Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is first, to assess the generalizability of the Integrative Model of organizational trust to the development of workplace trust in upward, downward, and lateral relationships. Second, it examines the relative importance of ability, benevolence, and integrity in predicting trust in supervisor, subordinate, and peer. Design/methodology/approach – Human resource professionals ( n =187) from two sources (a human resource professionals’ organization and a large Canadian corporation) responded to an online survey. Findings The results indicate that the integrative model of organizational trust was applicable to trust in supervisor, subordinate, and peer. The results also suggest that the relative importance of ability, benevolence, and integrity in predicting trust differed according to the trustor‐trustee dyad. Research limitations/implications A potential limitation of this study is that data regarding trust in each of the three referents (supervisor, subordinate, and peer) were obtained from the same raters. These findings need to be replicated with multi‐source data. Social implications Given the necessity of trust for positive cooperative relationships, a better understanding of how to foster trustworthiness among individuals would be a benefit to society. Practical implications The findings provide valuable information for the development of effective and efficient trust‐building strategies for upward, downward, and lateral workplace relationships. Originality/value The paper describes a study which simultaneously examined trust in supervisor, trust in subordinate, and trust in peer. It also assessed the relative importance of the antecedents of trustworthiness across referent dyads using the relative weight analysis procedure strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it