Perceived organizational climate & interpersonal trust among virtual workers.
Birdie, Arvind Kaur ; Jain, Madhu
Growing number of organizations explored the virtual environment as
a means to achieve increased responsiveness. Use of virtual teams
appears to be on the rise. The present study explores the relationship
between perceived organizational climate and interpersonal trust among
virtual workers. The sample consisted of 100 virtual workers working in
different organizations in Delhi-NCR. A correlation based research
design was employed. The correlation between overall perceived
organization climate and trust has been found insignificant among
virtual workers. However, perceived organizational climate's
domains like performance standards, conflict resolution, reward system
and identity problems are found positively correlated with trust in an
organization.
Introduction
As technology advanced and liberalization came in the early
nineties in India, not only it changed individual's lifestyle to a
large extent but it also brought the world closer. This globalization
has brought a big change in organizations also. Virtual working is one
of them.
The radical change in the market took place due to liberalization,
globalization and technological advances by the effect of which
customers can get a product made in America or anywhere in the world and
survive in a local market where businesses are expanding. India's
growth story shows that those who embraced change post-1991 had not only
survived but excelled. With globalization, organizations are becoming
more service oriented with the help of fast technology which has
metamorphosed the work culture and the work setting. If a customer in
Jaipur wishes to buy a book from the US or New Delhi, he/she does not
have to go to America or New Delhi, and probably not even to a bookshop
in Jaipur. With a click on the website selling books, the person can
receive it within 24 hrs at home itself. Globalization and advancement
in technology has influenced organizational structure and culture. As a
result globalization has become a big challenge says organization
behavior experts.
Cultural, geographic, and time differences make it challenging for
a leader to provide structure to followers, evaluate their performance,
inspire and develop them and enable them to identify with the
organization. Organizational behaviorists have helped to provide new
alternative work arrangements to today's workforce. This workforce
is very different and sounds interesting. Here the individual works from
anywhere e.g., while travelling, visiting customer etc. In all the
cases, the worker remains linked electronically with the home and
office.
The numbers of workers who are telecommuting are growing by the
day, with organizations such as Cisco reporting that more than 50% of
their workers telecommute at least part of the time. Many organizations
like IBM embraces virtual work not only as a means of helping employees
with work- life balance issues, but also for bottom line interests.
The Virtual Model- Organization
One model that looks increasingly robust in difficult times is the
virtual model-organization that orchestrates the activities of many
independent actors rather than owning, employing and controlling lots of
people. The major virtue of virtuality is that, if it is done right, it
creates truly agile organizations well equipped to negotiate the
crumbling markets of recession (Birkinshaw, 2010).
Drori, Meyer and Hwang (2006) conceive the organizations as a
reflecting model of their environment. Today the information based
organizations are becoming a reality. In fact, Bell and Kozlowski (2002)
maintain that virtual teams will play a key role in the design of
organizations in the new millennium. For multinational companies and
organizations who work across the borders cost cutting is one of the
issues. With increasing efficiencies in terms of customer focus, this
might be proving profitable as in the case of IBM which reports firm
estimates that $ 100+million are saved each year. However, from the
psychological perspective whether this concept of virtual working
creates organizations where people perceive their organizational climate
as positive and whether they can form the kind of trusting relationships
with others in the office setting while formal and informal meetings
(including gossips) are going on as virtuality.
Lipnack and Stamps (1997) stated that managing a successful virtual
company requires 90% people and 10% technology. As this concept is new
and little is known about it scientifically, in the past not many
relevant researches in psychology has been taken to throw light on the
virtual work force, we consider it relevant to study this new area as it
is becoming one of the challenges in the field of organizational
behavior in the present digital age. With these questions in mind we
have taken virtual workers as a sample of this study. Another important
and associated aspect is that organization climate and the interpersonal
trust between people in these organizations where members do not meet
face to face play an important role irrespective of the type of
organization. Does interpersonal trust get affected in these
organizations? Therefore, the study of organizational climate is an
important part of this research.
