FACULTY OF BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS OLIVER MENK THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP POWER ON TRUST BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND SUBORDINATES IN PROFIT-ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS IN GERMAN SPEAKING COUNTRIES DOCTORAL THESIS Submitted for the Scientific Doctor’s Degree (Ph.D.) in Economics and Business Supervisor: Prof., Dr.sc.admin. Andrejs Cekuls, University of Latvia Riga, 2021 2 ANNOTATION This doctoral thesis investigates the influence of leadership power on the trust behavior of subordinates, same as supervisors and its effect on the fluctuation rate of subordinates and the importance of trust as a leadership tool. Based on a comprehensive literature research which combines the former studies of leadership style, leadership power and trust in a profit-oriented organization between two employees with different hierarchy level and adding own qualitative and quantitative research, the main hypothesis was developed, that a defined use of different leadership powers can create a high trust level of employees to reduce the complexity of management tasks. To define trust as a relevant factor for the economic leaders of today, the literature is fundamentally analyzed and complemented by the views of specialists and subordinates to get a reflection of the importance of trust in leadership. Beside this, the correlation of leadership power and trust based on well-known categories was prepared in the same way, and supplemented by own adaptions for visualizing the importance of trust in this economic relationship with its borders to other research fields. Due to the situation, that leadership styles are not a good predictor to create trust, a research model for the basis leadership power and trust was developed to evaluate with qualitative and quantitative background. For this, survey method with a quantitative questionnaire (242 respondents), a pre-study with 106 employees, as well as interviews with 12 specialists is done. This survey is placed in German speaking countries with respondents from companies with a high share in the automotive and manufacturing industry. The questionnaires were personally forwarded and differentiated between supervisors and subordinates in order to obtain more information from teams rather than individuals. The results of this empirical survey, which is based on well-known and earlier validated questionnaires support the main hypothesis in the direction, that the common increase of expert, legitimate, referent and reward power, while simultaneous decrease of the coercive power, creates an increase of the trust level of the subordinates. Beside others, one of the most important observed correlations is, that the former observation is specific for the coercive power. This is interesting, because it has not been observed, that the coercive power has to disappear for a maximum trust level. It just has to decrease to a defined level, which is highly interesting. The thesis is limited to two persons with different hierarchy levels in economic cultures of profit-oriented organizations, similar to the researched German speaking ones. Key words: leadership, power, trust, confidence, employee JEL code: M12, M54 3 CONTENT ANNOTATION ......................................................................................................................... 2 CONTENT ................................................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 5 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 7 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 9 1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP AND TRUST FOR PROFIT-ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS ............ 19 1.1 Leadership styles and their environment in profit-oriented organizations .................. 19 1.2 Leadership power and its impact on trust in profit-oriented organizations ................. 21 1.2.1 Theoretical and experimental background of Leadership Powers........................ 22 1.2.2 The negative side of leadership power and its economic side-effects .................. 25 1.3 Theoretical reflection of trust as a relevant factor for leadership inside profit-oriented organizations ......................................................................................................................... 31 1.3.1 General Trust models with influence in economic management systems ............ 31 1.3.2 Trust between a supervisor and subordinate......................................................... 35 1.3.3 The leadership power and trust correlation inside profit-oriented organizations . 47 1.4 Summary on literature review ..................................................................................... 50 2 LEADERSHIP POWER AS AN INDEPENDENT FACTOR FOR LEADERSHIP STYLE AND TRUST IN AN TRIANGLE SITUATION ................................................... 52 2.1 The research range of trust in a leadership situation ................................................... 53 2.2 The theoretical value of leadership power and trust inside profit-oriented organizations 56 2.3 Definition of hypotheses .............................................................................................. 63 3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF LEADERSHIP POWER AS PREDICTOR FOR THE TRUST SITUATION IN PROFIT-ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................................ 66 3.1 Reflection of the approach in view of the appropriate methodology and research methods ................................................................................................................................. 66 3.2 Pre-test of the importance of trust as a relevant outcome of leadership ...................... 71 4 3.3 Check of supervisors view – the specialists interview ................................................ 76 3.4 Definition of the general quantitative research model................................................. 85 3.5 Evaluation of the quantitative data collected by questionnaire ................................... 92 3.6 Trust as a factor to improve the fluctuation rate in the company ................................ 96 3.7 Detailed analysis of the empirical data of leadership power and trust of supervisor and subordinate.......................................................................................................................... 103 3.7.1 Empirical examination of the quantitative data .................................................. 103 3.7.2 Analysis of trust in comparison between supervisor and subordinate................ 113 3.7.3 Analysis of leadership power between supervisor and subordinate ................... 120 3.7.4 Empirical analysis of the impact of the leadership powers on trust between supervisor and subordinate ............................................................................................. 127 3.8 Discussion of hypotheses and interpretation of results ............................................. 132 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 138 SUGGESTIONS ................................................................................................................... 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 145 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 164 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Scheme of trust ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 2: Trust and the decision process .................................................................................. 43 Figure 3: Triangle concept of leadership .................................................................................. 52 Figure 4: Aspects of trust research ........................................................................................... 55 Figure 5: Trust as an element of leadership power ................................................................... 58 Figure 6: Trust level of subordinates in comparison to gender and kind of business .............. 71 Figure 7: Real and desired leadership powers of subordinates (pre-research) ......................... 73 Figure 8: Real and desired leadership powers of supervisor and subordinate (pre-research) .. 74 Figure 9: Real and desired leadership powers by gender (pre-research) .................................. 75 Figure 10: Trust of the supervisor in the subordinate (subordinate's view) ............................. 76 Figure 11: Specialists important components of trust .............................................................. 82 Figure 12: Research model ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 13: Changing the company is planned (only subordinates) .......................................... 99 Figure 14: Separated research models for supervisor and subordinate .................................. 104 Figure 15: Felt leadership power of supervisors (subordinates’ view) .................................. 105 Figure 16: Used leadership powers of supervisors ................................................................. 106 Figure 17: Trust situations of subordinates ............................................................................ 107 Figure 18: Trust situation of supervisors ................................................................................ 107 Figure 19: Trust distribution of subordinates (real)................................................................ 114 Figure 20: Trust distribution of supervisors (real).................................................................. 114 Figure 21: Trust distribution of subordinates (wish) .............................................................. 115 Figure 22: Trust distribution of supervisors (wish) ................................................................ 115 Figure 23: Trust level of subordinates .................................................................................... 117 Figure 24: Trust level of supervisors ...................................................................................... 118 Figure 25: Subordinates’ trust level real & wish (cum.) ........................................................ 118 Figure 26: Supervisors’ trust level real & wish (cum.) .......................................................... 119 Figure 27: Group comparison of subordinate and supervisor power items ............................ 120 Figure 28: Leadership power situation (real) of subordinate in relation to trust level ........... 122 Figure 29: Leadership power situation (wish) of subordinate in relation to trust level.......... 123 Figure 30: Leadership power situation (wish) of subordinate in relation to trust level, same groups as real situation ................................................................................................... 123 Figure 31: Leadership power situation (real) of supervisor in relation to trust level ............. 125 Figure 32: Leadership power situation (wish) of supervisor in relation to trust level............ 125 6 Figure 33: Leadership power situation (wish) of supervisor in relation to trust level, same groups as real situation ................................................................................................... 126 Figure 34: Subordinates’ leadership power and trust correlation acc. Spearman .................. 128 Figure 35: Supervisors’ leadership power and trust correlation acc. Spearman .................... 129 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research models ..................................... 68 Table 2: Check sample size and non-probability sample ......................................................... 70 Table 3: Cross check of own and existing results for the fluctuation of employees .............. 101 Table 4: Descriptive statistics of leadership power (total sample) ......................................... 106 Table 5: Descriptive statistics of trust (total sample) ............................................................. 108 Table 6: Reliability of variables (total sample) ...................................................................... 109 Table 7: Trust level definition ................................................................................................ 110 Table 8: LSP group comparison of subordinates.................................................................... 111 Table 9: Leadership power group comparison of supervisors ................................................ 112 Table 10: Tests of normality (total sample)............................................................................ 113 Table 11: Potential influencing factors on trust...................................................................... 116 Table 12: Control-questions about trust level......................................................................... 119 Table 13: Subordinates’ mean values of trust and leadership power ..................................... 124 Table 14: Supervisors’ mean values of leadership power and trust ....................................... 127 Table 15: Correlation of leadership power and trust .............................................................. 131 8 ABBREVIATIONS BE Benevolence (Trust) CE Coercive Power CO Competence (Trust) EBITDA Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization EX Expert Power IN Integrity (Trust) LE Legitimate Power LSP Leadership Power LSS Leadership Style PR Predictability (Trust) RF Referent Power RW Reward Power TL Trust Level 9 INTRODUCTION Topicality One of the most influencing management problem at present is not the change of something itself, it is the speed, the complexity and the impact of the change on other, often global, strategies, areas and last but not least human resources. Today the supervisor has to collect information from different time zones around the world, different meetings and items in a constant way. Due to the huge amount of knowledge fields, it is understandable, that the supervisor often has just a limited understanding. Aspects, such as management of finance, human resources, innovation, marketing or politics are getting a higher importance the higher the management level is.1 2 These are for sure only a small part of influencing factors a supervisor has to handle and they can be increased with the help of other aspects of a global way of leadership, which are expected from supervisors today more than ever. Organizational, strategical or political management, internationalization, globalization and cooperation are equally important and are used as standards in the job descriptions of supervisors. In the best case, after a while the supervisor receives only information overflow, but normally the supervisor will also not understand all the things due to the high complexity and the short time period to understand it. One reason, why the present-day supervisor is more dependent than ever of his/her subordinates, is handling of this huge amount of different and complex items in the networked business world. In a global world with complex problems, to make fast decisions based on comprehensive background information, the involvement of the subordinates is needed as one important key factor to reduce the steady increase of complexity. To work on this task, supervisors may find different kind of leadership styles, which support the involvement of subordinates in different ways with different outputs in literature. As a major desired output of the leadership style (LSS), the property trust is very promising to create an environment or circumstance, where decisions can be made faster and which reduces the management complexity. The relevance of trust increases as the system becomes more complex. Trust based processes contribute to simplify and stabilize systems by generalizing expectations, experiences and constructing symbols of trustworthiness.3 Trust is also often seen as the key coordinating 1 Borrmann, W. A. (2013). Managementprobleme internationaler Unternehmungen. Springer-Verlag. pp.128ff 2 Perlitz, M. (2004). Internationales management. utb. pp.19ff 3 Luhmann, N. (2009): Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Nachdruck der 4. Auflage, Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. pp.5-36 10 mechanism in the community form,4 which importance can be seen in yearly surveys, where trust is indicated as the most important core value for leaders since years.5 Also inside profit- oriented organizations and networks it is an important factor for success.6 The meaning of trust can be also visualized by the management concept of Fayol7, who formulated as one of the first the functions of management with preview and planning, organization, instruction, coordination and control. Depending of the level of trust, the last two to four steps can be replaced by trust and complexity can be reduced. The importance of interpersonal trust to increase team and organization performance effective had been recognized by Dirks & Ferrin and others8 9 as a category same as improving problem solving, quality of communication, team performance, sales levels and net profits. Based on this expected positive influence of trust onto the leadership output, it has been researched in the past if a special kind of leadership correlates with trust. Unfortunately the transformational, the transactional and the consultative leadership practices were all positively correlated with the team members’ trust in the leader. Passive corrective and laissez-faire styles had negative relationship and active corrective leadership had no correlation with trust in the leader.10 The kind of leadership style, which is clearly concentrated and correlated to the desired outcome “trust” does not exist at all. There are the same trust correlations to totally different leadership styles. Transformational and transactional leadership is able to create trust in the same way. Due to this reason the research level of this thesis is placed one step before and leadership power (LSP), which is the input to create a defined leadership style, is placed in the spot of research. 4 Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization science, 12(2), p.217. 5 Heidbrink, L., Hartung, M.J., (2020). Führungskräftebefragung 2020, Wertekommission Technische Universität München, PWC, (p.13) https://www.wertekommission.de/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/Wertekommission_FKB_2020.pdf (06.11.2020) 6 Köszegi, S. (2001). Vertrauen in virtuellen Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: DVU, pp.30-60 7 Fayol, H. (1929), Allgemeine und industrielle Verwaltung, Berlin in Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2019). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Springer-Verlag. p.7 8 Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 21(5), pp.563- 576. 9 Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), pp.319-328. 10 Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of managerial psychology. p.599 11 As a general definition of the leadership powers it can be said, that it is the capability of the leader to control and/or influence the approach and/or behavior of the subordinates.11 12 From this institutional perspective of management, leadership power is the basic factor of management. It describes the persons inside organizations, who are authorized with powers above others.13 While comparing on the one side the leadership powers with the leadership styles, even here a clear indication is just given partially. In case of referent and reward power, there is a strong correlation to the transformational leadership style only, but for the expert power, there is a strong correlation to transformational and transactional power. So similarly to the mentioned before, where no clear differences between trust and transformational leadership style and trust and transactional leadership style could be seen, here as well the difference between leadership power and transformational leadership style is just slightly different to the transactional leadership style in case of referent and reward power. In case of a laissez-faire leadership style the expert power has just a strong negative correlation and referent same as reward power cannot be used as a predictor leadership power14 On the one side, it could be investigated, that transactional compared to transformational leaders, use harsh power strategies (reward and punishment) more frequently.15 On the other side, the definition of soft and harsh powers is not widely separated and therefore different legitimate, reward and coercive power types can be also defined as harsh power.16 Therefore, in the best case, a defined combination of different leadership powers defines a leadership style, but different leadership styles can create trust. That is the reason, why a research bridge above the leadership style does not seem to be the right way to predict trust as an outcome of leadership. To reduce the complexity and to get a predictable basis of leadership for the trust situation, the single leadership power and different trust bases have been connected directly inside this research. This simplifies the regulation of the behavior of the leader just by observing and adapting the basic inputs of leadership powers and not the complete leadership styles at all. 11 Scott, J. (2007) Power, Domination and Stratification: Towards a conceptual synthesis. Sociaologia, Problemas e Practicas, n.º 55, 2007, Doctoral Conferences at ISCTE, Lisbon, Portugal on September 28th 2007 and at the Sosiologisk Institutt, Bergen University, Norway on 19th-20th September 2007, p. 25 12 Scovetta, V. (2013), The impact of Leadership Social Power on Knowledge Management Success, Pro Quest LLV UMI Number 3563506, p. 14 13 Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2019). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Springer-Verlag. p.5 14 Ojo, A. (2015). Leadership and Power: A Study of the constructs of follower-perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, AABRI, pp.1,8 15 Koslowsky, M., & Stashevsky, S. (2005). Organizational values and social power. International Journal of Manpower. p.27 16 Mittal, R., & Elias, S. M. (2016). Social power and leadership in cross-cultural context. Journal of Management Development. p.60 12 Nevertheless, the relationship between trust and power seems to be asymmetric,17 18 in that trust and power are not able to reach their maximum at the same time. So trust and power in profit- oriented organizations have been researched before and can be seen in the case of trust as a factor to create easier cooperation and to reduce uncertainty, but on the other hand power is described as a similar factor, that in most cases also reduces complexity and uncertainty, to manage a profit-oriented organization. With trust, same as power the person can be influenced to do what another person wants19. Just the perspective of expectations is a different one. In the case of trust it is the version of a good outcome. In the case of power the outcome, in eyes of the subordinate can be either good, neutral or bad. So trust seems to be every time the better option for the subordinate. Power and trust especially for the supervisor can sometimes be a problem, Lammers et al.20 stated that persons with high power are more immoral than persons with less power, which is based on the corruption of power of the powerful persons. The correlation between trust and power, and the influence of power to create a high trust level between supervisor and subordinate is surely highly interesting for the supervisors of today and this is what has been primary researched in this thesis. In addition it has to be remarked, that leadership and trust is researched here between a supervisor and a subordinate. It is not researched between a supervisor and a whole company or organization. Trust should be no longer only a second priority outcome of a long lasting relationship. Trust should be a predictable outcome of a defined use of the leadership power. Research object Management of subordinates in profit-oriented organizations in German speaking countries. Research subject Leadership power as a direct factor to improve the trust situation between supervisor and subordinate in profit-oriented organizations in German speaking countries. 17 Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998). Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: Forms and facades of trust. Trust within and between organizations, pp.64-87 18 Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen,W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.125 19 Bachmann, R. (2001). The role of trust and power in the institutional regulation of territorial business systems. University of Groningen. p.11 20 Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Dubois, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2015). Power and morality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, pp.15-19. 13 Research aim The aim of this thesis is to evaluate the leadership power of supervisors as a predictor of trust of their subordinates and elaborate suggestions to improve the trust behavior in profit-oriented organizations. Research objective Based on empirical data and interviews with specialists a research model of leadership power and trust has been developed and quantitatively researched, to confirm the correlation and to define the value of trust inside profit-oriented companies in German speaking countries. With these results, recommendations to improve their leadership output and to handle complex challenges by optimizing trust as a controlled outcome of leadership have been made for managers inside profit-oriented organizations. Tasks to achieve the research objective 1. Explore the theoretical background of leadership style (LSS) and leadership power (LSP) in general and identify their relevant inputs to create trust. 2. Analyze the theoretical background of leadership, with special view and its relation to the factor trust in a profit-oriented organization. 3. Identify the different views about trust for a profit-oriented organization. How trust works and how it can be created; definition of trust. 4. Define a direct or most independent factor of Leadership, which has a correlation to the trust situation between supervisor and subordinate. 5. Combine most relevant Leadership and trust factors to one new research model. 6. Compare the model with insights from international leadership experts for different kind of views. Understand the correlation between and the importance of trust between supervisor and subordinate. 7. Create data to research empirically the impact of Leadership onto the trust level. 8. Derive leadership behavior of leaders and supervisors to improve the performance and reactions of their subordinates in business life. 9. Develop recommendations for future research aims. Hypotheses The hypotheses of this dissertation are: (H0) The kind of leadership is a predictor for the trust level of a subordinate in a profit- oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. 14 (H1) Trust as a result of leadership in a profit-oriented organization has the same level for supervisor and subordinate, in real and in desired situation. (H2) Predictability influences the leadership situation in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate more, than benevolence, integrity and competence. (H3) A high trust level of an employee has a positive impact on a higher binding to the company. (H4) Referent and expert leadership powers have positive impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. (H5) Coercive and legitimate leadership powers have negative impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. Research questions The main research questions are: 1. What is the role of trust inside the leadership of employees? 2. What trust level exists inside profit-oriented organizations? 3. What kind of leadership can be used as a predictor to increase the trust level of the employees? Theses for defense Suitable to the structure of the research questions, the theses are: 1. Trust is very important and belongs to the leadership of today. Between leadership power and trust variables are existing significant correlations on subordinate side. 2. Inside profit-oriented organizations exists a mid-trust-level, which is minor depending on the kind of profit-oriented organization, the kind of trust variable, nor of the view of supervisor or subordinate. 3. The use of a defined share of the leadership powers can predict an increase of the employee’s trust level. Balanced share is desired from subordinates’, same as supervisors’ to create a high trust level between both. Novelty • Development of a research model of the Leadership Style factor Leadership Power towards the trust situation between supervisor and subordinate. 15 • Defining the impact of Leadership Power as a direct predictor for supervisors of the trust-level of their subordinates in a profit-oriented organization. • Identification of Coercive Leadership Power as a kind of Leadership Power which positive influences a high trust level between supervisor and subordinate. Structure of the thesis The thesis is separated into three chapters. The first chapter researches the actual theoretical situation and former research about the leadership style, leadership power and trust. After the first separation from boundary items, their correlation and influence on the economic research field are investigated to adopt the results as a starting point for further research. Chapter two starts with the positioning of leadership style, leadership power and trust inside leadership, reflects the importance of the direct correlation between leadership power and trust instead of leadership style and trust. With the combination of the theoretical background and own experience the research hypotheses for the next stage of evaluation are created. In the last chapter, the research model is defined and subdivided for supervisors and subordinates, for a real and a desired situation, based on qualitative information out of a pre-study with 106 employees, as well as an interview with 12 specialists. This is the basis for a survey method with a quantitative questionnaire with 242 respondents. It has been researched if subordinates feel the the supervisors’ leadership power and trust situation or if there are differences between. It has also been researched what a best case situation for trust and leadership power between supervisor and subordinate would look like and how leadership power influences trust. Differences between the both parties but also between the actual status and literature, same as differences to the former pre-research and specialist interview have been discussed and interpreted in this quantitative research. Finally, conclusions and suggestions to supervisors and scientists are presented in accordance with the hypotheses and the research questions. Limitation of the study This research is limited to a profit-oriented organization between a supervisor and one or more subordinates, a difference in the hierarchy level between both is a must. It is not related to the trust of a whole organization. The respondent companies were all profit-oriented. In case of non-profit organizations, it is possible, that especially the reward power, probably also others, would have a different influence from the one researched inside this thesis. That is why non- profit organizations are excluded, but also in other industries the result can deviate from the main figures, as the research has shown. Independently from the main researched groups in automotive and manufacturing companies, the result should just differ in percentage and not in direction, as assumed for non-profit organizations. The specialist interview also provided 16 references, that the cultural aspect would create different behavior of both parties, therefore the quantitative research has been done in German speaking countries only, since in countries with different general attitudes different results could be obtained. In Japan, as an example of a harmonic culture21, conflict of interest can be handled in other ways, therefore also the use of leadership power could be different. Further limitations have to be made onto the detailed results of leadership power and trust. While speaking about trust, just future oriented situations and decisions are meant, therefore especially borderline research with the meaning of confidence could create confusion while comparing results. Approbation of research results Different steps of research results of the research theme were presented and discussed in different conferences, same as in publications: Conferences 1. Menk, Oliver, THE QUANTITATIVE VALUE OF CONFIDENCE FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF KEY-EMPLOYEES, 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017, March 28-31, 2017, Hofburg Congress Centre, Vienna, Austria 2. Menk, Oliver, THE CORRELATION OF THE FORCES OF LEADERSHIP AND THE LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT, ABRM 7th International Conference on Restructuring of the Global Economy (ROGE), July 3-4, 2017, Said Business School, Oxford, UK 3. Menk, Oliver, CONFIDENCE IS THE NEW BASIS FOR MODERN LEADERSHIP, International Academic Conference: Economic, Management and Marketing (AC-EMM), August 11-14, 2017, Prague, Czech Republic 4. Menk, Oliver, THE FORCES OF LEADERSHIP IN THE ERA OF SOCIAL MEDIA, International Conference on social Media Marketing, August 21-22, 2017, University of Enschede, Netherlands 5. Menk, Oliver, THE ROLE OF CONFIDENCE IN AN EFFICIENT HUMAN LEADERSHIP, The 11th international scientific conference "New Challenges of Economic and Business Development – 2019: Incentives for Sustainable Economic Growth": Riga, Latvia, May 16-18, 2019. Proceedings. Riga: University of Latvia, 2019 6. Menk, Oliver, THEORETICAL EXAMINATION OF TRUST AND SOCIAL POWER AS A COMMON VALUE OF LEADERSHIP FOR SUPERVISOR AND SUBORDINATE, 14th 21 Dorow, W. (2007) Konfliktverhalten: Eine interkulturelle Spannungsquelle. In: Unternehmenskulturen in globaler Interaktion. Gabler, p.133 17 International Scientific Conference for PhD students of EU countries, Online conference CER 2020 - Comparative European Research, October 26-28, 2020, London United Kingdom, 7. Menk, Oliver, LEADERSHIP AND THE FLUCTUATION RATE INSIDE PROFIT ORIENTATED COMPANIES, 10th International Academic Conference: Economic, Management and Marketing (AC-EMM), Dec. 6, 2020, Prague, Czech Republic Publications 1. Menk, Oliver (2017), The Quantitative Value of Confidence for the Leadership of Key- Employees, in: 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017, Book 2, Volume 1, Vienna, Austria, pp. 387-394. ISBN 978-619-7105-94-0, ISSN 2367-5659 2. Menk, Oliver (2017), The Correlation of the Forces of Leadership and the Level of Management, in: ABRM 7th International Conference on Restructuring of the Global Economy (ROGE), July 3-4, 2017, Said Business School, Oxford, UK, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 293- 298. ISSN 2047-2854 3. Menk, Oliver (2017), Confidence is the new basis for modern leadership, in: International Academic Conference: Economic, Management and Marketing (AC-EMM), August 11-14, 2017, Prague, Czech Republic, “Proceedings of AC2017 in Prague”, pp.161-168. ISBN 978- 80-88085-15-7 4. Menk, Oliver (2019), The role of confidence in an efficient human Leadership, The 11th international scientific conference "New Challenges of Economic and Business Development – 2019: Incentives for Sustainable Economic Growth": Riga, Latvia, May 16-18, 2019. Proceedings. Riga: University of Latvia, 2019, p. 587-597, ISBN 978-9934-18-428-4 Web of Science 5. Menk, Oliver (2020), Theoretical Examination of trust and social power as a common value of leadership for supervisor and subordinate, Proceedings of the 14th CER Comparative European Research Conference - International Scientific Conference for Ph.D. Students of EU Countries, London, p.9, ISBN 978-1-9993071-6-5, 6. Menk, Oliver (2020), Leadership and the fluctuation rate inside profit-oriented companies, in: International Academic Conference: Economic, Management and Marketing (AC-EMM), Dec 6, 2020, Prague, Czech Republic, “Proceedings of AC2020 in Prague”, p.1 ISBN 978-80- 88085-31-7 7. Menk, Oliver (2021), Leadership and the fluctuation rate inside profit-orientated companies, in: Academic Journal of International Economics and Management Research (Journal AJIEMR), 2nd issue, Volume 1., p.28, ISSN 2694-7897 18 Acknowledgements I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to express my gratitude to the University of Latvia for the opportunity this well-structured doctoral program offers. Beside this essential framework, the completion of this research would not have been possible without the support of a few key persons. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Baiba Šavriņa and Prof. Dr. Dr. Josef Neuert, for their excellent work on the program. Independently of that, my biggest gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Dr. Andrejs Cekuls, who supported me every time on short notice, even on weekends, with uncomplicated very friendly and honest words. Thank you once again. Further I would also like to thank the professors, reviewers and academic staff of the University of Latvia for their work, their valuable input and their time. Last and never least, I thank my best friend Ela for still trying to understand me and supporting me during all the years. 19 1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP AND TRUST FOR PROFIT- ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS While talking about management problems of today, one of the most interesting factors is the behavior of the leader and how she/he can optimize the output of the responsible area, department, company and so on. This is the more interesting, because the supervisor can do this with other persons, she/he is responsible for. In general, the supervisor or leader has a higher hierarchy level and so this difference between the supervisor and subordinate creates the situation that the supervisor has several kinds of powers above the subordinates. The use of these powers and the personal behavior of the leader create a leadership style people will follow or not follow. 1.1 Leadership styles and their environment in profit-oriented organizations The central target of leadership is to accomplish a common and organizational goal 22 , independently if leadership is seen as a characteristic, which comes from the leader or determined by processes, different persons are involved.23 Based on Burns, Bass and Avolio made a differentiation on the three most known LSSs of today. They made the separation between transformational, transactional and passively avoidant LSSs. As regards the last one (e.g. laissez-faire style) they also stated, that this is not leadership, this is the absence of leadership.24 With this kind of simplifying, it is obvious, that the further research in relation to trust will be based only on the transformational and transactional LSSs, which are often described as opposite LSSs. Gardner points out, that independently of the style, leadership has always a measure of power25 and leaders use a variety of approaches to influence the subordinates, 22 Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, pp.7-8 23 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implication of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, pp.231-272. 24 Ojo, A., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2016). The Correlation between Leadership Style and Leader Power.Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433, 711 Human-Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Interface Division. p.1 25 Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, p.3 20 including leadership power.26 Independently of the kind of style, Northhouse 27 also found out that power and leadership would not exist one without the other. Transformational leadership style as a predictor to create trust The relevance of trust is partly described in the introduction part and a comprehensive research about this item will follow in the later subchapters. At this stage just a short reflection will be done, that trust is able to reduce complexity in systems same as in profit-oriented organizations or between supervisor and subordinate. Due to this a predictor to create trust is searched in a kind of LSS. Studying the literature about LSS and trust, the transformational LSS seems to be the most important one for the advanced research of the item trust. Transformational leaders get respect and trust of their subordinates, by formulating visions, setting goals, intellectual stimulation, asking for and being innovative and giving individual attention. Transformational LSS is also often linked with notions of virtue and morality.28 These are aspects, which are crossing with the bases of trust same as benevolence, integrity and competence, which are three of four trust bases of Adams & Sartori 29. Based on these matching aspects of transformational leadership with trust, it is the more surprising, that also the opposite LSS, the transactional style has same positive correlation with the team members’ trust in the leader as the transformational style.30 So, both kind of styles, as different they are, can create trust. This result makes it not desirable to carry out deeper research of LSS only in correlation to the level of trust inside profit-oriented organizations. The before mentioned leadership power (LSP) as an input of LSS has to be researched more deeply to use it as a potential and direct leadership predictor for the trust between supervisor and subordinate. 26 Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates peers and superior. Group and Organization Management, 20(3), pp.272-296 27 Northouse, P. G. (2004) Leadership: Theory and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, p.4 28 Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, pp.3-4 29 Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008 Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario, pp.25ff 30 Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of managerial psychology. pp.599 21 1.2 Leadership power and its impact on trust in profit-oriented organizations The interplay of Leadership Power (LSP) and trust has its high relevance for strategic choices, not only in the interpersonal relations researched here, but also for changes within organizations (intra-organizational), between organizations (inter-organizational) and changes in institutional structure or global policy (institutional)31, which should also underline the importance in other adjacent research fields of business leadership. To give a full and comprehensive overview about the item power seems to be not possible, when the literature of the past had been studied. Everywhere are gaps or one-sided researches. The reason for that could be the problem, that there are different scientific subjects with its own specific questions, which are not only coming from human leadership, also the animal kingdom is part and example of investigations. 32 Witte 33 said, that the item power is certainly exhaustless. Max Weber’s early definition of power in the beginning of the 20th century is the fundament of many researches. He defines power by the following words: “Power is the chance, inside a social relationship, to enforce the own willing, also against reluctance, independent on what this chance is based on.”34 The general definition of power is that a person with power can influence another one (or group) by refraining resources, which can be objects, information or behaviors.35 36 Another spread definition is that LSP is a leader’s social competence to change the behavior of followers so that they do things they are not planned to do before.37 But this view is only a one directional view. French & Raven defined in their basis of LSP, it is also necessary that the person or group, who shall be influenced, should have a need or wish to obtain or decline the 31 Patnaik, S., Pereira, V., Temouri, Y., Malik, A., & Roohanifar, M. (2020). The dance of power and trust- exploring micro-foundational dimensions in the development of global health partnership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120036. p.13 32 Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen, W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.41 33 Witte, E.H. (1985) Theorien zur sozialen Macht, in Frey, D./ Irle, M. (Hrsg.) Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Bd.2: Gruppen und Lerntheorien, Bern, Stuttgart, Toronto, p.123 34 Weber, M. (1976). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. 5. Auflage, Mohr Siebeck (erste Auflage 1921), p.28 35 Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological science, 17(12), pp.1068-1074. 36 Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of personality, 80(2), pp.313-344 37 French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1958). Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence. Sociometry, 21(2), pp.83-97 22 resource that the person with power has.38 Power is necessary to get or hold stable systems or organizations, but getting power has also a direct link to obtaining a better self-esteem 39, which can be highly difficult and alter the behavior of the people, who have power. 1.2.1 Theoretical and experimental background of Leadership Powers Luhmann40 defines power as a medium of communication and therefore he is able to make a comparison with other mediums of communication, same as money or the truth. To compare this with leadership, it can be seen that also money or truth are possibilities, beside power, with which people can be led, but on the other hand, money and truth can be also powers, when people are led on their basis. Adeniyi41 inside his leadership model has all well-known LSPs of French and Raven, same as coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent power, just partly described in other terms, but Adeniyi also has components of trust, same as integrity, honesty and transparency in his leadership model. According Hede42 power is an essential component of all leaderships. He investigated the correlation of the Total Behavior Leadership model with the five LSPs: coercive, reward, position, expert and referent, which are in line with the 5-power model of French and Raven. He clustered different kind of power types, that supervisors use, because in common case not only one power is used alone. One finding was that the two most often used power variants or clusters just uses low variants of all power or at a maximum a high share of the referent power. This result is different from the author’s findings out of the pre-test or the specialist interviews, which will be shown later on. Hede used, as many others too, the original model of the 5 LSPs of French and Raven from 1959. This basic study had been developed over the years to many variants, because this model was disputed to be not complete. Raven himself added 196543 the sixth LSP: informational power himself and researched this in addition together with Kruglanski44 five years later. This 38 French, J.R.P./ Raven, B. (1959): The bases of social power, in: Cartwright, D. (Hrsg.): Studies in Social power, Ann Arbor, p.151 39 Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25(4), p.472 40 Luhmann, N. (2012). Macht, 4. Auflage, UVK Konstanz und München., p.8 41 Adeniyi, M. A. (2007). Effective leadership management: An integration of styles, skills & character for today’s CEOs. AuthorHouse. p.3 42 Hede, A.(2005), Patterns of Power and Leadership: Understanding Total Behaviour Leadership, Australian Institute of Management, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Australia, p.9 43 Raven, B. H. (1965) in I.D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current Studies in Social Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp.371-382 44 Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. The structure of conflict, pp.69-109. 23 intermediate step from Raven was e.g. used from Kotter in 1990. But Raven’s own maximum was reached 1998 together with Schwarzwald and Koslowski with 11 different LSPs45: referent, expert, information, reward (personal, impersonal), coercive (personal, impersonal) and legitimate power (position, reciprocity, equity, dependence). Unfortunately also these 11 LSPs, which are created to include further empirical data into the model is not based on an overall theoretical systematic46. Probably this or just the circumstance, that the primal model is much more easier to handle is the reason, why also in todays researches e.g. Scovetta (2013)47, used the 5 LSP model and not the later ones. Jäckel (2018)48 e.g. uses from Raven et al. (1998) just four items from supervisor view and three items from subordinate view but all based just on superiority or pressure which ends in each case on stress. She uses just some powers to create a counter rotating concept to trust. The remaining powers she indicated due to some specialist based interviews as neutral or positive powers to trust, but just on a specialist interview and not on a quantitative research. Definition of Leadership Powers For the later research LSPs will be defined first, to get a comprehensive picture of the five bases of powers 49: Reward power: The requirement for this power is the possibility of the supervisor to reward the subordinate. This can be an increase of salary, incentives, a better position or job inside the company, further education or anything else, which seems to be interesting or important in the eyes of the other person, in this case the subordinate. Coercive power: A non-conform behavior will be punished, e.g. by reducing the salary, another or lower position in a hierarchy, to preclude somebody etc. But it is not only the punishment act, the effect of threat is the real power, which is used. For sure this 45 Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(4), pp.307-332 46 Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), pp.89-106 47 Scovetta, V. (2013), The impact of Leadership Social Power on Knowledge Management Success, Pro Ques t LLV UMI Number 3563506, pp. 217-219 48 Jäckel, A.(2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Springer, pp.209, 263 49 French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in social power, Leadership as a social power, 16, pp.150-157 24 determent is based on the probability, that the supervisor will make a real punishment out of the threat. On the other side, it’s same than the reward power. The person, who shall be led by this power must feel the power deterrent, otherwise this power will not work. The reward power and coercive power can go into one, if the not given reward will be seen as a punishment.50 French and Raven itself had the hypotheses that “Coercion results in decreased attraction of P (subordinate) toward O (supervisor) and high resistance; reward power results in increased attraction and low resistance.” Legitimate Power: The supervisor gets his social (legitimate) power out of its position and this is documented in its employment contract. This legitimate power is based on organizational hierarchies. The subordinate sees the power of the supervisor as the result and rule, which the subordinate supports by its own employment contract. So as long the subordinate respects the hierarchy and its own contract this power will work, because the subordinate responds the position of the supervisor. The legitimation power can also be based on cultural values same as e.g. age or physical characteristics – in different cultures it is the situation that people will follow the words of older or stronger person. Weber said, this “authority of the eternal yesterday” is the same effect, than a different gender or color of the skin gives in some former cultures one person the power about another one. Referent Power: The basis for this power is that the subordinate identifies the supervisor with himself or the supervisor is seen in any way attractive for the subordinate, so that the subordinate wants to become closer to the supervisor. So the subordinate is like, want to be like or will be more like the supervisor. The supervisor is an example or ideal for the subordinate. That the effect of attractive is in direct relation to referent power demonstrates French & Raven with different earlier references same as Festinger, Back, Lippit et al., Festinger et al. and Gerard. Expert Power: This power is depending how much the subordinate thinks the supervisor has knowledge in a special field. This scale can be relative in comparison to the skills of the subordinate or absolute against a standard. The existing proof of expert power 50 Steinmann, H., Schreyögg, G. (2005). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung: Konzepte– Funktionen–Fallstudien. 6.Auflage. Wiesbaden: Gabler. (p.690) 25 had been demonstrated by Festinger et al. and Lippit et al.. In every case of expert power it is necessary, that the subordinate trusts the supervisor, that the supervisor is telling the truth. This is very interesting, for the later research of the trust relevant powers. French & Raven already mentioned the "informational" power 1959 as a part of the expert power. The sixth power, the informational power, which French & Raven already defined 1959 as a part of the expert power, was originally defined by Deutsch and Gerard and is based on information the supervisor has outside the core of the knowledge part. Here the influence of communication is meant, which the supervisor has, because he gets information from his supervisor, which the subordinate didn't know. 20 years later this kind of power had been split out of the expert power, but the knowledge advantage of the supervisor, independent if it comes from education or from secret or hidden information, will be in the later research not deeper differentiated, because it's the more important, if the subordinate thinks that the supervisor has such information, so that the supervisor can use this expert/informational power. Raven51 described later with informational power the feasibility how a person argues something. In general it is necessary for a good argumentation, to have a good knowledge, too. So these powers are very near beside and perhaps surely this is one reason, why often the original five and not six or eleven bases of LSP are used for researches. Based on this and a look at other potential leadership powers, the primal five leadership powers will be used for the further research. 1.2.2 The negative side of leadership power and its economic side-effects The correlation between power and self-esteem persons has also the side-effect that self-esteem persons in comparison to lower self-esteem persons, are more aggressive52. So probably these persons will use powers, which can be used directly and which are based on a short time period. Persons, who have power will use its power to manipulate others, or as Kipnis said “power increases the likelihood that the individual will attempt to influence and manipulate others”53. This statement is based on a negative meaning, because he defines power, same as others as a 51 Raven, B. H. (1993) The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments, in: Journal of Social Issues, 49, p.233 52 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), pp.27-51 53 Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of personality and social psychology, 24(1), p.39 26 corruptive element. Lammers et al.54 55 stated that persons with high power are more immoral than persons with less power, which is based on the corruptness of power of the powerful persons. This is argued, that these people have a high self-esteem and follow a personal target. In addition the high level of power give powerful people another view on things, than people have on lower stages. The power prevents them for negative results. Mitchel et al.56 found this whole range of negative side effects, same as self-esteem, getting another position of view, upgrading theirself against the others and corruption. As most popular reason for that is mentioned that the powerful people often are less controlled, than others. Especially the wrong view, that the position and meaning of the powerful person is more correct, has the effect that the communication level between these persons drops down and the powerful people take more distance and learn less from the basis.57 58 Woudenberg didn't confirm this with the use of a brain data analyze. On the one side persons with power showed beside extroversion, emotional stability and a high self-esteem, but she didn't found a correlation between persons with high power and corruptness. This she arguments, that persons with high power feel less uncertainty and so they will less react with egoism.59 This is not in line with the pursuit of the people with power, to get more power. Power is limited in a company, so there are mostly more than one person, who wants to get one hierarchy level higher and so it comes to so called “power games”60 where people want to reach their target due to egoism or just by the thought that they can do the job better than the others. This own thought of a person with power can be seen also from the outside meaning, that a supervisor can create better results than a subordinate. So results from subordinates are rated lower than results from supervisors, who made changed processes with their leadership power. This effect is even stronger from the leaders itself, who 54 Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Dubois, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2015). Power and morality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, pp.15-19. 55 Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), pp.737-744. 56 Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., Falvy, J. G., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power, account-ability, and inappropriate actions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, pp.497–517. 57 Scholl, W. (2014), Führung und Macht: Warum Einflussnahme erfolgreicher ist, artoop, Institut an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin, p.4 58 Scholl, W., & Riedel, E. (2010). Using high or low power as promotive or restrictive control–differential effects on learning and performance. Social Influence, 5, pp.40-58 59 Woudenberg, R.(2017) When Does Power Corrupt? Reactions to Uncertainty and Moral Decisions, Masterthesis of Science in Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, pp.29-36 60 Gandz, J. & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, pp.237-251 27 judged their results even better than the other ones.61 This can depend on the higher self-esteem level, as described before. Beside these negative effects, that power seems to have, it is interesting, that Scholl et al. analyses a leader as a powerful low and light menacing person, who ask for performance and contradicts the meanings of the subordinates.62 Further he stated, that the expectation is, the more power the leader has, the more negative the leader is. With negative he means, to get excited about the subordinates, to stress and to get in conflict with them. On the opposite side this is just the awaited reaction of the leader to the subordinates, the awaited reaction of the powerful leader to another powerful leader is just same as debating, negotiating, etc.,63 with other words, just much more positive expectations. It seems to be, that the negative side of power is connected and will be just used in vertical leadership. In the moment of discussion between two leaders with same power level (horizontal), the negative powers or its side effects are not used or are useless. The definition of positive and negative leadership powers The different LSP bases are often divided in good and bad, negative and positive or soft and harsh powers, which are useful for each single research, but due to the different research areas, the meaning and the outcome is not the same. Rahim64 researched the correlation between the five LSPs and compliance, same as satisfaction and found out, that coercive power has no significant influence on compliance or satisfaction. In case of compliance, this finding is in line with previous literature about power bases65 66 on the one side. The findings about coercive power and satisfaction is not in line with earlier literature about power bases67 68. As a possibility for that difference, Rahim mentioned the 61 Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., & Knopoff, K. (1998). Faith in supervision and the self-enhancement bias: Two psychological reasons why managers don’t empower workers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, pp.313-321. 