Internal Management and Perceived Managerial Trustworthiness: Evidence From a Survey Experiment

Abstract

What is the effect of internal public management on individuals’ perceptions of managerial trustworthiness (MTW)? MTW is associated with a range of positive organizational outcomes, but research examining how a public manager might affect employees’ perception of MTW is sparse. This article complements extant research on MTW in public organizations with causal evidence from a randomized survey experiment among 1,829 U.S. residents. We examine how five aspects of internal public management affect individuals’ perception of MTW: (a) setting challenging but feasible goals, (b) making credible commitments, (c) encouraging employee participation, (d) providing frequent performance feedback, and (e) rewarding employees who perform well. We find positive effects of the “credible commitment” and “performance feedback” treatments on overall MTW perception. In addition, we find significant effects for four of the treatments (a-d) when looking separately at the three sub-dimensions that together comprise the multidimensional MTW construct (ability, benevolence, and integrity).

Keywords

internal management managerial trustworthiness survey experiment

Although scholars offer different lists of the core aspects of public management (Boyne & Walker, 2006; Ingraham, Joyce, & Donahue, 2003; Rainey, 2014; Terry, 2002), public management scholarship is in agreement that public management is a multidimensional activity that has important implications for public service performance. At the macro level, public management involves two main components: external management (management in relation to the organizational environment; outside stakeholders, and agencies) and internal management (management within the organization). Both these managerial foci involve numerous sub-aspects, and both can be expected to have important implications for public service performance (Boyne, Meier, O’Toole, & Walker, 2006; Meier, O’Toole, Boyne, & Walker, 2006; Nicholson-Crotty & O’Toole, 2004; O’Toole & Meier, 2011; Rainey, 2014; Walker, Boyne, & Brewer, 2010). Nevertheless, public management research has focused disproportionally on the consequences of external management relative to internal management (see Favero, Meier, & O’Toole, 2016). In addition, the majority of internal management studies focus on a specific set of outcomes involving employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation, and performance (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Choi, 2009; Sangmook Kim, 2005; Soonhee Kim, 2002; Moynihan & Pandey, 2005, 2007; Park & Rainey, 2007). Additional inquiry on the consequences of internal management for other important employee outcomes is thus warranted.

This article examines how key aspects of internal management identified and analyzed in the extant public management literature affect an important but understudied construct: individuals’ perceptions of managerial trustworthiness (henceforth, MTW), that is, “the trustworthiness attributed to supervisors” (Cho & Ringquist, 2011, pp. 53-54). We use the MTW term synonymously with managerial trust (or trust in manager), that is, the willingness of one party (employee) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (manager) based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the first party’s ability to monitor or control that other party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712).

The article uses data from a randomized survey experiment among 1,829 U.S. residents. Via an experimental vignette, we examine the posttest effects of five aspects of internal management: (a) setting challenging but feasible goals, (b) making credible commitments, (c) encouraging employee participation, (d) providing frequent performance feedback, and (e) rewarding employees who perform well. As we elaborate later, our focus on these particular aspects of internal management builds on past research, and we test the effects of information on these management activities in relation to Mayer and Davis’s (1999) multidimensional measure of MTW.

The article contributes to public management scholarship in two important ways. First, the causes of MTW in public organizations are understudied: “Although public administration scholars have recognized trust as a valuable resource from both political and management perspectives . . . there is not much empirical research in the field yet” (Cho & Poister, 2014, p. 180). Very little public management research examines the association between specific management activities and MTW—and we can find no public management research that directly examines the relative effects of different aspects of internal management on MTW. However, such a research focus is warranted. Scholars have long theorized that trust in management is related to important productivity-related outcomes (Argyris, 1964), and researchers continue to acknowledge the concept of trust as a theoretically important variable affecting organizational outcomes (Behn, 1995; Carnevale, 1995; Kramer, 1999). Empirical studies moreover find that MTW is associated with a wide display of employee-level outcomes such as employee satisfaction, commitment, motivation, and performance (e.g., Cho & Park, 2011; Cho & Ringquist, 2011; Nyhan, 2000). How public managers may cultivate and maintain MTW is thus a critical question. From this perspective, this article aims to identify specific internal management activities that may have a positive effect on individuals’ MTW, in turn expanding our knowledge on routes toward attainment of an effective, efficient, and equitable public service.

Second, much empirical research on the consequences of public management is marked by limitations to the research’s internal validity, that is, the extent to which a causal conclusion based on a study is warranted. This is especially true for research on MTW antecedents in public organizations. Extant studies provides valuable knowledge about MTW in real-life public organizations but rely on cross-sectional survey data (e.g., Battaglio & Condrey, 2009; Carnevale & Wechsler, 1992; Cho & Poister, 2013, 2014; Choi, 2011; Gilbert & Tang, 1998; Nyhan, 2000; Rubin, 2009). Their potential for making causal claims is therefore somewhat limited. The article aims to complement the findings of the extant MTW literature with causal evidence from a randomized posttest experiment. However, our own empirical approach does entail a trade-off as well as other limitations that we will consider throughout and discuss in the conclusion. Calls for more experimental public administration and management research (Perry, 2012) have been answered by an increasing number of experimental studies with the same fundamental aim and contribution as us: providing causal inference to our understanding of themes and topics important to the discipline (see, for example, Anderson & Stritch, 2015; Avellaneda, 2013; Bellé, 2013, 2015; Belle & Cantarelli, 2014; Brewer & Brewer, 2011; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2014; Herian, Hamm, Tomkins, & Zillig, 2012; Hock, Anderson, & Potoski, 2013; Jilke, Van Ryzin, & Van de Walle, 2016; Kaufmann & Feeney, 2014; S. H. Kim & Kim, 2016, 2017; Marvel, 2015, 2016; Pedersen, 2015).

We begin by first discussing existing public-sector MTW research. Second, we elaborate on the specific aspects of internal management that are the subject of the study and develop our hypotheses with respect to how each might affect trust in management. Third, we describe our data and survey experimental design. Fourth, we present and discuss the analytical results. In conclusion, we summarize our findings and discuss their implications for practice and future research.

MTW in Public Management Research

Public management research that focuses on the MTW construct is relatively sparse. This is not, however, to say that empirical inquiry has fully ignored the concept of trust and its determinants. At the manager level, Battaglio and Condrey (2009) find that perceived job security and perception of procedural justice are positively related to trust in management. Rubin (2009) also examines the role of procedural justice in MTW. Rubin finds that key indicators of procedural justice—such as perception of merit-based promotions, fair handling of complaints, fair performance appraisals, and satisfaction with involvement in decisions—are positively associated with trust in leadership. Similarly, Choi (2011) finds that perceptions of organizational justice are positively associated with MTW. Cho and Poister (2013) also find a positive relationship between fairness perceptions and MTW. Importantly, they observe that perception of good manager–employee communication and perception of fair and constructive performance feedback relate to higher levels of MTW (see also, Cho & Poister, 2014). Finally, Nyhan (2000) develops a trust-based model for public-sector management and finds that perceived participation in decision making and feedback on performance are positively associated with MTW.

The works of Cho and Poister (2013, 2014) and Nyhan (2000) indicate that some aspects of internal management—those involving participation and performance feedback—may have a positive effect on MTW. However, the potential for drawing causal inference from these studies is limited by the use of cross-sectional survey data. As mentioned, this article’s experimental design provides a strong framework for estimating how different aspects of internal management may directly affect individuals’ perception of MTW. It thus complements the work of Cho and Poister (2013, 2014) and Nyhan (2000): The survey experimental design we use yields posttest estimates marked by high internal validity, but the results suffer from weak external validity (as we will explain later). Conversely, the extant estimates of managerial effects on MTW suffer from weak internal validity but higher external validity.

The relevance of examining the effect of internal management on individuals’ perception of MTW—and thus the contribution of the present article—is contingent on a key prerequisite: That MTW matters to organizational outcomes. In support of this notion, much public management research suggests that MTW is positively associated with employee satisfaction (Cho & Lee, 2011; Cho & Park, 2011; Cho & Ringquist, 2011; C. S. Jung, 2014; Ko & Hur, 2014; Rubin, 2009; Yang & Kassekert, 2010) and negatively associated with turnover intention (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Ko & Hur, 2014). Similarly, studies find that MTW is positively related to employee commitment and motivation at work (Chen, Hsieh, & Chen, 2014; Cho & Park, 2011; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Nyhan, 2000). In addition, high MTW appears to correlate with higher levels of cooperative and citizenship behavior (Cho & Lee, 2011; Cho & Poister, 2014; Cho & Ringquist, 2011; Lundin, 2007) and with higher levels of self-reported performance and productivity (Cho & Ringquist, 2011; Nyhan, 2000).

In addition, private-sector management research provides strong support for the importance of MTW to employee-level outcomes. Many studies show that MTW is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance (see Dirks & Ferrin, 2002, and Kramer, 1999, for useful reviews, see also Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012). At the organization level, research suggests that MTW decreases transaction costs and increases transaction benefits in an organization (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998), improves internal information sharing (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002; Creed & Miles, 1996), and increases employee deference to managerial decision making (Kramer & Tyler, 1996).

Research efforts toward identification of particular aspects of internal management that affect an individuals’ perception of MTW is both necessary and invaluable given the well-established links between MTW and both employee-level and organizational outcomes. Promoting employees’ MTW via use of particular internal management activities may be one way forward toward public-service effectiveness and efficiency. But to which aspects of internal management should we first direct our research attention? As internal management is a multidimensional craft involving numerous sub-behaviors, examination of all aspects of internal management would be a Herculean task. Therefore, we focus our attention on five specific behaviors that emerge from the public management literature.

Internal Management and MTW

This article examines the posttest effects of five aspects of internal management: (a) setting challenging but feasible goals, (b) making credible commitments, (c) encouraging employee participation, (d) providing frequent performance feedback, and (e) rewarding employees who perform well. Our focus on these specific actions builds on past research by Favero et al. (2016). The authors test the relationship between different aspects of internal management and the performance of New York City schools. Their study involves four internal management activities that reflect the first four aspects of internal management that we examine (a-d). Similar to us, they recognize that the analyzing all potential aspects of internal management is not feasible, and therefore focus on a limited set of internal management activities. The key aspects of internal management they identify “are common to most theories of public management” (Favero et al., 2016, p. 20) as they reflect the core elements of “the tried-and-true functions of internal organizational, what we might think of as . . . the POSDCORB-style elements of traditional public administration” (Favero et al., 2016, pp. 2-3). Although it has been suggested that certain aspects of internal management might cultivate perceptions of MTW among employees (Favero et al., 2016; Nyhan, 2000; Tyler, 2006), research has yet to fully consider the ways that these aspects of internal management might generate MTW among employees.

The first aspect of internal management we examine—setting challenging but feasible goals—refers to internal management activities concerned with setting clear, feasible yet challenging goals that allow employees to understand what the manager expects of them (Latham, Borgogni, & Petitta, 2008). Managerial goal setting behavior may reflect positively on employees’ perceptions of the manager’s vision, ambition, and general care for the future and performance of the organization, and thus cultivates higher levels of MTW (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). Studies show that transformational leadership practices such as communicating clear goals and setting high expectations have a positive impact on trust in the leader (Butler, Cantrell, & Flick, 1999; Gillespie & Mann, 2004). When a manager sets clear goals for an organizational unit, she or he signals to the employees that the manager is engaged and willing to take responsibility for certain levels of performance. When employees perceive their manager taking a level of responsibility for the unit or group’s performance, this might increase MTW among those she or he is leading. However, avoiding the establishment of goals might signal to employees that the manager does not want to take ownership and, thus, decrease perceptions of MTW. Our first hypothesis is thus as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Emphasis on internal management that relates to setting challenging but feasible goals has a positive effect on an individual’s perception of MTW.

The second aspect of internal management we consider—making credible commitments, or “managerial credibility” (Dull, 2009)—refers to activities that managers undertake to elicit support and cooperation from employees. These are specific actions demonstrating that a manager strives to communicate clearly and follow through on what he or she says that he or she will do. We expect that actions demonstrating “credible commitment” will have a relatively strong positive effect on MTW. Essentially, one of the main purposes of this aspect of internal management is to build trust among employees in the manager’s qualifications (Dull, 2009). Favero et al. (2016) note that “credible commitment can be viewed as establishing the legitimacy of the manager and the manager’s actions (Tyler, 2006), which is designed to establish trust between management and employees” (p. 5). In sum, an employee’s perception of trust in a manager should increase when that manager appears credible by communicating clearly and following through on commitments. Our second hypothesis is thus as follows:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Emphasis on internal management that relates to making credible commitments has a positive effect on an individual’s perception of MTW.

As to the third and fourth aspects of internal management, encouraging employee participation refers to activities that elicit worker participation in organization decision making—a venerable issue in the public administration literature (e.g., Mosher, 1967), while providing frequent performance feedback refers to activities in which the manager provides consistent feedback to employees so that the employees learn about their performance at work. Research suggests that both management activities may have a positive effect on individual’s perception of MTW. Favero et al. (2016) emphasize that employee participation may improve the trust relationship between manager and employees and that feedback between managers and workers is important for trust perceptions. In support of this notion, Cho and Poister (2013, 2014) find that perception of good manager–employee communication and perception of fair and constructive performance feedback are positively associated with MTW. Moreover, Nyhan’s (2000) model for public-sector management explicitly highlights participation in decision making and feedback on performance as key predictors of MTW (see Nyhan, 2000, for a more detailed list of studies and theories). In sum, an employee’s perception of trust in a manager may increase when that manager appears to care about the employees’ opinions, inputs, and work behaviors—that is, by including the employees in organization decision making and providing persistent feedback on the employees’ work performance. Our third and fourth hypotheses are thus as follows:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Emphasis on internal management that relates to encouraging employee participation has a positive effect on an individual’s perception of MTW.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Emphasis on internal management that relates to providing frequent performance feedback has a positive effect on an individual’s perception of MTW.

The fifth aspect of internal management we examine—rewarding employees who perform well—relates to managerial efforts to reward an organization’s high-performing employees. Our conceptualization captures some of the New Public Management (Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2005) reform trends that emphasize the use of performance-based reward schemes, but it also covers non-pecuniary reward behavior such as verbal acknowledgments and recognitions, assignment of special job responsibilities, and additional qualification training courses. Favero et al. (2016) do not examine this particular internal management activity. Our choice to do so builds on the continued emphasis on pay for performance in the public sector (Perry, Engbers, & Jun, 2009); that use of contingent rewards is a widely applied management tool. In addition, it has received increased attention in the public sector in the wake of New Public Management and public personnel reforms (Kellough, 1993; Kellough & Nigro, 2002, 2006). Some research finds that contingent rewards are ineffective in enhancing follower work effort (Belle & Cantarelli, 2014) and achieving high levels of trust (D. I. Jung & Avolio, 2000), while other research reports a positive relationship between contingent rewards and MTW (Butler et al., 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Hence, there are competing theories and mixed findings about the effect of managerial rewarding behavior on MTW perception.

In line with Gillespie and Mann (2004), we recognize this ambiguity but theorize that managerial rewarding behavior may have a positive impact on MTW perception. Use of performance-contingent rewards may signal clearer role responsibility for achievement of organizational performance goals, in turn increasing individuals’ perception of the manager’s competence (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). Our fifth and final hypothesis is thus as follows:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Emphasis on internal management that relates to rewarding employees who perform well has a positive effect on individual’s perception of MTW.

Data

Our data consist of 1,829 U.S. residents. We collected the data using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (or MTurk)—a frequently used platform for experimental research in the social sciences (examples from a much longer list include Arceneaux, 2012; Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Eriksson & Simpson, 2011; Fishbach, Henderson, & Koo, 2011; Horton, Rand, & Zeckhauser, 2011). Recent public administration studies use MTurk for survey experimental purposes and highlight the opportunities that MTurk brings to public administration scholarship (e.g., Jilke et al., 2016; Marvel, 2015, 2016; Stritch, Pedersen, & Taggart, 2016). Research shows that data obtained via MTurk are at least as reliable as data obtained via traditional methods and that MTurkers from the United States are generally more representative of the U.S. population than in-person convenience samples commonly used in laboratory studies and experiments (Berinsky et al., 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Johnson & Borden, 2012; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014; Ross, Irani, Silberman, Zaldivar, & Tomlinson, 2010). In line with these findings, descriptive statistics (shown later) suggest that our sample respondents are similar to the working age U.S. population. Still, our sample is not representative of a particular sub-population of public employees. We discuss the generalizability issues that our MTurk sampling method entails for the article’s findings later—including how to perceive the article’s conclusions and contributions in light of this caveat.

We collected the data, and the experiment was approved by an author’s institutional review board (IRB). We received informed consent from participants prior to the collection of the data.

Research Design

We test our five hypotheses using a randomized survey experiment involving a case vignette describing a public manager exhibiting internal management activity. Each of the 1,829 respondents was randomly assigned to one of six experimental groups. Three hundred thirty were assigned to the control condition (henceforth, C⁰). The other respondents were assigned to treatments reflecting the five aspects of internal management mentioned above. Figure 1 shows the C⁰ case vignette. The case vignette describes the work behavior and performance of an average public manager.

Figure 1.

Sample case vignette (C⁰).

Respondents in the treatment groups received the exact same information as those in C⁰. In addition, however, they were each randomly provided one of the following lines of text—stated after the sentence, “That is, managerial activities seeking to organize and coordinate subordinates and resources to get things done”:

Treatment goal: “In particular, Benjamin prioritizes setting clear work goals that are feasible but somewhat challenging to achieve—though this means that Benjamin has less time available for other internal management activities.”

Treatment commitment: “In particular, Benjamin prioritizes communicating clearly and fully following through on commitments—though this means that Benjamin has less time available for other internal management activities.”

Treatment participation: “In particular, Benjamin prioritizes ensuring employee participation in decision making—though this means that Benjamin has less time available for other internal management activities.”

Treatment feedback: “In particular, Benjamin prioritizes providing frequent feedback to employees on their job performance—though this means that Benjamin has less time available for other internal management activities.”

Treatment reward: “In particular, Benjamin prioritizes rewarding high-performing employees—though this means that Benjamin has less time available for other internal management activities.”

All treatments highlight how emphasis on a particular internal management activity necessarily involves less time available for other activities. The goal treatment describes a focus on setting clear goals that are feasible but challenging. The commitment treatment captures the internal managerial action of a public manager who focuses on making credible commitment as to establish managerial legitimacy and support and cooperation from employees. The participation treatment involves managerial focus on eliciting participation by employees in organizational decision making, while the feedback treatment relates to the provision of frequent feedback to employees about how, and how well, they perform the job. The reward treatment involves a focus on internal managerial action that incentivizes high performance through rewarding behavior.

The above case vignette examples describe a male manager (Benjamin). We describe the name (and thus gender) of the public manager to increase the contextual realism of the vignettes. However, the respondents’ perception of the managers is likely affected by the manager’s gender. Social gender role and stereotype beliefs may entail that managers of different genders are associated with different MTW perceptions holding behaviors constant (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2002). We therefore manipulate the name (gender) of the public manager: At random, some respondents received the above male manager version of the case vignettes, others a female manager version; that is, we essentially substitute the name “Benjamin” with the name “Katherine” at random. We selected these names based on Levitt and Dubner (2005). Because we randomize the name of the manager within each of the six experiment groups, the gender of the case manager should not confound our results whatsoever.¹

Perception of MTW is the dependent variable. Following Mayer et al. (1995), we perceive MTW as a multidimensional construct comprising three sub-dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity (see also, Cho & Lee, 2011; Cho & Ringquist, 2011; Colquitt & Rodell, 2011). Ability refers to skills, competencies, and characteristics that allow a party to have influence within some domain. For a manager, this includes both the formal and informal influences that the manager is perceived to have in the organization, as well as their perceived competence and skill. Benevolence refers to the extent to which a manager is believed to want to do good for the employees—care about the employees’ interests. Integrity refers to the extent that a manager espouses values that employees see as positive—and that the manager’s actions are consistent with these values.

MTW Measurement

We measure MTW with nine survey items, three for each sub-dimension. We adopt these items from scales developed by Mayer and Davis (1999). Their scales represent a slightly altered and shorter version of scales by Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (1996) and Rotter (1967). We capture item responses on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Table 1 shows the individual items, descriptive statistics, and item factor loadings from a principal components analysis (PCA), rotated.

Table 1.

MTW Items, Descriptive Statistics, and Item Factor Loadings (PCA).

	M (SD)	Minimum/maximum	Factor loadings
	M (SD)	Minimum/maximum	Factor 1 (benevolence)	Factor 2 (ability)	Factor 3 (integrity)
Ability (α = .88)
1. [manager name] is very capable of performing the job as a manager	5.76 (0.92)	1/7	−.01	.92	−.01
2. I feel very confident in [manager name]’s skills	5.64 (0.93)	1/7	.10	.88	−.03
3. [manager name] is well qualified	5.58 (0.99)	1/7	.01	.82	.08
Benevolence (α = .90)
4. [manager name] is very concerned about my welfare	4.93 (1.98)	1/7	.92	.09	−.05
5. My needs and desires are very important to [manager name]	4.83 (1.14)	1/7	.96	.04	−.06
6. [manager name] will go out of the way to help me	4.82 (1.16)	1/7	.76	−.05	.22
Integrity (α = .89)
7. [manager name] has a strong sense of justice	4.89 (1.03)	1/7	.28	−.07	.69
8. I never wonder whether [manager name] will stick to his word	5.05 (1.20)	1/7	−.08	.00	.93
9. Sound principles seem to guide [manager name]’s behavior	5.39 (0.99)	1/7	−.02	.38	.60

Note. Each item reflects the random assignment of either the male manager version (Benjamin) or the female manager version (Katherine) of the case vignettes. The items are slightly altered relative to Mayer and Davis’s (1999). Although their items refer to “top management,” ours specify a particular manager. α shows Cronbach’s alpha for each sub-dimension. Item factor loadings are from a PCA, rotated (oblique). Factor loadings > .6 in bold font. N = 1,829. MTW = managerial trustworthiness; PCA = principal components analysis.

PCA identifies a three-factor solution (eigenvalues > 1) with item factor loadings matching the MTW sub-dimensions of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Confirmatory factor analysis reveals significant item loadings (p < .001) and acceptable goodness-of-fit statistics (comparative fit index [CFI] = .966; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .092; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .040; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .949). We construct three scales, one for each MTW sub-dimension, using the predicted factor scores. Each scale is thus standardized (M = 0, SD = 1), entailing that the model coefficients can be interpreted in terms of standard deviation.

We also operate with an overall MTW measure. We construct this scale using the predicted factor scores from an unrotated PCA (item factor loadings > .70; Cronbach’s α is .91).

Analyses

Because of the random assignment of control and treatments, only the public manager description should differ systematically across the six experiment groups. All characteristics potentially affecting respondents’ perception of MTW should be equally distributed across the groups by design (i.e., the groups should be “balanced”), and the posttest treatment estimates should therefore be unbiased—have a causal interpretation.

In support of this notion, ANOVA tests for differences in means show that the experiment groups are not marked by any significant differences in the distribution of gender, race, age, education, employment status, parents’ education, annual household income, and responses to three items from the General Social Surveys (GSS) on general trust perceptions (see the appendix for detail). Similarly, we see that the assignment of case manager name, “Benjamin” or “Katherine,” is balanced across the groups—implying that the manipulation of the case manager’s gender does not confound the results.

Test Statistics

To examine the effect of the treatments, we regress a set of dummy variables (one for each of the five treatments) on each MTW measure. Table 2 shows the result of regression analyses with robust standard errors testing the effect of each treatment relative to the control group (i.e., with C⁰ as the reference category). Models 1 through 4 show the results, respectively, for ability, benevolence, integrity, and the overall MTW measure.²

Table 2.

Effects of Treatments on Perception of MTW—OLS Regression.

	MTW
	Ability		Benevolence		Integrity		Overall
	1		2		3		4
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
T^goal	.154*	.076	.004	.077	.171*	.076	.126^†	.074
T^commitment	.223**	.077	.126	.077	.330***	.078	.263**	.077
T^{participation}	.009	.083	.252**	.078	.116	.076	.152^†	.079
T^feedback	.042	.079	.327***	.075	.191*	.076	.225**	.077
T^reward	.093	.083	−.081	.080	.126	.079	.048	.080
R ²	.01		.02		.01		.01
F value	2.32**		6.67***		3.18***		2.75**

Note. Robust standard errors. N = 1,829. MTW = managerial trustworthiness; OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2 shows graphical plots of the treatment effects. The x axis denotes coefficient estimates, the y axis the five treatments. The bullets and numerical figures signify the point estimates for each treatment, the horizontal lines 95% confidence bands.

Figure 2.

Plot of effects of treatments on perception of MTW.

For the overall MTW measure, the commitment treatment increases respondents’ perception of MTW by .26 of a standard deviation relative to C⁰. Similarly, the feedback treatment increases respondents’ MTW by .23 of a standard deviation. Moreover, Figure 2 illustrates the relative effects of the treatments. For example, the commitment treatment confidence band is not overlapping with the reward treatment point estimate—suggesting that the commitment treatment has a positive effect relative to the reward treatment (β = .26 − .05 = .21). The Wald test confirms that the two coefficients are statistically distinct (p = .01). Similarly, the feedback treatment yields higher perception of MTW than the reward treatment (β = .18).

For the ability sub-dimension, the goal and commitment treatments have a positive effect on perception of MTW: Relative to C⁰, the goal treatment increases respondents’ trust by .15 of a standard deviation and the commitment treatment by .22 of a standard deviation. In addition, the commitment treatment has a positive effect relative to the participation and feedback treatments (β = .21 and .18, respectively).

For the benevolence sub-dimension, the participation and feedback treatments yield higher MTW relative to C⁰ (β = .25 and .33, respectively). Moreover, the participation treatment has a positive effect relative to the goal and reward treatments (β = .21 and .33, respectively), the feedback treatment a positive effect relative to the goal, commitment, and reward treatments (β = .32, .20, and .41, respectively). Also, the commitment treatment has a positive effect relative to the reward treatment (β = .21).

For the integrity sub-dimension, the goal, commitment, and feedback treatments yield higher MTW relative to C⁰ (β = .17, .33, and .19, respectively). The commitment treatment has a positive effect relative to the participation and reward treatments (β = .21 and .20, respectively).

Results

The empirical findings thus lend support for H2 and H4: The commitment and feedback treatments both have a positive effect on the respondents’ overall perception of MTW. Analyses of the separate MTW sub-dimensions reveal heterogeneous effects: The commitment treatment has a positive effect for the sub-dimensions of ability and integrity, but not for benevolence, while the feedback treatment has a positive effect for only for benevolence and integrity.

The results are mixed in relation to H1 and H3. The estimates for the goal and participation treatments in relation to the overall MTW measure are both positive (as expected), but fall short of being statistically significant at the .05 level (goal: β = .13, p = .088; participation: β = .15, p = .054). However, the goal treatment has a positive effect for the sub-dimensions of ability and integrity, while the participation treatment has a positive effect for benevolence.

We do not find support for H5. The reward treatment does not have a significant effect in relation to any of the four MTW measures.

Manipulation Check

We use two manipulation checks to assess whether the manipulation of the case managers’ internal management activity had the intended effect on the respondents—and to provide evidence for the construct validity of the manipulation (Cozby, 2009). First, the respondents were asked to recall the gender of the case manager at a later stage of the survey. Response options were “male,” “female,” and “do not remember.” The “correct” gender was reported by 98.3% respondents (a response corresponding to the gender of the case manager in the vignette they received). This manipulation check provides evidence that the respondents actually read the case vignette.

Second, the respondents were asked to state the management style best describing the case manager. They had seven response options: “setting clear goals that are feasible, but challenging to achieve,” “communicating clearly and fully following through on commitments,” “ensuring employee participation in decision making,” “providing frequent feedback to employees on their job performance,” “rewarding high-performing employees,” “none of the above,” and “do not remember.” The “correct” management style was reported by 74.9%. We suggest that this result is acceptable as the manipulation check represents a relatively difficult test, not least for the C⁰ respondents. For them, the “correct” response was “none of the above,” but they were more inclined, relative to the treatment respondents, to answer “do not remember” or one of the other five response options.

Importantly, as a robustness test, we reran the model specifications in Table 2 on a sub-sample comprising only the respondents with “correct” responses to both manipulation checks (N = 1,362). This procedure resulted in larger treatment estimates relative to C⁰ and did not change the relative effects between the treatments.

Limitations

This article’s results have a causal interpretation. The experimental design provides results marked by relatively high internal validity, and both the balance and manipulation checks support the robustness of our results. In particular, the experimental groups appear balanced with respect to responses to the GSS items on general trust perceptions. We take this as strong evidence that our findings are not driven by chance differences in general trust; that the observed differences in perception of MTW are an effect of the internal management treatments.

Nevertheless, the article’s design involves a trade-off. Our experimental case vignette describes a public manager, but the sample respondents are not representative of a particular sub-population of public employees. Although this caveat weakens the potential to generalize the article’s findings to real-life public organizations, we emphasize two important points. First, our treatments involve manipulation of a single sentence of text nested in a much longer section of descriptive text. The treatment intensity in our experiment is therefore low. If our findings differ from the MTW effects of internal management in real-life public organizations, such difference is therefore likely to reflect a “downward bias” (toward zero) on our part: If anything, the positive effects of actual internal management on public employees’ MTW are likely larger in magnitude than those that we identify. Moreover, we have tested the robustness of our findings on a sub-sample involving only the respondents who are currently employed in an organization. The findings are qualitatively similar to our main results.

Second, the present study should be seen as an extension, and not replacement, of our current knowledge on MTW determinants. Although extant studies are conducted in real-life public organizations, their use of cross-sectional survey data limits the potential for causal inference. Conversely, our results have a causal interpretation, but our findings are less strong in terms of external validity. On one hand, the fact that we examine the phenomenon of interest among a group of individuals not nested in public organizations is an obvious limitation. However, the phenomenon of interest—how management behavior affects employee perceptions of MTW—is a general phenomenon. The heterogeneity (geographically within the United States, age, race, education, employment sector, occupation, job tenure, etc.) of the respondents and the fact that most have had work experience, provides us reasonable vehicle for examining how leadership behaviors might affect employees’ perceptions of trustworthiness. Despite the limits imposed by our sample, we believe that our study contributes to our knowledge on MTW determinants. Similar to experimental public administration research that draws on student samples for examining questions about the motivation and behavior of public employees (e.g., Anderson & Stritch, 2015; Brewer & Brewer, 2011; Kaufmann & Feeney, 2014; Moynihan, 2006; Pedersen, 2015), we suggest that the article’s contribution in terms of causal identification may balance the limits of the sample.

In addition, our findings should be interpreted in light of the validity threats that are common to survey vignette experiments (see, for example, Belle & Cantarelli, 2014; Pedersen, 2015). In particular, our participants were not exposed to real organizational changes in internal management but were simply asked to engage in a thought experiment. The lack of realism diminishes the extent to which we can generalize our findings to real-life settings, but the research design also decreases the possibility that history and maturation are threats to the study’s internal validity. Future research should triangulate findings using field experimental or quasi-experimental methods. Moreover, our design does not involve a baseline measure of MTW (e.g., pretest measurement would allow for difference-in-differences estimation). Our causal estimates are therefore built on the assumption that participants’ baseline perception of MTW is equally distributed across the six experiment groups. The balance checks (especially those for the three GSS trust items) lend strong support to this assumption, but our findings should be interpreted in the context of this caveat. Note that MTW perception was measured immediately after the case vignette, thus minimizing the risk of bias due to historical changes unrelated to the treatment or maturation of the subject. Similarly, all participants were exposed to the same testing technique and set of MTW items, thus minimizing the concern that our findings are an artifact of differences in testing procedure.

Conclusion

This article shows that two aspects of internal public management activities may have a positive effect on an individual’s perception of MTW: “communicating clearly and fully following through on commitments” and “providing frequent feedback to employees on their job performance.” In addition, our findings suggest that “setting clear work goals that are feasible but somewhat challenging to achieve” and “ensuring employee participation in decision making” may also reflect positively on MTW (at least for some of the MTW sub-dimensions).

Given the caveats that mark our study, we emphasize caution in broad interpretation and generalization of the findings. Rather, the article’s contribution should be seen in the context of the extant research on how internal management activity influences MTW perception in public organizations. In particular, studies suggest that internal management in the form of goal setting (Butler et al., 1999; Conger et al., 2000; Gillespie & Mann, 2004), making credible commitments (Dull, 2009; Favero et al., 2016; Tyler, 2006), ensuring employee participation, and providing performance feedback (Cho & Poister, 2013, 2014; Nyhan, 2000) may have a positive effect on MTW. This article complements these theoretical insights with causal evidence.

The identification of the causal relationships between aspects of internal management and MTW perception is important. Besides expanding our scholarly knowledge on MTW determinants, such identification elaborates on the significance of public management to public service performance and speaks to the following question: What are the aspects of internal management that are especially effective in procuring and cultivating organizational performance? As mentioned, scholars have long theorized that trust in management is related to important productivity-related outcomes (Argyris, 1964; Behn, 1995) and much empirical research finds that MTW matters to employee satisfaction, commitment, motivation, and performance (e.g., Cho & Park, 2011; Cho & Ringquist, 2011; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kramer, 1999; Nyhan, 2000). From this perspective, this article highlights four internal management activities that—via positive effects on MTW perception—may assist the delivery of an effective, efficient, and equitable public service.

Interestingly, the four aspects of internal management that affect MTW perception (fully or partially) all relate to people-centered management approaches that rely more on intrinsic motivation than extrinsic incentives (Favero et al., 2016). The opposite seems to hold for the fifth aspect of internal management, “rewarding high-performing employees,” where we fail to identify any effect on MTW. Our findings thus contribute to studies suggesting that managerial activity directed at an individual’s more intrinsic forms of motivation—relative to managerial activity that focuses more on external control and incentives—may result in positive behavior and performance outcomes (Mikkelsen, 2013; Pedersen, 2015; see also, Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

Our findings enhance the call for more research that examines the determinants of MTW in public organizations (Cho & Poister, 2014). As to internal management and MTW, future research should first and foremost seek to strengthen the external validity of this article’s findings by examining the impact of internal management on MTW using public employee data. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, our design entails that we cannot dismiss that our findings may refer not only to employee MTW, but also, to some extent, to general attitudes toward trust in public management.

Similarly, future research should disentangle the extent to which our findings are unique to public organizations. Research finds that public employees are different to private employees (Buelens & Van den Broeck, 2007; Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2006; Perry & Wise, 1990) and that public and private employees operate in different structural settings (Allison, 1983; Lynn, 1981). Nevertheless, the internal management effects that we observed may not be exclusive to public organizations.

Moreover, future research should extend the scope to other aspects of internal management—and limited empirical research examines the correlates of MTW in relation to the sub-dimensions of the construct (most only use an overall measure). Our findings imply that different aspects of internal management may affect the separate sub-dimensions of MTW differently. Such effect difference may exist for other determinants of MTW perception—and some of the MTW sub-dimensions may matter more to organizational outcomes than others.

Finally, future research should examine the organizational and personal characteristics potentially moderating the effects of internal management on MTW. For example, to what extent does the gender of the manager affect the impact of internal management activity? Do some aspects of internal management have a greater effect on the MTW of male relative to female employees? Addressing questions such as these will help distinguish the organizational settings where particular aspects of internal management may be especially useful for procuring high levels of employee MTW. A full and theory-driven examination of how gender moderates the MTW effects of internal management is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, we conducted additional analyses testing for interaction effects of gender. The results are interesting and encourage further research: Interaction analyses suggest that the gender (name) of the case manager did not result in different effects for any of the five treatments (at p < .1). However, both the “goal setting” and the “employee participation” treatment appear to have a greater positive effect on the MTW perception of the male relative to the female respondents (p = .047 and .053, respectively). These results are in line with behavioral economics research suggesting that men are more responsive to goals than women (Smithers, 2015) and gender research emphasizing that men are more motivated by work autonomy, authority, and influence on decision making than women (Hofstede, 2001).

Research attention to the open questions surrounding the causes and effects of MTW in public organizations may be well worth the effort. In an era when public organizations may be facing more numerous and challenging performance goals and expectations, a greater understanding of the effects and not least determinants of MTW may substantially contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the public services.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Sample Characteristics—Full Sample and by Experiment Groups.

