information technology sector, Alsharo et al. (2017) set out
to understand the impact of knowledge sharing on organizational trust in the virtual team setting.
The researchers defined knowledge sharing as a form of social exchange where individuals share
information without expectation of return. The results suggest that knowledge sharing had a
significant impact on organizational trust, especially as it relates to virtual team settings. This
study and findings are especially fitting in the current environment where many companies are
working remotely due to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Zeidner, 2020).
Furthering the discussion on knowledge sharing and trust, another theme in the literature
is the reciprocal relationship of the variables, with research focusing on organizational trusts’
impact on knowledge sharing itself (Casimir et al., 2012; Chow & Chan, 2008; Lin & Hsiao,
2014; Lucas, 2005; Swift & Hwang, 2013). This body of work further strengthens the
relationship between the two variables and, as suggested by Koohang et al. (2017), can positively
contribute to organizational performance. The literature on knowledge and information sharing
has been strongly linked to organizational trust and is important for organizational leaders to
consider when seeking to foster trust in the workplace (Abrams et al., 2003; Casimir et al., 2012;
15
Lucas, 2005). In addition to knowledge and information sharing, the literature regarding the role
of organizational change and its influences on trust is also discussed and to be considered.
Organizational Change
The impact of organizational change on workplace trust is so powerful that, as some
scholars have suggested, any organizational change can have an adverse impact on
organizational trust. Organizational change, which results in downsizing, structural change, or
constant change, is detrimental to organizational trust (Littler et al., 1997; Mishra & Spreitzer,
1998). D. Morgan and Zeffane (2003) supported these findings in their large-scale study where
they surveyed 2,000 workplaces of over 19,000 employees. In their exploratory study, the
authors categorized organizational change as technological, structural, and work role change,
concluding that structural changes have the strongest impact on organizational trust, with
employees indicating their concerns and suspicions of management during substantial workplace
restructuring. Additionally, the study confirmed that constant change is associated with a
decrease in trust; strategies to increase trust during times of change were also reviewed and
included direct consultation with management. In a smaller study of multiple organizations,
Lines et al. (2005) found additional variables of organizational change impacting trust in
leadership. One of the variables found was a positive relationship between perceived decision
quality in the change initiative itself and organizational trust. This relationship is not new in the
literature and was analyzed in the seminal work of Cook and Wall (1980).
More recent literature also helps to underline the significance of the relationship between
organizational change and organizational trust. One study of senior managers found that
affective commitment and interpersonal trust between employees and management directly affect
organizational change success (Ouedraogo & Ouakouak, 2018). In times of constant change,
16
trust in leadership is a consistent theme throughout the recent literature, with several studies
finding strong relationships between perceptions of organizational trust and integrity on
employee’s willingness to accept change (Agote et al., 2016; Grama & Todericiu, 2016; Islam et
al., 2020). These studies highlight the strong reciprocal relationship between trust and
organizational change and suggest that before embarking on change initiatives, management
should ensure organizational trust throughout the ranks with an emphasis on open
communication, soliciting employee feedback, and employee participation in decision-making.
For stakeholders to feel a sense of organizational trust, leaders must understand the impacts of
change initiatives on organizational trust (Lines et al., 2005; Littler et al., 1997; Mishra &
Spreitzer, 1998). The following section will review the literature on the impacts of trust in the
workplace.
Impacts of Organizational Trust in the Workplace
This next section will explore the significant impacts of organizational trust in the
workplace, focusing on its influence on employee outcomes. Specifically, it will address how
trust affects job satisfaction and employee retention, with research from both academic studies
and industry reports. By examining these areas, the section highlights the role of organizational
trust in shaping employee experiences and organizational success.
Job Satisfaction
The organizational benefits of high trust in the workplace are well documented, with
numerous studies over the years highlighting the impact of organizational trust on workplace job
satisfaction. Organizational trust, the willingness to be vulnerable, and trust in leaders are
strongly associated with employee job satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Davy et
al., 1997; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). In a 2010 study of 353 healthcare
17
workers, a combination of affective and cognitive trust in leadership significantly predicted
employees’ overall job satisfaction (Yang & Mossholder, 2010). In a similar 2013 study of 360
employees in higher education, trust in the supervisor had a mediating effect on job satisfaction
(Braun et al., 2013). With regards to a leader’s commitment to fairness, a component of
organizational trust, employees have indicated the feeling that their leader cares for them, which
leads to job satisfaction as well (Yukl et al., 2013).
The impact of trust on job satisfaction is also prevalent and a recurring theme in industry
publications and reports. In a recent industry report by the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM) of 600 employees of over 20 professions, 61% of employees rated trust in
their leaders as very important to job satisfaction (C. Lee et al., 2017). Notwithstanding, only
33% of employees surveyed were satisfied with their level of trust in their leadership. The
SHRM report also highlighted techniques to improve trust, including creating an open-door
policy and encouraging leaders to forge better communication channels. In recent work on
employee engagement, Gallup discusses what employees need to be able to support
organizational satisfaction, with an environment of trust being a core foundational need (Nink,
2020). The aforementioned literature and professional industry reports help provide awareness to
an organization’s leaders on how influential trust is on an employee’s overall level of job
satisfaction (Davy et al., 1997; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). In addition to job satisfaction, the related
literature regarding the influence trust has on employee retention is also to be considered.
18
Employee Retention
The literature on organizational trust and its influence on employee retention is abundant,
with several studies highlighting the relationship across industries. A synopsis of the research
reveals that employees with high levels of trust in their organization are more likely to stay and
pursue long-lasting careers with their organization (Balkan et al., 2014; Cho & Song, 2017;
Shahnawaz & Goswami, 2011). In a study of employee turnover intention, over 200 social
workers were surveyed to determine the association between organizational trust and employee
turnover (Cho & Song, 2017). The researchers found that two antecedents of organizational trust,
supervisory support and autonomy, negatively influenced employee turnover intention and,
conversely, were positively associated with retention. Related earlier research on employee
satisfaction and trust showed a positive relationship to employee loyalty to an organization
(Anne & Grønholdt, 2001; Mak & Sockel, 2001; Matzler & Renzl, 2006). In the Matzler and
Renzl study (2006) of a public utility company, the researchers found that organizational trust
was a strong predictor of employee satisfaction with indirect influences on employee loyalty.
Researchers studying the effects servant leadership and trust in leaders had on employee turnover
also found an indirect relationship, with trust in leadership serving as a mediating effect on
employee turnover (Kashyap & Rangnekar, 2016).
Industry publications and reports also highlight the effect of organizational trust on
employee retention. A recent Gallup study (Harter, 2019) reported that employees with high trust
in leadership are twice as likely to stay with their company 1 year later; conversely, employees
with low trust in leadership have already started to plan their exit and have no interest in the
company. A PwC white paper (Friend & Tuddenham, 2015) discussed several benefits of being a
trustworthy organization, including driving performance. In the organizations studied, trust is a
19
leading indicator for several outcomes, including employee retention. In addition to the white
paper, the aforementioned literature in this section has broadly highlighted the benefits of
focusing on organizational trust, including its impact on retaining employees (Balkan et al.,
2014; Cho & Song, 2017). In further examination of the literature on organizational trust, the
research on the effect of leadership styles and their interaction on trust is prevalent and will be
the focus of the following section.
Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Trust
The following section will examine how different leadership styles impact organizational
trust, with a specific focus on authentic and transformational leadership. Those sections will
explore the characteristics of each leadership style and their influence on fostering trust within
organizations. The discussion will draw on Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) foundational work on
authentic leadership and Bernard Bass’s (1985) seminal research on transformational leadership.
Authentic Leadership
The research on authentic leadership reflects a relatively new body of work, with the
academic literature beginning to blossom in the early 2000s. The growing field of authentic
leadership notes its relationship with organizational trust. There are several definitions of
authentic leadership written from unique perspectives (Chan, 2005), but the foundational work of
Walumbwa et al. (2008) will be used in this section to describe authentic leadership. Walumbwa
et al. conceptualized authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior grounded in the leader’s
positive qualities and ethics and reflected in self-awareness, internalized moral perspective,
balanced processing, and relationship transparency. Self-awareness refers to personal insights,
internalized moral perspective describes the use of internal morals and values to guide behavior,
20
balanced processing relates to the ability to remain objective and unbiased, and lastly, relational
transparency refers to showing one’s true self, including positive and negative aspects.
Authentic leadership has been strongly linked to trust in leadership, with several studies
highlighting this connection (Agote et al., 2016; Gardner et al., 2011; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011;
Zamahani et al., 2011). Gardner et al.’s (2011) work is particularly useful in cataloging the
relationship between authentic leadership and trust in its content analysis and reviews the strong
relationship between authentic leadership and organizational trust throughout the literature
(Clapp-Smith et al., 2009; Wong & Cummings, 2009; Wong et al., 2010). Wong and
Cummings’s (2009) study focused on the healthcare sector with a random sample of over 300
employees surveyed. The authors found that a component of authentic leadership (supportive
leader behavior) and trust in management were necessary for employees to voice concerns in the
workplace. Furthermore, this study identified a positive connection between trust in management
and staff voice behavior. In addition to authentic leadership, the literature regarding the role of
transformational leadership and its influences on trust is also to be considered.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has been a popular area of interest in the literature for over
30 years and has been defined in several ways, including the way it changes and transforms
people (Northouse, 2018). The seminal work of Bernard Bass (1985) categorizes
transformational leadership into four factors: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Charisma is the emotional
component of leadership where leaders provide followers a vision, inspirational motivation
describes how leaders inspire followers through motivation, intellectual stimulation relates to a
leader’s ability to stimulate their followers to challenge the beliefs of the organization, and lastly,
21
individualized consideration represents leaders who provide a supportive climate and tend to
followers’ needs. Trust in transformational leaders has generally been found to be strong, with
several studies reflecting this relationship (Braun et al., 2013; Lin & Hsiao, 2014; Martins
Marques de Lima Rua & Costa Araújo, 2013). In a recent study of 439 employees across a
variety of industries, the authors found that when transformational leadership and individualized
consideration were present during times of organizational change, employees exhibited higher
levels of trust in the organization (Yue et al., 2019). These findings, along with the previously
discussed research, help highlight the positive relationship between transformational leadership
and organizational trust (Bass, 1985; Northouse, 2018).
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus: Middle Management at IBG Bank
The stakeholder of focus for this study is the retail banking middle managers at IBG
Bank. In Chapter 1, I defined middle managers as H3 leaders responsible for implementing,
executing, and carrying out the strategic plans put forward by the executive teams. The literature
on this population is extensive, stretching back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, with
foundational work outlining the roles middle managers play in communicating between upper
management and front-line staff, establishing objectives, coordinating priorities, and supporting
change management efforts (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Beatty & Lee, 1992; Huy, 2002;
Mintzberg, 1978; Pugh et al., 1968; Raelin & Cataldo, 2011; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990;
Wooldridge et al., 2008). These authors have all contributed to the body of knowledge of middle
management, categorizing their roles as strategic, administrative, decision-making, leading, and
communicating (Rezvani, 2017).
Prior research has found that involving middle managers in change initiatives can lead to
greater employee support of the organizational change (Heyden et al., 2017; Raelin & Cataldo,
22
2011). In their 2011 study, Raelin and Cataldo conducted a qualitative case study of a financial
services firm undergoing significant change initiatives over 12 months. Results pointed to rankand-file employees feeling disempowered during and after the change without the support of the
middle management. Further, Raelin and Cataldo noted that middle management was needed to
bolster the change initiatives, yet when middle management felt marginalized, their role during
the change initiative became limited to trying to sell the change.
In a similar qualitative case study, Hope (2010) explored the role of middle managers
during an 8-month change project where longitudinal data were collected from an insurance
company’s different departments. From the 29 interviews, the author concluded that those with
the greatest expertise navigating the organization during the change exerted the most positive
influence on the change, including controlling the change itself. The literature focusing on
middle management supports our understanding of this stakeholder group and is the focus of our
assessment of knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences.
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework
I used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework model to analyze the
performance of middle management at IBG Bank. Clark and Estes’s framework is a researchbased performance improvement model grounded in understanding the underlying stakeholder
goals, identifying the gaps hindering performance, and identifying the performance influences in
the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) based on theory, the related
literature, and an in-depth understanding of the organization. The following sections will discuss
the stakeholder-specific KMO assumed influences.
23
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This section explores the KMO influences that impact middle managers’ ability to build
trust within their teams. It will examine how different types of knowledge, such as declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive, affect trust-building. Additionally, the section will discuss the
motivational impacts of task value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. Lastly, the section will
review how organizational influences such as cultural models and settings also influence the
ability to improve organizational trust.
Knowledge and Skills
This section will examine the literature surrounding knowledge and its influence on
middle managers in building trust in their organizations. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
knowledge is a key facilitator or inhibitor of work performance, likening knowledge to a car’s
engine and transmission. Knowledge is essential for job performance when employees do not
have the proficiency to accomplish their goals and when novel problem solving is required. The
absence of knowledge can create challenges in accurately diagnosing performance gaps and is a
key pillar in the gap analysis framework.
I used a revised version of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives to define
the knowledge types used in this study. The revised taxonomy, as it is often referred to, classifies
the four typologies of knowledge into three categories: declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Declarative knowledge, which refers to the knowledge about
facts and concepts, is comprised of factual and conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge is the
knowledge of facts and the basic elements one must know to solve a problem, whereas
conceptual knowledge groups information into patterns, structures, and relationships. Next,
procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge of how to do something or the basic steps of how
24
to do something. Lastly, metacognitive knowledge refers to one’s awareness and knowledge of
one’s cognition and suggests an awareness learning. The four typologies of knowledge are the
foundation of knowledge middle managers must have to support their goal of building trust
within their teams and ultimately improve organizational trust within IBG Bank.
Knowledge Influence 1: Middle Managers Know the Organizational Trust Scores of Their
Department From the Employee Engagement Survey.
The first knowledge influence that impacts middle managers’ ability to incorporate trustbuilding activities to improve organizational trust is for them to know their departments’ trust
scores. This influence is in the realm of factual knowledge. Middle managers need to know their
department’s actual scores to assess the performance gap. Without this factual knowledge, it will
be challenging for them to become acquainted with the issue and solve the problem (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002). Having the knowledge about employee trust scores up front can
help establish clear objectives and further organize their thoughts about the trust-building
activities needed. Other research over the years has highlighted this relationship between factual
knowledge and job performance and will play a key role in closing this performance gap
(Johnson, 2003; Murphy & Kroeker, 1988).
Knowledge Influence 2: Middle Managers Know How Their Role Contributes to Building
Trust Within Their Teams
The second knowledge influence that impacts middle managers’ ability to incorporate
trust-building activities to improve organizational trust is for them to know how their role
contributes to building trust. This influence reflects conceptual knowledge. Several studies have
highlighted the strong influence middle managers have on building trust based on the fact that
their organizational role helps to communicate strategic goals from leadership (Huy, 2002;
25
Mantere, 2008; A. Y. Zhang et al., 2008). Having this conceptual knowledge about their role and
its impact on the organization can help empower them to affect change toward their goal.
Knowledge Influence 3: Middle Managers Know the Steps to Take to Incorporate TrustBuilding Activities With Employees, Which Include Communicating Openly, Knowledge
Sharing, Establishing Rewards for Conserving Trust, and Appreciating Shared Values.
The third knowledge influence that impacts middle managers’ ability to incorporate trustbuilding activities to improve organizational trust is to know what to do to incorporate trustbuilding in their teams. This influence pertains to procedural knowledge. It is possible for middle
managers to know the facts and concepts of trust-building but not know the steps or how to apply
those principles (Ambrose et al., 2010). Accordingly, procedural knowledge is central to
achieving trust-building goals. Trust-building activities have been defined as mechanisms
individuals use to assure others of their capabilities and their willingness to fulfill promises to
others (Long et al., 2003).
In foundational research on trust-building, Lewicki and Bunker (1995) defined the trustbuilding model in three stages. Stage 1 is calculative-based trust, which focuses on both the fear
of breaching trust and the rewards for conserving trust in the manager-employee dynamic. This
trust-building stage involves establishing controls, an effective rewards system, and protections
to encourage trusting behavior, and a credible punishment and sanction system to discourage
breaches of trust (Gwebu et al., 2007). The second stage is predictive-based trust where people
depend on the behavioral predictability of the parties, where the more predictable the behavior,
the more trust improves. A central component in building predictive-based trust is open
communication and information sharing. The last stage is identification-based trust which is a
mutual understanding and appreciation for each other’s shared values. Components of building
26
identification-based trust include sharing a collective identity and sharing a common business
understanding, such as social and psychological ties (Dutton et al., 1994). Middle managers must
understand the steps needed for trust-building activities, as these are key to their success in
improving organizational trust.
Knowledge Influence 4: Middle Managers Are Able to Reflect on Their Own Abilities to Build
Trust on Teams Where Trust Is Deficient.
