1

The role of managerial communications in trust building

Risto SeppänenMiia Kosonen

Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Businessristo.seppanen@lut.fimiia.kosonen@lut.fi

AbstractIn order to build intra-organizational trust, managers and managerial communication are seenas key actors. Based on the previous literature and the analysis of empirical data, we examinethe relationships between different forms of managerial communication and the experiencedintra-organizational trust. Our research question thus is: what are the practices of managerialcommunication that seem to build intra-organizational trust? Theoretically, we ground on themotivating language theory, whose basic tenet of is that management’s use of threedimensions of communication, direction-giving language, empathic language and meaning-making language, has a positive impact on employee productivity and job satisfaction. Theempirical data was collected with four focus group interviews from several large Finnish-based organizations. The results of the study suggest that accordingly with the motivatinglanguage theory, these three dimensions of managerial communications are also central inbuilding and maintaining intra-organizational trust. However, only a part of these practicestransfer to online settings in terms of trust building.

KeywordsTrust, trust building, communication, managerial communication, motivating language theory

Introduction

Trust is seen as critical in the knowledge-based network economy, especially as it is seen as alubricant in managing uncertainty, complexity, and the related risks (Arrow, 1974, Luhmann,1979). Previous research has listed several reasons for the growing interest towards trust, suchas globalization and virtualization of organizational forms, increase of networked forms oforganizations and alliances (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996), increase in attention of the benefitsof collaborative behaviour (Kramer, 1996), and demands which organizational change causeto organizational members (Mishra, 1996). Indeed, trust is acknowledged to e.g. increaseorganizational commitment (Connell et al., 2000), enhance levels of collaboration (Morganand Hunt, 1994), and help in managing organizational conflicts (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).

Prior research has suggested that intra-organizational communication and information sharingare essential factors, being both antecedents and consequences, in trust building processes(Whitener et al., 1998, Lewicki and Bunker, 1996, Usoro et al., 2007). In particular, managers

2

and managerial communication are seen as key actors in trust building (Gopinath and Becker,2000). The virtualization of organizational forms and relations has, however, challenged thetraditional ways and forms of communicating within organizations. Managers andsubordinates need to deal with relationships with lesser social and physical elements. How hasthis affected the ways of intra-organizational trust building processes?

Based on the previous literature and the analysis of empirical data, we examine therelationships between different forms of managerial communication and the experiencedintra-organizational trust. Our research question thus is: what are the practices of managerialcommunication that seem to build intra-organizational trust? The empirical data was collectedwith four focus group interviews from several large Finnish-based organizations. The resultsof the study suggest that accordingly with the motivating language theory, the threedimensions of managerial communications that affect employee satisfaction and productivityare also central in building and maintaining intra-organizational trust. However, only a part ofthese practices seem to be manifested in virtual communication in terms of trust building.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Firstly, the key theoretical background of intra-organizational trust and managerial communication is introduced. Secondly, the datacollection and analysis methods are discussed. Thereafter, the results of the study areintroduced, and finally, conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for further research arediscussed.

Theoretical background

There has been a growing interest towards understanding the types, dimensions and roles oftrust and reaching out towards a more comprehensive theoretical ground, particularly asnetworked organizations cannot operate based on direct interpersonal knowledge but relyincreasingly on technology and institutions (Kramer et al., 1996, Adler, 2001, Lahno, 2002).Yet trust only “exists between entities able to experience good will, extend good will towardsothers, feel vulnerable, and experience betrayal” (Friedman et al., 2000, 36), thus eventuallydepending on human consciousness and agency.

Blau (1964) notes that there are two factors that initially account for the basis of trust:relationships have a repetitive character, and achievements increase in importance in thecourse of time. In addition, there has to be dependency about the other party, meaning thatone’s outcomes are contingent on the behaviour of another and furthered only by relianceupon the other one (see also Mayer et al., 1995). Placing trust thus means suspending the riskinvolved in such situation, being either economic or social in nature.

