The Relationship Between Organizational Trust and Job Satisfaction:

An Analysis in the U.S. Federal Work Force

by

Phuong L. Callaway

DISSERTATION.COM

Boca Raton
The Relationship Between Organizational Trust and Job Satisfaction:
An Analysis in the U.S. Federal Work Force

Copyright © 2006 Phuong L. Callaway

All rights reserved.

Dissertation.com
Boca Raton, Florida
USA • 2007

ISBN: 1-58112- 352-3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND JOB SATISFACTION:

AN ANALYSIS IN THE U.S. FEDERAL WORK FORCE

by

Phuong L. Callaway

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

October 2006
 Abstract

The issues of trust and job satisfaction have taken on a greater strategic importance in

organizations since the post-Enron scandal. Without trust or the lack of it among

organizational members and between management and employees, organizational

communication, knowledge management, organizational performance, and involvement may

tend to close down. Trust has been identified as a crucial ingredient for organizational

effectiveness. A linkage between trust and job satisfaction in private organizations has been

established by researchers; however, in the U.S. federal government, the linkage between

organizational trust and job satisfaction has not yet been studied. This study, therefore,

explores the relationship between organizational trust and job satisfaction in seven selected

small, medium, and large U.S. federal agencies. This study indicated that there are no

significant differences between males and females, however, significant differences in

attitudes between supervisors and nonsupervisors were found regarding what good

communications meant and how they interpret the question, “top management truly listens to

employees’ concerns.” Nonsupervisors tend to disagree more frequently than supervisors.

The study also found that there are significant association between gender, age group, job

location, position, and occupation and agency. The differences in attitudes between

supervisors and nonsupervisors about what would make communications seem good and

what would contribute to the belief that top management listens to employees’ concerns lead

to the conclusion that there is a disconnection among organizational members and among

management and employees. This disconnection may lead to mistrust, job dissatisfaction and

the difficulty in attracting and retention of human talents.

 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to dear friends, Lt. General John E. Jackson, Jr., U.S.

Air Force (retired) and President, Fork Union Military Academy of Fork Union, Virginia,

and his wife, Barbara Quisenberry Jackson. For decades, you both have consistently

dedicated and committed in uplifting the lives of many individuals whose sufferings were

unimaginable and in building on the principles of transformational leadership, self-discipline,

personal accountability and responsibility in younger generations. Your love for the country,

for the community, and for building healthy and strong generations to come through your

academic and social engagement, and your religious faith are inspiring. I too put my trust and

faith in the Lord and was not disappointed. You have inspired the value of focus and self-

discipline in me. Although I experienced a brief manmade barrier as I conducted the field test

of the research methodology for my dissertation paper, I succeeded to a fruitful completion. I

love you and am very proud of you both. I know both of you are very happy to see me

complete the doctoral journey.

To my parents, who always reached out and helped many unfortunate families due to

social and economic inequities in my native homeland, the Republic of Vietnam; to my Mom

(deceased), who always strongly believed in one’s hard work to enhance the quality of

personal life and who always strongly believed in a strong and healthy community and

society; to my grandparents (deceased), who contributed much of the land, which their

parents and grandparents had owned in the South Vietnam, to the different regimes of the

Republic of Vietnam Government for the welfare of the South Vietnamese people; to my

oldest uncle (deceased), who was owner and editor-in-chief of a Republic of Vietnam’s daily

iii
newspaper and Saigon City Council Member, I send him my utmost respect and salute him

for his personal integrity; to other living family members and relatives, I thought about you

and wish you the best as you continue to lead your families and contribute to this new

homeland. Finally, to my children and their families, this dissertation is for them for

enhancing their knowledge in the field of management and leadership. Strong and healthy

organizations and society begin with leadership.

iv
 Acknowledgments

A special expression of appreciation must be extended to my husband, who was

always devoted to unconditional love, supportive and patient. Special thanks must also be

extended to those who contributed and participated in the study; without them, this study

would not have been possible.

Much credit for this dissertation belongs to Dr. Robert W. Rowden, my dissertation

committee chair and mentor. I must single out his guidance and patience in teaching me the

differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods, providing continual

advice, support, and encouragement, and critically assessing my strengths as well as

weaknesses in writing a dissertation. The strength of the quality of an academic mentor-

mentee relationship was a powerful force that led to the successful completion of the

dissertation paper.

I must also acknowledge my other dissertation committee members, Dr. Robert J.

Hockin and Dr. Donna DiMatteo, for their unflagging support of my research topic and for

providing continual input and feedback for the development of the dissertation.

I want to thank you Dr. Mary Dereshiwsky for her guidance and comments during the

completion of my course paper for her advanced qualitative research course. The final paper

grew to become this doctoral research.

I also want to give much academic credit to my doctoral comprehensive committee,

Dr. Rowden, Dr. Hockin, and Dr. von Ber for sustaining my oral communication skills

during the comprehensives oral defense, which helped in sharpening my focus for the

v
literature review, the conception, and the planning of the research methodology for this

dissertation.

vi
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments v

List of Tables x

List of Figures xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 6

Research Questions 10

Significance of the Study 10

Definition of Terms 12

Assumptions 14

Scope and Limitations 14

Theoretical Framework 15

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 23

Introduction 23

Organizational Trust 23

Organizational Performance 29

Job Satisfaction 31

Employee Empowerment 37

Dimensions of Organizational Trust 38

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction 40

vii
 Low Trust and High Trust Organizations 42

High Performance and Traditional Hierarchical Organizations 43

Empowerment in High Performance Organizations 46

The Leadership Impact 48

Definition of Terms 49

Leadership Theories and Models 50

Leadership Practices and Challenges 55

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 61

Introduction 61

Quantitative Research Method 62

Research Questions 66

Population for the Study 66

Design of the Study 67

Data Collection Strategy 70

Data Analysis 71

Alternate Method of Data Analysis 72

Summary 75

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 78

Introduction 78

Data Description 78

Categorical Analysis 87

viii
 Data Analysis 87

Summary 105

CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 108

Introduction 108

Findings and Discussions 112

Literature Review, Findings, and Analysis 114

Discussion 120

Limitations of the Study 124

Implications for Further Research 128

Recommendations 130

Conclusions 135

REFERENCES 139

APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND JOB SATISFACTION

SURVEY 150

APPENDIX B. BALANCED SCORE CARD LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK IN

THE WAR ON TALENTS 157

ix
 List of Tables

Table 1. Traditional Government Versus High Performance Government

Organizational Characteristics 45

Table 2. Leader-Member Exchange Theory-Impact 54

Table 3. Frequency and Survey Response Rate 79

Table 4a. Demography of Responders 80

Table 4b. Demography of Responders 81

Table 5. Cross-Tabulate for Gender and Agency 82

Table 6. Cross-Tabulate for Position and Agency 83

Table 7. Cross-Tabulate for Job Location and Agency 84

Table 8. Cross-Tabulate for Age Group and Agency 85

Table 9. Cross-Tabulate for Occupation and Agency 86

Table 10. Level of Satisfaction Regarding Supervision 89

Table 11. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 57: I like my immediate

supervisor 90

Table 12. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 57: I like my immediate

supervisor 91

Table 13. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 60: I am satisfied with my

chances for promotion 92

Table 14. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 60: I am satisfied with my

chances for promotion 93

Table 15. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 36: Communications seem

good within this organization 95

Table 16. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 36: Communications seem

good within this organization 96

x
Table 17. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 28: I feel I am being paid a fair
amount for the work I do 97

Table 18. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 28: I feel I am being paid a
fair amount for the work I do 98

Table 19. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 43: I find I have to work
harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of people I
work with 100

Table 20. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 43: I find I have to work
harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of people I
work with 101

Table 21. Gender*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 15: Top management listens
to employees’ concerns 103

Table 22. Position*Scale Cross-Tabulate for Question 15: Top management listens
to employees’ concerns 104

Table 23. Association for Gender, Position, and Scale 107

xi
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Organizational trust, job satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness. 40

Figure 2. Dimensions of job satisfaction. 41

Figure 3. SLT model—Levels of employees’ readiness. 53

xii
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

The issues of trust and job satisfaction have taken on a greater strategic importance in

organizations since the post-Enron scandal. Global economy, workplace diversity, workforce

downsizing, virtual organizations, advanced information technologies, decentralized

decision-making, and competitive outsourcing of jobs may require organizations to manage

human capital differently than they have managed in the past. Organizations with higher

level of mutual trust among organizational members and between management and

employees may be able to maintain and sustain human talents in order to achieve business

competitiveness.

Trust has been linked to overall employee job satisfaction and perceived

organizational effectiveness (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000). Unfortunately,

trust in companies has never been lower in the post-Enron organizational scandal (Watson,

2005). Trust facilitates individual and organizational learning; however, organizations often

take it for granted, misunderstand or ignore (Adams, 2004).

Trust has been identified as a critical ingredient to enhance organizational

effectiveness and competitive advantage in the competition for human talents, job

satisfaction, and the long-term stability and well being of organizational members (Cook &

Wall, 1980; Huff & Kelley, 2003; Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000; Spence

1
Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001). Trust was shown to significantly influence

interpersonal relationships in organizations; however, despite the recognized importance of

trust, the trust gap between managers and employees was steadily increasing (Jeanquart-

Barone, 1993).

In addition to trust, organizations should be concerned about job satisfaction, which

can be considered an indicator of organizational members’ emotional well-being and

psychological health (Rowden, 2002). Researchers found that job satisfaction is influenced

by the level of pay and performance, employee benefits, training, recruiting, learning curve

inefficiencies, reduction in the client base, job design, life satisfaction, autonomy, growth

satisfaction, satisfaction with coworkers, satisfaction with supervisors, and customer

satisfaction (Comm & Mathaisel, 2000).

Organizations that see the value of their employees create a culture of mutual trust

among organizational members and between management and employees. These

organizations are known as high performance organizations (Phillips, 1997). Trust inside

organizations directly affects profits, innovation, and organizational effectiveness (Lynch,

2001); however, evidence seems to indicate that trust in both public and private organizations

has been declining for several decades (Kramer, 1999). Trust is a foundation for social order

within and beyond organizations, especially in an increasingly complex, global, fast-paced

business environment (Thoms, Dose, & Scott, 2002) and has a number of important benefits

for organizations and their members (Kramer). For example, trust plays a paramount role in

the creation and development of the psychological contract that binds an employee to the

2
organization, and it can play a key role in explaining employees’ attitudes and behaviors at

work (Robinson, 1996).

Trust is particularly important for organizations competing in the global marketplace

in which there are uncertainty and risk because partners’ culture, values, and goals may be

very different (Huff & Kelley, 2003). “High levels of organizational trust can critically

reduce litigation charges and transaction costs; and high trust cultures minimize the potential

for destructive and litigated conflict, unnecessary bureaucratic control and administrative

expenditures, and expensive overhead” (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000, p. 3).

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management have studied job satisfaction, however, the relationship of trust and job

satisfaction has not been studied in the federal government; therefore, this study explores the

relation between organizational trust and job satisfaction in selected U.S. federal agencies.

Background of the Study

Employees in organizations may be motivated to contribute their ideas and talents and

may be quite satisfied with their jobs in an environment that fosters organizational trust and

growth of employees and where their knowledge, skills and abilities are valued and fully

used. Thoms et al. (2002) pointed out that as the demand for skilled workers increases,

creating a satisfied workforce has important implications for organizations. High

performance organizations are believed to trust their employees and provide their employees

with proper empowerment to perform their duties. This empowerment requires management

to entrust the work force with responsibility and authority. Without trust, people assume self-

3
protective, defensive postures that inhibit learning (Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, 1998). An

organizational climate of trust enables employees to submit their ideas and feelings, use each

other as resources, and learn together. Without trust people have a tendency to keep to

themselves, rather than share their thoughts, thereby, inhibiting creativity (Jordan, 1999).

High performance organizations can offer employees the opportunity to perform to

their full capacity, share performance information, engage in the decision-making process,

and encourage innovative and imaginative approach to achieve business results and

organizational goals. This sharing of performance information may provide employees with

the business knowledge they need to perform their jobs well, enjoy their duties, be satisfied

with their jobs, and can provide good communication and customer services. Dalton (2000)

reported that high performance organizations are designed to bring out the best in people and

to create an exceptional capability to deliver high-end results.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of the American Workplace

(1994), greater job satisfaction, employee commitment to high quality, and increased

customer satisfaction would likely result when employees are allowed to make informed

decisions and to involve in information sharing. Boxx, Odom, and Dunn (1991) advised

managers in the public sectors, especially for the transportation industry, to develop and use

human resource management practices that focus on the values of excellence, match

employees’ desires for their work environment, and create high levels of satisfaction,

commitment, and cohesion. The authors also advised public managers to produce a work

environment that encourages greater employee pride in their work and to allow employees to

4
strive to do their best as well as constantly to seek innovative ways to improve their

organization’s operations (Boxx et al.).

Globalization, workplace diversity, increased awareness of cultural differences,

downsizing, delayering, the call for (and in some cases the reality of) increased
workplace democracy, international networks, complex alliances, information
technologies, and decentralized decision making are only some of the events and
processes during which trust assumes significant importance. (Shockley-Zalabak,
Ellis, & Winograd, 2000, p. 2)

Conditions of trust within an organization impact organizational health (Thoms et al., 2002).

As the U.S. federal agencies continue to experience a significant reduction in the

federal budget and in the total federal workforce, organizational units may need to rely on the

existing human assets in order to carry out organizational goals and missions. As federal

employees may be required to perform more for the same pay or smaller pay, trust and job

satisfaction may become increasingly crucial if organizations want to motivate and retain

high performance and quality employees. The result of the 2004 Human Capital Survey

conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) of 150,000 U.S. federal

employees indicated a slight decrease of job satisfaction from the 2002 Human Capital

Survey. The decrease of job satisfaction should raise an alarming concern for participating

federal organizations.

