Do different types of organizational trust matter to employees’ commitment? A case study from Oman

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Trust is vital to all positive relationships. This empirical study explores the effect of three facets of organisational trust (trust in supervisors, in co-workers and in the organisation) on employee commitment in Salalah Mills Co. in the food industry in the Sultanate of Oman.

METHODOLOGY:

Data were collected via an online survey sent to all employees working in Salalah Mills Co., Oman. The final sample consisting of 102 responses with a response rate of 54 percent were analysed using multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS:

The findings revealed that two facets of organisational trust (trust in co-workers and trust in supervisors) were found to have a significant positive effect on employee commitment, while trust in the organisation was found to have no significant effect.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Trust in supervisors and trust in co-workers directly affect employee commitment. Therefore, managers should consider promoting both of these forms of trust to enhance employee commitment.

VALUE:

Although previous studies have examined the link between organisational trust and employee commitment, a focus on Oman and the food sector has been particularly rare, so this study offers new insights. The findings will help decision-makers on design strategies and policies to improve employee commitment through trust.

Keywords

Organisational trust employee commitment salalah mills co.food industry sultanate of oman

Moaz Gharib is an Assistant Professor, PhD in Business Administration (2014) from Damascus-University, Syria. His research interest is related to HRM. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-7900

Kamaal Allil is an Assistant Professor, PhD in Business Administration (2010) from Aligarh-Muslim-University, India. His research interest is related to business psychology from an interdisciplinary perspective. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5466-6519

Omar Durrah is an Associate Professor, PhD in Business Administration (2011) from Aleppo-University, Syria. His research interest is related to organizational behaviour. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8923-9450

Mohammed Alsatouf PhD in Business Administration (2016) from Aleppo-University, Syria. His research interest is related to HRM.

1 Introduction

There are many ways in which trust impacts overall organisational functioning [1]. Trust in the workplace has been recognised as a critical antecedent for positive employee performance [2, 3], job satisfaction [4], entrepreneurship and learning orientation [5].

Organisational trust is considered one of the fundamental pillars that help organisations to develop their effectiveness and accomplish their objectives [6]. Many positive job-related attitudes have been recognised as outcomes of trust at work [7], including increased independence, improved collaboration, transparency in sharing information and success in achieving managerial efficiency and organisational goals [8, 9]. Empirical studies on trust among individuals show that trust leads to improved performance, job satisfaction and greater employee commitment [10], and an increase in citizenship behaviours such as sportsmanship, altruism and courtesy.

Consequently, trust serves as an organisational tool that facilitates relationships among co-workers as well as between each worker and the organisation. Employee attitudes related to organisational trust and employee commitment have been important factors for organisational behaviour research [11, 12]. Employee commitment is a well-established concept in the literature and refers to an employee’s attachment to their organisation. In other words, it represents the bond and relationship between an employee and an organisation. Employee commitment is considered one of the most important factors for success in organisations; it has been found to play a significant role in motivating employees to achieve job satisfaction and performance excellence [13].

Social exchange theory emphasises the link between trust in work and job outcomes. Following previous research [4 , 14–16], the current study contends that trust in work is a manifestation of social exchange. In view of social exchange theory, if a trustee (co-worker, supervisor or organisation) is not perceived as trustworthy by the trustor (employee), the trustor will not participate in the social exchange process [17].

An examination of previous literature reveals that there has been limited investigation of how trust may affect commitment in different occupations, industries and cultural contexts, and highlights the need to conduct further empirical research about this relationship since trust may vary considerably between different countries [18]. Although many studies [4 , 20] have shown trust as an important factor of organisational commitment, few studies have examined the link between trust in work as a multi-dimensional factor with employee commitment, specifically in the food industry in Oman. Hence, to address this gap, the present study attempts to examine the effect of three facets of organisational trust (trust in co-workers, trust in supervisors and trust in the organisation) on employee commitment in Salalah Mills Co. (SMC) in the food industry in Oman.

2 Context

Salalah Mills Co. is the largest flour mill company in the Sultanate of Oman and one of the largest flour mills in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. It was established in 1995 as a joint-stock venture with an investment of around US$18 million, and it commenced commercial operation in 1998. With 189 employees, SMC now has a wheat-milling capacity of 450 thousand metric tons annually (SMC, 2020). The company fulfils the requirements of the following certifications: 1) ISO 9001:2008 Quality management system, 2) ISO 22000:2005 Food safety management system, and 3) ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management system (SMC, 2020). Its main products include flour, bran and feed, and its headquarters are located at the Raysut Industrial Area in Dhofar Governorate in the south of Oman. SMC markets its products (e.g. bread/baking flour, mix/wheat bran and feed flour) mainly in Oman and exports to GCC and Africa [21, 22].

3 Literature review

3.1 Organisational trust

Since the mid-1990s, trust has been presented as a pillar for quality interpersonal relationships [1]. Different aspects of organisational trust have received exceptional attention from those interested in regulating the relationship between employees and the companies in which they work. Previous literature has revealed that organisational trust is a requirement for the appropriate operation of an organisation [23] and a crucial element in a positive social process [24]. Organisational trust between individuals has been emphasised as a vital component for achieving and maintaining long-term organisational stability and employee welfare [25, 26].

Organisational trust has been defined as referring to employees’ matching status with their organisation and their willingness to build long-standing relationships with the organisation [27], to the positive expectations an individual has from an organisation and its members [28], and to an individual’s (or a group’s) belief that the organisation will make every effort, whether implied or explicit, to work according to its commitments [29].

Organisational trust is not unidimensional; rather, it is a multi-faceted phenomenon [8, 30]. It can be divided primarily into interpersonal [8, 31] and impersonal [32] dimensions. Interpersonal trust refers to the trust of employees in their co-workers and immediate supervisors [23]. Overall, the three key facets of trust within the workplace are trust in co-workers, trust in supervisors and trust in the organisation [33, 34].

Trust in Supervisors: Trust in supervisors refers to the positive and confident expectations of subordinates in relation to their immediate supervisors in their work [35]; in other words, the degree to which employees trust their supervisors after evaluating their actions and behaviours.

Trust in Co-workers: This refers to mutual co-operative relations and positive attitudes among employees in terms of interdependence, communication and information sharing. This relationship has become very important because of the tendency of organisations to operate based on teams and workgroups representing integrated skills. Trust in co-workers refers to the degree to which employees trust their co-workers after evaluating their performance [36].

Trust in the Organisation: In the literature, trust in the organisation is called institutional trust [e.g. 31], system trust [e.g. 37] or impersonal trust [e.g. 38]. Trust in the organisation refers to an employee’s confidence in the organisational policies and processes that affect them and to their beliefs that the strategies and operations of the organisation are fair, derived from their perceptions of procedural and distributive justice [39]. It also refers to the degree to which an employee trusts the organisation after an overall assessment of the employer’s system and structures [33, 40], comprising trust in organisational goals, organisational structure, human resources policies, company reputation and organisational technology [41].

3.2 Employee commitment

Organisational commitment is the bond that links employees to the organisation [42, 43] and helps the organisation to succeed [44]. It can be considered as the desire or intention of employees to be a part of the organisation [45] or the degree to which an employee feels linked to their company and has some level of loyalty towards it [46, 47] (i.e. their psychological and moral attachment to their organisation [48, 49] and the relative strength of their identification with a specific organisation [50]).

There are three major types of organisational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative commitments [51]. Affective commitment refers to employees who tend to stay with their organisation because its values and goals fit well with their views. Continuance commitment refers to employees who tend to hold their membership with the organisation as the economic and social costs of leaving would be too high and there is no better option available to them. Normative commitment refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to maintain their membership with the organisation [51].

Commitment has been found to determine the work behaviour of employees [52] and affect many organisational outcomes [53]. It has been shown to have a significant positive influence on job performance [54], employee satisfaction [55], entrepreneurship and learning orientation [5], organisational identification [56], service performance [57] and reducing employee turnover [58, 59],

In the literature, different personal and organisational factors have been found to determine the commitment of employees. Previous researchers have indicated that the antecedents of organisational commitment include both intrinsic and extrinsic factors [60], including job characteristics, personal characteristics, group–leader relations and organisational characteristics [61]. Examples of factors that influence organisational commitment include individual differences, demographic variables and work experiences [62], organisational trust [60, 63], job satisfaction [64] (as impacted by clarity of purpose, feedback and recognition, equity and fairness, empowerment and autonomy, and interesting work [44]), leadership behaviours and styles [65 –67], employees’ competence and workload [57], organisational cynicism, psychological empowerment and emotional intelligence [68].

3.3 Organisational trust and employee commitment

Previous researchers have revealed a significant positive correlation between organisational trust and commitment [69, 70] and found that organisational trust is an antecedent of organisational commitment [e.g. 18, 19, 33, 63, 71–75]. This is likely because organisational trust supports the most substantial factors that affect organisational commitment [76].

3.3.1 Trust in co-workers and in supervisors and commitment

Trust in co-workers and supervisors (interpersonal trust) has been shown to have a positive correlation with affective organisational commitment [77]. Trust in individuals and creating a trusting climate leads to a high level of commitment and performance improvement [78] and has a significant influence on other job-related attitudes of employees.

According to the leader–member exchange theory [79], trust is the most important element of building a high-quality interpersonal relationship between leaders and members. Trust between a team leader and a team member will lead to several positive outcomes, including improving overall commitment [80]. A study investigating how leader–member exchange influences work-related attitudes and behaviours in different cultures found that there is a cultural difference between Western and Asian organisations, with leader–member exchange and leader trust being stronger in Western culture than in Asian culture [81]. However, there is no cultural difference in the relationship between leader–member exchange and organisational commitment, specifically affective and normative commitments. Trust in leaders has shown significant positive effect on organisational commitment (82). Trust in supervisors has been shown to positively affect emotional and normative commitment, while trust in co-workers and organisation positively influences normative commitment [83]. Trust in co-workers has also been positively linked to the affective commitment of employees [84].

3.3.2 Trust in organisation and commitment

Previous studies have shown that impersonal trust is positively related to organisational commitment [4, 34]. Organisational trust enables a positive emotional exchange between and organisation and its employees [33]; thus, trust in the organisation varies directly in line with organisational commitment [85].

Previous studies have tended to focus on just one aspect of trust or commitment at a time. Few studies have examined the influence of both interpersonal trust (in supervisors and co-workers) and impersonal trust (in the organisation) on organisational commitment [e.g. 18, 33, 34]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed based on the literature review (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1

Proposed theoretical model.

H₁: Trust in supervisors has a significant effect on employee commitment.

H₂: Trust in co-workers has a significant effect on employee commitment.

H₃: Trust in the organisation has a significant effect on employee commitment.

4 Methodology and analysis

The present study seeks to investigate the impact of three facets of organisational trust on employee commitment in the food industry in the Sultanate of Oman, specifically in SMC, which is one of the largest firms in this industry. In this study, a single case study approach was utilised. Salalah Mills Co was selected and viewed as a valid representation of the food industry in Oman for the exploratory survey in this study for one main reason: Salalah Mills Co. is the largest flour mill company in the Sultanate of Oman and one of the largest flour mills in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries [21, 22]. Following the quantitative approach, data were collected via an online survey. To test the hypothesis, the data were examined by multiple regression analysis using the SPSS statistical analysis program.

4.1 Respondents

The population of the present study comprised all employees working in Salalah Mills Co. (n = 189). After giving consent, employees within various sections from different job levels and functions (administration, finance, marketing, human resource, IT, safety, warehousing and logistic, purchasing, quality, mechanical, and production sections) were invited to participate in the online survey via a link that was emailed to them.

A final sample of 102 employees (54% of the population) responded to the email with the survey link was analyzed. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics (gender, age, education level and years of experience in the industry) of the respondents. More than three-quarters of the sample respondents (76.5%) were male, and 42% of the sample were in the under-35 age group, 42% were in the 35–50 age group, and 20% were above 50 age group. The majority of the respondents (around 59%) had bachelor and postgraduate degrees, and 60.8% of them had more than five years’ experience.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Variables Categories Number Percentage

Gender Male 78 76.5

Female 24 23.5

Age Under 35 years 42 41.1

From 35 to 50 years 40 39.2

More than 50 years 20 19.7

Education Level Diploma and less 42 41.2

Bachelor 39 38.2

Postgraduate 21 20.6

Experience Under 5 years 41 40.2

From 5 to 10 years 29 28.4

Above 10 years 32 31.4

Total 102 100%

Variables	Categories	Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	78	76.5
	Female	24	23.5
Age	Under 35 years	42	41.1
	From 35 to 50 years	40	39.2
	More than 50 years	20	19.7
Education Level	Diploma and less	42	41.2
	Bachelor	39	38.2
	Postgraduate	21	20.6
Experience	Under 5 years	41	40.2
	From 5 to 10 years	29	28.4
	Above 10 years	32	31.4
	Total	102	100%

4.2 Measures

Organisational trust was assessed by a scale of 12 items, based on Sanders et al. [86], using four-item sub-scales to measure trust in supervisors, in co-workers and in the employer. Employee commitment was measured by a nine-item scale based on Commeiras and Fournier [87]. Responses to these items were made on a five-point Likert format ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. As the respondents spoke Arabic as their native language, the original English-language version of the questionnaire was translated into Arabic using a back-translation method. To ensure face validity, the questionnaire was assessed and moderated by three professors specialising in management and organisational behaviour fields.

4.3 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, reliability, correlation and are presented in Table 2. Means of organizational trust dimensions are at average levels, the highest one was trust in supervisors ( $\bar{x}$ = 3. 365, and σ= 1.058), followed by trust in co-workers ( $\bar{x}$ = 3. 125, and σ= 1.1081), then trust in organization ( $\bar{x}$ = 3.037, and σ= 1.116), while employees’ commitment mean was at a high level ( $\bar{x}$ = 4.165, and σ= 8705).

Table 2
Items No., Means, St. D., Cronbach’s α, and Correlation

Study Variables Items no. Mean St. D. 1 2 3 4

Trust in supervisors 4 3.365 1.058 (0.851)

Trust in co-workers 4 3.125 1.081 0.399^ (0.874)

Trust in organization 4 3.037 1.116 0.419^ 0.367^ (0.791)

Employee commitment 9 4.165 0.8705 0.468^ 0.409^** 0.164 (0.886)

Study Variables	Items no.	Mean	St. D.	1	2	3	4
Trust in supervisors	4	3.365	1.058	(0.851)
Trust in co-workers	4	3.125	1.081	0.399^**	(0.874)
Trust in organization	4	3.037	1.116	0.419^**	0.367^**	(0.791)
Employee commitment	9	4.165	0.8705	0.468^**	0.409^**	0.164	(0.886)

^**p < 0.01

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) for variables of the study are shown in Table 2. The results showed that the scale utilized in the current study is reliable because the values were within the acceptable range, which is above (0.60) according to Hair et al. [88], as trust in supervisors has α= 0.851%, trust in co-workers has α= 0.874%, trust in organization has α= 0.791%, and employees’ commitment has α= 0.886%.

Correlations between study variables, the findings in Table 2 indicate there is a positive and significant relationship between each of the two variables at a significance level (0.01) in the present study except the trust in organization and employee commitment.

Multi-collinearity between independent variables (Table 3) showed that the condition has been achieved, where the values of tolerance more than 0.05 and the values of variance inflation factors less than 10 for each variable [89].

Table 3

Multi-Collinearity Test of Independent Variables

Independent Variables	Trust in supervisors	Trust in co-workers	Trust in organization
Tolerance (T > 0.05)	0.816	0.739	0.778
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF < 10)	1.234	1.421	1.362

4.4 Multiple regression analysis

Multiple regression analysis examined the impact of three facets of organizational trust (i.e. trust in supervisors, trust in co-workers, and trust in organization) and employees’ commitment. The results (Table 4) show that only two facets of organizational Trust (Trust in supervisors and trust in co-workers) appear to have a significant effect on employees’ commitment (ß₁ = 0.328; T₁ = 4.02, P < 0.001, ß₂ = 0.233; T₂ = 2.99, P < 0.05), respectively; therefore, the first and second hypotheses were accepted. However, trust in organization was found to have no effect on employees’ commitment (ß= –0.078; T₃ = –1.119, P > 0.05); therefore, the third hypothesis was not supported. The model is significantly valid at level (0.001) as F = 12.89 and it has an explanatory power up to 31.7%.

Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis of Organizational Trust with Employee Commitment

Independent Variables ß T R R² F

Trust in supervisors 0.328 4.02^* 0.563 0.317 12.89^*

Trust in co-workers 0.233 2.99^*

Trust in organization –0.078 –1.11

Independent Variables	ß	T	R	R²	F
Trust in supervisors	0.328	4.02^***	0.563	0.317	12.89^***
Trust in co-workers	0.233	2.99^*
Trust in organization	–0.078	–1.11

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001, n = 102.

Table 5 and Fig. 2 show the results of hypotheses testing, where H₁ and H₂ were accepted, while H₃ was rejected.

Table 5

Hypotheses Testing Results

H	Hypotheses statements	Direct Effect	Results
H₁:	Trust in supervisors (TS) has a significant effect on employees’ commitment (EC).	TS → EC	Supported
H₂:	Trust in co-workers (TC) has a significant effect on employees’ commitment (EC).	TC → EC	Supported
H₃:	Trust in organization (TO) has a significant effect on employees’ commitment (EC).	TO → EC	Not Supported

Fig. 2

Tested Model.

5 Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of three facets of organisational trust –trust in co-workers, trust in supervisors and trust in the organisation –on employee commitment. The findings revealed that the effect of trust on employee commitment varied by the type of trust. Trust in co-workers and in supervisors (interpersonal trusts) were found to have a significant positive effect on an employee’s commitment, whereas there was no significant effect of the employee’s trust in the organisation (impersonal trust) on employee commitment.

The results related to the first hypothesis showed that trust in supervisors has positive effects on employee commitment. These results are in accordance with previous studies [e.g. 33, 50, 71, 75, 85]. This finding is also in accordance with the social exchange theory perspective: when employees feel more trust in supervisors, they will be more likely to be engaged in commitment. In addition, trust in supervisors was found to have a larger influence on employee commitment than trust in co-workers. Therefore, to enhance employee commitment, the organisation needs to move in a direction which leads to an increase in trust in supervisors. This adds further significance to the responsibilities of supervisors in terms of achieving higher levels of employee commitment.

Regarding the results related to the second hypothesis, trust in co-workers has positive effects on employee commitment. These results are in accordance with previous studies [e.g. 33, 50, 71, 75] and with the social exchange theory perspective: when employees feel more trust in co-workers, they will be more likely to engage in commitment. When employees are trusted and feel trust, they will be more likely to engage in more positive behaviours and be more beneficial to their organisation [4 , 91]. Therefore, high levels of trust among co-workers encourage employees to demonstrate highercommitment.

Finally, the results related to the third hypothesis showed that trust in the organisation does not have a significant effect on employee commitment. This finding is contrary to results reported by previous studies [e.g. 18, 33, 34, 85, 92, 93]. This could be explained from two perspectives. One explanation is the methodological approach; in the correlation analysis, trust in organisation was revealed to have the lowest correlation coefficient with commitment compared to other variables. Another explanation could be the theoretical approach. The first factor here is the context of the organisation. The link between trust in the organisation and employee commitment can vary based on the type, location and system of the facility [9], which are likely to determine which type of trust has a significant influence on employee commitment. The second factor is the work environment; it has been shown that a negative work environment can reduce employee commitment [94, 95]. Perceptions of organisational injustice can also affect both trust in the organisation [3, 96] and commitment[73, 97].