Socio-psychological aspects of organizational behavior, business relationships, andmanagerial practice have received increasing interest during the last decades (Kramer andTyler, 1996). In recent studies aiming to uncover factors for organizational competitiveness,aspects like flexibility and learning are the ones that are linked with trust. The argument isthat trust enables the achievement of organizational openness – leading ultimately tocompetitiveness – since it reduces social uncertainty and vulnerability. In order to be forexample able to learn and innovate continuously, employees need to “accept changing roles,

3

to identify opportunities across functional boundaries and to challenge practices”. (Mölleringet al., 2004)

Another crucial argument for importance of trust in organizations is that trust is a factorwhich actually enables, and leads to, cooperation within and between the boundaries oforganizations (Mayer et al., 1995). As the world is changing old “command and control”strategies and hierarchies do not apply any more, and therefore organizations need new waysto motivate employees to cooperate. Relying on Mayer et al.’s. (1995) conceptualization oftrust embodying risk and vulnerability, trust is seen in this study to be “a willingness of aparty to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the otherwill perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitoror control that other party”.

The concept of internal communication is somewhat blurry. Some prefer to use terms such as‘employee communication’, or ’leadership communication’, or ‘organizationalcommunication’. However, internal communication can be defined as ‘all formal andinformal communication taking place internally at all levels of an organization’ (Kalla, 2005,304). Current views on internal communications emphasize its role in implementing strategyand change management (Smith, 2005), and as a way to influence employee opinions,commitment and behavior (Holtz, 2004).

Internal communication can be broken down into four categories: communications requiredby law, human resources communications, business communications and informalcommunications (Holtz, 2004). Some internal communications, such as those required by law,may be the responsibility of a specific function. However, much of internal communicationsis the responsibility of the management or one’s direct superior. In fact, managers hold a keyposition in the pursuit for organizational goals, and communication is their means foraccomplishing the task (Viherkara, 2006). Therefore, the focus of this paper is in managerialcommunication.

One of the managerial communication theories that builds on motivation and path-goaltheories (for a summary of path-goal theories, see e.g. Northouse, 2004) is the motivatinglanguage theory originally presented by Sullivan (1988), and later tested and proved byMayfield et al. (1995, 1998). The basic tenet of the motivating language theory is thatmanagement’s use of three dimensions of communication has a positive impact on employeeproductivity and job satisfaction.

The first dimension of motivating language is direction-giving language that aims atuncertainty reducing; this type of managerial communication occurs when clarifying tasks,goals and rewards to an employee. The second dimension, empathetic language, involvessharing affect with subordinates and could be seen as an expression of humanity. Concreteexamples of this dimension would be a manager complementing an employee, encouraginghim or asking about his professional well-being. Thirdly, meaning-making language involvesa leader explaining the organization’s cultural environment, including its structure, rules,norms and values. This type of communication typically takes the form of stories or rumors.(Mayfield et al,. 1995, 1998, Sullivan, 1988)

4

Motivating language theory builds on several assumptions. The three dimensions areconsidered to represent most communication between a leader and an employee. Also, it isacknowledged that leader behavior strongly influences the effect of the communication; talkis viewed cheap when it contradicts with actions, and the employee must understand theleader’s intended message. Finally, the three dimensions of communication form an integralwhole, and the full benefits of the communication are only attained when a combination of allthree dimensions is used in managerial communication. (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfield et al., 1995,1998). If motivational language is the way to communicate in order to foster satisfaction andproductivity, how does it link to trust building?

Prior research has suggested that intra-organizational communication and information andknowledge sharing are essential factors, being both antecedents (Ruppel and Harrington,2000) and consequences (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991) in trust building processes. Inearlier research trust – and trustworthiness – is linked with communication via three factors;information accuracy, explanations for decisions, and openness (Whitener et al., 1998).Managers are seen trustworthy by employees when their communication is perceived asaccurate and having value (O’Reilly, 1977). When managers’ explanations are perceivedadequate and feedback timely, it leads to increase in trust (Sapienza and Korsgaard, 1996).Open communication, or mental accessibility, where thoughts and ideas are exchanged freelyand willingly between managers and employees is also seen to increase trust (Butler, 1991).All these studies provide information about the relationship of managerial communication andtrust from trust research perspective, and lack the communication theory perspective andcorresponding implications. In this study, we explore the linkage of motivational languagetheory and intra-organizational trust.

The motivating language theory in its original form only concentrated on speech acts.However, as current enterprises increasingly adopt online communication tools anddecreasingly depend on face-to-face communication, in this paper, we extend motivatinglanguage to include all channels of managerial communication.

Internet technologies have enabled novel forms of collective action, such as virtual networksand teams. They represent a fundamental change regarding the logic of social organizing.These collectives may overcome geographical boundaries, and conjoin people from differentpositions and background. According to Handy (1995), virtuality basically requires trust tomake it work. In conditions where physical proximity is lacking, trust is found particularlyimportant, e.g. through enhancing to the socially acceptable (norm-accordant) behaviour ofothers that is essential for the continuity of social interaction (Ridings et al., 2002, Usoro etal., 2007). Yet trust remains a controversial issue: for instance, its criticality for successfulfunctioning of virtual networks has been both underlined (Handy, 1995) and questioned(Gallivan, 2001), and examining the role of trust is challenging, as it represents both anantecedent and an outcome of communication activities.

According to Järvenpää & Leidner (1999), virtual organizing in general promises flexibility,responsiveness, cost savings and improved resource utilization. On the other hand, it raisessome dysfunctions such as lower individual commitment, role overload and ambiguity,absenteeism and social loafing. Sainsbury & Baskerville (2006) also note how relationshipsmediated by communication technology tend to exaggerate human characteristics, be themnegative or positive, and also become more instrumental than face-to-face interactions. People

5

more easily shirk responsibility and yet magnify the positive self-impressions to others, whichfor its part raises more challenges in virtual communication. In other words, visual anonymityenhances a positive social impression. At the same time, it may deteriorate one’s willingnessto commit oneself to the task at hand - a phenomenon to which Kollock (1999) refers to aspicking the “lowest hanging fruit”. In this paper, we are thus interested how the characteristicsof technology-mediated relationships are manifested in managerial communication and linkedto trust building.

Having presented general perceptions on trust, managerial communication and networkedonline environments, the next chapters present our research setting, methodology and data,followed by the results of the study.

Methods and data collection

Given the scant number of prior studies linking managerial communication and trust building,we chose an explorative research strategy and a qualitative research approach in order toattain new insights. Our data was collected in four focus group interviews in spring 2006.Focus groups interviews were chosen as they are considered ideal for gaining variedperspectives and thus a multifaceted understanding of the phenomenon (Krueger and Casey,2000, Morgan, 1998).

Following the suggestions by Krueger and Casey (2000) and Krueger (2002), our purpose wasto compose homogenous groups and to avoid hierarchical influences between theinterviewees. Therefore, we used the positions the interviewees had in their companies as acriterion for sampling. The total of 22 interviewees from multiple industries were segmented(Morgan, 1996) in four groups consisting of 1) planners, 2) experts, 3) managers and 4) HRDexperts.

There were two moderators in all interviews. The research questions covered issues linked tothe object of trust and reasons for trusting. Each focus group interview lasted approximately150 minutes. All of the interviews were tape-recorded, with the permission of theinterviewees, and fully transcribed for analysis. This resulted as a dataset of 146 pages. Thenumber of focus groups interviews was determined by saturation (Morgan, 1996).

According Miles and Huberman (1994, 56), coding is equivalent to analysis in qualitativeresearch. The method used for analyzing the data was template analysis (King, 1998). Thisway of thematically and hierarchically analyzing qualitative data allows modifying the initialset of codes during the data analysis process, and thus makes the research process reflexive(see also King et al., 2002). As a result, we defined a final template comprising of 3 first levelcodes each subdivided into further levels of coding (see table 1 in the next section).

The Atlas/Ti-program was used as a coding tool. The main advantage of using a computerprogram in the coding is that it helps with the cut-paste techniques and enables the researcherto maintain a chain of evidence. Regarding the reliability of our study (King, 2006), thefindings were double-checked by both authors and the final template was agreed on jointly.

6

Results

We outlined a set of managerial communication practices that relate to building intra-organizational trust. Hereby, all three dimensions of managerial communication of themotivation language theory (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998) could be identified.

The identified communication practices are summarized in table 1 below and our results willbe discussed more in detail thereafter.

Table 1. Managerial communication practices that build trust

Dimension of the motivating language Communication practises that build trust

Direction-giving language 2-way -communicationProviding enough guidance and trainingInforming about the futureFace-to-face communicationCommunicating truthful informationCommunicating accurate informationCommunicating timely informationBeing open to discuss negative issues

Emphatic language Showing that they careListeningBeing closer to the employees

Meaning-making language Communicating an open discussion cultureTraining / educating managersCommunicating procedures and routines

The main goals of direction-giving language (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998) isto reduce worker role and task ambiguity. From the trust building perspective, the two-waydirection of the managerial communication was emphasized in the interviews. Instead ofsimply being informed about the upcoming events, schedules and tasks, people felt that apossibility to discuss with the superior or upper management is important for trust – it wasparticularly online communication that was characterized by increased instrumentality (seealso Sainsbury and Baskerville, 2006). Some interviewees described negative experiences ofsolely being information receivers about the upcoming changes and requirements:

“At least based on my experience, [in order to build trust] all those issues that are linked towhat is expected from us, should be discussed together.”