62 Scholl, W. (2012). Machtausübung oder Einflussnahme: Die zwei Gesichter der Machtnutzung. In B. Knoblach, T. Oltmanns, I. Hajnal & D. Fink (Hrsg.), Macht in Unternehmen – Der vergessene Faktor, Wiesbaden: Gabler. pp.203-221 63 Scholl, W. (2014), Führung und Macht: Warum Einflussnahme erfolgreicher ist, artoop, Institut an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin, p.4 64 Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of Leader Power to Compliance and Satisfaction: Evidence from a National Sample of Managers. Journal of Management, 15(4), pp.553-555 65 Dunne, E.J., Jr., Stahl, M.J., & Melhart, L.J. Jr. (1978) Influence sources of project and functional managers in matrix organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp.135-140 66 Thamhain, H.J., & Gemnill, G.R. (1974) Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp.216-224 67 Burke, R.J., & Wilcox, D.S. (1971). Bases of supervisory power and subordinate job satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3, pp.183-193 68 Busch, P.(1980), The sales Manager’s basesof social power and influence upon the sales force, Journal of Marketing, 44 (4), pp.91-101 28 missing distinguish of a performance-contingent base of coercive leader power. Also no correlation between reward power and compliance or satisfaction had been found, but the legitimate, expert and referent power are positive powers to influence significant compliance. Surprising here is that legitimate power has the highest rate of all the five powers, because the subordinates think that leaders have the right to influence on that way. The more legitimate power the supervisor uses, the more compliance the subordinate gives, is also in line with earlier findings of Dunne et al.69, Thamhain & Gemnill70 and Warren71. On the other side legitimate power has a negative significant correlation against satisfaction. When the supervisor increases this power, the satisfaction of the subordinate decreased. Nevertheless, in a later research together with Magner72, he stated same as Yukl & Falbe73 the five LSPs as independent and with no correlation to each other. Barbuto et al. 74 used the Hinkin and Schriesheim questionnaire75 of the LSPs to investigate the relation between leader power and resistance to forecast transactional and transformational LSSs. One general finding is the relation between leader power and resistance with the transformational and transactional LSSs. In detail the finding was that reward power is negative correlating to create a direct relationship binding between supervisor and subordinate. Further referent power has also a negative correlation to a transactional LSS, which is based on reward and punishment. Politis 76 researched the correlation between power, credibility and knowledge acquisition, also using the same Hinkin and Schriesheim questionnaire in an own modified version. Here coercive power has a negative, significant correlation to knowledge. The more a supervisor uses coercive power, the less a subordinate will share information. Expert power has a positive, significant correlation on negotiations, which is an indicator to use this power on leader side to share and create 69 Dunne, E.J., Jr., Stahl, M.J., & Melhart, L.J. Jr. (1978) Influence sources of project and functional managers in matrix organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp.135-140 70 Thamhain, H.J., & Gemnill, G.R. (1974) Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp.216-224 71 Warren, D.I. (1968) Power, visibility and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 33, pp.951-970 72 Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996) Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, pp.495-516. 73 Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp.416-423 74 Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Matkin, G. S. (2001). Leaders' Bases of Social Power and Anticipation of Targets' Resistence as Predictors of Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Psychological Reports, 89(3), pp.663-666 75 Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and Application of New Scales to Measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), pp.561-561 76 Politis, J. D. (2005). The Influence of Managerial Power and Credibility on Knowledge Acquisition Attributes. [Research Paper]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), p.21 29 knowledge inside groups. If leaders use their own referent power, the share of knowledge will be less supported. Jayasingam et al.77 investigated also the relation of the five power bases on knowledge acquisition in Malaysian companies and found that legitimate power has a negative correlation to knowledge acquisition and is not significant to knowledge distribution. Expert power has a positive, significant correlation to knowledge acquisition and distribution. Referent, reward and coercive power were not significant on knowledge acquisition or distribution. Scovetta78 researched the relation between the use of the five LSPs and knowledge use and found a positive and significant effect in the expert and reward power. Referent power had a negative significant influence on the use of knowledge and coercive and legitimate powers are not relevant. Ojo79 found correlations between the five LSPs by using the Rahim Power Inventory and follower perceived LSS inside a military organization. So the use of expert, referent and reward power have a positive correlation to a transformational LSS. For the transactional LSS, just a positive correlation to expert power was found and the less expert power is used, the more passive the leader is seen from the subordinate. Ojo et al.80 also found in his research with military members, that expert power is the highest leader power, followed by legitimation, reward and referent power. The weakest power is coercive. Lo et.al.81 used the Hinkin and Schriesheim questionnaire with the five LSPs and added the informational82 83 and connection84 85 power, to explain how power is gained or lost by the usage of influence tactics inside Malaysian companies. The result was, that supervisor power, same as the power of the subordinates, influences the use of influence tactics. According Ansari, especially supervisors 77 Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing Knowledge Workers: The Power of Top Management. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 110(1),p.134 78 Scovetta, V. (2013), The impact of Leadership Social Power on Knowledge Management Success, Pro Ques t LLV UMI Number 3563506, p.189 79 Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of followerperceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, pp.1,7 80 Ojo, A., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2016). The Correlation between Leadership Style and Leader Power.Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433, 711 Human-Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Interface Division. pp.5-6 81 Lo, M. C., Thurasamy, R., Wang, Y.C., (2015) Sustainable leadership: power of influence in MNCS in Malaysia, Applied Economics, Vol. 47, No. 30, pp.3198-3215 82 Raven, B. H. (1965) Social influence and power, in Current Studies in Social Psychology, Steiner, I. D. and Fishbein, M. (Eds), Wiley, New York, pp.339–444 83 Tjosvold, D., Coleman, P. T. and Sun, H. (2003) Effects of organizational values on leaders’ use of informational power to affect performance in China, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, pp.152–167 84 Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. and Natemeyer,W. E. (1979) Situational leadership, perception and the impact of power, Group and Organization Management, 4, pp.418–28. 85 Ansari, M. A. (1989) Effects of leader sex, subordinate sex, and subordinate performance on the use of influence strategies, Sex Roles, 20, pp.283–293. 30 use more often expert and reward power toward their subordinates and if subordinates have position power, same as legitimate and reward, supervisors act more soft and rational. The connection power is in eyes of the author nearly located at informational power, because informational power is defined as the personal ability to gain friendships or networks, to get information, that are valuable to use as a power above others. According Raven the only power that a subordinate can gain by its own and is independent from the supervisor.86 The so called connection power is defined as the existing connections to third, important people, that have same, similar or more power as the supervisor. Also these two powers are organizational based in the eyes of the author, the only difference is that these similar powers are different than legitimate power not official, they are unofficial existing in companies. The separation into soft and harsh powers is also often seen in the connection to LSSs. The classification of Erchul et al. 87 separates harsh bases into legitimate equity, legitimate reciprocity, legitimate position, impersonal reward, impersonal coercion and personal coercion power. Soft power bases are expert, referent, informational, legitimate dependence and personal reward power. Mittal and Elias88 used this division and found a correlation between soft powers and supervisors in long-term oriented cultures and harsh powers with supervisors in short-term oriented cultures. Koslowsky and Stashevsky89 used information and expertise power as soft bases and reward and punishment as harsh powers. They found out that supervisors prefer to use soft instead of harsh powers and that transactional leaders, compared to transformational leaders use harsh powers more frequently. This research shows a big variance of different kind of outcomes and good and bad, negative and positive or soft and harsh powers definitions, so that a use of this definition should be done with extreme caution, independent if the wording is in correlation to leadership or trust in any way. In the next step it is needed to understand the word trust, its worth for a profit-oriented organization and its impact to leadership. 86 Raven, B. H. (1992) A power interaction model of interpersonal influence: French &Raven thirty years later, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, pp.217–244. 87 Erchul, W. P., Raven, B. H., & Ray, A. G. (2001). School psychologists' perceptions of social power bases in teacher consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(1), pp.1-23 88 Mittal, R., & Elias, S. M. (2016). Social power and leadership in cross-cultural context. Journal of Management Development. p.60 89 Koslowsky, M., & Stashevsky, S. (2005). Organizational values and social power. International Journal of Manpower. p.27 31 1.3 Theoretical reflection of trust as a relevant factor for leadership inside profit-oriented organizations Trust is a general statement between two or more parties. It has existed for many years before management science was created and has been used in different kinds of daily situations and areas, in private and in business life. This should be a first indicator for the importance of trust in profit-oriented organizations, mostly based on different powers and a standard in the majority of leadership models. But before getting deeper into the definition of the term trust inside this document, other similar terms have to be separated and defined. Definition of important boundary terms While talking about the item trust, contiguous elements are researched as well, to get a clear statement and border for this thesis, not to be affected by potentially wrong interpretations. Depending of the use of language and nationality of the author, the terms confidence, familiarity, cooperation and predictability often cannot be partly isolated from the trust term itself.90 91 This can also be the reason that the meaning of trust has so many definitions and more definitions than other terms 92. The most interesting variance of definition is the difference between trust and confidence. In the time of this research, the author had many personal discussions with people internationally about the item trust. The result is, that no interview partner asked the question, if confidence or trust is meant. In all languages trust and confidence have different meanings but also often used for the same. But also, the borders to familiarity, loyalty and predictability are sometimes blurring, so that the exact definition of these boundary items (see appendix) should be also taken into account. 1.3.1 General Trust models with influence in economic management systems If trust is missing, deals will not become reality, because without having trust on the one side, a product will not be bought by the other side (e.g. the purchase of a second-hand-car, a house, food…). Also, people will not follow the leader without trust, neither in social nor in business 90 Luhmann, N., (1998) Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives In D.G. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.94-107 91 Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of managementreview, 20(3), pp.712-714 92 McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L. (2006), Reflections on an initial trust buildingmodel. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer (Eds.). (2006), Trust research, Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 29-51 32 life. Trust is the anticipating of the occurrence of a specific future.93 94 More than 100 years ago George Simmel (1858-1918) concerned beside Durkheim and Weber as one of the first philosopher, who researched the item trust most intensive95. In one of his essay he said, that trust describes the area between knowledge and non-knowledge. The person who knows everything about something doesn’t need trust and the person who doesn’t know anything about something, can’t reasonably have trust.96 (see Figure 1) Risk and interdependence, can be later also found at Nauendorf97, who said, that theses are the two main elements of trust. Figure 1: Scheme of trust Source: Simmel (1992) The situation, that a supervisor does not know everything and has to trust the subordinate occurs as often in business life, as the other way around, when the subordinate does not know everything and has to trust the leader. 93 Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Hrsg.), Vertrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts, Campus. p.149 94 Schaal, G. S. (2004). Vertrauen, Verfassung und Demokratie: Über den Einfluss konstitutioneller Prozesse und Prozeduren auf die Genese von Vertrauensbeziehungen in modernen Demokratien (1. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss., p.17 95 Endress, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Einsichten, Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl. p.13 96 Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (1. Aufl.) Gesamtausgabe / Georg Simmel: Bd. 11. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp. pp.393-394 97 Nauendorf, W., (2004) Total Quality Management als Vertrauensmanagement. München und Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. p.197 trust knowledge partly knowledge ignorance hope, imagine necessity of trust own competence Someone, who knows everything, don‘t need to have trust Someone, who don‘t know anything, can hope but will not have trust 33 The deeper research of trust has increased in the beginning of this millennium. Trust became more and more an important factor in profit-oriented organizations, because it was recognized as a factor for success in business life.98 So also the interest of this research item increased. In the meaning of Luhmann, the human is only capable of acting, when it is possible for him/her to develop algorithm to reduce the numbers of information. Trust reduces such information and gives the possibility to work with more information. So external information will be reduced by trust, the person can react faster, because (s)he can work faster than a person, who is working with all the information. On the other side with this reduction the risk occurs and increases, because this type of information cannot be verified. So to have trust means also to risk something. To give trust is always an advance payment of risk. Luhmann just sees in addition that trust between persons (interpersonal trust) is based on personal experiences and interaction99, as it is a daily situation in private or in business life. This is a very similar meaning than Coleman, who said, that „treat trust as a phenomenon that parallels risk-taking behavior“. Coleman has the same understanding of the Simon view of the Rational Choice Theory concerning the item trust. This theory describes, that everybody is making decisions without knowing the complete information, because the actor just has own specific standpoint or situation. So every decision has a risk, because the actor isn’t able to know everything. The actor must have trust in his own decision, based on the experiences he made. The result of this theory is that it’s impossible, to act just on hard facts. 100 101 Based on this needed behavior, Shapiro, Sheppard und Charskin102 separated three different kind of trust situations, which occur between supervisor and subordinate, also the three steps of creating trust in a profit-oriented organization. 1.) Calculated trust, which is same than the cost-value analyze. The value to give trust is higher than the value to mistrust. 2.) Transformative trust, two persons indicate each other, that they are working on the same item and have same interest (win-win situation). 98 Schweer, M. K. W. (1997). Interpersonales Vertrauen im Spiegel der aktuellen Forschung. In M. K. W. Schweer (Hrsg.), Interpersonales Vertrauen. Opladen [u.a.]: Westdt. Verl. pp.9-12 99 Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen. UTB für Wissenschaft, Soziologie fachübergreifend: Bd. 2185. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius. pp.1-2 100 Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, pp. 91-115, 175-196 101 Schaal, G. S. (2004). Vertrauen, Verfassung und Demokratie: Über den Einfluss konstitutioneller Prozesse und Prozeduren auf die Genese von Vertrauensbeziehungen in modernen Demokratien (1. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss., p.43 102 Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H. & Charskin, L. (1992). Business on handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8, pp.365- 377. 34 3.) Knowledge based trust, occurs to often meetings and an acceptance is the result out of experiences (knowledge). Regarding the gender question and based on empirical evidence of Jones and Kavanaugh103 it is expected, that female employees are more trustful than male employees. On the other hand Omodei and Mc Lennan104 found out that male persons trust more a male person than a female person. This essence of general trust models with direct influence to management systems is the basis for the further research about trust. Models of trust for supervisor and subordinate It seems to be logic, that the status between supervisor and subordinate in a profit-oriented organization is very important to research, because it is directly linked to the success of a company. So the level of trust between these persons becomes very interesting as a research item.105 106 Nevertheless this trust level between supervisor and subordinate seems to have a direct link to the effective of employees, which is also connected to the costs of a company. According Jäckel107 models of trust attend to the definition of trust, how trust arises, the development of trust and its consequences. For those she values highly the older general trust models of Mayer et al. (1995)108, Lewicki & Bunker (1996)109 and Rousseau (1998)110, but for the specific trust between a supervisor and a subordinate profit-oriented organization, she just saw a few over all and mentioned here the models of Dirks & Ferrin (2002)111, Willemyns et 103 Jones, G.E. & Kavanagh, M.J. J (1996) Bus Ethics cited in Spector, M.D., & Jones, G.E. (2004). Trust in the workplace: Factors affecting trust formation between team members. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp.311- 321 104 Omodei, M., & McLennan, J. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonal mistrusttrust. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, pp.279-294 105 Dirks, K.T. (2006) Three fundamental questions regarding trust in leaders. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaher (EDS.), Trust research, Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp.15-28 106 Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, d.L. (2002), Trust in Leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Joural of applied psychology, 87 (4), p.611 107 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Springer, pp.15-32 108 Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of managementreview, 20(3), pp.709-734 109 Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B. (1996), Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships, in R.M. Kramer, & T.R. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in Organizations. Frontiers of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp.114-139 110 Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C., (1998) Not so different at all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), pp.393-404 111 Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, d.L. (2002), Trust in Leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Joural of applied psychology, 87 (4), p.611 35 al. (2003)112, Burke et. al. (2007)113 Gordon and Gilley (2012)114, Klaussner (2012)115 and Hernandez et al. (2014)116. From authors point of view this list should be completed with the model of Bartelt (2011)117. Based on these and other results Jäckel created an overview, which visualizes the different aspects of the general trust research and which is adapted by the author in chapter 2. The previous literature research round about the item trust shows, that a supervisor and/or subordinate is willing to give trust in a short term period but that this is something absolutely different than trust based on a long lasting relationship. Both kind of trust can have the same result for the moment, e.g. to raise the self-responsibility, to work faster and to reduce the costs. But for leading or binding employees only the general trust model is the important one, because here a longer time period will be considered, which is same than the use of the different powers of leadership, which will also not change every week and on which the status is based between supervisor and subordinate. 1.3.2 Trust between a supervisor and subordinate Malik said in 2001 about trust, “strange to say (…) there is nearly nothing written or researched about trust in organizations or anyhow only a low content, a multiple less than about all the other aspects of business culture, which have in general a much more less significance.”118 As an exception, he mentioned Zand119, all others are too confused and not usable for his practice, he mentioned. Also in the revised version, five years later, he has the same meaning and said, that it is important, but he self just writes 17 of nearly 400 pages, about trust and adjoining 112 Wilemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003) Trust me I’m your boss: Trust and power in supervisor- supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), pp.117-127 113 Burke, C. S., Sims, D.E., Lazzara, E.H., & Salas, E. (2007), Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration [editor] Department of Psychologie. The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (6) pp.606-632 114 Gordon, G., & Gilley, J.W. (2012) A Trust-leadership model. Performance improvement, 51(7), pp.28-35 115 Klaussner, S. (2012). Trust and leadership: Toward an interactive perspective, Journal of change Management, 12(4), pp.417-439 116 Hernandez, M., Long, C.P., &Sitkin, S.B. (2014) Cultivating Folloer Trust: Are all Leader Behaviours Equally Influential?, Organizaion studies, 35(12), pp.1867-1892 117 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, pp.117-216 118 Malik, F. (2001) Grundsätze wirksamer Führung, Führen, Leisten, Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit (13. Aufl., Taschenbucherstausg),Heyne-Bücher, 22, Heyne Business: Bd. 1078. München: Heyne. p.136 119 Zand, D. E. (1983). Vertrauen und der Entscheidungsprozeß. In D. E. Zand & U. Reineke (Hrsg.), Wissen, Führen, Überzeugen (Heidelberger Fachbücher für Praxis und Studium). Heidelberg: Sauer. , pp.46–67 36 items between supervisor and subordinate. Malik is the meaning that mistrust prohibits motivation and that trust generates a robust leadership position against management failures of the daily work. Also he sees the necessity that independent of supervisor or subordinate, people have to be predictable to build trust.120 Malik, who is business man, same as scientist comes at the end to the conclusion, that a supervisor should trust much as possible, but on the same side (s)he has to make sure, that the supervisor knows when its trust will be misused by different variants. This is something more in the direction what Lenin should have said, but what is never confirmed121: Trust is good, but control is better. Achleitner122 says to control and trust in a profit-oriented organization, that control doesn’t supplement trust, control replaces and chokes trustful behavior partly. Neubauer123 argues with the positive impact of trust supervisor and subordinate. Beside other aspects, trust supports the behavior to forward information without filtering as well as to accept suggestions of others. This is in line with the study of Seifert124, who defines trust as social glue and that in companies with trust between supervisor and subordinates the climatic would be humorous. They would like to work for their company. Büssing and Moranz came to the result that a decoupling of trust out of staff is not recommendable.125 Clases, Bachmann and Wehner see that a pro-active behavior in common project activities is the central source of getting trust in virtual organizations.126 Nevertheless, also others came in the same time period to a similar conclusion, that the general trust models do not respect the special behavior between supervisor and subordinate in business life. Burke et al.127 sees no comprehensive model, which systematically examines the factors and which support the trust between supervisor and subordinate. 120 Malik, F.(2006) Führen, Leisten, Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt / New York, pp.141ff 121 Neumaier, M. (2010). Vertrauen im Entscheidungsprozess: der Einfluss unbewusster Prozesse im Konsumentenverhalten, Habilitationisschrift Universität Wuppertal, 2008, Springer-Verlag, p.V 122 Achleitner, A. K. (2013). Kontrolle ist gut, Vertrauen besser. Handelsblatt, 236, 58-89. 123 Neubauer, W. (1999) Zur Entwicklung interpersonalen, interorganisationalen und interkulturellen Vertrauens durch Führung – Empirische Ergebnisse der sozialpsychologischen Verhaltensforschung., in Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. (Eds.): Führung neu gesehen, Berlin pp.89-116 124 Seifert, M. (2001) Vertrauensmanagement in Unternehmen, München, Mering, p.303 125 Büssing, A. & Moranz, C. (2003). Die Rolle von Face-to-Face Kommunikation beim Aufbau von Vertrauen in telekooperativen Geschäftsbeziehungen. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 57, pp.27-34 126 Clases, C., Bachmann, R. & Wehner, T. (2003). Studying Trust in Virtual Organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 33, pp.7-21 127 Burke, C. S., et al. (2007), Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration [editor] Department of Psychologie. The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (6), p.607 37 Laufer128 argues, that employees reduce their trust over time. In earlier days, they trusted a big company and they were proud to work there. There was a long-term status, that had a duration over generations. People felt safe to work in established companies. In Germany, this was pushed by economic miracle after the Second World War and the need of employees. In addition the job protection by government supported this way of thinking and so it became nearly unthinkable, that somebody looses its job and beside the salary increased permanently. Today employees know that these things can change and they can be every time part of a discharge, also through no fault of themselves. Other losses of trust occurred through to permanent changes and missing consequences. At last Laufer also mentioned the loss of trust due to management failures which occurs often not out of the action itself, it is more the kind how changes will be done, e.g. employees will be not informed in front of the change or the employee feels only cheated by the company or management. Independent if the change or the behavior of the supervisor is in line with the view of the subordinate, trust can occur, if the supervisor is authentic and consequent. Supervisors129 stated, that they left a company because they have had a bad trust status and that it takes a long time, until they trust another person. Their given trust had been misused or they think, that trust will be misused. But the most interesting statement was, that nearly all of them have the meaning, that their own uncertainty is a factor, that the subordinates do not trust them. Unfortunately two of three supervisors had the meaning, that supervisors do not trust, because they would lose its LSP. This is not an aspect, which promotes trust. It is more the opposite side. Zahra et. al.130 found out that especially senior supervisors rely on intuition and experiences, than on rational processes. Also an indicator, that trust is more important for those, than for new persons, because also Czernek & Czakon131 found out that new and not known persons or organizations were often rejected from these persons. 128 Laufer, H. (2006) Vertrauen und Führung - Vertrauen als Schlüssel zum Führungserfolg. Gabal Verlag, Offenbach, pp.16-19, 40 129 Akademie Studie (2006) Auf gut Glück oder alles unter Konrolle: Wie Vertrauen deutsch Manager? Befragung von 350 Führungskräften der Wirtschaft, p.9-24 https://akademie- web.s3.amazonaws.com/akademie/studien/AkademieStudie-2006.pdf (15.01.19) 130 Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2006). How much do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in new business creation in established companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), pp.541- 559) 131 Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, pp.380-394 38 In a research of Votteler & Zatrochova132 they stated, that employees waste parts of their working time on activities, that came from distrust. Further they show a duplication of a potential longer employment in the companies of the employee, if the consulted person would really trust their employer. Duplicated based on the time they already employed in company, same as duplicated based on the time they think they will stay in company – the results show a similar behavior. This is the more interesting, with the information that often German employeesy often plan to change its job in a short time period133. Trust, which is based on a positive expectation of the future, is very interesting from the Wimmer’s134 economic point of view, who researched the trust behavior into the supervisor. She advised, to reduce trust to a minimum, if there is no positive perspective in future, same as incentives, safe job etc. or only an one sided trust situation. The behavior of trust over time in view of economic application Bartelt135 shows direct correlation of trust to the success of the company, based on the three factors employee valuation, competence and ethic of the person that should get the trust. On the other hand he shows, that the trust in a supervisor decreases, independent of the age, but in direct correlation to the staff membership in a company. He also shows that the trust of an subordinate to the supervisor increases with management level. E.g. a worker hasn’t so much trust in his direct supervisor, than a department leader to its supervisor or managing director. The trust level itself is decreasing after a while and this is comparable with the general model of socialization of Moreland and Levine136. This model shows a standard life-cycle curve with commitment on the y-axis and the status from “new-member “ to “ex-member” on the time- or x-axis. Regarding the relation of trust and the age of people, different researches with the full range of results had been done in the past. Alesina & la Ferrara137 found out that trust increases the older the person is. Fehr et al. researched by questionnaire and experiment, that “people above the 132 Votteler, A., Zatrochova, M. (2018) Negative outcoms of trust. Monetary quantification of the costs of distrust in companies. - in publication, pp.7-8 133 Avantgarde Experts (2018) Quo Vadis “Arbeiten in Deutschland”? Eine Studie von AVANTGARDE Experts zur Arbeitszufriedenheit und Digitalisierung in Deutschland, p.6 https://www.avantgarde- experts.de/sites/default/files/ae-studie-arbeitszufriedenheit-2018_0.pdf (13.01.2019) 134 Wimmer, H., Initiales Vertrauen in die Führungskraft: Eine quantitative Analyse der Werthaltungen in Deutschland, Indien, USA. Wiesbaden : Springer Gabler, 2016. pp.46ff 135 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, pp.211-224 136 Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (2002). Socialization and trust in workgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, pp.185-201 137 Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002) Who trusts others? Journal of public economics, 85(2), pp.207-234 39 age of 65, highly skilled workers and people living in bigger households exhibit a less trusting behavior”138 and found the peak of trust at people in the middle age. Holm & Nystedt139 found out that the younger persons, of around 20 years, trust more than the older group with more than 50 years. Bellemare & Kröger140 researched by experiment, took external data from the World Value Survey and found an inverted U-pattern, so that persons in the middle age trust the most and that younger and older persons trust less. Sutter & Kocher made an experiment and found out, that “trust increases almost linearly from early childhood to early adulthood, but stays rather constant within different adult age groups.”141 They also confirmed the effect of Fehr et al. that in the years of 30-40 seems to be the peak of trust. Bartelt142 made a secondary research and came to the result, that young people have higher trust into their supervisor than the old subordinates, but that the lowest level of trust is inside the group of around 30-40 year old persons and is then light increasing the older the subordinates are. Li & Fung made a secondary research, out of the World Value Survey and found a universal pattern that an older age was positively related to a higher level of trust across countries around the world.”143 Spector and Jones144 showed that new internal employees would have and get more trust than external employees, because the new internals are more similar to a company than new ones. Castle et al. 145 investigated trust by neuronal measurements with pictures that the participants had been shown. They found out, that older people perceived more faces with cues of untrustworthiness to be trustful than younger people. Jäckel146 found no relation between the age of the supervisor and its willingness to trust same as she didn’t found a direct relation of the age of the subordinate and its willingness to trust. 138 Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., Von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2003) A nationwide laboratory examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioural experiments into representative surveys. CESifo, Working paper No. 866, p.2 139 Holm, H. & Nystedt, P. (2005) Intra generational trust – a semi experimental study of trust among different generations. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 58(3), pp.403-419 140 Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51(1), pp.183-202 141 Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), pp.364, 364-382 142 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.165 143 Li, T., & Fung, H. H. (2012). Age differences in trust: An investigation across 38 countries. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), p.353 144 Spector, M.D., & Jones, G.E. (2004). Trust in the workplace: Factors affecting trust formation between team members. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp.311-321 145 Castle, E., Eisenberger, N. I., Seeman, T. E., Moons, W. G., Boggero, I. A., Grinblatt, M. S., & Taylor, S. E. (2012). Neural and behavioral bases of age differences in perceptions of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(51), pp.20848-20852 146 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Springer, p.288 40 Van der Kloet147 argued, that trust is time dependent and she wanted to show this in six soldier teams, who are sent out over a period of three month. She expected to get a U-pattern of trust over time. The result was totally different, there was no significant different over time. So a flat line of trust instead of a U-pattern was the result. People who had a high trust level at the beginning, had a high trust level over the whole time, same result for people, who started with a low trust level. So trust can be time dependent, but in the 3-month research of van der Kloet no influence was seen. So it can be said, that there seems to be not an overall view about the relation of age and trust of people. The reciprocity effect of trust in research fields of profit-oriented organization Differences in the number of the researched people create different views on the item trust, too. In very big groups, same as social networks, trust is defined in the meaning of correctness and reliability of the counterperson or group148. Also the size of the company has in the research of Bartelt149 a high importance. So he came to the result, that the level of trust increases the smaller the company is. The reason for this is the communication and needed contact between the two parties. Hurley150 stated in addition to this, that the non-verbal communication is seen as more trustful than the verbal communication, which is also something general in the daily confrontation between supervisor and subordinate. The problem, which occurs out of the company size was also detected by Sprenger, who is the meaning, that the bigger the company is, the more the trust is needed, but the more difficult it is to fulfill this.151 Drucker sees trust inside organizations with the following importance: “You cannot prevent a major catastrophe, but you can build an organization that is battle-ready, that has high morale, that knows to behave, that trusts itself and where people trust one another. In military training, the first rule is to instill soldiers the trust in their officers, because without 147 van der Kloet, I. (2005). A Soldierly Perspective on Trust: A Study into Trust within the Royal Netherlands Army. Tilburg University: The Netherlands. pp.54ff 148 Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Yin, G., Gao, Y., Tong, X., & Han, Q. (2016). A game theory-based trust measurement model for social networks. Computational social networks, 3(1), p.2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40649-016-0027-x (09.05.2020) 149 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.224 150 Hurley, R. F. (2006). So schaffen Sie mehr Vertrauen: Vertrauen zwischen Managern und Mitarbeitern ist kein Gottesgeschenk. Harvard-Business-Manager, November 2006, p.68 151 Sprenger, R. K. (2002). Vertrauen führt: Worauf es im Unternehmen wirklich ankommt. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. p.29 41 trust they won’t fight.”152 Based on this Drucker came to the result, that modern companies don’t have to lead their employees with pressure. They have to lead with trust.153 This is similar to Meifert, who is working in its research on the properties of trust based in organizations. So called “High Trust Organization” which has a participative leadership and a high level of personal responsibility and self-organization. One factor for a trust based organization is the handling of failures. Sailer shows in the correlation with a High Trust Organization positive results and success of the companies. The personal relationships are long connected and they have a common positive sight of the future.154 Mc Evily et al.155 speak about trust as an organizing principle, which helps to increase the efficiency in an organization. Kastner156 is the meaning that in the ideal case the employee who made a failure must be treated same as a person who made an improvement. Only by this a failure will be visible and other person can learn from this. Musahl talks in dependence of Wehner157, that making failures visible and trust are two factors that become stronger the more and powerful one of this factor is. So there is a self-energizing effect in both directions, positive and negative. Kouzes & Posner found out the following about trust in the office: “Trust is the most significant predictor of individuals’ satisfaction within their organizations”158 To trust an institution in an educational field, students have to make first positive experiences with the institution, but also the personal experiences of and with their fellow students brings the students to trust the educational institution in its reliability and integrity.159 Zand makes a clear cut between trust and sympathy and he is the meaning, that trust is conscious acting of the own vulnerability. “The competent supervisor changes his own vulnerability. 152 Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. New York: HarperCollins. p.9 153 Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review Press, 2008. p.26 154 Sailer, M. (2006). Führung - Instrument der Vertrauensbildung. In K. Götz (Hrsg.), Vertrauen in Organisationen (Managementkonzepte, München [u.a.]: Hampp, p.263 155 Mc Evily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, pp.91-103 156 Kastner, M. (2004). Ethische Kommunikation. In A. Elisabeth Auhagen (Hrsg.), Positive Psychologie. Weinheim [u.a.]: Beltz, PVU, pp.118–119 157 Endres, E. & Wehner, T. (2006). Störungen zwischenbetrieblicher Kooperation- Eine Fallstudie zum Grenzstellen Management in der Automobilindustrie: Arbeitsteilung; interorganisationalen Beziehungen; Just- in-time-Lieferung; Koordination; Produktqualität; Störungen. In J. Sydow (Hrsg.), Management von Netzwerkorganisationen. Beiträge aus der "Managementforschung". 4., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (Springer-11775 /Dig. Serial],. Wiesbaden: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. pp.309–353 158 Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (Compl. updated 3rd ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. p.247 159 Henning - Thurau, T., Langer, F.M., & Hansen, U. (2001, May). Modeling and managing student loyalty : An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), pp.331-344. 42 (S)he adapts it to different tasks, situations and to the counterpart. Sympathy can be developed on the same way than trust, but this is not a must.”160 (e.g.: A father loves his son (sympathy), but he will not give him his car (no trust). – on the other hand, a passenger of a plane didn’t know the pilot himself (no sympathy) but (s)he trusts the pilot.) Zand says, that trust is the basis for a fast interaction and the trust-cycle of Zand shows the negative effect in an example of two mistrusting managers.161 (see Figure 2) Bordum162 shows in his conclusion that there are different asymmetries between trust and mistrust. He argues with the lot of time that it takes to create trust and the moment, to lose it or to build up mistrust. On the opposite side it can’t be concluded, that the absence of mistrust means that there is trust. 160 Zand, D. E. (1983). Vertrauen und der Entscheidungsprozeß. In D. E. Zand & U. Reineke (Hrsg.), Wissen, Führen, Überzeugen (Heidelberger Fachbücher für Praxis und Studium, Heidelberg: Sauer. pp.46–67 161 Zand, D. E. (1981). Trust and the Decision Process. In D. E. Zand (Hrsg.), INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND POWER. Effective Management in the Knowledge Society, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, pp.i–xii, 37-55 162 Bordum, A. (2004) Trust as a Critical Concept, Center Market Economics, Copenhabgen Business School, Frederiksberg, ISBN 87-990224-0-0, p.26 43 Figure 2: Trust and the decision process Source: Zand (1983) Dunn and Schweitzer163 found out that emotions can affect the trust in a person. The person who wants to be trustful should have the three emotions “happiness”, “sadness” and “anger” and it was a clear result, that participants of the experiment have less trust to the person, if the person is angry, than if the person is happy. A person with sad emotion had no impact on trust ratings of the participants, because the participants see sadness as situation-focused and not person-focused. According Thomas164, gives an employee its employer its working force, that the employer can be successful. On the other hand the employee is expecting, that (s)he will get a correct share of the success. E.g., that (s)he gets his full loan in time, that the employer pays all add on labor costs and that the place to work is on a good and human friendly condition. So the worker gives the boss an advancement of trust. But if the expected result does not become 163 Dunn, J. R. & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), pp.736-748 164 Thomas, A. (2005) Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. p.31, 27.04.2016 http://www.psychologie.uni-regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF Manager mistrusts Manager withholds information resists influence imposes controls Other manager expects mistrust preceives mistrust Other manager withholds information resists influence imposes controls Other Manager preceives mistrust confirms expectation 44 true and the reason why isn’t understandable for the worker, (s)he feels exploited and the trust is destroyed. This has the following results: reduction of motivation, mistrust against all activities of the employer, prevention / no attention, work just on regulation basis / inner cancellation, refusal to work (sick certificate, not coming to work), escape into private life, negative propaganda against the employer in- and outside, cancellation, selective attempts to damage the employer and so on. The importance of the reciprocity effect to create and hold trust in a profit-oriented organization seems to be same important than trust inside the profit-oriented organization itself. A loss of them has definitely a negative impact on the organization. The negative side of trust in economic view There can be also another side of trust, which does not make a management process more effective. Even it is generally assumed, that an intensive collaboration of two companies lead to a good trust behavior and this leads to a better effective and innovation situation.165 Trust is very important, as long it is not possible to monitor and rule between two companies.166 The situation between two companies is here similar to the situation between supervisor and subordinate. Normally trust reduces competitive conflicts inside coopetitive organizations167 (coopetitive = collaboration between competitors168), but Sende came to the result, that even it seems to be logical, the good effects of trust does not exist every time. She analyzed for this the negative impact of trust in a coopetitive organizations and shows that trust can lead to an increased risk of opportunism or can lead to a lower innovation rate.169 Trust negatively affects conflicts, which is not wanted on the one side, but team members are hampered to raise a conflict, because they don’t want to destroy the team spirit. This is in line with Zahra et al., who stated, that often established partners just develop the current situation in small steps. 170 Langfred argues that a high level of trust reduces the amount of monitoring and the other firm, 165 Pulles, N. J., Veldman, J., Schiele, H., & Sierksma, H. (2014). Pressure or pamper? The effects of power and trust dimensions on supplier resource allocation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), pp.16-36 166 Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust: the soft side of strategic alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), pp.223-240 167 Lin, C.-P., Wang, Y.-J., Tsai, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-F. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), pp.1598-1606 168 Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ”Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), pp.411-426 169 Sende, M., (2016) Potential negative impacts of trust on coopetitive relationships, Enschede, The Netherlands, University of Twente, The Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social sciences. pp.1, 6 170 Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2006). How much do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in new business creation in established companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), pp.541- 559 45 which doesn’t feel controlled, reduces its performance. But on the other hand, if firms are monitored in a situation of trust, this results in anger or fear.171 Friedberg and Neuville172 also came to the result, that in cases where control and monitoring is replaced by trust, opportunistic behavior occurs inside the other firm, which can’t be detected anymore. Ring and van de Ven173 found out that a high level of trust leads to situations, that contracts and other very relevant things between or in profit-oriented organizations had not been made. This is on the one side very effective, because it safes time and money not to do these things. This is ok as long everything is fine, but in times of potential later disagreement, no basis for discussion is available. This is a risk, which has to take into account and which is also in the definition of trust an important part. Especially this is a risk of small firms, because they prefer to work and collaborate with a partner, who is trustful.174 Molina-Morales and Martínez-Fernández175 came to the conclusion, that the function of trust, is a inverted U-pattern and that positive things, same as innovation and effective increase, can shortly go to the opposite side. One of the biggest problem that has been detected is, that firms or persons are often competitors or just have other targets. This standard situation leads to the effect, that the before mentioned, inverted U-pattern is higher than in a normal collaboration. Knowledge is there, especially the critical information, that leads to a competitive advantage and pushes the results of trust, but it will be decrease more faster, if one party comes to the result that the other firm or person takes its own advantage, outside the coopetition. This is more critical, because in a normal collaboration, the other partner will not use the information against the partner176. This is a conflict, which normally should not exist inside a company, better to say between a supervisor and a subordinate. But also here it is not unusual, that supervisor and subordinate have other interests. It can be the limited time the subordinate has to do its job or other interests or meaning about the topic. There can be things from the outside, 171 Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), pp.385-399 172 Friedberg, E., & Neuville, J.-P. (1999). Inside partnership: Trust, opportunism and cooperation in the European automobile industry Interfirm networks: organization and industrial competitiveness, Routledge, pp. 67-88 173 Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), pp.483-498 174 Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp.20-38 175 Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2009). Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), pp.1013-1023 176 Sende, M., (2016) Potential negative impacts of trust on coopetitive relationships, Enschede, The Netherlands, University of Twente, The Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social sciences, p.7 46 same as interest from the family at home or just the understanding how things work or experiences from the past. Nevertheless so many things can be different between these two persons, that the situation is same than two firms who have different targets and which are conflicting. Trust as an applicable definition in correlation to leadership Coming from the idea of leadership, independent of LSS or LSP, the meaning of trust inside this thesis has to be defined, to clarify what kind of impact the leadership has on the trust level. In first the author shares the meaning of Mc Evily177 et al. who gives its own view in the problem of the definition of trust: “Rather than debating which of these definitions is more correct, we believe that the field would be better served by researchers acknowledging that trust is a multifaceted concept, clearly identifying which definition is most relevant for their particular research question, and applying that definition consistently” According Deutsch178 increases trust the own vulnerability, it will be chosen in a situation, where the damage, which can possibly occur, is higher than the benefit that could happen and trust happens against persons who are not under their own control. So these factors are especially for business life the most critical ones, because very often a supervisor is frightened to loose his job to one of its employees. But especially here it is required to open her-/himself and to open its own vulnerability. This shows, that general trust is based on a status, which is going deeper than in normal business. This is supported also by the sentence, that trust happens against persons who are not under personal control. Based on this, it is needed that the starting point of trust is coming from the supervisor, because only from this position it seems to be independent and without hidden agenda, independent also from the cost-value analyze, which can come from the higher position, too. Based on this and independent from supervisor or subordinate, if a person invests this kind of vulnerability (s)he tries not to loose it and so also we are talking about a long term period in which trust is not suddenly existing, it must be build up, increased, stabilized and secured.179 177 Mc Evily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, p.101 178 Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes. In M. R. Jones (Hrsg.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1962 (Current theory and research in motivation) Lincoln Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska Press, pp.275–319. 179 Thomas, A. (2005) Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. p.5, 27.04.2016 http://www.psychologie.uni-regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF 47 In addition Luhmann came to the result, that trust reduces the complexity of human acting, expands in the same time the possibility of experience and acting and gives safety, which are all desired results of a good leadership to increase the speed of making decisions and reducing costs. Also, one very interesting item which is recently included in one of the newest definitions has been created by Jäckel.180 She extended the overview of definitions from Dietz and Den Hartog181, listed 15 definitions of trust in the years between 1962 and 2003 and arrived at her own definition: “Trust is a social mechanism of complexity reduction that manifests itself in the willingness to make oneself vulnerable based on positive expectations of behavior and the intention of a social counterpart.” It covers the general points and because of this the author has adapted it just in a minor way to use it as definition in this research. The Author’s definition of trust in correlation to leadership a) Trust is a social mechanism to reduce complexity and can positively influence the business leadership effectiveness. b) Trust is based on a positive expectation of the behavior and intention of the person or organization, which should get the trust and c) Trust can hurt the person who trusts, if the positive expectation of b) does not become reality. d) Trust is future oriented. 1.3.3 The leadership power and trust correlation inside profit-oriented organizations The first fully accordance of a research about power and trust had been found in Luhmanns Trust and Power182 from 1979, but this research is a combination and translation of two separated books: Vertrauen183 from 1968 and Macht184 from 1975. That’s also the reason, that these terms are defined more separate than in a relation. Möllering interprets the connection of these two books by “Regarding trust and power, we may actually have to complete Luhmann’s work for him, because he left only hints at best, on how they are related.”185 180 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.24-30 181 Dietz, G., Hartog, D.N.D. (2006) Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), p.559 182 Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power, John Wiley and Sons Limited 183 Luhmann, N. (1968). Vertrauen, Stuttgart: Enke. 184 Luhmann, N. (1975). Macht, Stuttgart: Enke. 185 Guido Möllering Editor-in-Chief (2019) Connecting trust and power, Journal of Trust Research, 9:1, p.3, DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 (02.04.2021) 48 Bachmann researched trust and power in business systems and sees on one side trust as a factor to create easier a cooperation and to reduce uncertainty but on the other side he describes power as a similar factor, that also reduces in the most cases complexity and uncertainty, to control a profit-oriented organization. With trust, same as power the other person can be influenced to do what another person wants.186 Just the view of expectation is another one. In the way of trust it is the version of a good end. In the way of power the end, in eyes of the subordinate can be all, good neutral or bad. So trust seems to be every time the better option for the subordinate. If the supervisor is strong and or has experiences in this, what the subordinate shall do, it can also be better, just to do what the supervisor wants. As one of the latest studies Håvold & Håvold187 researched power, trust and motivation in two hospitals. Unfortunately, trust was only defined as one category, without subscales but also they found out, that 41.8% of the variation of trust in supervisors, is explained by power. Jäckel188 researched different influences of trust, beside she researched with four questions for the subordinate and three questions for the supervisor the influence of power on trust. She orientates the questions on the 1998 scale of Raven et al.189, but she modified them in that way, that the leading power is defined by predominance of the supervisor, same as pressure and stress from the supervisor to the subordinate. She argues this, with her former qualitative study, that this kind of power is especially reversed to build or to prevent trust. But also the results of her quantitative research show a negative significant relation between these kind of powers (negative, same as coercive, legitimation) and trust, so that she assumes, that leaders uses a power or trust based leadership to their subordinates. On the other hand, based on answers out of her qualitative research, she came to the conclusion, that a benevolent use of LSPs is not a competitor and can be converse. This means, it can support trust in the leadership. An important outcome of this limited research of power and trust, is that the more the subordinate feels the negative power, the less trust the subordinate has in its supervisor. Reversed means this, that a supervisor, who uses this kind of power, same as pressure and stress, is not interested in the welfare of the subordinate, so that one of the three dimensions of trust (competence, welfare and integrity) is disturbed and a more deeper trust-based situation is prohibit. As mentioned 186 Bachmann, R. (2001). The role of trust and power in the institutional regulation of territorial business systems. University of Groningen. p.11 187 Håvold, J. I., & Håvold, O. K. (2019). Power, trust and motivation in hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 32(2), p.195. 188 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.209, 263, 272-274 189 Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(4), pp.330-332 49 before this is based on 3-4 questions and subjective answers out of a specialist interview. The relation is based on a small range of LSPs and will be deeper analyzed in the author’s research. Same as trust, power is important in case of leadership, but power can be also shared from the leader to influence performance190. Yukl191 is also underlining this point inside his Flexible Leadership Theory and the research of Pearce et al.. Sandner192 comes to the result, that power can be used without creating conflicts and sometimes power is used to interrupt upcoming conflicts193. Neubauer and Rosemann194 see trust inside organisations as an interpersonal phenomenon with an asymmetric function of power between supervisor and subordinate. Bhatti et al.195 found out that leader trust in combination with knowledge sharing supports project success. Especially in times of an increased work in homeoffice, trust became more important as a main factor for a distance leadership. 