We consider two approaches here. The first regards the concept of
climate as an individual perception and cognitive representation of the
work environment. The second emphasizes the importance of shared
perceptions as underpinning the notion of the climate (Anderson &
West, 1998; Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). A study conducted by Hart,
Griffin, Wearing and Cooper (1996) shows that the organizational climate
model accounts for at least 16% on a single-day sick leave and 10%
separation rates in one organization. Other studies support the links
between organizational climate and many other factors such as employee
retention, job satisfaction, well-being, and readiness and change
(Bushell, 2007).
Organizational climate has many constituents. Among all of them
OCTAPACE culture is one which was introduced by T.V. Rao. It includes 1.
Openness 2.Confrontation 3.Trust 4.Authenticity 5.Proactivity 6.Autonomy
7.Collaboration and 8.Exprementing (Singh, 2010). Current research
suggests that virtual teams' failure is directly related to the
difficulties of building trust, and positive relationships across the
three boundaries of geographical distances, time zones, and cultural
differences (Kimble, Li & Barlow, 2001).
Wilson (1993) believes that although trust is a significant concept
for study, it is a topic which has different interpretations. Lewicki,
Allister and Bies (1998) define trust as "The perception of one
about others, decision to act based on speech, behavior and their
decision". Mayer (1995) believes that trust is "the tendency
of a group to susceptibility towards the actions of other group, it is
expected that group will do a special action which is important in the
view of the one who trusts regardless of supervision and control of the
group". Mishra (1996) defines organizational trust as a
unidirectional tendency toward susceptibility to other party based on
the expectation or believe that the other party is reliable, open and
trustable.
Swift Trust in Temporary Teams
When the team begins to interact, trust is maintained by a
"highly active, proactive, enthusiastic, generative style of
action" (Meyerson 1996). High levels of action have also been shown
to be associated with high performing teams (Iacono and Weisband, 1997).
Action strengthens trust in a self-fulfilling fashion: action will
maintain member's confidence that the team is able to manage the
uncertainty, risk, and points of vulnerability, yet the conveyance of
action has a requisite of the communication of individual activities. In
summary, whereas traditional conceptualizations of trust are based
strongly on interpersonal relationships, swift trust de-emphasizes the
interpersonal dimensions and is based initially on broad categorical
social structures and later on action. Since members initially import
trust rather than develop it, trust might attain its zenith at the
projects inception (Meyerson, Weick & Kramer, 1996).
Trust is critical for unblocking communication between members and
sustaining motivation of each person involved. The issue of trust needs
special attention at any stage of team's existence (Wellman, 2001).
Keeping in perspective the importance of trust for organizations and the
increasing change in organization's structure and climate due to
virtual work settings, the aim of this study is to find out whether
perceived organizational climate is related to trust among virtual
workers. The following hypothesis is formulated for the study:
There will be significant positive relationship between perceived
organizational climate and trust among virtual workers of different
organizations.
Sample
Virtual working is still in its early stages in India. A sample of
100 male virtual workers who are qualified postgraduates, possess three
years of work experience and fall under 26.5 years of age were selected
adopting the purposive sampling method on the bases of availability as
well as willingness to participate in this study. Respondents were
selected from various organizations in IT, ITES, and Hospitality sectors
residing in Delhi and NCR (National Capital Region).
Organizational Climate Inventory (OCI)
OCI is developed by Chattopadhayay & Agarwal (1976) and is used
to measure perceived organizational climate consisting of 70 items. OCI
dimensions were: performance standards, communication flow, reward
system, responsibility, conflict resolution, organizational structure,
motivational level, decision making process, support system, warmth and
identity problems. Reliability coefficient by Spearman-Brown Formula was
.898,_P being .001 and 68 out of 72 items valid.
Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI)
Trust was measured with OTI developed by Nyhan & Marlowe
(1997). The OTI reflects the assumed differentiation of systems and
personal trust in Luhmann's theory. It is a 12-item scale, with 8
items measuring trust in supervisor and 4 items measuring trust in the
organization as a whole. The scale is formed in a 7-point Likert-type
format. Internal consistency tests show that each of the study
groups' coefficient alphas was very high (.96 and .95, respectively
for both types of trust). CFA (conformatory factor analysis) used to
test the validity of the dichotomized scale. Discriminant validity is
supported by the X2 difference test. Convergent validity was assessed
using the data from all study groups. It exhibited internal homogeneity
and consistency, temporal reliability, and discriminant and convergent
validity.