“If people [as managers] want to become trusted, they cannot isolate themselves from othersand then just mechanically send an e-mail note to their employees about what has beendecided…”

In order to be able to trust one’s superior, the interviewees felt enough guidance and trainingfrom the superior is expected; however, this naturally requires that the superior has adequate

7

expertise. The interviewees also pointed out that communication about the organization’sfuture and upcoming changes builds and maintains intra-organizational trust – implying thatmanagers openly explain why certain things happen and justify the changes needed (see alsoWhitener et al., 1998).

In a similar vein, being open to communicate about negative issues and showing thatresponsibility is taken when making mistakes was considered important for trust building.This practice was most closely attached with face-to-face communication: online channelswere not considered appropriate for handling uncomfortable, highly risky or sensitive issues.

“If someone has made a mistake, for example, it is a far different thing if it is discussed in ameeting or informal conversation, than if it is announced publicly in a forum that everyonemay attend, such as our intranet…”

For all managerial communication, information truthfulness, accurateness and timeliness wereconsidered important. These notions link to the potential power plays in the organization, andthe interviewees speculated that when and how managers communicate also has politicalaspects. Information accuracy (Whitener et al., 1998) means that things are being told in acohesive manner in each situation, thus having value for subordinates. Interestingly, ourinformants also described how the channels through which managers communicate should bechosen accurately, in addition to delivering accurate information. For instance, when a certainchannel is applied for a certain task, selecting another one in another situation for a similartask raises confusion:

“I thought we would organize in a kind of concluding meeting where we discussed about ourwork [in the sub-project], about what was good and what we could do better from now on. Itwas rather surprising that we only got a group e-mail with short acknowledgements, itseemed that it was not an important effort at all.”

Respectively, face-to-face communication was seen as primary channel of communication inorder to foster trust. Regarding online channels, it seemed more an issue of trying to avoidtrust-eroding managerial communication practices than actually building trust.

The same applied to expressing care and humanity, which is central in the emphatic languagedimension of the motivating language theory (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998).The interviewees stressed the importance of showing concern and care for employees inmanagerial communications in order to build intra-organizational trust. This relates to issuesof benevolence, willingness to understand the employee and making morally right decisions.

The interviewees described how management should get closer to the employees and be moreinformal in their communications instead of simply focusing on completing formal tasks. Itwas felt very important that the management actually listens to the employees’ concerns anddo not muzzle the employee even with negative issues. Some skepticism regarding themanagement’s motivation to engage in this type of communication was expressed:

“I wonder how many managers or superiors there are who actually are interested in howpeople are doing!”

8

“We were working far too much, on late evenings, and our supervisor even was informed byoccupational health center that we should do something about it… Well, I went to discuss myconcerns and all I was told was ‘everybody here is working overtime’. The kind of experiencethat I am not even listened to, or that I could share how I feel.”

The reverse side of this dimension was described as alienation, particularly in situationswhere online communication channels were relied too much upon, resulting in coldatmosphere that erodes trust. Our informants noted how communication parties were“physically and mentally distant”, yet also noting that it was more an issue of how supervisorsand employees were used to communicate using online channels rather than theircharacteristics per se. For instance, they were aware of how the younger generations fluentlyuse online channels to express moods and feelings, but in work-related settings the culture isdifferent and rather focused on instrumentality.

Finally, regarding meaning-making language, the importance of cultural aspects, such asvalues, attitudes and routines, came often up in the interviews. They were seen as focal forintra-organizational trust. The interviewees did not discuss the managerial communicativepractices needed to build and make sense of organizational culture (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfieldet al., 1995, 1998) in detail, however. Yet they felt that upper management could pay moreattention in how they train and educate managers and their communication. Uppermanagement was also seen as the primarily responsible quarter for communicating culturalvalues, procedures and routines.

When discussing cultural aspects, our informants did not refer to the appropriate channels ofmanagerial communications; rather, they often mentioned that communicating an opendiscussion culture in general is important for trust. Openness implies that the employeesknow what is happening within the organization, again, manifesting a core linkage betweencommunication and trust (Whitener et al., 1998). We suppose the perceived channel-independency could be related to the informants’ relatively long history and background intheir respective organizations. One possible explanation is that after initial understandingabout shared meanings and culture has been established, communication becomes lessdependent on the applied media and types of cultural “artefacts” may be transferred across avariety of channels all contributing to building a shared organizational culture.

