Distrust in leaders: dimensions, patterns, and emotional intensity.

Without prompting, stratified randomly selected employees addressed communication improvements at their manufacturing facility. More than one quarter expressed distrust in their leaders. Responses were coded with two distrust conceptualizations: the opposite features of Butler and Cantrell's trust dimensions and Bies and Tripp's actions that violate trust. Narratives were also coded for target of distrust and language intensity. Narratives exposed the communication-distrust link proposed by scholars, reinforcing the behavioral foundation of distrust as a psychological construct. Results challenge the position that distrust is the opposite of trust. Peaks of language intensity occurred for various single dimensions and combinations of distrust dimensions.

Keywords: distrust; emotional intensity; leadership; superior-subordinate; trust

**********

Believed to be key to effective organizational relationships (McAllister, 1997; Shamir & Lapidot, 2003) and organizational communication (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001), trust is a fundamental and ideal characteristic sought by managers (Bennis, 1999; Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Gini, 2004; Sherwood & DePaolo, 2005) and is presumed to result in organizational benefit (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998). Despite the many advantages of developing and maintaining trusting relationships, Mishra and Morrissey (1990) demonstrated that organizational ineffectiveness results when employees distrust management and that a lack of trust is more negative than the positive results of the presence of trust.

A better understanding of distrust within the social, relational, structural, and operational dynamics of communication within an organization (see Mishra & Morrissey, 1990) can provide insights into its culture. With the emphasis on teams and emergent communication networks, distrust among interdependent parties can be as influential as trust on the interactions that create work relationships and contribute to work outcomes (see Butler, 1991; R. M. Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Because some element of risk must be present for trust to be extended (Worchel, 1979), distrust can develop (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). More importantly, whereas trust is developed over a series of positive interactions, it may take only one betrayal or violation for trust to be destroyed (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). When distrust is established, the distrusting party may continue to perceive the other party as a threat, making it more difficult to break out of the negative cycle. When this occurs, communication is reduced, making it even more difficult to deliver messages that can counter that negativity.

The purpose of this study is to examine two frameworks--distrust as a violation of trust and distrust as opposite of trust. These two frameworks offered operationalizations that can be tested empirically in organizational contexts without experimental manipulation or relying on surveys. Doing so should help clarify the relationship of distrust to trust.

Conceptualizing Distrust

Much of the conceptualizing about distrust suggests there is not a consensus about terminology as lack of trust, distrust, and mistrust are all used, sometimes interchangeably. Here, we follow the preferred usage of authors we cite. Our focus however is on distrust because the prefix mis suggests that trust is applied inappropriately. To date, the conceptualization of distrust has been grounded in the trust literature; we briefly explore trust and then move to the conceptual literature that explores distrust more directly. We conclude with an examination of the intensity of emotions regarding expressions of distrust as Mossholder, Settoon, and Harris (1995) demonstrated that emotional reactions were revealed through analysis of employee texts.

There are numerous definitions of trust (e.g., Hosmer, 1995; Lewicki et al., 1998; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000; Zucker, 1986). Common to them is the trustor's positive expectation of the trustee (Rousseau et al., 1998). For example, Mayer et al. (1995) defined trust as

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

Distrust Relative to Trust

Scholars have associated distrust with trust resulting in six competing theoretical formulations. Distrust has been characterized as: (a) violations of trust (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1996; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1997; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; S. L. Robinson, 1996), (b) low levels of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001), (c) absence of trust (Gilbert & Tang, 1998), (d) one end of a continuum with optimal trust as the other anchor (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 1999), (e) features opposite of trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1984), or (f) features orthogonal to trust (Clark & Payne, 1997; J. P. Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991; Lewicki et al., 1998). Across these conceptualizations, most privilege trust over distrust. For example, in order for violations of trust or low levels of trust to occur, trust first has to exist. Alternately, Gilbert and Tang's (1998) premise is that neither trust nor distrust initially exists. The remaining conceptualizations look at the positioning of distrust relative to trust even though they are without clear assumptions about their nexus.

Despite the inconsistency in definitional features and of its relationship to trust, the construct of distrust and its definition are emerging. Lewicki et al. (1998) defined distrust as the "confident negative expectations regarding another's conduct" (p. 439). They framed trust and distrust as separate but linked dimensions rather than opposite ends of a continuum. Sitkin and Roth (1993) defined distrust as a "belief that a person's values or motives will lead them to approach all situations in an unacceptable manner" (p. 373). Other scholars let a definition emerge from their theorizing. For example, neither Worchel (1979) nor Bies and Tripp (1996) defined distrust but treated it as actions that violate trust while Dirks and Ferrin (2001) treated distrust as low levels of trust. Common across these varied conceptualizations is the broad notion that distrust embodies a trustor's negative expectation of the trustee.

Empirical Studies of Distrust

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

Distrust as violation of trust. Bies and Tripp (1996) defined distrust as violations of trust, categorized as actions that (a) damage a sense of civic order and (b) damage personal identity. A damaged sense of civic order included rule violations (e.g., breach of contract), honor violations (e.g., shirking job responsibilities), and abusive authority (e.g., an intolerable boss). Damaged identity included behaviors such as public criticism. Although Bies and Tripp based their study on the construct of violations of trust proposed by Sitkin and Roth (1993), it is unclear from their results whether some of the categories of damaged civil order are violations of trust (task specific) or distrust (value incongruence). Their example of an intolerable boss for instance appears to be based on value incongruence ("felt 'exploited and abused' and the victim of 'management by psychosis'"), yet it is categorized as a damaged civic order (Bies & Tripp, 1996, p. 251). Their study however does provide a set of dimensions that characterize violations of trust that can be tested empirically.

Distrust as a different domain than trust. Clark and Payne (1997) used Butler and Cantrell's (1984) dimensions of trust (competence, integrity, consistency, loyalty, and openness) in conducting pilot interviews to develop a questionnaire to examine workers' trust in their superiors. From these data, Clark and Payne concluded that (a) mistrust was a different domain than trust even though they had expected that trust and mistrust were opposite ends of a continuum and (b) trust and mistrust have different implications for present and future behaviors. With such limited empirical tests, it seems reasonable to examine if opposing and negatively valenced dimensions (i.e., incompetence, dishonesty, inconsistency, disloyalty, and closed) characterize distrust. Although simplistic, there is support for this position as Whitney (2001) argued that incompetence (and the presumption of incompetence) is one of two primary causes of mistrust in organizations. However, from the position that distrust requires an action that violates trust, categories of action that damage a sense of civic order or personal identity (Bies & Tripp, 1996) is also tenable. Furthermore, Butler and Cantrell (1984) found that dimensions of trust differed depending on whether the target was a superior or a subordinate, suggesting that distrust may also vary based on the relationship vulnerability or hierarchical disparity perceived by the target. The following research questions explore these issues:

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates