Trust in Organizational Superiors: Systemic and Collective Considerations
Abstract
The social-psychological literature on trust in organizational superiors implies that it is an interpersonal phenomenon, based on the superior’s behaviours and on subordinates’ perceptions of the superior’s behaviours and qualities. The sociological literature, in contrast, implies that trust in a superior is a property of the system in which the superior-subordinate relationship is embedded. In this article, we suggest that trust is both an interpersonal and a collective phenomenon and focus on the linkages between three levels of trust: the system level, the group level, and the individual level. We use a longitudinal quantitative analysis of cadets’ trust in their team commanders and a qualitative analysis of critical incidents of trust building and erosion to develop and support three propositions. First, trust in a superior reflects subordinates’ trust in the system that the superior represents. Second, subordinates employ criteria derived from systemic properties such as collective identities and values to evaluate the trustworthiness of their superior. Third, team processes play a major role in the social construction of trust in a superior and in translating systemic considerations into criteria for evaluating superiors’ trustworthiness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trust is a defining component of leadership.
“having is a defining component of leadership (e.g., Shamir & Lapidot, 2003)”
From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as Shamir & Lapidot, 2003
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 23,433 · see citing works
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship
Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2021) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Self-citationVan Houtte, M., & Van Maele, D. (2012) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811211400706 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Petersen, M. (2013) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.003 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- College of Management, Tel Aviv, Israel,
- Corresponding author
- Shamir, Boas
- Lapidot, Yael
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 463-491
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2087454648
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 15.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- trust in superiors, superior-subordinate relationships, organizational trust, trustworthiness, collective identity, team processes, trust erosion, military cadets
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review