Download - Livingston Trust and Innovation (2) 2016
Running head: INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Innovation Built on Trust:
Employee Commitment to Firm Innovation as a Social Exchange with Leaders
Dr. Mark A. Livingston
Innovation Process & Strategy
August, 2016
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
2
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of employee trust during their adoption of innovation in
their organization. Using the lens of social exchange theory (SET) to examine innovation diffusion, this
study explores employee trust in leadership when employees exchange that trust for their support of firm
innovation. There has been substantial management research into the concepts of innovation, creativity,
idea generation, and new product development; however, there has been much less academic research on
the trust between employees and leaders as an innovation is implemented. In order to achieve innovation
that benefits the organization, there must be trust between employees and leaders. Findings included that
employees who trust their leader are more open to innovation, more likely to be committed to innovation,
and more likely to become involved and adopt the innovation when it is implemented. As a result,
employee trust in leadership was found to be related to innovation success. Additional findings included
three overarching themes: (a) uncertainty and risk during innovation implementation change is a major
concern for employees; (b) the influential role of employee trust on uncertainty and risk can influence
firm innovation outcomes; and (c) the influence of employee trust on attitudes towards innovation is
correlated to firm innovation. Strategies to develop employee trust in leaders included the identification
that trust built between employees and leaders occurs over time. This review identified seventeen
strategies' and six findings managers can utilize to build trust for firm innovation.
Keywords: Innovation, change, trust, social exchange theory
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
3
Innovation Built on Trust: Employee Commitment to Firm Innovation as a Social Exchange with
Leaders
Firms are always looking to increase competitive advantages through innovation as
innovation is widely regarded as a critical source of competitive advantage (Crossan & Apaydin,
2010, p. 1154). Organizations need to implement innovation in the form of new ideas, processes,
and information systems into their environments to gain or maintain this advantage. For an
innovation to be successful, it must be grounded in solid innovation concepts and accepted by
organizational leaders and employees alike (Tantardini & Kroll, 2015, p. 84). Organizations must
deliver more value through new and innovative strategies (Franken et al., 2009). To be
competitive – organizations need to innovate, which requires leaders to build trust between
employees and leaders.
Once leadership has made the decision to adopt a specific innovation into the
organization, implementation represents a critical gateway to the successful utilization of that
idea in the organization. Innovation implementation is “the process of gaining targeted
organizational members' appropriate and committed use of an innovation” (Klein & Sorra, 1996,
p. 1055). In order to bring value to the organization, innovations must be implemented and
adopted by employees to be successful (Dovey, 2009).
Support for innovation by employees is critical for success. The problem is that if
employees are not willing to actively support the implementation of an innovation, it is more
likely to fail. Michaelis, Stegmaier, and Sonntag (2009, p. 400), argued that many attempts to
innovate fail. This failure is because the attempt was not successfully implemented with support
from the employees, not because the attempt was based on flawed conceptual innovative designs.
This argument suggests that in addition to investing in innovation research and development,
organizational leaders need to consider the other influences that could affect the likelihood of
adoption such as trust, specifically trust between employees and leaders in the firm (Bijlsma &
Koopman, 2003; McAllister, 1995).
If trust can be this positive influence, then trust can be used in a manner that facilitates
firm innovation. In addition, organizations may have a basis to build a strategy to improve their
ability to successfully innovate. Employee commitment has been established in the literature as a
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
4
direct influence on successful innovation implementation and utilization (Klein & Sorra, 1996).
Therefore, the combination of trust and commitment may be positive influences on firm
innovation.
Trust is identified as an important social bond, and an important influence on employee
attitudes toward management actions. Employee trust in management has been seen as an
important influence to employees accepting new ideas in the workplace (Cho & Ringquist,
2011). Employees are more likely to support the implementation of new ideas if sufficient trust
in leadership exists. Trust is important to the innovation of firms, because it facilitates leader and
employee cooperation and exchanges, especially under the context of change, risk, and stress as
byproducts of innovation implementation plans (Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003; McAllister, 1995).
Researchers (Cole et al., 2002; Ferrin et al., 2006; Nambudiri, 2012) agree that trust is the basis
for this social exchange, which involves trust between employees and leaders in an
organizational setting. Therefore, social exchange theory (SET) is an appropriate lens to examine
employee trust in leadership during innovation, because social capital best describes the
necessary relationships and exchanges that rely on trust and norms to innovate.
There has been significant research on innovation idea generation and product
development. However, there has been far less investigation into the dynamics of
implementation of innovation concerning employee attitudes of trust in leadership. This paper
will explore this research gap by examining how employee trust in leadership may affect firm
innovation by considering employee commitment through social exchange during innovation
implementation decisions. Klein and Sorra (1996) argued that employee commitment was crucial
for organizations to successfully transition from acceptance to support by organizational
employees when implementing new firm innovations. Additional support for this argument can
be found in Oreg et al.’s (2011) systematic review that argued when employees are not
committed to adopting a change, the new idea is less likely to be successfully implemented.
Trust and innovation are important to the study of management because both critical success
factors influencing competitive advantage (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Mone, McKinley, &
Barker, 1998; Wolfe, 1994). Considering how important employee commitment and trust is to
firm innovation, and the potential gap in the literature, there is reasonable justification to
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
5
examine the topic of employee trust in leadership for firm innovation. The purpose of this paper
is to explore the topic of employee trust on their adoption of innovation in their organization.
Using the lens of social exchange theory, how does employee trust in leadership affect employee
attitudes towards organizational innovation adoption? To begin this examination, a literature
review of innovation implementation, innovation diffusion theory, and trust is provided,
followed by a discussion of the theoretical lens, social exchange theory. Next, the methods
section outlines the rapid evidence assessment (REA) used, followed by a thematic analysis,
conceptual model, and discussion of findings. Lastly, based on the findings, the author identifies
limitations and theoretical and practical implications.
Review of Literature
As organizations strive to implement innovations, leadership and employee commitment
are important to understand. To understand the affect that employee trust in leadership has on
influencing their attitude toward the successful implementation of innovations, this review of
literature began with an examination of innovative implementation and innovation diffusion
theory. Once the environment of implementation was established and understood, the theoretical
background of trust was explored to demonstrate the criticality of employee trust during firm
innovation. The author introduces the lens of social exchange theory (SET) to explain the
concept of employee and leader trust relationships, which entail unspecified future obligations.
In this context of innovation implementation, social exchange generates an expectation of some
future return for employee commitment to innovation as leaders commit to providing
trustworthiness leadership (Blau, 1964).
Innovative Implementation
Implied in the implementation of new innovation, is that employees in the organization
must adapt existing routines, processes, or procedures to new innovations. New perspectives by
the employees are required for innovation implementation, as this perspective must adjust for the
required changes (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1057). Organizational change has a ripple effect and
can affect the structure, from strategic to organizational, and begin as small as the conceptual or
concrete level (Mintzberg & Westley, 1992). Pullen’s (1993, p. 30) definition of organizational
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
6
change, directly influences this user-based model as it considers the adaption of employees in
organizations to any change in the environment, which is the case for innovation.
Organizational change is a much debated and studied issue in the academic literature. As
part of the trust development, innovation should address the associated issues with organizational
change, such as the strategic or organizational context and the impact across the organization
(Mintzberg & Westley, 1992). Dent and Goldberg (1999) argued that employees do not resist
the change itself. Instead, they argued that employees only resist negative consequences of
changes. This is a matter of great concern for employees who are impacted by innovation and
changes within an organization. Changes that introduce new procedures or technology that
jeopardizes position, job security, or seniority are more likely to have a negative response from
employees at risk (Dent & Powley, 2003). These harms could include loss of influence, loss of
competency, or even the threat of job loss (Callan, Terry, & Schweitzer, 1995; Correia Rodrigues
& de Oliveira Marques Veloso, 2013; Devos, Buelens, Bouckenooghe, 2007, p. 612; Ito &
Brotheridge, 2001).
Rogers (1983, p. 6) argued that innovation efforts, if not properly introduced to the
organization can introduce significant uncertainty into the work environment as to the nature,
end-state, and impact of the innovation. In order to prevent misunderstandings about innovations
within the firm, leaders need to work especially hard to communicate clearly to all employees
about all innovation plans.