Our findings indicate that the level of organisational trust is strengthened by positive human interpersonal relationships rather than through impersonal relationships with the institutional system.

6 Theoretical implications

This study has examined the impact of three facets of organisational trust on employee commitment to SMC. Trust in both co-workers and supervisors was found to positively affect employee commitment. This work has many theoretical implications: it contributes to the literature of organisational behaviours in general, and to the fields of organisational trust and employee commitment, specifically. It also extends prior studies that have examined the link between organisational trust and employee commitment [e.g. 9, 18, 73, 91] by investigating the food industry sector in Oman.

This study contributes further by differentiating between co-worker trust, supervisor trust and organisational trust. It highlights that interpersonal trust can strengthen employee commitment, and thus, from a theoretical viewpoint, interpersonal trust should be taken into account when examining and looking to increase employee commitment.

This research suggests that trust in the organisation does not affect employee commitment, which, in turn, indicates that trust should be explored in two dimensions (interpersonal and organisational).

This study also adds to the current literature by providing a thorough understanding of workers employed in the food sector in Oman.

7 Practical implications

This study is important for practitioners and mana-gers who are seeking to strengthen employee commitment. The findings show that workers who trust their co-workers and supervisors may have a stronger bond with their entire organisation than workers who distrust their co-workers and supervisors.

To create and enhance trust in supervisors, super-visors need to provide sufficient work-related assis-tance [14, 74] and to engage in quality communication with their subordinates by sharing information in a timely and accurate manner through formal and informal means [74]. Supervisor trust can also be supported by enhancing supervisory interpersonal and informational justice [14], which can be strengthened by providing subordinates with adequate explanations of various work-related decisions [98]. Supervisors also need to avoid being abusive and displaying hostile behaviour [74]. The organisation’s management must provide a friendly atmosphere that is characterised by openness, clarity and transparency between supervisors and subordinates as well as an appropriate psychological climate for work in the company.

To support trust among co-workers, organisations need to enhance communication quality by sharing organisation-relevant information in an accurate and timely manner and allowing for sharing concerns and solving problems through formal and informal means [74, 99]. Co-worker trust can also be supported by avoiding ignoring or excluding others in the workplace or engaging in Conflict during social interaction at work [74]. Hence, it is important to develop strategic and managerial practices (e.g. justice and communication) to create and maintain a work environment that motivates co-workers to support each other. Such measures could boost employee trust and, in turn, employee commitment.

Thus, to enhance employee commitment, managers need to emphasise the dimensions of trust among co-workers and trust between subordinates and supervisors in their organisational policies and strategies.

8 Limitations and directions for future research

Despite the important results of this work, some limitations of the current study could present opportunities for other aspects to be addressed in future research. First, the study is limited to two variables –organisational trust and employee commitment–so future studies may examine the relationship or impact of organisational trust on employee morale, performance, loyalty and job satisfaction. Second, this study addresses a behavioural phenomenon using only a quantitative approach. Future researchers may try to follow a triangulation strategy by applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches (such as ethnographic methods) to shed more light on the relationship involving trust and commitment. Third, this study is restricted to the food industry, so researchers could study other sectors such as banking, education and hospitality. Fourth, this study has examined organisational commitment as a single factor, and future studies could also expand the scope by analysing it as a multi-dimensional concept. Finally, the sample was selected from only one company in Oman. Future studies may cover several organisations in the GCC countries. However, despite those limitations, the findings of the current study contribute significantly to the literature on the relationship between employee commitment and organisational trust.

9 Conclusion

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of organisational trust on employee commitment in the context of the Sultanate of Oman –specifically, Salalah Mills Co. To test the proposed hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was applied. The results of the study indicate that trust in supervisors and trust in co-workers have a significant direct positive influence on employee commitment. However, they do not support the effect of trust in the organisation on employee commitment. The current study extends the literature regarding employee commitment by providing evidence from Oman that interpersonal trust (trust in supervisors and in co-workers) and impersonal/system trust (trust in the organisation) are related but distinct and have different outcomes, specifically in terms of commitment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Researchers would like to express gratitude to Salalah Mills Co. and the journal editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Moaz Gharib and Kamaal Allil

METHODOLOGY: Omar Durrah, Moaz Gharib and Kamaal Allil

DATA COLLECTION: Moaz Gharib

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Omar Durrah

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Moaz Gharib, Kamaal Allil, Omar Durah and Mohammed Alsatouf

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: Kamaal Allil and Mohammed Alsatouf

SUPERVISION: Moaz Gharib

References

Tan

, Lim

. Trust in co-workers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology. 2009;143(1):45–66.

Barney

, Wright

. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration. The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management. 1998;37(1):31–46.

Fiaz

, Rasool

, Ikram

, Rehman

. Organizational justice and employees’ performance: A study of an emerging economy. Human SystemsManagement. 2021;40(3):395-406.