Procedure
The sample of the present study involved virtual workers of
different organizations. The information about the sample was collected
initially from the company's website and social websites and then
by meeting them face to face. Initial rapport was established through
social websites like Linkedin. After getting their informed consent and
according to the convenience of virtual workers, a specified time and
duration for filling questionnaires was fixed. Before administering the
questionnaires, the respondents were assured of the confidentiality of
their responses. Special care was taken to administer the test properly,
minimizing the effect of fatigue by administering the test in three
sessions. To get more clarity and to verify the generalized results,
researchers administered focus group discussions and non-structured
interviews in the organizations' conference rooms or cafeteria by
taking due permission from organizations' administration
departments. The sample was chosen randomly to get justified results in
the line of questionnaires filled.
Results & Discussion
A close analysis of the results shows that in the total sample of
virtual workers, correlation between overall perceived organization
climate and trust has not been found significant among virtual workers.
Perceived organizational climate's domains performance standards
(P<.05), conflict Resolution (P<.05), reward system (P<.05) and
identity problems (P<.05) dimensions were found positively correlated
with trust in the organization. The results of this study partially
support the hypothesis of relationship between perceived organizational
climate and interpersonal trust among virtual workers of different
organizations. As virtual work climate is different from face to face
work environment the past theories and researches in virtual context do
not remain unchanged and this could be one of the reasons for the
partial correlation between the variables. The finding goes in
consonance with the interview schedule taken by the researchers for
exploring the factors affecting the overall trust with the organization
and supervisors and long term commitment for the organization.
Views of Employees
"Although, I am working in India's best MNC in the IT
sector, the sector has its own complexities. Everything was good but
after working for so long in this reputed company, many people will be
fired in a month or two", comments X case Senior Project Head.
"It is like the boss is more concerned checking whether I am
on a holiday or working", rues G case, hotel business developer/
travel firm.
"The digital age has shifted many things. I can work from my
home town also. No need to go to office. My work is project- based. My
boss is not bothered whether I am at home or in the market or the
office. This way the company has no issues. Our clients are in US so I
can work in the night time also," claims B Case, IT.
"Although it is one of the best companies in the hospitality
sector, I cannot think more than two years. One needs to grow. Right now
1 am not married, so I can shift anywhere whether Bombay or Noida",
according to A case, hotel solutions.
"Things have changed from few years back and now. At the end
of the day, money matters. So I do not think in the corporate world one
marries with the company. Whenever there is a good opportunity, I can
shift even if it's a smaller organization". So believes H
case, ITEs firm.
"Most of our organizations tend to be arranged on the
assumption that people cannot be trusted or relied upon, even in tiny
matters. It is unwise to trust people whom you do not know well, whom
you have not observed in action over time, and who are not committed to
the same goals.... Trust needs touch.... high tech has to be balanced by
high touch to build high trust organizations. Paradoxically, more
virtual an organization becomes, the more its people need to meet in
person" (Handy, 1995).
Cultivating trust among team members in global teams has been
ranked as the most difficult task by global team leaders. People trust
one another more when they share similarities, communicate frequently
and operate in a common cultural context that imposes sanctions for
behaving in an untrustworthy manner. Building trust is even more
difficult when there is :
1. A high level of risks in the tasks
2. A low level of interdependence between team members for
accomplishing their tasks.
3. Membership that is distributed over a wide geographic area.
4. A high cultural distance between members.
Thus, it will be easier to build trust in a team with members
distributed across one continent, say for instance, all the Spanish
countries in Latin America, rather than a team whose members come from
many different countries. Moreover trust is a part of organizational
climate and the finding goes consonant with this theoretical assumption.
Trust development in virtual teams may be more difficult in the
absence of face-to-face contact (McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001).
Studies have identified the difficulty of communicating in virtual teams
because of the lack of media richness (Watson-Manheim & Belanger,
2002).Computer mediated communication depersonalizes the interaction so
there is a greater focus on the actual words in the message (Sproull
& Kiesler, 1991). If the communication only serves to report or
inform, the possibility of misunderstanding may be low. However, when
communications go beyond simple reporting to task allocation and
negotiation, the receiver may misinterpret the meaning of the message
(Furomo & Pearson, 2007).
Sullivan, Peterson, Kameda and Shimada, (1981) investigated whether
the manner in which conflicts are resolved in Japanese-American joint
ventures in Japan influences the level of future mutual trust. Japanese
managers perceived a higher level of future trust when disputes are
resolved through conferrals, except when an American is in charge of
operations. Otherwise they designate contracts requiring binding
arbitration.
Employee's perceptions of organizational trust on service
climate and employee satisfaction were studied by Chathoth, Mak, Jauhari
and Manaktola, (2007). Multidimensional constructs of trust and service
climate were developed using the literature in the trust and service
management domains. Results supported that trust affects service climate
and employee satisfaction, whereas service climate affects employee
satisfaction in a significant way. Implications for practitioners and
future research ensue, which underscored the importance of building
trust and service climate to ensure employee satisfaction in hotel
firms.
The results of researches (Ellonen, Blomqvist & Puumalainen,
2008: Erturk, 2007:Lamsa & Pucetaite, 2006; Ratnasingam, 2005;
Smith, 2005; Politis, 2003; Wang, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001) have
shown the effects of organizational trust on organizational innovation,
organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment,
motivation, organizational performance, continuance of relations,
effectiveness, knowledge management and group performance, collaboration
in decision making, cooperation level and team process.
Al-Alawi, Al- Mrzooqi and Mohammed (2007) investigated the role of
certain factors in organizational culture in the success of knowledge
sharing. Such factors as interpersonal trust, communication between
staff, information systems, rewards and organization structure play an
important role in defining the relationships between staff and in turn,
providing possibilities to break obstacles to knowledge sharing. The
research findings indicated that trust, communication, information
systems, rewards and organization structure were positively related to
knowledge sharing in organizations.
Conclusion & Implications
As virtual working is not for everyone and virtual work place has
fragile trust, for developing supportive climate and building trust in
virtual workers, policy makers can:
I. Encourage face to face interviews and plan long orientation and
induction programs.
II. Organize frequent or monthly face to face meetings. Option to
work in offices and having temporary cabins and office spaces can give
the required touch with coworkers at times, like in IBM and other
organizations.
III. Combine work arrangement like Job Sharing with virtual work to
develop sense of responsibility and trust.
IV. Organize informal meetings like social events, celebrating
birthdays, anniversaries together by which team members can maintain
strong social bonds. Team building activities like outbound training can
build social bonds.
V. Prepare and facilitate some recreational activities to develop a
sense of affiliation. One of them could be an international holiday for
virtual workers with their families, club memberships etc.
VI. Understand and analyze the virtual distance in the context of
this study as one important step that leaders can take to be more
effective in managing organizations in the virtual, digital world.
Suggestions for Future Research
Owing to less information and research found in this new area of
virtual work, for future research there is enormous opportunity to
explore this topic for drawing concrete conclusions and implications for
organizational behaviorists. Some of the suggestions include comparison
with face to face working professionals, cross cultural and longitudinal
research, large sample, coverage of more sectors, and including more
demographic variables.
Arvind Kaur Birdie is Associate Professor & Acting Principal,
IIMT School of Management, Gurgaon. Email: arvindgagan@gmail.com. Madhu
Jain is Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, India.
References
Al-Alawi, A.I., AI-Marzooqi,N. Y. & Mohammed,Y.F. (2007).
"Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing: Critical Success
Factors," Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2):22-42.
doi:10.11.08/36732700710738818
Anderson, N.R. & West, M.A. (1998), "Measuring Climate for
Work Group Innovation: Development and Validation of the Team Climate
Inventory", Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19: 235-58.
Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W.J.(2002), "A Typology of
Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership", Group and
Organization Management, 27(1): 14-49.