In 2000 and 2004, the OPM conducted two studies concerning the strategic

management of human capital, but organizational trust has not been studied. Previous

research in the private sectors already established a link between trust and job satisfaction

(Thoms et al., 2002); however, the relationship between trust and job satisfaction in the U.S.

federal workforce has not been studied. Also, although job satisfaction has been studied in

5
the U.S. federal workforce, contributing factors that may lead to an increase in job

dissatisfaction or a declining rate in job satisfaction have not been studied.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between

organizational trust and job satisfaction of federal employees in selected U.S. federal

organizations. By conducting the study, the researcher hoped that selected U.S. federal

agencies will have the data needed to make assessment of their current organizational culture

and, if needed, to promote a workplace culture of mutual trust among organizational

members and between management and employees in order to allow for extraordinary

performance and growth of their employees, as well as to attract, recruit, and retain

effectively the right talents with the necessary skills that are needed. The results of the study

may also be useful to federal senior executives and managers for creating human resources

strategies that will enhance organizational effectiveness.

Statement of the Problem

Trust is an important element of the social system and a social capital (Seligman,

1997). Unfortunately, trust in organizations has been low in the post-Enron organizational

scandal (Watson, 2005). Business survival requires organizations to continue to learn and

trust each other (Adams, 2004); however, organizations in the United States rarely trust each

other sufficiently to enter into a bilateral relationship (Huff & Kelley, 2003). Trust,

particularly between labor and management, is considered important to organizational

success and is an ingredient for competitive advantage (Rousseau, 1997).

6
 Trust is needed for employee empowerment to occur. Dew (as cited in Petter, Byrnes,

Choi, Fegan, & Miller, 2002) found that, empowering employees will result in greater job

satisfaction. Empowerment creates in employees a sense of ownership and a sense of being

proud of their work and their organization. In addition to trust, job satisfaction is viewed as

an important organizational factor (Muchinsky, 1990), but according to Rowden, “job

satisfaction is one of the most widely researched yet least understood phenomena in

organizations today” (2002, p. 1).

Herzberg’s theory proposes that managers need to focus on factors associated with

the work itself or outcomes directly derived from it, such as promotional opportunities,

opportunities for personal growth, recognition, responsibility, and achievement and proposes

that employees are likely to dissatisfy with their jobs, concerning the quality of their

supervision, pay, organizational policies, physical working conditions, relations with others,

and job security (Robbins, 2003b). Also, Argyris (1973) proposed that organizations should

seek to increase openness, trust, risk-taking, and expression of feelings and should develop

the belief that human growth is important, for when mistrust in organizations rises, learning

will not occur.

Organizations that have the ability to develop trusting relationships will have a

competitive advantage (Huff & Kelley, 2003). According to Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and

Winograd, “increased job satisfaction, the ability to innovate, and the ability to identify with

a successful organization, all are related to perceptions of trust” (2000, p. 7). Also, according

to Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Winograd, organizations need to monitor trust levels,

especially during times of rapid change. According to Zauderer (2002), one of the highest

7
accomplishments of an organization is to build a workforce in which employees feel included

and welcomed and work together with mutual respect in order to enhance individual and

organizational productivity. This workplace will be instrumental in attracting and retaining

quality employees, thereby, providing collective energy for strengthening organizational

performance (Zauderer).

In the private sector, a study conducted by the Conference Board of concerned

business leaders found that Americans were growing increasingly unhappy with their jobs.

The decline in job satisfaction was widespread among workers of all ages and across all

income brackets. Half of all Americans said that they were satisfied with their jobs, a figure

down from nearly 60% in 1995. Among the 50% who said they were content, only 14% said

they were very satisfied (Business Credit, 2005).

According to the same Conference Board study, rapid technological changes, rising

productivity demands, and changing employee expectations have all contributed to the

decline in job satisfaction. The decline in job satisfaction will present a new challenge for

employers as large numbers of baby boomers prepare to leave the workforce and may be

replaced by younger workers who tend to be dissatisfied with their jobs and have different

attitudes and expectations about the role of work in their lives. The Enron and WorldCom era

of corporate scandals and the outsourcing of jobs have increased the level of employee

discontent (Business Credit, 2005).

In the U.S. federal government, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the

OPM have conducted numerous studies concerning the general workforce and job

satisfaction, but no studies were found in which organizational trust has been researched. The

8
2004 Federal Capital Human Survey of 150,000 federal employees from the OPM revealed a

slight declining rate of overall positive responses for job satisfaction to 67.5% from 67.8%

overall positive responses from the same survey conducted in 2002 (OPM, 2004). In

addition, although 46.8% of surveyed participants were satisfied with their jobs, only 21.8%

of participants said that they were very satisfied with the jobs they were doing (OPM). The

findings mean that more than 50% of U.S. federal employees show up only to collect their

paychecks.

Between 1999 and 2005, organizational consultants and behavioral specialists

(Adams, 2004; Chen, 2004, Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001; Huff & Kelley, 2003; Money

& Graham, 1999; Rowden, 2002; Spence Laschinger et al., 2001; Thoms et al., 2002;

Watson, 2005) have conducted many studies on organizational trust and/or job satisfaction.

In the U.S. federal government between 1980 and 2004, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection

Board and the OPM conducted numerous studies to obtain federal employees’ opinions on a

variety of issues concerning pay, retirement, health insurance benefits, attracting and

retaining a competent workforce, performance management systems, managerial

accountability, human capital management, recruitment, and so forth; however, the

relationship between organizational trust and job satisfaction has not been studied.

The purpose of this study; therefore, was to determine the relationship between

organizational trust and job satisfaction of employees in selected U.S. federal agencies. The

characteristics of trust and job satisfaction were chosen for the study because having an

understanding of these characteristics appears to provide federal executives and senior

managers great opportunities for promoting mutual trust among organizational members and

9
between management and employees in order to allow for extraordinary performance and

growth of federal employees, as well as to allow for effective recruitment and retaining the

right talents with the necessary skills where they are needed.

Research Questions

The research questions this study examined are as follows:

1. What is the level of trust in selected U.S. federal agencies?

2. What is the level of job satisfaction in selected U.S. federal agencies?

3. What is the relationship between organizational trust and job satisfaction in

selected U.S. federal agencies?