The final knowledge influence that impacts middle managers’ ability to incorporate trustbuilding activities to improve organizational trust is to reflect on their abilities to build trust
when it is lacking. This knowledge is metacognitive. Metacognitive skills refer to the
effectiveness of being a self-directed learner (Ambrose et al., 2010). Ambrose et al. (2010)
described being an effective self-directed learner as assessing the task’s demands, evaluating
their knowledge and skills, organizing their approach, monitoring their progress, and fine-tuning
if needed. When evaluating one’s strengths and weaknesses, it is common for one to
overestimate abilities in a particular area (Dunning, 2006). Self-assessment is one approach to
help with metacognition. Middle managers will benefit from improving their metacognitive skills
by developing and assessing approaches to complex problems.
Table 2 provides a summary of IBG Bank’s middle managers’ knowledge influences
required to achieve their stakeholder goal of increasing their teams’ trust-building activities by
100% to drive a 10% increase in organizational trust scores. Table 2 also outlines how I assessed
these influences in this study.
27
Table 2
Knowledge Influences and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge influences Knowledge survey Knowledge interview
Middle managers know the
organizational trust scores of
their department from the
employee engagement
survey. (Declarative -
Factual)
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree.
Rate your agreement with the
following:
I know the organizational trust
scores on my team from the
latest employee engagement
survey.
Tell me what the organizational
trust scores are for your
department in the latest
employee engagement
survey.
Tell me what the organizational
trust goal is for your
department.
Middle managers know how
their role contributes to
building trust within their
teams. (Declarative -
Conceptual)
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
My position as a middle
manager is a contributor to
building organizational trust
within my team.
Tell me how your role as a
middle manager contributes
to building trust in your team.
Middle managers know the
steps to take to incorporate
trust-building activities with
employees which include
communicating openly,
knowledge sharing,
establishing rewards for
conserving trust, and
appreciating shared values.
(Procedural)
An example of trust-building
activities with employees
includes the following:
(Check all that apply)
Communicating openly
Sharing privileged information
Establishing rewards for
conserving trust
Hosting team-building events
Showing appreciation for
shared values
Involving junior colleagues in
important decision-making
Walk me through the steps you
take to incorporate trustbuilding activities with your
employees.
Tell me about how you
encourage trusting behavior
within your team.
Middle managers reflect on
their abilities to build trust in
teams where trust is deficient.
(Metacognitive)
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
How do you evaluate the
effectiveness of your trustbuilding strategies?
Talk me through how you
approach a situation where
you need to improve trust
with an employee on your
team.
28
Knowledge influences Knowledge survey Knowledge interview
I regularly reflect on my
progress toward building
trust in my team.
I think through different trustbuilding strategies before
determining a path for a
given employee.
Motivation
This section will examine the literature surrounding motivation and its influences on
middle managers in their efforts to achieve their goals of building trust in their organizations.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is a key facilitator of work performance,
likening motivation to what energizes a car - gasoline and the battery. Clark and Estes (2008)
described the three motivational types that are common in the literature which are active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Active choice relates to when the intention to pursue a work goal
is replaced by the active pursuit of that goal. Persistence illustrates that once a goal is started, one
will continue to persist at that goal even where there are distractions. Lastly, mental effort refers
to when people actively pursue a goal, persist at that goal even if there are distractions present,
and have selected the requisite amount of mental effort toward those goals (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). The research on motivation has generated foundational theories to help assess
performance in goal achievement. The most common theoretical components in the literature are
self-efficacy, expectancy value, attribution, and goal orientation. These motivational theories
support learning and the concept that leaders need the proper motivational construct to positively
influence organizational trust (Conchie, 2013). For this study, the key motivational influences
29
that will be reviewed for middle managers at IBG Bank through the lens of organizational trust
are expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory, and goal achievement theory.
Expectancy-Value Theory
I will use expectancy-value theory (EVT) to highlight the motivational influences on
middle managers and their goal of trust-building. The theory was developed over the last 50
years to help understand motivational outcomes by focusing on expectancies and subjective task
values (Atkinson, 1957; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000). Expectancies can be defined as an
individual’s belief that they can succeed at a particular task, thus increasing motivation to pursue
the stated goals and objectives (Ambrose et al., 2010). In describing task value, the seminal work
of Wigfield and Eccles (1992, 2000) discussed how the perceived value of a task or activity
determines whether an individual is motivated to pursue and engage in the activity and the
various categories of subjective value. Those categories are attainment value, intrinsic value,
utility value, and cost belief. Attainment value is related to the importance to self, intrinsic value
is related to enjoyment, utility value is related to the usefulness of achieving a particular goal,
and cost belief is the variables required to achieve the goal, including loss of time, effort, and
energy.
Motivational Construct 1 is that middle managers value the process of building trust
within their team, which achieves the stakeholder goal of improving organizational trust. Task
value highlights how the value of completing a task can drive one’s motivation to pursue and
engage in that activity (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000). Two categories in task value are
intrinsic value and utility value. As previously discussed, intrinsic value relates to the enjoyment
of completing a task, and utility value describes how relevant achieving a goal is to one’s future
plans (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000). Middle managers may have knowledge of what trust-
30
building activities are, but a lack of value and motivation may limit their abilities to achieve their
goals. Enjoying a task drives important psychological benefits (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and
this intrinsic value in a task may help support the continuous achievement of a trust-building
goal. Having utility value in building trust may support the desired end state of building trust
with a team and, for example, future plans for developing positive long-term relationships with
employees. In a related study in the financial services industry, the authors surveyed 200 middle
managers and found that intrinsic and utility value had a significant impact on managerial
motivation (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007). This study was consistent with prior studies on
motivational constructs in the workplace (Porter et al., 1975; Snead, 1991).
Self-Efficacy
According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to execute
and achieve a task or goal. Self-efficacy is a component of social cognitive theory, which asserts
that learning is likely when there is a close relationship between the learner and the model and
when the learner has self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989). Learners acquire information to assess their
self-efficacy from actual performances, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and
physiological indices (Bandura, 1997). Successful performance, a reliable influence on selfefficacy, raises self-efficacy, and unsuccessful performance generally lower self-efficacy, with
successful performance influencing achievement (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2014). Vicarious
experience is another component of self-efficacy, whereby observing others who are similar
succeed at a task can raise a learner’s self-efficacy and motivation (Schunk, 2012). Social
persuasion, like believable positive feedback from credible persuaders, can support a learner’s
self-efficacy and goal attainment (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 2012). Bandura (1997) also described
31
how certain physiological indices, such as anxiety and stress, can also have an impact on selfefficacy.
Motivational Construct 2 is that middle managers need to be confident they can apply
trust-building activities such as open communication, knowledge sharing, establishing rewards
for conserving trust and showing appreciation for shared values. Having self-efficacy highlights
one’s ability to believe they can execute on a task. The stakeholders of focus are skilled bankers,
many of whom have decades of experience in the financial services industry. However, building
trust to improve organizational trust is a separate skill that does not generally correlate to a
banker’s financial services abilities and is why assessing self-efficacy in trust-building is a
construct of this study. There are middle managers in the organization who oversee successful
revenue-generating business lines, but according to the biennial engagement survey, they also
oversee teams who do not trust them. The actual performance via these scores may degrade a
middle manager’s self-efficacy in trust-building and hence continue to limit their motivation to
pursue this task.
Goal Orientation
The two primary goals of why learners partake in achievement behavior are mastery goal
orientation and performance goal orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Mastery goal orientation
relates to the focus on competence and task mastery, whereas performance goal orientation
highlights one’s ability in relation to the performance of others. Mastery and performance goals
are applicable across competence-relevant areas such as work and school (Elliot et al., 2017).
Building on goal theory, Elliot (1999) and Pintrich (2000) added to the literature by asserting that
one can both approach and avoid achievement goals based on personal and contextual factors.
32
Motivational Construct 3 is that middle managers want to create mastery and
performance orientation in relation to building trust on their teams. Creating mastery in their goal
of building trust can help support motivation and performance. Building competence and
mastery in this goal can lead to several positive patterns of affect, cognition, and behavior (Elliot
et al., 2017). Additionally, performance orientation is a motivating factor, as it drives managers
to excel at their goal achievement in relation to their peers. This can be explained by the praise a
manager may receive for achieving their goals, as well as the consequences of failing to meet
their goals.
Table 3 provides a summary of IBG Bank’s middle managers’ motivation influences
required to achieve their stakeholder goal of increasing their teams’ trust-building activities by
100% to drive a 10% increase in organizational trust scores. Table 3 also outlines these
influences’ assessment in this study.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivational Gap Analysis
Motivation influences Motivation survey Motivation interview
Middle managers need to value
the process of building trust
within their teams (task
value).
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
I enjoy building trust with my
teams.
As a middle manager, it is
important for me to build
trust with my team to achieve
our organizational goals.
Tell me about your level of
enjoyment when building
trust with your team.
Describe to me how useful it is
for you to incorporate trustbuilding activities with your
team.
33
Motivation influences Motivation survey Motivation interview
Middle managers need to be
confident they can apply
trust-building activities such
as open communication,
knowledge sharing,
establishing rewards for
conserving trust, and showing
appreciation for shared values
(self-efficacy).
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
I am confident in my ability to
build trust within my team.
How confident are you in
incorporating the following
trust-building activities with
your teams:
Communicating openly
Sharing privileged information
Establishing rewards for
conserving trust
Showing appreciation for
shared values
To what degree do you feel
confident about your ability
to build trust with your team?
Middle managers want to hold a
mastery and performance
orientation in relation to
building trust on their teams
(goal orientation).
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
I intend to incorporate trustbuilding activities within my
team even if I make mistakes.
My main goal is to have better
trust scores than my peer
middle managers.
Describe to me what drives you
to build trust in your team.
Organization: Stakeholder-Specific Factors
Organizational culture can be measured in terms of cultural models and cultural settings
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). According to Gallimore and Goldenberg, cultural models are
values, beliefs, and attitudes that can be so familiar to those who share them that they often are
invisible and unnoticed. Conversely, cultural settings are more visible and concrete which are an
embodiment of the said cultural models. In describing organizational culture, Schein and Schein
34
(2017) explained that culture is also visible and unconscious, similar to Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) definition. According to Schein and Schein, organizational culture is
categorized into three levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs, and underlying assumptions. Artifacts
are the visible structures and processes throughout an organization, including observed behavior
and processes.
Artifacts are indeed easy to observe yet difficult to interpret. Schein and Schein (2017)
described the next level of cultural models as espoused beliefs and values. This level consists of
the organization’s ideals, goals, values, aspirations, ideologies, and rationalizations. Certain
espoused values are only confirmed by the shared experience of the group through
reinforcement; this level of culture is conscious and helps to indoctrinate new members into the
culture (Schein & Schein, 2017). The third level of culture, the basic underlying assumptions, is
unconscious and often taken for granted. This level of organizational culture, like cultural
models from above, is generally invisible and automatic.
I used cultural models and settings to assess the organizational influences on middle
managers at IBG Bank. Strong cultural settings can ensure the appropriate tools and resources to
improve organizational trust. Cultural models that embrace open, honest, and relevant
information will support the climate at IBG Bank, laying a strong foundation for middle
managers.
Cultural Model Influence: IBG Bank Fosters a Culture of Open and Transparent
Communication
Supporting a culture where the organization values open and transparent communication
can be an essential influence on the ability to build trust within organizations. In the research of
Manley et al. (2011), researchers established an effective workplace culture framework where
35
open communication was considered an essential attribute. This attribute describes a workplace
culture where direct communication between different groups of employees is valued,
organizational processes are transparent, and individuals are encouraged to speak up. Manley et
al. (2011) also proposed that for organizations to develop an effective workplace culture, an
investment in developing transformational leadership and communication skills is necessary.
Transforming a culture to be more open and transparent with communication can improve the
organizational culture at IBG Bank to build trust.
Cultural Setting Influence: Middle Managers Have the Resources and Tools Necessary, Such
As Leadership Development Training, Periodic Management Reporting of Trust Scores, and
Access to Educational Resources to Learn About Organizational Trust-Building
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the necessity of organizational resources and noted that
the absence of such resources can limit stakeholders from meeting their goals. Being
unsuccessful at goal achievement is true even if stakeholders do have the knowledge and
motivation to succeed. Supporting organizational improvement requires the appropriate tools.
Training, reporting, and effective goals will be key for middle managers’ ability to achieve their
organizational trust goals. A concrete cultural setting, such as developing a clear annual review
process with a rating on managers’ trustworthiness, could help serve as a clear manifestation of
the cultural model. Further resources such as feedback and reporting tools could be beneficial for
assessing progress and milestones toward goal achievement. Providing feedback progress checks
is an essential need for improving performance and employees’ perceptions (Steelman &
Wolfeld, 2018).
Table 4 provides a summary of IBG Bank’s middle managers’ organizational influences
required to achieve their stakeholder goal of increasing trust-building activities within their
36
teams by 100% to drive a 10% increase in organizational trust scores. Table 4 also outlines these
influences’ assessment in this study.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis
Organizational influences Organization survey Organization interview
IBG Bank fosters a culture of
open and transparent
communication. (Cultural
Models)
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
My company values open and
honest feedback across the
organization.
How does IBG Bank encourage
the sharing of truthful and
open communication across
the organization?
Middle managers have the
resources and tools necessary
such as leadership
development training,
periodic management
reporting of trust scores, and
access to educational
resources to learn about
organizational trust-building.
(Cultural Settings)
Likert scale rating: Totally
disagree; somewhat disagree;
neutral; somewhat agree;
totally agree:
Rate your agreement with the
following:
My company provides
appropriate leadership
development training to
improve my trust-building
skills.
I have access to resources to
help me learn about ways to
increase trust-building within
my team.
What kind of tools does IBG
Bank provide you to develop
your trust-building skills with
your team?
37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework forms the foundation for the study, with the concepts,
assumptions, influences, and theories that inform the research (Maxwell, 2013). The framework
can be in visual or written form and narrates the relationship between the overall themes, factors,
and variables (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study employed Clark and Estes’s knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) to examine the
influences on middle managers in incorporating trust-building activities on their teams. These
influences can stand alone as independent topics, yet this study examined the interrelatedness of
KMO influences. Figure 1 illustrates how the variables work alongside one another to create an
impact on middle managers and their goal of improving organizational trust for IBG Bank.
Figure 1 illustrates how the interrelatedness of KMO influences can affect efforts to
improve organizational trust at IBG Bank. Figure 1 is the visual representation of the conceptual
framework created for this study, with organizational cultural settings and models serving as the
overall environment of the framework. In this environment, the middle manager stakeholders are
influenced by their knowledge, skills, and motivations. Combined, these influences drive middle
managers to support the attainment of their goal of improving organizational trust.
38
Figure 1
KMO Influences for Organizational Trust
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the KMO influences
on middle managers in improving organizational trust during times of constant change by
incorporating trust-building activities in their departments. Chapter 2 presented key literature that
reviewed influences on organizational trust, impacts of organizational trust in the workplace, and
effects of leadership style on organizational trust. Additionally, chapter two presented the key
KMO influences on middle managers to improve organizational trust. Finally, Chapter 2
examined Clark and Estes’s (2008) conceptual framework of knowledge, motivation, and
39
organizational influences. The forthcoming Chapter 3 will present the study’s methodological
approach.
40
Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to examine
the KMO influences on middle managers in improving organizational trust during times of
constant change by incorporating trust-building activities in their departments. In this chapter, I
present the research design and methods for data collection used to address the three research
questions at the foundation of this study:
1. What is the middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to incorporating
trust-building activities?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for middle managers to help improve trust deficits in
their organization?
In this chapter, I discuss the stakeholder population of focus for the study, including a
review and rationale of the sampling criteria and recruitment approach used for their selection.
Following the review of stakeholders, I will then discuss the data collection and instrumentation
tools utilized in the study: a survey and interviews. Next, a discussion of the data analysis
techniques used to review and assess the data will follow. The next section outlines the steps
taken to increase and maintain credibility and trustworthiness for the qualitative portion of the
study, and validity and reliability for the quantitative portion of the study. Finally, the chapter
will culminate with a discussion of ethics, limitations, and limitations of the study.
41
Participating Stakeholders
While all stakeholders would provide value to the goal of improving organizational trust,
for practical purposes, I selected only one stakeholder as the key focus for this study: middle
managers in the retail banking department of IBG Bank. Thes stakeholders are central in support
of the organization’s performance goal due to their responsibility to implement, execute, and
carry through on the company’s strategic plans and policies. As identified previously, this
stakeholder group is defined as hierarchically positioned three levels down from the CEO of IBG
Bank (H3). As of September 2023, there were approximately 45 middle managers employed in
IBG’s retail banking group. I invited all those who had been employed for at least a year to
participate in the survey as part of this study’s quantitative segment. For the qualitative portion
of this study, I selected a purposeful sample of convenience from the survey respondents for
interviews.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Survey respondents met two criteria, detailed in the following sections.
Criterion 1
Participants had to be current retail banking middle managers, as indicated by their
hierarchical status within IBG Bank (H3).
Criterion 2
Participants had to have been in their role for a minimum of 1 year. This criterion ensured
that they had sufficient experience and familiarity with the organizational culture in IBG Bank’s
retail banking division.
42
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The recruitment strategy utilized for the quantitative portion of this study was a
purposeful convenience sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study aimed to survey all retail
banking middle managers with at least 1 year of experience in their roles. Although this study’s
results are not intended to be generalizable to the entire financial services industry, seeking total
participation was appropriate for the research questions and framework outlined in this study.