“If your manager has worked here for a long while… even when absent, you can assume howhe or she would behave in a certain situation, there are certain norms of behaviour and rulesthat he or she would presumably follow.”

To conclude, it seems that all three dimensions of managerial communication of themotivational language theory (Sullivan, 1988, Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998) are also focal inbuilding and maintaining intra-organizational trust. It could also be seen that direction-givinglanguage and empathic language are challenging dimensions of motivating language, whenaimed to be transferred to online settings in terms of trust building.

9

Discussion and conclusions

The objective of this study was to find out, how managerial communication affects theperceived intra-organizational trust. Prior research (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991, Ruppeland Harrington, 2000, Sapienza and Korsgaard, 1996, Whitener et al., 1998) has highlightedthe importance of e.g. information accuracy and timeliness in managerial communicationsand trust building. In this study, we focused on the different dimensions of managerialcommunication in trust building. The findings of the study strongly suggest that direction-giving, empathic, and meaning-making dimensions of managerial communication indeed areantecedents of experienced trust within an organization. This is in line with previoustheoretical and also somewhat scarce empirical research.

The main limitation of this study is that the focus group data was collected for severalpurposes, and the interview moderators did not ask any communication specific follow-upquestions. Therefore, the results of this study may lack subtleties, and future studies should beconducted to explore and measure the relationship of the three dimensions of the motivatinglanguage theory and intra-organizational trust in more detail. Nevertheless, we believe ourstudy provides interesting implications for researchers and practitioners.

As people are increasingly working and collaborating in dispersed teams, department, or evenorganizations, social connections, ties, and control mechanisms are looser, shorter, or evenabsent (Tyler, 2003). This makes trusting and trust building more difficult in many ways. Ourdata emphasized the role of face-to-face communications in trust building, even withinformative communication. It seems that the possibility to discuss e.g. goals and feedback isimportant for building intra-organizational trust, and when communicating face-to-face it iseasier to show that you are willing to listen and discuss. For instance, our data suggests that e-mail communication sometimes is perceived as one-way, or purely informativecommunication. In virtual networks, this naturally presents a difficulty. Therefore,management should pay special attention in their online communications to express theirwillingness to listen to their subordinates and provide opportunities to discuss issues. This isin line with Butler’s (1991) findings of the importance of openness and mental accessibilitybetween a manager and subordinate in trust building. In other words, online tools should notbe applied just because they “were available” but the basic principles and norms ofcommunication should be discussed beforehand in order to build a trustful communicationculture.

We speculate that direction-giving and empathetic communications are particularlychallenging managerial tasks in virtual settings. Therefore, we suggest that managementneeds to take in to consideration how to include these dimensions of their communicationswhen largerly relying on e-mail or other types of asynchronous communication channels. Thisis consistent with Järvenpää and Leidner (1999) who concluded that social communicationthat complements task communication may strengthen trust in virtual teams.

Furthermore, this study extends the original outcomes - higher job satisfaction andproductivity - of the motivating language theory (empirically tested and approved in priorresearch) to also include higher intra-organizational trust. We suggest that future studies willbe conducted to explore and test this assumption.

10

References

Adler, P. 2001. Market, hierarchy and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism.Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, 215-234.

Arrow, K. 1974. Limits of Economic Organization. New York: Norton.Atkinson S, Butcher D. 2003. Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

Vol. 18, 282-304.Blau, PM. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.Butler, JK. 1991. Towards understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of conditions of

trust. Journal of Management, Vol. 17, 643-63.Coleman, JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 94, 95-120.Connell, J., Ferres, N. and Travaglione, T. 2000. Engendering trust in manager-subordinate

relationships. Personnel Review, Vol. 32, 569-87.Dirks, K. and Ferrin, D. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for

organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychlogy, Vol. 87, 611-28.Friedman, B., Kahn, PH. and Howe, DC. 2000. Trust Online. Communications of the ACM, Vol.

