Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived Managerial (Remote Leader) Trustworthiness as a Moderator for the Relationship between Overall Fairness and Perceived Supervisory (Direct Leader) Trustworthiness

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the moderating effect of perceived managerial (remote leader) trustworthiness on the relationship between overall fairness and perceived supervisory (direct leader) trustworthiness by integrating fairness heuristic theory and attribution theory. By conducting a field study (Study 1) and an experimental study (Study 2), we found that perceived managerial trustworthiness attenuated the relationship between overall fairness and perceived supervisory trustworthiness. Additionally, pay-for-performance system functions, as a control variable, were positively related to both forms of perceived trustworthiness (Study 2). Our findings advance leader trust/trustworthiness research by proffering a novel view of perceived managerial trustworthiness as a moderator for a psychological process leading to perceived supervisory trustworthiness, rather than merely operating as a factor in parallel to perceived supervisory trustworthiness. Our findings advance fairness research by being the first to identify perceived managerial trustworthiness as a moderator for the fairness heuristic process. The current research also provides practical implications for managing perceived leader trustworthiness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although many researchers use the terms “supervisor” and “management” interchangeably (e.g., Lavelle et al. 2009), others have found that employees do differentiate between their supervisor and senior management (e.g., Costigan et al. 1998; Costigan et al. 2004; Frazier et al. 2010; Mayer and Gavin 2005; Morgan and Zeffane 2003; Tan and Tan 2000). Consistent with Lavelle et al. (2007) multifoci approach to social exchange relationships, Whitener (1997) claimed that employee’s trustworthiness perceptions should have at least two different foci: an immediate supervisor and senior management. Perceived supervisory trustworthiness is more circumscribed whereas perceived managerial trustworthiness is more general (Yang and Mossholder 2010). We conceptualize and test perceived managerial trustworthiness as a factor external to an employee-supervisor dyadic relationship and explore whether it moderates the fairness heuristic process leading to perceived supervisory trustworthiness.

References

  • Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500. doi:10.1037/a0013203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285. doi:10.1002/job.138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, E. C., Brockner, J., van den Bos, K., Seifert, M., Moon, H., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome fairness and procedural fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 19–34. doi:10.1177/0146167214556237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression! New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405–421. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107–126. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00101-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: the perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400–417. doi:10.1177/1094428104268542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1481–1494. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28226149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: the moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583. doi:10.2307/2393738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: the need for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 55–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a metaanalytictest of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: a longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.0572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice-performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1–15. doi:10.1037/a0025208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costigan, R. D., Indinga, R. C., Kranas, G., Kureshov, V. A., & Ilter, S. S. (2004). Predictors of employee trust of their CEO: a three-country study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27, 324–351. doi:10.1177/1059601102027003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., Conlon, D. E., Moon, H., & Willaby, H. W. (2009). When is straightforwardness a liability in negotiations? The role of integrative potential and structural power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1032–1047. doi:10.1037/a0014965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A., Barsness, Z. I., & Sondak, H. (2004). Uncertainty, fairness perceptions, and job satisfaction: a field study. Social Justice Research, 17, 237–255. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000041292.38626.2f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monto Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. doi:10.2307/256422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J., & Snow, D. B. (2010). Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and trust: a multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management, 35, 39–76. doi:10.1177/1059601109354801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart, B., Rynes, S. L., & Fulmer, I. (2009). Pay and performance: individuals, groups and executives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 251–315. doi:10.1080/19416520903047269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 927–944.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 56–70. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744. doi:10.1177/014920639702300602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. K. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C. H. (2008). Relationships between organizational commitment and its antecedents: employee self-concept matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 513–541. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00315.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1025–1051. doi:10.1002/job.577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: a cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83–95. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669. doi:10.2307/256704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft, I., De Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 214–232. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(70)90088-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841–866. doi:10.1177/0149206307307635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, J. J., McMahan, G. C., & Harris, C. M. (2009). Fairness in human resource management, social exchange relationships, and citizenship behavior: testing linkages of the target similarity model among nurses in the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2419–2434. doi:10.1080/09585190903363748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 56–88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189–210. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 55–75. doi:10.1080/09585190210158510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785. doi:10.1177/0146167201277001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures, and figures. Cheltenham. UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G. A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11, 148–162. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.2.148.12508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, R. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13. doi:10.1002/job.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. doi:10.2307/2392563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of interpersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658. doi:10.1086/228791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2009). The social context of cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 454–466). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 241–260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104. doi:10.5465/AMR.2009.35713291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2006). Designing an effective pay for performance compensation system. A report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2007). Accomplishing our mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005. A report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Washington, DC.

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Vol. 1, pp. 63–84). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–60. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: what is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449.

  • Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural justice and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: volume II--from theory to practice (pp. 49–66). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. doi:10.2307/257021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 389–404. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90026-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: a bases-and-foci approach. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 50–63. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Peter Kim at the University of Southern California and Dr. Tony Simons at Cornell University for their thoughts on an earlier version of the manuscript, as well as to the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond for its funding to the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, USA

    Dejun Tony Kong

  2. Milgard School of Business, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, 98402, USA

    Zoe I. Barsness

Authors
  1. Dejun Tony Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoe I. Barsness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dejun Tony Kong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dejun Tony Kong declares that he has no conflict of interest. Zoe I Barsness declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was funded by the first author’s former university.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Appendix: Study 2 Scenario

Appendix: Study 2 Scenario

Please take your time and read the following scenario carefully and thoughtfully. Put yourself into the shoes of the main character. Think about how you would be feeling if this were you. The results of the study are valid only if you really think about how you would be feeling if you were the main character. After you have finished reading the story, you will be asked a series of questions regarding it.

You are a full-time salaried employee in a company, working under a supervisor who reports to the senior management of the organization.

High overall fairness, high perceived managerial trustworthiness

In the past few years, you have been treated fairly in all aspects. Your organization has rewarded you fairly. Rules and procedures are used consistently and reliably within the organization to address various issues fairly. And, in interactions with you, your supervisor has treated you fairly, with dignity and respect. In addition, your senior management has been trustworthy. It is known for being conscientious and competent at its work. Your senior management also keeps promises, does not abuse power, and cares about employees’ needs and welfare.

High overall fairness, low perceived managerial trustworthiness

In the past few years, you have been treated fairly in all aspects. Your organization has rewarded you fairly. Rules and procedures are used consistently and reliably within the organization to address various issues fairly. And, in interactions with you, your supervisor has treated you fairly, with dignity and respect. However, your senior management has been untrustworthy. It is not known for being either conscientious or competent at its work. Your senior management also does not keep promises, abuses power, and does not care about employees’ needs and welfare.

Low overall fairness, high perceived managerial trustworthiness

In the past few years, you have been treated unfairly in all aspects. Your organization has not rewarded you fairly. Rules and procedures are neither consistently nor reliably used within the organization to address various issues fairly. And, in interactions with you, your supervisor has treated you unfairly, without dignity or respect. However, your senior management has been trustworthy. It is known for being conscientious and competent at its work. Your senior management also keeps promises, does not abuse power, and cares about employees’ needs and welfare.

Low overall fairness, low perceived managerial trustworthiness

In the past few years, you have been treated unfairly in all aspects. Your organization has rewarded you unfairly. Rules and procedures are neither consistently nor reliably used within the organization to address various issues fairly. And, your supervisor has treated you unfairly, without dignity or respect. In addition, your senior management has been untrustworthy. It is not known for being either conscientious or competent at its work. Your senior management also does not keep promises, abuses power, and does not care about employees’ needs and welfare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kong, D.T., Barsness, Z.I. Perceived Managerial (Remote Leader) Trustworthiness as a Moderator for the Relationship between Overall Fairness and Perceived Supervisory (Direct Leader) Trustworthiness. Curr Psychol 37, 280–294 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9511-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9511-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation