


































http://journals.sfu.ca/abr  ADVANCES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH 
2014, Volume 5, pages 50-62 

 
 

50 

 

The Functions of Management as Mechanisms for 
Fostering Interpersonal Trust 

Mike Schraeder 
Dennis R. Self 

Troy University 

Mark H. Jordan 
University of North Georgia 

Ron Portis 
Troy University 

The central purpose of this article is to draw attention to ways that interpersonal trust between 
supervisors and employees can be fostered through activities associated with the four 
functions of management.  Interpersonal trust has received increasing attention as an 
important variable for effective management and the success of organizations.  Further, 
managers serve a critical role in promoting organizational success.  Practical insights regarding 
activities that promote interpersonal trust within each of the four functions of management is 
briefly discussed.  These insights are offered with the intent of encouraging a more deliberate 
focus on trust within the functions of management.   

Keywords: Management; functions of management, management education 

 Introduction 

History has marked numerous shifts in the nature of organizational environments that have 
necessitated simultaneous adjustments in the way organizations are managed. As a matter of 
practicality, managers serve a number of important purposes in organizations and are recognized as 
having a substantial impact on the overall climate of the workplace (Lennox, 2013). Further, the 
successful leadership of organizations embodies a complex set of skills and abilities. Within this 
complex and dynamic nature of management remains the critical element of trust which must be 
fostered on an ongoing basis since it is regarded as a crucial component of organizations (Sonnenberg. 
1994). 

 The purpose of this article is to initiate a practical dialogue regarding the question of how the 
four core functions of management (i.e., planning, organizing, leading, and controlling) can be used 
to foster interpersonal trust between supervisors and employees. Justification for framing the dialogue 
within the context of the four functions of management is based on the use of these functions as the 
foundation or core of most management education curricula and courses. For many, the exposure to 
managerial concepts in entry-level courses serve a formative role in influencing future management 
philosophies, values, and behavior. Surprisingly, however, the topic of trust is not covered consistently 
in management texts. 

Management and leadership training programs also serve as potential catalysts influencing 
individual’s perceptions, philosophies and approach to management. Nevertheless, a review of the 
management development and leadership development literature over the past several decades, 
suggests that while an understanding of trust may be a desired outcome of many management or 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr


Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

51 
 

leadership development programs, it is not clearly listed as a specific goal of the training or 
development process (c.f., Alexander, 1987; Cohn, 1988; Eddy, 2005; LaHote, Simonetti, & 
Longenecker, 1999; Shaffer, 1991; Shaw & Patterson, 1995; Tarley, 2002). Of the articles selected, the 
only one in which trust was specifically mentioned as a goal was that of Broderick and Pearce (2001), 
which was grounded in an Adventure Training approach which has its roots in the Outward Bound 
movement. Interestingly, the much-written-about management development program General 
Electric requires for future managers did not specifically address trust as an integral key to success 
(Tarley, 2002). Most training programs appear to be focused on knowledge content specific to the 
organization, as well as providing training or at least an understanding of issues such as 
communication, dealing with conflict, problem solving, teamwork, and leading change.  

Trust is, of course, a desired outcome. Indeed, it is likely that the training programs and 
practices noted above?) should have or did result in a development of, or increase of trust between 
supervisors and employees. But that result is achieved only if those going through the training actually 
attempt to apply the training once they return to the workplace. But, when the training does not 
emphasize trust, the concern is whether the trainees will perceive both the need for and/or the 
opportunities to act in ways that enhanced interpersonal trust within the work place. Consequently, a 
discussion that emphasizes trust at this fundamental level has the potential to diffuse to other 
management practices, theories, and strategies predicated on the four functions of management.  
 

Overview of Trust 
From an applied or practical perspective, Sonnenberg (1994) described trust as something that 

must be a central component of organizations. Tzafrir (2005) provides additional support, stating that 
“Trust is a key component of organizational relationships, and management’s approach to the issue 
of trust is of academic and practical significance” (p. 1600). Furthermore, trust is regarded as 
fundamental to the notion of the multiple social exchanges that occur within organizations (Cole, 
Schaninger, & Harris, 2002).  

The implicit value of supervisor-employee interpersonal trust within the framework of the 
functions of management is important to recognize (at least in a general sense), since trust is known 
to be a salient factor in organizations (McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992). More specifically, the recognition 
that the behavior of managers is a relevant factor in the trust that develops within the management-
employee dyad (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). This importance is further reinforced 
through the observation that gaining the trust of individuals in the workplace is crucial to the success 
of contemporary organizations (Caldwell, Hayes, & Long, 2010). McDonald (2010) further 
emphasizes the significance of relationships by offering a compelling definition of management as, “a 
trusting work relationship with other human beings that produces sustainable, escalating value” (p. 
629).  

 
The Concept of Trust 

Researchers acknowledge a growing interest in literature related to trust (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 
2002; Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010). Trust is regarded as a dynamic, multifaceted phenomenon (McCauley 
& Kuhnert, 1992; Rousseau, Sitken, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) including, but not limited to essential 
components such as truth (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997), integrity (Tan & Tan, 2000; Whitener et al., 
1998), and communication (Zeffane, Tipu, & Ryan, 2011). Trust is also recognized as something that 
must be earned (Mills & Ungson, 2003), representing an essential element in relational capital (Lennox, 
2013), as well as social exchange (Mahajan, Bishop, & Scott, 2012). In an effort to promote conceptual 
clarity this article will adopt the definition of trust provided by Rousseau et al. (1998) who described 
the concept as, “… a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on 
positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (p.395).  



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

52 

 

 
Importance of Supervisor-Employee Interpersonal Trust  

High quality relationships between supervisors and employees, in the form of leader-member-
exchange, are recognized as important determinants of desirable organizational outcomes (Graen & 
Uhl-Bien, 1995). In their review of literature related to LMX over the preceding 25 years, Graen and 
Uhl-Bien (1995) included studies linking the quality of the supervisor-employee relationship (i.e., 
LMX) with outcomes including, but not limited to performance, organizational citizenship behavior, 
and organizational commitment. There is considerable interest in understanding factors associated 
with effective management (e.g., Page, Wilson, Meyer, & Inkson, 2003), as well as the quality of the 
dyadic relationship between managers and employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). According to Pirson 
and Lawrence (2010, p. 553), “management theory and practice are facing unprecedented challenges.” 
Admittedly, there are a variety of characteristics associated with effective management, with trust 
increasingly being recognized as an essential concept in management (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 
2007; McAllister, 1995; McDonald, 2010).  

Employee trust in supervisors is acutely needed (Simons, 1999). According to Covey (1989, p. 
178), “Trust is the highest form of human motivation. It brings out the very best in people.” This 
perspective is mirrored by others who have described trust as a fundamental need for organizations, 
contributing to commitment (Zeffane et al., 2011), enhancing innovative efforts (Tan & Tan, 2000), 
and promoting cohesion within the workplace (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997). The integrity, benevolent 
behavior, and ability of the manager are among the factors related to worker trust that have been 
identified (Knoll & Gill, 2011; Tan & Tan, 2000). A number of valuable outcomes are associated with 
employee trust. For example, a meta-analysis of trust in leaders conducted by Dirks and Ferrin (2002) 
listed a number of important outcomes associated with this referent form of trust including job related 
attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment), organizational citizenship behavior 
(OCB) and better performance of the employee’s job.  

 
Interpersonal Trust in the Context of Management Functions 

 
College courses on management are often grounded in the four functions of management that 

evolved from Fayol’s (1916, trans. by Storr, as cited in Wren & Bedeian, 2009) writings on 
management theory and the practice of management. The essential content of these functions are 
intended to serve as a prescriptive overview of managerial responsibilities, and to provide a framework 
for what students (as future managers) should do in the practice of management. Fayol (1916, trans. 
by Storr, as cited in Wren & Bedeian, 2009) proposed five basic functions (planning, organizing, 
commanding, coordinating and controlling) with commanding and coordinating subsequently merged 
into the function of leading. He also proposed fourteen principles of management (1916, trans. by 
Storr, as cited in Wren & Bedeian, 2009). A review of these principles reveals no regard for the 
importance of employees’ trust in supervisors. Fayol’s writings were translated to English in the early 
1900s and came at a time when Taylor’s scientific management held sway (it, too, provided little room 
for a recognition of trust). Arguably, Fayol’s theories, combined with principles embodied within 
Taylor’s scientific management shaped the future of the study of management. In some respects, the 
mental models that evolved from their work remains firmly entrenched today: This sentiment is 
reflected in the philosophy, still present in some organizations today, that management’s responsibility 
is to plan, organize, lead (within a framework of commanding), and control the organization.  