Significance of the Study

Employees may want to work in organizations where their ideas are valued and where

there is a mutual trust between their managers and them. There has been a general belief that

managers can make or break the organization and that employees may not quit their jobs but

may choose to leave their managers. According to Palguta, employees

Who entered the civil service often find themselves trapped in a maze of rules and
regulations that thwart their personal development and stifle their creativity. The best
are underpaid, the worst, overpaid. Too many of the most talented leave the public
service too early; too many of the least talented stay too long. (2003, p. 1)

Testa, Mueller, and Thomas (2003) found that trust has a number of important

benefits for organizations and their members. In addition, factors leading to job satisfaction

may be different for people of different cultures. According to the U.S. Merit Systems

10
Protection Board’s newsletter (2005), U.S. federal employees are likely satisfied with their

job because they think that their agencies make good use of their skills and abilities.

Trust does matter. Research indicates “that organizations with high levels of trust will

be more successful, adaptive, an innovative than organizations with low levels of trust or

pervasive distrust” (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000, p. 6). Argyris explained,

“defense routines may stand in the way of an individual’s learning, especially when the

individual faces an anxious situation in which there is risk of embarrassment, or worse, of

losing his or her job” (as cited in Adams, 2004, p. 8). Argyris further pointed out that

organizational leaders often feel defensive about low levels of trust in their organizations,

and they may be reluctant to explore trust levels in their organizations or to consider

investing in trust interventions. They may even fear that low levels of trust could be viewed

as a sign of their inadequate leadership. Leaders in organizations frequently exhibit defensive

behaviors which can hinder their own learning (as cited in Adams).

According to Huff and Kelly (2003), trust is crucial in supporting a number of

internal and external processes and activities that provide organizations with competitive

advantage. Organizations that have a strong climate of internal trust and those who easily

develop trusting relationships with external partners perform better than organizations with

lower level of trust. High performance organizations have a high level of trust among

coworkers as well as among management, and they empower their employees. Without trust,

people assume self-protective, defensive postures that inhibit learning (Costigan et al., 1998).

This study contributes to the existing knowledge base of organizational researchers

by providing a broad picture of a wide range of variables affecting organizational trust and

11
 Implications for Further Research

This study focused on the level of organizational trust and job satisfaction and the

relation between organizational trust and job satisfaction in selected U.S. federal agencies.

The data received and the low survey response rate was meaningless to support a correlation

study; therefore, an alternate method of data analysis was chosen. A categorical analysis

technique was employed. Descriptive analysis was chosen to explore the level of

organizational trust and job satisfaction. Pearson’s chi-square tests were employed to explore

the association among various dimensions of organizational trust and job satisfaction.

Wherever the responders’ responses varied significantly, Pearson’s chi-square tests were

conducted to explore the association between gender (male/female), position

(supervisor/nonsupervisor) and the scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and

strongly disagree). Specific questions regarding competence, supervision, communications,

concerns for employees, pay, and promotion were examined to measure possible

associations.

The literature review revealed a broad base of research findings in relation to trust

and job satisfaction and factors leading to mistrust and job dissatisfaction in the

organizational, leadership, managerial and interpersonal context. This study focused on the

relation of organizational trust and job satisfaction based on five elements of organizational

trust (e.g., competence, concern for employees, openness and honesty, reliability and

identification), and nine elements of job satisfaction (e.g., coworkers, communications, pay,

promotion, coworkers, supervision, operating conditions, contingent reward, and work itself).

128
 The study did not attempt to uncover organizational and interpersonal factors that

may lead to mistrust and job dissatisfaction; however, it is desirable for future research. The

study also did not focus on the degree of satisfaction in terms of interpersonal relationships,

traits and behaviors between managers and employees but attempt to uncover the weaknesses

or strengths as resulted from the survey responses. The review of literature did provide

theoretical framework and foundations on needs, employee motivation as well as various

leadership styles and models in the organizational context, however, no empirical data were

found as to which degree meeting employees and constituents’ needs can strengthen

organizational performance; therefore, the Balanced Score Card Leadership Framework in

the War on Talents in Appendix B, if implemented, may help provide empirical data on the

relation between balancing employees and organizational needs and performance efficiency.

The findings of the study did find significant associations between gender, position,

age group, job location, occupation and agency; however, no significant associations or

differences were found between gender and the scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,

agree, and strongly agree) on certain questions regarding competence, pay, promotion,

communication, supervision, and concerns for employees. The results of the chi-square tests

did not show significant associations or different attitudes between position and the scale for

same questions, regarding competence, pay, promotion, communication, supervision, and

concern for employees; however, significant associations or different attitudes between

supervisors and nonsupervisors were found on the question, “communications seem good

within their organization” and, on the question, “top management listens to employees’

concerns” should raise an alarming concern to organizational leaders regarding possible

129
disconnection and workplace conflicts among organizational members, and if not addressed

timely, can create an environment of low trust or even mistrust and unproductive workplace.

Recommendations

The research topic is an organizational survey and is related to the Strategic Human

Capital Management initiative, President George W. Bush's Management Agenda for U.S.

federal agencies. Executives may be worried that low trust would be perceived as their

leadership deficiencies. Prior to inviting sampling participants to participate in the research

study, as part of the research methodology requirement, a field test was conducted.

Nonsampling participants outside the selected U.S. federal agencies were invited to

complete the online survey to ensure that the survey would do what it was intended to do.

About 20% of nonsampling participants completed the survey and provided

observations and comments for effective implementation of the online survey. The rest of the

nonsampling participants (80%) did not respond to the field test, worrying that their agency

management would issue some types of disciplinary actions or employee relation warnings

against them for completing the survey without agency prior approval. The problem could

have been avoided if the survey instrument was provided to management in advance for their

review, and if permission to distribute the survey for the field test was authorized by agency

management. Future researchers and practitioners should obtain agency permission and

approval in advance for successful implementation of the field test for a chosen research

methodology.

130
 Since 1978, both the OPM and the U.S. Merits System Protection Board conducted

numerous studies but trust has not been studied. Although job satisfaction was studied, the

relation between organizational trust and job satisfaction was not studied. In June 2006, the

OPM conducted the 2006 Human Capital Survey, which started 1 week before this research

study was ended; but again, organizational trust was not studied. This signaled a possible

problem in obtaining a good response rate for the study due to the nature of the research, the

sensitivity of the research topic, and the 2006 OPM’s Human Capital Survey that was

underway in the U.S. federal workforce.

Only 7.5% response rate was received (n = 74) by the end of the 6-week data

collection phase. The response rate was very discouraging; however, selecting other federal

agencies in hope of increasing the survey response rate was not a viable option due to other

ongoing federal organizational surveys, the nature of the U.S. federal organizational culture

and structure, agency internal/office rules and guidelines, and conflicting performance

priorities, workload and deadlines facing federal executives, managers and employees. The

OPM had no authority to endorse an independent study but left the decision to support (or not

to support) the study with each federal agency.

The decision not to expand the data collection timetable and not to add new federal

agencies to the existing sampling pool was due to the belief that the final outcome would be

unchanged, given some known factors: (a) aiming for a higher survey response rate seemed

unrealistic for any independent studies in federal agencies, (b) federal security and privacy

issues associated with the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management

Act, (c) ongoing federal sponsored organizational surveys, (d) workload issues associated

131
with the federal government tightened budgets, (e) employees’ low trust or the lack of it

toward agency management, (f) no support from management and employees for

independent surveys, (g) lack of agency support for the research study, (h) lack of credible

research sponsorships, and so forth.

Future researchers need to be aware of organizational constraints as well as internal

and external factors that may impact their research study and data collection. Other methods

of data collection, such as distributing the survey on premises, postal survey, etc, and

longitudinal study may be considered to enhance the rate of response for the purpose of

generalizability of the research findings.

The sample for this study was too low with n = 74 or 7.5% versus an expected rate of

20%, hence valid conclusions cannot be drawn for these selected U.S. federal agencies. To

draw any valid conclusions, a total response rate (n) required should be about 176 at the

minimum or more; however, the n for the study is sufficient for a descriptive analysis. In the

future, practitioners can study the relation of organizational trust and job satisfaction in more

depth, and with a larger n, an attempt to conduct a correlational, Pearson’s r statistical

analysis or even an inferential study (with a large n) is more feasible and meaningful. Future

researchers and practitioners should attempt to obtain a larger n, and when the rate of

response from sampling participants is sufficiently large, they can draw better conclusions

and generalize the research results.

Given the difficulty in promoting federal agencies to participate in the research study

and in achieving validity and generalizability for the research findings, practitioners can

replicate the study and find creditable organizational sponsors, including the White House to

132
finance and support the research to enhance the validity of the research findings. Then

practitioners would then also be able to conduct confirmatory inferential tests, using these

results as the hypotheses of their research. Pre-hoc power testing could also be conducted,

using the results of this research, to estimate the appropriate sample size needed for future

study. Future study should include more union employees, administrative and technical

occupations and to include employees at all grade levels in organizations with safety,

emergency response, and security mission. The validity of the research results is crucial in

strategy development and implementation to improve the effectiveness in human capital

management.

The review of literature revealed that managers and leaders may have the control over

how they want to lead and manage their own organizations; therefore, practitioners may want

to expand the study to explore possible associations between position and the scale on

transformational leadership and on transactional leadership, and to explore possible

associations between position and the scale on Theory X managers and on Theory Y

managers. The results could help organizational leaders to develop appropriate human

resources strategies to promote effective management of organizational human talents and to

effectively develop both the organizations and their employees.

If open and honest communications between supervisors and employees fail (only

50.68% of responders believed that their supervisor are sincere in his/her efforts to

communicate with team members), organizational empowerment becomes impossible. If

supervisors and employees are disconnected on the issues that are important to them,

supervisors and employees may fail in meeting mutual needs; and subsequently, may face an

133
artificial barrier for the development and growth of both the employees and the organization.

Employees may not leave their jobs, but rather may choose to just leave their supervisors.

Organizations should be concerned if quality and highly skilled employees begin to leave the

organizations. The question for future researchers is what can be done to help managers to

realize that loosing the talented pool of employees will impact the morale of existing

workforce and organizational efficiency.

The success of the Nation and the federal organizations in the technological-based

and knowledge-based society depends on how leaders and managers manage their

organizational human talents and resources to achieve strategic goals and missions. The

Balanced Score Card Leadership Framework in the War on Talents in Appendix B may be

helpful to leaders and senior managers in addressing organizational needs and in responding

to the current human capital management challenges facing federal agencies. Practitioners

may want to test the framework to determine if the framework would help to minimize

possible gaps in the disconnection between supervisors and nonsupervisors, in both short-

term and long-term, of issues and areas that are important to organizational members to

promote extraordinary organizational performance and to promote growth of both

organizational members and the organizations.

Trust is built largely through the way in which culture of communication is

implemented by organizational leadership (Allert & Chatterjee, 1997). Trust and distrust are

attitudes that affect the way people think, feel, and act. Trust also affects a person’s

understanding of other people (Govier, 1998). Transformational leadership is a foundational

requirement for building mutual trust in which extraordinary performance and job

134
satisfaction can survive and thrive. The study indicated a significant difference in attitudes

between supervisors and nonsupervisors in terms of interpretation what “communications

seem good within the organization” and what “top management listens to employees’

concerns” really mean. The differences in interpretation of one’s good intentions may lead to

interpersonal conflicts. Future researcher may want to explore what makes good

communications and what makes employees feel that top management truly listens to their

concerns among work groups can significantly contribute to workplace demographic,

enhance trust and job satisfaction in organizations.

Conclusions

As the U.S. federal agencies may continue to experience a significant reduction in the

federal budget and in the total federal labor force due to the overall federal shrinking budget

and the changing workforce requirements, organizational units are required to transform the

way they operate. The events of September 11, 2001 have placed federal agencies in a

different level playing field in competing for taxpayers’ dollars to carry out their

organizational missions. Federal agencies continuously find themselves operate and produce

services in an increasingly result-based and market-based driven mentality they have ever

experienced in the past. As federal employees may be required to perform more for the same

pay or for less pay, and may be required to share the knowledge, expertise and job

information through a process called, knowledge management, to help agencies achieve the

White House’s strategic human capital management initiative, organizational trust and job

135
satisfaction may become increasingly crucial if organizations want to motivate and retain

high performance and quality employees.

As federal agencies will have to compete with the private sector for similar positions

or for highly skilled professional and technical positions, given the same pool of available

and qualified candidates, the fight for attracting and recruitment of the right human talents

might present federal executives with an enormous human resource challenge. The role of the

senior managers is increasingly crucial in increasingly technological and knowledge-based

organizations. These senior managers can make or break the organizations, or they can help

build a talented federal workforce with highly skilled, knowledgeable, committed and

motivated federal employees.

Leaders and managers, who value continuous improvements of organizational

processes, systems, applications and procedures, promote open communications, understand

the diverse needs of employees and stakeholders, support career growth of their employees,

will be able to sustain and maintain high quality employees and able to attract and recruit the

right talents at the right time, and when these talents are needed.

Using the results provided in this study, the relation of organizational trust and job

satisfaction in the U.S. federal workforce should be studied more in-depth. Future study

should explore underlying organizational and personnel issues which may lead to mistrust

and job dissatisfaction and should include elements, such as approaches and styles of formal

communications, decision-making, work systems, policies and procedures, rules and

regulations, applications, processes, performance appraisals, informal networking, mentoring

and coaching, and so forth.

136
 The literature review provided factors and characteristics, which would help

organizations to build high level of trust, high level of job satisfaction, proper method of

empowerment to achieve performance outcomes with fewer resources, high performance

work system, traditional workplace environment versus high performance environment,

leadership strategies and models. The content of the paper and the Balanced Score Card

Leadership Framework in the War on Talents in Appendix B should serve as helpful hints

and resources to assist organizational leaders and managers in doing the right thing for the

welfare of their employees, for themselves, their organizations, and the Nation, regardless of

the political, social and cultural environment.

