POWER DISTANCE TRUST AND ORGANIZATIONAL

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

POWER DISTANCE TRUST AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Ass.Prof.Dr. Deniz BÖRÜ
Marmara University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Department of Business Administration
Ressam Namık İsmail Sok. No:1 Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: 00 90 216 336 52 73 ; Fax: 00 90 216 345 86 29
denizboru@marmara.edu.tr
Ass.Prof.Dr. Güler İSLAMOĞLU
Marmara University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Department of Business Administration
Goztepe Campus, 34722, Ziverbey, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: 00 90 216 336 52 73 ; Fax: 00 90 216 345 86 29
gislamoglu@marmara.edu.tr
Key words:

Power Distance, Trust, Organizational Citizenship Behavior

INTRODUCTION
Even though organizational scholars have been interested in the topic of trust for a long time,
a variety of workplace trends has led to a renewed focus on its nature, antecedents, and
consequences (Whitney, 1994; Kramer and Tyler, 1995; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995).
As organizations have become flatter and more team-based, organizational authorities'
supervision of their subordinates has become less dictatorial in terms of interpersonal
influence. Nowadays, managers' effectiveness depends on their ability to gain the trust of their
subordinates more than ever.
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995: 712) define trust as: "The willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform
a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that
other party." This definition of trust includes many aspects. First, trust entails risk, that is, a
willingness of the trustor to be unprotected. Second, trust involves the expectation that the
trustee will perform certain desired behaviors. Consequently, the trustor must believe that the
trustee has both the willingness and the ability to accomplish the behavior in question. Third,
the behaviors that the trustor anticipates the trustee to perform may be important to the trustor
for a number of reasons. For example, upon performing extrarole behavior, an employee may
want to be recommended for a larger than usual pay raise. Alternatively, the employee may

want to be treated by organizational authorities in ways that are psychologically rewarding,
not simply economically beneficial. According to relational models of justice (Tyler and Lind,
1992:130; Folger, 1993:165), organization members want to be treated as valued and
respected members of their work groups, not only as a means to an end. Finally, the definition

1

of trust includes the trustor's observation of the motivation underlying the trustee's behavior.
People considered to be trustworthy behave in ways expected of them in the absence of
observation. They do not merely comply with external forces, such as supervision pressures,
but have internalized the behaviors (Kelman, 1961:62). Studies have shown that a variety of
subordinates' work attitudes and behaviors are affected by trust in organizational authorities.
In general, when trust is relatively high, employees are more supportive of or committed to
authorities, and the institutions that the authorities represent. People who feel supportive of
organizational authorities are likely to be: (a) satisfied with their relationship with the
authorities, (b) committed to the organization, and (c) willing to behave in ways that help to
further the authorities' goals and, by extension, the goals of the organization. For instance,
Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that employees were more likely to exhibit organizational
citizenship behaviors when they were relatively trusting of their supervisor.
OCB has been defined as individual helping behaviors and gestures that are organizationally

beneficial, but are not formally required (Organ, 1990:60).
OCB comprises optional behavior that helps co-workers, supervisors, and the organization.
Helping newcomers to the organization, not deceiving the rights of co-workers, not taking
extra breaks, attending elective company meetings, and enduring minor pressures that occur
when working with others are examples of OCB that help in coping with various
organizational uncertainties. A key element to OCB is voluntarily helping others with jobrelated problems. Conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990: 132) are multidimensional descriptions
describing OCB facets. Researchers have divided OCB into two types: behavior that is
directed mainly at individuals in the organization (OCBI), and behavior that is concerned
more with helping the organization as a whole (OCBO) (Williams & Anderson, 1991:610).
Courtesy and altruism are viewed as mainly benefitting coworkers, whereas
conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue are directed at the organization (cf. Van
Dyne, Cummings & Parks, 1995:223; Williams & Anderson, 1991:612).
Graham (1991,255) defines OCB as a global concept composed of several correlated
substantive categories as follows: Organizational obedience is a reflection of the acceptance
of the necessity and desirability of rational rules and regulations guiding organizational
structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies. Obedience can be shown by respect for
rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of
organizational resources. Organizational loyalty is identification with and devotion to an
organization's leaders and the organization as a whole, surpassing the parochial interests of

individuals, work groups, and departments. Representative behaviors involve defending the
organization against threats, committing to its good reputation, and collaborating with others
to serve the interests of the whole. Organizational participation is interest in organizational
affairs governed by ideal standards of virtue, validated by an individual's keeping informed,
and expressed through full and responsible active participation in organizational governance.
Representative activities include attending nonrequired meetings, sharing informed opinions
and new ideas with others, and being willing to deliver bad news or support an unpopular
view to resist "groupthink" (Janis, 1982:789).
A key determinant of OCB aimed at assisting a supervisor is trust in fairness. It has been
suggested that only when employees perceive that the supervisors acknowledge and reward
OCB that they perform it (Folger, 1993:168). Development of trust in the fairness of