However, even when the harms are not clear, or employees are unsure of the nature of the
change, this issue can lead to a state of uncertainty. As mentioned earlier, innovation is a broad
concept, covering scenarios such as the implementation of a new information technology system,
changes in organizational structure, or new business processes. While all change involves some
level of uncertainty, innovation implementations are substantially outside the existing paradigm
of the businesses model. Rogers (1983, p. 6) argued that innovation implementation introduces
significant uncertainty as to both the nature, end-state, and impact of the innovation were not
fully understood by employees. Gurteen (1998) suggested that this uncertainty was from a shift
in the existing paradigm, which was a challenge to existing mental models, often causing
employees to be unsure of the final state. Due to this paradigm shift, Michaelis et al. (2009) felt
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
7
that innovation implementations are particularly challenging organizations to manage due to the
high level of uncertainty for employees.
In a systematic review of literature, Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, and DiFonzo (2004)
found that the level of employee uncertainty during change has a direct correlation to firm
innovation success or failure. An additional and similar review by Oreg et al. (2011) discovered
and supported this claim by showing that employee acceptance in the innovation implementation
phase was a critical factor to success. In a third study by Klein and Sorra (1996), a model of
innovation considered employee commitment to the innovation to be critical for its effective
implementation. A fourth study by Michaelis, Stegmaier, and Sonntag (2009, p. 399) also
supported this concept in their findings that employees must be committed to the innovation for
successful adoption.
As with most employees, under stress or perceived attack, they instinctively take a
defensive posture and assume the worst (Sarinopoulos, Grupe, Mackiewicz, Herrington, Lor,
Steege, & Nitschke, 2010). Employees assume the worst until they have a reason not to consider
worst-case scenarios. Until employees are able to reasonably trust firm leadership, they are likely
to view firm innovation and associated change as a direct risk. In 2010, Schein (p. 303) wrote
about the term survival anxiety, which suggests that both learning anxiety and survival anxiety
play a role in the innovation implementation plan when trust is not present. Therefore if
leadership increases the pressure to accept the innovation without building trust, the employees
will only have increased anxiety.
Proposition 1: During the innovation implementation, employees experience uncertainty, which
may lower their commitment to the innovation.
Innovation Diffusion Theory
Communication is important to innovation in an organizational setting as it can be the
foundation for effective communications (Rogers, 1983). The inherent risk associated with
innovation, and the required trust that is necessary by both leader and employee for the firm to
the successful innovation diffusion is predicated on effective communications. The smallest
consideration for sharing information as widely as possibly within the organization helps to
reduce the uncertainty and reduce the inherent associated risks of organizational change with
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
8
innovation. Innovation diffusion is the communication process of spreading new ideas
(innovations) through network channels over time among the members of the organization
(Rogers, 1983, p. 35). Innovation implementation plans should include the key element of an
effective communications plan for innovation.
Historically, centralized and decentralized innovation diffusion systems theory has
described how innovations are adopted and passed along to inform the employees of innovation
plans. The innovation decision process theory has five sharable stages that employees will
experience as they embrace for innovation, as they are incremental stages and directly related to
communication: (a) knowledge; (b) persuasion; (c) decision; (d) implementation; and
(e) confirmation (see Figure 1; Rogers, 1983, p. 36). This information flows logically and
sequentially as a simple but persuasive plan of inclusiveness that lends itself to an effective
communications style.
Figure 1. Rogers’ (1983, p. 165) model of stages in the innovation-communication process
includes five stages. From Diffusion of innovation, (p. 165). By E. M. Rogers, 1983, London,
UK: The Free Press. Reprinted with permission.
Proposition 2: The social exchange between leaders and employees bridges the innovation
implementation gap between persuade and decide stages of innovation diffusion.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
9
Employee Trust in Firm Leadership
Trust is a fundamental social construct, which has a significant influence on how
individuals in organizations operate. Trust is defined as the “positive expectations individuals
have about the intent and behaviors of multiple organizational members based on organizational
roles, relationships, experiences, and interdependencies” (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000, p. 35).
Trust is an essential element for organizational success, as it is the basis for interactions between
employees at all levels. Trust has been the subject academic study, military leadership
philosophy, and government agency principles (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992).
Trust is noted as a core component of social capital at the organizational level (Fukuyama,
1995; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). Clegg, Unswroth, Epitropaki, and Parker (2002) argued that
employee trust was a critical component throughout the innovation process, from idea generation
through development, adoption, implementation, and continuous improvement. The authors
coined the concept of innovation trust. Putnam defined social capital as “the connections among
individuals, as social networks and the norms of trustworthiness that arise from them” (2000, p.
19). For these reasons, for firms implementing innovation, these employee connections and the
need for trust are important.
In his seminal work, Deutsch (1958) viewed trust as an inter-personal dynamic which
acted as a means of managing risk. In situations which might normally be viewed as harmful,
trust allows individuals to accept the risk without the negative side effects normally associated
with risk, such as anxiety and stress (Neves & Caetano, 2006). In an organizational setting, trust
allows employees (trustors) to accept risk in a situation with the certainty that their leader (the
trustee) will protect them from danger. Trust is important to the innovation of firms, because it
facilitates leader and employee cooperation, especially under the context of change, risk, and
stress as byproducts of innovation implementation plans (Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003;
McAllister, 1995).
When and where there is trust, there can be an acceptable level of risk; because there is a
belief that the leader will provide protection as needed (McAllister, 1995). Trust is predicated on
an understanding that trust is given and provided back (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). This
argument supports Rogers (2003) finding that "understanding of trust in an organization as part
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
10
of a social system which is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem
solving to accomplish a common goal” (p. 23).
Because innovation entails a certain level of ambiguity, employee perceptions of firm
intentions is a major influence on employee’s acceptance of the firm leadership actions.
Employees and leaders who forge a bond of trust, generally experience less stress and
uncertainty as innovation implementation plans are worked throughout the organization (Choon
Yeong Ng, 2013, p. 43). Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) argued that trustworthy leaders
were ones which employees viewed as those most able to protect them from harm, act in a
predictable manner, and handle uncertain situations. This predictability is important to
employees as it builds a rapport between employees and leaders, and it facilitates greater trust
when employees feel they can predict leader trust related actions. This allows employees to
better anticipate the intent of the trusted leader. Their model considered three factors which made
a leader perceived as trustworthy: ability, integrity, and benevolence. These three factors when
combined demonstrate a leader's trust actions and the potential to act in the best interest of the
employees; and thereby helped to build trust.
Ability is a key aspect of trust with regards to firm innovation and subsequent change.
Mayer et al. (1995) argued that ability allows a leader to act on their desires in a trusting manner
towards their employees. A leader who lacks the competency or authority to act effectively is not
viewed as one who can take independent actions to benefit or care for the employees, and
therefore is not individually trustworthy. In addition, a leader with noted ability is seen as
competent and more likely to make sound decisions. Employees are more likely to view
innovative changes proposed by such leaders in a positive manner, as that information is
communicated in the organization more effectively over time (Michaelis, et al., 2009, p. 404).
For example, employees who see a leader as lacking in ability are unlikely to trust the
introduction of a new technology (innovation), causing uncertainty.
The two remaining components of trustworthiness (integrity and benevolence)
demonstrate firm leaders' intent to act in the best interest or benefit of the employee. Integrity
shows that the leader’s decision-making framework is visible and compatible with the
organizational employee's standards or norms. Benevolent leaders in turn make decisions, which
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
11
are beneficial to the specific employee who trusts them. Combined, these two components
inform employees as to leaders' intent and regard as it relates to innovation and trustworthiness
(Michaelis et al., 2009, p. 404). This is particularly important, as trust is perceived as a missing
leadership trait in many organizations, leading employees to often have cynical views of senior
organizational leadership and proposed innovations by senior management (Hattori & Lapidus,
2004). Since innovation involves a high level of uncertainty, employees’ perception of the
motives of those proposing them would appear to be a strong influence on their attitudes towards
acceptance.
Employees who form a bond of trust with their leader generally experience less stress and
uncertainty. With a leader who has the capability and desire to act in their favor, trusting
employees are more likely to be active participants in the change regardless of uncertainty they
may experience (Bordia et. al., 2004). As a result, trust in leadership has been found to lead to
innovative behavior among employees (Hattori & Lapidus, 2004; Tan & Tan, 2000).
Proposition 3: Employee trust in leadership leads to a willingness to accept the additional
uncertainty and risk of innovation.