Truly effective leaders must have strong values and belief in the capacity of

individual to grow (Hennessey, 1998), provide means and opportunities for and eliminates

obstacles to individual and group growth and development (Humphries & Senden, 2000),

build trusting relationships by practicing openness, being fair, speaking their feelings, telling

the truth, showing consistency, fulfilling their premises, maintaining confidences, and

demonstrating competence (Robbins, 2003b).

In a time of reorganization, revolution, and change, strategic leadership is essential in

order to maintain competitiveness and to recognize the development stage of the organization

(Vicere, 1992). Charismatic leadership is central to the transformational leadership, involves

gaining respect, trust, and confidence of others, and transforming a strong sense of mission to

them (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994).

As the federal workforce may be increasingly more diverse (Diversity Central, n.d.),

between 1994 and 2005, women of all ethnic groups accounted for 62% of the net new

137
entrants, and 50% split for men and women), and as the work of the federal government is

changing and becoming more complex, and as federal agencies will increasingly find

themselves competing with the private sector, as well as each other, for the same pool of

qualified candidates, leaders and managers who understand and value diversity, are sensitive

to the needs of their employees and constituents, are sensitive to the concerns of employees,

are aware of improper competition among organizational members and organizational units,

are aware of improper political and improper personal agenda, and are strategic in the

management of organizational resources will be able to maintain and sustain organizational

competitiveness and organizational human capital.

The leaders and senior managers in the technological-based and knowledge-based

society must be able to demonstrate the employee-oriented and the production-oriented

leadership and management style. There must be a balance for the welfare of the

organizations and for the employees who work in U.S. federal organizations, and for the new

hires.

138
 REFERENCES

Adams, S. H. (2004). The relationships among adult attachment, general self-disclosure, and
perceived organizational trust. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Virginia. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.scholar
.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-032504-150617/unrestricted/
SamAdamsRevDissertationFinal.pdf

Allert, J. R., & Chatterjee, S. R. (1997). Corporate communication and trust in leadership.
Corporate Communications, 2(1), 1-10.

Argyris, C. (1973). On organizations of the future. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Aronson, D. (2002). Managing the diversity revolution: Best practices for 21st century
business. Civil Rights Journal, 6(1), 46.

Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in the context of management relationships: An
empirical study. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68(4), 1-18.

Baghai, M. A., Coley, S. C., Farmer, R. H., & Sarrazin, H. (1997). The growth philosophy of
bombardier: An interview with Laurent Beaudoin, chairman and CEO of Bombardier,
Inc. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 1-22.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership

Studies, 7(3), 1-28.

Bennett, R. H., III, Harriman, J. H. P., & Dunn, G. (1999). Today’s corporate executive
leadership programs: Building for the future. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1-18.

Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value
congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An
empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(2),
1-9.

Brown, O., Jr. (2000). Participatory approaches to work systems and organizational design.
Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
Santa Monica, CA.

139
Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It’s
the talent, stupid! Identifying and developing talent, one person at a time, becomes
our defining challenge. Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 1-7.

Bundt, J. (2000). Strategic stewards: Managing accountability, building trust. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 1-19.

Business Credit. (2005, April). U.S. job satisfaction keeps falling. Retrieved September 23,
2005, from http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/397371-1.html

Chen, L. Y. (2004). Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and mid-
sized firms of Taiwan. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 1-8.

Chiu, C. (1998). Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional men?
Lawyers as a case study. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38(7-8), 1-16.

Comm, C. L., & Mathaisel, D. F. X. (2000). Assessing employee satisfaction in service

firms: An example in higher education. The Journal of Business and Economic
Studies, 6(1), 1-8.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
53, 39-52.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 1-14.

Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Kranas, G., Kureshov, V. A., & Ilter, S. S. (2004). Predictors
of employee trust of their CEO: A three-country study. Journal of Managerial Issues,
16(2), 1-21.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Culbert, S. A., & McDonough, J. J. (1986). The politics of trust and organization
empowerment. Public Administration Quarterly, 10(2), 1-18.

Dalton, D. (2000). Understanding high performance organizations. Security, 37, 69-73.

140
Diversity Central. (n.d.). Entrants to the workforce. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from http://
www.diversityhotwire.com/business/entrants

Dwivedi, R. S. (1983). Management by trust: A conceptual model. Group and

Organizational Studies, 8, 375-402.

Einstein, W. O., & Humphreys, J. H. (2001). Transforming leadership: Matching diagnostics

to leader behaviors. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 1-16.

Eisner, E. (1991). What makes a study quantitative? New York: Macmillian.

Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate
supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness,
and information receiving. Communication Quarterly. 48(4), 1-22.

Fairholm, G. W. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Farias, G. F., & Varma, A. (1998). Research update: High performance work systems: What
we know and what we need to know. Human Resources Planning, 21(2), 1-3.

Farrell, M. A. (2000). Developing a market-oriented learning organization. Australian

Journal of Management, 25(2), 1-29.

Ferch, S. R., & Mitchell, M. M. (2001). Intentional forgiveness in relational leadership: A

technique for enhancing effective leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 1-
17.

Flores, F., & Solomon, R. C. (2003). Building trust: In business, politics, relationships, and
life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fotheringham, A. S. (1998). Trends in quantitative methods II: Stressing the computational.

Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 283.

Frank, M. S. (1993). The essence of leadership. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 1-9.

Gibson, J. W., Blackwell, C. W., Dominicis, P., & Demerath, N. (2002). Telecommuting in
the 21st century: Benefits, issues, and a leadership model which will work. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(4), 1-14.

Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, L. P. T. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.

Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 1-18.

Gill, R., Levine, N., & Pitt, D. C. (1998). Leadership and organizations for the new
millennium. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 1-16.

141
Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D., Jr. (2000). Effects of communication direction on
job performance and satisfaction: A moderated regression analysis. The Journal of
Business Communication, 37(4), 1-19.

Govier, T. (1998). Dilemmas of trust. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Retrieved December 7, 2005, from www.questia.com

Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The
role of supervisory support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 1-10.

Hafeez, K., & Abdelmeguid, H. (2003). Dynamics of human resource and knowledge
management. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(2), 1-9.

Hagel, J., III. (1993). The CEO as chief performance officer. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 1-
12.

Handfield-Jones, H. (2000). How executive grow. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1-7.

Harris, K. J. (2004). What you don’t know can’t hurt you: The interactive relationship
between leader-member exchange and perceptions of politics on job satisfaction.
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 188-203

Harvey, M. (2001). The hidden force: A critique of normative approaches to business

leadership. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(4), 1-22.

Haskins, W. A. (1996). Freedom of speech: construct for creating a culture which empowers
organizational members. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(1), 1-14.

Hayes, A. (1999). New presence of women leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1-12.

Hennessey, J. T., Jr. (1998). Reinventing government: Does leadership make the difference.
Public Administration Review, 58(6), 522.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(2), 1-37.

Hopkins, W. E., & Hopkins, S. A. (1998). Diversity leadership: A mandate for the 21st
century workforce. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5,1-14.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

142
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus
collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organizational Science, 14, 1-13.