2

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

transactions, thus, would be a prerequisite for an employee's performing OCB that benefits
his/her supervisor.
Organizational citizenship behaviors are perceived widely as helping to an organization's

overall performance. For example, OCBs (1) provide a means of managing the
interdependencies among members of a work unit, which increases the collective outcomes
achieved; (2) reduce the need for an organization to devote scarce resources to simple
maintenance functions, which frees up resources for productivity; and (3) improve the ability
of others (i.e., coworkers and managers) to perform their jobs by freeing up time for more
efficient planning, scheduling, problem solving, and so on (Organ, 1988:88; Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1989:89 ).
Although organizational citizenship behaviors are defined in several ways, many of the
definitions share some key elements implying that OCBs (1) represent behaviors above and
beyond those formally assigned by an organizational role, (2) are optional in nature, (3) are
not directly or explicitly rewarded within the context of the organization's formal reward
structure, and (4) are important for the effective and successful performance of an
organization (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter 1991; Organ 1988; Organ and Konovsky
1989; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1989).
It is argued by many researchers that OCB may be related to employees' dispositional
variables. These dispositional variables are self-esteem (SE), organization-based self-esteem
(OBSE), the Protestant work ethic (PWE), and need for achievement (n Ach). Of these four
variables, OBSE is thought to be more specifically related to the organization than the other
three variables.
Self-esteem (SE) is "a global evaluation of the self" (Baumeister & Tice,1985:454) or a sense

of worth or value (Rosenberg, 1965:534). People will develop attitudes and behave in ways
that will maintain their level of selfesteem (Korman, 1977:531) Self-esteem has "considerable
stability from one situation to the next, even from year to year." (Demo, 1985:1491).
Moreover, high self-esteem individuals (high SEs) possess more favorable efficacy beliefs
than low SEs (Brockner, J., 1988:534). Tang & Reynolds (1993) state that while low SEs are
inclined to prefer an easy task after positive feedback, high SEs tend to prefer a difficult task
after positive feedback. High SEs also set high goals, have high certainty, good performance,
and take pleasure from challenging and difficult tasks. Organizational citizenship behaviors
are performed beyond employees' regular duties and responsibilities and may make their own
work more difficult. Therefore, it is expected that only high self-esteem employees will have
the emotional strength to perform OCB under difficult and challenging situations.
Based on Coopersmith's (1967) suggestion that self-esteem is a reflection of the extent to
which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant and worthy Pierce,
Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989) developed the concept of OBSE. Organizationbased self-esteem reflects an evaluation of personal adequacy and worthiness as an
organizational member. As a result, employees with high organization-based self-esteem
believe that they are important, meaningful and worthwhile within their organization.
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) can be defined as "the degree to which organizational
members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the context
of an organization." (Pierce et.al, 1989:630) Employees with a high level of OBSE are
3

inclined to be better organizational citizens. OBSE is a relatively new construct and very
limited research on this variable is available.
While self-esteem (SE) is a general and global attitude, OBSE is a specific work-related
attitude and OBSE may have a stronger relationship with OCB than self-esteem.
Organization-based self-esteem is one component of overall self-esteem that, in turn, is a facet
of self-identity that is an even broader construct. OBSE is different from global self-esteem
and self-identity, while it is more situation-specific and thus is more responsive to situational
factors. For example, although global self-esteem and self-identity are relatively stable
individual differences, based in large part on early childhood and socialization experiences
(Coopersmith, 1967:314), OBSE evolves over time based on an employee's overall
experiences within a specific work organization.
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is a context-specific self-esteem construct specially
formulated for organizational research (Gardner and Pierce,1998:55). Self-esteem has been
studied at global, organization-based, and task-specific levels. Pierce et al. (1989) point out
that, employees form the beliefs about themselves from their roles within an organizational
context. These beliefs in turn have strong implications for work-related motivation, attitudes,
and behavior. Since organization-based self esteem is stated to be more related with
organizational attitudes, its moderating effect on trust and OCB is analyzed in this study.
All organization depends on trust, according to Drucker (1990), and trust is mutual