	Full sample	Control (C⁰)	T^goal	T^commitment	T^{participation}	T^feedback	T^reward
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	p > F
Female	.58 (0.49)	.56 (0.50)	.59 (0.49	.59 (0.49)	.56 (0.50)	.56 (0.50)	.60 (0.49)	.84
Race
White	.77 (0.42)	.74 (0.44)	.76 (0.43)	.80 (0.40)	.73 (0.45)	.79 (0.40)	.79 (0.41)	.21
Black	.10 (0.30)	.12 (0.33)	.08 (0.27)	.08 (0.27)	.11 (0.32)	.10 (0.30)	.08 (0.28)	.38
Hispanic	.05 (0.22)	.05 (0.22)	.04 (0.19)	.04 (0.19)	.08 (0.27)	.04 (0.19)	.06 (0.23)	.09
Asian	.04 (0.20)	.05 (0.22)	.07 (0.26)	.04 (0.19)	.04 (0.19)	.04 (0.19)	.04 (0.19)	.29
Other	.04 (0.20)	.04 (0.19)	.05 (0.21)	.05 (0.22)	.04 (0.20)	.03 (0.18)	.03 (0.18)	.84
Age	36.34 (11.94)	36.50 (11.96)	36.82 (11.85)	36.16 (12.16)	35.92 (12.25)	37.18 (12.51)	35.39 (10.74)	.48
Education
Some high school	.01 (0.10)	.01 (0.10)	.01 (0.12)	.01 (0.10)	.00 (0.06)	.01 (0.09)	.01 (0.10)	.84
High school	.09 (0.29)	.10 (0.30)	.06 (0.25)	.10 (0.30)	.07 (0.26)	.10 (0.30)	.11 (0.31)	.39
Some college	.29 (0.45)	.27 (0.44)	.30 (0.46)	.29 (0.45)	.29 (0.46)	.31 (0.46)	.26 (0.44)	.76
Undergraduate	.42 (0.49)	.39 (0.49)	.44 (0.50)	.43 (0.50)	.44 (0.50)	.43 (0.50)	.43 (0.50)	.88
Some graduate	.05 (0.21)	.05 (0.22)	.04 (0.20)	.06 (0.23)	.04 (0.21)	.04 (0.19)	.05 (0.21)	.90
Postgraduate	.14 (0.35)	.18 (0.38)	.14 (0.35)	.12 (0.33)	.14 (0.35)	.12 (0.32)	.15 (0.35)	.28
Employment status
Student	.06 (0.24)	.05 (0.22)	.06 (0.24)	.06 (0.24)	.06 (0.24)	.06 (0.23)	.06 (0.25)	.96
Unemployed	.13 (0.34)	.15 (0.36)	.14 (0.35)	.12 (0.32)	.12 (0.32)	.15 (0.36)	.11 (0.32)	.47
Employed, organization	.64 (0.48)	.66 (0.47)	.62 (0.49)	.63 (0.48)	.66 (0.47)	.62 (0.49)	.66 (0.48)	.70
Employed, self	.14 (0.34)	.11 (0.32)	.15 (0.36)	.16 (0.37)	.11 (0.31)	.14 (0.35)	.15 (0.36)	.31
Other	.03 (0.17)	.02 (0.14)	.03 (0.16)	.03 (0.18)	.05 (0.22)	.03 (0.18)	.01 (0.12)	.13
Mom, education (undergraduate or higher)	.43 (0.49)	.44 (0.50)	.45 (0.50)	.42 (0.49)	.37 (0.48)	.40 (0.49)	.48 (0.49)	.13
Dad, education (undergraduate or higher)	.42 (0.49)	.45 (0.50)	.45 (0.50)	.41 (0.49)	.36 (0.48)	.42 (0.49)	.45 (0.50)	.23
Annual household income
<US$30,000	.28 (0.45)	.29 (0.45)	.27 (0.44)	.25 (0.43)	.28 (0.45)	.28 (0.45)	.32 (0.47)	.52
US$30,000-US$59,999	.36 (0.48)	.34 (0.47)	.39 (0.49)	.37 (0.48)	.34 (0.47)	.37 (0.48)	.34 (0.47)	.68
US$60,000-US$89,000	.19 (0.40)	.18 (0.39)	.18 (0.39)	.23 (0.42)	.20 (0.40)	.17 (0.37)	.21 (0.41)	.44
US$90,000+	.17 (0.37)	.19 (0.39)	.16 (0.37)	.15 (0.36)	.18 (0.39)	.18 (0.38)	.14 (0.34)	.42
GSS1	.48 (0.50)	.49 (0.50)	.47 (0.50)	.46 (0.50)	.49 (0.50)	.45 (0.50)	.50 (0.50)	.68
GSS2	.59 (0.49)	.55 (0.50)	.62 (0.49)	.60 (0.49)	.62 (0.49)	.56 (0.50)	.59 (0.49)	.42
GSS3	.54 (0.50)	.53 (0.50)	.58 (0.50)	.55 (0.50)	.57 (0.50)	.48 (0.50)	.54 (0.50)	.22
Case manager name (female)	.48 (0.50)	.48 (0.50)	.51 (0.50)	.43 (0.50)	.47 (0.50)	.50 (0.50)	.48 (0.50)	.52
MTW
Ability	0 (1)	−.08 (1.00)	.07 (0.86)	.14 (0.94)	−.08 (1.06)	−.04 (1.03)	.01 (1.07)	.04
Benevolence	0 (1)	−.11 (0.93)	−.11 (0.94)	.02 (1.00)	.14 (1.01)	.22 (1.00)	−.19 (1.06)	.00
Integrity	0 (1)	−.15 (0.92)	.02 (0.04)	.18 (1.03)	−.04 (0.98)	.04 (1.04)	−.03 (1.05)	.00
Overall measure	0 (1)	−.14 (0.92)	−.01 (0.88)	.13 (1.00)	.02 (1.04)	.09 (1.06)	−.09 (1.06)	.01
n	1,829	330	271	301	295	336	296

Note. Column “p > F” shows the results of ANOVA tests for differences in means across the six experiment groups. The three GSS items we use are “Trust/167A,” “Trusty/167B,” and “Fair/166.” Bonferroni–Dunn tests for all pairwise constellations of groups yield identical results. MTW = managerial trustworthiness; GSS = General Social Surveys.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Chin-Chang Tsai for his assistance in preparing this manuscript.

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this article was presented at the Public Management Research Association (PMRA) Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 11 to 13, 2015.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Mogens Jin Pedersen is a postdoctoral researcher at SFI—The Danish National Centre for Social Research and Department of Political Science, Aarhus University. His research focuses on work motivation, public management, organizational behavior and theory, and gender and racial biases.

Justin M. Stritch is an assistant professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University and Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Organization Research and Design (CORD). His research focuses on public management, organization behavior and theory, citizen trust and attitudes, and decision-making.

References

Allison

G. T.

(1983). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In Perry

J. L.

Kraemer

K. L.

(Eds.), Public management: Public and private perspectives (pp. 72-92). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Anderson

D. M.

Stritch

J. M.

(2015). Goal clarity, task significance, and performance: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 211-225. doi:10.1093/jopart/muv019

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Arceneaux

(2012). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 271-285.

Argyris

(1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Avellaneda

C. N.

(2013). Mayoral decision-making: Issue salience, decision context, and choice constraint? An experimental study with 120 Latin American mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 631-661.

Battaglio

R. P.

Jr. Condrey

S. E.

(2009). Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 689-707.

Behn

(1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55, 313-324.

Bellé

(2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73, 143-153.

10.

Bellé

(2015). Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: A randomized field experiment. Public Administration Review, 75, 230-241.

11.

Belle

Cantarelli

(2014). Monetary incentives, motivation, and job effort in the public sector: An experimental study with Italian Government Executives. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 99-123.

12.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.

13.

Boyne

G. A.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Walker

R. M.

(Eds.). (2006). Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R.M.

(2006). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 231-52.

15.

Brewer

G. A.

Brewer

G. A.

Jr. (2011). Parsing public/private differences in work motivation and performance: An experimental study. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i347-i362.

16.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 685-712.

17.

Buelens

Van den Broeck

(2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67, 65-74.

18.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.

19.

Butler

J. K.

Jr. Cantrell

R. S.

Flick

R. J.

(1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17, 13-28.

20.

Carnevale

D. G.

(1995). Trustworthy government: Leadership and management strategies for building trust and high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Carnevale

D. G.

Wechsler

(1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Administration & Society, 23, 471-494.

22.

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

(2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160.

23.

Chen

Hsieh

Chen

(2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92, 954-973.

24.

Cho

Y. J.

Lee

J. W.

(2011). Perceived trustworthiness of supervisors, employee satisfaction and cooperation. Public Management Review, 13, 941-965.

25.

Cho

Y. J.

Park

(2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13, 551-573.

26.

Cho

Y. J.

Poister

T. H.

(2013). Human resource management practices and trust in public organizations. Public Management Review, 15, 816-838.

27.

Cho

Y. J.

Poister

T. H.

(2014). Managerial practices, trust in leadership, and performance: Case of the Georgia department of transportation. Public Personnel Management, 43, 179-196.

28.

Cho

Y. J.

Ringquist

E. J.

(2011). Managerial trustworthiness and organizational outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 53-86.