As discussed previously, employee commitment is important to innovation adoption. In
addition, trust in leadership plays a role in developing this commitment. Klein and Sorra (1996,
p. 1057) stated that innovation implementation was dependent on employee commitment to the
effort. Given that employee uncertainty appears to be a factor in their lack of commitment, and
trust appears to support commitment during uncertainty, this suggests a third proposition.
Proposition 4: Employee trust in leadership leads to employee commitment to adopting
innovations.
Social Exchange Theory (SET) as a Lens
The lens of social exchange theory (SET) was chosen to evaluate the role of employee
trust on their openness and commitment to innovations proposed by management, because it
models inter-personal interactions as a series of exchanges of actions and goods of value over
time (Ritzer, 2011, p. 427). SET guided the evaluation of the role of employee trust and their
willingness to commit to firm innovations. In his seminal work, Blau (1986) explained that social
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
12
exchanges are the foundation for social structures and a key foundational building block for the
human element for building trust between employees and leaders for firm innovation.
These acts of building more trust over time occur as employees build a history of trust in
a leader by exchanging their commitments through positive actions for future leader payback in
acts of repeated trust (Cropanzano & Mitchel, 2005). SET provides two ways to evaluate the
dynamics of trust being built over time. First, Kramer and Taylor (1996) identified social
exchange as being an appropriate model for exploring trust in organizations through past
scholarly examination. Secondly, this lens transcends other areas that are associated with trust in
organizations. One reason is that this lens aligns well with Deutsch (1958) and Mayer et al.’s
(1995) view of trust as a medium of exchange between trustor and trustee. For example, trust
acts as the medium by which employees exchange their commitment for the fulfillment of their
leader’s trustworthiness (Michaelis et al., 2009, p. 404).
In addition, social exchange provides a robust foundation for the temporal aspect of trust
(Casimir, Lee, & Loon, 2012, p. 741). Cropanzano and Mitchel (2005) argued that trust acted as
both the foundation for and result of social exchange. This argument is valuable when
investigating trust in organizations, since the events which cause trust in a leader to develop and
the fulfillment of that trust often occur at different times. For these reasons, SET is an
appropriate lens while evaluating the literature.
Methods
This paper used a rapid evidence assessment (REA) to identify and evaluate the relevant
literature. A REA is a type of systematic review approach for developing actionable findings.
Rousseau (2012, p. 5) identified this approach as appropriate, when primary research is not the
main goal but rather the tenants of evidence-based management, such as providing findings
which could better inform decisions. REAs have been recognized as effective at providing initial
data discovery and the necessary themes in the research (Ganann et al., 2010; Gough et al., 2012,
p. 39). As recommended by Rousseau, Manning, and Denyer (2008), the author of this research
synthesized evidence across context, methodologies, and epistemologies to triangulate more
generalized findings.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
13
A REA was used because of limited time and resources available. Gough et al. (2012, p.
40) suggested the REA approach for a non-exhaustive assessment of literature when time and
human resources were limited. While not as in-depth as a full systematic review, REAs are
recognized as generally effective at providing initial findings (Ganann et al., 2010; Gough et al.,
2012, p. 39).
Searches were performed (see Appendix A) using UMUC’s OneSearch tool (47
databases listed in Appendix B). The PRISMA diagram (Appendix B) illustrates how the 23 final
studies were selected from the original 344 candidate studies. The data related from these studies
was evaluated as it relates to this topic using a thematic synthesis approach. This configurative
approach is considered an effective method for evaluating theory (Gough et al., 2012, p. 52).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and Quality Appraisal
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to specific scholarly articles on the topics of
firm innovation, trust, and social exchange theory; all in an effort to better understand employee
acceptance of firm innovation. The search resulted in 344 initial records. After narrowing the
results down by full text, subject, language, date, and topic, 32 articles remained. The exclusion
criteria were limited to: (a) articles had to be in English; (b) no academic reviews of articles, only
actual articles included in the synthesis of the evidence; and (c) the article had to directly relate
to the topic, no implied understanding or intended data conclusions.
In addition, the systematic searching resulted in a high percentage of literature from
snowballing (7 out of 23 studies) and manual searching (5 out of 23 studies) activities.
Snowballing is the process of expanding literature by examining the references of the original
studies.
By utilizing the weight of evidence procedures for quality appraisal, the articles
considered were narrowed to the final 23 articles (see Appendix E; Pawson, 2005, p. 3). A
ranking of high, medium, or low was assigned based on the establish criteria. The remaining 23
articles included 17 rated high and 6 rated medium (see Figure 1). A WOE model was utilized to
add the necessary rigor to the inclusion exclusion criteria.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
14
Table 1
Quality Appraisal of Studies: Modified Weight of Evidence (WOE) Matrix
(modified from Harden & Gough, 2012, pp. 161-162)
WOE Q1 Soundness of study execution (internal validity)
High: Explicitly follows an appropriate plan based on type of review
Acceptable: In general, a researcher can understand how the research plan was executed
Low: Cannot understand execution of research plan or other major flaw
WOE Q2 Appropriateness of chosen research method
High: Addresses the RQ with empiric data (survey since no trials)+/- expert opinion
Acceptable: Unstructured review or expert opinion addressing the RQ
Low: Inappropriate study design or otherwise "misses the mark"
WOE Q3 Generalizability and external validity of study
High: Results can be operationalized in some way. Results should be generalized.
Acceptable: Results can be operationalized, but may not be valid in a generalized setting.
Low: Results cannot be operationalized and does not help in addressing the RQ.
Note: High Quality: At least 2 high, and no low appraisal marks
Acceptable: Absence of any "low" appraisal mark, up to 1 high Quality mark.
Unacceptable: A "low" appraisal mark in any WOE category. Excludes article from further consideration.
Thematic Results
Using a lens of social exchange theory (SET), The REA investigated the influence of
trust in leadership on employee adoption of innovation. Three macro-level themes emerged: (a)
uncertainty and risk during innovation implementation change; (b) the moderating role of
employee trust on uncertainty and risk; and (c) the influence of employee trust on attitudes
towards innovation. Appendix D displays the themes by study and systematic literature coding.
Uncertainty and Risk during Innovation Implementation
Seven (7) out of 23 articles found that employees experience feelings of risk and
uncertainty during change driven by innovation. Risk was found to be perceived as either the
employee being a failure as well as the innovation representing risk to the employee in terms of
position, influence, or expertise if it were successfully implemented. In addition to both these
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
15
perceptions of risk was a general sense of uncertainty as to how the future state of the
organization would be after the innovation was implemented. Four papers provided support for
employees experiencing a sense of risk during organizational change. Krot and Lewicka (2011,
p. 46) postulated that employees were wary of innovations due to both risk factors (failure-risk
and personal risk). Trust in leaders can negate this duel risk and SET as a lens further supports
this claim as it demonstrates that trust can be over-arching attitudinal construct that drives firm
innovation.
This result was supported in Neves and Caetano’s (2006) work which also found that
employees view changes in their organizations as a potential threat to their status. Studies by
Michaelis et al. (2009, p. 403) and Dovey (2009, p. 313) argued that employees needed to be
able to accept a certainty level of vulnerability in order to be comfortable with changes dictated
by innovation. There is evidence in the literature that employees experience uncertainty during
all types of innovation and change. Regardless of the intrinsic value of any proposed innovation,
without clear communication, employees will oftentimes assume the worst if they are unsure of
the future (Sarinopoulos, et al., 2010). SET explains the motives for communications and better
coordination for firm innovation (Agneessens & Wittek, 2012). Therefore, according to Putnam
(1993) SET serves as a bonding agent in organization when implementing innovation, which
reinforces individual employee identities and maintains homogeneity. When employees feel
uncertainty and risk, SET can explain why employees would come together and maintain strong
in-group loyalties to reinforce existing self-identities. While the bridging aspect of social capital
brings together people from diverse organizational sections, and can lead to better linkage to
exchange of information, SET also serves as an internal provider of important information
exchange. Therefore, leaders must adapt by learning from these informal and formal social
networks of employees to build the necessary trust to better the employee concerns.
The concept of employees experiencing uncertainty during all types of change was
supported in three additional studies that found that fear of innovation adoption is rooted in
uncertainty of how change may affect the employee (Bordia et al., 2004; Devos et al., 2007,
p.612; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). All three of these studies suggested that trust was a potential
moderator, which allowed employees to feel safe from the uncertainty and risk of innovative
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
16
implementation. This evidence is important to answering the research question, because the
literature in these cases supports the need for balance as innovation and trust need to avoid the
extremes of failed innovation and employee uncertainty.