196 Enste197 sees trust and power as two separate ways to change the behavior of people in goverments and profit-oriented organizations. Hardy et al.198 researched trust and power in interorganizational relations and came to the result that making a differentiation of trust just into predictability and the role of goodwill is not enough, because this determination ignores the conflict of interests, same as the asymmetrical power. This asymmetric can be seen in the research of Jäckel199 too. It has to be said, that here only the powers are meant, which negatively influences trust with stress, which is in first way coercive power. The idea behind this model is, that the more trust is available, the less (negative) power is needed to get that action the supervisor wants to have.200 This model cannot be used for every 190 Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp.423−451 191 Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The leadership quarterly, 19(6), p.712 192 Sandner, K. (1990). Prozesse der Macht: Zur Entstehung. Stabilisierung und Veränderung der Macht von Akteuren in Unternehmen, Berlin, p.77 193 Nienhüser, W. (2003) Macht, Universität Essen in Martin, A. (Hg.) (2003) Organizational Behaviour - Verhalten in Organisationen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, p.10 194 Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.125 195 Bhatti, S.H., Kiyani, S.K., Dust, S.B. and Zakariya, R. (2021), "The impact of ethical leadership on project success: the mediating role of trust and knowledge sharing", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 982-998 196 Batz, T. (2021). Führung auf Distanz. Mobility in a Globalised World 2020, 25, pp.73-74 197 Enste, D. H. (2021). Wirtschaft und Corona: Die Bedeutung von Vertrauen in Krisenzeiten. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, pp.1-8 198 Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998). Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: Forms and facades of trust. Trust within and between organizations, pp.64-87 199 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, p.86 200 Wilemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003) Trust me I’m your boss: Trust and power in supervisor- supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), p.124 50 kind of leadership, so e.g. not in authority systems with fanatic followers. They can trust the leader also by using much (negative) power. In the normal profit-oriented organization, this fanatic situation is not ususal and transformational and transactional leadership are the most relevant LSS. The idea of an effective business supervisor, who doesn’t work in isolation, but in direct reciprocity leadership with the subordinates, who encourages respect, supports and includes the meaning of the subordinates in decision making processes201 202 is very similar with the model above, compared into the direction of the higher share of trust. This observance is also in line with the results of Patrick 203 , where the rational use of the supervisor’s power creates cooperation from the subordinates, which is the main starting point of the author’s research. 1.4 Summary on literature review The analysis of literature shows, that there have been many studies about Leadership, LSS, Leadership Power and Trust separately, however by combining the two presently relevant items, the author is following Möllering204 who said, ”Research explicitly connecting trust and power is surprisingly rare.” Håvold&Håvold205, have a similar meaning and have stated that there exists limited empirical research on the influence of power on trust and motivation. They have specifically researched the health sector, but other sectors do not show a comprehensive picture either. For the author a clear item for the further necessity of deeper research of these two relevant variables of leadership. The will to use power same as the will to trust are not contrary they are complementary206 and can both exist in parallel, this is the same that the asymmetric models of these two influencing factors display, excluding the borders, which should be analyzed for the special case of full trust. This border view would mean in the asymmetric model, that there is no LSP, which is 201 Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D. and Tan, H. H. (2000) A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader-member exchange, The Leadership Quarterly, 11, pp.227–250 202 Kurland, H., Peretz, H. and Hertz Lazarowitz, R. (2010) Leadership style and organizational learning: the mediate effect of school vision, Journal of Educational Administration, 48, pp.7–30 203 Patrick, H. A. (2012) Influence of power bases on leadership strategies adopted by managers’ in information technology organizations, European Journal of Business and Management, 4, pp.101–108 204 Möllering, G. Editor-in-Chief (2019) Connecting trust and power, Journal of Trust Research, 9:1, p.1, DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 (02.04.2021) 205 Håvold, J. I., & Håvold, O. K. (2019). Power, trust and motivation in hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 32(2), p.208 206 Rother, W. (2016).Wille zur Macht oder Wille zum Vertrauen? Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, (2): p.34 51 questionable for the view on a profit-oriented organization, because also in case of highest trust the supervisor still has his/her power. Independently if used or not. In the case of the reciprocal dependents of LSP and trust, LSP has direct influence on trust. The influence itself is surely different, depending on the studies and the research fields, but from author’s point of view, trust is the dependent variable and power the independent one. That this relation can also have the opposite direction is the meaning of Mostafa & Mouakket207, who stated “We conclude that the power of trust and mistrust lies in the individual need for ontological security and uncertainty avoidance, while individuals should still be able to critically reflect, understand, monitor and evaluate the process of organizational change. Trust is therefore a basis for power, yet it is not a sufficient condition for the achievement of intended outcomes.” This kind of argumentation will not be rejected from the side of the author, but for the primary research of subordinate’s trust behavior, the first set of dependents will be used. That LSP is able to change the level of trust is common sense208 209 and affirms this approach. 207 Mostafa, K. H., & Mouakket, S. (2018). Power, trust and control. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(4), p.491 208 Turner, J. C. (2005). Examining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, pp.1-22 209 Leonidou, L.C., Talias, M. A., & Leonidou, C. N. (2008). Exercised power as a driver of trust and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer–seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, pp.92- 103 52 2 LEADERSHIP POWER AS AN INDEPENDENT FACTOR FOR LEADERSHIP STYLE AND TRUST IN AN TRIANGLE SITUATION To work with complexity, to reduce complexity of problems or changes and to make faster decisions on a more comprehensive background is the main task of this research and the reason to create a higher share of trust, as an active output of leadership. Due to this high importance for management output and decisions, it is the more interesting, that trust is not an already analysed value or target in companies to reflect the behavior of the leadership, independently from leadership style or leadership power view. In quality assessments often the company culture is analyzed by the employee turnover rate (fluctuation rate), employee net promoter score (if employee will recommend the company to another person) or the employee or manager satisfaction rate (how satisfied employee are with their managers), but trust as a direct result of leadership is in best case just a part of or hidden in the employee satisfaction rate. Figure 3: Triangle concept of leadership Source: author’s concept based on literature review This last mentioned target for an organization can be just calculated by comparing different employee meanings over time and is not directly linked to another result same as e.g. the Leadership Style (LSP+x) Trust Leadership Power (LSP) Leadership 53 fluctuation rate. So if companies make such an effort to get feedback about their company culture, the situation about the employees trust situation into the management could be monitored in the same way, by making comparisons over time or by using a direct trust level measurement system, to use trust as a direct target for an organization, a direct output of leadership. On the basis of the former research, the situation and effecting relations, same as correlations between Leadership, Leadership Style, Leadership Power and Trust can be specified in the following way. Leadership is the overall term, which can include all the single terms in one. The relationship of the remaining one can be visualized in a triangle concept (see Figure 3), by adding the Factor X for different other inputs to influence the LSS. Leadership Power is only one of these influencing factors for the LSS, but in the eyes of the author it is the relevant one. Based on this double effect, the influence of LSP onto LSS and trust, the research of the direct way, the direct influence of LSP on trust has a special attitude. Leadership Power can be the direct independent predictor of trust instead of using LSS, which means just that the research is getting more complex and that this is an indirection path to get a direct Leadership predictor of trust. Before making the next steps of this direct concept of LSP and trust, the environment and research field of trust, which also exists in many ways, has to be analyzed. Also, here the research range has to be specified by using trust in a leadership research between supervisor and subordinate. 2.1 The research range of trust in a leadership situation Jäckel210 sees the research gap in a similar way to the one stated in the dissertation of the author. She refers to the meta-analyses of Dirks & Ferrin211 and the multi level review of Burke et al.212 and defines the two following important gaps, which are adapted by the author for his own research: 1) Most of the studies have researched the trust situation from the subordinate side to the supervisor. It is researched how and how much the subordinates trust the supervisor. Due to the situation, that problems, same as decisions become more and more complex, it is necessary to 210 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, p.16 211 Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, d.L. (2002), Trust in Leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Joural of applied psychology, 87 (4), p.611 212 Burke, C. S., et al. (2007), Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration [editor] Department of Psychologie. The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (6), p.607 54 understand, how much trust a supervisor has in his/her subordinate. Trust can help in today’s business life, but it is not understood, how supervisors work with this additive. 2) It is researched and understood, what are the specific consequences of the trust situations between supervisor and subordinate, but not how it will be improved. This status between supervisor and subordinate is not comparable with a normal private status. In business life, the supervisor has power above the subordinate. If this relationship is disturbed, it can result in a predictably worst outcome, where the subordinate loses his/her job, perhaps his basis for existence. Especially in high-level management the leadership situation seems more important, than on a blue-collar worker level, because of the importance and complexity of the daily tasks. It has to be taken into account that a trust situation, whatever the level may be, between supervisor and subordinate (both here called employees) can only exist, if both sides trust each other. E.g. if only one employee trusts the other, but the other employee will not return the trust, the first employee will reduce his/her own trust into the other employee as long as they will have a same level. Based on this circle, Jäckel’s trust-model has to be adapted. Due to the reason, that supervisor and subordinate status of getting and giving trust changes every time, both are just defined as employee A or B. The arrow between the cause and the employee (A) who gives trusts has to be changed in the opposite direction. In this way, the behavior of the employee (B) who gets trust is the cause, which has an influence on the trust-level of A to B, but also on the behavior of A, which is relevant in the next step, when B defines its trust level to A. In the following step of this trust cycle, the model does not change and can stay the same. The only difference is now, that B is now the one, who gives trust and A is the one who gets trust. The effect of the new trust-level in both cases has also an influence on both employees, but this is in line with the basic trust-model of Jäckel213 before. In the model adaption of the author (see Figure 4) the labeling of the different areas is adapted in an active and passive side of trust, but the description is still the same: (1) The basis of trust and its own meaning. (2) Trust exists between min. both parties and / or hierarchy level. (3) The source of trust. (4) The way trust develops. (5) The effect of trust. (6) The importance of the context, in which trust is imbedded. This is interesting for the later research, because based on this model and the later discussion about trust and LSP of leaders, number (2) and (6) are locked and (1) is a very general discussions, which is part of other earlier, theoretical investigations. The later research of leadership and trust are inside the research areas (3) and (4) and are also at the border to (5). In this adapted model it is visible, how an employee influences active or 213 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, p.31 55 passive the trust level. The active side, to change the trust level is the upper side. E.g. the employee B (who gets trust) creates with its own behavior a cause that the employee A (who gives trust) can use this as a judgment to change or create its level of trust to employee B. So B acts and A reacts, in case of adapting its own behavior and by defining or changing its trust level to employee B. This is the active side. Figure 4: Aspects of trust research Source: Jäckel’s (2018) aspects of trust modified by author, based on literature research The passive side is the effect of trust itself, which also has an effect onto both employees. The first effect is the new trust level, that has an influence to both of them, but e.g. inside a profit- oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate a third employee (e.g. another subordinate) could notice, that the employee A and B have now another trust level. Just on this effect, employee A or B could adapt its behavior to B or A, because e.g. one of them feel ashamed or proud, about the notice of this new trust situation in front of a third employee. For the two employees itself it is just a reaction of the effect of trust, that is why the author called it the passive side. 56 This model shows the complexity of trust with its in- and outputs, which have an influence on the leadership situation as well. It shows, that also if LSP can be used as a predictor to create a high trust situation between supervisor and subordinate, there can be other factors, which can influence trust beside. In the eyes of the author, these influencing factors cannot be controlled, because they are mostly on the passive side, same as the behavior of other employees or the environment itself. On the other side, the situation researched here, the use of LSP from supervisor to subordinate is a strong active situation, which can be directly chosen from the supervisor and by that the supervisor can directly and actively influence the trust situation. The first and biggest step to create trust. 2.2 The theoretical value of leadership power and trust inside profit- oriented organizations From the author’s point of view, the asymmetric situation described earlier is not only available on the supervisor’s side. It also exists in similar architecture on the subordinate side. It’s similar and only in very specific situations the same, because the difference between a supervisor and a subordinate are the different levels of power. On the one side, the supervisor has power over the subordinate. This is the normal situation between supervisor and subordinate with different hierarchy levels in business or other situations.214215 The subordinate in a normal case has no huge power over the supervisor, but also this employee is or can be an owner of power over the supervisor. Such as, the subordinate may leave the job, a situation the supervisor wants to avoid. So, this is also some kind of coercive power a subordinate can use or threaten to use, if the supervisor does not act as expected. As said before, the power of the supervisor is larger, but the subordinate has the possibility to use LSP, too. In a boundary case it can be that a subordinate has the same LSP the supervisor has, because the subordinate is a good friend of the owner or is a specialist, who is similarly or more important than the supervisor. So independently from the case, the subordinate can have LSP. The question is just, if the subordinate will use it. If the LSP will be used from the subordinate against the supervisor, the LSP of the supervisor will decrease and the leadership situation will decrease as well. This effect is very important for the later definition of the behavior of subordinates in the power model. Trust exists between a supervisor and a subordinate and has the effect that a steady-state trust situation has the same value on both sides. With the Jäckel’s model of trust research, which 214 Mayer, R.C.,Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.709-734 215 Wilemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003) Trust me I’m your boss: Trust and power in supervisor- supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), pp.117-127 57 is modified by the author before, it is understandable that each reaction of the employee who gets trust has an effect to the employee who gives trust and on the trust level itself. Due to this reciprocal effect, the trust level increases or decreases at both employees at the end to a similar level. This is also a well known process out of the leadership research area. E.g. the LMX- theory216 takes supervisor and subordinate in a dyadic role making system217 218 and in these cycles, both sides negotiate with their acts and expectations, unless they come to a common basis. This is same as Lewin defined many years before, behavior is a function of interaction and the environment. With environment is especially meant the important social influencing values, which is also a leadership process.219 Wimmer220 recommended, to stop trust if it’s just a one sided situation. In a profit-oriented organization it can be that at the beginning one employee trusts the other employee very much, but the other employee does not, or just trusts the first employee less. But this is just an effect at the beginning. At the end, the trust level from both sides approximates each other, so that they have the same level. A look at the boundary cases shows, that if one employee does not trust the other employee, then also, the other employee will not trust the first one. In the other boundary, if one employee trusts the other employee after many meetings and after a long time, this employee will trust the first person, in case they are both in interaction. For sure this effect is slightly different in organizational trust, but if two employees have a situation, same as a supervisor and a subordinate, the trust level of both is similar and it makes things more effective, than just working with power.221 By adding these two behaviors of a supervisor and a subordinate, the power of the leadership in this special relation can be visualized (see Figure 5). The supervisor same as the subordinate has the possibility to trust the opposite side by 0% up to 100%. This means by this asymmetric model, that the leader uses the power from 100% down to 0%. 216 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader- member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247 217 Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago pp.1201-1245 218 Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing in Staw, B. M., Cummings, L.L.: Research in Organizational Behavior, Bd.9, pp.175-122 219 Steinmann, H., Schreyögg, G. (2005). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung: Konzepte– Funktionen–Fallstudien. 6.Auflage. Wiesbaden: Gabler. p.684 220 Wimmer, H., Initiales Vertrauen in die Führungskraft: Eine quantitative Analyse der Werthaltungen in Deutschland, Indien, USA. Wiesbaden : Springer Gabler, 2016. pp46ff 221 Luhmann, N. (1973) Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (2. Aufl.) Stuttgart: Enke In Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 58 Figure 5: Trust as an element of leadership power Source: author’s theory based on literature research The subordinate can use all the power (s)he has, in case (s)he does not trust (0%) the leader but it is not a must for him/her. On the other hand, as mentioned before, in a normal case the potential power (s)he can use is in most of the cases lower than the one the supervisor can use, but it can be 100%, too. The situation that the subordinate has power about the supervisor can be also seen in Emerson's222 Power-Dependence Theory. The difference to a normal exchange-theory can be seen in Nienhüser's description. He defines the basics of this theory in three terms223: a.) The power of employee A (supervisor) to employee B (subordinate) is defined, as the dependence of employee B to employee A. 222 Emerson, R.M. (1962) Power-Dependence Relations, in: American Sociological Review, 27, pp.32-41 223 Nienhüser, W. (2003) Macht, Universität Essen in Martin, A. (Hg.) (2003) Organizational Behaviour - Verhalten in Organisationen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp.12-14 59 b.) The dependence of employee B to employee A is the bigger, the more important the resource of employee A for employee B is and the less employee B has the possibility to get onto these resources outside the relationship to employee A (the same is true the other way round). c.) The more employee B depends on employee A, the more it is possible for employee A to conquer a potential resistance of employee B and to get an advantageous result for employee A. Therefore, the degree of power is defined as the effort that employee A gets from employee B, or in other words, the more effort employee B makes in favor of employee A, the more power employee A has over employee B Independently of that, if the subordinate uses power against the leader, the level of leadership will decrease. The model demonstrated above shows this power of the subordinate as a minus value, because of the theory, that this power is negatively related to the power of the leader. In a normal case also the power of the leader is bigger than the one of the subordinate, that’s why the overall power value cannot be negative. In theoretical, the power of the subordinate can be higher than the one of the supervisor and the result can be negative, but in this case this is a clear indicator that the leadership situation between supervisor and subordinate will not work. The trust itself is decreasing by the same factor. The opposite side gives trust and ends at this point, when a total trustful situation, without power, is reached. A trustful situation is then also more effective, than leadership with power only. That is why the overall level of the leadership is higher on the right than on the left side. As an alternative and a little more complex model, trust can be seen in this model as the result, the use of special powers creates. In best case the supervisor leads with the five LSP by creating a maximum of trust. This would be the best situation, because trust has a doubling effect in this leadership power model. Compared this model with the asymmetric model of Jäckel, the influence of trust in a leadership situation is more visible, because the trust and power of the subordinate is integrated and it shows, that if the leader creates more trust instead of normal use of LSP, the level of his/her leadership power increases. This effect is described in the behavior of the leader (BL) is the asymmetric function and the sum of its use of trust (TL) and LSP (PL), which gives 100% (see Formula 2.2.1) of its leadership behavior. BL = TL + PL = 100% (2.2.1) The behavior of the subordinate (BS) is also the sum of trust (TS) and power (PS), but its use of power has a negative effect (see Formula 2.2.2) as described before and so the sum of its part of the leadership behavior can be 100% in best case, but it also can be lower. 60 BS = TS - PS ≤ 100% (2.2.2) In the next steps (see Formula 2.2.3 and Formula 2.2.4) the leadership level (ηL) is defined by the sum of both, leader and subordinate behavior. ηL(ƒ=T,P) = BL + BS (2.2.3) ηL(ƒ=T,P) = TL + PL + TS - PS (2.2.4) Based on the meaning of Zand224, and as described before, is the level of trust depending on both sides and a learning effect, which results in the situation, that the trust situation from leader (TL) and subordinate (TS ) have a similar level or value. [Requirement (1) TL = TS = T ] That is why the trust of the subordinate (TS ) can be replaced by the trust value of the leader (TL). This definition of the maximum of trust can go in both directions, because the leader defines the situation with its leadership behavior, or better to say with its use of power, the maximum share of the maximum possible trust. But if the subordinate doesn’t accept the remaining level of trust, it will decrease further and so the maximum level of trust is depending on subordinate or supervisor side and can be named as trust (T), independent of the relation side. E.g. if the leader just uses a small share of trust, the subordinate has no chance to increase the share of trust between both, if the leader does not want to do so, but the subordinate can further decrease the trust level. Opposite direction is the same. The leader is the beginner to create trust.225 ηL(ƒ=T,P) = T + PL + T - PS (2.2.5) ηL(ƒ=T,P) = 2 T + PL - PS (2.2.6) At this stage of equation it can be visualized theoretical, that the trust-side has an higher positive influence on the effective level of leadership based on trust and power, than the power side, which just has the half positive influence from the side of the leader and can be further negative influenced from potential power of the subordinate side (see Formula 2.2.5 and Formula 2.2.6). 224 Zand, D. E. (1981). Trust and the Decision Process. In D. E. Zand (Hrsg.), INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND POWER. Effective Management in the Knowledge Society. New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, pp.i-xii ,37-55 225 Schweer, M. (1997): Eine differentielle Theorie interpersonalen Vertrauens in Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, pp.2-12 in Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen,W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.132 61 For further information the trust of the leader (T) can be replaced by the before mentioned function, that the use of trust (TL) and power (PL) of the leader gives 100% of its leadership behavior. (see Formula 2.2.7) This is the basis of its own leadership behavior. [Requirement (2) TL = 100% BL - PL which comes from TL + PL = 100% BL)] ηL(ƒ=T,P) = 2 (100% BL - PL) + PL - PS (2.2.7) ηL(ƒ=T,P) = 200% BL(ƒ=T) - 2PL+ PL - PS (2.2.8) ηL(ƒ=T,P) = 200% BL(ƒ=T) - PL - PS (2.2.9) At the end it is visible, that the leader can reach the best result for the leadership level (ηL(ƒ=T,P)), by doubling its own leadership performance (BL(ƒ=T)), by minimizing its own leadership power (PL) and creating same as using trust. (see Formula 2.2.8 and Formula 2.2.9) The result is same than in the discussed model that the maximum leadership level between a leader and a subordinate can be just reached, if the use of power will be minimized. From authors point of view the term power, called in this leadership model can be used in different directions - as negative powers, same as coercive, which would mean it is the opposite side of trust, or - as the remaining part of LSP, for which it was not able to create a trust situation. This is in line with the hypothesis of this thesis, that the special use of Leadership power can create trust. This model describes the theory of the importance of trust in a leadership situation. It describes the higher importance of trust instead of the use of LSP alone and why the target for leaders should be to create a maximum of trust between supervisor and subordinate. This model describes the background and reason of the research in chapter 3. Reciprocity powers as indicator and binding element for a trust-based leadership Scholl described persons with power in organisations with a hierarchy as light menace and using coercive power. He suggests 360°-Feedback rounds, to get not such a high distance between the hierarchy levels.226 High distance results in less communication and in potential misuse of power. 226 Scholl, W. (2014), Führung und Macht: Warum Einflussnahme erfolgreicher ist, artoop, Institut an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin, p.5 62 The use of coercive power is very easy, because coercive power can be used without additional effort of the supervisor, at once and directly. Other powers same as referent or expert power can be used also direct, but it can naturally grow with the positive feedback of the subordinate and it takes much more effort for the supervisor to create it. This is same than a 360°-feedback round, if the supervisor is working with the results of this. It takes time to create the feedback round, it takes time to understand the words of the person who gives feedback and it takes time to act in daily business life with the outcome of this feedback round. Nevertheless, the process is same than the use of the other powers, same as referent and expert power, or same as creating trust, it is a reciprocity act which is needed not only as a top to down act. The legitimation power can be used also direct, because it is given from the institution or the organization. It is not seen as a reciprocity power, because the self-strengthening effect is also not based on a positive feedback of the subordinate, here there increase of the power will be stronger the more the legitimation will be supported from the outside or if the subordinate makes negative experiences, which result in a learning effect that it is better for the subordinate to follow the legitimate power. Nevertheless both powers, coercive, same as legitimate do not grow due to positive experiences of the subordinate. These two powers just grow based on negative experiences or expectations. The reward power is not as clear as the other powers. On the one side it’s a reciprocity power, which will be the more accepted the higher the reward is, or the more it is clear for the subordinate, that the reward will be given from the supervisor. But reward power can be also used directly, just by showing some reward. Sometimes there must be evidence, that the reward is existing, or that the reward will be forwarded and then there is once again the learning effect which is an indicator for a reciprocity use. Unfortunately, the reward power is seen in most cases as short-term prediction model227 228 , which directly stops, when the reward is not renewed or increased. Combining the results (that coercive and legitimate powers are direct powers and expert, referent and reward powers are reciprocity powers) with the argumentation that trust can be created only on reciprocity way, an existence or wish for having a trust based relationship to the supervisor or subordinate can be researched with a potential correlation to reciprocity powers. This could be an indicator for an existing trust based leadership. 227 Daw, N. D., & Touretzky, D. S. (2002). Long-term reward prediction in TD models of the dopamine system. Neural computation, 14(11), p.2567 228 Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings. In DiGRA Conference, p.10 63 2.3 Definition of hypotheses The more trust a leader has in its subordinate, the more important things can be delegated, the more complex decisions can be made in a short time period, the more important the subordinate feels and the more each single employee can be aware about the situation, that a positive result can be only reached, because of the good team or status, which is established. This is also what specialists say, when they were asked about their most critical leadership problems from today. In their eyes the business world becomes more difficult day by day. Communication, requirements, knowledge and quantities of changes are raising and increasing. Success stories of the past will not work in future, complete industries will change (e.g. Automotive) or occur (e.g. Internet), all these items show a much more complex world in future. On the other hand, the fast pace of today lead to less personal leadership. Leaders have to allow failures to find risks and potentials and on the same way leaders have to be predictable in the eyes of the subordinate to create the second step of trust,229 because the expectations of the subordinate from a leader to make every time the right thing, to motivate and to be consequent is something which will be the more difficult the complex the environment is. - One more indicator that trust seems to be a must in a future and more complex leadership. From experiences of the author, managers stated often, that respect without reserve and just hierarchy are leadership advantages from the past. Today leaders must win the subordinates, which can be done only with trust. It's same than employee of today are not thinking: what can I do for the job? They are thinking more: what can the job do for me? This statement is totally in line with the statements of earlier results of the author, where subordinates preferred trust as a leadership tool instead of the use of different, sometimes called, negative powers. So a trust situation should be created with a specified use of LSPs as leadership instrument. That is the reason for the main hypothesis. (H0) The kind of leadership is a predictor for the trust level of a subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. In general it can be said, that the level of importance of trust inside profit-oriented organizations should be very high. This is on the one side the experience of the author, on the other side the outcome of the theoretical research. Due to the reciprocal effect of trust, this statement is awaited from both sides, supervisor and subordinate side. In this case this is a part of the 229 Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., & Mullen, M.R. (1998), Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.601-620 64 leadership model, which improves the outcome and will be supported from both sides of the profit-oriented organization, so that normally there is no barrier to use it. Creating such a high trust situation on subordinate side should also bring an additional high Trust Level (TL) on the supervisor side. This will be tested with with the hypothesis (H1) Trust as a result of leadership in a profit-oriented organization has the same level for supervisor and subordinate, in real and in desired situation. One thing that definitely prevents a trust-based leadership between supervisor and subordinate is the behavior of the non-predictability of the leader, which in some case is used by full awareness of the leader itself. The predictability is one of four categories to define trust and in the way of thinking, that trust is the result of a two-sided relationship,230 it’s a barrier, if the supervisor wants to have predictability from its subordinate, but just gives less or no predictability, to the subordinate itself. This is also a reinforcing problem, because the leader has to start building this trust situation,231 and if the leader gives the wrong signal, trust can be blocked, before it can arise. The other three bases of trust, benevolence, integrity and competence, are not so sticking out from theoretical research and own experience than predictability, so hypothesis is (H2) Predictability influences the leadership situation in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate more than benevolence, integrity and competence. As a further result of a high trust situation between supervisor and subordinate, the resulting advantage has to be researched. Based on Dirks the trust of the employee has a direct effect on the identification to the company.232 The supervisor represents the company and so it should be a one by one effect that also the binding to the company is getting higher, if the trust level to the supervisor increases. 230 Zand, D. E. (1981). Trust and the Decision Process. In D. E. Zand (Hrsg.), INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND POWER. Effective Management in the Knowledge Society, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, pp.i-xii,37-55 231 Schweer, M. (1997): Eine differentielle Theorie interpersonalen Vertrauens in Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, S.2-12 in Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen, W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.132 232 Dirks, K. /Ferrin, D. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, publiched in Organization Science, 12, pp.450-467 65 (H3) A high trust level of an employee has a positive impact on a higher binding to the company. The main hypothesis and its potential result of a high trust-level also supports the binding the between supervisor and subordinate, so that as a rational next step the specific use or disuse of, until now so called positive and negative powers will be examined. (H4) Referent and expert leadership powers have positive impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. (H5) Coercive and legitimate leadership powers have negative impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. This classification is based on the theoretical research with overlapping results of good and bad, positive and negative LSP, combined with direct and reciprocity leadership powers. The approach of reciprocity and direct LSP’s is interesting, because they are comparable with trust, which is a reciprocal process. On the other side, there are differences to the latest results of Håvold & Håvold, who found with a path analysis that legitimate, referent and reward power have a positive and only coercive power has a negative influence on trust,233 which is perhaps to explain with their special research-field of two hospitals in Norway and Finland. Also former researcher had stated in a similar way, that legitimate power, not seen alone, but as a collective term for legitimate, expert, identification and information power, mediates the trust in a positive way.234 – Due to this difference to the reciprocal approach, the last two hypotheses will be proven. 233 Håvold, J. I., & Håvold, O. K. (2019). Power, trust and motivation in hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 32(2), p.195 234 Lenhard, M. (2012). Macht und Vertrauen in Unternehmen (uniwien). pp.9, 13 66 3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF LEADERSHIP POWER AS PREDICTOR FOR THE TRUST SITUATION IN PROFIT-ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS To reflect the dissertation research questions on a systematic research, the item of research will be split to the following steps: identification of the problem, relating the problem to existing theories, collecting of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drawing conclusions and integration of these conclusions into the stream of knowledge. This is a very similar meaning than actual guidelines for collecting and reporting experimental data: “Research and experimental development comprise creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge – including knowledge of humankind, culture and society – and to devise new applications of available knowledge.”235 This again is also similar to the long lasting scientific research according Kerlinger, who means, that it is a research, which is systematic, controlled, empirical and a critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among natural phenomena.236 All of these definitions build the guideline for the further research. 3.1 Reflection of the approach in view of the appropriate methodology and research methods The first part of this task is to relate the problem to existing theories and for this a literature research had been done in the first chapter. This research shows the actual status round about the dissertation theme gives a comprehensive overview about status of knowledge and to make sure, that the dissertation theme is a new and not an already researched one. For the process of the research also defined steps had been done, but the choose of the right methodology and methods needs many future influencing factors that have to be taken into account. Unfortunately not all of them are already known at the beginning and had been just made visible after the first steps of research. That is why also the methodology and methods have been rethought after getting new kind of information out of the pre-research and specialist interview. As a general overview the research pyramid gives an impression, which impact a wrong decision for the methodology has. All points below that methodology would go into the wrong 235 OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris, p.380 https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en (29.11.2020) 236 Kerlinger, Fred N. (1973) Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p.11 67 or partly wrong direction, which causes much more effort than decision about the methodology themself. Different kind of research pyramids can be found in a huge kind of variations and differentiations from many different authors, but the principle is still similar to the steps of research paradigm, methodology, method and techniques. The research paradigm is comparable to the purpose of the research. Burrel and Morgan say to paradigm: “. . . a term, which is intended to emphasize the commonality of perspective, which binds the work of a group of theorists together in such a way that they can be usefully regarded as approaching social theory within the bounds of the same problem”237. The research methodology can be compared to the process of research and the further process how to go ahead. After the pre-test and the specialist interviews a questionnaire based on qualitative or quantitative background seems to be the preferred solution to get the information out of a bigger amount of companies and without the influence of own created circumstances. An experiment is not preferred, because trust, as researched in the dissertation, needs a history, which is not given in an experiment. General evaluation of collecting data for trust and leadership power Regarding the question: How the data will be collected, a first direction is given in the step before. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research is the preferred medium of choice. Same than the two steps before, also this step can be compared with the last items of the research pyramid: the research method and the research technique, which will be defined now and which will show the logic of research, too. So in next step the decision of a quantitative or qualitative research method for the finald research step, after theoretical research, pre-test and specialist interview has to be done. Independent of all, the collected empirical data has to be a representative part of the reality238. The result of a comparison is shown on Table 1, in which the different categories are defined by the author in adaption to Bryman and Bell239. Nevertheless also the result of more hits for a quantitative research by questionnaire, which is a typical empirical measuring method240, has its disadvantages. 237 Burrel, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants: Gower Publishing. p.23 238 Raab-Steiner, E., Benesch, M.(2015), Der Fragebogen. Wien, p.48 239 Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods revised edition, Oxford University Press, p.426 240 Schneider, A.,(2013) Fragebogen in der Sozialen Arbeit. Opladen & Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich, p.10 68 Table 1: Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research models Quantitative Qualitative Remark sampling X observation the time to observe "trust" seems to be to long. structured interview X X qualitative interview information about trust seems to get easier by an anonymous way than by personal interviews. On the other hand, in a personal interview misunderstandings can be corrected. self-completion questionnaires X focus groups questionnaires for main research and focus on groups will be done before in a pre- research: Pre-research of subordinates and Pre-research with specialists (interview) structured observations - - language based approaches no preferences content analysis X the collection and qualitative analysis of text and documents arguments of qualitative column not needed for research secondary analysis and official statistics X case studies no official statistics known tends to produce quantitative data X tends to produce qualitative data qualitative data of specialists available uses large samples X uses small samples just small sample size concerned with hypotheses testing X concerned with generating theories hypothesis shall be tested data are highly specific and precise X data are rich and subjective Data will be more specific than rich location is artificial X location is natural trust business location is difficult to create reliability is high X reliability is low is better validity is low X validity is high is better generalizes from sample to population X generalizes from one setting to another the output shall be comprehensible for other companies/suppliers numbers X words Research output can be classified in likert scale, so use of numbers is preferred point of view of researcher X point of view of participant authors point of view shall be tested researcher distant X researcher close researcher distant will not influence the output theory testing X theory emergent theory shall be tested static - - process result of trust can be static but also process structured X unstructured authors bias generalization X contextual understanding contextual understanding is not needed hard, reliable data X rich, deep data authors bias macro X micro authors bias behavior X meaning data shall be secured and not only based on meanings Source: author’s research comparison, based on Bryman & Bell (2007) 69 Also if questions are precise formulated, which is essential for that method241, there are the following problems in comparison to a structured interview242: cannot prompt, cannot probe, cannot ask more questions that are not salient to respondent, difficulty of asking general other kind of questions, questionnaire can be read as a whole, do not know who answers, cannot collect additional data, difficult to ask a lot of questions, not appropriate to some kinds of respondents, greater risk of missing data and the response rate is lower. Check of sample size and non-probability sample of quantitative research The sample-size is one or perhaps the most important factor for a quantitative research method. The number of samples gives direct information about the safety, that the result is significant and repeatable. The formula 3.1.1 confirms, that round about 100 test employees will give a good research result: n = ( t∙√p∙q e ) 2 (3.1.1) To get more safety into this stage of research, the author will work with round about 242 samples, to create a higher safety and which creates round about a t-value of 1,64, which results in a probability rate of approx. 90%. In addition it is checked, that the sample itself isn’t a non-probability sample243. The result of both checks are shown in Table 2. Due to the situation, that all respondents come from profit-oriented organizations, but not from the same, the data of the subordinates, who are the biggest group in the research, had been considered for the trust level, to show a potential difference in the kind of industry and the gender question. 241 Raab-Steiner, E., Benesch, M.(2015), Der Fragebogen.Wien, p.49 242 Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods revised edition Oxford University Press, p.240 243 Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods revised edition Oxford University Press, p.197 70 Table 2: Check sample size and non-probability sample Check of sample size n 100 minimum quantity of samples, t 1ς (sigm a) value to set the grade of safety in the confidence-area, t will be set 1ς (sigma) and the spot check failure will be set to 5%, so the result is 100 samples e 5% (allowed) spot check failure will be set to 5% p , q 0,5 characteristics of the spot check sample (if the correct value for the characteristic-distribution is not known, p an q will be set to 0,5, because this is the maximum product of a dichotomous characteristic multiplication.) Check of non-probability sample Convenience sample No The sample-employees come from different companies and supervisor/subordinate teams. Each team is only allowed to choose max. five subordinates. So it’s not a convenience sampling Snowball sampling No The notion of population is not problematic, because the supervisor defines its team, its subordinates. So the supervisor knows the subordinates. Just if a person from outside would define the sample employees, than we would talk about a snowball sampling. Quota sampling No This is not relevant for the choice of the sample persons itself, but due to the fact, that the choice is done by many supervisors, there will be relative proportions of supervisors and subordinates (age, gender, company membership,…). Source: author’s settings of research theme As shown in Figure 6, there is not a clear trend for the gender and e.g. the trust level of women has different directions in the two biggest groups and also the results of the other industries show same behavior, so that the kind of gender seems not to be relevant for the result. The kind of the researched business itself shows with automotive and manufacturing also the middle of the trust levels with 68-71%. This is interesting, because all other industries show light lower or higher values, but also these industries have just a much more smaller quantity of respondents. So the kind of business shows light differences, but due to opposite directed results, which are below and above the middle value and the small single quantities of each business, this will not be a key characteristic inside this research and so all kind of business can be used. 71 Figure 6: Trust level of subordinates in comparison to gender and kind of business Source: author’s quantitative-research Summary of methodology and methods of research The methodology and methods of research have been reflected and chosen according to the theme of the dissertation. A pre-test (2017) of the importance of the researched item has been done and the result has been compared to the result of the qualitative specialist interview (2018) carried out afterwards. Finally, the quantitative questionnaire (2019) for an empirical evaluation has to be taken into account, in order to investigate the trust and LSP in a supervisor and subordinate situation. 3.2 Pre-test of the importance of trust as a relevant outcome of leadership The general employees view about trust inside a leadership “Inside the empiric social research and in particular the survey research, it is common sense to do a pre-test in front of the regular survey.”244 As a first indicator, to see if the author’s view is not only subjective, a pre-test with subordinates and supervisors had been done. In this case French&Ravens LSP model had been chosen and added by the factor trust. So employees were asked three questions: 244 Weichbold M. (2019) Pretest. In: Baur N., Blasius J. (eds) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, p.349 71% 68% 63% 64% 76% 62% 64% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% T ru st le v el all (n=203) f (n=52) m (n=151) 72 a.) How is your supervisor leading you? b.) How should lead a supervisor from your point of view? c.) How much trust your supervisor has in you and your daily work? At first, a smaller group of 19 employees were asked, how they want to be led and how they are led245. Later this pre-research was added by additional employees and the number raised in total to 106 respondents (32 supervisors, 26 subordinates with a staff membership of more than 18 months and 48 subordinates with a staff membership of exact 18 month), but the result itself was similar. The test had been done with a 5 point Likert-scale (“fits less” (1) to “fits more” (5)). The biggest problem, which had been detected afterwards, was the situation, that it was not clearly described, if a power was available or not. With other words, one employee gave 1 point (“fits less”), if a power was not used, the next employee made no mark, and so it is more a 6 point scale than a 5-point scale. On the other hand, the author didn’t handle such 0-Point cases with 1-point, because, then the relation to the other points is destroyed. That was then also the reason, why the results are shown, same as created, with this small absolute failure. The different use of the powers itself, which is the most important research point, is due to the retention of the relation still given. Importance of trust in a subordinate position The result of the first two questions, “How is your supervisor leading you?” and “How should lead a supervisor from your point of view?” is same as expected by the author. In both cases the answer was that the subordinate want to be led by knowledge, gratification, personality and light above the others, by trust. Further is the scale of the subordinates, who are just 18 months inside a company, in general higher than in case of the other subordinate. This can be observed in the results of the reality, same as for the results of the desired future. The only exception is the coercive power. Here the he value for the reality of the 18-month- subordinate is smaller, same as for the desired future, than the value of the longer staff membership. (see Figure 7) 245 Menk, Oliver (2017), The Correlation of the Forces of Leadership and the Level of Management, in: ABRM 7th International Conference on Restructuring of the Global Economy (ROGE), July 3-4, 2017, Said Business School, Oxford, UK, Volume 9, Number 1, ISSN 2047-2854, pp. 293-298. 73 Figure 7: Real and desired leadership powers of subordinates (pre-research) Source: author’s research results based on pre-research The difference of trust, which is decreasing with the number of years, the subordinate belongs to a company is also confirmed from Bartelt246, interesting is, that this kind of phenomenon can be also seen at the LSPs: expert power, reward power and referent power. Otherwise this effect can be also seen at the legitimation power, which is defined as a direct and negative power in relation to trust. Independent of that, the most interesting is the situation, that trust has the highest value in reality and in a desired leadership. This shows, how important it is to lead with trust. Also it is shown, that the supporting reciprocity LSPs, referent and expert power, in relation to trust are used and necessary for a better leadership situation. These powers seems to have a direct correlation to create a trust based leadership, which will be researched later on. A similar effect can be explained by the job tenure. Here the data had been separated between, supervisors and subordinates, but both of them stated how they are led. The trust values show the effect, that the trust level of the supervisors is lower for reality and desired leadership than the bars of the other, normal subordinates. This could be explained, by the potential effect, that supervisors are sometimes longer inside the company than others, but this is just a theory which can’t be confirmed or rejected, because the data was not recorded. 246 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.162 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 coercive legitimation expert reward trust referent 18 month real >18 month real 18 month wish >18 month wish is not used by the supervisor is used by the supervisor 74 Figure 8: Real and desired leadership powers of supervisor and subordinate (pre- research) Source: author’s research results based on pre-research It just can be stated, that supervisors have a general lower trust level to their leader than employees with the lower hierarchy level, but this is the opposite site of the research of Bartelt, who came to the result, that the trust to the leader raises with the hierarchy level.247 The difference between the trust supporting and preventing powers, same as coercive and legitimate, can be seen here much more clearly, because the preventing powers of the supervisors are higher or have same level than the subordinates. The coercive power of the supervisors, which is probably the power with the most negative effect for a trust based leadership, is relatively high in comparison to the normal subordinates. (see Figure 8) This could mean on the one hand that the supervisors are led by their leaders with a relative high level of trust supporting powers and with trust, but on the other hand, they also feel more the coercive power from their leader, which is perhaps a result of the higher hierarchy level. 247 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.180 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 coercive legitimation expert reward trust referent supervisor real subordinate real supervisor wish subordinate wish is not used by the supervisor is used by the supervisor 75 The perception of LSP and trust seems not to be influenced by gender (see Figure 9). In total 75 male and 19 female participants showed the following, not sustainable result. Regarding the third question, “How much trust the supervisor has in the subordinate?” Figure 9: Real and desired leadership powers by gender (pre-research) Source: author’s research results based on pre-research In 9 of 104 cases of the last question, was also a direct comparison with the view of the responsible supervisor possible. The result shows - 5 subordinates estimated that the supervisor has full trust to them, this was also confirmed by the supervisors. - 4 subordinates estimated that the supervisor has mostly trust to them. This was correct for 2 subordinates, the other two the supervisor had a higher trust. - In none of the 9 special cases had the supervisor a lower trust level as the subordinate estimated. In 90,3% (94/104) of the cases a trust based leadership (supervisor to subordinate) is found. (see Figure 10) 6 subordinates had no feeling of a positive or negative trust level. 4 subordinates had a trust damage to the supervisor and 2 subordinates gave no information (known or unknown) 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 coercive legitimation expert reward trust referent f reality m reality f wish m wish is used by the supervisor is not used by the supervisor 76 Figure 10: Trust of the supervisor in the subordinate (subordinate's view) Source: author’s research results based on pre-research So the result of this pre-reseach is from author’s point of view, that trust could be a real and own standing power or an outcome of the LSP, which is not based on a subjective experience of the author only. But independent if it is an own power or not, a strong relation has been detected between the trust and the expert, reward and referent LSPs, which have to be researched more deeply. Nevertheless, to underline this impression a qualitative research in form of specialist interviews is the next step for a more objective basis. 3.3 Check of supervisors view – the specialists interview The approach Peterson248 as an example for a supervisor on CEO-level pointed out the meaning of the high importance of trust in companies from CEO to entry level and defined ten items to improve business environment and results by using and creating trust between internal and external partnerships. Beside the items itself, he highlighted also the personal properties of character, 248 Peterson, J. (2019). The 10 laws of trust: Building the bonds that make a business great. Amacom. in Childers, B. (2019). 