understanding. For instance, in Luhmann's (1995) influential revision of Parson's systems
theory, trust and distrust are functionally equivalent strategies for dealing with what he calls
the problem of 'double contingency': where counterfactual trust has to be granted, or withheld,
in advance of it being confirmed. In other words, trust/distrust compose relevant responses to
'situations where one must enter into risks one cannot control in advance -- or forced to refuse
participation' (Luhmann, 1995:). The attempt to 'control in advance' through the exercise of
power, (when this option is available to the actor), is, in this sense, an alternative means of
influencing 'the selection of actions in the face of other possibilities' (Luhmann, 1979:33). In
this view, 'trust' -- which signals a vulnerability of trustor to the actions of the other, the
trustee -- and 'power' -- which attempts to control the actions of the other -- are both
alternative social mechanisms for untangling problems of order and organization
At the same time, 'trust' and power-assisted 'control' are morally charged categories. While
respect for the autonomy of the other is held to identify trust, mechanisms of control are
viewed as the operationalization of strategies of mistrust (Misztal 1996, Leadbeater 2000).
Within studies of work and organization, for example, trust has commonly been recognized as
a feature of systems that postulates an alternative to Taylorist and Fordist systems of control
(Fox 1974; Ritzer 1993; Hirst and Zeitlin 1991). Trust is perceived to underpin more
'democratic' styles of leadership, or philosophies of managing, that engage the relative
autonomy of the employee as opposed to methods and systems that depend on close
supervision or “direct control”, (Friedman 1977). Such approaches are often associated with

mentoring and coaching in which employee choices and creativity are praised and promoted.
Trust and control has been conceptualized as opposing alternatives according to the long
tradition of management thought. This trust/control opposition is enforced and re-worked
since McGregor's (1960) distinction between theories X and Y, to the current preoccupation
with the opposition between bureaucratic and (post-bureaucratic) flat, 'non-hierarchical'
organization (Peters 1988; Moss-Kanter 1996).

4

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

It is relevant to recognize, however, that systems of control designed principally by managers
may also help in predictability and security for employees. Therefore technological
monitoring systems are perceived as sources of objective auditable data. These systems are
viewed as being more trustworthy than other methods, and 'a protection against unfair work
distribution or accusations of dereliction' (Mason et al. 1999: 14; Bloomfield and Coombs
1992).
Based on these findings,a model is developed for this study as shown in Figure 1.

Power
Distance

Organizational
Trust

Organizational
Citizenship Behavior

Organization-based
Self-esteem

Figure-1: Model of the study
Related with the model above the main hypothesis of the study is as follows:
H1: Organizational trust intervenes the relationship between power distance and
organizational citizenship behavior while organization-based elf-esteem moderates the
relationship between organizational trust and OCB.
1. METHOD
1.1. Instruments
The inventory utilized in this study for investigating the existing power distance in the

organization is developed by the researchers based on the literature survey. The inventory
consists of 27 items. Items inquire about empowerment, autonomy, feedback, supervisory
supportiveness, communication with employees and privileges such as private parking,
cellular phones etc assigned to managers. Participants rated 27 items on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always.
Organizational trust has been measured by utilizing the “Trust Inventory” prepared by
Daboval, Comish, Swindle and Gaster (1994) and presented in Small Businesses Symposium.
To this inventory four items are added by the researchers for this study. Organizational trust is
measured by 40 items asking the individuals their trust towards their immediate supervisor,
corporation, colleagues and management. The response scale for the items was a five-point
scale ranging from “strongly agree” (5) to “strongly disagree” (1).