With the approval from the retail banking human resources manager, I emailed all middle
managers with 1 year of experience in their role to invite them to take the survey. Twenty-seven
respondents did so, reflecting a survey response rate of 60%. I included institutional review
board (IRB) guidelines in the solicitation email.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The interviewees met four criteria, detailed in the following sections.
Criterion 1
Participants had to have completed a survey.
Criterion 2
Participants had to be current retail banking middle managers, as indicated by their
hierarchical status at IBG Bank (H3).
Criterion 3
Participants had to have been in their role for a minimum of 1 year. This criterion ensured
that they had sufficient experience and familiarity with the organizational culture in IBG Bank’s
retail banking division.
43
Criterion 4
Participants had to oversee at least 10 employees within their department to ensure the
depth of people management responsibilities.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The recruitment strategy utilized for the qualitative portion of this study is a purposeful
convenience sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At the end of the survey, respondents answered
whether they would volunteer to participate in an interview and, if so, to enter their email address
and the number of employees they manage. Of the 27 survey respondents, six participants
volunteered for the interview. Those selected for the interviews met the criterion of having been
with the retail banking group for at least 1 year and managing at least 10 employees. I contacted
volunteers via email to arrange a meeting date and time for the interview, which took place via
Zoom. The participants’ anonymity was maintained, and no participant was informed of the
identities of the other interviewees.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to determine the KMO influences needed
for middle management in IBG Bank to meet its performance goals. The quantitative and
qualitative data sources were interviews and surveys; this approach supported the triangulation of
the data by contributing to a more secure understanding of the issues (Maxwell, 2013). Six
participants from the 27 survey respondents volunteered to participate in a follow-up interview.
The purpose of the interview was to gain further insights into the survey questions, particularly
those where the survey responses did not yield sufficient or significant data for the study. The
next sections discuss these data collection methods.
44
Surveys
I created the survey instrument to determine the needs and assets impacting retail banking
middle managers, leveraging Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework in assessing
KMO influences. After receiving IRB approval, I created the survey through the Qualtrics online
survey tool and administered it via email to the individuals meeting the survey sample criteria
with assistance from the retail banking human resource manager.
The 14 survey questions were forced-choice Likert scale and matrix Likert scale format.
The respondents answered survey questions to assess (a) their declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge in organizational trust-related concepts; (b) their task value, selfefficacy, and goal orientation motivations in organizational trust-related concepts; and (c) the
organizational culture models and settings influencing their abilities (Atkinson, 1957; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Krathwohl, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
The respondents had a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the survey from the date I sent
the solicitation email. I sent one reminder email 1 week before the deadline and another the day
after the deadline to collect the remaining responses. I utilized respondent validation and peer
examination techniques to ensure the validity and reliability of the survey instruments by
validating the plausibility of the preliminary findings with participants who volunteered for an
interview. Additionally, I reviewed preliminary findings with my dissertation committee to
ensure the research questions were thoroughly addressed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Appendix
A provides the survey instrument.
Interviews
The purpose of the interview was to gain further insights into the survey questions,
particularly those where the survey responses did not yield sufficient or significant data for the
45
study. The interview protocol for this study was semi-structured. This approach is appropriate
given that I designed the interview questions to be generally structured with a degree of
flexibility guided by the issues this study sought to explore to help answer the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured approach was most appropriate for this
interview protocol because the desired outcome was for the participating stakeholders to outline
their worldview via the open-ended questions asked.
After the survey, I invited respondents to take part in a follow-up interview that would
last approximately 30 minutes. I conducted six interviews, representing 100% of those who
volunteered to participate and responded to the interview scheduling requests. Additionally, all
six interviewees met the criterion of having been with the retail banking group for at least 1 year
and managing at least 10 employees.
The interview protocol consisted of 13 questions and was designed to help answer the
research questions utilizing the conceptual framework focusing on KMO barriers for trustbuilding in the workplace. The knowledge questions selected explored the declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive factors influencing the participants (Krathwohl, 2002). The
motivation questions selected explored the task value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation factors
influencing the participants (Atkinson, 1957; Bandura, 1977; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000).
The final two questions related to organizational barriers explored the cultural models and
settings impacting the participants (Clark & Estes, 2008). The interview questions incorporated
several characteristics suggested by Patton (2015) to help stimulate responses and included
experience, opinion, feeling, knowledge, and sensory questions. I conducted all interviews
synchronously via Zoom, and these lasted anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. Field notes included
46
the Zoom audio transcription to ensure accuracy, as well as reflective commentary to support the
process of analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Appendix B provides the interview protocol.
Survey Data Coding
After the survey window closed, I collected the responses for analysis. The data were
then subjected to a descriptive analysis to summarize and interpret the raw data results. This
approach enabled me to calculate the frequencies and percentages for each survey question,
providing a clear overview of how participants responded. By leveraging descriptive statistics,
the analysis aimed to offer an accurate view of patterns in the responses, highlighting trends and
areas of focus during the interview data analysis.
Interview Data Coding
I conducted the interviews after the survey response collection. Generally, the interviews
lasted between 15 and 30 minutes, and I recorded the conversations with permission from all
interviewees. I wrote analytic memos after each interview and documented my thoughts and
initial conclusions about the data about my conceptual framework and research questions. After
all interviews were complete, I transcribed and coded them. In the first phase of analysis, I used
open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual
framework. In the second phase of analysis, I aggregated empirical and a priori codes into
analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, I identified pattern codes and themes that
emerged about the conceptual framework and study questions.
Use of Generative AI Synthesis of Results and Findings
I leveraged a generative AI tool to provide a synthesized summary of the data analysis for
Chapter 4. I compiled the survey data from Qualtrics and the interview data into a data analysis
summary document. Then, I uploaded the data analysis summary document into the generative
47
AI tool, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024), to provide a summarized readout of the combined results for
each of the influences outlined in Chapter 4. Because any generative AI tool, including
ChatGPT, is subject to error, I confirmed the output against the original Qualtrics data. Although
the AI output provided a limited preliminary summary of these influences, it nonetheless served
as a foundation for deeper analysis throughout the chapter. Below is the prompt used to guide the
AI in producing the synthesized data summary:
I’m going to upload a document which contains a data analysis summary with results
from a survey and interview. Look at each influence and give me a comprehensive
summary of the survey and interview results in one synthesized read out. I’d like each
influence section to be composed of two sections: one called “survey results” and the
other called “interview findings.” Below are a few other notes for this analysis: Anytime
you see a survey result with agree or strongly agree (or disagree/strongly disagree),
combine those percentages. One nuance to take note of is for Influence 3. The survey
question contained two distractor answer options that were purposely incorrect. Those
options were “hosting team-building events” and “involving junior colleagues in
important decision-making.” On Influence 3, the correct trust-building activities are
communicating openly, sharing privileged information, establishing rewards for
conserving trust, and showing appreciation for shared values. If these activities weren’t
selected in the survey or discussed in the interview, then the interpretation would be that
the managers don’t have the procedural knowledge for trust-building. When quoting
participants, please use the participant number. For example, instead of saying, “One
participant stated … ”, instead say, “Participant 3 stated … .” Additionally, write the
48
participant quotes in sentence format (not bullets). Try to use 2–3 participant quotes per
influence.
The prompt produced the output found in Appendix C.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, credibility reflects how compatible the findings of the study are
with reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) or, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), how credible
the findings are in light of what the study presented. To increase credibility and trustworthiness, I
employed triangulation, respondent validation, and peer examination (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I utilized triangulation through multiple methods of data collection, including surveys as well as
interviews, to support validation. Respondent validation requires feedback to be solicited from
participants to validate preliminary findings. I accomplished this at the end of the interviews,
where I presented a summary of the data to the interviewees to ensure the information provided
was what they intended. Lastly, peer examination was employed throughout the dissertation
committee process to assess early findings and ensure the interview protocol addressed the
research questions. In addition to triangulation, respondent validation, and peer examination,
tracking the data back to the sources was also employed to improve the confirmability and
trustworthiness of the study through the recording of interviews, thus producing an audit trail of
the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Validity and Reliability
In quantitative research, validity refers to the extent the results are measuring what they
should be measuring and consists of construct validity, content validity, and criterion validity
(Yin, 2017). Construct validity refers to whether a test measures the intended construct, content
validity refers to the extent to which a measurement covers all aspects of the concept measured,
49
and criterion validity refers to the extent a measure is related to an outcome (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955; Yin, 2017). To ensure construct and content validity, during the committee review and
inquiry process, research experts confirmed the research questions, which centered on the
stakeholders’ KMO influences. These research questions guided the survey’s development.
Reliability refers to the consistency of the results across tests and consists of internal and
external factors, whereby internal reliability refers to the data being analyzed and interpreted
consistently, and external reliability refers to the consistency of a measure across different
researchers (Maxwell, 2013). The survey questions aligned with the KMO conceptual framework
to ensure consistency in the responses. In addition, a pilot survey was administered with sample
participant graduate students, which gave insight into the consistency and reliability of the
survey protocol.
Ethics
The researcher’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the participants are not harmed in
the study and that participants fully understand their rights. The study ensured that all ethical
considerations of participants were of the utmost priority before, during, and after the study was
complete. Informed consent is a key element of the study so that participants comprehend the
purpose of the study as well as understand that their participation is voluntary and can be
terminated at any time (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Through the informed
consent process provided to the participants at the start of the survey and interview, they were
also made aware of the confidentiality of the data, asked for their permission to record the
interview, and informed of the data storing procedures.
I did not include participants in the chain of command or the department to limit any
issues related to power or a feeling of being obligated to participate. To further provide distance
50
from the role as a researcher and a leader in the field of study, the study participants were middle
managers outside of my department to limit my knowledge of them. With regard to researcher
bias and assumptions, as a leader in the financial services industry, I have an opinion on the
improvement needed with the company relating to the lack of trust in leadership. To mitigate
such biases, I utilized probing questions as well as additional questions during the interview to
bring in an opposing perspective from the participant’s point of view.
51
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis on the KMO influences affecting
middle managers’ ability to build organizational trust during periods of constant change. The
analysis began by identifying possible or assumed causes and examining these systematically to
focus on the actual or validated causes. Although a comprehensive study would encompass all
stakeholders, this analysis focused specifically on middle managers in the retail banking group.
The following questions guided the research:
1. What is the middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to incorporating
trust-building activities?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for middle managers to help improve trust deficits in
their organization?
To explore these questions, I collected both quantitative and qualitative data via surveys
and in-depth interviews. I collected and analyzed these data to determine the specific needs and
assets middle managers face in their efforts to improve organizational trust.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder group for this study consisted of middle managers in IBG
Bank’s retail banking department. As of September 2023, there were approximately 45 of them,
all of whom held the title of senior vice president and were positioned hierarchically three levels
down from the CEO (H3). I invited every person in this group who had at least a year’s
experience in the role to participate in the survey as part of the quantitative segment of this study.
52
Twenty-seven respondents completed the survey, and six volunteered for the interview. Those
selected for the interviews all met the criterion of having been with the retail banking group for
at least 1 year and managing at least 10 employees. The interviews took place via Zoom and a
time convenient for the interviewee.
The only demographic information collected with the assistance of the human resources
manager was that all participants had at least 1 year of experience in their role. The human
resources manager discouraged any further collection of demographic data. Survey respondents
who chose to take part in interviews provided the number of employees they manage to ensure
they met the criterion of managing at least 10 employees. The average or mean number of
employees managed was 13.17, and the median was 13.5, with no outliers detected in the data
set. The standard deviation was 1.47 with a sample variance was 2.17. Lastly, the range of
responses extended from a minimum of 11 to a maximum of 15 employees managed, giving a
range of four.
Determination of Assets and Needs
The study utilized data from surveys and interviews with middle managers in the retail
banking group. The survey data provided quantitative insights through descriptive statistics,
calculating the frequencies and percentages of responses to assess the KMO influences.
Interviews provided qualitative data, capturing additional findings on the same influences. I
employed triangulation to ensure the validity of findings in that I cross-referenced survey and
interview responses. This allowed me to identify if a particular influence was understood and
utilized (an asset) or if a gap was identified (a need).
To determine assets and needs, I applied a cut score of 70% to the survey data. If 70% or
more of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with a survey item, the influence was considered
53
an asset. Conversely, if less than 70% agreed or if more than 30% disagreed, the influence was
considered a need. I also utilized the cut score of 70% to assess the interview data. If 70% of
participants expressed similar understanding, knowledge, or practices related to the influence, it
was considered an asset. Conversely, if there was disagreement, confusion, or lack of clarity in
the responses from more than 30% of the participants, the influence was classified as a need.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The determination of results for knowledge causes occurred through a combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches by assessing whether the assumed knowledge causes
represented assets or needs for the participants. This section presents an analysis of the survey
and interview results, focusing on the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge related to organizational trust-building.
Factual Knowledge Influence 1
The influence regarding factual knowledge examined in this study was that middle
managers know the organizational trust scores of their department from the employee
engagement survey.
Survey Results
Respondents rated their level of agreement with a statement related to their factual
knowledge about the organizational trust scores on their team from the latest employee
engagement survey. The survey results showed that 81% of them either strongly or somewhat
disagreed with knowing their department’s trust scores, highlighting a significant gap in factual
knowledge. Only 15% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that they knew their team’s
trust scores, suggesting that the majority were unaware of this key metric. Since less than 70% of
54
respondents agreed and over 30% disagreed with the statement, this influence is classified as a
need based on the survey data (Table 5).
Table 5
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Organizational Trust Scores
# Factual knowledge item (n = 27) Percentage Count
I know the organizational trust scores on my team from the
latest employee engagement survey.
1 Strongly disagree 37% 10
2 Somewhat disagree 44% 12
3 Neither agree nor disagree 4% 1
4 Somewhat agree 11% 3
5 Strongly agree 4% 1
55
Interview Findings
In interviews, 83% of participants expressed a similar lack of awareness regarding their
department’s trust scores. Participant 1 stated, “I actually don’t know the scores of my
department. I’m not sure, actually.” Participant 5 added, “I’d have to go and look, but I don’t
know off the top of my head.” Participant 6 echoed this, saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen
what my trust scores are, to be honest with you.” Regarding the trust goals, Participant 4 noted,
“I think the goal was around 80%, but I can’t tell you for sure,” while Participant 1 speculated,
“The goal, I believe, is 80%. But I could not tell you what my actual score is.” These responses
indicate that the interviewees are generally unaware of both their trust scores and trust goals,
with more than 70% of respondents showing significant gaps in factual knowledge. Therefore,
this influence is determined to be a need.
Summary
Both the survey results and interviews indicate that the participants did not possess
adequate factual knowledge of their department’s trust scores. The consistent lack of awareness
and understanding across both methods suggests that this is a widespread issue. Therefore, this
influence is considered a need.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence
The influence pertaining to conceptual knowledge examined herein was that middle
managers know how their role contributes to building trust within their teams.
Survey Results
The respondents rated their level of agreement with a statement related to their
conceptual knowledge about their role as middle managers in contributing to building
organizational trust. According to the survey results, 63% of them somewhat or strongly agreed
56
that their role contributes to building trust, while 19% disagreed. This suggests that the
respondents were aware that their position plays a key role in trust-building, though a significant
minority either disagreed or remained neutral on the matter. Since less than 70% agreed and
more than 30% expressed uncertainty, this influence is considered a need based on the survey
results (Table 6).
Table 6
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Contributions of Middle Management
# Conceptual knowledge item (n = 27) Percentage Count
My position as a middle manager is a contributor to
building organizational trust within my team.
1 Strongly disagree 4% 1
2 Somewhat disagree 15% 4
3 Neither agree nor disagree 19% 5
4 Somewhat agree 30% 8
5 Strongly agree 33% 9
57
Interview Findings
Interviews revealed a similar pattern, with some managers recognizing their importance
in trust-building while others downplayed their influence. Participant 1 explained, “Middle
managers are the connector. … We have the closest connection to the field,” and Participant 5
emphasized, “My role as a middle manager is critically important: … ensure senior leadership is
in sync with what we are doing.” Participant 6 noted, “I feel like I am really the main
communicator, … and that role does drive trust in the vision of what we are doing here at the
bank.” However, others were less certain, with Participant 2 stating, “I don’t necessarily think
that my role as a middle manager contributes to overall organizational trust,” and Participant 3
saying, “I don’t think my role as a middle manager really matters. … Too many changes.” The
findings suggest that while many interviewees understood their significant role in building trust,
others were less confident in their impact. With more than 30% of participants expressing
uncertainty or disagreement, this influence is determined to be a need.
Summary
The survey and interview findings both highlight uncertainty or disagreement about the
participants’ understanding of how their role contributes to building trust. The inconsistent
understanding across both methods, with only 63% agreement in the survey and more than 30%
disagreement in interviews, led to the determination that this influence is a need.
Procedural Knowledge Influence
The procedural knowledge influence examined in this study was that middle managers
know the steps to take to incorporate trust-building activities with employees, which include
communicating openly, knowledge sharing, establishing rewards for conserving trust, and
appreciating shared values.