Trust and Employee Acceptance
From its original conceptualization, trust has been viewed as a means of exchange for
accepting risk. In return for the trustee reducing risk through their trustworthy actions, the trustor
is able to take actions which they might normally not take. Seven (7) out of 23 sources supported
the finding that employee trust in leadership acted as an influencer for the perception of risk and
uncertainty during innovative change (see Appendix D). This was found to be due to trust giving
employees feeling of control during the change driven by the innovation (three sources) as well
as increasing employees comfort taking risk (six sources).
Trust in organizational innovation was found to be a powerful interpersonal bond, and an
important influence on employee attitudes toward management decisions and influences
outcomes of organizational innovations. Employee trust in management has been seen as an
important influence to employees accepting new ideas in the workplace (Cho & Ringquist, 2011;
Ertürk, 2008; Hattori & Lapidus, 2004; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenaks, 2011; Rogers, 1983, p. 343).
Employees appear to be more likely to support the implementation of new ideas if there is
sufficient trust in leadership (Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997). Therefore,
examination of trust in leadership while implementing innovation in an organizational setting
through the lens of SET demands a consideration of the influence of trust on the formation of
social ties from the idea generation to the conclusion of innovation success.
Innovations are inherently uncertain, and as discussed earlier, employee trust in
leadership allows employees to have a sense of certainty and balance. Four out of 23 studies
found that employee trust in leadership leads to acceptance of innovations. Neves and Caetano
(2006) argued that employee trust in leadership caused employees to have a sense of control
during change. One additional reason for this was that employees feel a sense of surety and
control due to their past positive interactions with their leader (Choon Yeong Ng, 2013, p. 40).
Acceptance was predicated on these interactions, and employees were more likely to feel less
uncertain about the impacts of the innovative proposals of their leaders. This is supported in
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
17
Dovey’s (2009, p. 320) work which found that employees felt less uncertainty and stress about
innovations when they trusted their leader. Therefore, all three of these findings suggest that
employees who trust their leaders are able to maintain a sense of control and are more likely to
have a sense of trust while displaying innovation acceptance. SET argues that during exchanges
both employees and leaders alike evaluate their relationship in a behavioral context, looking
beyond short run inequities or risks to focus on long-run mutual gains. This is the intersection of
innovation and trust (Luo, 2002).
Finally, six out of 23 studies found that employee trust in leadership increases the
willingness of the employees to take and accept risk. Two studies found that employee trust in
leadership helped them to be comfortable with being vulnerable to risk, which in turn made them
more likely to engage in the innovation (Choon Yeong Ng, 2013; Clegg et al., 2002). In addition,
Dovey (2009) argued that employees who trusted their leader were more comfortable with
innovation and accepting risk and change.
This acceptance was not baseless, but rather a result of willingness to build on trust and
regard acceptance of innovation because of trustworthiness of leaders. This distinction of
employee acceptance is important to understand, as employees who trust their leader do not act
without reckless regard, but rather as a result of trust and acceptance of proposed innovation
(Correia Rodrigues & de Oliveira Marques Veloso, 2013, p. 550). Two studies supported this
idea that the ability component of their trust in leadership led employees to believe the
innovation was a good idea and unlikely to fail (Krot & Lewicka, 2011, p. 55; Michaelis et al.,
2009, p. 404). These findings support the research question by answering how employee
acceptance of organizational innovations influenced by trust between employees and leaders.
Employee Acceptance of Innovation Implementation
The purpose of this paper was to investigate the role of employee trust on their attitudes
toward innovations proposed by management. The data supports the idea that employee trust in
leadership leads to those employees having a more positive attitude towards innovation. This, in
turn, leads to them being more likely to accept and implement innovations proposed by
leadership. There was significant support (19 out of 23 sources; see Appendix D) which found
that: (a) trust positively influenced employees’ perception of proposed innovations (five studies);
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
18
(b) trust increased employee openness, support, and/or commitment to new ideas and innovation
(13 studies); and (c) employee trust in leadership led to employees being more likely to adopt
innovations (four studies).
The first employee attitude uncovered was that trust in leadership led to employees
having generally a more positive perception of the proposed innovation. Three contributing
factors were discovered. First, as mentioned previously, employee trust in leadership is based
partially on positive feelings about the leader’s ability. This leads to employees who trust their
leader having a more positive perception of the value of the innovation (Choon Yeong Ng, 2013,
p. 43; Michaelis et al., 2009, p. 404). For instance, Condrey (1995) found that employee trust
was a positive factor in determining perception of innovative human resources support systems.
Second, trust in leadership was found to promote corporate citizenship over self-interest, which
in turn, allowed or caused employees to be willing to accept personal risk for the benefits of the
entire team (Correia Rodrigues & de Oliveira Marques Veloso, 2013, p. 546). Finally, Clegg et
al. (2002, p. 419) found that trust in leadership led employees to be more open with their
individual concerns about the change. Therefore, employees were more supportive since they
were heard. SET, as a lens, can be used to view these interpersonal relationship perceptions as a
cost-benefit proposition and an innovation benefit to the firm and employee (Gefen and Ridings
2002).
The clearest supported finding in this theme (13 out of 23 studies) was that employee
trust in leadership led to employees being more open, supportive, and/or committed to the
changes required by the innovation. This result is critical as commitment was noted as a key
factor in the successful implementation of changes (Oreg et al., 2011). Trust was found to
increase openness and acceptance to new ideas (Devos et al., 2007, p. 612; Ertürk, 2008; Neves
& Caetano, 2006) and increasing support for innovations (Van Gorp, 2013; Vineburgh, 2010).
Michaelis et al. (2009, p. 410) and Ruppel and Harrington (2000) found employee trust in
leadership to be a strong factor in determining commitment to proposed innovations, while
Reinke (2003) found trust to be an important factor in employee acceptance of new innovations.
Therefore, SET as a lens builds on this argument by adding additional reasoning as to why trust
in leaders is important to innovation.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
19
Employees who trusted their leader were also more likely to look at the potential value
brought to the entire group (Cho & Ringqueist, 2011). This led to employees feeling more
committed to the change as they perceived less risk (Correia Rodrigues & de Oliveira Marques
Veloso, 2013, p. 546). Therefore, even if they might individually be harmed, employees would
still support the change. Two additional studies found that the support garnered from trusted
employees persisted even when the environment was negative and the change potentially
harmful (Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Cho & Ringquist, 2011).
As shown in Figure 2, based on the results of this theme, it can be concluded that
employee trust in leadership is a strong influence on the likelihood of innovation acceptance
(five out of 23 studies). Employees who trusted there leader were more likely to adopt
innovations (Krot & Lewicka, 2011, p. 56; Rogers, 1983, p. 389). Hosmer (1994, p. 193) argued
that trust was what underpinned employee willingness to participate in launching new
innovations. This is supported by Devos et al.’s (2007, p. 623) finding that employees who
trusted their manager were more likely to participate in innovative change and accept it when it
was implemented. Based on these findings, there is support for answering the research question
as to how employee acceptance of organizational innovations influenced by the trust between
employees and leaders. Having a high degree of trust in organizational leadership is a basis to
increase the likelihood of an employee’s willingness to be placed a vulnerable position, but with
that acceptance comes an expectation that the leader will act in the employee’s best interest.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
20
Conceptual Model
Figure 2: Proposed conceptual model of the social exchange of trust between employee and
leadership during innovation implementation.
Findings and Discussion
As the conceptual model portrays, within the Venn diagram, Mayer, Davis, and
Schoorman (1995) argued there were three traits that were considered instrumental whereby a
leader was perceived as trustworthy: ability, integrity, and benevolence. Alone each trait was not
enough, but combined it was enough to convince employees that the leader was capable of acting
in the best long-term interest of the employees and thereby earning their trust. The propositions
portrayed in the conceptual model represent the findings and themes discovered in the review of
the literature that identified the seventeen strategies and six findings managers can use in
implementing firm innovation. The ability to effectively demonstrate leadership proficiency by
displaying traits like persuasion and knowledge leads to leadership trustworthiness. Combined
with the other three traits, such as ability, benevolence, and integrity identified in the model
discussed earlier, can lead to achieving trust between employees and leaders. That trust then
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
21
reduces risk, leads to acceptance of more risks, and willing to innovate and finally firm
innovation can be achieved.