5

Organizational Citizenship Behavior is measured by using the Inventory prepared by Van
Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994). The inventory consists of 54 items. The response scale
for the items was a five-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” (5) to “strongly disagree”
(1).
Pierce et al.'s (1989) 10-item scale was used to measure organization-based self-esteem. The
respondents were asked to indicate what they believe to be true in each of the 10 items (e.g.,
"I count around here", "I am taken seriously around here", and "I can make a difference
around here") anchored on 5-point Likert-type scales (strongly disagree -1- to strongly agree
-5- ).
1.2. Sampling
The participants of the study were selected on the basis of convenience of access. Participants
were professional employees (N = 240) who were working regularly in an office environment
of different corporations in Turkey. According to self-reported demographics, they had a mean
of 6,25 years of tenure in work life and a mean of 3,12 years of tenure in the current
organization.. Of all participants, 59 % were men, and 41 % were women. Of all participants,
40 % were married whereas 60 % were single. 32 % had children while 68 % had no children.
91 % of the participants were university graduates and 7% had master degree. Only 2% were
high school graduates.
Participants represented a variety of industries, including service, manufacturing and
education. Questionnaires were distributed by the researchers to each employee in different
organizations. Totally 300 subjects participated in the study by answering the complete
questionnaire. However, due to invalid answers, total numbers of the participants are 240.
1.3. Procedure
Participation in the study was voluntary. Participants were approached in person in their
offices or the surveys were e-mailed to them on a one-on-one basis. Participants were told that
their surveys would be collected on a particular future date and that they could complete them
at their own leisure before that time.
300 questionnaires have been distributed to the employees in different organizations. The
questionnaire included a cover letter where the researchers stressed the confidentiality of the
participants. 240 questionnaires have been properly answered. The response rate is
approximately 80 %.
2. RESULTS
Analyses have been conducted at the 0.05 significance level using the SPSS program. In the
first step, reliability analysis was conducted for the instruments of organizational trust,
organizational citizenship behavior, power distance and organization-based self-esteem. All
instruments were found to be as satisfactorily reliable. The cronbach's alpha coefficients are
shown in Table 1.

6

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

Table-1: Cronbach's alpha coefficients of instruments
Cronbach
Mean
Alfa Coeff.
Organizational trust
3,515
,9640
Organizational citizenship behavior
3,995
,9089
Power distance
3,5316
,8070
Organization-based self-esteem
4,0659
,9100
Factor Analysis was conducted to investigate the subcomponents of the instrument of
“organizational trust". The method of principle component was utilized for this purpose. For
the instrument of organizational trust, KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy was found as ,
906. This value indicates that the items of instrument are homogenous and that estimating the
variance of each variable in correlation matrix by all of the other variables in the matrix is
significantly high, so these items are appropriate for factor analysis. The value of Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was found as 4988,839 with the significant value of ,000 which indicates
that computed factor analysis is significant. 40 items were piled into 5 factors which have
explaining power of 69,612 % of total variation. But, 15 of the items were excluded from the
instrument because of their loading falling below ,50. Five organizational trust factors labeled
as trust towards the immediate supervisor, openness, trust towards the colleagues, trust
towards the organizational policy and managerial supportiveness. The percentage of variance,
of five factors is presented in Table 2.
Table-2: Factors of Organizational Trust
Factor
Factor Labels
No
1
Trust towards the immediate supervisor
2
Trust towards the organizational policy
3
Communication and openness
4
Trust towards the colleagues
5
Training and development

% of
var.
19,911
16,385
11,767
10,816
10,734

Mean



3,3744
2,9643
3,3446
3,3911
3,3036

,9250
,8802
,8330
,7801
,8621

Reliability Analysis was performed for each of the factors of "organizational trust”. The five
factors of organizational trust were found as satisfactorily reliable. The instrument of
organizational trust is highly reliable. The cronbach's alpha coefficients are shown in Table 2.
Factor Analysis was again conducted to investigate the subcomponents of the instrument of
“organizational citizenship behavior". The method of principle component was utilized for
this purpose. For the instrument of organizational trust, KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy
was found as ,838. This value indicates that the items of instrument are homogenous and that
estimating the variance of each variable in correlation matrix by all of the other variables in
the matrix is significantly high, so these items are appropriate for factor analysis. The value of
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found as 3039,667 with the significant value of ,000 which
indicates that computed factor analysis is significant. 54 items were piled into 5 factors which
have explaining power of 66,779% of total variation. But, 33 of the items were excluded from
the instrument because of their loading falling below ,50. Five organizational citizenship
behavior factors labeled as sharing of knowledge and ideas, organizational loyalty,
perseverance and high performance, principled behavior, working hard willingly. The
percentage of variance of five factors is presented in Table 3.
7

Table-3: Factors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Factor
Factor Labels
No
1
Sharing of knowledge and ideas
2
Organizational loyalty
3
Perseverance and high performance
4
Principled behavior
5
Working hard willingly

% of
var.
25,316
14,975
10,401
8,066
8,021

Mean



3,9854
4,1743
4,3250
4,4161
4,1875

,9030
,8353
,8495
,7268
,7379

In order to test the hypothesis of the study stating “Organizational trust intervenes the
relationship between power distance and organizational citizenship behavior while
organization-based elf-esteem moderates the relationship between organizational trust and
OCB” the first step of the regression analysis conducted taking total organizational citizenship
behavior as the dependent variable and the power distance as the independent variable. Table
4 present the results of the regression analyses where the significant contributions of the
power distance on the total organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are calculated.