10 STEPS TO TRUSTWORTHINESS: Improving the business environment and results are one outcome of cultivating trust. Strategic Finance, 100(10), p.14. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 no trust less trust neutral or no idea mostly trust has trust re sp o n d en ts 77 competence and authority to create high level of trust. These are all properties, which are very often found on high level management positions. To get a direct external impression of the relation between leadership and trust, the following qualitative research with interviews of specialists has been done. It should confirm or reject results out of the pre-test, to give a brighter, objective basis for the last research step, the later quantitative research in the direction of LSP and trust. In addition it has to be remarked, that leadership and trust is researched between a supervisor and a subordinate. It is not researched between a supervisor and a whole company or organization. The trust of the employee has a direct effect on the identification of the employee to the company and its performance, 249 the higher the trust, the higher the identification and performance. On the other side a leadership is based on LSPs and not only on trust. So trust and power in business systems are researched before and can be seen in the case of trust as a factor to create easier a cooperation and to reduce uncertainty, but power is described as a similar factor, that also reduces in the most cases complexity and uncertainty, to control a profit- oriented organization. With trust, same as power the other person can be influenced to do what another person wants.250 Just the view of expectation is another one. In the way of trust it is the version of a good end. In the way of power the end, in eyes of the subordinate can be all, good neutral or bad. So trust seems to be every time the better option for the subordinate. Nevertheless the correlation between trust and power seems to be asymmetric, 251 252 253 otherwise a negative directed power same as coercive power can be used by different level and the trust level will not go down at the subordinate, because it is expected, that coercive power is used from the supervisor, independent from the level of trust, it just depends, how much it will be used. The specialists The interview partners were chosen by different criteria. In first they should have long lasting experiences in the leadership of subordinates. This for sure seemed to be in first way the overall and most important criteria to be a specialist. On the other side, if only interview partners with 249 Dirks, K. /Ferrin, D. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, publiched in Organization Science, 12, pp.450-467 250 Bachmann, R. (2001). The role of trust and power in the institutional regulation of territorial business systems. University of Groningen. p.11 251 Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998). Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: Forms and facades of trust. Trust within and between organizations, pp.64-87 252 Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen, W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.125 253 Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, p.86 78 very long experiences had been chosen, it could be that a generation problem occurs and that the research got just a very specific view on this item, so different levels of leadership experiences are chosen. The next criterion was the level of management. Here for sure a high management level is preferred, but the management level by its own is useless, also the relation to the company size must be given. The company size itself is also very interesting, because a CEO in a 3000 employee company has other tasks, than a CEO in a 20 employees company and so the chosen managers should be a mix of them, too. In the case of a shareholder CEO and an employed CEO the experience of the author is, that a shareholder CEO has another way and position than an employed CEO. So also different CEO’s had been interviewed. It was not expected, that the kind of company (manufacturing, consulting, service provider) has an influence of the leadership of employees, but especially the information of the consulting area is very interesting, because here the specialist got over years experiences of third party companies and their leadership behavior. This had been done with a share of 75% inside Germany, where the later quantitative research had been done, but also leaders in other countries had been interviewed, to get a direct information about potential cultural aspects or differences. Twelve international leaders had been chosen for the specialist interviews, who should give an overall intersection of the before mentioned criteria. The sample size is oriented to Ulaga & Eggert, who recommend ten or more persons for a qualitative, explorative research.254 The list of specialists is shown in the appendix. The interview The duration of each interview was 50 to 70 minutes. The content of questions itself was every time the same, just the length and kind of answers differed. Each interview had been done in personal or by phone and each interview partner got in front of the meeting the questions to get a better understanding of the interview. The questions, which had been provided and which just should give a red line of the interview in front of the meeting, should give the interview partner the feeling, that there will not some surprises inside the interview itself. Because in the contact phase, where the potential interview partners were asked to give some information about leadership and trust, the author felt often some skepticism, due to the word trust. To reduce this skepticism, the questions had been provided in front of in the most cases, this is necessary in most of the researchs and questions to steer, beside all openness, the interview in a certain 254 Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of marketing, 70(1), p.121 79 way.255 Nevertheless, the answers had been just documented by the author, coming out of the conversation of the meeting. All questions have to be answered in view of the interview partner, to his next level subordinate and not to the whole organization below her/him. Especially on CEO & owner level it could be observed, that the answers about trust from or to the subordinate were given in the first step for the whole organization. Not to falsify the result, the author corrected in these cases the interview partner, so that the answer was just given in view to the next level subordinate. The questions The basis of the interview were 13 open and closed questions and the conversation had been built on these topics. The interviewed specialist was allowed to skip questions, if the specialist doesn’t want to give a personal answer or if the content of the question was not really understood, also if the author formulated the question in other words. In general this was only the exception. Every interview was started in the same way. After a short introduction of the theme by the author the respondent were asked by a total open question, to give an own impression of trust in a supervisor/subordinate leadership situation. Based on a detailed overview table (see appendix), the following result was extracted. The general status of trust for the specialists in an economic leadership Due to the fact, that no potential answers were specified by the author, it was surprising, that 100% of the specialists answered a totally open question that trust and leadership belong to each other and/or that a leader is not able to lead without trust. These answers are a cluster of two statements. In detail this means, that 12 of 12 specialists stated in their own words, that trust and leadership belong together or that a leader is not able to lead without trust, which is in eyes of the author the same meaning as the statement before. But as described before, these were no predefined answers, which respondents could choose. These were individual answers, provided by the interviewed specialists as a result of an open question and to underline the result: in 100% of the cases one or both of these statements had been given. Just this part result showed, that trust is not only a part of leadership, it is essential, as the following answers of the respondents show in addition and which reflect the answers overall. “I employ people by checking factors same as knowledge, personality, marks, etc. but if there is not a first feeling of having trust to the subordinate, all other points are not relevant.” “Trust in leadership gives 255 Helfferich, C. (2019). Leitfaden-und Experteninterviews. In Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung Springer VS, Wiesbaden. ISBN 987-3-658-21307-7, p.670 80 loyalty in both directions, flexibility, good salary, good working atmosphere.” “Trust is essential for leadership, otherwise I just have to control which is not efficient.” This result is the more interesting, because only half of the interviewed specialists have had a trust-based leadership situation to their former supervisor. Every fourth specialist has made no trust experience with its former supervisor, because they are owner in the second generation and saw just as a maximum their father as their supervisor, which is a different background. One specialist didn’t give information and two others had definitely not a trust-based leadership situation to one of their former supervisor. Independent of that, all interviewed leaders have the meaning, that trust in a leadership is a must. Regarding the potential disadvantages of trust the interviewed leaders have a splitted view. - 50% of them see definitely no disadvantage or haven’t seen disadvantages in reality by the use of trust inside a supervisor/subordinate leadership situation. - Two (16,6%) of them lead with trust, but they have the meaning that they have to control, otherwise it can be misused. - One specialist made the experience that personal (negative) decisions about subordinates with trust, take too much time, compared to a subordinate without trust. This is good for the subordinate, but not for the supervisor. Another negative effect of trust for the career can be, that if the employee open shows a trust based status to an employee, who is in the wrong team, the career can be handicapped. At the end also two leaders made negative experiences with trust, when it will be misused (in both directions). Here one leader has seen the effect, that a subordinate, who has a trust-based leadership situation to its supervisor, is exploiting the trust and uses this to its own interest while discussions about daily items with its colleagues. With this qualitative research it should be also checked if leaders use special kind of trust creating tools to give or to get trust. For this the leaders were asked in the different categories referred to Adams and Sartori256, how important these items are. These categories for trust are benevolence, integrity, predictability, and competence. The respondent had the possibility to answer in a 7-point Likert-scale, that they agree (7) or disagree (1). The answers differ very much and are for sure also depended onto the type of leader. In general for all leaders is integrity and competence a very important factor, which they want to see at their subordinates. For the leader it is more important to give benevolence, to give integrity and to be competence, than the leader is awaiting these from the subordinate. Only exception is predictability. Here it can 256 Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2005) The Dimensionality of Trust Report to Department of National Defense. DRDC Report No. CR-2005-204 in Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, pp.25ff 81 be seen, that the leaders want to have subordinates, where the leader know what they will do, but the leader itself does not want to be predictable. This is general not a good starting point to create trust when this situation will be compared with Mc Knight et al.257, who said, that the initial development of trust is based only on two basics. The first one, trust-conviction, is this what the supervisor wants to have from the subordinate, but just want to give in parts. It is the goodwill, fairness and competence, which will be given, but the personal behavior, which could be calculated or forecasted, will be denied. In other words, independent from this one remarkable deviation it can be shown, that the high-level supervisor of today are all creating an environment, in which trust can grow. They wish to have subordinates, who have integrity to the leader and also the leader gives integrity. The leaders want to be competent and they also ask for competence. Mostly they are awaiting, that the subordinates keep their own back free but even more, the leader want to take care about the back of the subordinates. Also, if some of the supervisors do not want to be predictable, the supervisors want in a high amount subordinates, who are predictable. These are in general all very good circumstances, that trust can grow, which is in line with the statement of all supervisor, who are saying, that trust is a must in leadership. The low value for the predictability in comparison to the others categories of trust (see Figure 11), same as compared with the predictability that the supervisors want to see in the subordinates, is a problem for trust. So that the meaning of predictability is near to the meaning of trust, which is confirmed by Rotter258, Gabarro259, Lewis 260, Dasgupta 261, Gambetta262 and Good263. Both terms take expectations to a happening in the future, but the difference is that trust includes the factor risk. So if something is predictable, then the subordinate does not have to have trust, because there is no risk, that the expectations will not be fulfilled.264 257 McKnight, H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationship. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.473-490 258 Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), pp.651-665 259 Gabarro, J.J.,(1978) The development of trust, influence and expectations. In A.G. Athos, & J.J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behaviour: Communication and understanding in relationships, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.290-303 260 Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality, Social forces 63(4), pp.967-985 261 Dasgupta, P., (1988) Trust as a commodity, Gambetta (Ed.) Trust, New York: Basil Blackwell, pp 49-72 262 Gambetta, D.G. (1988) Can we trust “trust”?, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.213-237 263 Good, D. (1988), Individuals, interpersonal relations and trust, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.131-185 264 Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of managementreview, 20(3), p.714 82 Figure 11: Specialists important components of trust Source: author’s research results based on specialists interview Regarding the question, if the importance of trust is depending on the level of management (vertical) or depending on different business types (horizontal), no one found a clear difference in horizontal view, but 75% made the experience, that trust is the more important, the higher the management level is (vertical). As reason for that statement, the specialists mentioned the high complex decisions, which have to be made and the complexity increases, the higher the management is. This is also in line with the observations Luhmann265 made. He is saying, that human is only capable of acting when it is possible for them to reduce the numbers of information. The trust of the leader to the subordinate reduces such information and gives the possibility to work with more information. Or as Coleman266 interprets Simon’s view of the rational choice theory: It is impossible, to act just on hard facts. The actor must have trust in his own decision, based on the experiences he made by himself, same as its trust to the employee, he got the basis information for decision from. 265 Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Hrsg.), Vertrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts, Campus. p.149 266 Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press p. 91-115, pp.175-196 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 benevolence integrity predictability competence important that subordinate uses or has ... important that subordinate sees the supervisor as ... completely agree completely disagree 83 The remaining 25% of the specialists see a trust-based leadership is depending on the personal structure or that a trust-based leadership is a LSS and makes no difference of level. About the question, who will get more trust, a CEO or a CEO & owner, the specialists’ meaning differ from 7 of 12, who said that the CEO & owner will get more trust. As a main reason for that, the specialists see the circumstance, that the CEO only has in often cases just a 5 year contract and the CEO & owner is bound to the company. Interesting is also that 5 of 7 CEO & Owner are part of the group, who are thinking that way. The other remaining 5 specialists see this characteristic as a not important figure and explain this with statements same as: “It makes no difference, because trust must grow, the supervisor must earn it while the years.” “Both versions (more trust in CEO or CEO & owner) were seen in reality.” “It makes no difference. It depends on the leader, if people will follow.” The different use of power in economic leadership To understand more of the daily behavior of the leaders, the use of the different powers according French and Raven267 had been analyzed. The leaders had been asked, what kind of powers they use to convince the subordinate to do special work (which the worker normally would not do voluntary). e.g. that the subordinate shall work on a special weekend or something else. The leader got the option to choose one or more out of the before defined five LSPs. 100% of the specialists are leading with referent power. 7 of 12 are also using the expert power, 4 - sometimes, 1 doesn’t use it. 6 of 12 are also using the reward power, 3 - sometimes, 3 do not use it because, as they stated, it is only a short-term power. The coercive power is used by 6 out of 12 only as the last resort and 5 definitely would not use it. Only one leader was saying, that the supervisor is using it also sometimes in daily life. This result is similar to the use of legitimation power. Here 9 of 12 did not use it, 1 specialist uses it as the last resort and the remaining two leaders use legitimation in order to be fast in situations where no time is available for an explanation. Overall this result of the powers used shows, that there are positive and negative powers, which are in line with the occurrence in which they are used today. The positive powers in relation to trust, which are used today by the specialists, are referent, expert and reward power. The 267 French, J.R.P./ Raven, B. (1959): The bases of social power, in: Cartwright, D. (Hrsg.): Studies in Social power, Ann Arbor, S.150-167. and in: Raven, B.H./ Kruglanski, A.W. (1970): Conflict and Power, in: swingle , P. (Hrsg.): the structure of conflict, New York, pp.69-110. 84 negative powers in relation to trust are coercive and legitimation power, which will be in general not used by the specialists today or only as the last resort. Also this result shows that the specialists are working with trust as a basis in their leadership method, which is matsching with to the earlier pre-research, with 106 employees. The result was similar to the used powers of the specialist: expert and referent power is important (referent power is not so important in the eyes of the subordinate as the leader think it is). Reward power is also desired, but legitimation and coercive powers were not desired from the subordinates and this they do not have in their relation to their leader, too. The influence of power in a trust-based economic leadership All interview partners had the meaning, that trust is important in the leadership. Even 11 of 12 specialists came to the result, that trust is a missing power and point this out with statements same as. “Trust is a must have.” “Trust is basis to convince people.” “Trust is essential, other powers based on this.” “If there is no trust all other points are not relevant.” One specialist didn't find a clear relation between trust and leading power. With the five categories of powers itself, 100% of the specialists came to the result, that a specific use could influence the trust level of the subordinates. Not to manipulate the interview partners, the specialists were not asked power after power, if it could influence in positive or negative way. 3 of 12 specialists rated all powers in good and bad ones by their own, all other rated just one to three of them. But independent of the number of powers they rated, it came to no crossings of the results. No crossing of good and bad powers, which is highly interesting. So referent, reward and expert power were rated as a positive power, coercive and legitimation power were rated as a negative power to create trust. The negative coercive power, defined by dominance or punishment is not supporting a trust-based leadership situation.268 This result is also in line with an earlier research of Hede269 who also did not found a high influence of coercive power in the today leadership. A very high consensus of the specialists is found in the result that 11 of 12 specialists see the referent power as good power to influence the trust level in a positive way. In detail the following statements were provided regarding the kind of powers that can influence the trust level in a positive or negative way: 268 Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003) Trust me I’m your boss: Trust and power in supervisor- supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), pp.117-127 269 Hede, A.(2005), Patterns of Power and Leadership: Understanding Total Behaviour Leadership, Australian Institute of Management, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Australia, p.13 85 - referent power: 11/12 respondents stated that it influences trust in a positive way, - reward power: 5/12 respondents stated that it influences trust in a positive way, - expert power: 6/12 respondents stated that it influences trust in a positive way, - coercive power: 5/12 respondents stated that it influences trust in a negative way, - legitimation power: 5/12 respondents stated that it influences trust in a negative way. Cultural influence on a trust-based economic leadership Not all interview partners felt as specialists for cultural aspects and so not all gave answers about potential cultural deviations. Some of them tried to answer but with no clear statement. Overall the half of the asked supervisors see a cultural aspect. One specialist does not see it and the other answers of the respondents were not relevant. Often the Asian culture is seen as a hierarchy culture, with a clear difference to the European one. Due to this hierarchy the build up of trust is seen more difficult in Asia. Distance, due to respect, to CEO or owner is more given and this makes it more difficult to create trust, than in western culture, where the people would work more self depended and so trust is a must. 3.4 Definition of the general quantitative research model Starting with simplifying of the definition of the LSP’s and trust, already valid questionnaires for both research items are combined in one overall survey. This is done for subordinate, same as for the supervisor side. In addition, for the real situation the respondents are asked to indicate all circumstances, same as for a potentially favorable future for the supervisors and subordinates participating in the survey. All this is combined in the overall quantitative research model. The pre-research results as starting point of quantitative research Following the results of the former pre-research, trust is an important factor for both sides in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. Trust seems to be a result and/or a counterpart of the leadership power. In eyes of the specialists, the business world becomes more difficult day by day and according the main statement, which 100% of the specialist stated in the same way, trust is the most important factor in the business leadership of today. This statement was given by the subordinates before and supports the view of the author and the main reason of this research, which will be further quantitative researched. Research the importance of the factor trust in the business leadership of today in subordinate and supervisor’s view. To set up an actual status of the trust situation and to find out what is the best case, the situation of the subordinate has to be defined. 86 Research the trust behavior in reality and wish of the subordinates in a leadership situation. On the other side and based on the statement that a trust leadership situation is only possible if both sides trusts the other side, it has to be researched both sides, the situation of the supervisor too. Research the trust behavior in reality and wish of the supervisor in a leadership situation and compare it with the given statement of the subordinates. Furthermore supports the result of the interview the main hypothesis, that a specific use of LSP can predict the trust behavior between supervisor and subordinate. The former result for the good and bad powers is not based on predefined answers and a comparison with the direct and reciprocity powers is not meaningful. The before shown results based on answers from an open question. This can increase the importance of independent stated powers, but it can be also, that some powers just had been forgotten to define by the interviewed specialist. So this should be researched in a more defined way, too. The influence of the LSPs on the trust situation have to be checked once again with validated questionnaires. Confirm the good and bad powers of the specialists’ interview in the environment with all LSPs with validated questionnaires The most surprising result of the former research is the behavior of the specialists, which represent the supervisors in the way of their own and their expected predictability. Coming back to the result of the specialist interview, that all supervisors see trust as the most important factor of today’s leadership it is not in line with their own attitude that they do not want to be predictable. But they are in line with their expected behavior of their subordinates, who should be predictable. Perhaps this is an effect, based on the small number of participants or perhaps it is the biggest barrier of a trust-based leadership in profit-oriented organizations. So this effect has to be investigated more deeply. Evaluate if the predictable part of trust has the same share than the other bases of trust in reality and wish for subordinates and supervisors or if it is lower in reality for supervisors only. The basis of the quantitative validation of leadership power The author decided to use the French and Raven power bases, because he is in line with the meaning of Hinkin and Schriesheim270, who said, that "Although a number of power typologies or frameworks exist, perhaps the most influential is that of French and Raven. (...) Their typology is presented in most major textbooks an the field and, according to Mintzberg and others, it is also the framework most frequently used in power research." That the French and 270 Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, p.561 87 Raven taxonomy is the most popular one inside the research of leadership power was also stated by Cobb271, Frost & Stahelski272, Rahim273 and Lumenburg.274 As described before the five LSPs, reward, coercive, legitimate, expert and referent power were chosen because these are the main powers between two employees. Other detected powers, e.g. connection or informational power have its basis in an organizational platform, which is not part of this research. Based in this the developed and validated scale of Hinkin & Schriesheim275 is used in minor modified way. The questions, four for each power base, are the same, but according Hinkin & Schriesheim each question started with the words: My supervisor can… The author deleted the word can, because it should not be researched, what the subordinate thinks its supervisor can do, it should be researched, how the subordinate feels the supervisor is leading. So a potential situation is deleted by deleting the word “can” and it is just asked for the real situation of the subordinate. Due to the situation, that this already validated questionnaire is just written for the subordinate’s view and not for the leader’s view, the questions also had to be adapted by the way, that all questions for the supervisors started with “I (make, give, share, provide,….)” to document the leaders behavior. The supervisor questions itself, same as the subordinate questions before are the same than developed by Hinkin & Schriesheim so that also the meaning of the five power bases is untouched. “Reward power is the ability to administer to another things he or she desires or to remove or decrease things he or she does not desire. Coercive power is the ability to administer to another things he or she does not desire or to remove or decrease things he or she does desire. Legitimate power is the ability to administer to another feelings of obligation or responsibility. Referent power is the ability to administer to another feelings of personal acceptance or removal. 271 Cobb, A. T. (1980). Informal influence in the formal organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers. Academy of Management Journal, 23, pp.155-161 272 Frost, D. E., & Stahelski, A. J. (1988). The systematic measurement of French and Raven’s bases of social power in work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, pp.375-389 273 Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of the leader power inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, pp.491-503 274 Lumenburg, F. C. (2012). Power and leadership: An influence process. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15, pp.1-9 275 Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, p.567 88 Expert power is the ability to administer to another information, knowledge or expertise.”276 Hinkin & Schriesheim used a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree) with a neutral midpoint, which is same than in author’s survey. The basis of the quantitative validation of trust For trust two different kinds of trust scales are used for subordinate and supervisor. The team trust scale for subordinate and the leader trust scale for the supervisor. The basis for these two scales, which are used inside the survey is the revised Team Trust Scale of Adams & Sartori277, which are for both cases an each compressed 20 items questionnaire, out of the former team and leader trust scale of the same authors. They are an adaption and validation of the earlier work of Adams, Bruyn and Chung-Yan278 two years and Adams and Webb279 three years before. This shorter version was developed to get an effective set of questions, which are less redundant and easier to complete. The reduction of the single items had been done empirically by the before mentioned authors. They removed the lower items in total correlation out of the different subscales and recalculated the new reliability and total correlation until five items of each subscale remained. The subscales or here also called trust categories benevolence, integrity, predictability and competence had not been changed. Originally benevolence, integrity, predictability and competence had been created as person based factors 2003280 / 2004281 and in 2006 Adams& Sartori revised the competence item, also based on the findings of van der Kloet282 and validated the four categories. 276 Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, p.562 277 Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario, pp.25, 40 278 Adams, B.D., Bruyn, L.E., & Chung-Yan, G. (2004). Creating Measures of Trust in Small Military Teams. DRDC Report No. CR-2004-077, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario 279 Adams , B.D., & Webb, R.D.G. (2003), Trust Development in Small Teams, DRDC No. CR-2003-016, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario 280 ADAMS, B.D., & WEBB, R.D.G. (2003). Model of Trust Development in Small Teams. Report to Department of National Defence. DRDC No. CR-2003-016. pp.39, 54ff, 70 281 ADAMS, B.D., BRUYN, L.E., & CHUNG-YAN, G. (2004). Creating Measures of Trust in Small Military Teams. Report to Department of National Defence. DRDC Report No. CR-2004-077. p.29 282 van der Kloet, I. (2005). A Soldierly Perspective on Trust: A Study into Trust within the Royal Netherlands Army. Tilburg University: The Netherlands, pp58 ff 89 Both questionnaires are original created for subordinates and supervisors in a military organization and is originally ordered from the Canadian Forces. Nevertheless the result of a comparison between a military organization and a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor is very similar. In both cases we have one person, who wants another person to do something what the supervisor wants. The basis of the supervisor’s power is in both cases given by all five LSPs and in both way the result of defiance what the supervisor said is the same: coercive in different ways with the final worst case of leaving the company or military. Also the trust situation of subordinate and supervisor is similar. All four categories of trust, benevolence, competence, integrity and predictability, have to be used or developed between both sides, independent if in business or military daily routine. In both cases, subordinate and supervisor didn’t know each other before, but they must work together to create the best result. – There is no given trust like mostly in a family or mother child relationship. In addition Adams & Satori recommended: “However, it would be ideal to validate the shortened version with an independent sample from a different (e.g. non-military) context.”283 In the further research Adams & Sartori284 validated and confirmed their team and leader trust scale among other scales, e.g. Zolin & Hinds 285, van der Kloet 286, Mc Allister287 and Cook & Wall288 and others. The definition of the four trust items from Adams & Webb289 is adapted by the author in the following: Benevolence: Is rather more affective, than cognitive, taking care of the well- being of others. Integrity: Defined as honor and match between words and actions. 283 Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario, p.50 284 Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario, pp.29-33, 43-45 285 Zolin, R., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Trust in Context: The Development of Interpersonal Trust in Geographically Distributed Work. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), The Russell Sage Foundation series on trust. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, Russell Sage Foundation. pp.214–238 286 van der Kloet, I. (2005). A Soldierly Perspective on Trust: A Study into Trust within the Royal Netherlands Army. Tilburg University: The Netherlands, pp.58 ff 287 MCALLISTER, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), pp.24-59 288 COOK, J., & WALL, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, pp.39-52 289 ADAMS, B.D., & WEBB, R.D.G. (2003). Model of Trust Development in Small Teams. Report to Department of National Defence. DRDC No. CR-2003-016. pp.54-58 90 Predictability: The result of experience will prognosticate the act of another person. Competence: The ability to deal with a variety of stressors (time, value, manpower…), the ability to solve problems. Adams and Sartori used a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“Completely Disagree”) to 7 (“Completely Agree) with a neutral midpoint. The author changed this to a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree) with a neutral midpoint, to get an overall ranking system, which is in line with the additional power questionnaire. So the asked persons have the advantage, that they have an overall scale for all questions of the questionnaire, independent from trust or LSP, just mixed in a random order. Quantitative research model To create a general research model for the situation between supervisor and subordinate with the view on LSP and trust and to combine the before mentioned models, it has to be taken into account, that the questions have to be separated in the following way: - Supervisor and subordinate have their own specific questions about each of the four trust bases, with each 5 questions according Adams & Sartori – in total each 20 questions. - Supervisor and subordinate have their own specific questions about each of the five LSP bases, with each 4 questions according Hinkin & Schriesheim – in total each 20 questions With this information a clear picture about the actual situation in relation to LSP and trust can be researched for a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. Also the volume of each 20 questions for trust and power has a balance between the two research items, so that the asked employee doesn’t get the feeling, that the questionnaire has a main direction of research. Unfortunately, it cannot be determined, if the surveyed employee, independently whether a subordinate or a supervisor, is satisfied with this situation. That is the reason, why it is asked about the desired status in both ways too, for the LSP situation as well as for the trust situation. So the total amount of basic questions raise in this way to 40 (real) + 40 (wish) for supervisor, same as subordinate. This doubles the model (see 91 Figure 12) and survey for the desired situation. Figure 12: Research model Source: author’s model based on validated questionnaires 92 In the beginning the author had some doubts if there would be a different between the actual and desired power situation of the supervisor, because the supervisor is controlling the power to its subordinate by his/her own. However the result shows, there is a difference. 3.5 Evaluation of the quantitative data collected by questionnaire While creating the questionnaire round about the general research model, the question about the length arose. It should be prevented, that the questionnaire is too long and that the asked respondents abort filling out in the middle of the questionnaire. This would have the effect that probably the whole questionnaire couldn’t be used, because of just part results. This is the so called Drop-Outs, if the respondent aborts the questionnaire, due to non interest or other reasons. In ideal case the questionnaire should be no longer than 10 to 15 minutes290, which is fulfilled for the case that just one questionnaire, supervisor or subordinate, had been filled out. (Filling out both parts of the questionnaires takes round about 20 minutes time.) To prevent this situation, the following measures had been done: a.) Combined questions – Due to the situation, that the already validated questionnaires of trust and power do not allow open questions, just a scaling on a Likert scale, each specific question for trust and power had been combined for reality and desired future. So these 20 plus 20 questions for power and trust are just asked one time for the real situation and direct behind this, an additional five point Likert scale for the desired future had been placed. With this action the asked employee just need to think one time about the question and can put two answers in very short time period. Another advantage is, that the relative position of the answer in theses two, real and wish scales is directly linked and the failure of giving a wrong answer in view of the relative position is reduced. That the answer itself is wrong is in both cases, real same as wish, secured to the mixed position of the additional beside-questions for the same variable. b.) Splitting questionnaires for supervisor and subordinate – starting with a general part about the person itself, the asked employee has the option to fill out the subordinate or supervisor questionnaire. This is most important for the supervisors, because subordinate just have the only option to fill out the subordinate part. The supervisors, who are less than subodinates in oragnizations and so the data are not so easy to get, 290 Wagner, Pia, and Linda Hering. "Online-Befragung." Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2014. p.667 93 has the option to do only the supervisor or the supervisor and subordinate questionnaires. In most of the cases, if the supervisor is not the owner of the company, the supervisor is able to fill out the subordinate part too, because also another person leads the supervisor. Independent of that situation, this splitting should make sure that the supervisor fills out the supervisor part and if motivated the subordinate part can be filled out, in addition. Beside the aim of a smart content of the questionnaire, the general information of the asked employee has to be researched. Here 12 additional questions about the person itself, the position inside the company, the company itself and the supervisor were asked in closed question in the beginning of the questionnaire. At the end of each supervisor or subordinate section with the basic 20+20 questions for LSP and trust, some control questions had been placed. The questions, three for the supervisors and four for the subordinates, had been created by the author to get a better understanding, if the potential findings are in line with general statements of the asked employees. All parts of the questionnaire followed the recommendation of Kallus291 that several questions were given with the identical response mode in clear and unique way. Evaluation of the data collecting influence onto the quantitative data The experience of collecting data about leadership and trust, out of the former pre-test and specialist interview, was that the respondent often seem to be very critical by giving answers about this research field. The best way to prevent getting wrong or no information was a mix of personal information and discussion at the beginning and then giving the possibility of anonymous answers. This situation was independent from supervisor and subordinate side and has been adapted to the quantitative research. To get the best picture of the LSP and trust correlation between supervisor and subordinate, the questionnaire had been forwarded to the respondent personally. This means, a printed cover letter with the questionnaire and an envelope for the later return. Beside the background of the questionnaire, in the cover letter all respondent have been asked to write their name onto the questionnaire to create a higher identification from the respondent to the given answers, but 94% of the returned questionnaires had no personal identification on the document itself. Just from the stamp or similar remarks the company was identifiable. 291 Kallus, K. W. (2016). Erstellung von Fragebogen. 2. Auflage (Vol. 4465). UTB., p.19 94 To hand over the questionnaire direct to persons, instead of an online questionnaire, has several advantages. According Couper & Couts292 the respondent has several barriers before (s)he answers the first question and which are disadvantages for an online version. In first step the respondent must know that (s)he shall make the questionnaire. So the invitation for that online survey can be detected as spam and the respondent will never be aware of it. Second, also if the respondent finds the invitation inside its mailbox, (s)he must decide to do it and to find the right time to do it. So it can be forgotten or the respondent can be fully aware of it, but due to the effort, (s)he has the excuse, that it will be never seen due to the spam diagnostic program. This excuse can be also used, if reminder e-mail will be sent. The next problem is, that if the respondent only wants to answer in an anonymous way, which was often desired due to the research items trust and power, a universal link must be used, which doesn’t allow an exact answer about the return quote of the questionnaire later on.293 To prevent these problems, the respondent had been asked directly and the questionnaires had been forwarded in a printed version. The respondent had been also not motivated with incentives to fill out the form. Here the factor of a smart questionnaire with reduced time to fill out has a higher relevance.294 The expectation that most of the respondent prefer to give an anonymous answer became real as written before, independent if it is stated that the later evaluation is anonymous or not. This expectation based on the earlier results of the pre-test and the specialist interview, where the author found an obstruction of the asked employee, when they should talk about their trust leadership situation to their supervisor or subordinate counterpart. The situation for the use of the different LSPs was the same. Here in particular, the subordinate had a barrier to forward information about their supervisor in a non-anonymous way. As a further challenge to get the wanted data was the situation, that in case of anonymous data, it seemed to be that it can’t be assured, that subordinate and supervisors have a coupled situation, means that the information from subordinate and supervisor belong to each other. In worst case supervisor information are from company A to E and subordinate information are from company F to H. To avoid this effect in most of the cases only the supervisors were directly asked by the author to participate at the survey. In addition they should distribute the forwarded questionnaires to their subordinates to get subordinate / supervisor couples inside the database. In some cases the 292 Couper, Mick P./Coutts, Elisabeth (2006): Online-Befragung. Probleme und Chancen ver-schiedener Arten von Online-Erhebungen. In: Diekmann (Hg), pp.217-243 293 Wagner, Pia, and Hering, Linda. "Online-Befragung." Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2014., p.667 294 Batinic, Bernad/Bosnjak, Michael (2000): Fragebogenuntersuchungen im Internet. In Batinic, B. (Ed.). (2000). Internet für Psychologen. Hogrefe Verlag., pp. 287-317 95 questionnaires were forwarded also to subordinates directly with the appeal to forward the other questionnaires to their supervisor and colleagues. Not to get an overweight of one company, because companies same as leaders can have sometimes very specific management cultures. The employees, supervisor same as subordinate, were asked to fill out five questionnaires with their team. Further it was regulated by the author, that not more than 20 questionnaires are from one company, because respondents from some companies are more motivated than others to fill out the questionnaire. Evaluation of the respondents influence onto the quantitative data 207 employees from 125 companies were asked to fill out five questionnaires with their teams. During the period from 15.03.2019 to 18.06.2019 the research has been carried out with supervisors and subordinates in profit-oriented companies in German speaking countries and the return quote were 242 questionnaires out of minimum 74 different companies. Due to the completely anonymous status, in 37 returned questionnaires it was not clear what companies they were from. This relatively high share of theoretical 23,4% returned questionnaires, out of min. 59,2% of the surveyed companies, is expected due to the effect of the personal contact to the respondents. From the 242 returned questionnaires 6 were not useable, 32 had only the supervisor part and 119 had only the subordinate part filled out. 85 questionnaires had been filled out completely both on the part of the supervisors and the subordinates. Due to the situation, that 16 shareholders and 3 freelancers took part in the survey, not all employed supervisors (11,1%) felt to have a boss, did not understand the cover letter or did not want to fill out the subordinate questionnaire. On the other hand, the respondent were asked in the common part of the questionnaire, if they have supervisorial responsibility, here 133 participants agree but only 117 real supervisor questionnaires returned. This can be on the one side the effect, that they do not see themselves as real supervisor, because they are just managing small teams, but the real supervisor with disciplinary responsibility is another employee. This could be explained that all of these employees, beside one, have just mid or low management level. Just one employee stated, that she is in a high management position of a company size with 50-249 employees but unfortunately she didn’t fill out the supervisor questionnaire, too. Overall the distribution of the supervisors is 23 CEO/managing directors and other supervisors, who are working in high management (36), mid management (47) and low management (27). 45 participants just make national business, the rest, 197 respondents are making international business, but all respondents are from German speaking countries (Swiss, Austria, Germany). 96 Nearly the half of them (117) are from the automotive industry, which is for Germany relevant because the Automotive industry is the biggest part in the producing industry, measured on the sales volume, the most significant industrial sector of Germany.295 The other respondents are from manufacturing (52), service (30), logistic (9), consulting (8), IT (7) and other not specified companies (19). The age of the participants is subdivided by <29 years (63), 30-39 years (56), 40-49 years (48), 50-59 years (64) and >59 years (11) and the estimated age of the next leader level or in other words, the respondent’s supervisor was <29 years (4), 30-39 years (36), 40-49 years (79), 50- 59 years (93) and >59 years (13). This is representative with the average age of supervisors in Germany, which is 51,9 years in 2018, researched with 3,16 million supervisors, where even 17,1% of the supervisors were 61 to 70 years.296 Surely the demographic change is one reason of this high average age of the supervisors. Just to compare the results with 14 years before, the average age was between 40 and 50 years.297 Other distributions of the respondents do not show a real relevance to the research. 23,2% of the respondents are women, 76,4% men and 0,4% have not specified the gender. The different company size is shared by <50 employees (35), 50- 249 employees (76), 250-749 employees (36), 750-1999 employees (36) and >1999 employees (59). – Graphs see appendix The gender of the next level leader are 24 female and 202 male supervisors. This share of women is still small but representative for the share in Germany. In 2018 the share of women in supervisor position was 21,3% overall. In mechanical engineering, which is comparable to automotive and manufacturing and which have the highest share of participants in this study, only 9,8% of the supervisors were women.298 3.6 Trust as a factor to improve the fluctuation rate in the company In the beginning of the research, the author supposed to find a correlation between the fluctuation rate and a high trust leadership between subordinate and supervisor. That the job 295 Deutscher Bundestag (2017) wissenschaftliche Dienste: Arbeitsplätze der Automobilindustrie und des Umweltverbundes, WD 5 Wirtschaft und Verkehr, Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. WD 5 - 3000 - 122/16, p.4 https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/496346/1a9b4fbe228b43b15bc6fbf3de0cb195/wd-5- 122-16-pdf-data.pdf (07.04.2020) 296 Rudnicka, J. (2018), Statista: Durchschnittsalter von Führungskräften in Deutschland nach Bundesländern im Jahr 2018, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182536/umfrage/durchschnittsalter-von- geschaeftsfuehrern-nach-bundeslaendern-und-geschlecht/ (08.04.2020) 297 Schneider, H., Lorenzen, O., & Stein, D. (2006). Personalpolitische Strategien deutscher Unternehmen zur Bewältigung demografisch bedingter Rekrutierungsengpässe bei Führungskräften. IZA., p.12 298 Rudnicka, J. (2019), Frauenquote - Stand 30.Okt. 2018, Statista https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/575509/umfrage/frauenanteil-in-fuehrungspositionen-in-deutschland- nach-branchen/ (03.07.2019) 97 satisfaction is significant negative correlated to the fluctuation rate is common sense. The trust of the employee has a direct effect on the identification of the employee to the company and its performance.299 Porter et al. said, that “Job satisfaction reduces the fluctuation probability”300 which is beside many other e.g. confirmed by Gebert & von Rosenstiel.301 Also trust can be a binding element between subordinates and supervisor, and so also the binding to the company is expected. Looking at the Hays Human Resources Report 2018302, 27% of the managing directors (Top 3 Item after development of company culture (32%) and flexible working structures (28%)), 32% of the Human Resources Department Leaders (Top Item) and also 43% of other Department Leaders (Top Item), see the task to bind employees as a top challenge. So trust seems to be an important element here, too. The results of McClelland303 showed furthermore that having trust in the competence of the employee is improving the performance-orientation of an employee and that this is an important factor how the environment must be arranged to bind performance oriented employees to the company. Companies, which didn’t respect this, beside other soft factors, had a higher fluctuation rate according Mertel 304 . This is the more interesting in the direction of management, because soft factors are, compared with the normal hard ones, the success factors, which are more difficult to control in companies.305 But this situation is not only relevant for companies, according Kuhn & Weibler306, a bad leadership model of the supervisor has a negative correlation to the performance and the well being of the subordinate, up to a change of the job itself. “Fluctuation results out of the voluntary decision of employees to quit their organizational membership.”307 On the other side talking about fluctuation means adding the 299 Dirks, K. /Ferrin, D. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, publiched in Organization Science, 12, pp.450-467 300 Porter, L. W., E.E. & Hackman, J.R (1975): Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill. p.350 301 Gebert, D., & von Rosenstiel, L. (2002): Organisationspsychologie. 5. Auflage. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart. p.91 302 Eilers, S, Möckel, K., Rump, J., Schabel, F. (2018), Hays HR Report 2018, https://www.hays.de/documents/10192/118775/hays-studie-hr-report-2018.pdf/243a467e-bc39-6b0a-3ac1- 95c5f9bd43bc (09.01.2019) 303 McClelland, D.C. (1965) Toward a theory of motive acquisition. In: American Psychologist. Nr. 20. pp.321- 333 304 Mertel,.B. (2006), Arbeitszufriedenheit – eine empiriche Studie zu Diagnose, Erfassung und Modifikation in einem führenden Unternehmen des Automotives; Inaugural Dissertation in der Fakultät Pädagogik, Philosophie, Psychologie an der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, p.52 305 Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. J. (1982): In search of excellence. Lessons from America’s best-run companies, New York et al.: Harper & Row in Dorow W. (2007) Konfliktverhalten: Eine interkulturelle Spannungsquelle. In: Unternehmenskulturen in globaler Interaktion. Gabler, p.133 306 Kuhn, T., & Weibler, J. (2020). Bad Leadership: Von Narzissten & Egomanen, Vermessenen & Verführten: Warum uns schlechte Führung oftmals gut erscheint und es guter Führung häufig schlecht ergeht. Vahlen. (p.15) 307 Huf, S. (2012) Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart, inside Ursachen der Fluktuation verstehen, Mitarbeiterbindung optimieren, Personalführung 03/2012, p.30 98 company, means also adding a new connection node into the research. Until now, the situation between two employees had been researched. By adding the company, there is a new node, which can be in a linear view behind the supervisor or in a triangle view beside both persons. Nevertheless, it is a new node. Shahram308 treated in case of several nodes the trust values same as probability values, but as mentioned in the beginning, in this research just a two sided effect will be assumed, that’s why at this exceptional case of leaving the direct research way between supervisor and subordinate, the fluctuation will be seen as direct relation to the subordinate, same as a triangle, just having a view on the loyalty path, one path between subordinate and company. Loyalty can be seen as a direct connection to the fluctuation problem in companies. 2016 Germany had a fluctuation rate for the processing trade companies of 19,1%. In 2017 the fluctuation rate increases to 21,5%309. The average time of employment of a specialist or supervisor is only four years, even if in general every second employee in Germany changes its job earliest after 10 years310. All these are reasons, why loyalty or better to say trust as a precondition has to be improved from the supervisor to the subordinate. The importance to bind employees to the company or department is known in the meantime on every management level. So the expectation, to get a confirmation of the direct relation between trust and an improvement of the fluctuation rate was high, but unfortunately, the results showed disturbance values which are not allowing a direct and final conclusion out of this data of this research study. The number of respondents have to be increased in future studies, because of the high share of employees, who do not want to change the job at all. On the other side two part results are also very interesting for this study as well. That’s why it should be mentioned here, too. To get an overview of the starting point of the research, subordinates same than supervisors had been asked about their time inside their actual company. They were clustered by their actual time in company of <1 year (22), 1-4 years (67), 5-10 years (53), 11-19 years (51) and longer than 19 years (48). In additional it was documented how often they changed the company after their 25th birthday. This age was chosen to cut off the orientation phase of the employee, which is also different when persons will be compared, e.g. who studied or have started a job directly 308 Shahram, S. (2020). A new model for calculating the maximum trust in online social networks and solving by artificial bee colony algorithm. Computational Social Networks, 7(1), p.6 309 Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2018) Berichte: Blickpunkt Arbeitsmarkt – Der Arbeitsmarkt in Deutschland 2017, Nürnberg, https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/201712/ama/heft- arbeitsmarkt/arbeitsmarkt-d-0-201712-pdf.pdf (09.01.2019) 310 Sorrentino, T. (2014) Stepstone.de, Alle vier Jahre ein neuer Arbeitgeber – 21.03.2014 12:08 https://www.presseportal.de/pm/38447/2693619 (09.01.2019) 99 after school. Every third employee has changed its job one or more times up to its 25th year.311 So the distribution of the clusters of the respondents were, that 111 employees have not changed, 57 changed one time, 58 employees changed 2-3 times, 15 changed 4-9 times and one employee changed 10 or more times. So starting with these quite well distributed employees it was very surprising, that 165 employees (68,7%) are not planning to change the company. The other clusters showed, that 13 employees want to leave the company in less than 1 year, 21 employees in 1-2 years, 25 employees in 3-5 years, 11 employees in 6-9 years and 5 employees in 10 or more years. A similar distribution is also found by having a look on the subordinates only (see Figure 13). Figure 13: Changing the company is planned (only subordinates) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 134 subordinates do not plan to change their workplace, 12 subordinates would like to leave their jobs in less than 1 year, 19 subordinates in 1-2 years, 23 subordinates in 3-5 years, 11 subordinates in 6-9 years and 19 in 10 or more years. The data for the supervisors had been also received, but due to the small number of supervisors, who would like to change work, they have not been separately analyzed in this case. So, based on the data received from subordinates only, that most of the employees would not want to change work, the starting database of the employees, who would like to change work in reality is too small. To get a real statement of 311 Statista research department (2011), Haben Sie schon einmal oder mehrmals von sich aus den Arbeitgeber gewechselt oder haben Sie die Absicht, in Kürze zu wechseln? - Deutschland, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/180071/umfrage/haeufigkeit-von-arbeitgeberwechseln/ (09.04.2020) 12 19 23 11 3 134 2 9 20 12 19 141 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 <1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-9 years >=10 years no change planned re sp o n d en ts real wish 100 research, the number of respondents who do not plan to change work must be higher. But independently of that, two remarkable effects have been shown on this stage, because of these findings the respondents, who would not want to change work, can be included: a.) There is a trend in the respondents’ statements, that if the supervisor would lead the subordinates as they desired, the respondents would stay in the company longer. Also, it is interesting, that the respondents stated only that they would stay longer and not that they would not change workplace. So there seems to be an effect that the employees who are led with power and trust as they want (which is a surely a borderline, theoretical view and not practical) would stay longer in the company, but not for ever. In eyes of the author this is very interesting, because this could mean in other words: Employees change the company independent from the kind of leadership. Counting only the respondents, who would like to change the real situation to the desired one, the following conclusions could be found: If supervisors are leading with power and trust the as subordinates wish, - less than 3.5% of the subordinates who earlier wanted to change the company, would not change the company, - max. 29.5% of the subordinates who earlier wanted to change the company, would stay longer in the company and - for min. 67% of the subordinates it makes no difference how they will be led. They will leave or stay, same as before. The 29.5% can be investigated more deeply to see if there are also subordinates inside, where real and wish is the same and if not, how big the difference is. But in author’s view this just makes sense with a higher number of respondents. The more interesting outcome is, that it is in maximum a third, where the desired situation of power and trust brings an improvement and that just in 3.5% the respondents would only change their status from “want to leave the company in x-years” to “will not leave” the company. Further in two third of the cases, it has absolutely no influence onto the subordinates. That is why the situation of the high amount of employees has to be discussed, who not plan to change the company. b.) The amount of people who do not plan to change the company seem to be very high. This can be due to the effect, that people do not want to give the right answer, because they think 101 that the information can be shared with their supervisor or company and this information as same as the information of the trust and power situation with their supervisor is a very sensible information.312 So these questions, which are for real in the common part at the beginning and for wish at the end of the questionnaire, are only two direct and not repeated questions with variables. So the respondent could be gone into defensive and just gave a safe answer, just for the case that an employee from inside of the company should get this information. On the other side compared with a study from 2009 (26.756 respondents) in German companies, 75% changed one to five times and 16% never changed the company. 6 to 10 times changed only in 8% of the employees, which seem to be not so different to the before discussed research.313 Table 3: Cross check of own and existing results for the fluctuation of employees Research Statista (2009) Research Statista (2011) Research Brenke (2015) Own research 2019 employee changed 1-5 times 75% n.a. n.a. ~50% 47.5% (1-3 times) 6 % (4-9 times) age >15 years age >25years employee want to change n.a. 8.8% 11% 14% / 17,7% data not comparable (world economic crisis) want to change in near future unsatisfied with work want to change in next 2 years age 26-29 all / age 26-29 Gross domestic product growth (Germany) - 4.0% + 5.0% + 4.1% + 2.75% 2015-18: + 3.1-3.5% Source: research results of Brenke, German statistical research department and author Unfortunately the data cannot be compared one by one, because in mentioned study employees starting with an age of 15 years are included. Another study from 2011 showed that 8.8% with age of 26-29 years want to change their job in the near future.314 Comparing this with the result 312 Respondents stated often, that the questionnaire has very sensible information and they double checked at the author, that this information will be just shared anonymous 313 Statista research department (2009), Wie häufig haben Sie in Ihrem Arbeitsleben schon den Arbeitgeber gewechselt? - Deutschland und EU, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/28914/umfrage/haeufigkeit-der- arbeitsplatzwechsel/ (09.04.2020) 314 Statista research department (2011), Haben Sie schon einmal oder mehrmals von sich aus den Arbeitgeber gewechselt oder haben Sie die Absicht, in Kürze zu wechseln? - Deutschland, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/180071/umfrage/haeufigkeit-von-arbeitgeberwechseln/ (09.04.2020) 102 of the research, the overall value of round about 14%, who want to change the job within the next 2 years gets a more realistic value. A direct comparison of the 63 persons of the research with the same age, show that 17.7% will change their job in the next 2 years. The comparison in Figure 3 shows, that the basis data of the research are in the range of already existing data and the light increased value of employees who want to change is a note, that the respondents answered in an open way and the data are trustable. It has to mention, that the quantity of persons, who want to change the company can be much more different looking at business platforms or company researches. There are also researches from online business platform, where 39%315 - 44%316 of the asked employees would change the company in the next twelve months. These values differ a lot from the ones of the earlier shown researches and are from the value itself just comparable with the overall persons, who want to change inside this research (33%). On the other side could be the high share coming from the business platform sample itself, which is very near located to item “job change” itself. Independent of that it shows, that the share of people, who wish to change the company can differ a lot and should be investigated more deeply. Another reason for the high amount of respondents, who don’t want to change the company can be the economic situation. If the respondent is afraid about the loss of its employment or in unsecure times, the respondent is less willing to change the company. The period of the survey was the time within March and July 2019. The respondents are all from German speaking countries and nearly the half of them are from 2nd or 3rd tier automotive supplier industry, which is a usual situation in German. Comparing the gross domestic product of Germany with the times before, the increase was a little bit smaller in 2019 (2.75%) than the four years ago (3.1%- 3.5%).317 Comparing just the first two quarters of 2019 with the quarter afterward or the quarters before, there is also no abnormality, all quarters continue with a steady growth.318 So this potetial effect seems not to be the reason. 315 Xing.com (2020) https://recruiting.xing.com/de/wissen-veranstaltungen/wissen/hr-news-trends/job-umfrage- 2020-das-wuenschen-sich-deutsche (30.03.2021) 316 Karrierebibel.de (2020) https://karrierebibel.de/jobzufriedenheit/ (30.03.2021) 317 Rudnicka, J, (2020), Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) in Deutschland von 1950 bis 2019, Statista, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4878/umfrage/bruttoinlandsprodukt-von-deutschland-seit-dem-jahr- 1950/ (10.04.2020) 318 Rudnika, J. (2020) Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) in Deutschland in jeweiligen Preisen vom 4. Quartal 2015 bis zum 4. Quartal 2019, Statista, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/3829/umfrage/entwicklung-des- bruttoinlandsprodukts-in-deutschland-nach-quartalen/ (10.04.2020) 103 Last but not least, beside all doubts about the correctness of data, there is also a good possibility, that the data reflects the reality. Comparing the results with Brenke319, which results based on German employees in 2013, only round about 11% are unsatisfied with their job. A crosscheck with the gross domestic product growth, which was in 2012 2,4% and in 2013 4,1% the situation is light but not fundamental different, so that a comparison is acceptable. 3.7 Detailed analysis of the empirical data of leadership power and trust of supervisor and subordinate In this part the correlation of LSP and trust is analyzed with the output of the collected data. For this the research model, the data itself has to be verified with the findings of the research and tested with validated statistical methods. 3.7.1 Empirical examination of the quantitative data Starting with the empirical examination, in a first step the general research model has to be adjusted. The before shown variant is showing two separated power bases, one for each employee, subordinate and supervisor. These positions are clearly different, because they get or give LSP. This situation is fine and correct also for the further research. 319 Brenke, Karl (2015) : Die große Mehrzahl der Beschäftigten in Deutschland ist mit ihrer Arbeit zufrieden, DIW-Wochenbericht, ISSN 1860-8787, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin, Vol. 82, Iss. 32/33, p.719 104 Figure 14: Separated research models for supervisor and subordinate Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research The base, which is rethought, is the one for trust. - One base for trust is chosen in the general research model, because it should be the binding element between supervisor and subordinate, with the same level of trust for both sides. Surely, the trust level between the both employees can be the same and just vary due to the use of the different LSPs. But unfortunately this is just a theory at this stage of examination and also the trust level of the both employees can be different. So the research model has to start a step before and the trust and LSP situation has to be researched for subordinate and supervisor separate (see Figure 14). Also there are different questionnaires for the trust situation of supervisor and subordinate, which is also an item to divide the trust situation for both employees. It has to be made transparent how the different subversions of trust and LSP will work together, to get a clear picture for both parties alone. After the situation for both sides is clear by its own, then a crosscheck will be done to compare the results between supervisor and subordinate. Both separated models show the different variables of LSP and trust with its appropriate questions in real and a desired future. For both sides of the leadership, information about reality 105 and desired future are available out of the questionnaire, but to get a stable base and to avoid discussions about a potential or desired future, just the real situation will be examined more deeply. The desired situation will be just used as a comparison of a potential best case. The two single research models have each 20 questions for trust and power. Trust has 4 subversions with each 5 questions and power has 5 subversions with each 4 questions. The detailed research model with description of abbreviations is shown in the appendix. To understand the different variables and potential changes or lacks, e.g. out of the translation from the original English into German or by adapting the supervisor questionnaire from the Hinkin & Schriesheim definition, the questions had been descriptive analyzed by the total number of results of subordinate and supervisor. All statistical analysis had been done with IBM SPSS. Descriptive analysis statistics of leadership power and trust Leadership Power - The four questions of the coercive power have a relative high spread (1,71- 2,91) in the mean and a standard deviation between 0,954 and 1,057 (see Table 4). While the deviation is comparable to the other powers later on, the spread of the mean can be a result of the translation, but the more interesting is that all these means are smaller than neutral (= 50% or scale point 3 of 5 in the questionnaire). Figure 15: Felt leadership power of supervisors (subordinates’ view) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er real wish 106 Figure 16: Used leadership powers of supervisors Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research It means also that this LSP is used not so much than the others, which are all above 3 or 4 (comparable to 50-75%) in the mean. In comparison to the other ones it becomes directly visible. The before shown questions of LSP can be compared one by one between subordinate (see Figure 15) and supervisor (see Figure 16), because the basis from the supervisor part had been adapted from Hinkin & Schriesheim subordinate scale items by the author. For this analysis a Mann-Whitney-U-Test had been done. (see chapter 3.7.3) Table 4: Descriptive statistics of leadership power (total sample) Mean (min:1 / max:5) Standard Deviation Coercive power 1.71-2.91 .954-1.057 Expert power 3.58-3.84 .846-1.039 Legitimate power 3.73-4.02 .695-.870 Referent power 4.03-4.28 .804-.901 Reward power 3.13-3.67 1.090-1.167 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Trust - The categories of trust show a more homogeneous behavior. (see Table 5) Here the four variables with their each 5 questions show all mean values above 3 (50%) in the mean, which 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er real wish 107 is an indicator for a trustful leadership situation between subordinate and supervisor of the participants. For the scaling of trust, two different questionnaires had been used: the team trust scale (results see Figure 17) and the leader trust scale (results see Figure 18). Figure 17: Trust situations of subordinates Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Figure 18: Trust situation of supervisors Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st real wish 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st real wish 108 Both scales are from Adams and Sartori, both scales have 20 questions, both have 5 questions for the same categories of trust. But the single questions cannot be compared together, because the background is partly different. So e.g. question TS-B01 (see appendix) of the category benevolence cannot be compared between supervisor and subordinate, because the meaning of both questions are different. This information is important to know, if single questions will be compared, but it’s not important for comparing the trust categories benevolence, competence, integrity and predictability between supervisor and subordinates, because they are the same and have been proven by the original authors before. In addition the common level of the four trust categories is also an indicator for stable research basis. For a better differentiation of the trust situation they will be split to different trust levels afterward. Table 5: Descriptive statistics of trust (total sample) Mean (min:1 / max:5) Standard Deviation Benevolence 3.10-3.80 .884-1.014 Competence 3.81-4.12 .776-.938 Integrity 3.78-4.05 .861-.939 Predictable 3.34-4.04 .746-.893 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Scale Testing Before this can be allowed, the reliability of the 9 general variables of LSP and trust for the total sample has to be checked with Cronbach’s Alpha, which measures the reliability of a group of items, to measure an overall construct.320 Schecker sees the Conbach’s Alpha to measure the different items of one variable and its similarity, in particular to measure certain personal characteristics.321 The values can be between minus infinite and 1 and the resulting value should be 0.7 or higher322, so that the use of the middle values for trust, same as LSP is acceptable. 320 Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (1996), “Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte: Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung,” Marketing: Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis 18, no. 1, p.8. 
 321 Krüger, D.; Parchmann, I.; Schecker, H. (Hrsg.),; (2014) Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung Springer-Verlag, (p.1) ISBN 978-3-364237826-3 – Zusammenfassung, p.1 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwintuiqturoAhWdwQI HHegDCM8QFjADegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument %2Fcda_downloaddocument%2FCronbach%2BAlpha.pdf%253FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1426184- p175274210&usg=AOvVaw2_wmYTLTy1LgaufHP1hmLb (20.04.2020) 322 Nunnally, J. C., Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p.245 109 This is same to the meaning of Schmitt323 or Cortina324, but 0.7 is not a general statement in the literature. So Bortz & Döring325 aspire a value of 0.8, but also less alpha values between 0.6- 0.7 are still acceptable according Bagozzi & Yi326. However values less than 0.6 are seen from all as a critical value. For these variables the definition of a final value is not really relevant, comparing the results with the before mentioned requirements. Table 6: Reliability of variables (total sample) Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Coercive Power 0.792 (4 items) Benevolence (Trust) 0.867 (5 items) Expert Power 0.852 (4 items) Competence (Trust) 0.903 (5 items) Legitimate Power 0.822 (4 items) Integrity (Trust) 0.892 (5 items) Referent Power 0.902 (4 items) Predictability (Trust) 0.778 (5 items) Reward Power 0.790 (4 items) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Streiner has the meaning as well and gives as a rule of thumb a value of > 0.65 to accept the analyzed data. Further a very high value of e.g. 0.95 can be critical as well, because it could point out that different items are redundant.327 All 9 variables have a Cronbach’s Alpha between 0.778-0.903 and are in or above the requirement of Nunnally, Schmitt, Cortina, Bortz and Döring, so the reliability is given and the use of the middle value is acceptable. (see Table 6) In addition it has to be remarked, that with a increasing number of items, Cronbach’s Alpha increases too and that so the number of items should be taken into account while interpretation, in particular for the case, that a scale has just a small number of items (<5)328, same as the five power variables have. So also if these 323 Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assess- ment 8(4), pp.350–353. 324 Cortina, J. M. (1993): What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), pp.98-104. 325 Bortz, J., Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. (4. Auflage). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. p.725 326 Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), pp.74-94. 327 D. L. Streiner (2003) Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency In: Journal of Personality Assessment Ban 80, 2003, pp.99–103. 328 Cortina, J. M. (1993) What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), pp.98-104. 110 Cronbach’s alpha values are disadvantaged due to their only 4 items, the values are still high enough for the reliability of their scales. Trust Level definition To get a first impression of the different scales and their distribution for subordinate and supervisor, the different levels of trust, has to be defined and the data has to be clustered. (see Table 7) To get direct link to the results of the survey, three groups with the following boundaries have been defined. These categories can be also directly compared with the five point Likert scale with the neutral mid-point inside the original questionnaires. Due to the reason, that in the case that the asked employee has absolutely no trust, the first point of the Likert-scale is marked, which gives the zero-point of the scale. Table 7: Trust level definition Trust level (TL) Percentage value Comparison to 5 Point Likert Scale (no or) low trust 0% - 50% 1- 3 point mid trust >50% - 75% >3 - 4point high trust >75% - 100% >4 - 5 point Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research If the asked employee has a neutral approach, the third point is marked, which is still the category of low trust. The counter part for the 4th point of the 5 point Likert-scale is 75% and still the mid trust level. Just by marking the fifth of five points, the trust level can become a high trust level. For each of these three trust levels, the power situation had been research. The trust level (TL) will be calculated (see Formula 3.7.1) by sliding the zero point to the first point of the 5 point Likert scale, otherwise the minimum would be 1. 𝑇𝐿𝑛 = ( ∑(𝐿𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)𝑛,𝑃𝑥 𝑛 −1) (𝐿𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 −1) (3.7.1) Group comparison test 111 To confirm the effectiveness of the low, mid and high TL in each power variable, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) had been carried out. In case of two groups, the result is same than t- Test, which would be ok for the supervisor situation only. Table 8: LSP group comparison of subordinates Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Coercive power Between Groups 59.774 2 29.887 77.564 .000 Within Groups 77.450 201 .385 Total 137.224 203 Expert power Between Groups 58.068 2 29.034 61.712 .000 Within Groups 94.566 201 .470 Total 152.634 203 Legitimate power Between Groups 8.498 2 4.249 9.387 .000 Within Groups 90.986 201 .453 Total 99.484 203 Referent Power Between Groups 83.400 2 41.700 130.879 .000 Within Groups 64.042 201 .319 Total 147.443 203 Reward power Between Groups 29.216 2 14.608 20.274 .000 Within Groups 144.827 201 .721 Total 174.043 203 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Here the low-TL is not researchable of the supervisors, due to the small group of five employees only. To compare the mean of more than two groups, the One-way ANOVA can be done329 to analyze the subordinates (see Table 8) and supervisors (see Table 9) situation. For the subordinates, the three trust levels differed statistically significantly in the case of all five LSPs on the 0.01 level. For the supervisors the result of the group comparison differs especially for legitimate power (p = 0.796), which does not show a statistical significance same as the groups inside the Coercive power (p = 0.067). The three remaining LSPs had all statistical significance on the 0.05 level. In the case of the supervisors it has to be said, that here only two groups, mid and high-TL, could be tested, due to the low share of respondents with a low-TL. 329 Hain, J. (2011). Varianzanalyse–ANOVA. Universität Würzburg. pp.2, 4 https://www.uni- wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/10040800/user_upload/hain/SPSS/ANOVA.pdf (27.04.2020) 112 Table 9: Leadership power group comparison of supervisors Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Coercive power Between Groups 1.805 1 1.805 3.420 .067 Within Groups 60.674 115 .528 Total 62.479 116 Expert power Between Groups 1.833 1 1.833 7.110 .009 Within Groups 29.647 115 .258 Total 31.480 116 Legitimate power Between Groups .014 1 .014 .067 .796 Within Groups 24.147 115 .210 Total 24.161 116 Referent Power Between Groups .945 1 .945 3.975 .049 Within Groups 27.335 115 .238 Total 28.280 116 Reward power Between Groups 5.853 1 5.853 9.113 .003 Within Groups 73.867 115 .642 Total 79.720 116 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Normal distribution test (Total Sample) For the later analysis between the different variables of trust and LSP, it has checked if the values are normal distributed or not. For this an empirical distribution function test has to be used, to measure the discrepancy between the empirical and a hypothesized distribution.330 Mostly used are here the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, the Anderson-Darling Test and the Cramer von Misses Test.331 332 For the analysis of the total sample the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test with the Lilliefors Significance Correction had been done to compare each single item with a normal distribution. In addition the Shapiro-Wilk Test333 had been done, which also analyses if a random sample is normal distributed, but according other normal distribution tests, the Shapiro-Wilk test has a higher statistical power than the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test or 330 Dufour, J.M., Farhat, A., Gardiol, L., Khalaf, L.(1998) Simulation based finite Samply Normality Tests in Linear Regressions. Ecometrics Journal, Vol.1, pp.143-173 331 Seier, E. (2002) Comparison of Tests for Univariate Normality, Interstat Statisitical Journal, Vol. 1, pp.1-17 332 Arshad, M., Rascool, M.T., Ahmad, M.I. (2003) Anderson Darling and Modified Anderson Darling Tests for Generalized Pareto Distribution. Pakistan Journal of Applied Sciences 3(2), pp.85-88 333 Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), pp.591-611 113 others.334 335 Both tests are similar to others and their null hypothesis is that the data are normal distributed. Table 10: Tests of normality (total sample) Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Coercive 0.193-0.323 291 .000 0.734-0.898 291 .000 Expert 0.233-0.259 291 .000 0.863-0.890 291 .000 Legitimate 0.286-0.324 291 .000 0.792-0.851 291 .000 Referent 0.251-0.283 291 .000 0.779-0.834 291 .000 Reward 0.181-0.231 291 .000 0.878-0.913 291 .000 Benevolence 0.202-0.292 291 .000 0.855-0.901 291 .000 Competence 0.230-0.294 291 .000 0.806-0.847 291 .000 Integrity 0.226-0.294 291 .000 0.831-0.863 291 .000 Predictability 0.258-0.334 291 .000 0.781-0.867 291 .000 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research All items show for both tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test with the Lilliefors significance Correction, same as Shapiro-Wilk Test p < 0.05, that the null hypothesis is not confirmed and the data are not normally distributed. All significance levels have a value of 0.000. (see Table 10) 3.7.2 Analysis of trust in comparison between supervisor and subordinate The three defined trust levels (TL) are the sum of the four trust categories, benevolence, competence, integrity and predictability, divided by the number of categories. 334 Steinskog, D. J., Tjøstheim, D. B., & Kvamstø, N. G. (2007). A cautionary note on the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Monthly Weather Review, 135(3), pp.1151-1157 335 Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), pp.21-33 114 Figure 19: Trust distribution of subordinates (real) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Figure 20: Trust distribution of supervisors (real) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research The distribution of the categories in relation to the different trust levels shows, that each category of trust is the higher, the higher the trust level of the respondent is, independently if the responding employee is subordinate (see Figure 19) or supervisor (see Figure 20), independently if it is the real or the desired situation (see Figure 21 and Figure 22). This is a clear indicator that the requirement for a high-TL is a high share of all the four different trust 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st low TL (n=32) mid TL (n=89) high TL (n=83) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st low TL (n=5) mid TL (n=88) high TL (n=24) 115 categories, which is also an argument, that the before mentioned formula can be used and there is no need for a special view on a special trust category, which is much different. Figure 21: Trust distribution of subordinates (wish) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Figure 22: Trust distribution of supervisors (wish) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Another fact, which is shown in the trust distribution of subordinate and supervisor is, that both have the wish for a higher trust based situation to its counterpart, than they have it in real. For both groups, supervisors and subordinates, potential influencing factors have been researched. The age e.g. did not show a real influence to the trust level from both kinds of respondents. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st low TL (n=30) mid TL (n=84) high TL (n=78) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Benevolence Competence Integrity Predictability u se o f tr u st low TL (n=5) mid TL (n=85) high TL (n=24) 116 Table 11: Potential influencing factors on trust Age of respondent <29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >59 Supervisor (n) 10 28 30 41 7 Supervisor - TL 67% 67% 70% 71% 74% Subordinate (n) 61 52 41 43 6 Subordinate -TL 70% 67% 70% 68% 69% Time in actual company <1 year 1-4 years 5-10 years 11-19 years >19 years Supervisor (n) 2 16 32 38 27 Supervisor - TL 53% 65% 70% 70% 71% Subordinate (n) 20 61 47 40 34 Subordinate -TL 72% 71% 65% 69% 68% Position of supervisor CEO High mgmt.. Mid mgmt.. Low mgmt.. Supervisor (n) 23 35 40 18 Supervisor - TL 71% 71% 69% 67% Kind of business Auto. Manuf. IT Service Consult. Logistic Other Subordinate (n) 97 44 6 23 8 8 17 Subordinate -TL 71% 68% 63% 64% 76% 62% 64% Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research A different behavior can be seen in the actual company, depending of the time the respondent has worked in the company. Here the supervisor in the first year and up to 4 years of work has a smaller trust value than later on. The subordinates in contrast have their highest TL in the beginning and a high level after 10 years, but between 5-10 years inside a company, they have a lower trust rate. Bartelt336 has shown this effect before. Nevertheless, also the subordinates have all mean TL values between 65% and 72%. The position of the supervisors only provides a small indication, that the higher the position, the higher the TL-level is. All supervisor positions showed mean values between 67%-71%. 336 Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.162 117 The kind of business of the subordinates showed their average with approximately a TL=70% at Automotive and Manufacturing (together a share of 69,5% of the subordinates). This mean value in smaller groups constitutes from 76% in Consulting to 62% in Logistics, but these are each just with 4% of the respondents, so that the outer tolerances are not relevant. The use of trust, measured with the trust-level is a little less important and different between subordinate (see Figure 23) and supervisor (see Figure 24). Overall the leaders seem to have more trust into the subordinates than the other way around. In contrast to this small difference in the real situation, the desired situation of both groups is nearly the same, looking at the distribution of the respondents. Figure 23: Trust level of subordinates Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 n o o f su b o rd in a te s level of trust to supervisor Trust subordinate real Trust subordinate wish 118 Figure 24: Trust level of supervisors Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research From another point of view, it means, that two third of the subordinate have TL= >60 to 70%. (see Figure 25) The supervisors (see Figure 26) reach the same TL even with nearly 80% of the supervisors, but the TL-relation seems to skip, because at the end, there is a bigger share of subordinates, who have a higher TL than the supervisors. The desired situation is similar than before: it is the same compared between the both parties. Figure 25: Subordinates’ trust level real & wish (cum.) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 n o o f su p er v is o rs level of trust to subordinate Trust supervisor real Trust supervisor wish 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n o o f su b o rd in a te s level of trust to leader Trust subordinate real (cum. %) Trust subordinate wish (cum.%) 119 Figure 26: Supervisors’ trust level real & wish (cum.) Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research To check the result of the single questions about the topic of trust, for each kind of the questionnaires three control questions have been added to the questionnaire. (see Table 12) In these questions the respondents were directly asked about their overall trust situation to their counterperson, same as their feeling about the importance of trust in this profit-oriented organization. Both groups rated the circumstance, that the counterperson has trust in them with a very high TL of 91% and 94%. The further values show also the same result than before, that the supervisor has a higher TL into their subordinates, than the other way around and that they have nearly the same TL, they expect from the counter side. Table 12: Control-questions about trust level Trust levelreal Trust levelwish Subordinate: The trust in my supervisor is in general … 75% 92% Subordinate: The trust of my supervisor into me is probably … 74% 91% Subordinate: If the supervisor has trust in me, is for me… 91% Supervisor: My trust in my subordinates is in general… 79% 93% Supervisor: The trust of my subordinates into me is probably… 73% 91% Supervisor: If the subordinates have trust in me, is for me… 94% Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n o o f su p er v is o rs level of trust to subordinate Trust supervisor real (cum. %) Trust supervisor wish (cum.%) 120 The desired situation of both is also very similar and comparable to the trust level, which has shown before, with values above 90%. 3.7.3 Analysis of leadership power between supervisor and subordinate Coming back to the before mentioned situation, that the single power questions can be compared directly, because of author’s adaption of Hinkin & Schriesheim’s subordinate scale items for the supervisors questionnaire. Figure 27: Group comparison of subordinate and supervisor power items Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research A visual comparison of the mean values in the descriptive analysis has not displayed a difference between supervisors and subordinates before, the results of the Mann-Whitney-U- RF01 RW01 z= -3.042; p = .002 EX01 z= -3.717; p = .000 CE01 z= -5.393; p = .022 LE01 z= -2,282; p = .022 RF02 RF03 RF04 z= -4.556; p = .000 RW02 z= -3.896; p = .000 RW03 z= -2.893; p = .004 RW04 EX02 z= -4.845; p = .000 EX03 z= -5.917; p = .000 EX04 z= -3.390; p = .001 CE02 CE03 CE04 LE02 z= -1.984; p = .047 LE03 LE04 E x p er t C o er ci v e L e g it im at e R ef er e n t R e w ar d R ef er e n t R e w ar d E x p er t C o er ci v e L e g it im at e subordinate supervisor 121 Test for the group comparison between the two parties have indicated significant differences in different LSP items. This could lead to a difference in the later correlation analysis between the trust and power variables between supervisors and subordinates. Based on these results, the most differences are expected for the expert power, because all four expert items show a significant difference (z= -3.7…-5.9; p= 0.000 … 0.001) and also the reward power items are significantly different in 3 of 4 cases (z= -2.8 …-3.8; p= 0.000 … 0.004). Legitimate power shows a difference in 50% of the items and coercive and referent power have a significant difference in just 1 of 4 items. All other, not shown items show no relevant differences and is hidden for a better overview. (see Figure 27) A check of the effect size shows for the item EX03 with the highest z-level of z = -5.917 and an n=319 just a beginning mid effect of r= 0.33 according Cohen (1988). The item CE01 has a similar effect size value with r= 0.30, (z= -5.393, n=321) which together with the item mentioned before are the only two items with mid effect size. All other items have a low effect size. Comparing these results with the mid-effect size according Cohen, which is for this analysis for small effect: r= 0.10, medium effect: r= 0.30 and for a large effect: r= 0.50, it is expected, that also the significant different power items will have just a low to max. mid effect on the final results. Power distribution of the subordinates The results of the subordinates showed a strong indication, that the subordinates with a low trust level (TL) were led with a higher share of coercive and a lesser share of expert, legitimate, referent and reward power, than the mid or high trust subordinates. (see Figure 28) Comparing the results of the earlier pre-tests of the author, and the results of Hede337 as an indicator of the former use of power in profit-oriented organization, the low or nearly non usage of the coercive power can be seen in all researches. If the results of the specialist interview will be compared, there 5 of 12 supervisors gave the information that they use it, even when they do not like to use it or they just use it not so often. These results for coercive power are all in line with the earlier ones from Hede, because she just made a difference between low and high and not between low, high, and no use. The result for the other powers is not comparable with the Hede’s result, 15 years ago. 337 Hede, A.(2005), Patterns of Power and Leadership: Understanding Total Behaviour Leadership, Australian Institute of Management, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Australia p.13 122 Figure 28: Leadership power situation (real) of subordinate in relation to trust level Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research The real difference can be seen at the power which is used second low. Hede's research showed clear for this position the reward power. From author's earlier point of investigation, the pre- test and specialist interview showed the legitimation or also called position power. From the empirical evaluation result, the second lowest is reward power too, but the share cannot be called low anymore, compared with the other powers. Here the real difference to the former result can be visualized easily, because the leadership style, that only coercive power is low and all other powers have a similar high level was not part of Hede’s Top10 pattern rank of power. Comparison of these results with the desired situation (see Figure 29) shows that the low-TL subordinates nearly disappear, from 32 to 2 respondents. The overall power distribution of the three trust-levels is still similar to the real situation, which is an indicator for a stable LSP distribution to the three defined trust-levels for the subordinates. (see Table 13) In the next step the groups of subordinates with the different TL from the real-situation have been used and the desired situation has been checked again. (see Figure 30) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er low TL (n=32) mid TL (n=89) high TL (n=83) 123 Figure 29: Leadership power situation (wish) of subordinate in relation to trust level Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research The result is, that compared the results with original, first real situation (see Figure 28), the subordinates with the low and mid TL approximated the direction, the subordinates with a high TL already have, more and more. Figure 30: Leadership power situation (wish) of subordinate in relation to trust level, same groups as real situation Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er low TL (n=2) mid TL (n=48) high TL (n=142) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er low TL (n=30) mid TL (n=84) high TL (n=78) 124 In addition, the subordinates with the high-TL in real situation have only minor changes between the real and the desired situation, so that it seems that they do not want to change anything in their actual situation. The relatively high share of the high-TL (40,7%) and mid-TL (43,6%) in this research for the real situation is also an indicator, that the share of the LSP in order to obtain a high-TL, is similar to the situation of the high-TL of the subordinates. The number of respondents between real and wish is different, due to the situation, that not all wish questionnaires were filled out. Table 13: Subordinates’ mean values of trust and leadership power Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Leadership power distribution of the supervisors The result of the supervisors is similar to the subordinates. There is also a strong indication, that the supervisors with a low trust level (TL) lead with a higher share of coercive and a lower share of expert, legitimate, referent and reward power, than the high trust supervisors, but the difference is not as clear as shown by the subordinates (see Figure 31). Especially for expert and legitimate power, their use is higher than in case of subordinates, but it has to be taken into account, that these are only 117 supervisors in total and that there are only 5 supervisors, who REAL WISH WISH (groups same as REAL) All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level n 204 32 89 83 192 2 48 142 192 30 84 78 Coercive 2.19 3.17 2.33 1.67 1.85 2.38 2.35 1.68 1.85 2.24 1.96 1.59 Expert 3.50 2.50 3.29 4.10 4.05 3.00 3.61 4.21 4.05 3.87 3.88 4.30 Legiti- mate 3.86 3.66 3.64 4.16 4.01 3.00 3.70 4.13 4.01 3.93 3.81 4.25 Referent 4.05 2.77 3.92 4.68 4.51 3.00 3.98 4.71 4.51 4.15 4.38 4.79 Reward 3.35 2.76 3.18 3.77 4.11 3.25 3.69 4.27 4.11 4.01 4.05 4.22 Bene- volence 3.57 2.24 3.38 4.28 4.23 2.80 3.74 4.41 4.23 4.00 4.06 4.50 Compe- tence 3.99 2.78 3.78 4.69 4.47 3.00 3.85 4.70 4.47 4.13 4.28 4.81 Integrity 3.89 2.47 3.72 4.62 4.51 3.00 3.95 4.72 4.51 4.19 4.35 4.80 Predict- ability 3.54 2.86 3.41 3.93 4.05 3.00 3.55 4.23 4.05 3.76 3.93 4.28 125 have a low TL. This means, that compared with the subordinates (low-TL:15.7%) they have a more than 3.5times less share of the low-TL. Figure 31: Leadership power situation (real) of supervisor in relation to trust level Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Comparing these results with the desired situation (see Figure 32) shows that the low-TL supervisors disappear, and the main share of respondents have changed from the mid-TL to the high-TL. Figure 32: Leadership power situation (wish) of supervisor in relation to trust level Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er low TL (n=5) mid TL (n=88) high TL (n=24) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er lowTL (n=0) mid TL (n=29) high TL (n=85) 126 The overall power distribution of the three trust-levels is still similar to the real situation of the supervisors and as well to the subordinates. This is an indicator for a stable LSP distribution to the three defined trust-levels for the supervisors, too. (see also Table 14) Same as for the subordinates, also here the groups of supervisors with different TL from the real situation have been used and the desired situation has been checked again. (see Figure 33) The result is, that compared the results with original real situation (see Figure 31), there are just minor changes. Same as the subordinates, also the supervisors with the low and mid TL approximated the direction that the subordinates with a high TL already have more and more. The main difference is coming from reward power, which was desired to be used from the low and mid-TL more often, other powers just changed in the area of approximately 10%. This result is not so amazing, because the supervisors benchmarked with the questionnaire their own leadership behavior, which could be surely better every time, that is how the difference of 10% can be explained. The bigger difference at the reward power also seems logical, because the frame in which a supervisor is able to lead with reward is mostly granted from a higher management position. So, this reward power cannot be handled by the supervisor alone, and the higher increase reflects the wish for a wider frame, provided from outside. The more interesting is the parallelism to the subordinates, that the high-TL in the real situation have only minor changes between real and wish, so that it seems, that they do not really want to change anything in their actual situation. Figure 33: Leadership power situation (wish) of supervisor in relation to trust level, same groups as real situation Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coercive Expert Legitimate Referent Reward u se o f p o w er low TL (n=5) mid TL (n=85) high TL (n=24) 127 The relative high share of the high-TL (21,0%) and mid-TL (74,5%) of supervisors in this research for real is also an indicator, that the share of the LSP to get a high-TL, is similar to the situation of the high-TL supervisors in this research. A little bit different is only the meaning of the use of the coercive power, which is stable for all three different trust levels is different, compared to the results of the subordinates. It looks like all supervisor groups have the same opinion about it and just the subordinates want to have a lower but still existing use. Table 14: Supervisors’ mean values of leadership power and trust REAL WISH WISH (groups same as REAL) All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level All Trust level Low- Trust level Mid Trust level High Trust level n 117 5 88 24 114 0 29 85 114 5 85 24 Coercive 2.30 2.45 2.31 2.26 2.05 0.00 2.42 1.93 2.05 2.05 2.04 2.09 Expert 4.01 4.05 3.92 4.33 4.31 0.00 3.99 4.41 4.31 4.30 4.22 4.60 Legiti- mate 4.04 4.15 3.98 4.26 4.33 0.00 4.07 4.42 4.33 4.00 4.28 4.58 Referent 4.30 4.00 4.24 4.56 4.64 0.00 4.24 4.78 4.64 4.45 4.60 4.83 Reward 3.42 2.65 3.31 4.00 3.89 0.00 3.78 3.93 3.89 3.60 3.81 4.26 Bene- volence 3.28 2.04 3.17 3.92 3.79 0.00 3.28 3.96 3.79 3.64 3.66 4.28 Compe- tence 3.92 3.16 3.82 4.45 4.59 0.00 4.14 4.74 4.59 4.60 4.54 4.77 Integrity 3.95 3.12 3.85 4.48 4.53 0.00 3.98 4.72 4.53 4.44 4.48 4.74 Predict- ability 3.98 3.52 3.87 4.48 4.41 0.00 3.90 4.58 4.41 4.28 4.34 4.67 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 3.7.4 Empirical analysis of the impact of the leadership powers on trust between supervisor and subordinate Due to the fact that data are not normally distributed, a nonparametric test for the correlation analyses has to be carried out. According Janssen & Laatz338 non parametric tests are often used at medicine, biology, education and similar than the properties trust and LSP, in social science 338 Janssen J., Laatz W. (2017) Nicht parametrische Tests. In: Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg (p.632) 128 and psychology. Further they say that nonparametric test will be used with data, which are not normal distributed and have small sample sizes. Figure 34: Subordinates’ leadership power and trust correlation acc. Spearman Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Also outlier data are a reason to use nonparametric tests. Fredericks and Nelsen state that "The two most commonly used nonparametric measures of association for two random variables are Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau."339, which is confirmed by others too.340 341 The Pearson test 339 Fredricks, G. A., & Nelsen, R. B. (2007). On the relationship between Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau for pairs of continuous random variables. Journal of statistical planning and inference, 137(7), p.2143 340 Bolboaca, S. D., & Jäntschi, L. (2006). Pearson versus Spearman, Kendall’s tau correlation analysis on structure-activity relationships of biologic active compounds. Leonardo Journal of Sciences, 5(9), p.180 341 Chok, N. S. (2010). Pearson's versus Spearman's and Kendall's correlation coefficients for continuous data (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). p.iv Expert (0.696**) Coercive (-0.621**) Legitimate (0.318**) Referent (0.825**) Reward (0.489**) Bene- volence Expert (0.596**) Coercive (-0.686**) Legitimate (0.313**) Referent (0.785**) Reward (0.446**) Integri- ty Expert (0.696**) Coercive (-0.661**) Legitimate (0.307**) Referent (0.677**) Reward (0.364**) Compe- tence Expert (0.381**) Coercive (-0.395**) Legitimate (0.250**) Referent (0.542**) Reward (0.283**) Predict -ability **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 129 is stated as one of the most often used correlating test342 343 and so the data have been analyzed too, but due to the earlier mentioned sources and the fact that the distribution of data are not normal, Spearman and Kendall is preferred. In both studies, supervisors same as subordinates show significant correlations between the LSP and trust variables. Comparing the values of Spearman's rho, in case of the subordinates (see Figure 34) the correlation is more significant than in the one of the supervisors (see Figure 35). Figure 35: Supervisors’ leadership power and trust correlation acc. Spearman Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research 342 Arndt, S., Turvey, C., & Andreasen, N. C. (1999). Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearmans r versus Kendalls tau correlation. Journal of psychiatric research, 33(2), p.97 343 Chok, N. S. (2010). Pearson's versus Spearman's and Kendall's correlation coefficients for continuous data (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). p.iii Expert (0.346**) Coercive (-0.130) Legitimate (0.067) Referent (0.134) Reward (0.397**) Bene- volence Expert (0.132) Coercive (-0.198*) Legitimate (0.145) Referent (0.179) Reward (0.229*) Integri- ty Expert (0.223*) Coercive (-0.103) Legitimate (0.137) Referent (0.309**) Reward (0.306**) Compe- tence Expert (0.358**) Coercive (-0.154) Legitimate (0.257**) Referent (0.193*) Reward (0.219*) Predict -ability **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 130 To classify the effect sizes, Cohen's definition can be used as recommendation to categorize small, medium and large effects344, which is for this analysis for small effect: r= 0.10, medium effect: r= 0.30 and for a large effect: r= 0.50345. Theses values are very alluring, so Erdfelder et al. is warning to use this principle as a standard, because the specified application and part of science has to take into account.346 So these values can be just recommendations or a guideline. In an empiric research, 708 correlations had been analyzed with the result, that only 3% of the studies showed an effect size of r= 0.50 or higher. Gignac and Szodorai347 came to the result, that Cohen’s recommendation does not reflect the reality in this field of differential psychology and made a new recommendation with small effect: r= 0.10, medium effect: r= 0.20 and for a large effect: r= 0.30 for this special research field. This is just an example to show the dependence of the effect size values to the field of research and for a better weighting of the results inside this research. These lower values or scale will not be used in this research, because this special kind of differential psychology is researching on the differences of persons, in view of their properties and conditions. In contrast Cohen created his recommended values in social science, which fits better to the economic research field of LSP and trust. In addition, especially the values of the subordinates show that significant higher effect sizes, with a high share are possible and that it is not a problem to reach r= 0.50. Analyzing the results of Spearman’s correlation in the direction of effect size and significance (see Table 15), the 100% share of the significant correlation level 0.01 for the subordinates is conspicuous. This is different for the supervisors. The effect can be seen also in the effect size, where only the relation between the legitimate power and predictable trust has no medium or large effect on the subordinate side. On supervisor side, there are just 5 of 20 relations with a medium effect. 6 of 20 relations have significance at the 0.01 level and additional 5 relations at the 0.05 level. So, the relation between trust and power is much more significant on the subordinate side than on the supervisor side. It is also interesting that the supervisors have a significant correlation between the reward power and each single trust basis, followed by the expert power, where also 344 Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2005). The effects of working memory resource availability on prospective memory: A formal modeling approach. Experimental Psychology, 52, pp.243-256 345 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale 2. Auflage. in Bortz., J. (2005) Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftle,Springer, Heidelberg pp.167–168 346 Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (2005). Power analysis for categorical methods. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. pp. 1565-1570 347 Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and individual differences, 102, pp.74-78 131 3 of 4 trust variables have a significant correlation at min 0.05 level. Going back to the group comparison between supervisors and subordinates, these were exactly the powers with the most significant difference inside their items; 4 of 4 items expert power, 3 of 4 items reward power. But also, as expected, these differences seem to have only a low effect, as calculated and defined before. E.g. the effect size according Cohen of the highest significant difference between supervisors and subordinates was the third item of the expert power with r=0.33. Nearly all power items, excluding two, had just a low effect size. Table 15: Correlation of leadership power and trust Subordinate Supervisor R ef er en t R ew ar d E x p er t C o er ci v e L eg it im at e R ef er en t R ew ar d E x p er t C o er ci v e L eg it im at e Benevolence .825 ** .489 ** .696 ** -.621 ** .318 ** .134 .397 ** .346 ** -.130 .067 Competence .677 ** .364 ** .696 ** -.661 ** .307 ** .309 ** .306 ** .223 * -.103 .137 Integrity .785 ** .446 ** .596 ** -.686 ** .313 ** .179 .229 * .132 -.198 * .145 Predictability .542 ** .283 ** .381 ** -.395 ** .250 ** .193 * .219 * .358 ** -.154 .257 ** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) large effect r= min. 0.50 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) medium effect r= min. 0.30 Source: author’s research results based on quantitative research Further the predictability of the subordinates in the eyes of the supervisors is correlating with 4 of 5 LSPs, excluding coercive power. This is an indicator of the importance of the behavior in case of predictability. It correlates significantly with all these powers that have a positive relation to all trust variables. Coercive power, which does not correlate with predictability, is the only power which correlates negatively with all trust variables. This is independently of whether supervisor or subordinate groups are examined. 132 3.8 Discussion of hypotheses and interpretation of results For a general basis the importance of trust in a profit-oriented organization has to be analysed. Beginning with the pre-test at 106 employees, where the general trust was simply equated with the five LSPs, trust got the highest share of use in leadership in a direct comparison with the five well known LSPs. Compared with the later defined mid- and high TL, 90% of the respondents stated, that they have a trust based leadership situation with their supervisor on these trust levels. After this first indicator for an existing trust situation and its importance was found on subordinate side, the supervisor side had been checked in the qualitative research of supervisors. The output of this specialist interview was comparable with the other side. 100% of the specialist stated that trust and leadership belong to each other and/or that a leader is not able to lead without trust, which is a further indicator for the importance of trust. Leading without trust is just controlling, which is not efficient, how one specialist is defining trust in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. Due to the complexity of decisions, 75% of these specialists see that the importance of trust is increasing, the higher the management level is. The remaining specialists have the meaning it is equal of the management level, it is a personal attitude or management style, but important at all to win the subordinates of today, as they said. The increase of the trust behavior of the supervisors in relation to the increasing management level is a result out of the quantitative research. Unfortunately is the trust in persons with a higher power smaller, than in persons with same power level.348 349 In addition all groups of the different TL show an increase between the real and desired situation, for all four trust categories, same as for subordinate and supervisor. The lower the TL was, the higher the desired TL increases. This situation is also directly stated by the respondents, who gave feedback that getting trust from the opposite position in them, is highly important (91% subordinates, 94% supervisors). Based on these results the first research question can be positive answered. Trust is a relevant item in today’s profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate and all four trust categories should be built to a TL of round about 90%. Creating this high trust situation requires the use of specified LSPs, as stated in the main hypothesis 348 Balliet, D., Mulder, L.B., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, pp.594-614 349 Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, pp.569–598 133 (H0) The kind of leadership is a predictor for the trust level of a subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate. For the research of this main hypothesis two general approaches have been analyzed. The first analysis of the real situation showed a clear difference of the used LSPs of the subordinates to the trust level of the subordinates. Based on this analysis, the following statement can be provided: A balanced share of the leadership powers, which is defined by the common increase of expert, legitimate, referent and reward power, while simultaneous decrease of the coercive power to level higher unequal to 0, creates an increase of the trust level of the subordinate. This statement is based on the - correlation analysis between the four trust and five LSP categories of subordinates, which showed a positive significance correlation at the 0.01 level for expert, legitimate, referent and reward power and a negative significance correlation at the 0.01 level for coercive power. There as well large effect sizes in half of the connections were found, 40% with medium effect and only 10% with a low effect size. - Also, by comparing the powers used by the supervisors with the four trust categories in the correlation analysis, the indicated above general statement can be confirmed, because the figures of the supervisor, divided in the different trust-levels to their subordinates showed the same behavior. Just the significance of the single trust and power connections is not as distinct as for the subordinates. Here 30% of the relations showed a significant correlation at the 0.01 level and 25% a significant correlation at the 0.05 level and only 25% showed a medium effect. The second analysis, which supports the statement made before in an additional way, is researching the real and desired use of LSPs between the supervisor and the subordinate: - The different trust-level groups in the real situation display the exact support for the statement given before. The higher the expert, legitimate, referent and reward power and the lower the coercive power, the higher is the trust level of the respondent. This is confirmed for the supervisors, same as for the subordinates. - Adding the desired use of LSP into the examination, the increase of the expert, legitimate, referent and reward power is the higher the lower the trust level is and the use of the coercive power is the lower the higher the trust level is. 134 - Also comparing the desired situation shows, that the above mentioned effect can also be seen at the respondent with a still existing high trust level, independent if subordinate or supervisor. Also, for the desired situation the high TL respondents have an increase of expert, legitimate, referent and reward power and a reduction of the coercive power to a certain level. Based on the following results, the main hypotheses can be confirmed. Specified values of the single LSPs to create a maximum of trust, are analyzed separately. (H1) Trust as a result of leadership in a profit-oriented organization has the same level for supervisor and subordinate, in real and in desired situation. Based on the literature findings, that trust is a two-sided effect350, it was expected, that the trust of the subordinate in the supervisor cannot exist if the trust does not exist from the other side as well and the hypothesis H1 can be confirmed based on the following result: - Comparing the real situation between supervisor and subordinate, the distribution of the TL of the respondents in both cases has the highest peak at TL =>70-80% which is a similar situation to - the desired situation, here also the distribution is similar, just the highest peak has increased to TL=>80-90%. This result is also comparable with - the control questions, here supervisors have TL=79% for the real situation, subordinates have 74%. The desired TL for the subordinates (92%) is nearly the same as for the supervisors (93%). And also, the trust they feel of the counterperson in them displays similar levels compared with their own (subordinate TLreal /TLwish = 74%/91% and supervisor TLreal /TLwish = 73%/91%). (H2) Predictability influences the leadership situation in a profit-oriented organization between supervisor and subordinate more than benevolence, integrity and competence. Predictability, is a very similar category to general trust, which describes the anticipating of the occurrence of a specific future351 352, so the hypotheses was formulated with the idea of some ranking of importance between the different trust categories. The result of the subordinates 350 Zand, D. E. (1981). Trust and the Decision Process. In D. E. Zand (Hrsg.), INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND POWER. Effective Management in the Knowledge Society, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, pp.i-xii,37-55 351 Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), pp.367-382 352 Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Hrsg.), Vertrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts, Campus. p.149 135 showed, that the trust category predictability is a little bit lower than the others in real situation, which could only have the meaning that the trust level to the supervisor is not so high in this category, but also in the desired situation the trust level of predictability is the lowest of all. No particular increase on subordinate or on supervisor side. In addition, predictability has no particular single TL on the supervisor side, where benevolence has a little bit lower level than the others. Also, if the real and desired values of predictability have not displayed distinguished values, the correlation analysis shows beside the overall significant correlation of all trust and power values for the subordinates, predictability as a prominent trust category for the supervisors. The trust category predictability of the subordinates in the eyes of the supervisors is significantly correlating with 4 of 5 LSPs on the 0.05 and the 0.01 level (excluding coercive power), which shows the high influencing behavior of predictability. It significantly correlates with all these powers, which have a positive correlation to all trust variables. With this argument the hypothesis H2 can be confirmed for the supervisor side and partly confirmed for the subordinate side, because here predictability has also a high significant correlation at the 0.01 level to all LSPs, but the other trust categories have higher effect sizes. (H3) A high trust level of an employee has a positive impact on a higher binding to the company. This hypothesis has a limitation to only 33% of the subordinates inside this research. But the more interesting effect is, that only 3.5% of the respondents would change their status to “will not change the company”, if they would be led as they desired. 29.5% would just stay longer in the company, but for the biggest share with 67% it has absolutely no influence, because they would not change the company independently from the power and trust situation with their supervisor. So, based on high share of people, where no effect can be seen, the hypothesis H3 has to be rejected in the present study. For a possible confirmation, this hypothesis should be proven only with respondents, who are willing to change the company and / or a higher number of respondents. (H4) Referent and expert leadership powers have positive impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. This hypothesis H4 is a summary of the former analysis of literature, pre-test and specialist interview and can be confirmed only with a limitation. The reason for the limitation is, that referent and expert power have positive significant correlations at the 0.01 level to all trust categories for the subordinate case with large and medium effects. Also the referent power on the supervisor side is the only power, which has positive significant correlations to all trust categories and also referent power has significant relations to competence and predictability, 136 which are all arguments for the confirmation of H4. On the other side, the isolated use of these powers, without the other LSPs is not analyzed and can have further effects on the trust behavior of the subordinates. That is why the limitation must include all LSPs. An isolated use or disuse of one more (excluding all) LSP can create a totally new environment, which could lead the respondent to a completely new evaluation of the trust situation. For example, the coercive power has a negative significant effect on the trust behavior, but the respondents, subordinates, same as supervisors, have not provided the feedback that they would not want to lead or to be led without coercive power. There is just a remaining value, that still exists and does not negatively influence the highest trust level. Supervisors have indicated in the specialist interview, that they would like to use coercive power as a last resort and to establish their position in difficult situations. If a supervisor is not acting with coercive power as a last resort, when a subordinate has done something bad repeatedly, the supervisor would lose the (predictable) trust of the subordinates. 353 Also subordinates are anticipating from supervisors the use of coercive power in difficult situations354. So, these arguments show that an isolated use or disuse of a LSP is difficult, perhaps not possible, but nevertheless not analyzed inside this research. The hypotheses H4 can be confirmed with two limitations: Limitation 1: No isolated use. All five LSPs have to exist. Limitation 2: Simultaneous increase of reward and legitimation power. (H5) Coercive and legitimate leadership powers have negative impact on the trust level of the subordinate in a profit-oriented organization between subordinate and supervisor. The hypothesis H5 has been created from the result of the pre-research and the classification as “negative” power and their use in a small range, which both are based on the statement of the specialist interview in the qualitative research. This hypothesis H5 is rejected for the legitimate power. For the subordinates, legitimate power has a positive significant correlation to all trust categories at the 0.01 level of significance. This positive correlation to the four trust categories can be also seen for the supervisors, but here just the relation to predictability at the significance level of 0.01 can be observed. Coercive power is seen by both, supervisor and subordinate, as the only power with a negative correlation to the trust categories, which for the subordinates in all cases is at the significance 353 anonymous supervisor in the author’s qualitative research “specialist interview” 354 experience of the author, confirmed by different interviews with specialists regarding the item “coercive power” 137 level of 0.01. The supervisors only display a negative significant correlation with integrity, which has a significance level of 0.05. That coercive power reduces the rational trust in this research field, was expected, because every controlling process, which is coercive, is mostly recognized as a signal of distrust, which creates the start of the distrust circle355. In addition, the possible risks and dangers of the coercive power can be threatening for the subordinate, which also creates a loss of the trust level.356 It is the more interesting that a.) the fifth, not mentioned reward power, is sometimes compared as a part of the coercive power357 with a negative influence onto trust and which is different to the results of this research. In this research, reward power is positive directed to trust, and b.) coercive power is not to be reduced to the maximum. The supervisors same as the subordinates see a need of the use in special cases. Otherwise, the TL had been zero or nearly zero, what is not shown in the results. In literature, often just the negatively oriented LSP is seen in the asymmetric between trust and power but independently if only the “negative” (which differs) or all LSPs are meant, coercive power is every time seen and mentioned in this asymmetric. This result of a still existing share of this power in case of a best case trust leadership situation between supervisor and subordinate is a indicator, that trust and power are not contrary, they are complementary, same as the will to use it. 358 With this result the hypothesis H5 has been rejected for the legitimate power and limited for the coercive power, which it is restricted to a certain level. The effect of no use of coercive power is not researched. This finding for legitimate power is in line with other findings, especially one of the latest studies on trust and power from Håvold & Håvold359, who analyzed the situation in two hospitals. 355 Kirchler, E., Hoelzl, E., & Wahl, I. (2008). Enforced versus voluntary tax compliance: The “slippery slope” framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, pp. 210- 225. 356 Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2010). Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computional model. West Sussex: Wiley in Lenhard, M. (2012). Macht und Vertrauen in Unternehmen (uniwien), p.13 357 Lenhard, M. (2012). Macht und Vertrauen in Unternehmen (uniwien), p.9 358 Rother, W. (2016).Wille zur Macht oder Wille zum Vertrauen? Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, (2): p. 34 359 Håvold, J. I., & Håvold, O. K. (2019). Power, trust and motivation in hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 32(2), pp. 195-211. 138 CONCLUSIONS Based on the former results of this research, the author has reached the following conclusions: 1. The time to implement and improve trust as a directed output of the management organization is individual and depends on the use of the leadership powers, same as such personal factors as age and time inside the company of supervisors and subordinates, but also the company itself, which is the passive side and reflects each active leadership action by other persons from the environment as an influencing factor. 2. Trust is an important outcome of leadership power and has an influence in solving innovative and complex tasks. Trust in both directions provides loyalty, flexibility, and good working atmosphere and can be steadily observed from the management, by using an independent trust target for an organization. 3. There is no ranking of importance of the single trust categories for the use or the outcome of leadership. The share of the different trust categories does not display a relevant difference between them on supervisor same as on subordinate side. Benevolence, directed from the subordinate to the supervisor is the only one, which shows the effect, that it is a slightly less important trust category for the supervisors. 4. Each category of trust is the higher, the higher the trust level of the employee is. Independently whether supervisor or subordinate, independently if it is the real or the desired situation. Increasing the trust level by using the recommended leadership power will increase all trust categories to similar level. 5. There is a significant correlation between all leadership power and trust variables in every possible connection for the subordinates. This effect cannot be seen in every possible connection on supervisor side, which shows a small gap between supervisor statements and analyses. 6. Reciprocating leadership powers, which are two-sided, same as trust, are not the only positively directed powers for a trust-based leadership. Legitimate power, a direct power, is positively directed too, so that the reciprocity effect is not a clear parameter for defining trust creating leadership powers. 7. The trust level is minor depending on the different profit-oriented organizations in German speaking countries. The actual mid-trust-level status shows space for improvement by leading with positively related leadership power shares. The results of this survey show that they can be extended to other profit-oriented sectors of economic business but cannot be used one by one for other cultures, authority systems with fanatic followers and also not in non-profit organizations. 139 8. The here researched desired situation of the high-trust-level can be seen as a balanced share of leadership powers to create a trust-based leadership inside a profit-oriented organization. Subordinates and supervisors with a high trust level have only small differences between real and desired use of leadership powers and also low- and mid- trust-level has the same direction to the high- trust-level use of leadership powers. 9. The trust level of the subordinates can be increased by a defined use of the different leadership powers. The maximum trust situation can be created while using a high share of expert, legitimate, referent and reward leadership powers on a similar level and an existing, but low share of the coercive power. The main hypothesis is confirmed. 10. In comparison to all other leadership powers, the use of coercive power is much rarer in present day leadership of subordinates in a profit-oriented organization. It is often just used as a last resort strategy, which has a positive impact on the trust level of the subordinates. 11. The trust category predictability of the subordinates, from the view of the supervisor, is correlating with 4 of 5 leadership powers, excluding coercive power which shows the importance of the behavior in case of predictability. It correlates significantly with all these powers, which have a positive relation to all trust variables. 12. The age of the subordinates is not related to the trust level itself and has no influence in the shares of leadership power to create a high trust level. On the other hand, the supervisors have a steadily increasing trust level, positively related to their age. 13. The trust situation of the supervisor and the subordinate, related to their time in the company is oppositely directed. The U-function of the trust level from literature could be confirmed for the subordinates only due to the negatively related trend of the supervisors. 14. There are no general differences between supervisor and subordinate in the researched reality and no general differences in the expectations of the leadership power, which is and shall be used in the future. The share of use is similar, also in the case of the negative directed coercive power. This accordance could show the future of the used leadership power and kind of leadership in general. 15. The definition of positive, same as negative leadership powers used in application to trust in the leadership inside profit-oriented organizations causes certain doubts, because to create the highest trust level, all powers, and not good or bad ones, have to be used in specific shares. 140 SUGGESTIONS Based on the research the author gives the following suggestions, to supervisors, independent of hierarchy level: 1. Increase the trust level of and to the subordinates to improve your leadership by solving complex tasks faster. Environment and tasks of the supervisors are getting more complex day by day. Leaders are very clear in their statements, that trust belongs to the present-day leadership. Trust reduces complexity inside processes. This results in a situation that the trust level of and to subordinates has to be increased to improve the output of leadership. While improvement of their own trust in the subordinates, the trust of the subordinates to the supervisors would increase as well and complex problems could be solved faster with higher innovation and less control. 2. To increase the trust-level of the subordinates increase the predictability of the supervisor. The predictability as one of the four categories of trust has a high correlation to the leadership powers, independently from supervisor or subordinate view. Predictability has the lowest level and therefore the highest potential to increase the trust level of the subordinates. The supervisor can increase the trust level directly by increasing his/her own predictability. The background of decisions has to be made transparent for the subordinate and the own leadership behavior e.g. the use of leadership style and leadership power has to be continuous and a clear correlation has to be visible for the subordinate. Decisions do not have to be surprising for the subordinate. Not respecting these methods prevents the development of a trustful relationship with subordinates same as with colleagues and business partners. 3. Reduce the use of coercive power to a maximum, but use it only as the last option to create a trust-based leadership. Leading with trust does not mean leading without leadership power. In many discussions with supervisors, subordinates and well as in some sources of literature, only the use of coercive power, instead of all leadership powers, is compared with the trust situation. The coercive power is the only power, which is negatively directed to trust, but it does not mean, that a total loss of coercive power would create a high trust situation. The coercive power must exist to create a best case of trust, only the amount of application has to be reduced. Supervisors, who are convinced of the importance of a trust-based leadership, have stated that they need this power as the last option. Subordinates think about supervisors, who do not use coercive leadership power, that they are not good supervisors, because they are anticipating, that coercive power has to be used in extraordinary cases. So, trust and the use of coercive power does not cancel each other in any way, only their use must be well considered. 141 Use the coercive power only if the use of all other leadership powers has not shown the expected result. 4. Use the legitimate, referent, expert and reward powers on a common high level to increase the trust behavior of your subordinates. The use of these leadership powers is positively directed to trust. The higher their use is, the higher is the trust level of the subordinates. Even if separate powers are not used to the full, the total of all powers used in full extent, creates in all cases a full trust behavior, the similar share is the most important item. Unfortunately, this is what makes it difficult for the individual supervisor, because each person has their own skills. So in most cases the individual supervisor will have the tendency to some powers more than others. Here is the main task for a trust-based leadership, the level of the single positively directed leadership powers has to be brought to a common level, to create a higher trust level of the subordinates. In addition, the use of the coercive leadership power has to be used as written before, because for this leadership power only a holistic use is reasonable. 5. Use a highly trust-based leadership in profit-oriented organizations, because it is more valuable than ever before and its importance will increase in the future. The respondents have clearly stated, that changes and tasks become more complex day by day. The fast pace of technology development increases the problem that supervisors need to have a wider knowledge basis to understand and decide. But making decisions in complex circumstances cannot be only carried out based on the knowledge of the supervisor. The lack of knowledge, which has to be compensated by the subordinates, will increase. This is one of the most important arguments to improve the personal trust situation for the subordinates. It is a starting point, that trust comes from the subordinates, too. 6. To create a trust-based leadership, start the circle of creating trust from the supervisor’s side. Trust inside a profit-oriented organization is a process between a supervisor and a subordinate. It starts easily in a hierarchy, if the higher employee in the hierarchy starts the process. This kind of starting point can have different possibilities: reduction of the use of coercive power, increase the use of legitimate, referent, expert and reward powers to a common high level. To increase the trust level directly, increase the supervisor’s use of predictability, benevolence, integrity and or competence. Start from the supervisor’s side and there is no need to wait for the other side. Trust inside profit-oriented organizations same as many other decisions is a future oriented decision, which includes risk. 142 7. Avoid mistrust, because mistrust of the supervisor creates mistrust of the subordinate. If a trust-related result is not what it has to be, the supervisor has to decide if his/her openness to trust the subordinate is still granted or not. On the other hand, the circle of creating trust is working in the opposite direction in the same way. The only difference is, that the circle of mistrust is faster. So the supervisor has to be careful with the decision not to trust, because it will be noticed from the subordinates mostly in short- term. Just one decrease of the trust categories benevolence, integrity and or competence is enough for detection and will quickly and sustainably destroy the trust level, which has increased over time. 8. Use trust as an independent target for an organization to create a specified trust situation and to react in short-term with adaptions of the own leadership behavior. Trust in most cases is just hidden in the employee satisfaction rate, which is an indicator for the company culture only, but the existing trust level can be created in the same way as the employee satisfaction rate, by comparing feedback from employees over time or by using existing measuring methods and questionnaires. In this case trust is an own target for an organization and can be reflected as a direct output of leadership. 9. Adapt management organization to create a trust-based leadership. Supervisors same as subordinates must be motivated to trust the other side and therefore a process circle must be initially started by the supervisor. This can be directly started by changing the use of the different leadership powers to improve the trust level with long lasting effects after time and from both sides. 10. Check your management organization, if the different supervisors have the personal ability to lead in a way that trust can occur. The necessity of trust as an output of leadership is described. Theoretically every manager can create or improve the level of trust by adapting the use of the different leadership powers in the way described here. On the practical side, it has to be researched by e.g. the human resources departments, if the supervisors have the personal ability and own demand to lead in this way. A separation between transactional and transformational leadership is not result oriented any longer, because both of these styles have shares for a leadership with maximum trust of the subordinates. to scientists on trust in relation to leadership power in economic view: 11. In order to find the real value of trust for leadership, investigate the potential of doubling the effect of trust against the normal use of leadership power. The asymmetric of trust and leadership power in literature, independently if only coercive 143 or all five leadership powers are meant, does not fully reflect the result of this research in a profit-oriented organization, but the idea that summarizing the two-sided trust level has a higher effect than the use of leadership power alone, has to be investigated. Confirmation leads to a further increase of the relevance of trust in profit-oriented organizations. The doubling effect of trust, which creates a higher leadership level than a normal use of leadership power, is just a theory, based on experience and statements of specialists. It should be researched specifically for finding the real value of trust for leadership. 12. Develop management methods to adjust the use of leadership powers and trust in an ordinal way. Defining a distribution of leadership powers to create a high trust level, leads to the task of defining management methods with which these different levels can be adjusted, a multiple mission in many research fields of profit-oriented organizations. 13. Develop the quantitative effect of trust more deeply to convince supervisors to use trust inside their leadership more easily. The imaginary value of trust in a profit- oriented organization between the supervisor and the subordinate was manifested by specialists and respondents inside this research. The quantitative value of trust is not finally researched and should be investigated to convince supervisors faster with e.g. a higher EBITDA (“earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization”) than based on existing positive scientific research. 14. Investigate the background of the minor value of a desired leadership situation, to understand the value of integrating subordinates meaning in profit-oriented organizations. The effect of a theoretical, optimal leadership power and trust situation with the potential effect of a lower fluctuation rate has to be researched with a higher number of employees. The high number of respondents inside this research, who are not willing to change in any way is an indicator for the skepticism around the research field of trust and leadership power. If the data will be confirmed, this effect shows a minor relevance of trust as an output of a trust-based leadership but also the value of participation of the subordinates in the leadership. This effect has to be researched in further empirical investigations. 15. Use the terms trust and confidence very precisely in research, to prevent the mixing of both in future research. Trust and confidence often have the same meaning in research of non-native English-speaking persons. The definition of the word ‘trust’ same as ‘confidence’ is mixed in many articles, due to different languages of the authors, different areas of research and other reasons. The easiest difference between both is the chronological orientation of decision, which for trust is the past, present and future, 144 which involves risk. Confidence in contrast is chronologically oriented only in the present and past without having risk. This simple difference has to be considered in future research. 16. Investigate if trust is a real outcome of leadership power or if it just can be adjusted by the use of leadership power, to get further information on the interaction between both of these leadership terms. The opposite research direction brings another view on the borders of trust in leadership. If the supervisor uses only coercive leadership power, which creates a very low trust level, whether trust will increase over time as well. The confirmation of this hypothesis means, that trust is not an outcome of leadership power. In this case leadership power can only be a parameter to increase or decrease trust in leadership but it would be created in a separate way. 17. Investigate the impact of non-usage of coercive power on the trust level of subordinates to understand the impact of coercive power inside leadership. The decrease of the coercive power to create a higher trust level is often mentioned, but this study shows that a share >0 has to remain present for the highest trust level. The influence of a total loss of coercive power onto the trust level has to be investigated to finally find an answer regarding the influence of coercive leadership power. 18. Use maximum anonymity to create correct data about leadership and trust. For valid data in further research of leadership powers and trust, an environment with a maximum anonymity has to be created to confirm or reject high shares of supposed positive statements with critical background, such as “I will not leave the company”. The possibility of an online questionnaire with an anonymous gate has to be used for the next step and further evaluation. 19. A definition of good, bad, negative or positive powers has to be avoided in the future research of leadership and trust, because the existing results and definitions are too manifold. The definitions and results depending on their special research field cannot be compared with the situation of different hierarchy levels inside profit-oriented organizations. A definition and comparison of these leadership powers is not sustainable. Such kind of classification suggests, that the single use or single change of such a specific leadership power will change the trust behavior in a desired direction, which is not researched for single differences and just observed by alteration of more than one or all leadership powers. 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Printed Sources 1. Achleitner, A. K. (2013). Kontrolle ist gut, Vertrauen besser. Handelsblatt, 236, pp.58- 89 2. Adams , B.D., & Webb, R.D.G. (2003), Trust Development in Small Teams, DRDC Not. CR-2003-016, Report to Department of National Defender Canada, Toronto, Ontario 3. Adams, B.D., (2005) Trust vs. Confidence. DRDC Toronto No. CR-2005-203, Department of national defence, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, p.iii, 11 4. Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2005) The Dimensionality of Trust Report to Department of National Defense. DRDC Report No. CR-2005-204 in Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, pp.25ff 5. Adams, B.D., & Sartori, J.A. (2006) Validating the Trust in teams and Trust in Leaders Scales. DRDC Report No. CR-2006-008, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontari, pp.25-50 6. Adams, B.D., & Webb, R.D.G. (2003). Model of Trust Development in Small Teams. Report to Department of National Defence. DRDC No. CR-2003-016., pp.39, 54ff, 70 7. Adams, B.D., Bruyn, L.E., & Chung-Yan, G. (2004). Creating Measures of Trust in Small Military Teams. DRDC Report No. CR-2004-077, Report to Department of National Defence Canada, Toronto, Ontario 8. Adeniyi, M. A. (2007). Effective leadership management: An integration of styles, skills & character for today's CEOs. AuthorHouse, p.3 9. Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization science, 12(2), p.217 10. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002) Who trusts others? Journal of public economics, 85(2), pp.207-234 11. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), pp.27-51 12. Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of personality, 80(2), pp.313-344 13. Ansari, M. A. (1989) Effects of leader sex, subordinate sex, and subordinate performance on the use of influence strategies, Sex Roles, 20, pp. 283-293 14. Arndt, S., Turvey, C., & Andreasen, N. C. (1999). Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearmans r versus Kendalls tau correlation. Journal of psychiatric research, 33(2), p.97 15. Arshad, M., Rascool, M.T., Ahmad, M.I. (2003) Anderson Darling and Modified Anderson Darling Tests for Generalized Pareto Distribution. Pakistan Journal of Applied Sciences 3(2), pp.85-88 16. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), pp.528-540 146 17. Bachmann, R. (2001). The role of trust and power in the institutional regulation of territorial business systems. University of Groningen. p.11 18. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), pp.74-94 19. Balliet, D., Mulder, L.B., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, pp.594-614 20. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implication of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, pp.231-272 21. Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Matkin, G. S. (2001). Leaders' Bases of Social Power and Anticipation of Targets' Resistence as Predictors of Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Psychological Reports, 89(3), pp.663-666 22. Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung - Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, pp.117-224 23. Batinic, Bernad/Bosnjak, Michael (2000): Fragebogenuntersuchungen im Internet. In Batinic, B. (Ed.). (2000). Internet für Psychologen. Hogrefe Verlag., pp.287-317 24. Batz, T. (2021). Führung auf Distanz. Mobility in a Globalised World 2020, 25, pp.73- 74 25. Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51(1), pp.183-202 26. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ”Coopetition” in business networks-to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), pp.411-426 27. Bhatti, S.H., Kiyani, S.K., Dust, S.B. and Zakariya, R. (2021), "The impact of ethical leadership on project success: the mediating role of trust and knowledge sharing", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 982-998 28. Bierhoff, H.-W. (1992). Trust and trustworthiness. In L. Montada, S.-H. Filipp & M. J. Lerner (Hrsg.), Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood Hillsdale, N.J. etc.: Erlbau, pp.411-433 29. Bierhoff, H.-W. & Herner, M. Jürgen. (2007). Vertrauen: Trust. In H. Schuler & K. Sonntag (Hrsg.), Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Goettingen; Bern; Wien; Paris; Oxford; Prag: Hogrefe Verlag. pp.300- 305 30. Bolboaca, S. D., & Jäntschi, L. (2006). Pearson versus Spearman, Kendall's tau correlation analysis on structure-activity relationships of biologic active compounds. Leonardo Journal of Sciences, 5(9), p.180 31. Bordum, A. (2004) Trust as a Critical Concept, Center Market Economics, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, ISBN 87-990224-0-0, p.26 32. Borrmann, W. A. (2013). Managementprobleme internationaler Unternehmungen. Springer-Verlag. pp.128ff 33. Bortz, J., Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. (4. Auflage). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. p.725 34. Brenke, Karl (2015) : Die große Mehrzahl der Beschäftigten in Deutschland ist mit ihrer Arbeit zufrieden, DIW-Wochenbericht, ISSN 1860-8787, Deutsches Institut fu_r Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin, Vol. 82, Iss. 32/33, p.719 147 35. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D. and Tan, H. H. (2000) A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader-member exchange, The Leadership Quarterly, 11, p.227-250 36. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods revised edition (Oxford University Press, pp.197, 240, 426 37. Burke, C. S., Sims, D.E., Lazzara, E.H., & Salas, E. (2007), Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration [editor] Department of Psychologie. The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (6) pp.606-632 38. Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1971). Bases of supervisory power and subordinate job satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3, pp.183-193 39. Burrel, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants: Gower Publishing. p.23 40. Busch, P. (1980). The sales manager's bases of social power and influence upon the salesforce. Journal of Marketing, 44, pp.91-101. 41. Büssing, A. & Moranz, C. (2003). Die Rolle von Face-to-Face Kommunikation beim Aufbau von Vertrauen in telekooperativen Geschäftsbeziehungen. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 57, pp.27-34. 42. Butler, J.K.Jr (1991), Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evaluation of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, pp.643-663 43. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2010). Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computional model. West Sussex: Wiley in Lenhard, M. (2012). Macht und Vertrauen in Unternehmen (uniwien). p.13 44. Castle, E., Eisenberger, N. I., Seeman, T. E., Moons, W. G., Boggero, I. A., Grinblatt, M. S., & Taylor, S. E. (2012). Neural and behavioral bases of age differences in perceptions of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(51), pp.20848-20852 45. Chok, N. S. (2010). Pearson's versus Spearman's and Kendall's correlation coefficients for continuous data (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). pp.iii-iv 46. Chu, P-Y., Lee, G-Y., & Chao, Y. (2012). Service quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust, and loyalty in an e-banking context. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(8), pp.1271-1284 47. Clases, C., Bachmann, R. & Wehner, T. (2003). Studying Trust in Virtual Organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 33, pp.7-21 48. Clases, C. & Wehner T. (2005) Vertrauen in Wirtschaftsbeziehungen in D. Frey, L. von Rosenstiel, Graf Hoyos (Hrsg.). Wirtschaftspsychologie, Weinheim: Beltz, pp. 397-401 49. Cobb, A. T. (1980). Informal influence in the formal organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers. Academy of Management Journal, 23, pp.155-161. 50. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale 2. Auflage. in Bortz., J. (2005) Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftle,Springer, Heidelberg pp.167-168 51. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press p. 91-115, pp.175-196 148 52. Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need-nonfulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, pp.39-52 53. Cortina, J. M. (1993) What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), pp.98-104 54. Couper, Mick P./Coutts, Elisabeth (2006): Online-Befragung. Probleme und Chancen verschiedener Arten von Online-Erhebungen. In: Diekmann (Hg): 217-243 55. Covey, S.M.R., Merrill, R.R. (2009), Schnelligkeit durch Vertrauen: Die unterschätzteökonomische Macht. (p.19) Offenbach : GABAL Verlag GmbH. 56. Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust: the soft side of strategic alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), pp.223-240 57. Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, pp.380-394 58. Dasgupta, P., (1988) Trust as a commodity, Gambetta (Ed.)Trust New York: Basil Blackwell, pp. 49-72 59. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 21(5), pp.563-576 60. Daw, N. D., & Touretzky, D. S. (2002). Long-term reward prediction in TD models of the dopamine system. Neural computation, 14(11), p.2567 61. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes. In M. R. Jones (Hrsg.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1962 (Current theory and research in motivation) Lincoln Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska Press, pp. 275-319 62. Dietz, G., Hartog, D.N.D. (2006) Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), p.559 63. Dirks, K.T. (2006) Three fundamental questions regarding trust in leaders. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaher (EDS.), trust research, Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.15-28 64. Dirks, K. /Ferrin, D. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, published in Organization Science, 12, pp.450-467 65. Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, d.L. (2002), Trust in Leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Joural of applied psychology, 87 (4), p.611 66. Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., & Mullen, M.R. (1998), Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.601-620. 67. Dorow, W. (2007) Konfliktverhalten: Eine interkulturelle Spannungsquelle. In: Unternehmenskulturen in globaler Interaktion. Gabler, p.133 68. Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. New York: HarperCollins. p.9 69. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review Press, 2008. p.26 70. Dufour, J.M., Farhat, A., Gardiol, L., Khalaf, L.(1998) Simulation based finite Samply Normality Tests in Linear Regressions. Ecometrics Journal, Vol.1, pp.143-173 149 71. Dunn, J. R. & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), pp.736-748 72. Dunne, E.J., Jr., Stahl, M.J., & Melhart, L.J. Jr. (1978) Influence sources of project and functional managers in matrix organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp.135-140 73. Emerson, R.M. (1962) Power-Dependence Relations, in: American Sociological Review, 27, pp.2-41. 74. Emerson, R.M. (1972) Exchange Theory, Part II: Exchange Relations and Network Structures, in: Berger, J./Zelditch, M./Anderson, B. (Hrsg.): Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 2, New York., p.64 75. Endres, E. & Wehner, T. (2006). Störungen zwischenbetrieblicher Kooperation- Eine Fallstudie zum Grenzstellen Management in der Automobilindustrie: Arbeitsteilung; interorganisationalen Beziehungen; Just-in-time-Lieferung; Koordination; Produktqualität; Störungen. In J. Sydow (Hrsg.), Management von Netzwerkorganisationen. Beiträge aus der "Managementforschung". 4., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (Springer-11775 /Dig. Serial], Wiesbaden: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden, pp.309-353 76. Endress, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Einsichten, Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl. pp.13, 40 77. Enste, D. H. (2021). Wirtschaft und Corona: Die Bedeutung von Vertrauen in Krisenzeiten. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, pp.1-8 78. Erchul, W. P., Raven, B. H., & Ray, A. G. (2001). School psychologists' perceptions of social power bases in teacher consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(1), pp.1-23 79. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (2005). Power analysis for categorical methods. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. pp. 1565-1570 80. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Wachstum und Krisen der gesunden Persoenlichkeit. Stuttgart: Klett, inside Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Muenchen. p.15 81. Evans, A. M., Krüger, J. I. (2009) The psychology (and economics) or trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 27, 3/6, pp.1003-1017 82. Fayol, H. (1929), Allgemeine und industrielle Verwaltung, Berlin in Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2019). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Springer- Verlag, p.7 83. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., Von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G.g. (2003) A nationwide laboratory examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioural experiments into representative surveys. CESifo, Working paper No. 866, p.2 84. Fredricks, G. A., & Nelsen, R. B. (2007). On the relationship between Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau for pairs of continuous random variables. Journal of statistical planning and inference, 137(7), p.2143 85. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1958). Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence. Sociometry, 21(2), pp.83-97 86. French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in social power, Leadership as a social power, 16, pp.150-157 150 87. Friedberg, E., & Neuville, J.-P. (1999). Inside partnership: Trust, opportunism and cooperation in the European automobile industry Interfirm networks: organization and industrial competitiveness, Routledge, pp. 67-88 88. Frost, D. E., & Stahelski, A. J. (1988). The systematic measurement of French and Raven's bases of social power in work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, pp.375-389 89. Gabarro, J.J.,(1978) The development of trust, influence and expectations. In A.G. Athos, & J.J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.290-303 90. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological science, 17(12), pp.1068-1074 91. Gambetta, D.G. (1988) Can we trust “trust”?, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.213-237 92. Gandz, J. & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, pp. 237-251 93. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. In Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, p.3 94. Gebert, D., & von Rosenstiel, L. (2002): Organisationspsychologie. 5. Auflage. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart. p.91 95. Gefen, D. (2000) E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust, Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Omega 28, Elsevier Science Ltd., USA, p.733 96. Geramanis, O. (2002). Drei Wege moderner Organisationen das Vertrauensproblem zu umgehen. Personalarbeit der Zukunft. Managementkonzepte Band 27 München/Mehring, p.143 97. Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and individual differences, 102, pp.74-78. 98. Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of managerial psychology. p.599 99. Good, D. (1988), Individuals, interpersonal relations and trust, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.131-185 100. Gordon, G., & Gilley, J.W. (2012) A Trust-leadership model. Performance improvement, 51(7), pp.28-35 101. Graeff, P. (1997). Vertrauen zum Vorgesetzten und zum Unternehmen: Modellentwicklung und empirische Ueberpruefung verschiedener Arten des Vertrauens, deren Determinanten und Wirkungen bei Beschaeftigten in Wirtschaftsunternehmen. Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet zu Bonn. Bonn, p.11 102. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, pp.1201-1245 103. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing in Staw, B. M., Cummings, L.L.: Research in Organizational Behavior, Bd.9, pp.175-122 151 104. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247 105. Griffin, D., Tversky, A. (2002). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press., pp.230-249 106. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp.423-451 107. Habermas, J. (2003): Truth and Justification. UK, Cambridge: Polity Press., p.90 108. Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), pp.367-382 109. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. (1998). Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: Forms and facades of trust. Trust within and between organizations, pp.64-87 110. Hartmann, M., Offe, C. (2001), Vertrauen: Die Grundlagen des sozialen Zusammenhalts. Frankfurt / New York : Campus Verlag, p.34 111. Hartmann, M. (2002). Aussichten auf Vorteile? Grenzen rationaler Vertrauensmodelle in der Politikanalyse. O_ZP - O_sterreichische Zeitschrift fu_r Politikwissenschaft (4: Vertrauen. Mikrofundierung sozialer und politischer Ordnungen), (p.383) in Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung - Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.22 112. Håvold, J. I., & Håvold, O. K. (2019). Power, trust and motivation in hospitals. Leadership in Health Services, 32(2), pp.195-211 113. Hede, A.(2005), Patterns of Power and Leadership: Understanding Total Behaviour Leadership, Australian Institute of Management, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Australia, pp.9, 13 114. Helfferich, C. (2019). Leitfaden-und Experteninterviews. In Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. ISBN 987-3-658-21307-7, p.670 115. Helgesen, Ø.,& Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, pp.38-59 116. Henning - Thurau, T., Langer, F.M., & Hansen, U. (2001, May). Modeling and managing student loyalty : An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), pp.331-344 117. Hernandez, M., Long, C.P., & Sitkin, S.B. (2014) Cultivating Folloer Trust: Are all Leader Behaviours Equally Influential?, Organizaion studies, 35(12), pp.1867-1892 118. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. and Natemeyer,W. E. (1979) Situational leadership, perception and the impact of power, Group and Organization Management, 4, pp.418- 28 119. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta_analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International 152 Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), pp.89-106 120. Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and Application of New Scales to Measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), pp.561-561 121. Holm, H. & Nystedt, P. (2005) Intra generational trust - a semi experimental study of trust among different generations. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 58(3), pp.403-419 122. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (1996), “Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte: Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung,” Marketing: Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis 18, no.1, p.8 123. Hovland, C.I., & Weiss. W., (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Publ. Opin. Quart., 15. pp.635-650 in French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in social power, Leadership as a social power, 16, p.155 124. Huf, S. (2012) Duale Hochschule Baden-Wuerttemberg Stuttgart, inside Ursachen der Fluktuation verstehen, Mitarbeiterbindung optimieren, Personalführung 03/2012, p.30 125. Hurley, R. F. (2006). So schaffen Sie mehr Vertrauen: Vertrauen zwischen Managern und Mitarbeitern ist kein Gottesgeschenk. Harvard-Business-Manager, November 2006, pp.62-73 126. Jäckel, A. (2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Springer, pp.15-32, 86, 209, 263, 272-274, 288 127. Jackson D.D. (1980). Familienregeln: Das eheliche Quid pro Quo. In P.Watzlawick & J.M. Weakland (Hrsg.), Interaktion (p. 47-61). Bern: Huber in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Muenchen., p.15 128. Janssen J., Laatz W. (2017) Nicht parametrische Tests. In: Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg, p.632 129. Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing Knowledge Workers: The Power of Top Management. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 110(1),134. 130. John, R. (2004). Vertrauen in Organisationen sozialen Engagements: Berichte aus dem SFB 536. IPP-Arbeitspapiere: Bd. 2. München., p.12 131. Johnson, D.W.& Matross R.P. (1977). Interpersonal influence in psychotherapy: A social psychological view. In A.S. Gurman & A.M. Razin (Eds.) Effective psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Muenchen., p.15 132. Jones, G.E. & Kavanagh, M.J. J (1996) Bus Ethics cited in Spector, M.D., & Jones, G.E. (2004). Trust in the workplace: Factors affecting trust formation between team members. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp.311-321 133. Kallus, K. W. (2016). Erstellung von Fragebogen. 2. Auflage (Vol. 4465). UTB., p.19 134. Kassebaum, U. Bernd. (2004). Interpersonelles Vertrauen - Entwicklung eines Inventars zur Erfassung spezifischer Aspekte des Konstrukts. Dissertation. Hamburg., pp.226, 229 135. Kastner, M. (2004). Ethische Kommunikation. In A. Elisabeth Auhagen (Hrsg.), Positive Psychologie, Weinheim [u.a.]: Beltz, PVU., pp. 118-119 153 136. Kegan, D. L. & Rubenstein, A. H. (1973). Trust, effectiveness, and organizational development: A field study in R & D. The journal of applied behavioral science, 9 (4), p.499 137. Kelman, H., & Hovland, C.I.(1953) "Reinstatement" of the communicator indelayed measurement of opinion change, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 48 P.327-335 in French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in social power, Leadership as a social power, 16, p.155 138. Kerlinger, Fred N. (1973) Foundations of Behavioral Research., 2nd edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p.11 139. Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of personality and social psychology, 24(1), p.39 140. Kirchler, E., Hoelzl, E., & Wahl, I. (2008). Enforced versus voluntary tax compliance: The “slippery slope” framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, pp.210- 225 141. Klaussner, S. (2012). Trust and leadership: Toward an interactive perspective, Journal of change Management, 12(4), pp.417-439 142. Köszegi, S. (2001). Vertrauen in virtuellen Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: DVU, pp.30-60 143. Koslowsky, M., & Stashevsky, S. (2005). Organizational values and social power. International Journal of Manpower. p.27 144. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (Compl. updated 3rd ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. p.247 145. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, pp.569–598 146. Krumboltz, J.D. & Potter, B. (1980). Verhaltenstherapeutische Techniken für die Entwicklung von Vertrauen, Kohäsion und Zielorientierung in Gruppen. in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Muenchen, p.15 147. Kuhn, T., & Weibler, J. (2020). Bad Leadership: Von Narzissten & Egomanen, Vermessenen & Verführten: Warum uns schlechte Führung oftmals gut erscheint und es guter Führung häufig schlecht ergeht. Vahlen. p.15 148. Kunanusorn, A. & Puttawong, (2015). THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF SATISFACTION ON STUDENT LOYALTY TO HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION, 4th International Scientific Forum, ISF 2015, 2-4 September, Oxford, United Kingdom Proceedings Vol.1, pp.449-454 149. Kurland, H., Peretz, H. and Hertz Lazarowitz, R. (2010) Leadership style and organizational learning: the mediate effect of school vision, Journal of Educational Administration, 48, pp.7-30 150. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Dubois, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2015). Power and morality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, pp.15-19 151. Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), pp.737-744 152. Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. (Eds.). (1998). Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford University Press, p.3 154 153. Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), pp. 385-399 154. Laufer, H. (2006) Vertrauen und Führung - Vertrauen als Schlüssel zum Führungserfolg, Gabal Verlag, Offenbach, pp.16-19, 40 155. Lenhard, M. (2012). Macht und Vertrauen in Unternehmen (uniwien). pp.9,13 156. Leonidou, L.C., Talias, M. A., & Leonidou, C. N. (2008). Exercised power as a driver of trust and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer–seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, pp.92-103. 157. Lewicki, R.J. & Bunker, B.B. (1996). Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. In T.R. Tyler & R.M. Kramer, Trust in Organizations: Frontier of Theory and Research, New Dehli: Sage Publications, pp. 114-139 158. Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality, Social forces 63(4), pp.967- 985 159. Li, T., & Fung, H. H. (2012). Age differences in trust: An investigation across 38 countries. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), p.353 160. Lin, C.-P., Wang, Y.-J., Tsai, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-F. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), pp.1598-1606 161. Lo, M. C., Thurasamy, R., Wang, Y.C., (2015) Sustainable leadership: power of influence in MNCS in Malaysia, Applied Economics, Vol. 47, No. 30, pp.3198-3215 162. Luhmann, N. (1968) Vertrauen, Stuttgart: Enke. 163. Luhmann, N. (1975). Macht, Stuttgart: Enke. 164. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power, John Wiley and Sons Limited 165. Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen. UTB für Wissenschaft, Soziologie fachübergreifend: Bd. 2185. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius. pp.1-2, 20ff 166. Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Hrsg.), Vertrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts. Campus., p.149 167. Luhmann, N. (2009): Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Nachdruck der 4. Auflage, Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. pp.5-36 168. Luhmann, N. (2012). Macht, 4. Auflage, UVK Konstanz und München. p.8 169. Luhmann, N., (1998) Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives In D.G. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.94-107 170. Lumenburg, F. C. (2012). Power and leadership: An influence process. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15, pp.1-9 171. Malik, F. (2001) Grundsätze wirksamer Führung, Führen, Leisten, Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit (13. Aufl., Taschenbucherstausg). Heyne-Bücher, 22, Heyne Business: Bd. 1078. München: Heyne. p.136 172. Malik, F. (2006) Führen, Leisten, Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt / New York, pp.141ff 155 173. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.709-734 174. Mc Evily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, pp.91-103 175. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), pp.24-59 176. McClelland, D.C. (1965) Toward a theory of motive acquisition. In: American Psychologist. Nr. 20. pp.321-333 177. McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L. (2006), Reflections on an initial trust buildingmodel. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer (Eds.) (2006) Trust research Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.29-51 178. McKnight, H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationship. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.473-490 179. Mertel,.B. (2006), Arbeitszufriedenheit - eine empiriche Studie zu Diagnose, Erfassung und Modifikation in einem führenden Unternehmen des Automotives; Inaugural Dissertation in der Fakultät Pädagogik, Philosophie, Psychologie an der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, p.52 180. Michell, P., Reast, J., & Lynch, J. (1998). Exploring the foundations of trust. Journal of Marketing Management, 4, pp.159-172 181. Miller, P.J.E., & Rempel, J.K. (2004). Trust and partner-enhancing attributions in close relationships. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, pp.695-705 182. Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., Falvy, J. G., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power, account-ability, and inappropriate actions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, pp.497-517. 183. Mittal, R., & Elias, S. M. (2016). Social power and leadership in cross-cultural context. Journal of Management Development. p.60 184. Mohamad, M. (2009). Building corporate image and securing student loyalty in Malaysian higher learning industry. The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 4 No.1, p.30 185. Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2009). Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), pp.1013- 1023 186. Möller, H. (2012). Vertrauens-und Misstrauenskulturen in Organisationen. In Vertrauen in Organisationen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. p.14 187. Möllering, G. (2006), Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexity. Oxford : Elsevier Ltd., 2006, p.111 188. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman,G .(1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), pp.81-101. 189. Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (2002). Socialization and trust in workgroups. Group Processes &Intergroup Relations, 5, pp.185-201 190. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp.20-38 156 191. Mostafa, K. H., & Mouakket, S. (2018). Power, trust and control. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(4), pp.491 192. Nauendorf, W., (2004) Total Quality Management als Vertrauensmanagement. Muenchen und Mering : Rainer Hampp Verlag. P.197 193. Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen, W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, pp.41, 125 194. Neubauer, W. (1999) Zur Entwicklung interpersonalen, interorganisationalen und interkulturellen Vertrauens durch Führung - Empirische Ergebnisse der sozialpsychologischen Verhaltensforschung., in Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. (Eds.): Führung neu gesehen, Berlin pp.89-116 195. Neumaier, M. (2010). Vertrauen im Entscheidungsprozess: der Einfluss unbewusster Prozesse im Konsumentenverhalten, Habilitationsschrift Universität Wuppertal, 2008 Springer-Verlag. p.V 196. Nienhüser, W. (2003) Macht, Universität Essen in Martin, A. (Hg.) (2003) Organizational Behaviour - Verhalten in Organisationen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp.10, 12-14 197. Nikolova, N., Möllering, G., & Reihlen, M. (2015). Trusting as a 'leap of faith': Trust- building practices in client-consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2), pp.232-245 198. Northouse, P. G. (2004) Leadership: Theory and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, p.4 199. Nunnally, J. C., Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p.245 200. Ojo, A. (2015) Leadership and power: A study of the constructs of follower perceived leadership style and leadership power, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Volume 8, pp.1-8 201. Ojo, A., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2016). The Correlation between Leadership Style and Leader Power.Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433, 711 Human-Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Interface Division. pp.1, 5-6 202. Omodei, M., & McLennan, J. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonal mistrusttrust. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, pp.279-294 203. Osterloh, M., Weibel, A. (2006), Investition Vertrauen. Prozesse der Vertrauensentwicklung in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Betreibswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler / GWV Fachverlage GmbH, pp.38-42, 70 204. Patnaik, S., Pereira, V., Temouri, Y., Malik, A., & Roohanifar, M. (2020). The dance of power and trust-exploring micro-foundational dimensions in the development of global health partnership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120036. p.13 205. Patrick, H. A. (2012) Influence of power bases on leadership strategies adopted by managers' in information technology organizations, European Journal of Business and Management, 4, pp.101-108. 206. Perlitz, M. (2004). Internationales management. utb. pp.19ff 157 207. Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. J. (1982): In search of excellence. Lessons from America’s best-run companies, New York et al.: Harper & Row in Dorow W. (2007) Konfliktverhalten: Eine interkulturelle Spannungsquelle. In: Unternehmenskulturen in globaler Interaktion. Gabler p.133 208. Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 3.Auflage, pp.12-15, 117, 121 209. Petermann, F. (1997). Vertrauen im therapeutischen Kontext. In M. K. W. Schweer (Hrsg.), Interpersonales Vertrauen, Opladen [u.a.]: Westdt. Verl., pp.155-164 210. Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., & Knopoff, K. (1998). Faith in supervision and the self-enhancement bias: Two psychological reasons why managers don't empower workers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, pp.313-321 211. Politis, J. D. (2005). The Influence of Managerial Power and Credibility on Knowledge Acquisition Attributes. [Research Paper]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), p.21. 212. Porter, L. W., E.E. & Hackman, J.R (1975): Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill. p.350 213. Pulles, N. J., Veldman, J., Schiele, H., & Sierksma, H. (2014). Pressure or pamper? The effects of power and trust dimensions on supplier resource allocation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), pp.16-36 214. Raab-Steiner, E., Benesch, M.(2015), Der Fragebogen. (p.48-49) Wien 215. Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(4), pp.491-503 216. Rahim, A. M. (1989). Relationships of Leader Power to Compliance and Satisfaction: Evidence from a National Sample of Managers. Journal of Management, 15(4), pp.553-555 217. Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996) Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, p. pp.495-516 218. Raven, B. H. (1965) Social influence and power, in Current Studies in Social Psychology, Steiner, I. D. and Fishbein, M. (Eds), Wiley, New York, pp. 339-444 219. Raven, B. H. (1992) A power interaction model of interpersonal influence: French &Raven thirty years later, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, pp. 217-244. 220. Raven, B. H. (1993) The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments, in: Journal of Social Issues, 49, pp. 233-237. 221. Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. The structure of conflict, pp.69-109. 222. Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(4), pp.330-332 223. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), pp.21-33 224. Rempel, J., Holmes, J., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(1), pp.95-112 158 225. Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), pp.319-328 226. Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), pp.483-498 227. Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10, pp.21-39 228. Ross, W.&La Croix, J. (1996). Multiple Meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7 (4), pp.314-360. 229. Rother, W. (2016).Wille zur Macht oder Wille zum Vertrauen? Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, (2): p.34 230. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), pp.651-665 231. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, pp.443-452. 232. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C., (1998) Not so different at all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), pp.393-404 233. Sailer, M. (2006). Fuehrung - Instrument der Vertrauensbildung. In K. Goetz (Hrsg.), Vertrauen in Organisationen (Managementkonzepte), München [u.a.]: Hampp., p.263 234. Sandner, K. (1990). Prozesse der Macht: Zur Entstehung. Stabilisierung und Veränderung der Macht von Akteuren in Unternehmen, Berlin, p.77 235. Schaal, G. S. (2004). Vertrauen, Verfassung und Demokratie: Über den Einfluss konstitutioneller Prozesse und Prozeduren auf die Genese von Vertrauensbeziehungen in modernen Demokratien (1. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss., pp. 17, 43 236. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assess- ment 8(4), pp.350-353 237. Schneider, A.,(2013) Fragebogen in der Sozialen Arbeit. Opladen & Toronto : Verlag Barbara Budrich, p.10 238. Schneider, H., Lorenzen, O., & Stein, D. (2006). Personalpolitische Strategien deutscher Unternehmen zur Bewältigung demografisch bedingter Rekrutierungsengpässe bei Führungskräften. IZA. p.12 239. Scholl, W. (2012). Machtausuebung oder Einflussnahme: Die zwei Gesichter der Machtnutzung. In B. Knoblach, T. Oltmanns, I. Hajnal & D. Fink (Hrsg.), Macht in Unternehmen - Der vergessene Faktor, Wiesbaden: Gabler, p.203-221 240. Scholl, W. (2014), Führung und Macht: Warum Einflussnahme erfolgreicher ist, artoop, Institut an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin, pp.4-5 241. Scholl, W., & Riedel, E. (2010). Using high or low power as promotive or restrictive control-differential effects on learning and performance. Social Influence, 5, p. 40-58 242. Schottlaender, R. (1957). Theorie des Vertrauens. Berlin: de Gruyter. In Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Muenchen. p.15 243. Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2019). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Springer-Verlag. p.5 159 244. Schweer, M. (1997): Eine differentielle Theorie interpersonalen Vertrauens in Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, pp.2-12 in Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006) Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen W. Kohlhammer Druckerei, Stuttgart, p.132 245. Schweer, M. K., & Thies, B. (2003). Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip: Perspektiven für komplexe soziale Systeme. Bern: Huber., pp.3, 19, 119 246. Scott, J. (2007) Power, Domination and Stratification: Towards a conceptual synthesis. Sociaologia, Problemas e Practicas, n.º 55, 2007, Doctoral Conferences at ISCTE, Lisbon, Portugal on September 28th 2007 and at the Sosiologisk Institutt, Bergen University, Norway on 19th-20th September 2007, p.25 247. Scovetta, V. (2013), The impact of Leadership Social Power on Knowledge Management Success, Pro Ques t LLV UMI Number 3563506, pp.14, 189, 217-219 248. Seier, E. (2002) Comparison of Tests for Univariate Normality, Interstat Statisitical Journal, Vol. 1, pp.1-17 249. Seifert, M. (2001) Vertrauensmanagement in Unternehmen, München, Mering, p.303 250. Sende, M., (2016) Potential negative impacts of trust on coopetitive relationships, The Netherlands, University of Twente, The Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social sciences. pp.1, 6-7 251. Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization Studies, 24, (p.463-491). 252. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H. & Charskin, L. (1992). Business on handshake. Negociation Journal, 8, 365-377. 253. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), pp.591-611 254. Shahram, S. (2020). A new model for calculating the maximum trust in online social networks and solving by artificial bee colony algorithm. Computational Social Networks, 7(1), p.6 255. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (1. Aufl.) Gesamtausgabe / Georg Simmel: Bd. 11. Frankfurt am Main., Suhrkamp. pp.393-394 256. Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in customer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp.150-167 257. Sloterdijk, P. (2001). Nicht gerettet: Versuche nach Heidegger. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp., p.233 258. Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2005). The effects of working memory resource availability on prospective memory: A formal modeling approach. Experimental Psychology, 52, pp.243-256 259. Spector, M.D., & Jones, G.E. (2004). Trust in the workplace: Factors affecting trust formation between team members. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp.311-321 260. Sprenger, R. K. (2002). Vertrauen fuehrt: Worauf es im Unternehmen wirklich ankommt. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. p.29 160 261. Steinmann, H., Schreyögg, G. (2005). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung: Konzepte-Funktionen-Fallstudien. 6.Auflage. Wiesbaden: Gabler. pp.684, 690 262. Steinskog, D. J., Tjøstheim, D. B., & Kvamstø, N. G. (2007). A cautionary note on the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Monthly Weather Review, 135(3), pp.1151-1157 263. Streiner, D.L. (2003) Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency In: Journal of Personality Assessment Ban 80, 2003, pp.99- 103. 264. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), pp.364, 364-382 265. Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge cultural social studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Endress, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Einsichten. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl., p.46 266. Thamhain, H.J., & Gemnill, G.R. (1974) Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp.216-224 267. Thomas, S. (2011) What drives student loyalty in university: An empirical model for India. International Business Research, 4 (2), pp.183-192 268. Tjosvold, D., Coleman, P. T. and Sun, H. (2003) Effects of organizational values on leaders' use of informational power to affect performance in China, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, pp.152-167 269. Turner, J. C. (2005). Examining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, pp.1-22 270. Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of marketing, 70(1), p.121 271. Ullman-Margalit, E. M. (2004). Trust, distrust and in between. In R. Hardin (ed.). Distrust. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, pp.60-82 272. van der Kloet, I. (2005). A Soldierly Perspective on Trust: A Study into Trust within the Royal Netherlands Army. Tilburg University: The Netherlands. pp.54ff 273. Votteler, A., Zatrochova, M. (2018) Negative outcoms of trust. Monetary quantification of the costs of distrust in companies. - in publication pp.7-8 274. Wagner, P. & Hering, L. (2014) "Online-Befragung." Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. pp.667 275. Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings. In DiGRA Conference, p.10 276. Warren, D. I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 18, pp.951-970 277. Weber, M. (1976). Wirtschaft und gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. 5. Auflage, Mohr Siebeck (erste Auflage 1921), p.28 278. Weichbold M. (2019) Pretest. In: Baur N., Blasius J. (eds) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, p.349 279. Wilemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003) Trust me I'm your boss: Trust and power in supervisor-supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), pp.117-127 161 280. Wimmer, H., (2016) Initiales Vertrauen in die Fuehrungskraft: Eine quantitative Analyse der Werthaltungen in Deutschland, Indien, USA. Wiesbaden : Springer Gabler, pp.46ff 281. Witte, E.H. (1985) Theorien zur sozialen Macht, in Frey, D./ Irle, M. (Hrsg.) Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Bd.2: Gruppen und Lerntheorien, Bern, Stuttgart, Toronto, p.123 282. Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25(4), p.472 283. Woudenberg, R.(2017) When Does Power Corrupt? Reactions to Uncertainty and Moral Decisions, Masterthesis of Science in Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, pp.29-36 284. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The leadership quarterly, 19(6), p.712 285. Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp.416-423 286. Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates peers and superior. Group and Organization Management, 20(3), pp.272-296 287. Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2006). How much do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in new business creation in established companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), pp.541-559 288. Zand, D. E. (1981). Trust and the Decision Process. In D. E. Zand (Hrsg.), INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND POWER. Effective Management in the Knowledge Society, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, et al., pp.i–xii, 37-55, 289. Zand, D. E. (1983). Vertrauen und der Entscheidungsprozeß. In D. E. Zand & U. Reineke (Hrsg.), Wissen, Fuehren, Ueberzeugen, Heidelberger Fachbuecher fuer Praxis und Studium, Heidelberg: Sauer. pp.46-67 290. Zolin, R., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Trust in Context: The Development of Interpersonal Trust in Geographically Distributed Work. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), The Russell Sage Foundation series on trust. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. Russell Sage Foundation. pp.214-238 Electronic Sources 291. Akademie Studie (2006) Auf gut Glück oder alles unter Konrolle: Wie Vertrauen deutsch Manager? Befragung von 350 Führungskräften der Wirtschaft, pp.9-24 https://akademie-web.s3.amazonaws.com/akademie/studien/AkademieStudie-2006.pdf (15.01.19) 292. Avantgarde Experts (2018) Quo Vadis “Arbeiten in Deutschland”? Eine Studie von AVANTGARDE Experts zur Arbeitszufriedenheit und Digitalisierung in Deutschland, p.6 https://www.avantgarde-experts.de/sites/default/files/ae-studie- arbeitszufriedenheit-2018_0.pdf (13.01.2019) 293. Karrierebibel.de (2020) https://karrierebibel.de/jobzufriedenheit/ (30.03.2021) 294. Collins English Dictionary (2019) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/confidence (10.01.2019) 162 295. Collins English Dictionary (2019) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trust (10.01.2019) 296. Deutscher Bundestag (2017) wissenschaftliche Dienste: Arbeitsplätze der Automobilindustrie und des Umweltverbundes, WD 5 Wirtschaft und Verkehr, Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. WD 5 - 3000 - 122/16, p.4; https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/496346/1a9b4fbe228b43b15bc6fbf3de0cb19 5/wd-5-122-16-pdf-data.pdf (07.04.2020) 297. Eilers, S, Möckel, K., Rump, J., Schabel, F. (2018), Hays HR Report 2018, https://www.hays.de/documents/10192/118775/hays-studie-hr-report- 2018.pdf/243a467e-bc39-6b0a-3ac1-95c5f9bd43bc (09.01.2019) 298. Hain, J. (2011). Varianzanalyse-ANOVA. Universität Würzburg. pp.2, 4 https://www.uni- wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/10040800/user_upload/hain/SPSS/ANOVA.pdf (27.04.2020) 299. Heidbrink, L., Hartung, M.J., (2020). Führungskräftebefragung 2020, Wertekommission Technische Universität München, PWC, p.13 https://www.wertekommission.de/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/Wertekommission_FKB_2020.pdf (06.11.2020) 300. Krüger, D.; Parchmann, I.; Schecker, H. (Hrsg.) (2014) Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-364237826- 3 – Zusammenfassung, p.1 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahU KEwintuiqturoAhWdwQIHHegDCM8QFjADegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F Cronbach%2BAlpha.pdf%253FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1426184- p175274210&usg=AOvVaw2_wmYTLTy1LgaufHP1hmLb (20.04.2020) 301. Möllering, G. Editor-in-Chief (2019) Connecting trust and power, Journal of Trust Research, 9:1, pp.1-3, DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21515581.2019.1609732 (02.04.2021) 302. OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris, p.380 https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en (29.11.2020) 303. Rudnicka, J. (2018), Statista: Durchschnittsalter von Führungskräften in Deutschland nach Bundesländern im Jahr 2018, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182536/umfrage/durchschnittsalter-von- geschaeftsfuehrern-nach-bundeslaendern-und-geschlecht/ (read: 08.04.2020) 304. Rudnicka, J. (2019), Frauenquote - Stand 30.Okt. 2018, Statista https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/575509/umfrage/frauenanteil-in- fuehrungspositionen-in-deutschland-nach-branchen/ (read: 03.07.2019) 305. Rudnicka, J. (2020) Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) in Deutschland in jeweiligen Preisen vom 4. Quartal 2015 bis zum 4. Quartal 2019, Statista, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/3829/umfrage/entwicklung-des- bruttoinlandsprodukts-in-deutschland-nach-quartalen/ (10.04.2020) 306. Rudnicka, J, (2020), Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) in Deutschland von 1950 bis 2019, Statista, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4878/umfrage/bruttoinlandsprodukt-von- deutschland-seit-dem-jahr-1950/ (10.04.2020) 163 307. Schlenker, B.R., Helm, B. & Tedeschi, J.T. (1973). The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, pp.419-427, in Thomas, A. (2005)Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. p.5, http://www.psychologie.uni- regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF (27.04.2016) 308. Sorrentino, T. (2014) Stepstone.de, Alle vier Jahre ein neuer Arbeitgeber - 21.03.2014 12:08 https://www.presseportal.de/pm/38447/2693619 (09.01.2019) 309. Statista research department (2009), Wie häufig haben Sie in Ihrem Arbeitsleben schon den Arbeitgeber gewechselt? - Deutschland und EU, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/28914/umfrage/haeufigkeit-der- arbeitsplatzwechsel/ (09.04.2020) 310. Statista research department (2011), Haben Sie schon einmal oder mehrmals von sich aus den Arbeitgeber gewechselt oder haben Sie die Absicht, in Kürze zu wechseln? - Deutschland, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/180071/umfrage/haeufigkeit- von-arbeitgeberwechseln/ (09.04.2020) 311. Statistik der Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit (2018) Berichte: Blickpunkt Arbeitsmarkt - Der Arbeitsmarkt in Deutschland 2017, Nuernberg, https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/201712/ama/heft- arbeitsmarkt/arbeitsmarkt-d-0-201712-pdf.pdf (09.01.2019) 312. Thomas, A. (2005) Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. pp.4-5, 11, 31, http://www.psychologie.uni- regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF (27.04.2016) 313. Xing.com (2020) https://recruiting.xing.com/de/wissen-veranstaltungen/wissen/hr- news-trends/job-umfrage-2020-das-wuenschen-sich-deutsche (30.03.2021) 314. Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Yin, G., Gao, Y., Tong, X., & Han, Q. (2016). A game theory- based trust measurement model for social networks. Computational social networks, 3(1), p.2, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40649-016-0027-x (09.05.2020) 164 APPENDICES A. Questionnaire of quantitative research B. Scale item definition C. Detailed graphs of common data from the respondents of the quantitative research D. Descriptive statistics of variables (total sample) E. Potential influencing factors of supervisor & subordinate trust F. Test of normality (total sample) G. Correlation analysis (Pearson) H. Correlation analysis (Kendall & Spearman) I. Mann-Whitney-U-Test of power variables (subordinate vs. supervisor) J. Specialist interview partners K. Questions of specialist interview L. Detailed results of specialist interviews M. Pre-test questionnaire N. General and separated research model with typology and legend O. Definition of boundary item to trust P. General trust models and definitions 165 A. Questionnaire of quantitative research The influence of power on trust in a supervisor/subordinate relationship This is a survey in which I want to ask you about your meaning regarding your daily work. With this questionnaire, should your experience with power and trust inside a supervisor/subordinate-relationship be implemented into my quantitative research. The first questions are about your personal environment. In the further questionnaire you have the possibility to give your answer in a five scale category, starting from “strongly disagree” up to “strongly agree” with a neutral midpoint. The questionnaire is separated into three sections: Section A. has to be filled out from all participants. Section B. has to be filled out from participants, who have a supervisor. Normally these are all excluding, managing directors, CEO’s and shareholders. Section C. has to be filled out from participants, who have a leadership position and who are disciplinary responsible for the subordinates. (managing directors, Head of..., managers, group/team leader,…) In section B. and C. has especially to be considered, that in most questions, two answers are awaited; one answer, that shows the actual situation (REALITY) and one answer, how the situation should look like (WISH). Answer the questions quickly within 20 minutes and in case of any doubts mark the category, you had at first in your mind. Please write your name only at the outside of the closed envelope to ensure a purposeful collection of data same as to assure and guarantee the later anonymous evaluation. In all questions female and male Persons are meant in the same way; due to an easy readable style and clearness, just the male gender form is used. Thanks a lot for your support Oliver Menk 166 1 Auto- motive supplier manufactu ring general IT service consultin g ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ logistic others ¨ ¨ 2 < 50 50-249 250-749 750-1999 ≥ 2000 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 3 national inter- national ¨ ¨ 4 female male ¨ ¨ 5 employee freelancer share- holder ¨ ¨ ¨ 6 < 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥ 60 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 7 0 1 2-3 4-9 ≥ 10 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 8 < 1 1-4 5-10 11-19 ≥ 20 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 9 < 1 1-2 3-5 6-9 ≥ 10 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 10 Yes No ¨ ¨ CEO / managing director higher manage- ment mid manage- ment lower manage- ment ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 11 female male none ¨ ¨ ¨ 12 < 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥ 60 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ How old you are? How often have you changed your company since you are 25 years old. How many years you are working inside your actual company? It is highly probable, that you will leave the company in (_) years. I don't want to change the company. You have personnel responsibility? If YES: On what stage…. The gender of your direct supervisor is…. (If you don't have a supervisor, please mark "none") A.) General information In what kind of industry do you work? How many employees work in your company. Your company works… Your gender is… In this company you are… The estimated age of your direct supervisor is…. 167 strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree 1 I have confidence in the motivations of my supervisor.           2 My supervisor increases my pay level.           3 My supervisor makes me feel valued.           4 My supervisor gives me undesirable job assignments.           5 I usually know how my supervisor is going to react.           6 My supervisor makes me feel like he/she approves of me.           7 My supervisor makes me feel that I have commitments to meet.           8 My supervisor makes me feel personally accepted.           9 I believe my supervisor is fair.           10 My supervisor performs his job well.           11 I believe my supervisor is honest.           12 My supervisor makes me feel important.           13 My supervisor watches my back.           14 I can anticipate what my supervisor will do.           15 My supervisor has my best interests in mind.           16 My supervisor gives me good technical suggestions.           17 I know exactly what my supervisor will do in difficult situations.           18 My supervisor makes my work difficult for me.           19 My supervisor shares with me her considerable experience and/or training.           20 I have confidence in the abilities of my supervisor.           21 My supervisor makes things unpleasant here.           22 My supervisor makes being at work distasteful.           23 My supervisor is capable at his job.           24 I can rely on my supervisor to behave predictably.           25 My supervisor is genuinely concerned about my well being.           B.) Power & Trust (ONLY if you don't have a supervisor, skip this section and follow on with part C.) Please mark your answer with a X WISHREALITY 168 strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree 26 My supervisor behaves in a very consistent manner.           27 My supervisor influences my getting a pay raise.           28 I can depend on the fairness of my supervisor.           29 My supervisor is highly skilled.           30 My supervisor makes me feel like I should satisfy my job requirements.           31 My supervisor provides me with needed technical knowledge.           32 My supervisor puts his words into action.           33 My supervisor provides me with special benefits.           34 My supervisor is likely to protect me.           35 My supervisor knows what he is doing.           36 My supervisor influences my getting a promotion.           37 My supervisor gives me the feeling I have responsibilities to fulfil.           38 My supervisor provides me with sound job-related advice.           39 I know my supervisor will keep his word.           40 My supervisor makes me recognize that I have tasks to accomplish.           41 < 1 1-2 3-5 6-9 ≥ 10       42 very low very high very low very high           43 The trust of my supervisor into me is probably … very low very high very low very high           44 very un- import- ant very import- ant      If the supervisor has trust in me, is for me… B.) Power & Trust (ONLY if you don't have a supervisor, skip this section and follow on with part C.) Please mark your answer with a X REALITY WISH If my supervisor would lead me as I wished in the questions above, than I would change the company in (_) years. I don't want to change the company. The trust in my supervisor is in general … - REALITY - - WISH - - REALITY - - WISH - 169 strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree 1 I believe that my subordinates have my best interests in mind.           2 I increase the subordinates pay level.           3 I make the subordinates feel valued.           4 I give the subordinates undesirable job assignments.           5 I know what to expect from my subordinates.           6 I make the subordinates feel like I approve of them.           7 I make the subordinate feel that they have commitments to meet.           8 I make the subordinate feel personally accepted.           9 I can depend on my subordinates to be fair.           10 My subordinates are capable at their jobs.           11 My subordinates are honourable people.           12 I make the subordinate feel important.           13 My subordinates are motivated to protect me.           14 I usually know how my subordinates are going to react.           15 I feel that my subordinates work to protect me.           16 I give the subordinates good technical suggestions.           17 In times of uncertainty, my subordinates sticks to the plan.           18 I make the work difficult for the subordinates.           19 I share with the subordinates my considerable experience and/or training.           20 My subordinates know what they are doing.           21 I make things unpleasant for the subordinates.           22 I make being at work distasteful for the subordinates.           23 I have faith in the abilities of my subordinates.           24 My subordinates are reliable.           25 My subordinates watch my back.           C.) Power and trust for supervisors only (Just fill out this section if you are leading employees) Please mark your answer with a X REALITY WISH 170 strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree strongly disagree rather disagree neutral rather agree strongly agree 26 My subordinates behave consistently.           27 I influence the subordinates getting a pay raise.           28 My subordinates honour their word.           29 My subordinates are qualified to do their job.           30 I make the subordinates feel like they should satisfy their job requirements.           31 I provide the subordinates with needed technical knowledge.           32 My subordinates keep their promises.           33 I provide the subordinate with special benefits.           34 My subordinates look out for me.           35 My subordinates communicate well.           36 I influence the subordinates getting a promotion.           37 I give the subordinate the feeling they have responsibilities to fulfil.           38 I provide the subordinates with sound job-related advice.           39 My subordinates tell the truth.           40 I make the subordinates recognize that they have tasks to accomplish.           41 very low very high very low very high           42 very low very high very low very high           43 very un- import- ant very import- ant      C.) Power and trust for supervisors only (Just fill out this section if you are leading employees) Please mark your answer with a X REALITY WISH The trust of my subordinates into me is probably… - REALITY - If the subordinates have trust in me, is for me… My trust in my subordinates is in general… - REALITY - - WISH - - WISH - 171 Fragebogen Der Einfluss von Macht auf das Vertrauen in einer Vorgesetzten/Mitarbeiter Beziehung Dieses ist eine Befragung in dem ich Sie gerne um Ihre Meinung zu Ihrer täglichen Arbeit bitten möchte. Mit diesem Fragebogen soll Ihre Erfahrung mit Macht und Vertrauen in einer Vorgesetzten/Mitarbeiter-Beziehung in meine quantitative Untersuchung implementiert werden. Neben den zu Beginn begleitenden Fragen zu Ihrem persönlichen Umfeld haben sie weiter die Möglichkeit auf einer Skala mit fünf Kategorien Ihre Antwort zu geben. Die Einteilung erfolgt hier von „trifft überhaupt nicht zu“ bis „trifft völlig zu“ und besitzt einen neutralen Mittelpunkt. Der Fragebogen ist in drei Teile gegliedert. Teil A. ist von allen Teilnehmern auszufüllen. Teil B. ist von den Teilnehmern auszufüllen, die einen Vorgesetzten haben. Das sind in der Regel alle, außer Geschäftsführer und Gesellschafter. Teil C. ist von den Teilnehmern auszufüllen, welche in einer Führungsposition sind und Mitarbeiter disziplinarisch führen (Geschäftsführer, Abteilungsleiter, Gruppenleiter,…) Im Teil B. und C. ist besonders zu beachten, dass in den meisten Fällen pro Frage zwei Antworten erwartet werden; einmal eine Antwort, wie sich Ihre aktuelle Situation darstellt (REALITÄT), als auch eine Antwort, wie die Situation aussehen sollte (WUNSCH). Beantworten Sie die Fragen zügig innerhalb von 20 Minuten und kreuzen im Zweifel die Kategorie an, an die Sie zuerst gedacht haben. Bitte notieren Sie Ihren Namen nur auf der Außenseite des verschlossenen Umschlags, somit ist sowohl eine zielgerichtete Datenerfassung, als auch die spätere anonyme Auswertung der Daten gewährleistet und garantiert. In allen Fragen sind Personen weiblichen und männlichen Geschlechts gleichermaßen gemeint; aus Gründen der einfacheren Lesbarkeit und Übersichtlichkeit wird im Fragebogen nur die männliche Form verwendet. Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung Oliver Menk 172 1 Auto- motive Lieferant Herstell- ung allgemein IT Dienst- leistung Beratung ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Logistik sonstige ¨ ¨ 2 < 50 50-249 250-749 750-1999 ≥ 2000 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 3 national inter- national ¨ ¨ 4 weiblich männlich ¨ ¨ 5 Ange- stellter /Arbeiter freier Mitarbeit er Gesell- schafter ¨ ¨ ¨ 6 < 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥ 60 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 7 0 1 2-3 4-9 ≥ 10 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 8 < 1 1-4 5-10 11-19 ≥ 20 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 9 < 1 1-2 3-5 6-9 ≥ 10 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 10 Ja Nein ¨ ¨ Geschäfts führung oberes Manage- ment mittleres Manage- ment unteres Manage- ment ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ 11 weiblich männlich kein ¨ ¨ ¨ 12 < 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥ 60 ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ A.) Allgemeiner Teil In welcher Branche arbeiten sie? Wie viel Jahre arbeiten Sie in Ihrem aktuellen Unternehmen? Wie oft haben Sie Ihren Arbeitgeber seit ihrem 25. Geburtstag gewechselt Wieviel Mitarbeiter beschäftigt ihr Unternehmen? Ihr Unternehmen arbeitet … Ihr Geschlecht ist … In diesem Unternehmen sind sie… Sie sind wieviel Jahre alt? ich möchte das Unternehmen nicht verlassen Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass sie das Unternehmen in (_)- Jahren wechseln werden. Sie haben Personalverantwortung… Falls ja: Auf der Ebene… Das Geschlecht Ihres direkten Vorgesetzten ist… (Sollten Sie keinen Vorgesetzten haben, bitte "kein" ankreuzen) Das geschätzte Alter ihres direkter Vorgesetzten ist… 173 trifft über- haupt nicht zu trifft eher nicht zu neutral trifft eher zu trifft völlig zu sollte über- haupt nicht zu- treffen sollte eher nicht zu- treffen neutral sollte eher zu- treffen sollte völlig zu- treffen 1 Ich habe Vertrauen in die Beweggründe meines Vorgesetzten.           2 Mein Vorgesetzter erhöht mein Gehaltslevel.           3 Mein Vorgesetzter erzeugt in mir das Gefühl, dass ich von Ihm geschätzt werde.           4 Mein Vorgesetzter gibt mir unerwünschte Aufgaben im Job.           5 Gewöhnlich weiß ich wie mein Vorgesetzter reagiert.           6 Mein Vorgesetzter erzeugt in mir das Gefühl, dass er mich anerkennt.           7 Mein Vorgesetzter lässt mich spüren, dass ich Vereinbarungen einzuhalten habe.           8 Mein Vorgesetzter erzeugt in mir das Gefühl, dass er mich persönlich akzeptiert.           9 Ich glaube mein Vorgesetzter ist fair           10 Mein Vorgesetzter verrichtet einen guten Job.           11 Ich glaube mein Vorgesetzter ist ehrlich.           12 Mein Vorgesetzter erzeugt in mir das Gefühl, dass ich wichtig bin.           13 Mein Vorgesetzter hält mir den Rücken frei.           14 Ich kann voraussehn, was mein Vorgesetzter machen wird.           15 Mein Vorgesetzter hat meine Interessen im Sinn.           16 Mein Vorgesetzter gibt mir gute technische Ratschläge.           17 Ich weiß genau was mein Vorgesetzter in schwierigen Situationen macht.           18 Mein Vorgesetzter macht meine Arbeit schwierig für mich.           19 Mein Vorgesetzter teilt mit mir seine beträchtliche Erfahrung und/oder Ausbildung.           20 Ich habe Vertrauen in die Fähigkeiten meines Vorgesetzten.           21 Mein Vorgesetzter macht Dinge auf der Arbeit unangenehm.           22 Mein Vorgesetzter macht es unangenehm auf der Arbeit zu sein.           23 Mein Vorgesetzter ist fähig in seinem Job.           24 Ich kann mich auf meinen Vorgesetzten verlassen, dass er sich voraussagbar verhält.           25 Mein Vorgesetzter ist aufrichtig an meinem Wohlergehen interessiert.           WUNSCH B.) Macht & Vertrauen (NUR wenn Sie keinen Vorgesetzten haben überspringen Sie diese Sektion und machen bei Teil C. weiter) Bitte markieren Sie Ihre Antwort mit einem X REALITÄT 174 trifft über- haupt nicht zu trifft eher nicht zu neutral trifft eher zu trifft völlig zu sollte über- haupt nicht zu- treffen sollte eher nicht zu- treffen neutral sollte eher zu- treffen sollte völlig zu- treffen 26 Mein Vorgesetzter verhält sich in einer beständigen Art und Weise           27 Mein Vorgesetzter beeinflusst ob ich eine Gehaltserhöhung bekomme.           28 Ich kann mich auf die Fairness meines Vorgesetzten verlassen.           29 Mein Vorgesetzter ist hoch qualifiziert.           30 Mein Vorgesetzter lässt mich spüren, dass ich meine Jobanforderungen einzuhalten habe.           31 Mein Vorgesetzter versorgt mich mit dem benötigten technischen Wissen.           32 Mein Vorgesetzter lässt seinen Worten auch Taten folgen.           33 Mein Vorgesetzter unterstützt mich mit speziellen Bezügen, Leistungen, etc.           34 Mein Vorgesetzter wird mich voraussichtlich beschützen.           35 Mein Vorgesetzter weiß was er macht.           36 Mein Vorgesetzter beeinflusst ob ich befördert werde (oder eine Förderung erhalte)           37 Mein Vorgesetzter gibt mir das Gefühl, dass ich übertragene Verantwortung zu erfüllen habe.           38 Mein Vorgesetzter gibt mir guten, berufsbezogenen Rat.           39 Ich weiß mein Vorgesetzter hält sein Wort.           40 Mein Vorgesetzter erzeugt bei mir das Verständnis, dass ich Aufgaben zu vollbringen habe.           41 < 1 1-2 3-5 6-9 ≥ 10       42 sehr niedrig sehr hoch sehr niedrig sehr hoch           43 Das Vertrauen meines Vorgesetzten in mich ist wahrscheinlich … sehr niedrig sehr hoch sehr niedrig sehr hoch           44 sehr un- wichtig sehr wichtig      Ob meinVorgesetzter Vertrauen in mich hat ist mir… B.) Macht & Vertrauen (NUR wenn Sie keinen Vorgesetzten haben überspringen Sie diese Sektion und machen bei Teil C. weiter) Bitte markieren Sie Ihre Antwort mit einem X REALITÄT WUNSCH - REALITÄT - - WUNSCH - ich möchte das Unternehmen nicht verlassen Wenn mein Vorgesetzter mich führen würde, wie ich mir das in den obigen Punkten WÜNSCHE, dann würde ich das Unternehmen nach frühestens (_) Jahren verlassen. Das Vertrauen in meinen Vorgesetzten ist generell… - REALITÄT - - WUNSCH - 175 trifft über- haupt nicht zu trifft eher nicht zu neutral trifft eher zu trifft völlig zu sollte über- haupt nicht zu- treffen sollte eher nicht zu- treffen neutral sollte eher zu- treffen sollte völlig zu- treffen 1 Ich glaube dass meine Mitarbeiter meine Interessen im Sinn haben.           2 Ich erhöhe das Gehaltslevel der Mitarbeiter.           3 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, dass sie geschätzt werden.           4 Ich gebe den Mitarbeitern unerwünschte Aufgaben im Job.           5 Ich weiß was ich von meinen Mitarbeitern erwarten kann.           6 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, dass ich sie anerkenne.           7 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, dass die Vereinbarungen einzuhalten haben.           8 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, dass ich sie persönlich akzeptiere.           9 Ich kann mich auf die Fairness meiner Mitarbeiter verlassen.           10 Meine Mitarbeite sind fähig in ihren Jobs.           11 Meine Mitarbeiter sind ehrenwerte Leute.           12 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, dass sie wichtig sind.           13 Meine Mitarbeiter sind motiviert mich zu beschützen.           14 Gewöhnlich weiß ich wie mein Mitarbeiter reagieren.           15 Ich fühle dass meine Mitarbeiter arbeiten um mich zu schützen.           16 Ich gebe den Mitarbeitern gute technische Ratschläge.           17 In unsicheren Zeiten bleiben meine Mitarbeiter beim Plan.           18 Ich machen den Mitarbeitern die Arbeit schwierig.           19 Ich teile mit den Mitarbeitern meine beträchtliche Erfahrung und/oder Ausbildung.           20 Meine Mitarbeiter wissen was sie machen.           21 Ich mache den Mitarbeitern Dinge unangenehm.           22 Ich mache es den Mitarbeitern unangenehm auf der Arbeit zu sein.           23 Ich habe Vertrauen in die Fähigkeiten meiner Mitarbeiter.           24 Meine Mitarbeiter sind verlässlich.           25 Meine Mitarbeiter halten mir den Rücken frei.           REALITÄT C.) Macht und Vertrauen nur für Vorgesetzte (Nur ausfüllen wenn Sie Mitarbeiter führen) Bitte markieren Sie Ihre Antwort mit einem X WUNSCH 176 trifft über- haupt nicht zu trifft eher nicht zu neutral trifft eher zu trifft völlig zu sollte über- haupt nicht zu- treffen sollte eher nicht zu- treffen neutral sollte eher zu- treffen sollte völlig zu- treffen 26 Meine Mitarbeiter verhalten sich beständig.           27 Ich beeinflusse die Mitarbeiter, dass sie eine Gehaltserhöhung bekommen.           28 Meine Mitarbeiter stehen zu ihrem Wort.           29 Meine Mitarbeiter sind qualifiziert ihren Job zu machen.           30 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter fühlen, das sie Ihre Jobanforderungen einzuhalten haben.           31 Ich versorge die Mitarbeiter mit dem benötigten technischen Wissen.           32 Meine Mitarbeiter halten Ihre versprechen.           33 Ich unterstütze die Mitarbeiter mit speziellen Bezügen, Leistungen, etc.…           34 Meine Mitarbeiter passen auf mich auf.           35 Meine Mitarbeiter kommunizieren gut.           36 Ich beeinflusse, ob sie eine Beförderung (oder Förderung) erhalten.           37 Ich gebe den Mitarbeitern das Gefühl, dass sie die übertragene Verantwortung zu erfüllen haben.           38 Ich versorge die Mitarbeiter mit gutem, berufsbezogenen Rat.           39 Meine Mitarbeiter erzählen die Wahrheit.           40 Ich lasse die Mitarbeiter verstehen, dass sie Aufgaben zu vollbringen haben.           41 sehr niedrig sehr hoch sehr niedrig sehr hoch           42 sehr niedrig sehr hoch sehr niedrig sehr hoch           43 sehr un- wichtig sehr wichtig      C.) Macht und Vertrauen nur für Vorgesetzte (Nur ausfüllen wenn Sie Mitarbeiter führen) Bitte markieren Sie Ihre Antwort mit einem X REALITÄT WUNSCH Ob meine Mitarbeiter Vertrauen in mich haben ist mir… Mein Vertrauen in meine Mitarbeiter ist generell… - REALITÄT - Das Vertrauen meiner Mitarbeiter in mich ist wahrscheinlich … - REALITÄT - - WUNSCH - - WUNSCH - 177 B. Scale item definition Code No. Question sR-TS-B01 1 I have confidence in the motivations of my supervisor. sR-TS-B02 13 My supervisor watches my back. sR-TS-B03 15 My supervisor has my best interests in mind. sR-TS-B04 25 My supervisor is genuinely concerned about my well being. sR-TS-B05 34 My supervisor is likely to protect me. sR-TS-C01 10 My supervisor performs his job well. sR-TS-C02 20 I have confidence in the abilities of my supervisor. sR-TS-C03 23 My supervisor is capable at his job. sR-TS-C04 29 My supervisor is highly skilled. sR-TS-C05 35 My supervisor knows what he is doing. sR-TS-I01 9 I believe my supervisor is fair. sR-TS-I02 11 I believe my supervisor is honest. sR-TS-I03 28 I can depend on the fairness of my supervisor. sR-TS-I04 32 My supervisor puts his words into action. sR-TS-I05 39 I know my supervisor will keep his word. sR-TS-P01 5 I usually know how my supervisor is going to react. sR-TS-P02 14 I can anticipate what my supervisor will do. sR-TS-P03 17 I know exactly what my supervisor will do in difficult situations. sR-TS-P04 24 I can rely on my supervisor to behave predictably. sR-TS-P05 26 My supervisor behaves in a very consistent manner. sR-P-CE01 4 My supervisor gives me undesirable job assignments. sR-P-CE02 18 My supervisor makes my work difficult for me. sR-P-CE03 21 My supervisor makes things unpleasant here. sR-P-CE04 22 My supervisor makes being at work distasteful. sR-P-EX01 16 My supervisor gives me good technical suggestions. sR-P-EX02 19 My supervisor shares with me her considerable experience and/or training. sR-P-EX03 31 My supervisor provides me with needed technical knowledge. sR-P-EX04 38 My supervisor provides me with sound job-related advice. sR-P-LE01 7 My supervisor makes me feel that I have commitments to meet. sR-P-LE02 30 My supervisor makes me feel like I should satisfy my job requirements. sR-P-LE03 37 My supervisor gives me the feeling I have responsibilities to fulfill. sR-P-LE04 40 My supervisor makes me recognize that I have tasks to accomplish. sR-P-RF01 3 My supervisor makes me feel valued. sR-P-RF02 6 My supervisor makes me feel like he/she approves of me. sR-P-RF03 8 My supervisor makes me feel personally accepted. sR-P-RF04 12 My supervisor makes me feel important. sR-P-RW01 2 My supervisor increases my pay level. sR-P-RW02 27 My supervisor influences my getting a pay raise. sR-P-RW03 33 My supervisor provides me with special benefits. sR-P-RW04 36 My supervisor influences my getting a promotion. sW-TS-B01 1 I have confidence in the motivations of my supervisor. sW-TS-B02 13 My supervisor watches my back. sW-TS-B03 15 My supervisor has my best interests in mind. sW-TS-B04 25 My supervisor is genuinely concerned about my well being. sW-TS-B05 34 My supervisor is likely to protect me. sW-TS-C01 10 My supervisor performs his job well. 178 sW-TS-C02 20 I have confidence in the abilities of my supervisor. sW-TS-C03 23 My supervisor is capable at his job. sW-TS-C04 29 My supervisor is highly skilled. sW-TS-C05 35 My supervisor knows what he is doing. sW-TS-I01 9 I believe my supervisor is fair. sW-TS-I02 11 I believe my supervisor is honest. sW-TS-I03 28 I can depend on the fairness of my supervisor. sW-TS-I04 32 My supervisor puts his words into action. sW-TS-I05 39 I know my supervisor will keep his word. sW-TS-P01 5 I usually know how my supervisor is going to react. sW-TS-P02 14 I can anticipate what my supervisor will do. sW-TS-P03 17 I know exactly what my supervisor will do in difficult situations. sW-TS-P04 24 I can rely on my supervisor to behave predictably. sW-TS-P05 26 My supervisor behaves in a very consistent manner. sW-P-CE01 4 My supervisor gives me undesirable job assignments. sW-P-CE02 18 My supervisor makes my work difficult for me. sW-P-CE03 21 My supervisor makes things unpleasant here. sW-P-CE04 22 My supervisor makes being at work distasteful. sW-P-EX01 16 My supervisor gives me good technical suggestions. sW-P-EX02 19 My supervisor shares with me her considerable experience and/or training. sW-P-EX03 31 My supervisor provides me with needed technical knowledge. sW-P-EX04 38 My supervisor provides me with sound job-related advice. sW-P-LE01 7 My supervisor makes me feel that I have commitments to meet. sW-P-LE02 30 My supervisor makes me feel like I should satisfy my job requirements. sW-P-LE03 37 My supervisor gives me the feeling I have responsibilities to fulfill. sW-P-LE04 40 My supervisor makes me recognize that I have tasks to accomplish. sW-P-RF01 3 My supervisor makes me feel valued. sW-P-RF02 6 My supervisor makes me feel like he/she approves of me. sW-P-RF03 8 My supervisor makes me feel personally accepted. sW-P-RF04 12 My supervisor makes me feel important. sW-P-RW01 2 My supervisor increases my pay level. sW-P-RW02 27 My supervisor influences my getting a pay raise. sW-P-RW03 33 My supervisor provides me with special benefits. sW-P-RW04 36 My supervisor influences my getting a promotion. LR-TS-B01 1 I believe that my subordinates have my best interests in mind. LR-TS-B02 13 My subordinates are motivated to protect me. LR-TS-B03 15 I feel that my subordinates work to protect me. LR-TS-B04 25 My subordinates watch my back. LR-TS-B05 34 My subordinates look out for me. LR-TS-C01 10 My subordinates are capable at their jobs. LR-TS-C02 20 My subordinates know what they are doing. LR-TS-C03 23 I have faith in the abilities of my subordinates. LR-TS-C04 29 My subordinates are qualified to do their job. LR-TS-C05 35 My subordinates communicate well. LR-TS-I01 9 I can depend on my subordinates to be fair. LR-TS-I02 11 My subordinates are honourable people. LR-TS-I03 28 My subordinates honour their word. LR-TS-I04 32 My subordinates keep their promises. LR-TS-I05 39 My subordinates tell the truth. 179 LR-TS-P01 5 I know what to expect from my subordinates. LR-TS-P02 14 I usually know how my subordinates are going to react. LR-TS-P03 17 In times of uncertainty, my subordinates sticks to the plan. LR-TS-P04 24 My subordinates are reliable. LR-TS-P05 26 My subordinates behave consistently. LR-P-CE01 4 I give the subordinates undesirable job assignments. LR-P-CE02 18 I make the work difficult for the subordinates. LR-P-CE03 21 I make things unpleasant for the subordinates. LR-P-CE04 22 I make being at work distasteful for the subordinates. LR-P-EX01 16 I give the subordinates good technical suggestions. LR-P-EX02 19 I share with the subordinates my considerable experience and/or training. LR-P-EX03 31 I provide the subordinates with needed technical knowledge. LR-P-EX04 38 I provide the subordinates with sound job-related advice. LR-P-LE01 7 I make the subordinate feel that they have commitments to meet. LR-P-LE02 30 I make the subordinates feel like they should satisfy their job requirements. LR-P-LE03 37 I give the subordinate the feeling they have responsibilities to fulfill. LR-P-LE04 40 I make the subordinate recognize that they have tasks to accomplish. LR-P-RF01 3 I make the subordinates feel valued. LR-P-RF02 6 I make the subordinates feel like I approve of them. LR-P-RF03 8 I make the subordinate feel personally accepted. LR-P-RF04 12 I make the subordinate feel important. LR-P-RW01 2 I increase the subordinates pay level. LR-P-RW02 27 I influence the subordinates getting a pay raise. LR-P-RW03 33 I provide the subordinate with special benefits. LR-P-RW04 36 I influence the subordinates getting a promotion. LW-TS-B01 1 I believe that my subordinates have my best interests in mind. LW-TS-B02 13 My subordinates are motivated to protect me. LW-TS-B03 15 I feel that my subordinates work to protect me. LW-TS-B04 25 My subordinates watch my back. LW-TS-B05 34 My subordinates look out for me. LW-TS-C01 10 My subordinates are capable at their jobs. LW-TS-C02 20 My subordinates know what they are doing. LW-TS-C03 23 I have faith in the abilities of my subordinates. LW-TS-C04 29 My subordinates are qualified to do their job. LW-TS-C05 35 My subordinates communicate well. LW-TS-I01 9 I can depend on my subordinates to be fair. LW-TS-I02 11 My subordinates are honorable people. LW-TS-I03 28 My subordinates honor their word. LW-TS-I04 32 My subordinates keep their promises. LW-TS-I05 39 My subordinates tell the truth. LW-TS-P01 5 I know what to expect from my subordinates. LW-TS-P02 14 I usually know how my subordinates are going to react. LW-TS-P03 17 In times of uncertainty, my subordinates sticks to the plan. LW-TS-P04 24 My subordinates are reliable. LW-TS-P05 26 My subordinates behave consistently. LW-P-CE01 4 I give the subordinates undesirable job assignments. LW-P-CE02 18 I make the work difficult for the subordinates. LW-P-CE03 21 I make things unpleasant for the subordinates. LW-P-CE04 22 I make being at work distasteful for the subordinates. LW-P-EX01 16 I give the subordinates good technical suggestions. 180 LW-P-EX02 19 I share with the subordinates my considerable experience and/or training. LW-P-EX03 31 I provide the subordinates with needed technical knowledge. LW-P-EX04 38 I provide the subordinates with sound job-related advice. LW-P-LE01 7 I make the subordinate feel that they have commitments to meet. LW-P-LE02 30 I make the subordinates feel like they should satisfy their job requirements. LW-P-LE03 37 I give the subordinate the feeling they have responsibilities to fulfill. LW-P-LE04 40 I make the subordinate recognize that they have tasks to accomplish. LW-P-RF01 3 I make the subordinates feel valued. LW-P-RF02 6 I make the subordinates feel like I approve of them. LW-P-RF03 8 I make the subordinate feel personally accepted. LW-P-RF04 12 I make the subordinate feel important. LW-P-RW01 2 I increase the subordinates pay level. LW-P-RW02 27 I influence the subordinates getting a pay raise. LW-P-RW03 33 I provide the subordinate with special benefits. LW-P-RW04 36 I influence the subordinates getting a promotion. 181 C. Detailed graphs of common data from the respondents of the quantitative research only leader questionnaire; 32 leader & subordinate questionnaire; 85 only subordinate questionnaire; 119 not useable; 6 returned questionnaires (total: 242) 63 56 48 64 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 <29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years >=60 years n o o f p a rt ic ip a n ts age of respondents female; 56 male; 185 no information; 1 gender 182 automotive; 117 manufacturing; 52 IT; 7 service; 30 consulting; 8 logistic; 9 others; 19 kind of business I national; 45 international; 197 kind of business II <50 empl.; 35 50-249 empl.; 76 250-749 empl.; 36 750-1999 empl.; 36 >=2000 empl.; 59 size of company 183 employee; 223 freelancer; 3 shareholder; 16 status of employment 22 67 53 51 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 <1 year 1-4 years 5-10 years 11-19 years >=20 years n o o f p a rt ic ip a n ts time in actual company 111 57 58 15 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 not changed 1 time 2-3 times 4-9 times >=10 times n o o f p a rt ic ip a n ts company changed after 25th birthday 184 13 21 25 11 5 165 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 <1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-9 years >=10 years no change planned n o o f p a rt ic ip a n ts changing the company is planned (total) managerial responsibility , 133 none; 109 managerial responsibility 23 36 47 27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 CEO / managing director high management mid management low management n o o f re sp o n d en ts level of managing responsibility 185 female; 24 male; 202 gender of next level supervisor 4 36 79 93 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years >=60 years n o o f n ex t le v el s u p er v is o rs estimated age of next level supervisors 186 D. Descriptive statistics of variables (total sample) N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation P_CE01 321 1 5 2.91 .954 P_CE02 321 1 5 2.17 1.037 P_CE03 320 1 5 2.14 1.057 P_CE04 321 1 5 1.71 .982 P_EX01 320 1 5 3.58 1.039 P_EX02 318 1 5 3.69 .973 P_EX03 319 1 5 3.62 .963 P_EX04 321 1 5 3.84 .846 P_LE01 321 1 5 3.95 .828 P_LE02 320 1 5 3.73 .870 P_LE03 321 1 5 4.02 .698 P_LE04 320 1 5 3.99 .695 P_RF01 320 1 5 4.09 .901 P_RF02 321 1 5 4.15 .836 P_RF03 319 1 5 4.28 .804 P_RF04 320 1 5 4.03 .879 P_RW01 319 1 5 3.13 1.167 P_RW02 317 1 5 3.58 1.133 P_RW03 320 1 5 3.13 1.146 P_RW04 320 1 5 3.67 1.090 TS_B01 320 1 5 3.80 .884 TS_B02 320 1 5 3.42 1.001 TS_B03 318 1 5 3.10 .916 TS_B04 321 1 5 3.64 .935 TS_B05 320 1 5 3.34 1.014 TS_C01 321 1 5 3.95 .830 TS_C02 321 1 5 3.99 .840 TS_C03 320 1 5 4.12 .776 TS_C04 320 1 5 3.96 .852 TS_C05 320 1 5 3.81 .938 TS_I01 320 1 5 3.92 .898 TS_I02 320 1 5 4.05 .939 TS_I03 320 1 5 3.91 .861 TS_I04 319 1 5 3.78 .864 TS_I05 321 1 5 3.92 .916 TS_P01 320 1 5 4.04 .746 TS_P02 321 1 5 3.60 .893 TS_P03 319 1 5 3.34 .887 TS_P04 321 1 5 3.73 .793 TS_P05 320 1 5 3.77 .842 Valid N (listwise) 291 187 E. Potential influencing factors of supervisor & subordinate trust All research results based on quantitative research. 70% 67% 70% 68% 69% 72% 63% 83% 59% 45% 69% 68% 67% 71% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% < 29 years (n=61) 30-39 (n=52) 40-49 (n=41) 50-59 (n=43) >= 60 years (n=6) T ru st le v el TL subordinate real / age of participants all (n=203) f (n=52) m (n=151) 67% 67% 70% 71% 74% 79% 71% 78% 64% 66% 69% 71% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% < 29 years (n=10) 30-39 (n=28) 40-49 (n=30) 50-59 (n=41) >= 60 years (n=7) T ru st le v el TL supervisor real / age of participants all (n=116) f (n=8) m (n=108) 188 71% 71% 69% 67% 83% 83% 68% 76% 71% 70% 69% 66% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CEO (n=23) high mgmt. (n=35) mid mgmt. (n=40) low mgmt. (n=18) T ru st le v el TL supervisors real / position of supervisor all (n=116) f (n=8) m (n=108) 72% 71% 65% 69% 68% 76% 65% 75% 76% 60% 69% 74% 62% 68% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1year (n=20) 1-4 (n=61) 5-10 (n=47) 11-19 (n=40) >= 20 (n=34) T ru st le v el TL subordinates real / time in actual company all (n=202) f (n=51) m (n=151) 53% 65% 70% 70% 71%70% 68% 72% 83% 53% 65% 70% 69% 71% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1year (n=2) 1-4 (n=16) 5-10 (n=32) 11-19 (n=38) >= 20 (n=27) T ru st le v el TL supervisor real / time in actual company all (n=115) f (n=7) m (n=108) 189 F. Test of normality (total sample) Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. P_CE01 .193 291 .000 .898 291 .000 P_CE02 .271 291 .000 .853 291 .000 P_CE03 .245 291 .000 .854 291 .000 P_CE04 .323 291 .000 .734 291 .000 P_EX01 .233 291 .000 .890 291 .000 P_EX02 .236 291 .000 .880 291 .000 P_EX03 .241 291 .000 .888 291 .000 P_EX04 .259 291 .000 .863 291 .000 P_LE01 .286 291 .000 .838 291 .000 P_LE02 .303 291 .000 .851 291 .000 P_LE03 .315 291 .000 .792 291 .000 P_LE04 .324 291 .000 .795 291 .000 P_RF01 .271 291 .000 .807 291 .000 P_RF02 .262 291 .000 .801 291 .000 P_RF03 .283 291 .000 .779 291 .000 P_RF04 .251 291 .000 .834 291 .000 P_RW01 .181 291 .000 .913 291 .000 P_RW02 .209 291 .000 .887 291 .000 P_RW03 .186 291 .000 .912 291 .000 P_RW04 .231 291 .000 .878 291 .000 TS_B01 .292 291 .000 .855 291 .000 TS_B02 .202 291 .000 .901 291 .000 TS_B03 .249 291 .000 .881 291 .000 TS_B04 .211 291 .000 .887 291 .000 TS_B05 .205 291 .000 .897 291 .000 TS_C01 .270 291 .000 .847 291 .000 TS_C02 .294 291 .000 .825 291 .000 TS_C03 .277 291 .000 .806 291 .000 TS_C04 .269 291 .000 .838 291 .000 TS_C05 .230 291 .000 .875 291 .000 TS_I01 .241 291 .000 .858 291 .000 TS_I02 .226 291 .000 .831 291 .000 TS_I03 .290 291 .000 .842 291 .000 TS_I04 .294 291 .000 .856 291 .000 TS_I05 .246 291 .000 .863 291 .000 TS_P01 .321 291 .000 .781 291 .000 TS_P02 .311 291 .000 .841 291 .000 TS_P03 .258 291 .000 .867 291 .000 TS_P04 .302 291 .000 .836 291 .000 TS_P05 .334 291 .000 .813 291 .000 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction 190 G. Correlation analysis (Pearson) a.) subordinate V_P_CE V_P_EX V_P_LE V_P_RF V_P_RW V_P_CE Pearson Correlation 1 -.499** -.078 -.585** -.222** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .266 .000 .001 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_EX Pearson Correlation -.499** 1 .256** .532** .310** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_LE Pearson Correlation -.078 .256** 1 .170* .327** Sig. (2-tailed) .266 .000 .015 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_RF Pearson Correlation -.585** .532** .170* 1 .417** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .015 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_RW Pearson Correlation -.222** .310** .327** .417** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_B Pearson Correlation -.662** .699** .263** .833** .470** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_C Pearson Correlation -.642** .706** .268** .667** .369** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_I Pearson Correlation -.695** .605** .271** .796** .407** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_P Pearson Correlation -.403** .392** .226** .587** .243** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 191 V_TS_B V_TS_C V_TS_I V_TS_P V_P_CE Pearson Correlation -.662** -.642** -.695** -.403** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_P_EX Pearson Correlation .699** .706** .605** .392** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_P_LE Pearson Correlation .263** .268** .271** .226** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 N 204 204 204 204 V_P_RF Pearson Correlation .833** .667** .796** .587** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_P_RW Pearson Correlation .470** .369** .407** .243** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_TS_B Pearson Correlation 1 .802** .862** .558** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_TS_C Pearson Correlation .802** 1 .813** .406** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_TS_I Pearson Correlation .862** .813** 1 .576** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 V_TS_P Pearson Correlation .558** .406** .576** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 192 b.) supervisor V_P_CE V_P_EX V_P_LE V_P_RF V_P_RW V_P_CE Pearson Correlation 1 -.193* .135 -.055 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .148 .557 .089 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_EX Pearson Correlation -.193* 1 .480** .495** .210* Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .000 .000 .023 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_LE Pearson Correlation .135 .480** 1 .502** .234* Sig. (2-tailed) .148 .000 .000 .011 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_RF Pearson Correlation -.055 .495** .502** 1 .205* Sig. (2-tailed) .557 .000 .000 .027 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_RW Pearson Correlation .158 .210* .234* .205* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .089 .023 .011 .027 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_B Pearson Correlation -.171 .307** .062 .179 .411** Sig. (2-tailed) .065 .001 .509 .054 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_C Pearson Correlation -.075 .202* .106 .293** .378** Sig. (2-tailed) .419 .029 .255 .001 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_I Pearson Correlation -.186* .122 .104 .179 .267** Sig. (2-tailed) .045 .190 .262 .053 .004 N 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_P Pearson Correlation -.133 .332** .180 .176 .257** Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .000 .052 .058 .005 N 117 117 117 117 117 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 193 V_TS_B V_TS_C V_TS_I V_TS_P V_P_CE Pearson Correlation -.171 -.075 -.186* -.133 Sig. (2-tailed) .065 .419 .045 .152 N 117 117 117 117 V_P_EX Pearson Correlation .307** .202* .122 .332** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .029 .190 .000 N 117 117 117 117 V_P_LE Pearson Correlation .062 .106 .104 .180 Sig. (2-tailed) .509 .255 .262 .052 N 117 117 117 117 V_P_RF Pearson Correlation .179 .293** .179 .176 Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .001 .053 .058 N 117 117 117 117 V_P_RW Pearson Correlation .411** .378** .267** .257** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .004 .005 N 117 117 117 117 V_TS_B Pearson Correlation 1 .526** .609** .513** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 V_TS_C Pearson Correlation .526** 1 .636** .528** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 V_TS_I Pearson Correlation .609** .636** 1 .508** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 V_TS_P Pearson Correlation .513** .528** .508** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 194 H. Correlation analysis (Kendall & Spearman) a.) subordinate V_P_ CE V_P_E X V_P_L E V_P_ RF V_P_R W V_TS_ B V_TS_ C V_TS_ I V_TS_ P Kendall's tau_b V_P_C E Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.374** -.081 -.422** -.163** -.475** -.507** -.535** -.298** Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .119 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_E X Correlation Coefficient -.374** 1.000 .203** .401** .248** .538** .545** .458** .284** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_L E Correlation Coefficient -.081 .203** 1.000 .167** .239** .240** .228** .239** .188** Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .000 . .