58
Survey Results
The respondents selected all examples that applied to their procedural knowledge about
trust-building activities. The survey results showed that while 85% of managers selected
“communicating openly” as a trust-building activity, fewer selected activities such as “sharing
privileged information” (11%) and “establishing rewards for conserving trust” (26%). One item
to note for this question was that it included two distractor options. Surveys typically include
distractor options to distinguish true comprehension from random guessing while also improving
the reliability of results by offering reasonable yet incorrect choices. Notably, the respondents
selected the two distractor options, “hosting team-building events” (56%) and “involving junior
colleagues in important decision-making” (37%), more frequently than activities such as
“showing appreciation for shared values” (11%). This suggests that many of them were unclear
about the correct procedural knowledge required for building trust. Since fewer than 70% of
respondents agreed on the key procedural activities, and more than 30% selected incorrect
answers, I determined this influence to be a need (Table 7).
59
Table 7
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities
# Procedural knowledge item (n = 27) Percentage Count
An example of trust-building activities with employees
includes the following:
(Check all that apply)
1 Hosting team-building events 56% 15
2 Communicating openly 85% 23
3 Involving junior colleagues in important decision-making 37% 10
4 Sharing privileged information 11% 3
5 Establishing rewards for conserving trust 26% 7
6 Showing appreciation for shared values 11% 3
Interview Findings
In interviews, participants focused on building relationships rather than implementing the
specific trust-building activities highlighted in the survey. Participant 1 mentioned, “I like to
learn about our employees’ lives and families. … That helps drive trust,” while Participant 5
explained, “Frequent communication, … one-on-one interactions, and getting to know my team
on a personal level” were key strategies. Participant 3 added, “I speak plainly and tell my team
the truth. … Incorporate skip-level meetings.” When discussing how they encourage trusting
behavior, Participant 2 shared, “I encourage open dialogue, communication, and discussion,”
while Participant 6 explained, “I try my best to foster an environment that accepts everyone’s
opinion ... and encourages feedback and debate.” Participant 5 noted, “I encourage my team to
collaborate on problems rather than just coming to me.” These findings reveal that the
interviewees tended to rely on interpersonal relationship-building rather than the structured
60
procedural actions that are known to effectively build trust, indicating a gap in procedural
knowledge. With more than 30% of participants failing to mention key procedural activities, this
influence is determined to be a need.
Summary
Both the survey and interview findings demonstrate that the participants lacked a clear
understanding of the procedural knowledge required to build trust. Incorrect survey options were
frequently selected, and procedural actions were absent in the interviews. Therefore, with fewer
than 70% of respondents selecting the correct survey options and more than 30% of interviewees
not mentioning the key activities, this influence is determined to be a need.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence
The metacognitive knowledge influence examined was that middle managers reflect on
their abilities to build trust in teams where trust is deficient.
Survey Results
The survey respondents rated their level of agreement with statements related to their
metacognitive knowledge about reflecting on and thinking through trust-building activities. The
survey results indicated that 71% of respondents either strongly or somewhat disagreed with
regularly reflecting on their progress in building trust. 22% somewhat or strongly agreed,
suggesting that reflection on trust-building efforts is not a common practice among most of them.
For the second survey question, 45% of respondents either somewhat or strongly disagreed that
they think through different trust-building strategies before determining a path for a given
employee, while 26% somewhat or strongly agreed. This suggests that a significant portion of
them did not take a structured, strategic approach when addressing trust-building with individual
61
employees. Therefore, since more than 30% of respondents disagreed with both statements, this
influence is determined to be a need. See Table 8 and Table 9.
Table 8
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities Question 1
# Metacognitive knowledge item (n = 27) Percentage Count
I regularly reflect on my progress toward building trust in
my team.
1 Strongly disagree 15% 4
2 Somewhat disagree 56% 15
3 Neither agree nor disagree 7% 2
4 Somewhat agree 11% 3
5 Strongly agree 11% 3
62
Table 9
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Trust-Building Activities Question 2
# Metacognitive knowledge item (n = 27) Percentage Count
I think through different trust-building strategies before
determining a path for a given employee.
1 Strongly disagree 15% 4
2 Somewhat disagree 30% 8
3 Neither agree nor disagree 30% 8
4 Somewhat agree 11% 3
5 Strongly agree 15% 4
Interview Findings
Many interviewees admitted they did not have formal processes for evaluating their trustbuilding strategies. Participant 1 said, “I probably don’t do a good job evaluating effectiveness,
but I get a sense through body language,” while Participant 5 added, “A lot of it is informal. … I
get a feel for how my team is engaged rather than any formal process.” Participant 2 shared a
similar sentiment, “I don’t have a process to technically evaluate it, but I get a sense based on
concerns brought to me.” When it came to addressing trust-building with specific employees,
Participant 1 explained, “I spend more time with them, have more frequent one-on-one
meetings,” and Participant 2 mentioned, “I invest more time with them and ask questions to
ensure they understand.” Participant 4 noted, “I spend time with them, ask questions to
understand their concerns, and visit them more frequently.” These findings suggest that while
some managers attempt to address trust issues directly, there is little formal reflection or
63
structured evaluation of trust-building efforts. Therefore, with more than 30% of participants
showing a lack of structured reflection, this influence is classified as a need.
Summary
The survey and interview data both point to a lack of structured reflection and strategic
thinking around trust-building. The survey and interview responses show consistent gaps across
both methods. Therefore, I determined this influence to be a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The determination of results for motivation causes took place through a combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches by assessing whether the assumed motivational causes
represented assets or needs for the participants. This section presents an analysis of the survey
and interview results, focusing on task value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation motivation
related to organizational trust-building.
Motivation Task Value Influence
The influence pertaining to motivation task value examined in this study was that middle
managers value the process of building trust within their team, which achieves the stakeholder
goal.
Survey Results
The respondents rated their level of agreement with statements related to their motivation
task value in building trust with their teams. For the first survey question, 89% of respondents
somewhat or strongly agreed that they enjoy building trust with their teams, with only 4%
disagreeing. This indicates that most placed a high value on the process of building trust. For the
second survey question, 78% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that building trust with
their team is important to achieving organizational goals. Only 7% disagreed, suggesting that the
64
majority recognized the strategic importance of trust-building in achieving broader
organizational success. As more than 70% of respondents agreed with both statements, I
determined this influence to be an asset (Tables 10 and 11).
Table 10
Survey Results for Motivational Task Value of Trust-Building Question 1
# Motivation task value item (n = 27) Percentage Count
I enjoy building trust with my teams.
1 Strongly disagree 0% 0
2 Somewhat disagree 4% 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 7% 2
4 Somewhat agree 26% 7
5 Strongly agree 63% 17
65
Table 11
Survey Results for Motivational Task Value of Trust-Building Question 2
# Motivation task value item (n = 27) Percentage Count
As a middle manager, it is important for me to build trust
with my team to achieve our organizational goals.
1 Strongly disagree 0% 0
2 Somewhat disagree 7% 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 15% 4
4 Somewhat agree 37% 10
5 Strongly agree 41% 11
Interview Findings
The interviewees expressed enjoyment in building trust with their teams. Participant 6
said, “I really do love building close bonds and relationships with my team,” while Participant 5
shared, “I have a high level of enjoyment. … It drives me every day to see my team trusts me.”
Participant 4 added, “When my team trusts me, it’s enjoyable because I treat them like friends
rather than colleagues.” Regarding the utility of trust-building, Participant 1 stated, “Building
trust drives behavior and performance. … It’s very important and useful.” Participant 5 further
emphasized, “Incorporating trust-building activities is very critical. … It secures buy-in from the
team.” However, Participant 3 expressed a more skeptical view, saying, “I don’t think it’s very
useful in general. … It feels superficial.” These findings suggest that while most interviewees
both valued and enjoyed trust-building, some may have viewed it as a less integral part of their
role. With more than 70% of participants agreeing on the value of trust-building, this influence is
considered an asset.
66
Summary
Both the survey and interview results show that the participants enjoyed and valued the
process of building trust. With 89% agreement in the survey and over 70% agreement in
interviews, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Self-Efficacy Influence
The self-efficacy influence that this study examined was that middle managers need to be
confident they can apply trust-building activities such as open communication, knowledge
sharing, establishing rewards for conserving trust and showing appreciation for shared values.
Survey Results
The survey asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with statements related to
their self-efficacy in building trust with their teams overall and in incorporating trust-building
activities with their teams. For the first survey question, 55% of them were either confident or
strongly confident in their ability to build trust, while 44% were neutral or lacked confidence.
This indicates that while a majority of respondents felt capable of building trust, a significant
portion remained uncertain. For the second survey question regarding confidence in specific
trust-building activities, 63% of them felt confident in communicating openly, while 26% lacked
confidence in this area. Confidence dropped significantly when it came to sharing privileged
information, where only 15% of managers felt confident, and 85% lacked confidence. Similarly,
just 19% felt confident in establishing rewards for conserving trust, while 74% were not
confident. Lastly, 22% felt confident in showing appreciation for shared values, but 67% lacked
confidence in this activity. These findings suggest that while the respondents felt relatively
confident in general trust-building activities like communicating openly, their confidence
diminished significantly when it came to more specific actions such as sharing privileged
67
information or establishing rewards for trust. This gap in confidence around these more specific
trust-building activities could indicate a lack of experience or clarity on how to effectively
implement them. Since confidence fell below the 70% cut score in both questions, this influence
is determined to be a need (Tables 12 and 13).
Table 12
Survey Results for Motivational Self-Efficacy of Trust-Building Question 1
# Motivation self-efficacy item (n = 27) Percentage Count
I am confident in my ability to build trust within my team.
1 Strongly disagree 0% 0
2 Somewhat disagree 22% 6
3 Neither agree nor disagree 22% 6
4 Somewhat agree 33% 9
5 Strongly agree 22% 6
68
Table 13
Survey Results for Motivational Self-Efficacy of Trust-Building Question 2
Motivation selfefficacy item (n = 27)
How confident are you in incorporating the following trust-building
activities with your teams:
Not confident (0-4) Neutral (5) Confident (6–10)
Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
Communicating openly 7 26% 3 11% 17 63%
Sharing privileged
information 23 85% 0 0% 4 15%
Establishing rewards
for conserving trust 20 74% 2 7% 5 19%
Showing appreciation
for shared values 18 67% 3 11% 6 22%
Interview Findings
Interviews reflected a range of confidence levels. Participant 1 said, “I feel very
confident. … I think, for the most part, my team trusts me,” while Participant 5 noted,
“Generally, I feel pretty confident. I feel like I know what I’m doing in that arena.” Participant 6
shared, “Sometimes I feel confident, however, other times I’m not so confident when there are
changes that occur that are out of my control.” However, some managers lacked confidence in
specific areas, as Participant 3 explained, “I feel confident building individual trust, but I feel
extremely low confidence in building organizational trust.” These findings suggest that while the
interviewees felt confident in trust-building on a personal level, external factors or organizational
challenges might undermine their confidence. With more than 30% of participants showing a
lack of confidence, this influence is determined to be a need.
69
Summary
Both the survey and interview data reveal that the participants lack widespread
confidence in specific trust-building activities. With less than 70% of respondents confident in
the survey and inconsistent confidence levels in interviews, this influence is determined to be a
need.
Goal Orientation Influence
The goal orientation influence was that middle managers want to hold a mastery and
performance orientation in relation to building trust on their teams.
Survey Results
The survey respondents rated their level of agreement with statements related to their
motivational goal orientation in building trust with their teams. For the first survey question,
44% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed to incorporate trust-building activities even if
they make mistakes, while 37% disagreed. This indicates that although a substantial portion of
middle managers are willing to engage in trust-building despite potential errors, there is also a
significant proportion who may hesitate due to the fear of mistakes. For the second survey
question, only 26% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that their main goal is to have
better trust scores than their peers, while 60% either somewhat or strongly disagreed. This
suggests that most did not view outperforming their peers on trust scores as a primary goal,
indicating that they were more focused on internal team dynamics than on external comparisons.
Since neither question met the 70% cut score, this influence is determined to be a need (Tables
14 and 15).
70
Table 14
Survey Results for Motivational Goal Orientation of Trust-Building Question 1
# Motivation goal orientation (n = 27) Percentage Count
I intend to incorporate trust-building activities within my
team even if I make mistakes.
1 Strongly disagree 11% 3
2 Somewhat disagree 26% 7
3 Neither agree nor disagree 19% 5
4 Somewhat agree 37% 10
5 Strongly agree 7% 2
Table 15
Survey Results for Motivational Goal Orientation of Trust-Building Question 2
# Motivation goal orientation (n = 27) Percentage Count
My main goal is to have better trust scores than my peer
middle managers.
1 Strongly disagree 15% 4
2 Somewhat disagree 19% 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 41% 11
4 Somewhat agree 22% 6
5 Strongly agree 4% 1
71
Interview Findings
Many interviewees are primarily driven by performance and their desire to foster strong
relationships in their teams. Participant 5 shared, “The only way for me to be successful is to
make sure my team is performing at a high level. … Building trust is important for that.”
Participant 4 added, “Trust is a foundational piece. … It helps drive performance, so getting it
right is crucial.” Participant 6 emphasized, “I really see building relationships and building trust
as a long-term relationship. … I like to think of the long game when it comes to trust-building.”
However, some managers seemed less motivated by trust-building as a personal goal. For
instance, Participant 3 noted, “It’s not really something I aspire to do. … It’s not a personal goal
of mine.” These findings suggest that while many interviewees were motivated by the need to
ensure high performance and foster long-term relationships, some did not see trust-building as a
primary or personal goal, and outperforming their peers is not a major focus for most. The mixed
responses indicate that this influence is determined to be a need.
Summary. Both the survey and interview findings reveal that the participants did not
consistently focus on mastery and performance orientation related to trust-building. With less
than 70% agreement in the survey and conflicting interview results, this influence is determined
to be a need.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The determination of results for organizational causes occurred through a combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches by assessing whether the assumed organizational causes
represented assets or needs for the participants. This section presents an analysis of the survey
and interview results, focusing on the cultural models and cultural settings related to
organizational trust-building.
72
Cultural Models Influence
The influence related to cultural models was that IBG Bank fosters a culture of open and
transparent communication.
Survey Results
The survey asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with statements related to
organizational cultural models related to open and honest feedback across IBG Bank. Survey
results revealed that 70% of respondents either somewhat or strongly disagreed that IBG Bank
values open and honest feedback, with only 19% somewhat or strongly agreeing. This suggests
that the majority of respondents felt that the bank struggles to foster a culture of open
communication. Since more than 30% of respondents disagreed with the statement, this influence
is determined to be a need (Table 16).
Table 16
Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Models of Fostering Open Communication
# Organizational cultural models (n = 27) Percentage Count
My company values open and honest feedback across the
organization.
1 Strongly disagree 26% 7
2 Somewhat disagree 44% 12
3 Neither agree nor disagree 11% 3
4 Somewhat agree 15% 4
5 Strongly agree 4% 1
73
Interview Findings
In interviews, Participant 3 shared, “How do they do it? They don’t do it at all. It’s a
siloed organization with zero communication.” Participant 1 noted, “IBG Bank tries, but we are
always in cost-cutting mode, which affects how much truth is communicated.” Participant 4
added, “We talk about being open, but I often feel there’s a meeting after the meeting, which
signals a lack of trust.” Participant 5 expressed a slightly more optimistic view, stating, “I think
we are trying, but I don’t see concrete evidence yet that we encourage open dialogue.” These
responses suggest that despite some efforts, most interviewees felt that the bank struggles to
foster a culture of open and transparent communication. With more than 70% of these
participants expressing dissatisfaction, this influence is determined to be a need.
Summary
Both the survey and interview findings indicate that IBG Bank does not foster a culture
of open communication. With 70% disagreement in the survey and widespread dissatisfaction in
interviews, this influence is determined to be a need.
Cultural Settings Influence
The influence pertaining to cultural settings examined in this study was that middle
managers have the resources and tools necessary, such as leadership development training,
periodic management reporting of trust scores, and access to educational resources to learn about
organizational trust-building.
Survey Results
The survey asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with statements on
organizational cultural settings related to leadership training to improve trust-building skills at
IBG Bank. For the first survey question, 71% of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed
74
that their company provides appropriate leadership development training to improve their trustbuilding skills, while only 19% somewhat or strongly agreed. This suggests that a significant
majority of managers feel they are not receiving adequate support through leadership training for
trust-building. For the second survey question, 70% of respondents somewhat or strongly
disagreed that they have access to resources to help them learn about ways to increase trustbuilding within their teams. Only 15% somewhat or strongly agreed that they have such access.
This further highlights that most respondents feel a lack of organizational support in the form of
resources and tools to help them develop trust-building skills. Since more than 30% of
respondents disagreed with both statements, this influence is classified as a need (Tables 17 and
18).
Table 17
Survey Results for Organizational Settings of Resources and Tools Question 1
# Organizational cultural settings (n = 27) Percentage Count
My company provides appropriate leadership development
training to improve my trust-building skills.
1 Strongly disagree 19% 5
2 Somewhat disagree 52% 14
3 Neither agree nor disagree 11% 3
4 Somewhat agree 15% 4
5 Strongly agree 4% 1
75
Table 18
Survey Results for Organizational Settings of Resources and Tools Question 2
# Organizational cultural settings (n = 27) Percentage Count
I have access to resources to help me learn about ways to
increase trust-building within my team.