Total organizational
citizenship behavior

squareAdjusted R

Dependent variable

Multiple R

distanceIndependent variable : The power

Table-4: Result of the regression analysis between power distance and total organizational
citizenship behavior

F

,126

,012

4,495

Variables in the
equation
F
sig.

,035

Beta

t

Sig. t

-,126

-2,120

,035

Results reveal that the power distance has significant contribution on total OCB. This
contribution is negative because while the power distance increases OCB decreases. This
finding shows that power distance has significant contributions on organizational citizenship
behavior.
In the second step, another regression analysis was conducted taking power distance as the
independent variable and total organizational trust as the dependent variable (Table 5).

8

squareAdjusted R

Dependent variable

Multiple R

Table-5: Result of the regression analysis between power distance and organizational trust
F

F
sig.

Variables in the
equation
Beta
t
Sig. t

distanceIndependent variable : The power

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

Total organizational
trust

,229

,089

27,169

,000

-,487

-5,212

.000

The results given in Table 5 reveal that the power distance has significant contributions on
total organizational trust. Also, it can be seen that there is a negative relationship between the
variables. So, it can be said that the organizational trust decreases as power distance increases.
In the third step, another regression analysis was conducted to test the intervening effect of
total organizational trust between power distance and total OCB. For this purpose, power
distance and organizational trust are taken as independent variable and OCB as the dependent
variable. Table 6 summarizes the findings of the analysis.

Total
organizational
trust
Power distance

Dependent
variable

Total
organizational
citizenship
behavior

squareAdjusted R

Independent
variable :

Multiple R

Table-6: Result of the regression analysis between power distance, organizational trust and
organizational citizenship behavior

F

,377

,139

45,982

Variables in the
equation
F
sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

,377

6,781

,000

-,009

-,162

,871

,000

It is revealed that when regressed with total organizational trust, the power distance has no
contribution on OCB which means that total organizational trust plays an intervening role
between power distance and OCB.
Fourth regression analysis would be conducted taking power distance as the independent
variable, total organizational trust as the intervening variable, total OCB as the dependent
variable and organization-based self-esteem as the moderating variable between
organizational trust and OCB. However, since power distance has been found to have no
effect on organizational citizenship behavior when regressed with total organizational trust,
this relationship has been tested without power distance (Table 6). To test the moderating
effect of OBSE, organizational trust and OBSE are taken as independent variables while OCB
is taken as dependent variable. This has been conducted to find out whether OBSE
strengthens the relationship between organizational trust and OCB.
9

Total
organizational
trust
Total
organizational
trust & OBSE

Dependent
variable

Total
organizational
citizenship
behavior
Total
organizational
citizenship
behavior

squareAdjusted R

Independent
variable :

Multiple R

Table-7: Result of the regression analysis between organizational trust, organization-based
self-esteem and organizational citizenship behavior

F

377

139

45982

000

247

6781

000

.530

.275

53,777

,000

,122

3,228

,001

Variables in the
equation
F
sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

A regression analysis revealed that OBSE moderates the relationship between organizational
trust and OCB since the adjusted R square increases with the OBSE (sig. F change = ,000 and
sig t < ,005) (Table 7).
Since organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior have been found to have
five factors, separate regression analysis were carried out with these factors to test the main
model of the study.
The relationship between factors of organizational citizenship behavior and power distance
has been tested taking each factor separately (Table 8).

Sharing of
knowledge and ideas
Organizational
loyalty
Perseverance and
high performance
Principled behavior
Working hard
willingly

squareAdjusted R

Dependent variable:
organizational
citizenship behavior
factors

Multiple R

Independent variable : The power distance

Table-8: Results of the regression analyses between power distance and organizational
citizenship behavior factors

F

,203

,038

11,970

,001

-,203

-3,460

,001

,023

-,003

,153

,696

-,023

-,392

,696

,028

-,003

,212

,646

,028

,461

,646

,142

,017

5,733

,017

,142

2,394

,017

,103

,007

2,973

,086

-,103

-1,724

,086

Variables in the
equation
F
sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