The inter-relational element of trust between leader and employee is understood to be a
fundamental driver of organizational innovation (Burt, 2005; Granovetter, 1973, 1983). The
linkage is dependent not only on people identifying desired resources that reside in others, but
also on people perceiving that the interaction will bring benefits as a mutual relationship of trust
is formed. Ability reflects a cognitive belief about another’s human aspect such as skills,
competencies, and expertise, which in turn directly influence the innovation effort. Benevolence
senses the sincerity and perceived concern another has while demonstrating trust in a relationship
while innovating, which in turns creates an emotional bond of mutual trust (Mayer et al., p. 717).
Integrity is the perception of principles and values that the each demonstrates for the other such
as delivering on promises. The combination of these three ideas leads to leadership
trustworthiness by employees.
The right side rectangles on the figure represent the required elements from an employee
perspective, and the three propositions, reduced uncertainty, risk tolerance, and commitment to
innovation. The conceptual model illustrates the value and need for trust between employee and
leader for successful innovation. Inherent in both theories is the innovation diffusion theory,
which is intended to help to explain how, why, and at what rate new innovation is introduced
into an organization. This reduces uncertainty and risks when employees better understand the
innovation rationale (Rogers, 1983).
Proposition 1: During the innovation implementation, employees experience uncertainty, which
may lower their commitment to the innovation.
Based on the REA, the there is a link between trust in leadership as having a direct
correlation to successful firm innovation. Based on the first proposition, the literature supported
the idea that innovation implementation can create a condition of uncertainty for employees and
a perception of risk, which in turn can influence their commitment to firm innovation (see Figure
2). This issue of commitment can be negotiated through effective leadership and communication,
and employees are then more likely to engage in the innovation and be supportive firm
innovation implementation plans.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
22
Proposition 2: The social exchange between leaders and employees bridges the innovation
implementation gap between persuade and decide stages of innovation diffusion.
Effective trust leadership between employee and firm leadership also directly affected
support for the second proposition. The issue of innovation and change was considered as it was
viewed through the innovation diffusion and the lens social exchange theory. Trust is particularly
important to organizational innovation because of the inherent risks and uncertainties when
creating and implementing new ideas (Shazi, Gillespie, & Steen, 2015, p. 81).
Proposition 3: Employee trust in leadership leads to a willingness to accept the
additional uncertainty and risk of innovation
The third proposition supports the research question by demonstrating employees and
leaders who are engaged in a trust relationship are more likely to successfully implement firm
innovation plans. In the literature, commitment was identified as a critical component for
successful firm innovation. This was also true for change, trust, and trust between employee and
leaders (Rodrigues & de Veloso, 2013, p. 549; Tan & Tan, 2000). In general, trust plays a major
role in all aspects of the firm’s innovation efforts from ideation to implementation to future and
continuous improvements was found to increase the success of innovation efforts (Michaelis et
al., 2009, p. 400).
Proposition 4: Employee trust in leadership leads to employee commitment to adopting
innovations.
Finally, SET further explains how important trust is to innovation and relationships
between employees and leaders as it provides social benefits for both (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). There are indications in the identified themes, that organizational commitment is an
important predictor of organizational outcomes including employee performance which can be
directly related to firm innovation (Wong et al., 2002).
Using a lens of social exchange theory, this research investigated the question: how is
employee acceptance of organizational innovations influenced by the trust between employees
and leaders? The propositions were analyzed using the literature on trust and innovation by
understanding the topic of organizational innovation through the lens of social exchange theory
Rogers’ (1983) five stages of innovation communication model of innovation diffusion play an
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
23
important role of trust in the relationships between employees and leaders in an organization
working to implement innovation. Rogers (2003) noted that within the first two stages, the
perceived characteristics of innovation are important in explaining an innovation’s rate of
adoption. This is a key point in the overall strategy, as trust is built on that initial rate of
adoption as employees either accept or refuse to participate in organizational innovation. Moore
(2004) clarified the difficulty in making that leap between innovation and acceptance,
specifically aligning trust as a moderator (p. 91).
The findings from this review are that trust does influence the innovation and firm
relationship between employee and leadership in a positive manner. In particular, employee trust
in leadership, innovation, and willingness to accept a certain level of risk during innovation
implementation are catalysts for firm innovation. As such, it is imperative to articulate how trust
between employee and leadership influences their innovation implementation plans and future
firm performance. Trust between employees and leaders are directly correlated to firm
innovation. Employees who trusted their leaders and leaders who trusted their employees were
both were more likely to adopt innovations (Krot & Lewicka, 2011, p. 56; Rogers, 1983, p. 389).
Hosmer (1994, p. 193) specifically argued that trust was what underpinned employee willingness
to participate in launching new innovations. This is supported by Devos et al.’s (2007, p. 623)
finding that employees who trusted their manager were more likely to participate in innovative
change and adopt and implement it. Overall, trust was found to increase the success of
innovation efforts (Michaelis et al., 2009, p. 400).
Based on the theoretical lens, the systematic review of literature and the themes
discovered in this review, there is reasonable management consideration to conclude that trust
between leader and employee is important to firm innovation. Employees trusting in their
leadership served as a guide to research these research propositions. In accordance with the
research question, trust was evaluated whether it improves employee commitment to innovation
implementation by increasing their willingness to accept risk and uncertainty during
implementations. Innovation implementation is inherently uncertain and perceived as risky to
employees, which can result in them becoming disengaged and resistant to the innovation
implementation plans.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
24
Conclusions
Innovation adoption presents a significant challenge to organizations. Despite the
recognition by most executives that innovation is a critical capability to develop competitive
advantages, most companies struggle to effectively implement innovations in their organization.
In order to address this challenge, this paper investigated how employee trust in leadership can
help organizations be more successful with the implementation of innovation. Based on social
exchange theory, a proposed a model of trust as a medium in which employees exchanged their
commitment to the innovation in exchange for the past and future trustworthy actions of their
leaders which would protect them from harm is offered (see Figure 2). The findings of this study
support the argument that employees are supportive of innovation, but that the risks they
perceive when trust is absent can be perceived as resistance to change. Based on social exchange
theory and innovation diffusion theory; a proposed model of trust in innovation provides a path
to better understand trust between employee and firm leaders to implement firm innovation
(Figure 2).
The manner in which employees in an organizational social system perceive the five
attributes of an innovation decision determine its rate of adoption or acceptance is dependent on
the independent variables of associated trust (Rogers, 2003). Two major variables would be the
ability to persuade employees that the innovation is in their best interest by providing them the
knowledge to draw that conclusion on their own. In order for an innovation to diffuse, a
communication process must occur.
As proposed, researched, and discovered, the three propositions and the research question
indicated trust between employee and leader in firm innovation are directly correlated. When
employees trust their leaders, have reduced risk, are committed to new innovations, and better
understand of exactly why change is important or occurring in organizations, then new
innovations are more likely to be successful and trust is more likely to exist between leader and
employee.
Based on the confirmation of the three propositions, the research question is confirmed in
the positive in that employee trust in leadership positively influences their attitudes towards the
implementation of new innovations. Employees who trust their leader perceive less risk and
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
25
uncertainty from innovation adoption and are more likely to have a positive attitude towards the
changes needed, adopt the new innovation, which all lead to great success in innovation
implementation.
Through a systematic search, 23 studies were synthesized to evaluate three propositions
raised in the literature review. One clear challenge highlighted in the research was that
employees experience uncertainty and a feeling of risk when faced with new innovations. The
uncertainty was generally a result of being unaware how the innovation would affect their job. It
was also found that this uncertainty led employees to become defensive and resist the changes
needed to implement the innovation. Fear of risk came from two sources, both a fear of the
innovation being a bad idea and therefore a risk to the organization (failure risk), as well as a fear
of the innovation bringing harm to the individual employee (personal risk).
From the findings in the second and third themes, employee trust in leadership appears to
offer a means to improve employee’s perception of the innovation and become more engaged
and committed to its implementation and success. Specifically, four dynamics were uncovered.
First, trust reduced employee’s fear of personal harm due to their historical experience with the
leader. Their leader’s benevolence and integrity which fostered trustworthiness helped
employees feel that would not be personally harmed by the innovation. Second, trustworthiness
comes from leaders with high levels of competency and ability. This helped employees to
support the innovation as a good idea and helpful to the organization.
