Integrity

Integrity involves adherence to a set of principles that the other party finds acceptable,

encompassing honesty and fair treatment (Mayer et al., 2006). A person who is known to keep his promises and abide by the rules is considered to have integrity (Gabarro, 1978; Dietz &

Den Hartog, 2006). People having integrity are believed to have a strong sense of justice, and there is a low probability that their deeds will harm us (Mayer et al., 1995). We optimally perceive others to be possessive of integrity when we share congruent principles, values and

beliefs (Gabarro & Athos, 1976). Integrity can also refer to an organizations tendency to act ethically and fairly (Whitener et al. 1998).

Synonyms of integrity are justice, reliability, promise fulfilment, fairness and consistency (Colquitt et al., 2007; Øpstad, 2013). High levels of integrity are perceived as a positive attribute in an individual and an asset to a business (Audi & Murphy, 2006; Koehn, 2005).

This is in line with research by Gill, Boies, Finegan and McNally (2005) who found that integrity was positively correlated with our intention to trust.

Together with ability and benevolence, integrity is considered the third antecedent of trust (Mayer et al., 1995).

Figure 5: Ability, benevolence and integrity as antecedents of trust

Research on these concepts in relation to each other

Research demonstrate that the three trustworthiness dimensions are of different importance, however it is argued that all of them should appear in order for trust to be formed (Mayer et al., 1995). In the re-visitation of their 1995 article, Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (2007) ac

“the relative importance of ability, benevolence, and integrity across cultures”. This is in line

with the research of Noteboom (2002), who found that the influence of benevolence, ability and integrity on trustworthiness depends on the specific context (Noteboom, 2002).

Several articles have studied the effects of trustworthiness dimensions, making it clear that it varies. Mayer and Davis (1999) found that integrity might have a greater impact on trust in situations composed of tasks that are more politically sensitive and less technical, as it is important that the manager acts in a way that is consistent with the promoted values.

Researchers argue that consideration of time is important in connection to relationships and trust (Mayer et. al, 1995; Hirsch & Nitzl, 2014). Lewicki & Bunker (1996) find that influence of trust drivers on work relationship changes over time. Ability and integrity can be created rapidly in a new trust relationship. Ability should be more important in the beginning of the relationship than in the later stages. Benevolence on the contrary needs more time to be developed (Mayer et. al, 1995).

Developments or events can occur that changes the perceived trustworthiness, as it is affected by the three factors benevolence, ability and integrity. Mayer and Davis illustrate this by an example of a trustee´s action reflecting movement up a learning curve on an important issue.

This will then lead to the trustee´s ability to rise. This movement up the learning curve is not necessarily tied to any prior vulnerability on the part of the trustor, and thus is not caused by the feedback loop from outcomes of vulnerability to trustworthiness (Mayer and Davis, 1999).

Mayer et al.´s (1995) has been applied by many researchers to look at trust in different organizational settings. Hirsch and Nitzl (2014) explored the trust relationship between management accountants and managers over time. This quantitative study differentiated between perceived trustworthiness, specific context factors and the manager´s trust

disposition. Findings show that the trust disposition plays a minor role and is fully mediated by the perceived trustworthiness and the organizational setting. Findings showed that

management accountant´s abilities were the most important factor contributing to perceptions of his trustworthiness. Integrity and benevolence followed, but benevolence showed a

relatively small effect. The influence of benevolence changed over time, to have a small positive effect (Hirsch & Nitzl, 2014). Ability loses relevance over time, but remains an important factor for trustworthiness. Growing relevance of benevolence substitutes for the loss in importance of ability. This is shown as managers develop “good will” toward accountants. Integrity is a stable factor to perceived trustworthiness (Hirsch & Nitzl, 2014).

This is in contrast with Mayer and Davis (1999) who find that abilities are much less important. Integrity plays the most important role to trust in work relationships (Mayer &

Davis, 1999; Davis, Schoorman, Mayer & Tan, 2000).

Trusting the superior

Several articles have studied the effects of trust towards the superior represented by the three trustworthiness dimensions. Researchers have argued that the relative importance of the antecedents of trustworthiness might vary across referents, depending on the nature of the

“vulnerability” or dependency in the relationship (Colquitt et al., 2007; Lapidot et al., 2007;

Mayer et al., 1995; Werbel and Henriques, 2009). When trusting a superior employees feel vulnerable because supervisors have substantial influence over resource allocation and thus are in a position to make decisions that have a considerable impact on subordinates. As a result it is anticipated that when trusting a superior, employees might be particularly

concerned with whether or not their superior is friendly, caring and helpful, and thus high in benevolence, and consistent, credible and true to their word and thus high in integrity (Knoll

& Gill, 2011). Colquitt et al. (2007) found that integrity was particularly important antecedent of trust in superior. Knoll and Gill (2011) further found that benevolence and integrity are more important predictors of trust in superiors than ability. Lapidot et al. (2007) found that employees mentioned incidents of benevolence and integrity more often than ability in explaining trust in the supervisor. Mayer et al. (1995) also argued that even if employees strongly believe in the benevolence of a manager, if the manager lacks integrity, the employee cannot help but wonder how long it will be before the manager betrays them. Therefore affective based trustworthiness like benevolence alone may not be sufficient for employees to trust their supervisor fully.

Trusting the subordinate

Several articles have studied the effects of trust towards the subordinates represented by the three trustworthiness dimensions. Researchers have argued that superiors are vulnerable to their subordinates because they rely on them to complete work tasks (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002;

Mayer et al., 1995; Werbel and Henriques, 2009). A subordinate´s failure to complete a task could adversely impact the supervisor´s own performance, have an economic impact on the superior, or affect the reputation of the superior (Schoorman et al., 1996). Given that the superiors are reliant on the quality of work performed by their subordinates, it is expected that a subordinate´s ability to complete the job tasks will be particularly important in the

establishment of trust. In support to this rationale, Schoorman et al. (1996) found that the extent to which a superior delegated authority to a subordinate, was determined by ability more than any other factor. Similarly, Wells and Kipnis (2001) found that ability was the most important antecedent of trust in subordinates.