Humphries, E., & Senden, B. (2000). Leadership and change: A dialogue of theory and
practice. Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 1-9.

Jeanquart-Barone, S. (1993). Trust differences between supervisors and subordinates:

Examining the role of race and gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29(1-2).

Jordan, S. A. (1999). Innovative cultures + empowered employees = high performance

organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23, 109-115.

Judge, W. Q. (2001). Is a leader’s character culture-bound or culture-free? An empirical

comparison of the character traits of American and Taiwanese CEOs. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(2), 1-18.

Kezar, A. (2002). Reconstructing static images of leadership: An application of positionality

theory. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 1-19.

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 1-23.

Kouzes, J. M. (2003). Business leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring

questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 1-35.

La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Trust in large
organizations. American Economic Review, 87(2), 332-333.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organizations: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1350). Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Lynch, M. (2001, February). Managing the public trust portfolio. Paper presented at the 6th
International Conference in Public Communication of Science and Technology,
CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

143
McCauley, D. P., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation
of employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 265-285.

McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social

cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 1-11.

McGregor, D. (1967). The professional manager. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meyer, G. D., Powell, K. S., & Tucker, M. L. (1995). Qualitative research in business
communication: A review and analysis. The Journal of Business Communication,
32(4), 383.

Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M.

Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
research (pp. 261-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, R. C., & Rossmoore, D. (2001). Why good leaders can’t use good advice. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 1-20.

Mollering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation,
interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 1-20.

Money, R. B., & Graham, J. L. (1999). Salesperson performance, pay, and job satisfaction:
Tests of a model using data collected in the United States and Japan. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30(1), 1-14.

Moore, M. (2000). High performance work system. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from
http://www.msu.edu

Mosley, A. L. (1998). A behavioral approach to leadership: Implications for diversity in

today’s organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 38.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1990). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and

organizational psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mulvey, J., & Li, A. (December 2000). The impact of workforce characteristics on turnover
rates. Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 1-12.

Naumann, E. (1993). Organizational predictors of expatriate job satisfaction. Journal of

International Business Studies, 24(1), 1-19.

144
New rankings show government is a better place to work today: Employee satisfaction is up
in 3 out of 4 government agencies. (2005, September 14). Retrieved September 23,
2005, from www.ourpublicservice.org/pressroom/pressroom_show.htm?doc_id:
296572

Palguta, J. M. (2003). Revitalizing the federal government for the 21 century: Presenting
differing perspectives on the report of the national commission on the public service.
The Public Manager, 32(1), 1-3.

Partnership for Public Service. (2005, February). Where the jobs are: The continuing growth
of federal job opportunities. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from http://www
.ourpublicservice.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=260717

Partnership for Public Service. (2005, July 14). The hiring process. Retrieved September 23,
2005, from http://www.ourpublicservice.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=
285810

Partnership for Public Service. (n.d.). The best places to work for the federal government in
2005. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from www.ourpublicservice.org/research/
research_show.htm

Pearson’s chi-square. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.answers.com

Perry, J. L., Petrakis, B. A., & Miller, T. K. (1989). Federal merit pay, round II: An analysis
of the performance. Public Administration Review, 49(1), 1-2.

Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D. L., Fegan, F., & Miller, R. (2002). Dimensions and patterns in
employee empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 377.

Phillips, C. J. (1997). Do you trust me? Executive Excellence, 14, 7-10.

Pielstick, C. D. (1998). The transforming leader: A meta-ethnographic analysis. Community

College Review, 26(3), 15.

Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1996). The values of business and federal government
executives: More different than alike. Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 1-13.

Potok, N. F. (2002). Leading transformation: Views on the President’s agenda: What key
presenters had to say about current federal management directions at the association
of government accountants’ annual leadership conference. The Public Manager,
31(1), 1-5.

145
Randolph, W. A. (2000). Re-thinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve?
Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 94-107.

Recardo, R., & Jolly, J. (1997). Organizational culture and teams. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 62(2), 1-8.

Rejai, M., & Phillips, K. (1998). Comparing leaders: An interactional theory. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 5(1), 1-12.

Riccucci, N. M. (1995). Execurats, “politics and public policy”: What are the ingredients for
successful performance in the federal government. Public Administration Review,
55(3), 219-230.

Richer, H., & Stopper, W. G. (1999). Hiring to build change capacity: The human resource
role. Human Resource Planning, 22(2), 1-6.

Risher, H., & Stopper, W. G. (2002). Corporate sponsor forum. Human Resource Planning,
25(1) 1-12.

Robbins, S. P. (2003a). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S. P. (2003b). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574.

Robson, C. (2003). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-
researchers (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rockman, B. A. (2003). The challenge of leadership in a federal agency. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 1-4.

Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual

Review of Psychology, 48, 1-37.

Rowden, R. W. (2002). The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in
U.S. small to midsize businesses. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 1-
12.

Savage, D. (1982). Trust as a productivity management tool. Training and Development

Journal, 54-57.

146
Seligman, A. B. (1997). The problem of trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shea, G. (1984). Building trust in the workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2000). Measuring organizational trust:
Cross-cultural survey and index. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means
and why it matters. Organizational Development Journal, 18(4), 1-10.

Smith, V. (1997). New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 1-29.

Sonnenburg, F. K. (1994). Managing with a conscience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sosik, J. J. (2000). The role of personal meaning in charismatic leadership. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(2), 1-19.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the

job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spence Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace
empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 1-16.

Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200-215.

Testa, M. R., Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2003). Cultural fit and job satisfaction in a
global service environment. Management International Review, 43(2), 1-12.

Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 1-11.

Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal employees. Public Personnel

Management, 26(3), 1-28.

Trochim, W. M. K. (1997). Basic research methods in the social science. Fullerton, CA:
California State University.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1998, March 20).
Government as a high performance employer: A SCANS report for America.
Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/govhpe/govhpe.pdf

147
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the American Workplace. (1994). Road to high-
performance workplace: A guide to better jobs and better business results.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation. (2003, September).
The federal workforce for the 21st century: Results of the merit principles survey
2000. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from http://www.mspb.gov/studies/mps_2000/
mps_2000.htm

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation. (2005). Issues of
merit: Understanding job satisfaction. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from http://www
.mspb.gov/studies/newsletters/05septnws/05Sept. pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1992, September-2004, September). Central

personnel data file. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://www.opm.gov/feddata/
tot04mo.pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2004). Federal Human Capital Survey 2004.
Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.fhcs2004.opm.gov/FHCSreports/
ResponseWPCT.asp?AGY=ALL&SECT=6

Van Buren, M. E., & Werner, J. M. (1996). High performance work systems. Business and
Economic Review, 43(1), 1-9.

Vicere, A. A. (1992). The strategic leadership imperative for executive development. Human
Resource Planning, 15(1), 1-18.

