Organizational Trust and Social Exchange: What If Taking Good Care of Employees Were Profitable?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Several studies show a decrease in employees’ trust toward their organization; in parallel, organizations want to develop a long-term employment relationship to remain competitive in a context of employee shortage (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). How can organizations develop a high level of organizational trust among their employees? In this article, we propose to integrate organizational trust - defined as “the willingness of the employee to be vulnerable to the actions of the organization” (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995) - into a chain of relationships between HRM practices, perceived organizational support (POS) and two attitudes that reflect a long-term link with the organization: affective commitment and intention to quit. Our hypotheses suggest that organizational trust will partially mediate the link between POS and employees’ attitudes (i.e., affective commitment and intention to quit). As many past studies found a direct link between POS, affective commitment and intention to quit (Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1997, 2001; Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli, 2001; Shore and Tetrick, 1991; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne, Shore and Liden, 1997), we expect that the mediation will be partial. A direct and negative link is also expected between affective commitment and intention to quit. Finally, the chain of relationships identifies two examples of HRM practices - skills development practices and communication practices - as potential antecedents of organizational trust (Lamsa and Pucetaite, 2006) and POS (Allen, Shore and Griffeth, 2003). HRM practices generate a perception of support favourable to trust, because those practices illustrate the attention the organization gives to employees. The chain of relationships is tested with a three-wave longitudinal design that is more appropriate for the study of causal relations between variables than a cross-sectional design. We used AMOS 4.01 software to test two alternative models: the first model does not include organizational trust in path analyses; the second model includes this variable in the structural equation model. Results show that the second model has better fit indexes than the first model (Chi 2 = 170.79; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.93). We validate that organizational trust partially mediates the relationship between POS and affective commitment, and fully mediates the relationship between POS and intention to quit. The last part of the article aims to discuss results. We focus the discussion on three major contributions: (1) the integration into one unique model of several research fields that were tested only separately in the past; (2) the mediating role of trust in this chain of relationships; (3) the use of a longitudinal design that provides guaranties about the direction of tested relationships. Despite these strengths, our research has several limitations; specifically, we did not control risks of common variance for the answers given in the same questionnaire.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».