1 Strongly disagree 22% 6
2 Somewhat disagree 48% 13
3 Neither agree nor disagree 15% 4
4 Somewhat agree 11% 3
5 Strongly agree 4% 1
Interview Findings
Interviews reflected similar sentiments. Participant 1 stated, “Sorry, to be honest, I don’t
think we have anything. I’m not sure if there are any tools for trust-building.” Participant 5
echoed, “I can’t recall any specific tools. … No specific trust-building resources come to mind,
though we do leadership training.” Participant 6 remarked, “We have lots of tools and training in
leadership development, but none of that I believe exists for trust-building in particular.”
Participant 4 further noted, “We have a ton of training, … but I don’t think we have anything
specific to trust-building.” These responses reinforce the survey findings, indicating that the
majority of the interviewees feel unsupported when it comes to developing the skills necessary
for trust-building. With more than 70% of participants reporting a lack of resources, this
influence is determined to be a need.
76
Summary
Both the survey and interview findings reveal that the participants feel unsupported in
terms of resources and training for trust-building. With 71% disagreement in the survey and a
consistent lack of resources noted in interviews, this influence is determined to be a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 19, 20, and 21 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as
an asset or a need.
Table 19
Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influences Asset or need?
Factual: Middle managers know the organizational trust scores of their
department from the employee engagement survey.
Need
Conceptual: Middle managers know how their role contributes to building
trust within their teams. Need
Procedural: Middle managers know the steps to take to incorporate trustbuilding activities with employees which include communicating
openly, knowledge sharing, establishing rewards for conserving trust,
and appreciating shared values.
Need
Metacognitive: Middle managers reflect on their abilities to build trust in
teams where trust is deficient. Need
77
Table 20
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed motivation influences Asset or need?
Task value: Middle managers need to value the process of building trust
within their teams. Asset
Self-efficacy: Middle managers need to be confident they can apply trustbuilding activities such as open communication, knowledge sharing,
establishing rewards for conserving trust, and showing appreciation for
shared values.
Need
Goal orientation: Middle managers want to hold a mastery and
performance orientation concerning building trust in their teams. Need
Table 21
Organizational Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed organizational influences Asset or need?
Cultural models: IBG Bank fosters a culture of open and transparent
communication. Need
Cultural settings: middle managers have the resources and tools necessary,
such as leadership development training, periodic management
reporting of trust scores, and access to educational resources to learn
about organizational trust-building.
Need
78
Chapter 5 provides recommendations that will support IBG Bank in its goals to increase
organizational trust by 10% in its next employee engagement survey. The final research
question, what recommendations in the areas of KMO resources may be appropriate for middle
managers to help improve trust deficits in their organization, will be answered in Chapter 5.
79
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation
This study aimed to identify the needs and assets in KMO influences that impact IBG
Bank middle managers’ ability to enhance organizational trust in the retail banking group. The
first three chapters examined the problem of practice, the literature on organizational trust in the
workplace and the effects of leadership styles on organizational trust and presented the mixedmethods approach to the data collection for this study. The fourth chapter outlined the results and
analysis of the survey and interview data. The validated KMO influences identified as needs
serve as the primary focus for the recommendations. Chapter 5 provides specific
recommendations aimed at addressing the identified needs that impact the stakeholder group’s
ability to improve organizational trust. The recommendations are structured around the new
world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is a framework for evaluating
the effectiveness of training programs. This model’s four levels of evaluation offer actions to
address the needs of the stakeholders of this study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the KMO influences
on middle managers in improving organizational trust during times of constant change by
incorporating trust-building activities in their departments. I examined each possible or assumed
cause systematically to focus on actual or validated causes. While a complete gap analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders focused on in this analysis
were middle managers in the retail banking group. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What is the middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to incorporating
trust-building activities?
80
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for middle managers to help improve trust deficits in
their organization?
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
This section presents targeted recommendations for addressing the KMO influences
impacting IBG Bank’s middle managers in their efforts to improve organizational trust within
their teams. Based on the research from the literature and data gathered through this study, the
recommendations are framed using Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework. The following sections
will provide a concise overview of the identified influences, delineate the assets and needs, and
offer a rationale for the prioritization of needs. Evidence-based principles supporting the
recommendations will be cited, followed by specific recommendations for each cause, grounded
in the application of these principles.
Knowledge Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge is one of the most important facilitators
or inhibitors of work performance. Knowledge is essential for job performance when employees
do not have the proficiency to accomplish their goals and when novel problem solving is
required. The absence of knowledge can create challenges in accurately diagnosing performance
gaps and is a key pillar in the gap analysis framework.
I used a revised version of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives to define
the knowledge types used in this study. The revised taxonomy classifies the four typologies of
knowledge into three categories: declarative, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002).
81
Declarative knowledge, which refers to the knowledge about facts and concepts, is comprised of
factual and conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge is the knowledge of facts and the basic
elements one must know to solve a problem, whereas conceptual knowledge groups information
into patterns, structures, and relationships. Next, procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge
of how to do something or the basic steps of how to do something. Lastly, metacognitive
knowledge refers to one’s awareness and knowledge of one’s cognition and suggests an
awareness learning. The four typologies of knowledge are the foundation of knowledge middle
managers must have to support their goal of building trust and ultimately improve organizational
trust within IBG Bank.
The knowledge influences outlined in the following sections represent the list of assumed
influences impacting IBG Bank middle managers’ ability to achieve the goal of improving
organizational trust. All assumed knowledge influences (factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive) were determined to be needs for improving organizational trust. In the sections
that follow, each influence will be examined, with priorities established to address the needs.
Furthermore, the theoretical learning principles that relate to these knowledge influences will be
discussed, offering a foundation for evidence-based recommendations. These recommendations
are grounded in the study’s findings and established principles and will provide steps for middle
managers at IBG Bank to improve organizational trust.
Factual Knowledge
This study’s results demonstrated a need for factual knowledge of the department trust
scores for the participants. They need to know their departments’ actual scores to assess their
actual performance gap, and without this factual knowledge, they will be challenged to
understand and solve the issue. Clark and Estes (2008) and Krathwohl (2002) highlighted the
82
positive relationship between factual knowledge and job performance. Information processing
theory can inform the recommendation. McCrudden et al. (2006) stated that helping individuals
attend to and understand important points will increase factual knowledge. This suggests that
providing a portal for middle managers to locate factual data on organizational trust scores and a
job aid on how to use this portal would be helpful in improving factual knowledge.
Conceptual Knowledge
This study’s results demonstrated a need for conceptual knowledge of how a middle
manager’s role contributes to building trust. Middle managers need to understand how strongly
their role influences trust-building within the organization, and without this conceptual
knowledge, they may lack the awareness needed to actively influence trust-building efforts.
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized how conceptual knowledge supports job performance by
providing rationales for motivation, especially value. Information processing theory offers a
foundation for this recommendation. McCrudden et al. (2006) argued that the way individuals
organize their knowledge directly impacts their ability to learn and apply principles and their
outcomes or consequences. For middle managers, this suggests that a structured understanding of
how their roles impact trust-building will improve their capacity to support these efforts.
Therefore, implementing a tailored workshop that explains the foundational concepts of trustbuilding in conjunction with examples of how their roles impact organizational trust could
enhance conceptual knowledge.
Procedural Knowledge
This study’s findings demonstrated a need for procedural knowledge, as the participants
were unsure of the steps required to integrate trust-building activities effectively, which included
openly communicating with employees, promoting knowledge sharing, establishing rewards to
83
support trust, and recognizing shared values. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized procedural
knowledge in job performance and highlighted its role in task execution. Cognitive load theory
provides insight into this need by emphasizing the structuring of complex tasks in ways that
reduce cognitive burden. Kirschner et al. (2009) described how managing intrinsic cognitive load
by segmenting information into simpler digestible parts supports learning and task execution.
Applying this principle to middle managers suggests that breaking down trust-building actions
into distinct, manageable steps will make it easier for them to adopt these practices. To address
this, developing a detailed job aid checklist with an accompanying workshop outlining each of
the trust-building steps will help managers follow a clear path to fostering trust and integrating
procedural knowledge into their interactions with employees.
Metacognitive Knowledge
This study’s findings revealed a need for metacognitive knowledge, as the participants
often neglected to reflect on their abilities to build trust within their teams. This ability to reflect
enables the assessment of approaches to building trust. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that
metacognitive knowledge improves performance by promoting self-awareness. Ambrose et al.
(2010) emphasized that metacognitive strategies such as setting goals, monitoring progress, and
evaluating outcomes support individuals in managing their performance. Providing middle
managers with regular reflection training and self-assessment tools can encourage their own
examination of their trust-building skills and identify areas for improvement.
Motivation Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is a key facilitator of work performance,
with the three motivational types common in the literature described as active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Active choice relates to replacing the intention to pursue a work
84
goal with the active pursuit of that goal. Persistence illustrates that once a goal is started, one will
persist at it even where there are distractions. Lastly, mental effort refers to when people actively
pursue a goal, persist at it through distractions, and have selected the requisite amount of mental
effort toward those goals (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The research on motivation has generated
foundational theories to help assess performance in goal achievement. The most common
theoretical components in the literature and the key motivational influences reviewed in this
study were EVT, self-efficacy theory, and goal achievement theory. These influences are the
foundation of motivation middle managers must have to support their goal of building trust
within their teams and ultimately improve organizational trust within IBG Bank.
The motivation influences outlined in the following sections represent the list of assumed
influences impacting IBG Bank middle managers’ ability to improve organizational trust. Two of
the three assumed motivation influences, self-efficacy and goal orientation, were determined to
be needs for improving organizational trust, whereas task value was determined to be an asset. In
the sections that follow, each influence will be examined, with priorities established to address
the needs. Furthermore, the theoretical principles that relate to these motivation influences will
be discussed, offering a foundation for evidence-based recommendations. These
recommendations are grounded in the study’s findings and established principles and will
provide steps for middle managers at IBG Bank to improve organizational trust.
Task Value
The study’s findings indicate that task value motivation is an asset, as the participants
demonstrated that they place high importance on the process of building trust. The intrinsic value
for trust-building can serve as a strong motivational influence by reinforcing a commitment to
actions that strengthen trust within teams. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that task value improves
85
engagement and persistence, especially when individuals sense long-term benefits in their work.
Expectancy-value theory can inform the recommendation. Eccles (2006) suggested that
acknowledging this sense of value can sustain and enhance motivation over time. Although IBG
Bank does not need to prioritize addressing this influence, the bank should continue to
emphasize trust in its employee engagement survey, ensuring middle managers continue to view
it as a central and important part of their role.
Self-Efficacy
This study’s results demonstrated a need for self-efficacy, as the participants lacked
confidence in their ability to implement essential trust-building activities such as open
communication, knowledge sharing, establishing rewards for conserving trust, and showing
appreciation for shared values. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize that self-efficacy impacts an
individual’s willingness to engage in and persist with challenging tasks. Pajares (2006) stated
that self-efficacy can be strengthened through feedback and modeling, both of which enhance
confidence and motivation. Applying this principle to middle managers suggests that providing
role models and real-life examples of successful trust-building activities alongside constructive
feedback on progress could help middle managers feel more efficacious in this area. Therefore,
providing mentorship opportunities and training sessions that focus on building self-efficacy
through feedback, observable successes, and goal-setting could help middle managers improve
their self-efficacy in trust-building activities.
Goal Orientation
This study’s results demonstrated a need for goal orientation, as middle managers
currently lack mastery and performance orientation in the efforts to build trust with their teams.
Without this focus, managers may not prioritize ongoing improvement or assess their
86
performance in trust-building activities. Clark and Estes (2008) discussed how goal orientation,
specifically mastery orientation, encourages continuous learning from errors, which is essential
for developing skills. Yough and Anderman (2006) emphasized that focusing on mastery and
progress fosters a positive mindset, especially when tasks are varied, diverse, and challenging.
For middle managers, this suggests that focusing on mastery in trust-building will encourage
more consistent efforts and incremental improvements. This indicates that implementing
structured goal-setting sessions that emphasize mastery in trust-building practices, providing
managers with regular feedback on their progress, and creating recognition of progress to
celebrate successes would be helpful in improving goal orientation.
Organization Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that organizational culture significantly shapes
employee performance through values, resources, and structural support by the organization.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described organizational culture in terms of cultural models
and cultural settings. Cultural models are described as deeply ingrained values, beliefs, and
attitudes that drive behavior, although they are often invisible. Conversely, cultural settings are
more visible and concrete, which are an embodiment of these cultural models. These frameworks
provide a foundation for assessing the specific organizational factors that impact middle
managers’ ability to build trust.
The organizational influences outlined in the following sections represent the list of
assumed influences impacting IBG Bank middle managers’ ability to achieve the goal of
improving organizational trust. All assumed organizational influences (cultural models and
cultural settings) were determined to be needs for improving organizational trust. In the sections
that follow, each influence will be examined, with priorities established to address the needs.
87
Furthermore, the theoretical principles that relate to these organizational influences will be
discussed, offering a foundation for evidence-based recommendations. These recommendations
are grounded in the study’s findings and established principles and will provide steps for middle
managers at IBG Bank to improve organizational trust.
Cultural Models
This study’s results highlight a need for cultural models at IBG Bank, particularly in
establishing a culture of open and transparent communication. Cultural models, which include
shared values, beliefs, and attitudes within an organization, often appear invisible to those who
uphold them (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that when
organizations lack transparency, communication barriers arise, limiting employees’ ability to
collaborate effectively. Manley et al. (2011) emphasized open communication as a foundational
attribute of effective workplace culture, noting that a culture of transparency prompts direct
communication across groups and organizational processes and encourages individuals to speak
up. Applying this principle to middle managers at IBG Bank suggests that establishing structure
channels for open feedback, along with examples of transparent communication practices from
leadership, could help middle managers feel more supported within the organization.
Accordingly, implementing leadership training and regular feedback workshops that emphasize
transparency and accountability could empower middle managers to promote trust-building
through open communication.
Cultural Settings
This study’s results demonstrated a need for cultural settings at IBG Bank, as middle
managers lack access to essential resources and tools, trust-focused leadership training,
formative management reporting of trust scores, and educational resources on trust-building
88
practices. According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective cultural settings provide the concrete
support structures necessary to meet organizational goals by ensuring employees have the tools
and resources aligned with those goals. Without access to support and resources, middle
managers may find it challenging to actively engage in or monitor trust-building progress.
Steelman and Wolfeld (2018) highlighted that consistent feedback and progress checks are
essential for improving employee performance and perceptions, especially in areas like trust.
Applying this principle suggests that equipping middle managers with structured resources such
as regular trust-building training sessions, access to periodic trust metrics, and feedback tools
would equip them with the necessary tools to effectively foster trust within their teams.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Recommendations
The study emphasizes that knowledge is essential for middle managers at IBG Bank to
support trust-building within their teams. Clark and Estes (2008) and Krathwohl (2002) outlined
different knowledge types—factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive—necessary to
address performance gaps in trust-building. Factual knowledge, such as access to department
trust scores, helps managers diagnose gaps accurately, while conceptual knowledge provides
insight into the impact of their roles on trust-building. Procedural knowledge guides managers in
carrying out trust-building activities effectively, and metacognitive knowledge promotes
reflection on their trust-building skills. To support these needs, the recommendations include
creating accessible knowledge resources, such as a portal for trust metrics, and developing
workshops and self-assessment tools to improve middle managers’ understanding and
application of trust-building strategies.
The motivational influences impacting middle managers’ engagement in trust-building
include task value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. Task value is considered an asset, as
89
middle managers highly value trust-building, which enhances their commitment. However, selfefficacy and goal orientation were identified as areas for development, as managers lack
confidence and a mastery-oriented approach to trust-building. Role models, feedback, and
targeted mentorship programs can enhance self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). Strengthening goal
orientation, particularly mastery orientation, can encourage sustained trust-building efforts
through structured goal-setting and regular feedback sessions. These recommendations aim to
foster a motivational environment where middle managers feel empowered and equipped to drive
trust-building.
Finally, the organizational elements of cultural models and settings shape middle
managers’ ability to foster trust. A need for cultural models emphasizing open communication
was identified, as IBG Bank currently lacks a transparent communication culture. Manley et al.
(2011) highlighted that open communication channels and leadership practices can enhance a
culture of transparency, supporting collaboration and trust-building. Additionally, cultural
settings—such as access to trust-focused leadership training, regular trust score reporting, and
educational resources—are essential to equip managers with the necessary tools to achieve trust
goals. Implementing these organizational initiatives can empower middle managers to lead
effectively and strengthen team trust through clear communication and consistent access to
resources.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The mission of IBG Bank is to build trust, serve society, and reliably meet the needs of
customers, stakeholders, and shareholders. The primary problem facing the retail banking group
at IBG Bank is low organizational trust, as reflected in the 2022–2023 state of the employee
survey that showed a 10% gap compared to industry benchmarks. To address this issue, IBG
90
Bank aims to increase organizational trust scores by 10% within the retail banking group by
January 2026, which is necessary for improving employee engagement, change adoption, and
overall organizational performance.
The middle managers in IBG’s retail banking group play a key role in improving
organizational trust. The goal for middle managers is to increase their teams’ trust-building
activities by 100% by January 2026 to achieve a 10% improvement in trust scores. This focus on
middle managers is due to their direct connection with both frontline employees and senior
leadership, making them a necessary link for effective communication and change
implementation. Their actions are essential in driving increased trust, which aligns with the
broader mission of fostering trust and enhancing customer and employee satisfaction.
