Academic journal article Business: Theory and Practice

The Role of Cognitive and Affective Trust in the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptual Framework

Academic journal article Business: Theory and Practice

The Role of Cognitive and Affective Trust in the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptual Framework

Article excerpt

Introduction

Katz (1964) mentioned that three types of behavior are essential for the functioning of an organization--(i) People must be induced to enter and remain within the system.(ii) They must carry out their role assignments in a dependable fashion. (iii) There must be innovative and spontaneous activity in achieving organizational objectives which go beyond the role specifications. What Katz (1964) referred to as, going beyond the role specification has been labeled as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Bateman, Organ 1983).The importance of OCB as a major contributor to the functioning of an effective organization grew rapidly from the 1980's when the term was first coined (Bateman, Organ 1983). The interest of researchers in 1980's (Bateman, Organ 1983; Smith et al. 1983) focused on determining the antecedents to OCB (job satisfaction, Smith et al. 1983; organizational justice, Folger, Konovsky 1989; Konovsky, Pugh 1994). Organizational Justice, as an antecedent to OCB was supported in similar studies by other researchers (Mayer, Gavin 2005; Frazier et al. 2010). In the above mentioned relationship between Organizational Justice and OCB, trust has been identified (Konovsky, Pugh 1994; Aryee et al. 2002) as a plausible explanation for regulating the impact of organizational Justice on OCB. The organization works on interdependency within members of an organization, the interdependency is possible only when trust exists among members of an organization.

Research on organizational trust (Folger, Konovsky 1989; Mayer, Gavin 2005; Frazier et al. 2010), have not considered the multidimensional construct of trust to regulate the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Researchers (Aryee et al. 2002; Frazier et al. 2010) have used social exchange theory as an explanation for the role of trust in mediating the relationship between Justice perception and OCB. However there is paucity of literature on the role of cognitive and affective based trust in explaining the relationship between organizational justice and OCB. The distinction between cognitive and affective bases of trust (Lewis, Weigert 1985; McAllister 1995) could be used as an explanation for the mediating role of trust. In this direction, the importance of different referent groups for the differential impact of trust on employee behavior and attitude can also be explored from the perspective of cognitive and affective based trust (Frazier et al. 2010).

Therefore, the present paper addresses the following research questions; first, will there be a differential impact of the three types of justice on cognitive and affective bases of trust? Second, is the role of cognitive and affective bases of trust responsible for the differential impact of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior?

1. Theoretical background

1.1. Trust

The literature on trust depicts an understanding of trust from three perspectives namely; trust as a personality trait (Rotter 1967; Kee, Knox 1970; Gabarro 1978), trust as behavioral intention (Zand 1972; Mishra 1996; Rousseau et al. 1998) and trust as characteristic based (Butler 1991). The early definition of trust (Deutsch 1958) highlighted trust as a decision based on an expectation of a positive motivational consequence if a person is trusted as against a negative consequence if the person is not trusted. Rotter (1967) explains trust as a personality trait which accounts for people high on the trait as more likely to trust other individuals, than people low on the trait. This personality based factor of trust was later labeled as propensity to trust by Mayer et al. (1995). Propensity to trust is same as trust as a personality trait and have been defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as "a stable individual difference that affects the likelihood that a person will trust". Mayer et al. (1995) have highlighted the importance of propensity to trust in a situation when the characteristics of the trustee (the person to be trusted) are unknown. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.