Third, this support was found to be the case even if the innovation might be harmful to
the employee role in the organization. Trust in leadership increased corporate citizenship which
helped foster a feeling of togetherness and support for innovative changes, even when the
organization was struggling or the changes caused a difficult situation. For example, a new
technology which was going to reduce the need for staffing in certain areas would still be seen as
a good idea, even if individuals might experience job loss. Finally, employees who trusted their
leader were able to use their leader’s trustworthiness as a substitute for certainty. Even though
innovation can be an uncertain experience, employees who trusted their leader did not experience
the same level of uncertainty.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
26
Given these dynamics, employee trust in leadership addresses some of the challenges in
innovation implementation and therefore it was shown that employee trust in leadership may
leads to improved innovation adoption. Employees who trust their leader are more open to
innovation, more likely to be committed to innovation, and more likely to become involved and
adopt the innovation when it is implemented. As a result, employee trust in leadership was found
to be related to innovation success.
Limitations of Methodology
There are limitations to what this study can offer. First, the use of a REA, while
appropriate, is not intended to be the definitive answer to the research question posed here.
Rather, this paper was intended to be an informative paper on the research question posed here
and a starting point for a more complete analysis on a potential gap in the literature (Gough et al.,
2012, p. 39). Trust, innovation and change should be further studied. This essay should be
considered a starting point rather than a complete analysis (Gough et al., 2012, p. 39). In
addition, the systematic searching resulted in a high percentage of literature from snowballing (7
of 23) and manual search (5 of 23) activities. Snowballing represents literature, which was
manually uncovered through reviews of bibliographies of literature found in the searches. Future
research should consider performing a broader literature search. There is an abundant amount of
research available on the topic of trust but very little scholarly literature on the actual aspect of
employee interaction between employee and firm leadership leading to increased trust for firm
innovation. Future research should consider performing a broader literature search.
Implications of Findings to the Research Question
The findings seem to suggest that employees are more likely to accept and adopt firm
innovations when trust is prevalent between employees and leaders as a matter of routine in
organizational matters. Employees who view leaders as trustworthy and consider leaders to act in
their best interest are more likely to commit to the risk associated with change and uncertainty
when they believe leaders have their best interest in the decisions required to implement firm
innovations. In addition, it was implied, through the discovery of themes within the literature
review, that the synergy required firm innovation to be successful it requires communication,
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
27
through persuasion and knowledge sharing. Employees are more likely to accept innovation and
change together as Rogers (2003) argued, “a social system is defined as a set of interrelated units
that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal” (p. 23). Combined with
trust, innovation and change, these findings indicate that firms can meet the challenges of
implementation.
Implications for Management
The results of the literature review suggest that trusted leaders are an important
component to firm innovation. As such, this has a direct and specific impact on management
scholarship and practice. First, the acceptance of innovation is predicated on trust by employees
in leaders. The review of the literature indicates that there is a either a real or a perception that
trust in leadership is missing from many organizations (Porter, Steers & Mowday, 2007, p.185).
Trust, innovation and change should be further studied. This essay should be considered
a starting point rather than a complete analysis (Gough et al., 2012, p. 39). In addition, the
systematic searching resulted in a high percentage of literature from snowballing (7 of 23) and
manual search (5 of 23) activities. Snowballing represents literature, which was manually
uncovered through reviews of bibliographies of literature found in the searches. Future research
should consider performing a broader literature search. There is an abundant amount of research
available on the topic of trust but very little scholarly literature on the actual aspect of employee
interaction between employee and firm leadership leading to increased trust for firm innovation.
Trust is an important element in the firm’s innovation plan and has to be earned, nurtured
and considered in future plans. Trust has proven that both employee and leaders give and receive
trust and the firm benefits in return (Michaelis, et al., 2009, p. 404). Trust has proven to be
earned, but what has not been discussed here can be lost or recovered if it has been damaged in a
business setting, both of which are covered on a limited basis in the literature.
Colquitt and Rodell (2012) found that organizational environments where the decision
making process was open, complete, and understood by the employees enabled them to feel
confident in trusting their leaders. Employees who perceived this procedural process to exist
were more likely to be trusting in the innovations being proposed (Brocker, et al., 1997; Dovey,
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
28
2009). Organizations can help create this environment by being more transparent in decision-
making and making information used for decision making more available.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
29
References
Agneessens, F., & Wittek, R. (2012). Where do intra-organizational advice relations come from?
The role of informal status and social capital in social exchange. Social Networks, 34(2),
333-345. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.04.002
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339. doi:10.1108/00251740910984578
Bijlsma, K., & Koopman, P. (2003), Introduction: Trust within organizations, Personnel Review,
32(1), 543-55. doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488324
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345-365. doi:10.1080/13594320444000128
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(3), 558-
583. doi:10.2307/2393738
Cabrera, E. F. & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720-35.
doi:10.1080/09585190500083020
Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Schweitzer, R. J. (1995). Coping resources, coping strategies and
adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work and Stress, 8(4),
372–383. doi:10.1080/02678379408256543
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740-753.
doi:10.1108/13673271211262781
Chatenier, E. d., Verstegen, J. M., Biemans, H. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. F. (2010).
Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D
Management, 40(3), 271-280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00590.x
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
30
Cho, Y. J., & Ringquist, E. J. (2011). Managerial Trustworthiness and Organizational Outcomes.
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(1), 53-86.
doi:10.1093/jopart/muq015
Choon Yeong Ng, J. (2013). Trust and innovation: The impact of interpersonal - Trust on team
innovation. Review of Business Research, 13(1), 39-52. doi.org/10.18374/RBR-13-1.5
Clegg, C. W., Unsworth, L. L., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the
innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 409-
422. doi:10.1348/096317902321119574
Cole, M., Schaninger, W., & Harris, S. (n.d). The Workplace Social Exchange Network - A
multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 142-
167. doi: 10.1177/1059601102027001008
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis
integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-
1206. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.0572
Condrey, S.E. (1995) Reforming human resource management systems: exploring the
importance of organizational trust, American Review of Public Administration, 25(4),
341–354. doi:10.1177/027507409502500403
Correia Rodrigues, A., & de Oliveira Marques Veloso, A. (2013). Organizational trust, risk and
creativity. Revista Brasileira De Gestão De Negócios, 15(49), 545-561.
doi:10.7819/rbgn.v15i49.1334
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6),
1154-1191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
Dasgipta, P. & Serageldn I. ed., 2000. Social Capital: A multifaceted perspective, Washington,
D.C. The World Bank. doi:10.1080/07360932.2013.781517
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging 'resistance to change'. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41. doi:10.1177/0021886399351003
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
31
Dent, E. B., & Powley, E. H. (2003). Employees actually embrace change: The chimera of
resistance. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 40-56.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and Suspicion. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, (4). 265.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context, and
process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental
simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607-630.
Doney, P., Barry, J., & Abratt, R. (2007). Trust determinants and outcomes in global B2B
services. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9-10), 1096-1116.
doi:10.1108/03090560710773363
Dovey, K. (2009). The Role of Trust in Innovation. Learning Organization, 16(4), 311-325.
Ertürk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees' openness to organizational
change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462-483.
doi:10.1108/01437720810888580
Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and Indirect Effects of Third-Party
Relationships on Interpersonal Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 870-883.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.870
Fountain, J.E. 1998., Social Capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology,
Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 103-115.
Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Executing Strategic Change: Understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success. California Management Review,
51(3), 49–73.
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and
implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 556-65. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-
5-56
Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage
Publishing
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management,
2(1), 5-13. doi:10.1108/13673279810800744
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
32
Hattori, R., & Lapidus, T. (2004). Collaboration, trust and innovative change. Journal of Change
Management, 4(2), 97-104. doi:10.1080/14697010320001549197
Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Why be moral? A different rationale for managers. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 4(2), 191-204. doi: 10.2307/3857491
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). An examination of the roles of career uncertainty,
flexibility, and control in predicting emotional exhaustion. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59, 406–424.
Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation, Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), pp. 1055–1080.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krot, K., & Lewicka, D. (2011). Innovation and organizational trust: study of firms in Poland.
International Journal of Innovation & Learning, 10(1), 43-59.