The expected outcome for middle managers is the improvement of trust within their
teams, leading to a 10% increase in organizational trust scores. The intent is that this
improvement will have a cascading effect on employee engagement, organizational performance,
and change management success. Ultimately, achieving this goal will enable IBG to better align
with its mission to serve society, meet customer needs reliably, and maintain a committed and
productive workforce.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) offered a
framework for evaluating the effectiveness of training programs. It includes four levels of
evaluation: Level 1, Reaction; Level 2, Learning; Level 3, Behavior; and Level 4, Results. Level
1 evaluates how participants respond to training and whether they find it engaging. Level 2
assesses the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on participation in
the learning event. Level 3 measures the degree to which participants apply what they learned
91
during training at their job and consists of critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job
learning. Level 4 focuses on organizational outcomes and evaluates whether the training has led
to the desired performance improvement. The new world Kirkpatrick model differs from the
historical model in that the levels of evaluation are planned in reverse, starting with Level 4 and
working backward. This reverse planning ensures the focus is on what is most important, which
is the program outcome accomplished through improved performance. The new framework
makes the implementation more purposeful and aligns training activities with the organization’s
strategic objectives from the outset.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 4 as measuring the extent to which a
training program achieves its desired outcomes, which are linked to the organization’s broader
goals. This level assesses if the results, such as increased organizational trust or higher employee
engagement, are realized after the training program. Results refer to the organizational outcomes
that demonstrate the training program’s effectiveness, and leading indicators represent the shortterm observations and measurements that suggest critical behaviors are on track to create a
positive impact on the desired results.
The external outcomes include increased customer loyalty, increased overall customer
satisfaction, positive net customer growth, and increased customers’ likelihood to repurchase.
Internal outcomes include increased organizational trust scores in retail banking, improved
employee turnover, and improved overall employee engagement. Table 22 describes the external
and internal outcomes for IBG retail banking middle managers, as well as the metrics and
methods used to measure the leading indicators.
92
Table 22
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Increased customer loyalty Net promoter score (NPS),
which measures the
percentage of customers
who are promoters minus
the percentage who are
detractors
Quarterly NPS external data
provided by CX team
Increased overall customer
satisfaction
Average satisfaction scores
obtained from customer
surveys
Quarterly Medallia survey
data provided by CX team
Positive net customer growth Net customer growth, which
measures the difference
between new customers
and attrited customers
Monthly net customer growth
reports provided by the
finance team
Increased customer
likelihood to repurchase.
Percentage of customers who
indicate they would likely
use the bank’s services in
the future.
Quarterly customer survey
data provided by Barlow
Internal outcomes
Increased organizational trust
scores in retail banking
Organizational trust score in
retail banking employees
Collected quarterly as a result
of the new program
Improved employee turnover Turnover rate measures the
percentage of employees
who leave the bank over a
specified period.
Quarterly turnover rate data
provided by human
resources
Improved overall employee
engagement.
State of the employee survey
measures overall employee
engagement scores.
Bi-annual employee
engagement survey
provided by an outside
third party
Level 3: Behavior
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 3 as the degree to which participants
apply what they learned during the training back in their work environment. This level focuses
on identifying the specific critical behaviors that participants must demonstrate. If performed
93
reliably, these will have the largest impact on the targeted program outcomes. Critical behaviors
must be specific, observable, measurable, and clear enough to pass the video test, which the
authors described as capturing the behaviors on camera and explaining what is happening. Table
23 lists the critical behaviors the middle managers will perform, which include logging in to their
training development portal to review trust scores, completing trust-building training sessions,
participating in structured mentorship programs, and participating in progress feedback sessions.
Table 23
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
1. Middle managers
will log in to their
training
development portal
and review posted
trust scores
regularly.
Number of logins into
the training
development portal
and number of
views into the trust
scores section.
HR tracks logins and
page views via portal
analytics and
maintains a report on
individual
engagement.
Quarterly
2. Middle managers
will complete trustbuilding training
sessions.
Number of completed
training modules
and assessment
scores post-training.
HR tracks completion
and assessment scores
via the training portal.
Twice annually
3. Middle managers
will participate in
structured
mentorship
programs focused
on trust-building
Number of
mentorship sessions
attended and
documented
progress in trustbuilding areas
Mentor and mentee
(middle manager) log
attendance and record
summaries of each
session’s focus and
feedback.
Quarterly
4. Middle managers
will participate in
structured progress
feedback programs.
Frequency of
feedback sessions
attended and
progress toward
trust-building goals
HR tracks feedback
session attendance
and document
progress on trustrelated goals as
reported by managers.
Quarterly
Note. Items numbered for easier identification in Table 24.
94
Required Drivers
As previously discussed, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 3 as the
degree to which participants apply what they learned during the training back in their work
environment. In addition to critical behaviors, required drivers are introduced at this level as the
processes and systems that support, monitor, and sustain essential behaviors needed for the
effective on-the-job application of skills learned in training. These drivers serve as reinforcement
tools that encourage employees to integrate new skills into their daily tasks, providing necessary
accountability and motivation for consistent practice. By reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding,
and monitoring these critical behaviors, required drivers create a supportive environment for
long-term behavior change and alignment with organizational objectives.
Reinforcement methods, like job aids and refresher sessions, offer accessible tools and
reminders that help employees embed key skills into their routines, which ensures that they
sustain critical behaviors. Encouragement strategies, such as coaching and peer feedback
highlight motivation recommendations in supporting employees’ commitment to continual
improvement in applying what they have learned. Rewarding techniques focus on
acknowledging and incentivizing effective behavior, using recognition programs and rewards to
reinforce motivation and dedication to the behaviors. Lastly, monitoring methods, including the
use of key performance indicators and scheduled evaluations, help track effectiveness and ensure
accountability, with regular assessments providing a clear view of progress, identifying areas for
adjustment, and sustaining high performance over time. Table 24 summarizes the drivers
required to support critical behaviors.
95
Table 24
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Provide job aids to access scores and outline
specific trust-building steps and activities. Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Offer regular refresher learning sessions on
trust-building techniques. Quarterly 2, 3, 4
Implement peer support groups where middle
managers can discuss and reinforce trustbuilding strategies.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Provide role models and shadowing
opportunities to observe successful trustbuilding in action.
Monthly 2, 3, 4
Offer constructive feedback on managers’
trust-building efforts in one-on-one sessions. Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Recognize and publicly acknowledge
managers who demonstrate effective trustbuilding behaviors.
Monthly 2, 3, 4
Create incentive programs that reward
consistent application of trust-building
techniques.
Ongoing 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Track and review key performance indicators
related to trust-building activities and
outcomes.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4
Conduct quarterly evaluations of trust-building
progress through surveys and feedback. Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4
Organizational Support
Organizational support for middle managers’ critical behaviors and required drivers is
essential to achieving IBG Bank’s goal of increasing organizational trust within the retail
banking group. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasized reinforcing, encouraging,
rewarding, and monitoring behaviors at Level 3 to ensure on-the-job application and consistency
96
of skills learned in training. For IBG Bank, these Level 3 drivers will include structured support
systems that keep middle managers accountable and engaged in trust-building activities and
accessible resources, such as trust-building programs, to enable them to integrate learned
behaviors into their day-to-day roles.
To reinforce and encourage middle managers’ engagement in trust-building, IBG Bank
can utilize key resources, such as leadership development sessions and forums for transparent
communication. These forums are part of a broader cultural model promoting openness and
transparency. Additionally, establishing trust-building as a core part of middle managers’
performance expectations aligns organizational priorities with individual actions. By making
trust-building a visible priority in managers’ responsibilities, IBG Bank emphasizes the value of
these critical behaviors and creates a system that continuously reminds and motivates managers
to apply them.
Monitoring these behaviors through consistent use of key performance indicators and
structured feedback sessions is another necessary organizational driver to ensure the
effectiveness of Level 3 behaviors. By tracking progress on critical behaviors and their
outcomes, IBG Bank can better evaluate the influence of these behaviors on organizational trust
scores. Moreover, rewarding managers who excel in these behaviors with recognition or
professional development opportunities reinforces the importance of trust-building as a
continuous, valued organizational goal.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 2 as the degree to which participants
acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their
participation in training programs. This level assesses how well training prepares individuals
97
with the tools needed to perform desired behaviors, ensuring they are ready to apply new skills.
Learning (Level 2) is primarily formative, with common methods to evaluate it, such as
knowledge checks, discussions, group activities, and simulations.
Learning Goals
Based on the recommendations from the KMO analysis at the end of Chapter 4, below
are the learning goals necessary for middle managers to positively influence organizational trust
outcomes. Following the training program, IBG Bank middle managers will be able to
• explain the current organizational trust scores in their departments
• identify and comprehend their specific roles and responsibilities in trust-building
within their teams
• demonstrate procedural knowledge of trust-building activities, including open
communication, sharing privileged information, establishing rewards for conserving
trust, and showing appreciation for shared values
• assess and reflect on their effectiveness in trust-building, identifying areas for
improvement and growth
• show confidence in applying trust-building skills confidently in team interactions,
supported by practical feedback and real-life scenarios
• foster a mastery-oriented goal approach to continuously improve trust-building,
incorporating feedback into practices that reinforce transparency and organizational
trust-building efforts
Program
To achieve IBG Bank’s goals of strengthening organizational trust among middle
managers, a proposed 2-day training program will focus on the six learning goals outlined in the
98
previous section. These topics address the areas identified in the KMO influences analysis as
necessary for successful trust-building and sustained behavior change. The bank’s learning and
development team will administer the training program in partnership with an external facilitator
and combine presentations, group discussions, role-playing exercises, and reflection activities to
provide middle managers with a comprehensive understanding of trust-building in action. Given
that there are over 40 middle managers in retail banking, the training program will be divided
into three participant groups (e.g., 12 to 15 participants per training program) to create a more
intimate and supportive environment conducive to learning and engagement. This structure
allows for deeper interaction and personalized feedback during each session.
On the 1st day of the training program, the facilitator will introduce the concept of
organizational trust within IBG Bank and will provide an overview of the bank’s current trust
scores. Middle managers will learn how these scores impact engagement and why improving
them is essential to the bank’s long-term goals. The facilitator will also review how middle
managers can access these scores through their training development portals. The session will
then focus on roles and responsibilities in trust-building and will highlight how middle managers
make a meaningful impact through their actions.
In the latter half of the 1st day, participants will learn the procedural knowledge of trustbuilding activities. The facilitator will provide guidance and methods for open communication,
sharing privileged information, establishing rewards for conserving trust, and expressing
appreciation for shared values. This session will use handouts and job aids for reference and will
conclude with group discussions where participants will share initial reflections on their
strengths and challenges in trust-building activities.
99
The 2nd day of the program will focus on applying trust-building skills through hands-on
practice, receiving feedback, and establishing mastery-oriented goals. The day will begin with
middle managers participating in structured role-playing exercises based on procedural trustbuilding activities, such as setting up privileged information-sharing practices and recognizing
team members for conserving trust. For example, participants will practice scenarios where they
communicate sensitive information transparently or demonstrate appreciation for the team’s
shared values. Each exercise includes a feedback session with peers and the facilitator, where
managers receive constructive feedback and can immediately reflect on adjustments, fostering a
learning environment that enhances understanding.
Throughout the day, middle managers will participate in group exercises aimed at
building confidence in their trust-building skills. These include simulated team meetings where
participants practice clear, open communication, set up mock reward systems for reinforcing
trust-conserving behaviors, and demonstrate how they would handle confidentiality and
transparency. After each activity, small groups discuss challenges faced in these scenarios,
providing participants with insights into their approaches, with the facilitator observing each
group and providing feedback throughout. After the small group exercises, participants will then
share their experiences with the broader group and receive feedback from the facilitator. This
layered feedback will help participants deepen their understanding of trust-building while
increasing their confidence through repeated practice and peer support.
In the final portion of the day, participants will complete a self-assessment focused on
identifying areas for improvement in skills and confidence in trust-building. Each participant will
have a session with the facilitator allowing for tailored advice and setting a mastery-oriented goal
specific to trust-building. The day will conclude with a collaborative goal-setting session, where
100
managers outline their trust-building commitments and present these to the group for final
feedback and encouragement. These exercises, focused on real-life applications and backed by
the feedback, will ensure participants develop both the skills and confidence to apply trustbuilding practices effectively, supported by follow-up sessions for sustainment.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The following section will outline the methods and activities used to assess each
component of learning that Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described. These components
include declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment and are
essential for measuring how effectively participants are acquiring and applying the skills covered
in the training program. Table 25 summarizes the methods and activities for each component and
outlines the timing for each.
101
Table 25
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Pre-tests and post-tests At the start and the end of the training
program
Group discussions and sharing Throughout the group sessions
Knowledge checks throughout the program At the end end of each session and at the end
of the training program
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrations of applying trust-building
techniques in group role-playing
simulations
During Day 2 role-playing sessions
Demonstration of goal-setting During Day 2, after facilitator one-on-one
sessions
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Facilitator evaluations Throughout training
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment End of the training program
Discussions about the value of exercises Throughout training
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Middle manager demonstrations in group End of Day 2 role-playing sessions
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment End of the training program
Group discussions addressing any concerns During and at the end of the training program
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment End of the training program
Group discussions of practical challenges and
successful trust-building cases
During and at the end of the training program
Middle manager reports on progress. After training
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 (reaction), as outlined by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), focuses on
assessing participants’ immediate feedback on a training program and examines how engaging,
relevant, and satisfying they found the program. This evaluation measures the degree to which
participants feel the program aligns with their needs and expectations. Positive reactions often
indicate a greater likelihood that participants will apply the new skills they gained. By gathering
102
feedback during and immediately after the training, areas for improvement in content and
delivery can be identified. Table 26 summarizes the components to measure reactions to the
training program and outlines the timing for each.
Table 26
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Sign in sheets At the beginning of each day
Real-time polls At the end of each session
Participation throughout the sessions During the training program
Relevance
Survey After the training program
During group discussions During the training program
Customer satisfaction
Survey After the training program
Feedback During the training program
103
Evaluation Tools
Evaluating a training program’s success is essential for measuring its impact on learning,
behavior, and organizational outcomes, as Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discussed. The
bank’s learning and development team will administer the following program evaluation outlined
in two phases: an immediate assessment directly following the training and a delayed assessment
after a set period post-training. The immediate evaluation will focus on Levels 1 and 2 of the
Kirkpatrick model, capturing middle managers’ initial reactions to the training and measuring
their knowledge and skill acquisition. The delayed evaluation, conducted 6 months after the
training program, will expand to include Levels 3 and 4 by examining the transfer of learning
into behavior and its impacts on organizational goals. This approach provides formative and
summative insights into the program.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
The immediate evaluation following day two of the training program will use a blended
electronic survey to capture Level 1 and Level 2 components as recommended by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016). The electronic survey will assess participants’ initial reactions to the
training program, including their engagement and satisfaction (Level 1), along with measures of
their knowledge and confidence (Level 2). By combining these components into a single survey
instrument, the survey will minimize response fatigue while at the same time providing a
comprehensive view of the effectiveness of the training program. This immediate feedback will
allow IBG Bank to gather insights on the program’s impact and allow for modifications to future
training programs. Appendix D provides the survey instrument.
104
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
A delayed evaluation will assess the long-term impact of the training program, as
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended. This assessment, taking place 6 months after
implementation, will provide insights into how effectively participants have applied their new
skills on the job (Level 3) and the broader outcomes achieved at the organization (Level 4). The
delayed evaluation will also revisit Levels 1 and 2, allowing participants to reflect on their initial
reactions and update their sense of confidence and commitment to the skills learned now that
they have had time to incorporate them into daily practice. This blended evaluation instrument
will include one or two items per category, using rating scales to capture comprehensive
feedback on engagement, satisfaction, knowledge, skill application, and results achieved.
Appendix E provides this evaluation tool.
Data Analysis and Reporting
To effectively communicate the impact of the training program, the bank’s learning and
development team will present findings from both the immediate and delayed evaluations in a
format that aligns with Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) focus on actionable data. The
immediate evaluation data, which covers Levels 1 and 2, will be synthesized into summary
graphs that illustrate engagement, satisfaction, and knowledge skill acquisition. These visuals
will demonstrate how effective the training was at meeting participant expectations and
preparing middle managers for improving trust-building efforts. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), presenting data in a compelling way ensures that stakeholders can assess the
training’s effectiveness, providing the opportunity for adjustments to future training.
The delayed evaluation will focus on the long-term outcomes measured at Levels 3 and 4,
assessing how well middle managers have applied trust-building practices and the resulting
105
impact on organizational trust scores. Comparative charts will display progress against the 2022–
2023 baseline from the state of the employee survey, revealing changes in teams’ trust-building
behaviors and improvements in trust scores across the retail banking group. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasized evaluating behavioral changes and results over time, as these
elements reveal the sustained effectiveness of the training and its contribution to organizational
goals. This delayed evaluation will be critical in measuring the program’s alignment with IBG
Bank’s objective of increasing trust by 10% by 2026.