43(12), 34-40.Gallivan, M. 2001. Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a content

analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11, 277-304.Gopinath, C. and Becker, TE. 2000. Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes:

Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, Vol. 26, 63-83.Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1995, 40-50.Holtz, S. 2004. Corporate Conversations. A Guide to Crafting Effective and Appropriate Internal

Communications. New York: AMACOM.Järvenpää, SL. and Leidner DE. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization

Science, Vol. 10, 791-815.Kalla, HK. 2005. Integrated internal communications: a multidisciplinary perspective. Corporate

communications, Vol. 10, 302-14.Kasper-Fuehrer, EC. and Ashkanasy, NM. 2001. Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in

interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management, Vol. 27, 235-54.King, N. 1998. Template Analysis, in Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research,

C. Cassell and G. Symon (eds.). London: Sage Publications.King, N. 2006. Template analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/technique/qualityreflexivity.htmKing, N., Carroll, C., Newton, P. and Dornan, T. 2002. “You can’t cure it so you have to endure it”:

The experience of adaptation to diabetic renal disease. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 12,329-46.

Konovsky, MA. and Cropanzano, R. 1991. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictorof employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, 698-707.

Kollock, P. 1999. The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In M.Smith and P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 220-242. New York:Routledge.

Kramer, RM. 1996. Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchical relation,trust, and the intuitive auditor at work, in Trust in Organizations – Frontiers of Theory andResearch, R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.). London: Sage Publications.

Kramer, RM. and Tyler, TR. (eds.) 1996. Trust in Organizations – Frontiers of Theory and Research.London: Sage Publications.

Krueger, RA. 2002. Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Retrieved fromhttp://www.whatkidscando.org/studentresearch/2005pdfs/Kruegeronfocusgroups.pdf.

Krueger, RA. and Casey, MA. 2000. Focus Groups – A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd

edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11

Lahno, B. 2002. Institutional trust: A less demanding form of trust? Originally in RevistaLatinoamericana de Estudios Avanzados (RELEA), Caracas, 16.

Lewicki, RJ and Bunker, BB. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships, in Trustin Organizations – Frontiers of Theory and Research, R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.). London:Sage Publications.

Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.Mayer, RC., Davis, JH. and Schoorman, FD. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, 709-734.Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. and Kopf, J. 1995. Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale

development. Journal of Business Communications, Vol. 32, 329-344.Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. and Kopf, J. 1998. The effects of leader motivating language on

subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, Vol. 37, 235-48.McAllister, DJ. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in

organizations. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, 24-59.Meyerson, D., Weick, KE. and Kramer, RM.1996. Swift trust and temporary groups, in Trust in

Organizations – Frontiers of Theory and Research, R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.). London:Sage Publications.

Miles, MB. and Huberman, AM. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook, 2ndedition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Mishra, A. 1996. Organizational responses to crisis, the centrality of trust, in Trust in Organizations –Frontiers of Theory and Research, R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.). London: Sage Publications.

Morgan, DL. 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, 129-152.Morgan, DL. 1998. Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks; Sage Publications.Morgan, RM. and Hunt, SD. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, 20-38.Möllering, G., Bachmann, R. and Lee, SH. 2004. Introduction: understanding organizational trust –

foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalization. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 19, 556-570.

Northouse, PG. 2004. Leadership. Theory and practice. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.O’Reilly, CA. 1977. Supervisors and peers as information sources, group supportiveness, and

individual decision-making performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, 632-635.Ridings, C., Gefen, D. and Arinze, B. 2002. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual

communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11, 271-295.Roberts, KH. and O,Reilly, CA. 1979. Some correlations of communication roles in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22, 42-57.Ruppel, CP. and Harrington, SJ. 2000. The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and

trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25, 313-28.Sainsbury, D. and Baskerville, R. 2006. Distrusting online: social deviance in virtual teamwork. In

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06).Sapienza, HJ. and Koorsgaard, MA. 1996. Managing investor relations: The impact of procedural

justice in establishing and sustaining investor support. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39, 544-574.

Smith, L. 2005. Effective Internal Communication. London: CIPR, Kogan Page.Sullivan, JJ. 1988. Three roles of language in motivating theory. Academy of Management Review,

Vol. 13, 104-115.Tyler, TR. 2003. Trust within organizations. Personnel Review, Vol. 32, 556-568.Usoro, A., Sharratt, MW., Tsui, E. and Shekhar, S. 2007. Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing

in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5, 199-212.

Viherkara, A.2006. Patience and understanding. A narrative approach to managerial communication ina Sino-Finnish Joint Venture. Publications of the Turku School of Economics and BusinessAdministration, Series A-1:2006.

12

Whitener, EM., Brodt, SE., Korsgaard, MA. and Werner, JM. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: Anexchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour.Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, 513-530.

Zucker, LG. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, in Research inOrganizational Behaviour, B. Staw and L. Cummings (eds.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.