Walker, J. W. (2001). Human capital: Beyond HR? Hr. Human Resource Planning, 24(2), 1-
4.

Watson, M. L. (2005, March). Illusions of trust: A comparison of corporate annual report

executive letters before and after SOX. Paper presented at the 8th International Public
Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL. Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://
www.instituteforpr.com

Weiskittel, P. (1999). The concept of leadership. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 26(5), 467-
536.

Wilpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 1-41.

Wofford, J. C. (1994). Getting inside the leader’s head: A cognitive processes approach to
leadership. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59(3), 1-10.

148
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using
levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 1-
24.

Zauderer, D. G. (2002). Workplace incivility and the management of human capital: How to
build a community where people feel included, welcomed, and work together with
mutual respect to enhance individual and organizational productivity. The Public
Manager, 31(1), 1-14.

Zauderer, D. G., & Ridgway, D. M. (2003). Mastering the art of public leadership: The
Brookings Institution’s Center for Public Policy Education has initiated an innovative
training program that may sow the seeds for a change in federal government culture
through its first cohort of emerging leaders. The Public Manager, 32(3), 1-10.

149
 APPENDIX A
ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

Directions: This survey is designed to assess the level of organizational trust and job
satisfaction employees possess. Following are statements about your organization, as well as
yourself. Please circle the response that you think best indicates the current reality of your
agency.

Organizational Trust--Use the following ratings:

1 2 3 4 5
SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA= Strongly Agree

1. I can tell my immediate supervisor when things are going wrong.

1 2 3 4 5

2. My immediate supervisor follows through with what he/she says.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I am highly satisfied with the organization’s overall efficiency of operation.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My immediate supervisor listens to me.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I am free to disagree with my immediate supervisor.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Top management is sincere in their efforts to communicate with employees.

1 2 3 4 5

7. My immediate supervisor behaves in a consistent manner from day to day.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I feel connected to my organization.

1 2 3 4 5

150
9. I am highly satisfied with the overall quality of the products and/or services of the
organization.
1 2 3 4 5

10. I have a say in decisions that affect my job.

1 2 3 4 5

11. My immediate supervisor keeps confidences.

1 2 3 4 5

12. I receive adequate information regarding how well I am doing in my job.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I am highly satisfied with the capacity of the organization to achieve its objectives.
1 2 3 4 5

14. I receive adequate information regarding how I am being evaluated.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Top management listens to employees’ concerns.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Top management keeps their commitments to employees.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I am highly satisfied with the capacity of the organization’s employees.

1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel connected to my immediate supervisor.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I receive adequate information regarding how my job-related problems are handled.
1 2 3 4 5

20. My immediate supervisor is concerned about my personal well-being.

1 2 3 4 5

21. I receive adequate information regarding how organizational decisions are made that
affect my job.
1 2 3 4 5

22. Top management is concerned about employees’ well-being.

1 2 3 4 5

151
23. My immediate supervisor keeps his/her commitments to team members.
1 2 3 4 5

24. My values are similar to the values of my immediate supervisor.

1 2 3 4 5

25. I receive adequate information regarding the long-term strategies of my organization.

1 2 3 4 5

26. My immediate supervisor is sincere in his/her efforts to communicate with team

members.
1 2 3 4 5

27. My immediate supervisor speaks positively about subordinates in front of others.

1 2 3 4 5

Job Satisfaction--Use the following ratings:

1 2 3 4 5
SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA= Strongly Agree

28. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.
1 2 3 4 5

29. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.

1 2 3 4 5

30. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.

1 2 3 4 5

31. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.

1 2 3 4 5

32. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
1 2 3 4 5

33. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult.
1 2 3 4 5

34. I like the people I work with.

1 2 3 4 5

152
35. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.
1 2 3 4 5

36. Communications seem good within this organization.

1 2 3 4 5

37. Raises are too few and far between.

1 2 3 4 5

38. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
1 2 3 4 5

39. My supervisor is unfair to me.

1 2 3 4 5

40. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
1 2 3 4 5

41. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.

1 2 3 4 5

42. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.

1 2 3 4 5

43. I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of
people I work with.
1 2 3 4 5

44. I like doing the things I do at work.

1 2 3 4 5

45. The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

1 2 3 4 5

46. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.
1 2 3 4 5
47. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.
1 2 3 4 5

48. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.

1 2 3 4 5

49. The benefit package we have is equitable.

1 2 3 4 5

153
50. There are few rewards for those who work here.
1 2 3 4 5

51. I have too much to do at work.

1 2 3 4 5

52. I enjoy my coworkers.

1 2 3 4 5

53. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.
1 2 3 4 5

54. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.

1 2 3 4 5

55. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.

1 2 3 4 5

56. There are benefits we do not have which we should have.

1 2 3 4 5

57. I like my supervisor.

1 2 3 4 5

58. I have too much paper work.

1 2 3 4 5

59. I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.
1 2 3 4 5

60. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.

1 2 3 4 5

61. There is too much bickering and fighting at work.

1 2 3 4 5

62. My job is enjoyable.

1 2 3 4 5

63. Work assignments are not fully explained.

1 2 3 4 5

154
Demographics

64. Gender: ___M ___F

65. How long have you been with your organization?

___ less than 6 months ___ 1-3 years ___ 6+ years

___ 6 months to 1 year ___ 3-6 years

66. What is your occupation?

___ Professional ___ Administrative ___ Technical

___ Clerical/Secretarial ___ Other (e.g., Co-op Students, Interns, etc.)

67. What is your grade level?

____GS-9 and under ____ GS-10 to GS-12 ____ GS-13+ ____SES

____ Wage System ____________ Other (please specify)

68. The year you were born? _______ (write in)

69. Do you belong to a union? ____Yes ____No

70. What is your position? _____Supervisory _____Nonsupervisory

71. What is the size of your division?

______ Less than 50 employees ___ 151-400 employees __ Over 1000

___ 51-150 employees ___ 401-1000 employees

72. Where is your job location?

___ Headquarters ___ Field Offices

73. What is your organizational mission? _____Emergency Response ____Safety

____ Other (Please write in)

155
Comments__________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

156
 APPENDIX B
BALANCED SCORE CARD LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK
IN THE WAR ON TALENTS

1. Balance the short-term needs and long-term needs of the employees with those of the
organization.

2. Anticipate and forecast future organizational resources and workforce requirements

and expectations.

3. Focus energy and resources toward meeting constituents’ needs.

4. Anticipate continuous improvements and change necessary to be in alignment with

the changing political, social, economic, and cultural environment.

5. Provide equality and equity to all concerned.

6. Lead by example.

7. Use the appropriate strategy as situations demand in leading the organization:

evolutionary, revolutionary, allocation/reallocation of resources, and information
technology.

8. Create a performance culture that encourages and promotes employee empowerment

necessary for creating a learning organization and for developing the employees and
the organization.

Copyright Phuong L. Callaway, 2005, All rights reserved.

157