Birkinshaw, J. (23Jan,2011)). "Swimming Lessons",
Retrieved from http://bsr.london.edu/blog/post-14/index.html
Bushell, H.M. (2007), "Quantifying the Key Leadership
Behaviors for Creating a Successful Culture which Empowers Employees and
Strengthens Organizational Performance", Health, Work &
Wellness Conference, Toronto, Canada
Chathoth, P.K., Mak, B., Jauhari, V. & Manaktola, K.(2007),
"Employees Perceptions of Organizational Trust & Service
Climate: A Structural Model Combining Their Effects on Employee
Satisfaction'", Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
31 (3):338-57.
Chattopadhayay, S.N., & Agarwal, K.C. (1976), Organizational
Climate Inventory, Agra: National Psychological Corporation.
Dirks,K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2001), "The Role of Trust in
Organizational Settings", Journal of Organization Science,
I7(4):65.
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W. & Hwang, H. (2006), Globalization
and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ellonen, R., Blomqvist.K. & Puumalainen, K.(2008), "The
Role of Trust in Organizational Innovativeness", European Journal
of Innovation Management, 11 (2): 160-81.
Erturk, A. (2007), "Increasing Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors of Turkish Academicians: Mediating Role of Trust in Supervisor
on the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Citizenship
Behaviors", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3):257-70.
Furumo. K. & Pearson, J.M. (2007), "Gender Based
Communication Styles, Trust and Satisfaction in Virtual Teams",
Journal of Information, Information Technology and Organization, 2:48-50
Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M. & Wilson-Evered, E. (2000),
"Using Employee Opinion Surveys to Improve Organizational
Health", in L. R. Murphy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Health and
Productive Work: An International Perspective, London: Taylor &
Francis
Handy, C. (1995), "Trust and the Virtual Organization",
Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40-50.
Hart. P. M., Griffin, M. A., Wearing, A. J. & Cooper, C. L.
(1996), Manual for the QPASS Survey, Brisbane: Public Sector Management
Commission.
Iacono, C.S. & Weisband, S. (1997), "Developing Trust in
Virtual Teams", Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference
on Systems Sciences, Hawaii . (CD-ROM).
Kimble, C., Li, F. & Barlow, A.(2001), "Effective Virtual
Teams through Communities of Practice", Management Science Research
Paper No.2000/09, retrieved from http://
citeseerx.ist.DSU.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.4219&rep=rep1
& type= pdf on 12 March2016.
Lamsa, A.M. & Pucetaite, R.(2006), "Developing
Organizational Trust among Employees from a Contextual
Perspective", Journal of Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2).
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. & Bies, R.J. (1998),
"Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities""
The Academy of Management Review,23(3):42S-59.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps. J. (1997), Virtual Teams: Reaching Across
Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology, New York, NY:John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.,
Mathisen, G.E. & Einarsen, S. (2004), "A Review of
Instruments Assessing
Creative and Innovative Environments within Organizations",
Creativity Research Journal, 16(1): 119-40.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995), "An
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust", Academy of Management
Review, 20:709-34
McDonough, E., Kahn, K. & Barczak, G. (2001), "An
Investigation of the Use of Global, Virtual, and Collocated New Product
Development Teams", The Journal of Product Innovation Management,
18: 110-20.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E. & Kramer, R. M. (1996), "Swift
Trust and Temporary Groups",in R. M. Kramer and T. R.Tyler, (Eds.),
Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks
, CA : Sage Publications.
Mishra, A.K. (1996), "Organizational Response to Crisis: The
Centrality of Trust", in R.M Kramer, T.R.Tyler (Eds), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, C.A:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Nyhan, R.C. & JR, Marlowe. H.A. (1997), "Development and
Psychometric Properties of the Organizational Trust Inventory",
Evaluation Review, 21:614.
Politis, J.D.(2003), "The Connection between Trust and
Knowledge Management: What are Its Implications for Team
Performance", Journal of Knowledge Management,7(5):55-66.
Ratnasingam, P. (2005), "E-Commerce Relationship: The Impact
of Trust on Relationship Continuity", International Journal of
Commerce and Management, 15(1): 1-16.