Aryee

, Budhwar

, Chen

. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002;3(23):267–85.

Mabula

, Dongping

, Chivundu-Ngulube

. SME manager’s perceived cooperative support, commitment and trust on learning and entrepreneurship orientation for firm innovation. Human Systems Management. 2020;39(2):233–50.

Fard

, Ghatari

, Hasiri

. Employees morale in public sector: Is organizational trust an important factor. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2010;46(3):378–90.

Dirks

, Ferrin

. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization science. 2001;12(4):450–67.

Mayer

, Davis

, Schoorman

. An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Journal. 1995;20(3):709–34.

Schoorman

, Mayer

, Davis

. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review. 2007;22(2):344–354.

10.

Dirks

, Ferrin

. Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;87(4):611–9.

11.

Thompson

, Phua

. A brief index of affective job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management.. 2012;37(3):275–307.

12.

Wang

, Lee

. Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: An analysis of interactive effects. Group & Organization Management. 2007;34(3):271–96.

13.

Carmeli

, Freund

. Work commitment, job satisfaction and job performance: An empirical investigation. Intl. J. of Org. Theory and Behavior. 2004;7(2):289–303.

14.

Akram

, Kamran

, Iqbal

, Habibah

, Ishaq

. The impact of supervisory justice and perceived Supervisor support on organizational citizenship behavior and commitment to supervisor: the mediating role of trust. Cogent Business & Management. 2018;5(1):1493902.

15.

Karatepe

, Ozturk

, Kim

. Servant leadership, organisational trust, and bank employee outcomes. The Service Industries Journal. 2018;39(2):86–108.

16.

Konovsky

, Pugh

. Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. Academy of Management Journal.. 1994;37(3):656–69.

17.

Blau

. Exchange and power in social life. Routledge; 2017.

18.

Vanhala

, Heilmann

, Salminen

. Organizational trust dimensions as antecedents of organizational commitment”, Knowledge and Process Management. 2016;23(1):46–61.

19.

Bijlsma

, Koopman

. Introduction: trust within organizations. Personnel Review. 2003;32(5):543–55.

20.

Pesämaa

, Pieper

, Da Silva

, Black

, Hair

Jr . Trust and reciprocity in building inter-personal and interorganizational commitment in small business co-operatives. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management. 2013;1(2):81–92.

21.

Financial Times. “Salalah Mills Co SAOG, SFMI: MUS profile - FT.com. Markets.ft.com, available at: https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=FMI:MUS 2020 (accessed 13 January 2020),

22.

Salalah Mills Co. Profile, Mission andVision. Salalah Mills, available at: http://salalah-mills.com/company-profile/ (accessed 13 January 2020). 2020.

23.

Gulati

, Nickerson

. Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science. 2008;19(5):688–708.

24.

Zhang

, Tsui

, Song

, Li

, Jia

. How do I trust thee? The employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization”, Human Resource Management. 2008;47(1):111–32.

25.

Cook

, Wall

. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1980;53(1):39–52.

26.

Guinot

, Chiva

, Mallén

. Organizational trust and performance: Is organizational learning capability a missing link? Journal of Management and Organization. 2013;19(5):559–82.

27.

, Mai

, Tsai

, Dai

. An Empirical study on the organizational trust, employee-organization relationship and innovative behavior from the integrated perspective of social exchange and organizational sustainability”, Sustainability. 2018;10(864):1–14.

28.

Ellonen

, Blomqvist

, Puumalainen

. The role of trust in organizational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2008;11(2):160–81.

29.

Gider

, Akdere

, Top

. Organizational trust, employee commitment and job satisfaction in Turkish hospitals: implications for public policy and health. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2019;25(9):622–9.

30.

Dietz

, Den Hartog

. Measuring Trust Inside Organisations. Personnel Review. 2006;35(5):557–88.

31.

Costigan

, Liter

, Berman

. A multi–dimensional study of trust in organisations. Journal of Managerial Issues. 1998;10(3):303–17.

32.

Vanhala

. Trust as an organizational knowledge sharing enabler –validation of the impersonal trust scale. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2019;50(2):349–68.

33.

Chen

, Wu

, Chang

, Lin

, Kung

, Weng

, Lin

, Lee

. Organizational justice, trust, and identification and their effects on organizational commitment in hospital nursing staff. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15(1):1–17.

34.

Tan

, Tan

. TToward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 2000;126(2):241–60.

35.

Pillai

, Schriesheim

, Williams

. Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of management. 1999;25(6):897–933.

36.

Rego

, Cunha

. How individualism–collectivism orientations predict happiness in a collectivistic context. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2009;10(1):19–35.

37.

Bussing

. Trust and its relations to commitment and involvement in work and organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 2002;28(4):36–42.

38.

Ahteela

, Blomqvist

, Puumalainen

, Jantunen

. HRM practices, innovativeness and performance: the mediating role of organisational trust. International Journal of Strategic Change Management. 2010;2(2-3):241–61.

39.

Porumbescu

, Jungho

, Oomsels

. Building trust: communication and subordinate trust in public organizations. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences. 2013;9(38):158–79.

40.

McKnight

, Cummings

, Chervany

. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management review. 1998;23(3):473–90.

41.

Vanhala

, Puumalainen

, Blomqvist

. Impersonal trust. Personnel Review. 2011;40(4):485–513.

42.

Chang

, Liao

, Lee

, Lo

. Organizational commitment, knowledge sharing and organizational citizen-ship behavior: the case of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2015;13(3):299–310.

43.

Meyer

, Allen

. Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application. Sage; 1997.

44.

Fornes

, Rocco

, Wollard

. Workplace commitment: A conceptual model developed from integrative review of the research. Human resource development review. 2008;7(3):339–57.

45.

Colquitt

, LePine

, Wesson

. Organizational behavior: Improving behavior and commitment in the workplace. McGraw-Hill; 2009.

46.

Freund

. Commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of turnover intentions among welfare workers. Administration in social work. 2005;29(2):5–21.

47.

Joiner

, Bakalis

. The antecedents of organizational commitment: the case of Australian casual academics. International Journal of Educational Management.. 2006;20(6):439–52.

48.

Lambert

. The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice,. 2003;31(2):155–68.

49.

Mensah

, Asiamah

, Mireku

. The effect of organizational justice delivery on organizational commitment: Controlling for key confounding variables. Journal of Global Responsibility. 2016;7(2):196–209.

50.

Helmiati

, Abdillah

, Anita

, Nofianti

, Zakaria

. Organizational trust and organizational silence: the factors Predicting organizational commitment. International Journal of Engineering & Technology. 2018;8(1.8):142–8.

51.

Allen

, Meyer

. Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of management journal. 1990;33(4):847–58.

52.

Meyer

, Herscovitch

. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human resource management review. 2001;11(3):299–326.

53.

Cater

, Zabkar

. Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: The client’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management.. 2009;38(7):785–97.

54.

Chen

, Silverthorne

, Hung

. Organization communication, job stress, organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America. Leadership & organization Development journal. 2006;27(4):242–9.

55.

Chughtai

, Zafar

. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among Pakistani university teachers. Applied HRM research. 2006;11(1):39–64.

56.

Zuhaira

, Ye-Zhuang

, Azeez

. Corporate commitment, identification, ethical leadership and social responsibility. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(3):345–52.

57.

Wulandari

. Employee commitment and service performance. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(4):381–6.

58.

Imran

, Allil

, Mahmoud

. Teacher’s turnover intentions: Examining the impact of motivation and organizational commitment. International Journal of Educational Management. 2017;31(6):828–42.

59.

Powell

, Meyer

. Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior. 2004;65(1):157–77.

60.

Abid

, Contreras

, Ahmed

, Qazi

. Contextual factors and organizational commitment: examining the mediating role of thriving at work. Sustainability. 2019;11:4686.

61.

Mathieu

, Zajac

. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin. 1990;108(2):171.

62.

Meyer

, Stanley

, Herscovitch

, Topolnytsky

. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior.. 2002;61(1):20–52.

63.

Lambert

, Keena

, Haynes

, Ricciardelli

, May

, Leone

. The Issue of Trust in Shaping the Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of Southern Correctional Staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2020;3(4):37–64.

64.

Khan

, Masrek

, Nadzar

. Analysis of competencies, job satisfaction and organizational commitment as indicators of job performance: A conceptual framework. Education for Information. 2015;31(3):125–41.

65.

Abasilim

, Gberevbie

, Osibanjo

. Leadership styles and employees’ commitment: Empirical evidence from Nigeria. SAGE Open. 2019;9(3):1–15.

66.

Lok

, Crawford

. The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Journal of Management Development. . 2004;32(4):321–38.

67.

Yiing

, Ahmad

. The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2009;30(1):53–86.

68.

Durrani

, Xiang Yang

, Dilawar

, Khurshid

. Moderated relations among empowerment, cynicism and commitment. Human Systems Management.. 2017;36(3):229–39.

69.

Alijanpou

, Dousti

, Alijanpour

. The relationship between organizational commitment and organizational trust of staff. Annals of Applied Sport Science.. 2013;1(4):45–52.

70.

Celep

, Yilmazturk

. The relationship among organizational trust, multidimensional organizational commitment and perceived organizational support in educational organizations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;46(WCES):5763–76.

71.

Fard

, Karimi

. The Relationship between Organizational Trust and Organizational Silence with Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of the Employees of University. International Education Studies.. 2015;8(11):219–27.

72.

Khorshid

, Yazdani

. The studying of relationships among trust, reciprocity and organizational identification with considering the moderated effect of organizational commitment. Transformation Management Journal. 2012;4(7):62–90.

73.

Lashari

, Moazzam

, Salman

, Irfan

. Impact of organizational trust on organizational justice and organizational commitment: a case of university of Sargodha. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. 2016;53(2):170–94.

74.

Loes

, Tobin

. Organizational Trust, Psychological Empowerment, and Organizational Commitment Among Licensed Practical Nurses. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2020;44(2):179–87.

75.

Martins

, de Faria

, Prearo

, Arruda

. The level of influence of trust, commitment, cooperation, and power in the Interorganizational relationships of Brazilian credit cooperatives, Revista de Administração. 2017;52(1):47–58.

76.

Dursun

. The relation between organizational trust, organizational support and organizational commitment. African Journal of Business Management. 2015;9(4):134–156.

77.

Nyhan

. Increasing affective organizational commitment in public organizations: The key role of interpersonal trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration.. 1999;19(3):58–70.

78.

Bakiev

. The influence of interpersonal trust and organizational commitment on perceived organizational performance. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research. 2013;3(3):166–80.

79.

Dansereau

Jr , Graen

, Haga

. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. . 1975;13(1):46–78.

80.

Dulebohn

, Bommer

, Liden

, Brouer

, Ferris

. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Management. . 2011;38(6):1715–59.

81.

Rockstuhl

, Dulebohn

, Ang

, Shore

. Leader–member exchange(LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. . Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012;97(6):1097–130.

82.

Abdillah

, Anita

, Zakaria

. Trust in leaders and employee silence behaviour: Evidence from higher education institutions in Indonesia. Human Systems Management. 2020; prepress (Prepress):1-14.

83.

Baştug

, Pala

, Kumartaşli

, Günel

, Duyan

. Investigation of the relationship between organizational trust and organizational commitment. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2016;4(6):1418–25.

84.

Ferres

, Connell

, Travaglione

. Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2004;19(6):608–22.

85.

Liou

. Understanding employee commitment in the public organization: a study of the juvenile detention center. International Journal of Public Administration.. 1995;18(8):1269–95.

86.

Sanders

, Schyns

, Dietz

, Den Hartog

. Measuring Trust Inside Organisations. Personnel Review.. 2006;35(5):557–88.

87.

Commeiras

, Fournier

. Critical evaluation of Porter et al. ’s organizational commitment questionnaire: Implications for researchers. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 2001;21(3):239–45.

88.

Hair

, Black

, Babin

, Anderson

, Tatham

. Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.

89.

Graham

. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology. 2003;84(11):2809–15.

90.

Ekvall

, Ryhammar

. The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a Swedish university. Creativity research journal. 1999;12(4):303–10.

91.

Lewicki

, Tomlinson

, Gillespie

. Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of management. 2006;32(6):991–1022.

92.

Koo

, Kim

. The relationship between transformational leadership of environmental NGO leader and trust and organizational commitment. Global Business & Finance Review (GBFR). 2017;22(1):23–37.

93.

Lewicka

. Employee Institutional Trust as an Antecedent of Diverse Dimensions of Organisational Commitment. Argumenta Oeconomica. 2020;1(44):321–40.

94.

Umamaheswari

, Krishnan

. Work force retention: Role of work environment, organization commitment, supervisor support and training & development in ceramic sanitary ware industries in India. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM). 2016;9(3):612–33.

95.

Vanaki

, Vagharseyyedin

. Organizational commitment, work environment conditions, and life satisfaction among Iranian nurses. Nursing & health sciences.. 2009;11(4):404–9.

96.

Safari

, Barzoki

, Aqagoli

. Exploring the antecedents and consequences of impersonal trust. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.. 2020;28(6):1149–73.

97.

Pimentel

, Pires

, Almeida

. Perceptions of organizational justice and commitment of non-family employees in family and non-family firms. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. 2020;23(2):141–54.

98.

Greenberg

. Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1993;54(1):81–103.

99.

Nelson

, Hegtvedt

, Haardörfer

, Hayward

. Trust and respect at work: Justice antecedents and the role of coworker dynamics. Work and Occupations.. 2019;46(3):307–38.

Do different types of organizational trust matter to employees’ commitment? A case study from Oman

Abstract

PURPOSE:

METHODOLOGY:

RESULTS:

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:

VALUE:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Literature review

3.1 Organisational trust

3.2 Employee commitment

3.3 Organisational trust and employee commitment

3.3.1 Trust in co-workers and in supervisors and commitment

3.3.2 Trust in organisation and commitment

4.1 Respondents

4.3 Descriptive statistics

Table 4 Multiple Regression Analysis of Organizational Trust with Employee Commitment Independent Variables ß T R R2 F Trust in supervisors 0.328 4.02*** 0.563 0.317 12.89*** Trust in co-workers 0.233 2.99* Trust in organization –0.078 –1.11

6 Theoretical implications

7 Practical implications

8 Limitations and directions for future research

9 Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Author contributions

References

Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis of Organizational Trust with Employee Commitment

Independent Variables ß T R R² F

Trust in supervisors 0.328 4.02^* 0.563 0.317 12.89^*

Trust in co-workers 0.233 2.99^*

Trust in organization –0.078 –1.11