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_R F Correlation Coefficient -.422** .401** .167** 1.000 .339** .680** .529** .642** .424** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_R W Correlation Coefficient -.163** .248** .239** .339** 1.000 .366** .270** .323** .208** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ B Correlation Coefficient -.475** .538** .240** .680** .366** 1.000 .655** .696** .398** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ C Correlation Coefficient -.507** .545** .228** .529** .270** .655** 1.000 .670** .320** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ I Correlation Coefficient -.535** .458** .239** .642** .323** .696** .670** 1.000 .431** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ P Correlation Coefficient -.298** .284** .188** .424** .208** .398** .320** .431** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 Spearman's rho V_P_C E Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.500** -.112 -.557** -.228** -.621** -.661** -.686** -.395** Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .111 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 195 V_P_E X Correlation Coefficient -.500** 1.000 .280** .529** .335** .696** .696** .596** .381** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_L E Correlation Coefficient -.112 .280** 1.000 .220** .317** .318** .307** .313** .250** Sig. (2-tailed) .111 .000 . .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_R F Correlation Coefficient -.557** .529** .220** 1.000 .462** .825** .677** .785** .542** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_P_R W Correlation Coefficient -.228** .335** .317** .462** 1.000 .489** .364** .446** .283** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ B Correlation Coefficient -.621** .696** .318** .825** .489** 1.000 .798** .836** .516** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ C Correlation Coefficient -.661** .696** .307** .677** .364** .798** 1.000 .812** .421** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ I Correlation Coefficient -.686** .596** .313** .785** .446** .836** .812** 1.000 .555** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 V_TS_ P Correlation Coefficient -.395** .381** .250** .542** .283** .516** .421** .555** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 196 b.) supervisor V_P_ CE V_P_E X V_P_L E V_P_ RF V_P_R W V_TS_ B V_TS_ C V_TS_ I V_TS_ P Kendall's tau_b V_P_C E Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.202** .001 -.076 .133 -.092 -.078 -.147* -.119 Sig. (2-tailed) . .004 .994 .282 .055 .179 .265 .033 .087 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_E X Correlation Coefficient -.202** 1.000 .401** .394** .188** .261** .180* .098 .283** Sig. (2-tailed) .004 . .000 .000 .007 .000 .011 .161 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_L E Correlation Coefficient .001 .401** 1.000 .429** .207** .051 .116 .110 .213** Sig. (2-tailed) .994 .000 . .000 .004 .475 .109 .127 .003 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_R F Correlation Coefficient -.076 .394** .429** 1.000 .180* .102 .249** .134 .144* Sig. (2-tailed) .282 .000 .000 . .011 .147 .001 .058 .044 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_R W Correlation Coefficient .133 .188** .207** .180* 1.000 .300** .243** .175* .166* Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .007 .004 .011 . .000 .000 .012 .017 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ B Correlation Coefficient -.092 .261** .051 .102 .300** 1.000 .395** .454** .386** Sig. (2-tailed) .179 .000 .475 .147 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ C Correlation Coefficient -.078 .180* .116 .249** .243** .395** 1.000 .494** .409** Sig. (2-tailed) .265 .011 .109 .001 .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ I Correlation Coefficient -.147* .098 .110 .134 .175* .454** .494** 1.000 .379** Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .161 .127 .058 .012 .000 .000 . .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ P Correlation Coefficient -.119 .283** .213** .144* .166* .386** .409** .379** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .087 .000 .003 .044 .017 .000 .000 .000 . N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 Spearman's rho V_P_C E Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.265** .003 -.092 .174 -.130 -.103 -.198* -.154 Sig. (2-tailed) . .004 .976 .325 .060 .162 .271 .032 .097 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_E X Correlation Coefficient -.265** 1.000 .490** .500** .251** .346** .223* .132 .358** 197 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 . .000 .000 .006 .000 .016 .156 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_L E Correlation Coefficient .003 .490** 1.000 .521** .258** .067 .137 .135 .257** Sig. (2-tailed) .976 .000 . .000 .005 .476 .141 .145 .005 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_R F Correlation Coefficient -.092 .500** .521** 1.000 .231* .134 .309** .179 .193* Sig. (2-tailed) .325 .000 .000 . .012 .149 .001 .054 .037 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_P_R W Correlation Coefficient .174 .251** .258** .231* 1.000 .397** .306** .229* .219* Sig. (2-tailed) .060 .006 .005 .012 . .000 .001 .013 .017 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ B Correlation Coefficient -.130 .346** .067 .134 .397** 1.000 .508** .579** .504** Sig. (2-tailed) .162 .000 .476 .149 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ C Correlation Coefficient -.103 .223* .137 .309** .306** .508** 1.000 .603** .506** Sig. (2-tailed) .271 .016 .141 .001 .001 .000 . .000 .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ I Correlation Coefficient -.198* .132 .135 .179 .229* .579** .603** 1.000 .480** Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .156 .145 .054 .013 .000 .000 . .000 N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 V_TS_ P Correlation Coefficient -.154 .358** .257** .193* .219* .504** .506** .480** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .097 .000 .005 .037 .017 .000 .000 .000 . N 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 198 I. Mann-Whitney-U-Test of power variables (subordinate vs. supervisor) S_L N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks P_CE01 Subordinate 204 140.84 28731.00 Supervisor 117 196.15 22950.00 Total 321 P_CE02 Subordinate 204 160.78 32799.50 Supervisor 117 161.38 18881.50 Total 321 P_CE03 Subordinate 203 160.38 32558.00 Supervisor 117 160.70 18802.00 Total 320 P_CE04 Subordinate 204 160.83 32809.00 Supervisor 117 161.30 18872.00 Total 321 P_EX01 Subordinate 204 146.66 29918.00 Supervisor 116 184.84 21442.00 Total 320 P_EX02 Subordinate 202 141.50 28584.00 Supervisor 116 190.84 22137.00 Total 318 P_EX03 Subordinate 202 137.92 27860.00 Supervisor 117 198.12 23180.00 Total 319 P_EX04 Subordinate 204 148.57 30309.00 Supervisor 117 182.67 21372.00 Total 321 P_LE01 Subordinate 204 152.76 31163.00 Supervisor 117 175.37 20518.00 Total 321 P_LE02 Subordinate 204 153.39 31291.00 Supervisor 116 173.01 20069.00 Total 320 P_LE03 Subordinate 204 158.27 32288.00 Supervisor 117 165.75 19393.00 Total 321 P_LE04 Subordinate 203 155.01 31467.50 Supervisor 117 170.02 19892.50 Total 320 P_RF01 Subordinate 203 159.29 32336.50 Supervisor 117 162.59 19023.50 199 Total 320 P_RF02 Subordinate 204 159.74 32587.50 Supervisor 117 163.19 19093.50 Total 321 P_RF03 Subordinate 203 153.33 31125.00 Supervisor 116 171.68 19915.00 Total 319 P_RF04 Subordinate 203 143.79 29190.00 Supervisor 117 189.49 22170.00 Total 320 P_RW0 1 Subordinate 202 148.44 29984.00 Supervisor 117 179.97 21056.00 Total 319 P_RW0 2 Subordinate 204 173.41 35375.50 Supervisor 113 132.99 15027.50 Total 317 P_RW0 3 Subordinate 203 149.53 30354.00 Supervisor 117 179.54 21006.00 Total 320 P_RW0 4 Subordinate 204 160.25 32690.50 Supervisor 116 160.94 18669.50 Total 320 P_CE01 P_CE02 P_CE03 P_CE04 Mann-Whitney U 7821.000 11889.500 11852.000 11899.000 Wilcoxon W 28731.000 32799.500 32558.000 32809.000 Z -5.393 -.059 -.031 -.049 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .953 .975 .961 P_EX01 P_EX02 P_EX03 P_EX04 Mann-Whitney U 9008.000 8081.000 7357.000 9399.000 Wilcoxon W 29918.000 28584.000 27860.000 30309.000 Z -3.717 -4.845 -5.917 -3.390 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 P_LE01 P_LE02 P_LE03 P_LE04 Mann-Whitney U 10253.000 10381.000 11378.000 10761.500 Wilcoxon W 31163.000 31291.000 32288.000 31467.500 Z -2.282 -1.984 -.799 -1.612 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .047 .424 .107 200 P_RF01 P_RF02 P_RF03 P_RF04 Mann-Whitney U 11630.500 11677.500 10419.000 8484.000 Wilcoxon W 32336.500 32587.500 31125.000 29190.000 Z -.332 -.349 -1.865 -4.556 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .740 .727 .062 .000 P_RW01 P_RW02 P_RW03 P_RW04 Mann-Whitney U 9481.000 8586.500 9648.000 11780.500 Wilcoxon W 29984.000 15027.500 30354.000 32690.500 Z -3.042 -3.896 -2.893 -.067 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .004 .946 a. Grouping Variable: S_L 201 J. Specialist interview partners (in alphabetic order) Pos. Name Management - Level location experience no. of subordinates kind of company x Mr. Dr. M. Chen CEO China >20 years 1500 manu- facturing x Mr. T. Connemann CEO Germany >20 years 3200 manu- facturing x Mr. J. Krug CEO & Owner Germany >20 years 270 manu- facturing x Mr. B. Kummer CEO & Owner Germany >20 years 420 manu- facturing x Mr. W. Lutz CEO & Owner Germany >30 years 145 manu- facturing x Mrs. S. Martinelli CEO & Owner Italy >30 years 60 manu- facturing x Mr. F. Müschenborn CEO & Owner Germany >30 years 23 manu- facturing x Mr. A. Rams CEO -2 Germany >20 years 12 (of 8500) consulting x Mr. T. Selzer CEO & Owner Germany >20 years 800 manu- facturing x Mr. M. Steiner CEO -2 Germany >10 years 420 (of 1700) service provider x Mr. E. Uenishi CEO -1 Japan >30 years 250 (of 800) manu- facturing x Mr. H. Wächter CEO & Owner Germany >20 years 140 manu- facturing 202 K. Questions of specialist interview Q0: First general introduction into the research and the meaning of trust & leadership. Q1: What are your first impressions about trust in a supervisor/subordinate leadership. Please give me 5-10 items. Q2: Have you had a trust based leadership situation with one of your (former) supervisors? If yes, what can you tell me about it? Q3: What do you think are the advantages / disadvantages to have a faithful, means trust based leadership situations to your direct subordinate? – Please think also at the time where you were the subordinate of someone. Q4: Please tell me if you agree / disagree, that the different categories of trust are important in the relation to your subordinate. Why? (scale 1-7: completely disagree is “1”/ completely agree is “7”) a.) Benevolence: e.g. I believe that my subordinate has my best interest in mind. My subordinate is motivated to protect me. My subordinate watches my back. b.) Integrity: e.g. I can depend on my subordinate to be fair. My subordinates are honorable people. My subordinates honor their word. My subordinates keep their promises. My subordinate is telling the truth. c.) Predictability: e.g. I know what to expect from my subordinate. I usually know how my subordinate is going to react. My subordinate is reliable. d.) Competence: e.g. My subordinate knows what he/she is doing. My subordinate is qualified to do its job. My subordinate communicates well. Q5: Do you agree, that it is important for you, that the subordinate will have the following meaning from you. Why? (scale 1-7: completely disagree is “1”/ completely agree in “7”) a.) Benevolence: e.g. I have trust in the motivations of my leader. My leader watches my back. My leader has my best interests in mind. b.) Integrity: e.g. I belief my leader is fair. I belief my leader is honest. I can depend on the fairness of my leader. c.) Predictability: e.g. I usually know, how my leader is going to react, I can anticipate what my leader will do. d.) Competence: e.g. My leader performs his job well. My leader is capable at his job. My leader knows what he/she is doing. Q6: When we talk about leading, and leading power, what kind of powers do you use normally: - referent (leader role) 203 - reward (bonus) - specialist (knowledge) - coercive (thread and punishment) - legitimate (“make the job because I’m the supervisor”) Q7: Do you think trust is a missing power in the above mentioned leadership powers? Q8: Do you think you can influence the trust level to your subordinate using just specific powers? Q9: Do you think trust is in some leadership situations more important than in other? Please think in horizontal about different business groups and in vertical from top management to production. Q10: What do you think about the cultural aspect for a trust based leadership? Q11: What are top leadership problems today, and how do you solve them. Q12: Do you think that subordinates have more or less trust in its supervisor, if the leader is also the owner of the company? Please tell why also, when you think it has no influence? Q13: Is there something special you want to add when you think about the two words “trust” and “leadership” 204 L. Detailed results of specialist interviews Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q1 q 1 1 t ru st a n d le ad e rs h ip b e lo n g to e ac h o th e r q 1 2 n o le ad e r ca n le ad w it h o u t co n fi d e n ce . Q2 n o in fo rm at io n /e xp er ie n ce n o f o rm e r co n fi d e n ce gr o w s o ve r ti m e ye s (p ro o f) - trust is important. - trust in leadership gives loyality (in both directions), flexibility, good salary, good working atmosphere 1 trust didnot come from former supervisor, but given to subordinate. 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other - no leader can lead without trust. 1 1 no information 1 - trust is essential for leadership, otherwise I just have to control (not efficient) - trust and leadership belong to each other - trust doesn't mean we have to be buddies, but actions have to have same strategy. 1 1 -a trust based relation was given, - supervisor was same as a mentor - only first level of trust (what he says/act is good for me) 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other - trust grows over time 1 It took 5-6 years time to get the trust of the supervisor. The subordinate is proud to have the trust of the supervisor. 1 1 sample: how I employ people: - knowledge, personalty, marks, … but If there is no trust all other points are not relevant. 1 - a common view for supervisor and subordinate must be given, - employee must have the possibility to develop themself. => this needs trust 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other, it's very important, to have a good relationship to be better and faster, to increase efficiency 1 no experiences 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other 1 in the 80's he just top/downsystem, no trust from supervisor 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other - honesty is needed - trust is important on CEO level (Q7) 1 1 no experiences 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other 1 no experiences 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other - employee will leave company if there is no trust. 1 1 trust growed in r.a. 12 months due to daily open discussion about private and business details. 1 1 - trust and leadership belong to each other - trust grows over time 1 -sympathy based, -supervisor took care about him from the beginning. 1 1 -People in subordinate position understand or know his/her supervisor in few day or weeks, but opposite is always not. - share your goal - make partner - trust is important in official and private 1 Yes, positive was that judgement are always "cool" and fast and the subordinate could see the vision (reason behind) of the supervisor 1 205 Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q3 n o d is ad va n ta ge ye s b u t n o t re le va n t Q 4 a b e n e vo le n ce Q 4 b in te gr it y Q 4 c p re d ic ta b ili ty Q 4 d c o m p e te n ce Q 5 a b e n e vo le n ce Q 5 b in te gr it y Q 5 c p re d ic ta b ili ty Q 5 d c o m p e te n ce + motivation (salary is not important) + loyality (grows out of trust ) - misuse of trust (experience in both directions) 6 6 2 7 6 7 4 7 just disadvantage if you don't have trust in the employee to do their job 1 7 7 7 5,5 7 7 7 7 - trust realtionships can be poitive and negative. (rope-team: if you are in the wrong team you will have/get no success) - supervisor gets more critic from subordinate, if trust based. 2,5 7 6 4,5 6,5 7 6,5 6,5 trust of the supervisor can be exploited by the subordinate, to enforce its own interests by its colleagues. 4 7 4 7 5 7 1 4 -misuse of trust possible, but never seen. 1 7 7 5 6 5 7 4 7 don't see disadvantages with the use of trust 1 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 -misuse of trust possible, so timely control is necessary - no blind confidence 7 6,5 7 7 7 7 7 7 - no disadvantages, but private things just for longer relationships 1 7 7 3 7 7 7 4 7 - negative consequences in staff items take too long time. The leader will act slower, the subordinate gets more chances. 5,5 6 7 4 6 5,5 3 3 - no disadvantages, - advantage: efficience (but close contact due to trust level has no advantage, at substance (primary) decisions. 1 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 -misuse of trust possible, so timely control is necessary - no blind confidence 5,5 7 6 7 7 7 4 7 - no disadvantages, - sometimes missunderstandings, makes disadvantages (e.g. trust from supervisor and obey from employee is not always in line has sometimes different basis) - advantage: effective, output and improvment can be expected. 1 2 1 7 7 1 7 2 7 206 Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q6Ref Q6Rew Q6Exp Q6Coe Q6Leg Q7 Q8 100% 0% 100% no no no information yes: positive: referent, expert power 100% 100% 100% only last exit no yes, (trust is a must have) yes: positive: referent, reward, expert power 100% 0% 50% 50% no yes (is essential, other powers based on this) yes: positive: referent, expert power 100% 0% 50% only last exit no yes yes: positive: reward (if the subordinate, combines good things with the supervisor, trust increases) 100% 100% 100% only last exit only last exit yes (If there is no trust all other points are not relevant) yes: positive: referent, reward, expert power negative: legitimation and coercive 100% 50% 0% only last exit no yes yes: positive: referent 100% 100% 100% no no yes, (trust is Basis to convince people) yes: positive: referent, reward, expert power negative: legitimation and coercive 100% 100% 100% no (50%) sometimes, to be fast yes yes: referent negative: legitimation 100% 50% 50% only last exit no yes yes: positive: referent, reward, expert power negative: legitimation and coercive 100% 50% 100% no no (only necessary at customer relationship, due to consulting) yes, (trust is a must have) yes: positive: referent negative: coercive 100% 100% 50% only last exit no yes yes: positive: referent power negative: legitimation and coercive 100% 100% 100% no 50% yes, (trust is a must have) yes: positive: referent 207 Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q 8 R e f -p o s. Q 8 R e w - p o s. Q 8 Ex p - p o s. Q 8 C o e - n e g. Q 8 Le g - n e g Q9 le ve l n o Le ve l y e s 1 1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 1 1 trust based leadership is a leadership style and makes no difference of level. 1 1 1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 - trust leadership is depending on personal structure. 1 1 trust is always important, but if complexity increases, trust level must raise 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 -1 -no differnence, same important. - trust leadership is depending on personal structure. 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 -1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level), but beginning with a complex level, there is no more difference. It's just unimportant, if the worker is easy to replace. 1 1 -1 -1 trust is the more important, the more complex, (the higher the management level) 1 1 - Especially to get trust from subordinate is one of the best way to get good businessresults and hapiness for life, - level by level is different and each position need different power to get trust from subordinate or supervisor. (Which one is not clear) 1 208 Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q10 cu lt u ra l n o cu lt u ra l y e s Q11 no experiences 0 0 -missing trust into employee - the fast pace of tody's time lead to less personal relationships not difference due to culture, but to people. In china also often motivation with punishment. But trust based leadership is typical in China for intelectual leader 1 leaders are not good at change. More transformational leadership. Leaders have to be adaptable for change. Asia: hierarchy (Top down, trust not so important) western culture is more self dependend, that's why we need trust 1 the expectations to a leader: -has to make things right, has to motivate, has to be consequent (act same way everytime) ASIA: Hierachy leading is more present. Distance (respect) to CEO or Owner is more given. Family and age of the person gives trust to people. US: All people are same level (is said, but not reality) 1 -clear targets, -to discuss statements from outside, - knowledge and leading performance in one person instead of "best of class will get the manager-job" -relationship to persons is more important than leading skills. It can irritate a chinese worker to give him much trust (and less clear borders) 1 switch from old to young leaders (next generation) business/life Balance => home office, work in groups,….=> Basis is confidence! 1 employee has to see the CEO as a reference (referent/leader role) For this the CEO must be close to the worker. no experiences 0 0 - Industrie 4.0 - further reduction of 35h work a week / work life balance no experience in but with: but to build up trust in other countries is more difficult, because the persons have another behavior than awaited. 0 0 -requirements are increasing -sees family father as a better leader. ' has trust in Litauen and Slovakia but not in Romania. 0 0 employee are paralyzed, because they fear to make failures. Leaders have to allow failures. yes, difference can be seen in high developed countries: there we have confidence. And in low cost countries (easy work, workers are easy to replace). Here we have a more hierarchy system. 1 modern employee wanted to have more freedom, we have skill shortage and that's why we have to go more and more to a personal relationship China and Amerika is more patriarchy 1 -communication (not too less, not too much) - to find out how much a subordinate will be led no information 0 0 - have vision of future and take action to realize it with colleagues - dramatical changes in automotive industry - leadership makes future - always try to forget today and yesterday - throw away existing success stories. 209 Ex p e rt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q12 m o re t ru st in o w n e r n o d if fe re n ce m o re c o n f - se lf o w n e r Q13 It makes no difference, because trust must grow, the supervisor must earn it while the years. 1 If (low education) employee are led by personality, they will have a high trust Level to the manager -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 - -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 1 - The skills of the leader can't be evaluated from the employee, independent if owner or not. 1 - -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 1 - makes no difference. It depends on the leader, ifpeople will follow. 1 - -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 1 the more confidence, the more things can be delegate is. Not every time 100% the same result if you would do this by your own, but 90% is Ok, too. (Not to be perfect is ok, have trust in worker.) -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 1 The CEO must be present at the employees, so no difference in general, but if we have just a 3 year (Interim-) Manager, there will be no trust. 1 - both versions seen in reality, can be both 1 Respect without reserve and just hierarchy are leadership advantages from the past. Today leaders must win the subordinate. This can be done only with trust. It's same than teacher and student from generation "Y" who are not thinking what can I do for the -more trust in owner, because of longer time period in company (instead of a 5 year contract of CEO) 1 1 - yes, there are huge influence if the supervisor is the owner. The subordinate has more trust. - the owner is the king of there. 1 both words are the key of the business world - w/o theses two, we could not get good results. 210 M. Pre-test questionnaire 211 212 213 N. General and separated research model with typology and legend 214 Position Type Description 1 L s supervisor (leader) subordinate 2 R W real wish 3 P T LSP trust 4+5 or only 4. RF RW EX CE LE B C I P referent power reward power expert power coercive power legitimate power benevolence (trust) competence (trust) integrity (trust) predictability (trust) Last 2 digits 01-04/05 question number of the specified variable of trust or LSP 215 O. Definition of important boundary item to trust Confidence Trust and Confidence could be translated from a German person in similar way. Trust = “Vertrauen” which is the active variant and means: “You trust in somebody.” – similar to Luhmann, who said that “Vertrauen” is future oriented360 and so there is a part of risk or in the literature the so called “leap of faith”361 362 from what is known and not known. Confidence = “Zuversicht” which is the more passive or next stage variant and which means “I trust because of experiences of the past”. On the other hand, if both German words were translated online, in both cases the first and highest hit is every time the word confidence. The second hit in the revise translation is for “Vertrauen” the word “trust” and for “Zuversicht” the word reliance, which is not widespread in the trust or confidence based articles. The English-English translation showed as a result, that the definition is different, but the meaning itself is similar. Confidence363 in British English: 1. A feeling of trust in a person or thing (I have confidence in his abilities) // 2. Belief in one’s own abilities; self-assurance // 3. Trust or a trustful relationship (take me into your confidence) // 4. Something in confided or entrusted; secret Trust364 in British English: 1. Reliance on and confidence in the truth, worth, reliability, etc., of a person or thing; faith // 2. A group of commercial enterprises combined to monopolize and control the market for any commodity: illegal in the US // 3. The obligation of someone in a responsible position (a position of trust) // 4. custody, charge, or care (a child placed in my trust) // 5. A person or thing in which confidence or faith is placed // 6. Commercial credit // 7a. An arrangement whereby a person to whom the legal title to property is conveyed (the trustee) holds such property for the benefit of those entitled to the beneficial interest / 7 b. Property that is the subject of such an arrangement / 7c. the confidence put in the trustee // 8. (in the British 360 Luhmann, N., (2000) Vertrauen. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, p.23 361 Nikolova, N., Möllering, G., & Reihlen, M. (2015). Trusting as a ‘leap of faith’: Trust-building practices in client–consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2), pp.232-245 362 Rempel, J., Holmes, J., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(1), pp.95-112 363 Collins English Dictionary (2019) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/confidence (10.01.2019) 364 Collins English Dictionary (2019) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trust (10.01.2019) 216 National Health Service) a self-governing hospital, group of hospitals, or other body providing health-care services, which operates as an independent commercial unit within the NHS // (…) // 15. To extend business credit to (transitive) Ullmann-Margalit365 makes a different between trust and confidence, because she wants to involve the imputing of intentions, and says that she has confidence in things and persons, but makes a different to trust, which she has only in people. There is not a general different meaning, if different international authors wrote about confidence and trust, excepted the active / passive part, which is similar specified by Adams366, who made a theoretical paper work to distinguish the concept of trust and confidence. Nevertheless she sees also that the confusion of the terms trust and confidence hampers the development of the trust, as well the behavioral decision making literature. 367 The chronological orientation of the decision can be in case of confidence, the present and the past. In case of trust it can be the past and present too, but the future is definitely involved and includes a part of risk. Due to the reason, that the status between supervisor and subordinate is something, which can change steady, where everyday at a minimum one of them has to take the risk, that the person will be disappointed, the result is clear that inside this document the discussion has to be done about trust and not confidence. Based on the before defined difference, in most cases inside this document the term trust is used, independent of its earlier used wording, to get a clear orientation inside the thesis. Predictability 365 Ullman-Margalit, E. M. (2004). Trust, distrust and in between. In R. Hardin (ed.). Distrust. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, pp.60-82 366 Adams, B.D., (2005) Trust vs. Confidence. DRDC Toronto No. CR-2005-203, Department of national defence, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, p.iii 367 Adams, B.D., (2005) Trust vs. Confidence. DRDC Toronto No. CR-2005-203, Department of national defence, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, p.11 217 Mayer et al. is referring to six earlier studies (Rotter (1967)368, Gabarro (1978)369, Lewis and Weigert (1985)370, Dasgupta (1988)371, Gambetta (1988)372, Good (1988)373), in which the meaning of predictability is near to the meaning of trust. Both terms take expectations to a happening in the future, but the difference is that trust includes the factor risk. So if something is predictable, then there is no need to trust, because there is no risk, that the expectations will not be fulfilled.374 Loyalty The general difference of loyalty compared with trust is, that loyalty can be the output of trust. Loyalty is the willingness to speak in positive word or to act in positive way, when a situation is available, in that a person is asked about another person or organization. Student loyalty e.g. is the combination between student willingness to provide positive words about the institution and recommendation concerning educational institution to family, friends, employers, and organizations whenever opportunities are. Athiyaman375, Helgesen & Nesset376, Mohamad377 and Thomas378 refer this definition for the loyalty of a student after its time at the educational institution. 368 Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), pp.651-665 369 Gabarro, J.J.,(1978) The development of trust, influence and expectations. In A.G. Athos, & J.J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behaviour: Communication and understanding in relationships, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.290-303 370 Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality, Social forces 63(4), pp.967-985 371 Dasgupta, P., (1988) Trust as a commodity, Gambetta (Ed.)Trust, New York: Basil Blackwell, pp.49-72 372 Gambetta, D.G. (1988) Can we trust “trust”?, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.213-237 373 Good, D. (1988), Individuals, interpersonal relations and trust, Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.131-185 374 Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of managementreview, 20(3), p.714 375 Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), pp.528–540 376 Helgesen, Ø.,& Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, pp.38–59 377 Mohamad, M. (2009). Building corporate image and securing student loyalty in Malaysian higher learning industry. The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 4 No.1, p.30 378 Thomas, S. (2011, April). What drives student loyalty in university: An empirical model for India. International Business Research, 4 (2), pp.183-192 218 Moorman et al.379, Michell et al.380, Henning-Thurau et al.381, Rojas-Mendez et al.382 and Chu et al.383 stated that trust is very important, to develop loyalty. Many empirically validated studies have shown the direct correlation between student trust and student loyalty. Kunanusorn & Puttawong researched loyalty and trust inside student culture and came to the result that trust is a direct antecedent of loyalty and a prerequisite variable of loyalty.384 They describe trust as a predictor of student loyalty and show in their result that the trust of the student is beside the university image, the personal perceived value and its own satisfaction, one variable of the student loyalty with a statistical significant level of 0.05. Möller’s385 research in trust to organizations shows similar information. She is referring to a study the “Centers of Work-Life-Policy”, which is showing, that between 2007 and 2008 the loyalty of an employee to its employer is decreased from 95% to 39%. In the same time, the share of employees decreased, who are in line to trust its employer. Here the share decreased from 79% to 22%. Familiarity In the eyes of Luhmann is familiarity a precondition for trust386 and this is not something which just can come from a person with human interactions only. Regarding Gefen387 this familiarity can also occur from a standard machine, similar as a website in the internet. A person is familiarity with a special website or application and so it influences and builds the behavior to 379 Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman,G .(1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), pp.81-101 380 Michell, P., Reast, J., & Lynch, J. (1998). Exploring the foundations of trust. Journal of Marketing Management, 4, pp.159-172 381 Henning - Thurau, T., Langer, F.M., & Hansen, U. (2001, May). Modeling and managing student loyalty : An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), pp.331-344 382 Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10, pp.21-39 383 Chu, P-Y., Lee, G-Y., & Chao, Y. (2012). Service quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust, and loyalty in an e-banking context. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(8), pp.1271-1284 384 Kunanusorn, A. & Puttawong, (2015). THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF SATISFACTION ON STUDENT LOYALTY TO HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION, 4th International Scientific Forum, ISF 2015, 2-4 September, Oxford, United Kingdom Proceedings Vol.1, pp.449-454 385 Möller, H. (2012). Vertrauens-und Misstrauenskulturen in Organisationen. In Vertrauen in Organisationen, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, p. 14 386 Luhmann N. (1979) Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley in Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), p.725 387 Gefen, D. (2000) E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust, Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Omega 28, Elsevier Science Ltd., USA, p.733 219 trust – same as ability, integrity, and intentions.388 Also other kind of non-personal things can create familiarity in a profit-oriented organization. E.g. can a buyer get familiarity if his standard contracts are signed from a new, potential or also well known supplier. Also this will increase the trust of the buyer into the supplier from the experiences of the author. Unfortunately, the hypothesis that the presence of detailed signed contracts will increase the buyer’s perceived level of trust in the supplier 389 is checked but not supported by the results of Handfield & Bechtel. 388 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.709-734. 389 Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial marketing management, 31(4), pp.367-382 220 P. General trust models and definitions Lewis and Weigert390 came to the question if trust is based more on emotional side or is more affect based. Ten years later Mc Allister391 makes a clear separation of possible trust cases. On the one side he saws cognitive based trust, which is based on experience or knowledge. This is divided in three cases: a.) to know that the person is reliable, b.) the person has same culture or ethic background, c.) the person has well known references. For the affect based trust, he sees the following two reasons: a.) how much work a person does, what is not part of its contract, in literature often so called “Organizational Citizen Behavior” and b.) the number of interactions between the two persons. But cognitive based trust can exist alone and has influence on affect based trust. Affect based trust cannot exist without cognitive based trust. He explains this, that for every trust based relationship, there must have been a minimum expectation, that the other person must reliable and respectable. In the view of Gidden, trust is also more effective in persons than in systems. He is telling, that this is the primary learned trust, the “facework commitment”, which can be only achieved in a direct communication. 392 393 Shamir and Lapidot 394 researched the differences between interpersonal trust and systemic trust, same as systems or objects. They stated that people make trust judgments not only on interpersonal or systemic side. The trust judgment is based on both, because leaders or other people are affected by systems or organizations and also the other way around, this can be seen from supervisor to subordinate side but also from subordinate to subordinate. For example a group meaning can influence a person who should make a trust judgment of its supervisor. Sztompka is coming to the result, that a culture of trust exists, which is a result of a continuous process of positive experiences, when a person trusts and had been trusted by another side.395 So trust is absolutely necessary to 390 Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality, Social forces 63(4), pp.967-985 391 McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), pp.24-59 392 John, R. (2004). Vertrauen in Organisationen sozialen Engagements: Berichte aus dem SFB 536. IPP- Arbeitspapiere: Bd. 2. München, p.12 393 Endress, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Einsichten. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl., p.40 394 Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization Studies, 24, pp.463-491 395 Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge cultural social studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Endress, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Einsichten. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl., p.46 221 build and maintain long-term relationships, as Singh & Sirdeshmukh said, too.396 One of the most popular concepts of trust is based on the deep psychological development model of Erikson. He has the meaning, that without trust a stable personality can’t be developed (self- identity) and that the “primary trust” is the cornerstone of a healthy personality. 397 Trust depends on early infantile experiences, especially on the quality of the mother-child- relationship. Unnecessary refusals, threats and personal unreliability prohibits trust.398 Rotter, an American psychologist who is working on the development of a social learning theory is the meaning, that trust is based on the expectations of persons or group, who gave each other a positive or negative, verbal or written promise.399 400Deutsch, also an American psychologist and conflict-scientist, has the thesis that trustful acting shows an increasing of the own vulnerability against persons who are not under their personal / own control, in a situation, where the damage who can possibly occur is higher than the benefit that could happen.401 402 Jäckel403 same as Schweer & Thies404 sees in Deutsch and Rotter the general differences of trust concepts. The first one (e.g. Rotter, 1967) sees trust as a character property, the second concept (e.g. Deutsch, 1962) sees trust as a situation depending decision. Mayer et al.405 sees trust as an issue in the presence of risk, uncertainty, vulnerability and the need of interdependency with another person. Kegan & Rubenstein defined trust by that: “Trust may be conceived as a preconscious condition or attitude permitting one to enter a situation with minimal 396 Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in customer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp.150-167 397 Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.12 398 Erikson, E. H. (1963). Wachstum und Krisen der gesunden Persönlichkeit. Stuttgart: Klett, inside Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 399 Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), pp.651-665 400 Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, pp.443-452. 401 Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes. In M. R. Jones (Hrsg.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1962 (Current theory and research in motivation) Lincoln Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska Press., pp.275–319 402 Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 403 Jäckel, A.(2018), Gesundes Vertrauen in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Springer, p.24 404 Schweer, M. K., & Thies, B. (2003). Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip: Perspektiven für komplexe soziale Systeme. Bern: Huber. p.3 405 Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of managementreview, 20(3), pp.709-734 222 defensiveness.”406 Graeff407 means to this, that the reduction of control opportunities will only work, if the person is the meaning that this situation will be not exploited by another person. Griffin and Tversky408 described trust as a degree of belief in a given hypothesis. Here they separated the main components into the given hypothesis and the level of belief that person has in this hypothesis or decision. Hurley409 based his model on the result of Deutsch, but also on his own research, tested with more than 100 top managers. He developed 10 factors, which are relevant that a supervisor can trust the subordinate. Three of these factors concern to the person, who should trust, the remaining 7 factors depending on the situation in which the person, who should trust, is. The three personal factors are based 1.) on the readiness to assume risk of the person, who should trust, 2.) how adjusted he is to its environment and 3.) how the size of its power is. The other seven ones are relevant for the situation itself, 1.) how both persons feel, 2.) how many commonalities they have, 3.) if they have same interests, 4.) if the person, who should get the trust, shows a sympathetically interest, 5.) if the person, who should get the trust is competent, 6.) if the acting of the person, who should get the trust is foreseeable and 7.) if the communication is good between both parties. So especially in the daily business life are many factors that can influence the decision of trust and mistrust, but most of them can be influenced by management. Levering calls bureaucracy as an organized mistrust, when he refers to the environment of trust. 406 Kegan, D. L. & Rubenstein, A. H. (1973). Trust, effectiveness, and organizational development: A field study in R & D. The journal of applied behavioral science, 9 (4), p.499 407 Graeff, P. (1997). Vertrauen zum Vorgesetzten und zum Unternehmen: Modellentwicklung und empirische Überprüfung verschiedener Arten des Vertrauens, deren Determinanten und Wirkungen bei Beschäftigten in Wirtschaftsunternehmen. Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn. Bonn, p.11 408 Griffin, D., Tversky, A. (2002). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. pp. 230-249 409 Hurley, R. F. (2006). So schaffen Sie mehr Vertrauen: Vertrauen zwischen Managern und Mitarbeitern ist kein Gottesgeschenk. Harvard-Business-Manager, November 2006, pp.62-73 223 Ross & LaCroix410 added the model of Shapiro et al.411 with the research data of Lewicki & Bunker412 and came to its concept, which is based in the situation of negotiations. Trust is developed step by step over three phases and with each step the trust level is raising: 1.Phase: calculated trust. 2.Phase: knowledge based trust 3.Phase: identification based trust- Butler 413 sees the following requirements as a positive condition to get a trust between employees in organizations: to fulfill promises, loyalty, honesty, openness, discrete handling of secrets, responsiveness for ideas and meanings, cooperative behavior instead of competition, long-lasting relationship, comprehensive, stimulant, important relationship, high social identity, respectful and recognizable behavior of the supervisor, respectful and valuable behavior in the group, valuable interpersonal relationship and transparency in decision, acting and motivation. Doney et al. 414 has the understanding, that the development of trust is categorized in five sequential items of behavior to get a both sided trust. So the development comes step by step, but often find its maximum after the first two steps. 1.) Calculation: the behavior of the partner is the same as "calculated", because just so the person will get a reward or otherwise the person will get a punishment. 2.) Forecast: forecast of future behavior out of former experiences - knowledge based trust. 3.) Intentionality: common targets, similar way of thinking and experiences will be supposed 4.) Competence: estimation, if the partner is able to fulfill the expectations. Known skills and performance are important factors. 5.) Transfer: known skills and performances, out of own or third party experiences will be suggested on unknown skills or performances. Mc Knight et al.415 created a model for the initial trust development. This model is based on three components: disposition of trust, cognitive processes and trust in institutions, whereby the initial development of trust is based only on two basics: 410 Ross, W.&La Croix, J. (1996). Multiple Meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7 (4), pp. 314-360. 411 Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H. & Charskin, L. (1992). Business on handshake. Negociation Journal, 8, pp.365- 377. 412 Lewicki, R.J. & Bunker, B.B. (1996). Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. In T.R. Tyler & R.M. Kramer, Trust in Organizations: Frontier of Theory and Research, New Dehli: Sage Publications, pp.114-139 413 Butler, J.K.Jr (1991), Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evaluation of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, pp.643-663 414 Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., & Mullen, M.R. (1998), Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.601-620. 415 McKnight, H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationship. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp.473-490 224 1.) Trust-conviction (due to goodwill, fairness, competence and that the personal behavior can be calculated / forecasted, the partner can be convinced from the reliability) and 2.) Trust-intention (willingness to trust in a specific situation on another person). Bierhoff, who is a social psychologist, investigates items as moral, courage, excuses, trust, social responsibility and others in the society, sees also trust as a risk to be disappointed.416 417 Petermann works on the psychology of trust and made an overview about the results of research. In addition he makes deeper analysis of the trust status between therapist and patient.418 The following 3-Phases-Models are Petermanns outcome of pair therapies between two persons and the rise and loss of trust. Trust is similar to business life one of the most important daily subjects. a.) 3 phases of creating trust419 Phase 1: Establishing of an understandingly communication; give the partner your full attention; give special attention due to empathy ("I know what you mean..."). Phase 2: Delete menacing acting; describe your own acting, so that it's understandable and calculate able for your partner; give your partner feedback of its behavior for orientation. Phase 3: Defined build-up of trust; hand over competence to your partner with important tasks; growing success supports self-confidence as requirement for trust. Creating of trust is a longer process, but the loss of trust can be much faster: b.) 3 phases of loosing trust Phase 1: Destroying of an understandingly communication; the self-manifestation is too high, the position and condition of the partner will be insufficient observed; paternalism of the partner and high restriction of its authority to decide. Phase 2: Choose of menacing actions; the behavior is not foreseeable for its partner or too high / low amount of suggestions or remark; non or just one-sided feedback brings disorientation or menace. Phase 3: Defined destroying of trust; cynicism and degradation of the competences of the partner; growing helplessness and passiveness, which causes a loss of self-confidence. 416 Bierhoff, H.-W. (1992). Trust and trustworthiness. In L. Montada, S.-H. Filipp & M. J. Lerner (Hrsg.), Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood, Hillsdale, N.J. etc.: Erlbau, pp.411–433 417 Bierhoff, H.-W. & Herner, M. Jürgen. (2007). Vertrauen: Trust. In H. Schuler & K. Sonntag (Hrsg.), Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Göttingen; Bern; Wien; Paris; Oxford; Prag: Hogrefe Verlag, pp.300–305 418 Petermann, F. (1997). Vertrauen im therapeutischen Kontext. In M. K. W. Schweer (Hrsg.), Interpersonales Vertrauen, Opladen [u.a.]: Westdt. Verl., pp.155–164 419 Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 3.Auflage, p.117 225 The theory of Schottlaender, a German philosopher, is that trust is a result of own experience and the hope of goodness inside the human.420 Sloterdijk, also philosopher, sees trust as the basis of cohabitation and that the future society is fated to trust.421 Kassebaum developed a tool to measure the general trust of a person, the trust in the social environment and in his partnership. Kassebaum founded five categories422: trust in friends, trust in partner, general trust, trust in the neighbor and trust in the psychotherapist. Hartmann sees trust risky and uncertain: "We don't know exactly, if the other person the trust, what was evinced in him, fulfills or not. Due to this we call trust risky and uncertain."423 Trust in the eye of Habermas424 is a concept of validity, which is similar as truth, never belongs solely to the judging person or the judged object or person alone, only in combination. Lane425 is the meaning, that most concepts of personal trust share three items: a.) dependence of persons who give and gets trust, b.)assumption, that trust provides a way to cope with risk or uncertainty and c.) belief or expectation, that vulnerability, resulting from the acceptance of risk, will not be taken as an advantage from the opposite person. Evans & Krüger426 consider the characteristics of the specific individuals and the situation before they defined the trust situation of a person: “Trust is calculated by weighing risks and benefits. Identification-based trust, in contrast, emerges through empathy and identification with another person’s intentions and desires. The characteristic and strength of trust depends on whether the relationship is primarily economic (calculus-based) or intimate (identification-based)”. Möllering427 sees in his concept of trust the check of the routine, the reason and the reflexivity. Same as others he stated, that the more routine is available the less the actions will be rechecked and it will be accepted as it is. This is also something that feels the person trustful in something. The reason itself is same relevant. The person has to understand why something has to be done. The last item of Möllering is the 420 Schottlaender, R. (1957). Theorie des Vertrauens. Berlin: de Gruyter. In Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 421 Sloterdijk, P. (2001). Nicht gerettet: Versuche nach Heidegger. Frankfurt a.M, Suhrkamp. p.233 422 Kassebaum, U. Bernd. (2004). Interpersonelles Vertrauen - Entwicklung eines Inventars zur Erfassung spezifischer Aspekte des Konstrukts. Dissertation. Hamburg, pp.226, 229 423 Hartmann, M. (2002). Aussichten auf Vorteile? Grenzen rationaler Vertrauensmodelle in der Politikanalyse. ÖZP - Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (4: Vertrauen. Mikrofundierung sozialer und politischer Ordnungen), p.383 in Bartelt, D. (2011). Wertschätzende, kompetente und ethische Führung – Das Vertrauen der Mitarbeiter in Ihre Führungskräfte Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, p.22 424 Habermas, J. (2003): Truth and Justification.UK, Cambridge: Polity Press, p.90 425 Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. (Eds.). (1998). Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford University Press, p.3 426 Evans, A. M., Krüger, J. I. (2009) The psychology (and economics) or trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 27, 3/6, pp.1003-1017. 427 Möllering, G. (2006), Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexity. Oxford : Elsevier Ltd., 2006. p.111 226 reflexivity, which is nothing else than the personal experience a person has made in a same or similar situation. Independent of this, the person who has to trust is in the situation, that (s)he has to make the first or next step because (s)he thinks it comes to a positive end, which is similar to Osterloh & Weibel428. In their concept trust exists as a trust spring, on positive expectations and vulnerability. On the other side, if a person is not trusting another person, then the person mistrusts or better called is suspicious, as Covey & Merrill429 say. This is also understandable, because to trust a person means every time to take a risk as Geramanis430 said. The person who gives trust, goes into a not fully defined and potential not controllable situation. The person is in dependence of the person who gets the trust. Miller and Rempel431 researched married couples, they found out, that a high trust in another person in the beginning of a relationship is directly related to the interpretation of more positive behavior of the other over time. The second important finding is that trust in a person grows better, when both persons had gone through a hard time together. People, who had not such a happening, also didn’t have such a significant increase of the trust level. This kind of happening, independent if between couples or two other persons, can be at one side a situation, where the person can calculate if (s)he trusts the partner in front of the situation or if it is a happening, which cannot be foreseen, there are a no alternatives and the action has to be done432. Thomas separated the general trust definition into etymologic deduction, from scientist view and without culture specific elements. 433 Especially his general trust definition from scientist view, which is based on Peterman434, gives a comprehensive overview of the complexity of definition: a) Trust is a result of own experience and the hope of goodness inside the human.435 428 Osterloh, M., Weibel, A. (2006), Investition Vertrauen. Prozesse der Vertrauensentwicklung in Organisationen. Wiesbaden : Betreibswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler / GWV Fachverlage GmbH, p.70 429 Covey, S.M.R., Merrill, R.R. (2009), Schnelligkeit durch Vertrauen: Die unterschätzteökonomische Macht. Offenbach : GABAL Verlag GmbH, p.19 430 Geramanis, O. (2002). Drei Wege moderner Organisationen das Vertrauensproblem zu umgehen. Personalarbeit der Zukunft. Managementkonzepte Band 27 München/Mehring, p.143 431 Miller, P.J.E., & Rempel, J.K. (2004). Trust and partner-enhancing attributions in close relationships. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, pp.695-705 432 Hartmann, M., Offe, C. (2001), Vertrauen: Die Grundlagen des sozialen Zusammenhalts. Frankfurt / New York: Campus Verlag, p.34 433 Thomas, A. (2005) Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. p.4, 27.04.2016 http://www.psychologie.uni-regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF 434 Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 435 Schottlaender, R. (1957). Theorie des Vertrauens. Berlin: de Gruyter. In Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 227 b) Trust reduces the complexity of human acting, expands in the same time the possibility of experience and acting and gives safety.436 c) Trust depends on early infantile experiences, especially on the quality of the mother-child- relationship. Unnecessary refusals, threats and personal unreliability prohibit trust.437 d) Trust is based on the expectations of persons or group, who gave each other a positive or negative, verbal or written promise.438 e) The trust on human basis has the result that a person counts on another in a risk situation with complex circumstances and consequences, says Bierhof, f) Trust is the faith, that the other one is doing some day that, what you have done for him.439 g) Trustful acting shows behavior, that (1) increases the own vulnerability, (2) happens against persons who are not under their personal / own control and (3) is chosen in a situation, where the damage which can possibly occur is higher than the benefit that could happen.440 h) Trust between two persons is visible on the following verbal and movement indicators: “Here-and-now statements”, self explorative comments, wants to have or give feedback, asks for help in problems, spontaneous and unbidden participation and alternate boosting.441 i) Trust is shown in the willingness, to talk about topics, that could generate potential degradation and rejection, so that represent a risk for the client.442 j) Trust is developed in partnerships three steps: predictability, reliability and reliance (=loyalty)443 436 Luhmann, N. (1973) Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (2. Aufl.) Stuttgart: Enke In Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 437 Erikson, E. H. (1963). Wachstum und Krisen der gesunden Persönlichkeit. Stuttgart:Klett, in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 438 Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651-665. and Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452. in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 439 Jackson D.D. (1980). Familienregeln: Das eheliche Quid pro Quo. In P.Watzlawick & J.M. Weakland (Hrsg.), Interaktion (p. 47-61). Bern: Huber in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 440 Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes. In M. R. Jones (Hrsg.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1962 (Current theory and research in motivation) Lincoln Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska Press, pp.275–319 441 Krumboltz, J.D. & Potter, B. (1980). Verhaltenstherapeutische Techniken für die Entwicklung von Vertrauen, Kohäsion und Zielorientierung in Gruppen. in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München, p.15 442 Johnson, D.W.& Matross R.P. (1977). Interpersonal influence in psychotherapy: A social psychological view. In A.S. Gurman & A.M. Razin (Eds.) Effective psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon in Petermann, F. (1992). Psychologie des Vertrauens. München. p.15 443 Rempel, J., Holmes, J., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(1), pp.95-112. 228 k) Trust obtains on future acts of other persons, who are not under control of yourself and so they recover uncertainty and risk.444 Specific trust is based on direct experiences with other persons or in defined situations. General trust will be build up over time, while experiences in different situations of common expectations aggregate together with the trustworthiness of persons or situations. That is why the general trust is the more important in new situations, than the specific one.445 444 Schlenker, B.R., Helm, B. & Tedeschi, J.T. (1973). The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, pp.419-427. in Thomas, A. (2005)Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext aus Sicht der Psychologie. p.5, 27.04.2016 http://www.psychologie.uni- regensburg.de/Thomas/aktuell/Vertrauen_im_interk_Kontext.PDF 445 Clases, C. & Wehner T. (2005) Vertrauen in Wirtschaftsbeziehungen in D. Frey, L. von Rosenstiel, Graf Hoyos (Hrsg.). Wirtschaftspsychologie,Weinheim: Beltz. pp.397-401