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In Readings in social psychology, (3rd ed.,
pp. 197-211). New York: Henry Holt and Company
Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the Internet: A framework based on
relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Industrial Marketing Management,
31(2), 111–118.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
McAllister, D. J. (1995), Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organization, Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 24-59.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and
innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees'
trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399-417.
doi:10.1080/14697010903360608
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management
Journal, 13, 39-59. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130905
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
33
Mone, M.A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V.L. 1998. Organization decline and innovation: a
contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 115-132.
Nambudiri, R. (2012). Propensity to trust and organizational commitment: a study in the Indian
pharmaceutical sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5),
977-986. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.651325Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2009).
Learning and Innovation in International Strategic Alliances: An empirical test of the role
of trust and tacitness. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1031-1056.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00840.x
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.533225
Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2006). Social exchange processes in organizational change: The roles
of trust and control. Journal of Change Management, 6(4), 351-364.
doi:10.1080/14697010601054008
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational
change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
47(4), 461-524. doi:10.1177/0021886310396550
Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 1-
14. doi:10.1186/17417015-11-21 Porter, L., Steers, R., & Mowday, R. (2007). Do
employee attitudes towards organizations matter? In K. Smith and M. Hitt text. . l71-189
Pullen, W. (1993). Strategic shocks: Managing discontinuous change. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 6(1), 30.
Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making democracy work, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Reinke, S.J. (2003) Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and the acceptance of the
performance appraisal process, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(1), pp.
23–37. doi: 10.1177/0734371X02250109
Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory. (8th ed., pp. 416-427). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation. (3rd ed.). London, UK: The Free Press.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
34
Rousseau, D. (2012). The oxford handbook of evidence-based management. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Chapter 11: Evidence in management and
organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through
syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475-515.
doi:10.1080/19416520802211651
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work
climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 313-
328. doi: 10.1023/A:1006290432594
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and acceptance of
change: An integrative approach to participative decision making. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 45(1), 85-92. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00850.x
Sarinopoulos, I., Grupe, D., Mackiewicz, K., Herrington, J., Lor, M., Steege, E., & Nitschke, J.
(2010). Uncertainty during anticipation modulates neural responses to aversion in human
insula and amygdala. Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 929-940.
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C. & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways of companies to
innovate. Sloan Management Review, 47(23), 75-81.
Shazi, R., Gillespie, N. & Steen, J., (2015) Trust as a predictor of innovation network ties in
project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 81-91.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.001.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (4 ed., p. 303). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal
study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 625-648.
doi:10.1002/job.331
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241-260.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
35
Tantardini, M., & Kroll, A. (2016). The role of organizational social capital in performance
management. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 83-99.
doi:10.1080/15309576.2016.1071163
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Van Gorp, S. (2013). Innovation in the nonprofit organizational context: Examining the strategic
significance of systems trust and individual resistance to change. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A, 73
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research
directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
36
Appendix A
Search Strings:
Innovation AND Trust AND Implementation
Innovation and Trust AND (leadership OR commitment)
Employee Trust AND Leadership TRUST
("Trust" AND "Innovation")
Trust AND Innovation AND Change
Innovation, Organizational Change, Trust
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
37
Appendix B
PRISMA Diagram for systematic review of articles used in this paper
Note: n = 23 is a result of a search in the UMUC library. Business Source Complete provided 16
articles, Research Starters 4, and PsychINFO added 3 for a result of 23.
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
38
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
39
Appendix C
Databases included in UMUC OneSearch
Academic Search Complete
Business Source Complete
CIHAHL
Computers & Applied Sciences Complete
eBook Collection
Education Research Complete
Environment Complete
ERIC
GeoRef
JSTOR
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts
Military & Government Collection
Oxford Scholarship
Political Science Complete
PsycARTICLES
PsycINFO
ScienceDirect
SocINDEX
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
40
Appendix D
Systematic Literature Coding
1 Risk during Innovation Implementation
2 Uncertainty during Innovation Implementation
3 Trust Increasing Feelings of Control during Change driven by Innovation
4 Trust Increasing Risk Tolerance
5 Trust Positively Influencing Employee Perception of Proposed Innovation
6 Trust Increases Employee Openness to Innovation
7 Trust Increases Employee Adoption of Innovation
Running head: INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Source
Supported Themes
Uncertainty and risk during
innovation implementation
change.
The moderating role of
employee trust on uncertainty
and risk.
The influence of employee trust on
attitudes towards innovation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Brockner, et
al., 1997
X
Brodia, et
al., 2004
X
Cho &
Ringqueist,
2011
X
Choon
Yeong Ng,
2013
X X X
Clegg, et
al., 2002
X X
Condrey,
1995
X
Correia
Rodrigues
& de
Oliveira
Marques
Veloso,
2013
X X X
Devos, et
al., 2007
X X X
Dovey,
2009
X X X
Ertürk, 2008 X
Hosmer,
1994
X
Krot &
Lewicka,
2011
X X X
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Appendix D
Legend
Systematic Literature Coding
1 - Risk in Innovation Implementation
2 - Uncertainty in Innovation Implementation
3 - Increased Trust, impacting change for firm Innovation
4 - Trust building Risk acceptance for innovation
5 - Trust positively guiding Employee understanding of firm innovation
6 - Trust increasing Employee willingness to accept and participate in innovation
7 - Trust increasing Employee acceptance and adoption of firm innovation
Michaelis,
et al., 2009
X X X X
Neves &
Caetano,
2006
X X X
Reinke,
2003
X
Rogers,
1983,
X
Ruppel &
Harrington,
2000
X
Sagie &
Koslowsky,
1996
X
Van Gorp,
2013
X
Wolfe,
(1994).
X
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Appendix E
Quality Appraisal Results
Bibliography Purpose Publication Credibility
Author(s) Credibility WoE
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(3), 558-583. doi:10.2307/2393738
Provided a useful descriptive framework to analyze workplace conflict and diversity challenges.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed.
Ph D academic Professors who have published widely on the topic and are affiliated with a University.
High
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control?. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345-365. doi:10.1080/13594320444000128
This study tested a model of change-related communication, uncertainty, and control and their relationship with psychological strain, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions for employees and supervisors.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly and refereed.
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published.
Medium
Cho, Y. J., & Ringquist, E. J. (2011). Managerial Trustworthiness and Organizational Outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(1), 53-86. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq015
This article examined a survey showing the managerial traits of competence, integrity, and benevolence share an important common dimension that we identify as the trustworthiness of managerial leadership
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed.
Scholar, widely recognized as an expert.
High
Choon Yeong Ng, J. (2013). Trust and innovation: The impact of interpersonal - Trust on team innovation. Review of Business Research, 13(1), 39-52.
This article identified a systematic plan to discuss the concepts of trust, psychological safety, and cohesion from each other, and point out the difference between creativity and innovation, to illustrate the need for research that has a focus on trust and innovation.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed.
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published.
High
Clegg, C. W., Unsworth, L. L., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 409-422
This study sought to introduce the development of two new measures of innovation trust, ‘trust that heard’ and ‘trust that benefit’
Journal of Public Relations Research
Ph D academic Professors who have published widely on the topic and are affiliated with a University.
Medium
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Bibliography Purpose Publication Credibility
Author(s) Credibility WoE
Condrey, S.E. (1995) Reforming human resource management systems: exploring the importance of organizational trust. American Review of Public Administration, 25(4), 341–354
This study shows that high trust levels within organizations may aid human resource management reform efforts.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly and refereed. (American Review of Public Administration)
University of Georgia, Professor High
Correia Rodrigues, A., & de Oliveira Marques Veloso, A. (2013). Organizational trust, risk and creativity. Revista Brasileira De Gestão De Negócios, 15(49), 545-561. doi:10.7819/rbgn.v15i49.1334
An examination of 244 employees detected that there is a positive relationship between trust and behavior to provided new ideas
Revista Brasileira De Gestão De Negócios,
Latin American Scholars with a global perspective.
Medium
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context, and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607-630.
The authors examined the contribution of the content, context, and process of organizational transformation to employees' openness to change. Including trust in executive management and trust in the supervisor.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly and refereed. (Academy of Management Journal)
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
High
Dovey, K. (2009). The Role of Trust in Innovation. Learning Organization, 16(4), 311-325.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of trust in the collaborative learning processes that underpin innovation as a competitive strategy in organizations.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly and refereed.
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published.
