A Major Contributor to Job Effectiveness and Cohesion in the Workplace - Term Paper Example

Trust Leads to Job Satisfaction Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Outline Introduction Theoretical perspective Trust as a “social exchange factor” Job satisfaction and trust Is job satisfaction a direct result of trust? Conclusion Introduction In addition to the traditional components such as pay, job benefits and employee motivation, trust in the work place is emerging as one of the job satisfaction variables discussed by scholars and researchers with much interest. But is there really a connection between trust and job satisfaction? In the in the average job context, one can argue that to be satisfied in one’s work, one would need to trust that his or her employer has not only profit-making interests at heart, but also the welfare of his or her employees. This would then make it easier for the employee to work with conviction that they are being treated fairly and justly in their places of work. Among the scholars who have delved in the trust subject include Leat and El-Kot (2009), who investigated the relationship between trust and job satisfaction in Egypt. Their findings indicate that while trust is among the variables that affect job satisfaction, other factors such as motivation and low tension at work contribute to how satisfied a person is at work. Weber (2007) on the other hand argues that while trust has been cited as a major contributor to job effectiveness and cohesion in the work place, both their characteristics are only evident if the employees are satisfied with different aspects of their jobs. In order to evaluate whether trust is indeed a critical factor to job satisfaction or not, this essay observes that the meaning of job satisfaction is in itself contentious among scholars as observed by Locke (1964). In this essay’s context however, job satisfaction will be defined as “The extent to which people like or dislike their jobs” (Locke, 1964, p. 309). Overall, this essay acknowledges that trust is indeed critical to employees having job satisfaction, but notes that trust is one among several variables that contribute to job satisfaction. It therefore seeks to approve or disapprove this notion through reviewing some literature on the subject. Theoretical perspective Using the social exchange theory as explained by (Blau, 1964), employees would only engage in social exchange relationships if they think their employers have something valuable to give to them. When such a relationship proves satisfactory to the employee and the employer, the two can then learn to trust each other. This thought is further supported by Chiaburu and Marinova (2005), who posits that “trust develops as the parties see that their investments in the relationship are offset by returns” (p. 170). Trust as a “social exchange factor” According to Chiaburu and Marinova (2005), employees and their leaders (whether managers or supervisors) need to communicate openly on issues that concern work performance as well as employee welfare. This communication however can be inhibited by lack of trust, and consequently, the social exchange between the two parties would be hindered. Callaway (2007) on the other hand observes that employees have to communicate to their leaders whether or not they trust them since communication must occur in the workplace. As such, Callaway (2007) suggests that oftentimes trust is not a determinant factor of whether communication takes place or not. Notably, employees, trusting that their leaders work to make the best of every situation, know that only by doing that can they secure their job security. If they are assured of job security and receive commensurate pay for their work, then employees are more likely to develop job satisfaction regardless of the trust factor. Discussing hierarchal organisations, Weber (2007) has a different view from Callaway (2007). The former observes that employees communicate their performance needs to their leader, trusting that he or she will avail the desirable resources necessary for them to perform their duties effectively. In cases where the resources are not delivered and the employees fail to work to the expected standards, then the level of trust is broken and employees are less likely to develop job satisfaction But trust is not reserved for the employees towards their leaders only. According to Gill (2008), managers and other organisational leaders must trust their employees enough to give them the leeway to make decisions when necessary. In democratic and laissez-faire forms of leadership, it is notable that organisation leaders trust their employees enough to allow them room to either contribute to the decision making process, or make the decisions independent of the leader’s intervention or contribution (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In return, the employee feels that his or her contribution to the organisation is appreciated and is therefore more likely to be satisfied with his job. This however must be supported by employee motivation through things such as employee reward scheme, justifiable pay, promotions and allowances among other things. This argument suggests that appreciation is more likely to generate job satisfaction than trust. The contribution that trust relationships have in organisations is further expounded by Dayan (2010) who argues that trustful-dyadic relationships between employers and their leaders or supervisors encourage creativity and innovation in an organisation thereby increasing the firm’s competitive edge. When this is the case, an organisation is more likely to rake in more profits, and could end up rewarding the employees for the improved performance. This in turn would create a basis for job satisfaction. This thought is also shared by Tan and Tan (2000), who observe that employees who trust their leaders are more creative at work since they have more freedom to explore different ways of delivering the expected results at work. This in turn creates job satisfaction since employees are not repressed from using innovation at work. But just how do subordinates get to trust their leaders or supervisors in an organisation? Well, Dayan (2010) identifies four ways through which employees can assess managerial trust: 1) through behavioural consistency of the manager. To this end, employees judge how predictable the manager’s behaviour is over a period of time before deciding whether to trust him or not; 2) through the manager’s perceived behavioural integrity, whereby the level of trust is pegged on the manager’s ability to tell the truth to the employees and his/ her abilities to keep promises; 3) through the accuracy, quality and openness of the manager’s communication, and; 4) through the manager’s demonstration of his/her concerns towards the interests and needs of the employees. Job satisfaction and trust Every employee worries about the effect that age changes, different stages of life and career, and cohort effects may have on his or her job. An individual’s perception of how the identified factors can affect his or her job has a considerable effect on the person’s level of job satisfaction (Gill, 2008). Most employees will therefore change jobs for fear of what may happen to them in future. Notably however, in an environment where employees can trust their managers well enough to discuss issues pertaining to their future in the organisation, Gill (2008) notes that employees are able to develop more positive perceptions about their employment. This in turn reduces conflict at work and encourages the employees to be more cooperative. In a study carried out by Gill (2008), it was also found that apart from being more satisfied with their jobs, employees who trusted their managers who were more dedicated towards their jobs and hence perceived as valuable assets to their employer organisations. Is job satisfaction a direct result of trust? As opposed to what most literature addressing the relationship between trust and job satisfaction may have us believe, Podsakoff et al. (1990) argue that job satisfaction may not be a direct result of trust. Using the effect that transformational leaders have on their subordinates, the authors argue that employees usually unconsciously consider several factors before deciding whether they are satisfied with their jobs or not. To start with, the prevailing relationship between the managers and the employees is a major factor in employee’s level of job satisfaction. The level of pay and other non-monetary motivational factors are also considered by most employees. In a situation where employee compensation is not satisfactory to them, but where future prospects seem promising, trust becomes a factor that could make the employee hold on to the job a little while longer in the hope that the leader, manager or employer will act to satisfy their pay and motivational needs. Conclusion It is obvious that the level of trust that an employees has on his employer, line manager or supervisors indirectly affects the level of satisfaction that he or she has towards a job. However, as discussed herein, trust is among other variables that determine job satisfaction. If an employee believes that he or she is well compensated, that his or her job is secure and that his or her contribution to the organisations is duly recognised and appreciated, then his level of trust could be lower than a person who hopes that in due time his efforts will be acknowledged and maybe that he or she would receive commensurate pay for his or her efforts at work. The latter implies that a person’s level of job satisfaction would steadily decline as his expectations remain unmet. In a similar manner, his level of trust would dwindle with time. Nevertheless, a person who receives good enough pay but is discontent about his working environment puts his trust in his superiors to remedy the situation. The more the situation remains unchanged, the more his trust in the leaders is eroded and the more dissatisfied he becomes with his job. This then is reason enough to conclude that indeed, trust is critical to having job satisfaction. References Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Transaction Publishers. Callaway, P. L. (2007). The relationship of organisational trust and job satisfaction: an analysis in the US federal workforce. Boca Raton, FL: Universal-publishers Chiaburu, D.S. & Marinova, S.A. (2005). Employee role enlargement: Interactions of trust and organisational fairness. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal 27(3), 168-182. Dayan, M. (2010). Managerial trust and NPD team performance: team commitment and longevity as mediators. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 25(2), 94-105. Gill, A. S. (2008). The role of trust in employee-manager relationship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(1), 98-103. Leat, M & El-Kot, G. (2009). Interpersonal trust at work, intrinsic motivation, work-related tension and satisfaction in Egypt. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2(2), 180 – 194. Locke, E.A. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction? Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance Journal 4(4), 309-336. Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organisational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly Journal 1(2), 107-142. Tan, H. & Tan, C. (2000). Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organisation. Genetic, social and general Psychology Monographs 126(2), 241-260. Weber, J. A. (2007). Handbook of Military Administration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press Read More