The results reveal that power distance has an effect only on the two factors of OCB namely
“sharing of knowledge and ideas” and “principled behavior”.
Another regression analysis was conducted between factors of organizational trust and power
distance (Table 9).
10

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

Trust towards
immediate
supervisor
Openness
Trust towards
colleagues
Trust towards
organizational policy
Managerial
supportiveness

squareAdjusted R

Dependent variable:
Organizational trust
factors

Multiple R

Independent variable : The power distance

Table-9: Results of the regression analyses between power distance and organizational trust
factors

F

,334

,108

34,757

,000

-,658

-5,895

.000

,144

,017

5,887

,016

-,317

-2,426

.016

,334

,108

34,849

,000

-,694

-5,903

.000

,148

,018

6,236

,013

-,261

-2,497

.013

,104

,007

3,069

,081

-,221

-1,752

.081

Variables in the
equation
F
sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

The results given in Table 9 reveal that although the explaining power of the models is not
high (Adjusted R squares around 0.1), all the models, except managerial supportiveness, seem
to be significant.
As it can be seen in the tables above “the power distance” has significant contributions on
factors of organizational trust namely “trust towards the immediate supervisor, openness, trust
towards the colleagues and trust towards the organizational policy”.
Since the intervening effect of total organizational trust between power distance and total
organizational citizenship behavior has been proved in the previous analyses (Table 6),
another regression analysis has been conducted to test the intervening effect of factors of
organizational trust between power distance and factors of organizational citizenship behavior
(Table 10).

Dependent
variable:
organizational
citizenship
behavior
factors
Sharing of
knowledge and
ideas
Organizational
loyalty

,381

,443

squareAdjusted R

Independent
variables :
Power distance
&
Organizational
Trust factors
Trust towards
colleagues
Trust towards
organizational
policy
Openness
Managerial
supportiveness

Multiple R

Table-10: Results of the regression analyses between power distance, organizational trust and
organizational citizenship behavior

,139

,190

Variables in the
equation
F

23,453

33,617

F
sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

,269

4,310

,000

,174

2,783

,006

,309

4,740

,000

,188

2,894

,004

,000

,000

11

Trust towards
organizational
policy
The power
distance
Trust towards
immediate
supervisor

Perseverance
and high
performance
Principled
behavior
Working hard
willingly

,190

,033

10,404

,001

,151

3,225

,001

,145

,017

5,946

,015

,278

2,438

,015

,171

,026

8,368

,004

,177

2,893

,004

The results of the analysis reveal that organizational trust has no intervening effect between
power distance and only one factor of organizational citizenship behavior namely “principled
behavior”. With all the the otherfactors of organizational citizenshipo behavior itrust
intervenes between power distance and OCB.

Table-12: Results of the regression analyses between organizational trust and organizational
citizenship behavior

12

Trust towards the
colleagues

OBSE

Adjusted R square

Dependent
variables

Multiple R

With Moderating
ModeratingWithout With Moderating ModeratingWithout

Independent variables :
Organizational Trust
factors

Variables in the equation

F

,296

,084

26,686

F sig.

Beta

t

Sig. t

,000

,236

5,166

,000

,543

10,217

,000

,083

1,987

,048

,211

4,569

,000

,189

2,894

,004

,155

2,788

0,06

,303

4,704

,000

,149

2,271

,024

Sharing of
knowledge and
ideas
,581

Trust towards the
colleagues

,333

135,57

,000

Trust towards the
organizational policy
,454

,183

32,204

,000

Training and development
OBSE
Trust towards the
organizational policy
Training and development

Organizational
loyalty
,467

,209

25,553

,000

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

Each factor of organizational citizenship behavior has been regressed with organizational trust
factors and OBSE separately. As shown in Table 11, OBSE moderates the relationship
between;



Trust towards the colleagues and sharing of knowledge and ideas
Trust towards the organizational policy, training and development and organizational
loyalty

3. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Results of the study reveal that power distance has a negative effect on organizational trust
and organizational citizenship behavior. As power distance increases organizational trust and
organizational citizenship behavior decreases.
The findings also support the hypothesis of this study, which states that organizational trust
plays an intervening role between power distance and organizational citizenship behavior. As
power distance increases, organizational trust gets less leading to a decrease in organizational
citizenship behavior.
The findings of the study are consistent with the literature since trust is associated with more
democratic styles of leadership, or philosophies of managing, which lead to the relative
autonomy of the employee as opposed to methods and systems that depend on close
supervision or direct control (Friedman 1977). Democratic styles of leadership are related
with mentoring and coaching where employee choices and creativity are praised and
promoted. Trust and control have been conceptualized as opposing alternatives according to
the long tradition of management thought. As a result, power distance which is a facet of
power and control is more associated with autocratic style of leadership and could be thought
as a factor leading to a decrease in trust.
Folger (1993) states that trust is a key determinant of OCB. For an employee to perform OCB,
he/she should have developed trust in the fairness of transactions leading to trust.
As a result, the support of the hypothesis of this study is in line with the literature and it can
be concluded that power distance has an effect on organizational trust which in turn affects
organizational citizenship behavior.
In the study, it is also found that OBSE moderates the relationship between OCB and
organizational trust. Pierce et al (1989) define OBSE as "the degree to which organizational
members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the context
of an organization" and they state that employees with a high level of OBSE are inclined to be
better organizational citizens.
Number of research conducted related with OCB and its antecedants confirm the findings of
this study. Organ and Ryan (1995) have conducted a meta-analytic review of 55 studies,and
found out that job satisfaction, perceived fairness, organizational commitment, and leader
supportiveness predict OCB. Antecedents of OCB were found to include job satisfaction
(Williams & Anderson, 1991) organizational commitment (Becker, 1992), interpersonal trust
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), job, role definition (Morrison, 1994),
organizational justice (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Materson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000;
Williams, Pitre, Zainuba, 2002; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993), and
13

employee mood (Williams & Wong, 1999). In this study, the positive effect of organizational
trust on organizational citizenship behavior has been found.
Van Yperen, den Berg, and Willering (1999) have investigated the relationship between
participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior and concluded that
participation in decision-making promotes employees' sense of supervisory support to them,
which in turn leads to increase in employees’ OCB.
The findings of this research have many implications for the organizations. For trust to be
developed in organizations management might try to design low power distance structures
emphasizing the importance of teams or work groups in organizations.
The results also indicate that trust is an important factor in organizations. Trust in
management and organization can affect an employee to develop positive attitudes toward the
organization. Positive employee attitudes would lead to less turnover, less absenteeism and
organizational citizenship behavior. It is also clear that employees with positive attitudes
would be more likely to remain with the organization.
Organizations should conduct activities that build, develop, and sustain trust in supervisors.
Open, honest, accurate, and sincere communication which is a characteristic of low power
distance is one method for building trust. General concern for employees, consistent and
dependable actions and behaviors all lead to low power distance and thus to organizational
trust. Managers should spend more time with their employees, asking their opinions and
suggestions to problems. As a result, this would enable them to build stronger relationships
with their subordinates. If this relationship is not built, it is difficult to build trust.
Recently, organizations are moving towards flatter and more team-oriented structures where
employees have greater autonomy and participation in decision making. As a result,
employees are more involved in management practices to build an atmosphere of trust leading
to positive attitudes toward the organization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baumeister, R. E, & Tice, D. M. (1985), Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent
performance and intrinsic motivation," Journal of Personality, 3 (3), 450-467. Cited in Tang Li-Ping
Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior
revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management
Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 232-244. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator
Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor.International
Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Bloomfield, Brian P. & Coombs Rod (1992) 'Information technology. Control and power: The
centralisation and decentralisation debate revisited'. Journal of Management Studies 29/4: 459-484.
Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing
Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Brockner, J. (1988), "Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice," Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of

14

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle
East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Cited in
Gardner, G. Donald, Dyne Van Linn, Pierce, L. Jon (2004) The effects of pay level on organizationbased self-esteem and performance: A field study. Journal Of Occupational And Organizational
Psychology Leicester,Sep, Vol. 77, Part 3 p. 307-322.
Demo, D. H. (1985), "The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1490-1502. Cited in Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul
Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the
United States and in the Middle East, Public Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol.
27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Drucker, Peter (1990). Managing the non-profit organization. London: Butterworth. Cited in Knights,
David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control,
Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Folger, Robert (1993) Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. Keith Murnighan (ed .), Social
Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research: 161-183. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. Cited in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph & Martin, Christopher &
Tyler, Tom (1997). When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administartive
Science Quarterly, Sept.
Fox, Alan (1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust relations. London: Faber & Faber. Cited in
Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows:
Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Friedman, Andrew (1977) Industry and labour. London: Macmillan. Cited in Knights, David & Noble
Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the
Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Gardner, D. G, & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context.
Group and Organization Management, 23, 48-70.
Graham, J. W. 1991. An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 4: 249-270. Cited in Van Dyne, Linn, Graham, Jill W, Dienesch, Richard M. (1994).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy Of
Management Journal Briarcliff Manor:Aug, Vol. 37, Iss. 4, p. 765 (38 pp).
Hirst, Paul & Zeitlin, Jonathan (1991) Flexible specialisation versus post-Fordism. Economy and
Society, 20, pp.1-57. Cited in Knights, , David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh
(2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies,
March
Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston. Cited in
Van Dyne, Linn, Graham, Jill W, Dienesch, Richard M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy Of Management Journal Briarcliff
Manor:Aug, Vol. 37, Iss. 4, p. 765 (38 pp)
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961) Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25: 57-78. Cited
in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph & Martin, Christopher & Tyler, Tom (1997).
When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administartive Science Quarterly,
Sept.