High
Ertürk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees' openness to organizational change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462-483. doi:10.1108/01437720810888580
This study examined the mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment, trust, and perceived need for change in the relationship between change information and employee attitude toward organizational change.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly and refereed.
Ph D academic Professors who have published widely on the topic and are affiliated with a Turkish University.
High
Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Why be moral? A different rationale for managers. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 191-204.doi: 10.2307/3857491
Trust, commitment, and effort on the part of all of the stakeholders are essential for long-term corporate success; given
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly,
Scholar, Peer reviewed and published
High
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Bibliography Purpose Publication Credibility
Author(s) Credibility WoE
the economic conditions of intense global competition that now exist for the foreseeable future.
refereed, and reviewed
Krot, K., & Lewicka, D. (2011). Innovation and organizational trust: study of firms in Poland. International Journal of Innovation & Learning, 10(1), 43-59.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Ph D academic Professors who have published widely on the topic and are affiliated with a University.
High
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees' trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399-417. doi:10.1080/14697010903360608
The purpose of this study is to examine charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top management and how they affect employees’ innovation implementation behavior.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
High
Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2006). Social exchange processes in organizational change: The roles of trust and control. Journal of Change Management, 6(4), 351-364. doi:10.1080/14697010601054008
This study conducted a field research experiment to clarify the role trust in the supervisor plays in implementing organizational change.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
High
Reinke, S.J. (2003) Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and the acceptance of the performance appraisal process, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(1), pp. 23–37. doi: 10.1177/0734371X02250109
This study explores the role of trust in shaping supervisor and employee acceptance of the appraisal process and associated trust that supervisors will be fair.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholar and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
Medium
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation. (3rd ed.). London, UK: The Free Press.
Diffusion of innovations research directly correlates to trust in innovation by enhancing our understanding of how innovation implementation occurs.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Noted Scholar and recognized expert.
High
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Bibliography Purpose Publication Credibility
Author(s) Credibility WoE
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 313-328. doi: 10.1023/A:1006290432594
This study tests this model of trust by using Victor and Cullen's (1988) ethical work climate instrument to measure the perceptions of the “right,” “just,” and “fair” treatment of employee stakeholders.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
Medium
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and acceptance of change: An integrative approach to participative decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 85-92. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00850.x
Discussed the development of an integrative model of the relationship between participation in decision making (PDM) during an organizational change and work attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and sense of effectiveness
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholars and Terminal degrees. Peer reviewed and published
High
Van Gorp, S. (2013). Innovation in the nonprofit organizational context: Examining the strategic significance of systems trust and individual resistance to change. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 73
The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of organizational trust and resistance to change (intervening variables) to organizational support for innovation (dependent variable).
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Higher Education) in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa
High
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
The purpose of this study is to clarify that there is no one way to understand innovation.
Ulrichsweb search found the journal to be scholarly, refereed, and reviewed
Scholar, widely recognized as an expert
Medium
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Appendix F
Analysis Themes
Analysis Themes with Evidence by Supporting Literature
(Note: In the order that the information appears in the paper, by page number
Bibliography Strategy Findings Sentence WoE
Rigor Relevance Total
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion
of innovation. (3rd ed.). London,
UK: The Free Press.
X In order to prevent
misunderstandings about
innovations within the firm,
leaders need to work especially
hard to communicate clearly to
all employees about all
innovation plans. (p.6)
High High High
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational
Culture and Leadership. (4 ed., p.
303). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
X Therefore, if leadership increases
the pressure to accept the
innovation without building trust,
the employees will only have
increased anxiety. (p.7)
High High High
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion
of innovation. (3rd ed.). London,
UK: The Free Press.
X The inherent risk associated with
innovation, and the required trust
that is necessary by both leader
and employee for the firm to the
successful innovation diffusion is
predicated on effective
communications.(p.7)
High High High
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion
of innovation. (3rd ed.). London,
UK: The Free Press.
X The smallest consideration for
sharing information as widely as
possibly within the organization
helps to reduce the uncertainty
and reduce the inherent
associated risks of organizational
change with innovation. (p. 7-8)
High High High
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion
of innovation. (3rd ed.). London,
UK: The Free Press.
X Innovation implementation plans
should include the key element of
an effective communications plan
for innovation. (p.8)
High High High
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., &
Schoorman, F. (1995). An
integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-
734.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080
335
X Their model considered three
factors which made a leader
perceived as trustworthy: ability,
integrity, and benevolence. These
three factors when combined
demonstrate a leader's trust
actions and the potential to act in
the best interest of the
employees; and thereby helped to
build trust. (p.10)
High High High
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., &
Schoorman, F. (1995). An
integrative model of
X X A leader who lacks the
competency or authority to act
effectively is not viewed as one
High High High
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Bibliography Strategy Findings Sentence WoE
Rigor Relevance Total
organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-
734.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080
335
who can take independent actions
to benefit or care for the
employees, and therefore is not
individually trustworthy. (p.10)
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., &
Schoorman, F. (1995). An
integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-
734.
X X Employees are more likely to
view innovative changes
proposed by such leaders in a
positive manner, as that
information is communicated in
the organization more effectively
over time (p.10)
High High High
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., &
Schoorman, F. (1995). An
integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-
734.
X X Integrity shows that the leader’s
decision-making framework is
visible and compatible with the
organizational employee's
standards or norms. Benevolent
leaders in turn make decisions,
which are beneficial to the
specific employee who trusts
them. (p.10)
High High High
Hattori, R., & Lapidus, T. (2004).
Collaboration, trust and
innovative change. Journal of
Change Management, 4(2), 97-
104.
doi:10.1080/1469701032000154
9197
X X This is particularly important, as
trust is perceived as a missing
leadership trait in many
organizations, leading employees
to often have cynical views of
senior organizational leadership
and proposed innovations by
senior management. (p. 11)
High High High
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N.,
Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N.
(2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Is it all
about control?. European Journal
of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 13(3), 345-365.
doi:10.1080/1359432044400012
8
X X With a leader who has the
capability and desire to act in
their favor, trusting employees
are more likely to be active
participants in the change
regardless of uncertainty they
may experience. (p.11)
High High High
Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological
theory. (8th ed., pp. 416-427).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
X The lens of social exchange
theory (SET) was chosen to
evaluate the role of employee
trust on their openness and
commitment to innovations
proposed by management,
because it models inter-personal
interactions as a series of
exchanges of actions and goods
of value over time (Ritzer, 2011,
p. 427). (p.11)
High High High
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange
and Power in Social Life. New
X Blau (1986) explained that social
exchanges are the foundation for
High High High
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Bibliography Strategy Findings Sentence WoE
Rigor Relevance Total
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishes.
social structures and a key
foundational building block for
the human element for building
trust between employees and
leaders for firm innovation.
(p.11)
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.
S. (2005). Social exchange
theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management,
31(6), 874-900.
X These acts of building more trust
over time occur as employees
build a history of trust in a leader
by exchanging their
commitments through positive
actions for future leader payback
in acts of repeated trust. (p.12)
High High High
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R.
(1996). Trust in organizations:
Frontiers of theory and research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
X SET provides two ways to
evaluate the dynamics of trust
being built over time. (p.12)
High High High
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M.
(2012). Knowledge sharing:
Influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 16(5), 740-753.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umu
c.edu/10.1108/136732712112627
81
X X Social exchange provides a
robust foundation for the
temporal aspect of trust. (p.12)
High High High
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M.
(2012). Knowledge sharing:
Influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 16(5), 740-753.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umu
c.edu/10.1108/136732712112627
81
This argument is valuable when
investigating trust in
organizations, since the events
which cause trust in a leader to
develop, and the fulfillment of
that trust often occur at different
times. For these reasons, SET is
an appropriate lens while
evaluating the literature.(p.12)
High High High
INNOVATION BUILT ON TRUST
Target Journals
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management
http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/cfplist.php?jcode=ijhrdm
The International Journal of Human Resource Management (Taylor Francis Online)
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rijh20/23/12
Society for Human Resource Management
http://www.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/Contactus/ContactEditors/writersguidelines/Pages
/default.aspx
These select journals were identified through a rigorous selection process based on three
criteria. The criteria was: 1) the journal had to be in good standing within the management
community; 2) the subject of this paper had to have a natural linkage to the journal audience or
consumer base; and 3) the process for submission had to be one that this author thought was
achievable.