29.

Choi

(2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 603-630.

30.

Choi

(2011). Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 185-204.

31.

Clegg

Unsworth

Epitropaki

Parker

(2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 409-422.

32.

Colquitt

J. A.

LePine

J. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Zapata

C. P.

Rich

B. L.

(2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1-15.

33.

Colquitt

J. A.

Rodell

J. B.

(2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183-1206.

34.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

Menon

S. T.

(2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767.

35.

Cozby

P. C.

(2009). Methods of behavioral research (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

36.

Creed

W. E. D.

Miles

R. E.

(1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Deci

E. L.

Koestner

Ryan

R. M.

(1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

38.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.

39.

Dull

(2009). Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 255-284.

40.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2003). Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematic research integration is the solution. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 851-859.

41.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

42.

Eriksson

Simpson

(2011). Perceptions of unfairness in allocations between multiple recipients. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 225-244.

43.

Favero

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2016). Goals, trust, participation, and feedback: Linking internal management with performance outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 327-343. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu044

44.

Fishbach

Henderson

M. D.

Koo

(2011). Pursuing goals with others: Group identification and motivation resulting from things done versus things left undone. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 140, 520-534.

45.

Gilbert

J. A.

Tang

T. L.

(1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, 321-338.

46.

Gillespie

N. A.

Mann

(2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588-607.

47.

Gould-Williams

Davies

(2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7, 1-24.

48.

Grimmelikhuijsen

S. G.

Meijer

A. J.

(2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 137-157.

49.

Herian

M. N.

Hamm

J. A.

Tomkins

A. J.

Zillig

L. M. P.

(2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 815-840.

50.

Hock

Anderson

Potoski

(2013). Invitation phone calls increase attendance at civic meetings: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration Review, 73, 221-228.

51.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Hood

(1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3-19.

53.

Horton

J. J.

Rand

D. G.

Zeckhauser

R. J.

(2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399-425.

54.

Ingraham

P. W.

Joyce

P. G.

Donahue

A. K.

(2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

55.

Jilke

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Van de Walle

(2016). Responses to decline in marketized public services: An experimental evaluation of choice overload. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 421-432.

56.

Johnson

D. R.

Borden

L. A.

(2012). Participants at your fingertips: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to increase student–faculty collaborative research. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 245-251.

57.

Jung

C. S.

(2014). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 955-981.

58.

Jung

D. I.

Avolio

B. J.

(2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.

59.

Kaufmann

Feeney

M. K.

(2014). Beyond the rules: The effect of outcome favourability on red tape perceptions. Public Administration, 92, 178-191.

60.

Kellough

J. E.

(1993). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13, 45-64.

61.

Kellough

J. E.

Nigro

L. G.

(2002). Pay for performance in Georgia: State government employee perspectives on Georgia Gain after 5 years. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22, 146-166.

62.

Kellough

J. E.

Nigro

L. G.

(2006). Civil service reform in the States: Personnel policy and politics at the subnational level. Albany: State University of New York Press.

63.

Kettl

D. F.

(2005). The global public management revolution (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings.

64.

Kim

Sangmook

. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-261.

65.

Kim

S. H.

Kim

(2016). Social desirability bias in measuring public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 19, 293-319.

66.

Kim

S. H.

Kim

(2017). Ethnic differences in social desirability bias: Effects on the analysis of public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37, 472–491.

67.

Kim

Soonhee

. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 2, 231-241.

68.

Hur

(2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74, 176-187.

69.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

70.

Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

71.

Latham

G. P.

Borgogni

Petitta

(2008). Goal setting and performance in the public sector. International Public Management Journal, 11, 385-403.

72.

Levitt

S. D.

Dubner

S. J.

(2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

73.

Lundin

(2007). Explaining cooperation: How resource interdependence, goal congruence, and trust affect joint actions in policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 651-672.

74.

Lynn

L. E.

(1981). Managing the public’s business. New York, NY: Basic Books.

75.

Lyons

S. T.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

(2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees. Public Administration Review, 66, 605-618.

76.

Marvel

J. D.

(2015). Public opinion and public sector performance: Are individuals’ beliefs about performance evidence-based or the product of anti–public sector bias? International Public Management Journal, 18, 209-227.

77.

Marvel

J. D.

(2016). Unconscious bias in citizens’ evaluations of public sector performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 143-158.

78.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.

79.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

80.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R. M.

(2006). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 357-377.

81.

Mikkelsen

M. F.

(2013, April). Pushing or persuading? Estimating the effect of school principals’ “soft,” “mixed,” and “hard” enforcement actions on student performance. Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the International Research Society for Public Management, Prague, Czech Republic.

82.

Mosher

F. C.

(1967). Government reorganizations: Cases and commentary. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.

83.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2006). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 151-168.

84.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421-439.

85.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39, 803-832.

86.

Nicholson-Crotty

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2004). Public management and organizational performance: The case of law enforcement agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 1-18.

87.

Nyhan

R. C.

(2000). Changing the paradigm trust and its role in public sector organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 87-109.

88.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. Meier

K. J.

(2011). Public management: Organizations, governance, and performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

89.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188.

90.

Park

S. M.

Rainey

H. G.

(2007). Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27, 197-226.

91.

Pedersen

M. J.

(2015). Activating the forces of public service motivation: Evidence from a low-intensity randomized survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 75, 734-746.

92.

Perry

J. L.

(2012). How can we improve our science to generate more usable knowledge for public professionals? Public Administration Review, 72, 479-482.

93.

Perry

J. L.

Engbers

T. A.

Jun

S. Y.

(2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.

94.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

95.

Powell

G. N.

Butterfield

D. A.

Parent

J. D.

(2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177-193.

96.

Rainey

H. G.

(2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

97.

Ross

Irani

Silberman

M. S.

Zaldivar

Tomlinson

(2010). Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In Edwards

Rodden

(Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2863-2872). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

98.

Rotter

J. B.

(1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.

99.

Rubin

E. V.

(2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the department of defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143.

100.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1996, April). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: The role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

101.

Smithers

(2015). Goals, motivation and gender. Economics Letters, 131, 75-77.

102.

Stritch

J. M.

Pedersen

M. J

Taggart

(2016). Following the crowd? Examining the possibilities for using crowdsourced data in public management scholarship. Center for Organization Research and Design Working Paper Series.

103.

Terry

L. D.

(2002). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The administration as conservator (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

104.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

105.

Walker

R. M.

Boyne

G. A.

Brewer

G. A.

(Eds.). (2010). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

106.

Yang

Kassekert

(2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 413-436.

107.

Zaheer

McEvily

Perrone

(1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141-159.