15

Konovsky, Mary & Pugh S. Douglas (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 656-669. Cited in Bruckner, Joel & Siegel, A. Phyllis & Daly, P. Joseph &
Martin, Christopher & Tyler, Tom (1997). When Trust Matters: the moderating effect of outcome
favorability, Administartive Science Quarterly, Sept.
Korman, A. K. (1977), "Organizational behavior," Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Cited in
Tang Li-Ping Thomas & Ibrahim, Hamid Abdul Safwat (1998) Antecedents of organizational
citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East, Public
Personnel Management Washington, Winter 1998, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, p. 529-550.
Kramer, Rod M., and Tyler, R. Tom (1995) Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Cited
in Brockner, J., Siegel, A.P., Daly, P.J., Martin, C., Tyler, M. (1997) When trust matters: the
moderating effect of outcome favorability, Administrative Science Quartely, September.
Leadbeater, Charles (2000) Living on thin air: The new economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Cited in
Knights, , David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows:
Control, Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Luhman, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley. Cited in McAllister J. Daniel (1995) Affect
and Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy
of Management Journal, Vol 38, No.1, 24-59.
Luhmann, Niklas (1995) Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cited in Knights, David
& Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality
and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P M., & Fetter, R. (1991), Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50,123-150. Cited in Netemeyer, Richard G &
Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of
Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Mason, David, Gloria Lamkshear, and Sally Coates (1999) Technology, work and surveillance:
Organizational goals, privacy and resistance' in Virtual society? The social science of electronic
technologies profile '99. London: ESRC. Cited in Knights, David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo
& Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and the Production of
Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis. K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 738-748. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator
Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International
Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis and F. D. Schoorman: (1995), An Integration Model of Organizational Trust,
Academy of Management Review, July, pp. 709-729. Cited in Caldwell, Cam & Clapham, E..Stephen
(2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal Of Business Ethics,
Dordrecht, :Nov, Vol. 47, Iss. 4, pp. 349-364.
McGregor, Douglas (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill. Cited in Knights,
David & Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control,
Virtuality and the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.

16

International Conference on Business, Economics and Management,
Yasar University, Izmir Turkey

Misztal, Barbam (1996) Trust in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity. Cited in Knights, David &
Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and
the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
845-855. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın
Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational
citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. Cited in Muhammad, H.
Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and
Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management,
Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the
employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Cited in Muhammad, H.
Ali (2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and
Organızatıonal Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management,
Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58
Moss-Kanter, Rosabeth (1996) Can giants dance in cyberspace?. Forbes, Cited in Knights, David &
Noble Faith & Vurdubakis Theo & Willmott Hugh (2001). Chasing Shadows: Control, Virtuality and
the Production of Trust,Organizational Studies, March.
Organ, D. W (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome, Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books. Cited in Netemeyer, Richard G & Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O &
McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship
behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology. 48, 775-788. Cited in Muhammad, H. Ali (
2004). Pocedural Justıce as Medıator Between Partıcıpatıon ın Decısıon-makıng and Organızatıonal
Cıtızenshıp Behavıor. International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 58.
Organ, D. VaC, & Konovsky, M. (1989), Cognitive vs. affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164. Cited in Netemeyer, Richard G &
Boles, S. James & McKee, Daryl O & McMurrian, Robert (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal Of
Marketing Chicago, Jul. Vol. 61, Iss. 3, p. 85-98.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in
organizational behavior, 12: 43-72. Cited in Kidwell, E. Roland Jr. & Mossholder, W. Kevin &
Bennett, Nathan (1997). Cohesiveness and Organizatioanl Citizenship Behavior: a multil