Schultz, D. & Schultz, S.E. (2004), Psychology and Work Today;
An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8th
Edition, Delhi: Pearson: 13-14,251.
Singh, K.(2010), Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases, New
Delhi, Pearson.
Smith, G(2005), "How to Achieve Organizational Trust within an
Accounting Department". Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(5):520-32.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991), Connections: New Ways of
Working in the Networked Organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sullivan J., Peterson, R.B., Kameda. N & Shimada, J.(1981),
"The Relationship between Conflict Resolution Approaches and
Trust-A Cross Cultural Study", Academy of Management Journal,
24(4): 803-15.
Wang,Y.(2003), "Trust and Decision-making Styles in Chinese
Township-village Enterprises", Journal of Managerial
Psychology,18(6):541-56.
Watson-Manheim, M. B. & Belanger, F. (2002), "Support for
Communication-based Work Processes in Virtual Work", e-Service
Journal, 1 (3),61-82.
Wellman, B. (2001), "The Rise of Networked
Individualism", in L. Keeble (Ed.), Community Networks Online,
London: Taylor & Francis.
Wilson, M.B. (1993), A New Method of Assessing Cook and Wall's
Informal Theory of Organizational Trust: A Coast Guard Sample, Doctoral
Dissertation, George Washington University, Dissertation Abstract
International,54, 109
Table 1 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Total Sample of
Virtual Workers (N=100)
Sup Trust Org Trust Trust Per Std Comn Flo
Sup Trust 1
Org Trust -.077 1
Trust .84(**) .47 (**) 1
Per Std .08 .22 (*) .192 1
Comn Flo -.04 .04 -.013 .46 (**) 1
Rwd Sys .025 .25 (*) .159 .72 (**) .52 (**)
Resp .13 -.07 .08 .25 (*) .36 (**)
SS .08 .21 (*) .190 .68 (**) .59 (**)
Org Strc -.11 .16 -.01 .11 .14
Moti Lvl .00 -.01 -.00 .41 (**) .74 (**)
DM -.18 .05 -.13 .47 (**) .85 (**)
SS .04 .16 .12 .54 (**) .72 (**)
Warmth .15 .06 .17 .36 (**) .56 (**)
Id Prob .01 .22 (*) .13 .69 (**) .63 (**)
OC .01 .16 .10 .73 (**) .87 (**)
Rwd Sys Resp Conf Reso Org Strc Moti Lvl
Sup Trust
Org Trust
Trust
Per Std
Comn Flo
Rwd Sys 1
Resp .27 (**) 1
SS .63 (**) .31 (**) 1
Org Strc .23 (*) .03 -.03 1
Moti Lvl .50 (**) .33 (**) .47 (**) .13 1
DM .60 (**) .25 (**) .63 (**) .12 .70 (**)
SS .63 (**) .28 (**) .64 (**) .19 .54 (**)
Warmth .34 (**) .53 (**) .30 (**) .14 .67 (**)
Id Prob . 71 (**) .32 (**) .76 (**) .187 .53 (**)
OC .78 (**) .46 (**) .77 (**) .24 (*) .79 (**)
DM SS Warmth Id Prob OC
Sup Trust
Org Trust
Trust
Per Std
Comn Flo
Rwd Sys
Resp
SS
Org Strc
Moti Lvl
DM 1
SS .63 (**) 1
Warmth .41 (**) .31 (**) 1
Id Prob .64 (**) .77 (**) .43 (**) 1
OC .84 (**) .81 (**) .63 (**) .84 (**) 1
* Significant at 0.05 Level (2 tailed)
** Significant at 0.01 Level (2 tailed)
Sup Trust: Supervisor Trust
Org Trust: Organizational Trust
Per Std: Preformance Standards
Com n Flo: Communication Flow
Rwd Sys: Reward System
Resp: Responsibility
Conf Reso: Conflict Resolution
Org Strc: Organizational Structure
Moti Lvl: Motivational Level
DM: Decision Making
SS: Social Support
Warmth: Warmth
Id Prob: Identity Problem
OC: Organizational Climate