All findings will be compiled into a comprehensive dashboard for the IBG Bank EC,
including visual data representations and key insights drawn from the analysis, as recommended
by Kirkpatrick’s model and represented in Figure 2. This dashboard will highlight overall
organizational trust scores and improvement to the 2023 baseline scores. Additional metrics such
as engagement, knowledge and skill acquisition, confidence, and behavior application metrics
are represented and reflect progress to pre-training scores, which ensures a focus on continuous
improvement in trust-building across the organization. Leadership will be able to filter by all
middle managers’ cohorts as well as individual cohorts.
106
Figure 2
Trust Evaluation Dashboard Conceptual Design
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was strategically
applied at IBG Bank to design, implement, and evaluate a training program aimed at improving
organizational trust within the retail banking group. By planning in reverse, starting from Level 4
(Results), the program aligned directly with IBG Bank’s goal of raising trust scores by 10% by
January 2026, addressing gaps identified in the 2022–2023 state of the employee survey. This
structured approach ensured that each phase of the training—from participant engagement and
learning outcomes to behavior application—was purposefully tailored to support both middle
managers’ roles and broader organizational objectives.
107
Evaluating the program through the Kirkpatrick framework provided a comprehensive
analysis of its impact. Immediate assessments captured Levels 1 and 2 feedback, measuring
middle managers’ engagement and knowledge acquisition directly after the program, while a
delayed assessment, conducted 6 months later, examined Levels 3 and 4 to assess on-the-job
application of trust-building behaviors and organizational outcomes. The evaluation findings,
presented in visual data formats, will offer IBG Bank leadership a clear view of the program’s
effectiveness, highlighting improvements in both internal outcomes, like employee engagement
and trust scores, and external outcomes, such as customer growth. This integrated approach
delivers actionable insights and a measurable return on expectations, reinforcing IBG’s
commitment to fostering trust and continuous improvement across the organization.
Limitations and Delimitations
The primary limitations of this study are related to external validity in that the
recommendations may not be generalizable outside of the retail banking group within IBG Bank
or outside of the middle manager stakeholder group. Another limitation of the study is that as the
researcher and an employee in the field of study, relationships with stakeholders could have
introduced bias. A final limitation pertains to participants’ willingness to answer truthfully
during the survey and interviews. Delimitations include the limited number of middle managers
available to survey and selection of these stakeholders rather than a different group.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study has laid the groundwork for understanding the role of trust-building among
middle managers in improving organizational trust within IBG Bank’s retail banking group.
However, some areas warrant further research. First, while this study focused on retail banking
middle managers, future research could explore how similar trust-building initiatives impact
108
other departments in the banking context. For example, departments with different skill sets from
retail banking, such as finance, risk management, or compliance, could provide further insight
into the trust-building challenges and requirements specific to these functions. This same parallel
can also be applied to future research outside of the banking context and could enhance the
generalizability of the findings, providing more comprehensive insights into the factors
influencing organizational trust.
Secondly, this study could be enriched by incorporating longitudinal research to assess
how trust-building practices evolve and impact longer-term outcomes, such as employee
retention and customer loyalty. Tracking these practices over a longer period could shed light on
the impact of these interventions and their influences on trust. Furthermore, future research could
focus on demographic factors such as middle manager age, education level, and tenure. This
additional insight could help researchers understand how different employee groups react to
initiatives based on the demographics of management.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the KMO influences
on middle managers in improving organizational trust during times of constant change by
incorporating trust-building activities in their departments. I generated a list of possible or
assumed causes and examined them systematically to identify actual or validated causes. The
stakeholders of focus in this analysis were middle managers in IBG Bank’s retail banking group.
The following questions guided this study:
1. What is the middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to incorporating
trust-building activities?
109
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for middle managers to help improve trust deficits in
their organization?
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework provided the structure for identifying
the eight influence gaps, including four knowledge gaps, two motivation gaps, and two
organizational influences. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, each of these influences
was determined to be a need for middle managers, highlighting their impact on low
organizational trust scores. The recommendations for knowledge and motivation, in conjunction
with improvements to organizational culture, provide an opportunity for the organization to see
an improvement in trust scores.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided a
structured framework for planning, implementing, evaluating, and refining IBG Bank’s trustbuilding training program for middle managers. This model enabled IBG Bank to use feedback
and assessment data collected at each stage to continuously adjust and enhance the program,
ensuring that it remained relevant and aligned with organizational goals. By committing to the
recommendations outlined in this study and integrating Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation,
IBG Bank can achieve its targeted increase in organizational trust and foster a deeper
understanding of team dynamics, employee engagement, and the organizational factors that
influence trust. The ongoing use of these evaluation tools will allow IBG Bank to monitor
progress and adapt the program as needed, creating a responsive approach to trust-building that
supports a culture of continuous improvement.
110
This study’s findings study offer meaningful insights into trust-building among middle
managers in fostering organizational trust within the banking industry. Yet, the implications
extend beyond individual institutions; they speak to the industry itself. The banking sector
thrives on trust and confidence, which is evident in every transaction, deposit, and relationship.
Customers place their financial well-being in banks’ hands, driven by a belief in the integrity,
competence, and stability of both their institution and the broader banking system. This trust is
essential. Without a strong internal culture of trust among colleagues, banks risk losing the
external trust of their customers, threatening the confidence that sustains the financial ecosystem.
The effects of such a failure would be catastrophic, as demonstrated by the regional banking
deposit crisis of 2023. Indeed, the nature of the banking business—where no tangible goods are
produced or sold—makes trust its most valuable currency. This underscores banking leaders’
responsibility to foster trust internally and externally as a strategic imperative. The insights from
this dissertation can guide leaders in building strong organizations capable of adapting to a
rapidly changing landscape. These findings contribute meaningfully to the research on
organizational trust while laying a foundation for further exploration into trust dynamics across
industries, cultures, and demographics. Ultimately, the true value of this work lies in its message:
to make trust an active part of every level of the organization, driving teamwork, innovation, and
better performance. Trust is not just the cornerstone of banking but the foundation for stronger
teams and lasting organizational success.
111
References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in
knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(4), 64–77.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. (2016). Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader,
and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 52(1), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886315617531
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of
knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Anne, M., & Grønholdt, L. (2001). Using employee satisfaction measurement to improve people
management: An adaptation of Kano’s quality types. Total Quality Management, 12(7-8),
949–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120100000020
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6p1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Balkan, M. O., Serin, A. E., & Soran, S. (2014). The relationship between trust, turnover
intentions and emotions: An application. European Scientific Journal, 10(2).
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager
Sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159600
112
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.
Beatty, C. A., & Lee, G. L. (1992). Leadership among middle managers - An exploration in the
context of technological change. Human Relations, 45(9), 957–989.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500905
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. David McKay Co. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10025289849/
Brashear, T. G., Boles, J. S., Bellenger, D. N., & Brooks, C. M. (2003). An empirical test of
trust-building processes and outcomes in sales manager-salesperson relationships.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302250902
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006
Brown, S., Gray, D., McHardy, J., & Taylor, K. (2015). Employee trust and workplace
performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 361–378.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.05.001
Burgelman, R. A. (1988). Strategy Making as a Social Learning Process: The Case of Internal
Corporate Venturing. Interfaces, 18(3), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.18.3.74
113
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740–753.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
Chan, A. (2005). Authentic leadership measurement and development: Challenges and
suggestions. In W. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic
leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 227–251).
Emerald Publishing.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison
on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel
Psychology, 45(3), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00863.x
Cho, Y. J., & Song, H. J. (2017). Determinants of turnover intention of social workers: Effects of
emotional labor and organizational trust. Public Personnel Management, 46(1), 41–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017696395
Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in
organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.06.007
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive
psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808326596
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
114
Conchie, S. M. (2013). Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A
moderated-mediated model of workplace safety. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 18(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031805
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and mediated
effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 323–349.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3–4), 295–303.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199823/24)37:3/4<295::AIDHRM10>3.0.CO;2-3
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
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). Russell Sage Foundation.
Dunning, D. (2006). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself.
Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/e669362012-009
115
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.95.2.256
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy-value theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/expectancy-value-theory
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation:
Theory and application (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
Friend, S., & Tuddenham, H. (2015). Understanding the value and drivers of organisational
trust. PwC. https://www.pwc.com/my/en/assets/trust/trust-insight-understanding-thevalue-and-drivers-of-organisational-trust.pdf
Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2007). No end to hierarchy: Does rank make a difference in
perceptions of leadership credibility? Administration & Society, 39(1), 107–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706296616
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
116
Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Blackwell.
Gambetta, D. (2000). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking
cooperative relations (pp. 213–237).
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–
1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Georgiades, S. (2015). Employee engagement and organizational change. In S. Georgiades (Ed.),
Employee engagement in media management: Creativeness and organizational
development (pp. 9–37). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-16217-1_2
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L.-P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.
Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 321–338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700303
Godkin, L. (2015). Mid-management, employee engagement, and the generation of reliable
sustainable corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2149-0
Grama, B., & Todericiu, R. (2016). Change, resistance to change and organizational cynicism.
Studies in Business and Economics, 11(3), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2016-0034
Gwebu, K. L., Wang, J., & Troutt, M. D. (2007). A conceptual framework for understanding
trust building and maintenance in virtual organizations. Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application, 9(1), 43–63.
117
Harter, J. (2019, June 13). Why some leaders have their employees’ trust, and some don’t.
Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/258197/why-leaders-employees-trustdon.aspx
Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(3), 164–170.
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and
social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009
Heyden, M. L. M., Fourné, S. P. L., Koene, B. A. S., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. S. (2017).
Rethinking “top-down” and “bottom-up” roles of top and middle managers in
organizational change: Implications for employee support. Journal of Management
Studies, 54(7), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12258
Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of
Change Management, 10(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697011003795669
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The
contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
Islam, M. N., Furuoka, F., & Idris, A. (2020). The impact of trust in leadership on organizational
transformation. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(4), 25–34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22001
118
Jiang, H., & Luo, Y. (2018). Crafting employee trust: From authenticity, transparency to
engagement. Journal of Communication Management, 22(2), 138–160.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2016-0055
Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality
and individual job performance. In M. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and
work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 83–120). John Wiley &
Sons.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259293
Kashyap, V., & Rangnekar, S. (2016). Servant leadership, employer brand perception, trust in
leaders and turnover intentions: A sequential mediation model. Review of Managerial
Science, 10(3), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0152-6
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 875–897.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.339
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2
119
Kominis, G., & Emmanuel, C. R. (2007). The expectancy–valence theory revisited: Developing
an extended model of managerial motivation. Management Accounting Research, 18(1),
49–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.10.002
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017). The impact of leadership on trust,
knowledge management, and organizational performance. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 117(3), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2016-0072
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lampaki, A., & Papadakis, V. (2018). The impact of organisational politics and trust in the top
management team on strategic decision implementation success: A middle-manager’s
perspective. European Management Journal, 36(5), 627–637.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.005
Lee, C., Esen, E., DiNicola, S., & Scanlan, K. (2017). 2017 Employee job satisfaction and
engagement: The doors of opportunity are open. Society for Human Resource
Management. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-andsurveys/Documents/2017-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and-Engagement-ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on
knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4), 473–491.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610362036
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). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
120
Lewis, L. (2018). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
John Wiley & Sons.
Lin, R. S.-J., & Hsiao, J.-K. (2014). The relationships between transformational leadership,
knowledge sharing, trust and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal
of Innovation and Technology Management, 5(3), 171–174.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIMT.2014.V5.508
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. T. (2005). The production of trust during
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500143555
Littler, C. R., Dunford, R., Bramble, T., & Hede, A. (1997). The Dynamics of Downsizing in
Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 35(1), 65–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/103841119703500106
Lleo, A., Viles, E., Jurburg, D., & Lomas, L. (2017). Strengthening employee participation and
commitment to continuous improvement through middle manager trustworthy
behaviours. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(9-10), 974–988.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1303872
Long, C. P., Sitkin, S. B., & Cardinal, L. B. (2003, June 15–18). Managerial use of trustbuilding, fairness-building, and organizational controls to manage organizational
conflicts [Paper presentation]. The 16th International Association of Conflict
Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510610350
121
Mak, B. L., & Sockel, H. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee motivation and
retention. Information & Management, 38(5), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7206(00)00055-0
Manley, K., Sanders, K., Cardiff, S., & Webster, J. (2011). Effective workplace culture: The
attributes, enabling factors and consequences of a new concept. International Practice
Development Journal, 1(2), 1–29.
Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00744.x
Martins Marques de Lima Rua, O. M., & Costa Araújo, J. M. (2013). The influence of the
transformational leadership in the organizational trust. Harvard Deusto Business
Research, 2(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.3926/hdbr.43
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee
satisfaction, and employee loyalty. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
17(10), 1261–1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360600753653
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. Journal of Experimental
Education, 74(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.4.291-310
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed). John Wiley & Sons.
122
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934
Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The
roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management
Review, 23(3), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.2307/259295
Morgan, D., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in
management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210158510
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
Murphy, K. R., & Kroeker, L. P. (1988). Dimensions of job performance. Navy Personnel
Research and Development Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA194951
Nielsen, K., & González, E. R. (2010). Engaging middle managers: Activities and resources
which enhance middle manager engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of
employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 139–148).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nink, M. (2020). Why UK leaders need to build trust with employees. Gallup Inc.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/312833/why-leaders-need-build-trust-employees.aspx
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Version 4o) [Large multimodal model].
https://chat.openai.com/chat
123
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963–974.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963
Ouedraogo, N., & Ouakouak, M. L. (2018). Impacts of personal trust, communication, and
affective commitment on change success. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 31(3), 676–696. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2016-0175
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/ article/selfefficacy-theory
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE
Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Merrill.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. McGraw-Hill.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65–105.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391262
Raelin, J. D., & Cataldo, C. G. (2011). Whither middle management? Empowering interface and
the failure of organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 481–507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.630509
124
Rawlins, B. R. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and
employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1–21.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/885/
Rezvani, Z. (2017). Who is a middle manager: A literature review. International Journal of
Family Business and Management, 1(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15226/2577-
7815/1/2/00104
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257–266.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.141
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE
Publications.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues
(pp. 101–123). American Psychological Association.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2014). Academic self-efficacy. In M. J. Furlong (Ed.),
Handbook of positive psychology in schools (2nd ed., pp. 115–130). Routledge
Shahnawaz, M. G., & Goswami, K. (2011). Effect of psychological contract violation on
organizational commitment, trust and turnover intention in private and public sector
Indian organizations. Vision Research, 15(3), 209–217.
Sias, P. M., Pedersen, H., Gallagher, E. B., & Kopaneva, I. (2012). Workplace friendship in the
electronically connected organization. Human Communication Research, 38(3), 253–279.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01428.x
125
Simons, T. (2002, September). The High cost of lost trust. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2002/09/the-high-cost-of-lost-trust
Snead, K. C. (1991). An application of expectancy theory to examine managers’ motivation to
utilize a decision support system. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 3, 213–
222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00818.x
Steelman, L. A., & Wolfeld, L. (2018). The manager as coach: The role of feedback orientation.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-
9473-6
Swift, P. E., & Hwang, A. (2013). The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge
sharing and organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 20–37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311288500
Tsai, M.-T., & Cheng, N.-C. (2012). Understanding knowledge sharing between IT
professionals—An integration of social cognitive and social exchange theory. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 31(11), 1069–1080.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.550320
Vakola, M. (2014). What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived
impact of organizational change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
35(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2012-0064
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
126
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-
2297(92)90011-P
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on
trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 6–23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20104
Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership and
nurses’ voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Management,
18(8), 889–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement,
and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110305
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on
strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1190–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324326
Yan, Z., Wang, T., Chen, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). Knowledge sharing in online health
communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Information & Management, 53(5),
643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.02.001
127
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-andfoci approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 50–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE
Publications.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Ferguson, M. A. (2019). Bridging transformational leadership,
transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of
trust. Public Relations Review, 45(3), 101779.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.012
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). an improved measure of ethical
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 38–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811429352
Zak, P. (2017, January). The Neuroscience of Trust. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-neuroscience-of-trust
Zamahani, M., Ghorbani, V., & Rezaei, F. (2011). Impact of authentic leadership and
psychological capital on followers’ trust and performance. Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 658–667.
Zeidner, R. (2020, March 21). Coronavirus makes work from home the new normal. SHRM.
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/remote-work-has-becomethe-new-normal.aspx
128
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The
employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the
organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111–132.
Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). Explaining employee job performance: The role of online
and offline workplace communication networks. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 37(3), 695–722. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.02
129
Appendix A: Survey Items
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey today. I’m a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education where I’m conducting a research
study to understand the influences on increasing organizational trust during times of change.
As a reminder, you may decline to answer any of the questions.
Thank you again.
Rate your agreement with the following.
I know the organizational trust scores on my team from the latest employee engagement
survey.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
My position as a middle manager is a contributor to building trust within my team.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
130
Examples of trust-building activities with employees include the following (Check all that
apply):
• hosting team-building events
• communicating openly
• involving junior colleagues in important decision-making
• sharing privileged information
• establishing rewards for conserving trust
• showing appreciation for shared values
Rate your agreement with the following.
I regularly reflect on my progress toward building trust in my team
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I think through different trust-building strategies before determining a path for a given
employee.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
131
I enjoy building trust with my teams.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
As a middle manager, it is important for me to build trust with my team to achieve our
organizational goals.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I am confident in my ability to build trust within my team.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not confident and 10 is very confident, rate your
confidence in incorporating trust-building activities with your teams right now.
• Communicating openly
• Sharing privileged information
132
• Establishing rewards for conserving trust
• Showing appreciation for shared values
Rate your agreement with the following:
I intend to incorporate trust-building activities within my team even if I make mistakes.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
My main goal is to have better trust scores than my peer middle managers.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
My company values open and honest feedback across the organization.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
133
My company provides appropriate leadership development training to improve my trustbuilding skills.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I have access to resources to help me learn about ways to increase trust-building within
my team.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
134
Appendix B: Interview Instrument and Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses are greatly
appreciated.
We will be holding follow-up interviews with my study participants shortly after the
survey window. If you would like to volunteer, please submit your email address and number of
employees you manage below so that we can contact you to schedule an interview.
Email address:
Number of employees you manage:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today.
I’m a doctoral student at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education where I’m conducting a research study to understand the influences on increasing
organizational trust during times of change.
You may decline to answer any of the questions, and you can withdraw from the
interview at any time.
This interview will take approximately 45 minutes. With your permission, I will be
recording this Zoom interview and may take notes.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
135
Table B1
Interview Protocol
Knowledge interview questions Category
Tell me what the organizational trust scores are for your
department in the latest employee engagement survey.
Knowledge
Tell me what the organizational trust goal is for your
department.
Knowledge
Tell me how your role as a middle manager contributes to
building trust in your team.
Knowledge
Walk me through the steps you take to incorporate trustbuilding activities with your employees.
Knowledge
Tell me about how you encourage trusting behavior within
your team.
Knowledge
How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your trust-building
strategies?
Knowledge
Talk me through how you approach a situation where you need
to improve trust with an employee on your team.
Knowledge
Tell me about your level of enjoyment when building trust
with your team.
Motivation
Describe to me how useful it is for you to incorporate trustbuilding activities with your team.
Motivation
To what degree do you feel confident about your ability to
build trust with your team?
Motivation
Describe to me what drives you to build trust in your team. Motivation
How does IBG Bank encourage the sharing of truthful and
open communication across the organization?
Organization
What kind of tools does IBG Bank provide you to develop
your trust-building skills with your team?
Organization
136
Appendix C: Output of Generative AI Prompt
I used a generative AI tool to develop a synthesized summary of the data analysis. The
data were compiled into a data analysis summary document. Then, the data analysis summary
document was uploaded into the generative AI tool, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024), to provide a
summarized readout of the combined results for each of the influences.
Factual Knowledge
The survey results showed that 81% of middle managers either strongly or somewhat
disagreed with knowing their department’s trust scores, highlighting a significant gap in factual
knowledge. Fifteen percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that they knew their
team’s trust scores, suggesting that most were unaware of this metric.
In interviews, managers expressed a similar lack of awareness regarding their
department’s trust scores. Participant 1 stated, “I actually don’t know the scores of my
department. I’m not sure actually,” and Participant 5 added, “I’d have to go and look, but I don’t
know off the top of my head.” Participant 6 echoed this, saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen
what my trust scores are, to be honest with you.” Regarding the trust goals, Participant 4 noted,
“I think the goal was around 80%, but I can’t tell you for sure,” while Participant 1 speculated,
“The goal, I believe, is 80%. But I could not tell you what my actual score is.” These responses
indicate that middle managers are generally unaware of both their trust scores and trust goals.
Conceptual Knowledge
According to the survey, 63% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that their role
contributes to building trust, while 19% disagreed. This suggests that a majority of middle
managers are aware that their position plays a critical role in trust-building, though a significant
minority either disagree or remain neutral on the matter.
137
Interviews revealed a similar pattern, with some managers recognizing their importance
in trust-building while others downplayed their influence. Participant 1 explained, “Middle
managers are the connector ... we have the closest connection to the field,” and Participant 5
emphasized, “My role as a middle manager is critically important ... ensure senior leadership is
in sync with what we are doing.” Participant 6 noted, “I feel like I am really the main
communicator ... and that role does drive trust in the vision of what we are doing here at the
bank.” However, others were less certain, with Participant 2 stating, “I don’t necessarily think
that my role as a middle manager contributes to overall organizational trust,” and Participant 3
saying, “I don’t think my role as a middle manager really matters. … Too many changes.” The
findings suggest that while many middle managers understand their significant role in building
trust, others are less confident in their impact.
Procedural Knowledge
The survey results showed that while 85% of managers selected “communicating openly”
as a trust-building activity, fewer selected critical activities such as “sharing privileged
information” (11%) and “establishing rewards for conserving trust” (26%). Notably, the two
distractor options were selected more frequently than activities such as “showing appreciation for
shared values,” suggesting a lack of clarity about the procedural knowledge required for building
trust.
In interviews, middle managers primarily focused on building relationships rather than
implementing the specific trust-building activities highlighted in the survey. Participant 1
mentioned, “I like to learn about our employees’ lives and families. … That helps drive trust,”
while Participant 5 explained, “Frequent communication. … One-on-one interactions and getting
to know my team on a personal level” were key strategies. Participant 3 added, “I speak plainly
138
and tell my team the truth. … Incorporate skip-level meetings.” When discussing how they
encourage trusting behavior, Participant 2 shared, “I encourage open dialogue, communication,
and discussion,” while Participant 6 explained, “I try my best to foster an environment that
accepts everyone’s opinion ... and encourages feedback and debate.” Participant 5 noted, “I
encourage my team to collaborate with one another on problems rather than just coming to me.”
These findings reveal that managers tend to rely on interpersonal relationship-building rather
than the structured procedural actions that are known to effectively build trust, indicating a gap
in procedural knowledge.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The survey results indicated that 71% of middle managers either strongly or somewhat
disagreed with regularly reflecting on their progress in building trust. Only 22% somewhat or
strongly agreed, suggesting that reflection on trust-building efforts is not a common practice
among most managers. For the second survey question, 45% of respondents either somewhat or
strongly disagreed that they think through different trust-building strategies before determining a
path for a given employee, while 26% somewhat or strongly agreed. This suggests that a
significant portion of managers do not take a structured, strategic approach when addressing
trust-building with individual employees.
In interviews, many middle managers admitted they did not have formal processes for
evaluating their trust-building strategies. Participant 1 said, “I probably don’t do a good job
evaluating effectiveness, but I get a sense through body language,” while Participant 5 added, “A
lot of it is informal ... I get a feel for how my team is engaged rather than any formal process.”
Participant 2 shared a similar sentiment, “I don’t have a process to technically evaluate it, but I
get a sense based on concerns brought to me.” When it came to addressing trust-building with
139
specific employees, Participant 1 explained, “I spend more time with them, have more frequent
one-on-one meetings,” and Participant 2 mentioned, “I invest more time with them and ask
questions to ensure they understand.” Participant 4 noted, “I spend time with them, ask questions
to understand their concerns, and visit them more frequently.” These findings suggest that while
some managers attempt to address trust issues directly, there is little formal reflection or
structured evaluation of trust-building efforts.
Motivation Task Value
For the first survey question, 89% of middle managers somewhat or strongly agreed that
they enjoy building trust with their teams, with only 4% disagreeing. This indicates that most
middle managers place a high value on the process of building trust. For the second survey
question, 78% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that building trust with their team is
important to achieving organizational goals. Only 7% disagreed, suggesting that the majority of
middle managers recognize the strategic importance of trust-building in achieving broader
organizational success.
In interviews, middle managers expressed enjoyment in building trust with their teams.
Participant 6 said, “I really do love building close bonds and relationships with my team,” while
Participant 5 shared, “I have a high level of enjoyment ... it drives me every day to see my team
trusts me.” Participant 4 added, “When my team trusts me, it’s enjoyable because I treat them
like friends rather than colleagues.” Regarding the utility of trust-building, Participant 1 stated,
“Building trust drives behavior and performance. … It’s very important and useful.” Participant
5 further emphasized, “Incorporating trust-building activities is very critical. … It secures buy-in
from the team.” However, Participant 3 expressed a more skeptical view, saying, “I don’t think
it’s very useful in general ... it feels superficial.” These findings suggest that while most
140
managers both value and enjoy trust-building, some may view it as a less integral part of their
role.
Self-Efficacy
For the first survey question, 55% of middle managers were either confident or strongly
confident in their ability to build trust, while 44% were neutral or lacked confidence. This
indicates that while a majority of managers feel capable of building trust, a significant portion
remain uncertain. For the second survey question regarding confidence in specific trust-building
activities, 63% of managers felt confident in communicating openly, while 26% lacked
confidence in this area. Confidence dropped significantly when it came to sharing privileged
information, where only 15% of managers felt confident, and 85% lacked confidence. Similarly,
just 19% of managers felt confident in establishing rewards for conserving trust, while 74% were
not confident. Lastly, 22% of managers felt confident in showing appreciation for shared values,
but 67% lacked confidence in this activity. These findings suggest that while middle managers
feel relatively confident in general trust-building activities like communicating openly, their
confidence diminishes significantly when it comes to more specific actions such as sharing
privileged information or establishing rewards for trust. This gap in confidence around these
more nuanced trust-building activities could indicate a lack of experience or clarity on how to
effectively implement them.
Interviews reflected a range of confidence levels. Participant 1 said, “I feel very confident
... I think for the most part my team trusts me,” while Participant 5 noted, “Generally, I feel
pretty confident. I feel like I know what I’m doing in that arena.” Participant 6 shared,
“Sometimes I feel confident, however, other times I’m not so confident when there are changes
that occur that are out of my control.” However, some managers lacked confidence in specific
141
areas, as Participant 3 explained, “I feel confident building individual trust, but I feel extremely
low confidence in building organizational trust.” These findings suggest that while many
managers feel confident in trust-building on a personal level, external factors or organizational
challenges may undermine their confidence.
Goal Orientation
For the first survey question, 44% of middle managers somewhat or strongly agreed with
the intention to incorporate trust-building activities even if they make mistakes, while 37%
disagreed. This indicates that although a substantial portion of middle managers are willing to
engage in trust-building despite potential errors, there is also a significant proportion who may
hesitate due to the fear of mistakes. For the second survey question, only 26% of middle
managers somewhat or strongly agreed that their main goal is to have better trust scores than
their peers, while 60% either somewhat or strongly disagreed. This suggests that most managers
do not view outperforming their peers on trust scores as a primary goal, possibly indicating that
they are more focused on internal team dynamics than on external comparisons.
Interviews revealed that many middle managers are primarily driven by performance and
their desire to foster strong relationships within their teams. Participant 5 shared, “The only way
for me to succeed is to make sure my team is performing at a high level. … Building trust is
important for that.” Participant 4 added, “Trust is a foundational piece. … It helps drive
performance, so getting it right is crucial.” Participant 6 emphasized, “I really see building
relationships and building trust as a long-term relationship. … I like to think of the long game
when it comes to trust-building.” However, some managers seemed less motivated by trustbuilding as a personal goal. For instance, Participant 3 noted, “It’s not really something I aspire
to do. … It’s not a personal goal of mine.” These findings suggest that while many middle
142
managers are motivated by the need to ensure high performance and foster long-term
relationships, some do not see trust-building as a primary or personal goal and outperforming
their peers is not a major focus for most.
Cultural Models
Survey results revealed that 70% of respondents either somewhat or strongly disagreed
that IBG Bank values open and honest feedback, with only 19% somewhat or strongly agreeing.
This suggests that the majority of middle managers feel that the bank struggles to foster a culture
of open communication.
In interviews, Participant 3 shared, “How do they do it? They don’t do it at all. It’s a
siloed organization with zero communication.” Participant 1 noted, “IBG Bank tries, but we are
always in cost-cutting mode, which affects how much truth is communicated.” Participant 4
added, “We talk about being open, but I often feel there’s a meeting after the meeting, which
signals a lack of trust.” Participant 5 expressed a slightly more optimistic view, stating, “I think
we are trying, but I don’t see concrete evidence yet that we encourage open dialogue.” These
responses suggest that despite some efforts, most managers feel that the bank struggles to foster a
culture of open and transparent communication.
Cultural Settings
For the first survey question, 71% of middle managers somewhat or strongly disagreed
that their company provides appropriate leadership development training to improve their trustbuilding skills, while only 19% somewhat or strongly agreed. This suggests that a significant
majority of managers feel they are not receiving adequate support through leadership training for
trust-building. For the second survey question, 70% of respondents somewhat or strongly
disagreed, and 15% somewhat or strongly agreed that they have access to resources to help them
143
learn about ways to increase trust-building within their team. Thus, most felt a lack of
organizational support in the form of resources and tools to help them develop trust-building
skills.
Interviews reflected similar sentiments. Participant 1 stated, “Sorry, to be honest, I don’t
think we have anything. I’m not sure if there are any tools for trust-building.” Participant 5
echoed, “I can’t recall any specific tools. … No specific trust-building resources come to mind,
though we do leadership training.” Participant 6 remarked, “We have lots of tools and training in
leadership development, but none of that I believe exists for trust-building in particular.”
Participant 4 further noted, “We have a ton of training ... but I don’t think we have anything
specific to trust-building.” These responses reinforce the survey findings, indicating that the
majority of middle managers feel unsupported when it comes to developing the skills necessary
for trust-building within their teams.
144
Appendix D: Participant Survey Completed Immediately Following Training
Thank you for completing the organizational trust-building workshop today. Please take a
moment to complete this brief survey. Your responses are greatly appreciated.
I found the training program to be engaging.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
The training content was relevant to my role as a middle manager.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I am satisfied with the format and delivery of the training sessions.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
145
I feel more confident in my ability to implement trust-building practices within my team
after this training.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I feel prepared to apply the trust-building techniques discussed in the training to my daily
work.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
How do you plan to apply the knowledge and skills gained from this training in your
role?
How can this training workshop be improved?
146
Appendix E: Participant Survey Distributed Six Months Following Training
Please take a minute to complete this brief survey. Your responses are greatly
appreciated.
I regularly apply the trust-building practices introduced in the training.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I feel confident in my ability to maintain the trust-building practices introduced during
the training.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
The practices introduced in the training have positively impacted team trust, as indicated
by the trust metrics in my training development portal.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
147
My team’s trust in leadership has improved since completing the training.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
My team’s trust in leadership has improved since completing the training.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
My confidence in addressing trust issues within my team has grown over the past 6
months.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
148
I have observed improvements in other internal metrics, such as improved employee
turnover or improved overall employee engagement, since implementing trust-building practices.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
IBG Bank has provided sufficient support to help me sustain trust-building practices
within my team, such as structured feedback programs.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I am satisfied with the ongoing resources to support trust-building, such as mentorship
programs and regular refresher learning sessions provided by IBG Bank.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
149
The training program has improved my understanding of effective trust-building
strategies.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
The training content remains relevant to the challenges I face as a middle manager.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
IBG Bank regularly rewards and/or recognizes managers who consistently apply trustbuilding techniques.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
• I believe further training or resources would benefit my ability to sustain trustbuilding within my team. Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
150
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
I am likely to recommend similar training programs to other middle managers.
• Strongly disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree
Can you describe any changes in your team’s dynamics or trust levels that you’ve
observed since implementing the training practices?
What challenges, if any, have you faced in maintaining trust-building practices, and how
hat you addressed them?
Are there any additional resources or support that you believe would help you further
apply the skills and practices from the training?
How has your confidence in leading trust-building efforts evolved since the training, and
what has contributed most to this change?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study employed a mixed-methods improvement plan using the gap analysis framework to examine the factors affecting organizational trust among middle managers in the retail banking division of IBG Bank (pseudonym). The study aimed to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers to improving trust during times of organizational change. Data came from 27 participants through surveys and six follow-up interviews to identify and validate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs that influenced the organization’s trust scores. Findings revealed that the participants lacked declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge in organizational trust-building, as well as motivational gaps in self-efficacy and goal orientation. Findings also suggested that organizational support through clear communication and accessible resources were critical needs. These results suggest that addressing identified knowledge and motivation gaps, along with targeted organizational interventions, may enhance trust-building among middle managers, supporting IBG Bank’s broader goal of increasing organizational trust by 10% by 2026.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness
PDF
Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study
PDF
Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study
PDF
Underutilization of employer-funded higher education: a gap analysis
PDF
Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care
PDF
European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study
PDF
Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model
PDF
Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study
PDF
Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study
PDF
Unpredicted but not unexpected: developing prepared health and human services crisis leaders
PDF
Factors fueling the Texas construction personnel shortage: a comprehensive examination of stakeholder views and influences
PDF
Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study
PDF
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence diversity in volunteers in animal-assisted interventions
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
Navigating the storm: the impact of Hawaiian culture on stress, burnout, and retention of Hawaii’s acute care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022)
PDF
Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms
PDF
Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Salah, Omar
(author)
Core Title
Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-12
Publication Date
01/07/2025
Defense Date
12/10/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
middle management,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational trust,trust-building
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Yates, Kenneth (
committee chair
), Canny, Eric (
committee member
), Muraszewski, Alison Keller (
committee member
)
Creator Email
osalah@usc.edu,osalah11@gmail.com
Unique identifier
UC11399F7RZ
Identifier
etd-SalahOmar-13716.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SalahOmar-13716
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Salah, Omar
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20250109-usctheses-batch-1231
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
middle management
organizational trust
trust-building