Similarly, for employees it may also be argued: Follow the plan, within the framework of 
designed policies and procedures, do what you are told to do. Interestingly, this fits within McGregor’s 
Theory X model. McGregor (1967) viewed this type of thinking as mechanistic. McGregor (1967, p.8) 
observed that “Managerial practice appears to reflect at least a tacit belief that motivating people to 



Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

53 
 

work is a ‘mechanical’ problem…[that] it requires the application of external forces to…motivate him 
to work.” McGregor described this approach as Theory X ( For him, Theory X reflected a belief about 
the nature of man that suggested employees could not function unless told what to do.). Such a belief 
would not be conducive to an orientation toward building interpersonal trust in the organization (Heil, 
Bennis, & Stephens, 2000). McGregor proposed a counter-belief called Theory Y which held a more 
organic view of man in that employees are oriented to work, to seek responsibility, to be creative in 
the workplace. McGregor (1967), referring to Maslow’s need for self-actualization, argued that people 
have the capacity to grow and develop throughout life, and that management strategies can hinder or 
support growth. For McGregor, the self-actualized person is emergent in an organization grounded 
in a Theory Y belief. This emergence relies on mutual agreement, open communications, mutual trust, 
and mutual support (McGregor, 1967). Thus, for McGregor, the practice of effective management 
clearly requires the development of trust. Indeed, according to this theory, managers with a Theory Y 
perspective tend to trust employees (Smothers, 2011).  

Having established a historical foundation, the focus shifts to more specific insights and 
dialogue regarding the implicit value of supervisor-employee interpersonal trust within the context of 
the functions of management.  

 
Functions of Management  

The four common functions of management include planning, organizing, leading and 
controlling (McDonald, 2010). Leung and Kleiner (2004) suggest that these four functions are 
necessary, but not sufficient in promulgating successful management, with strong emphasis placed on 
adopting practices that include a focus on employees within organizations.  

While not immediately obvious, critical reflection on the nuances of these four functions of 
management highlights potential areas where trust may be enhanced through inclusion of intentional 
activities within each function (see Figure 1).  

Moreover, recognizing the implicit value of supervisor-employee interpersonal trust that 
permeates each function may serve an integrative role in helping to facilitate more fluid and effective 
deployment of the respective functions.  
 Planning. Planning is typically where the direction of the organization is established through 
a variety of activities including the development of goals. As such, the planning function of 
management embodies various levels of decision making. Allowing employees to participate in making 
these decisions may generate additional ideas that offer valuable insights (Leung & Kleiner, 2004). 
These new ideas could, in turn, have a positive impact on the quality of the plan since employees have 
a variety of different experiences and skills. Of particular interest in the context of the current article 
are findings that employee involvement is linked to higher levels of trust (Mahajan et al., 2012). 
Whitener et al. (1998) also note that involving employees in decisions has symbolic value in conveying 
a sentiment of trust to employees, while Dirks and Ferrin (2002) discuss the implicit confidence 
associated with allowing employees to participate in decision making. Indeed, managerial trust is 
associated with increased levels of employee involvement in decision making (Tzafrir, 2004).  
 Two important elements of decision making are gathering and analyzing information. 
Employees offer valuable insights and assistance in regard to both of these elements. First, employees 
often engage directly with customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. As a result, they have first-
hand knowledge of key information that can be useful in guiding the planning process. Asking 
employees to assist in gathering information may serve to validate their perceptions and add perceived 
credibility to the value of their observations/interactions with key stakeholders. This, in turn, fosters 
increased levels of trust. Likewise, allowing employees to participate in analyzing information sends 
the message to employees that they have valuable insights that offer unique perspectives on specific 
nuances of the information. A logical progression from collecting and analyzing information might 



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

54 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. 

Interpersonal Trust and the Four Functions of Management 

Planning 

1. Employee Involvement Decision Making 

2. Employee Involvement in Gathering 
Information 

3. Employee Involvement in Analyzing 
Information 

4. Employee Involvement in Establishing and 
Prioritizing Goals  

Organizing 

5. Transparent and Effective Employment 
Practices 

6.   Job Design (Create Enriched Jobs) 
7.  Decentralized Authority 
8.  Teams 

 

Leading 
9.   Communication 
10. Motivation 
11. Job Attitudes 
12. Effective Change Management 

Controlling 

13. Use Control as a Tool for Employee Development 
and Continuous Improvement 

14. Psychological Empowerment 
15. Involve Employees in Developing and Managing 

Control Related Activities 
16. Provide Timely, Accurate, and Informative 

Performance Data Used for Control Purposes  

 

 

Employee’s 

perceptions of 

trust or 

distrust 

Citizenship 

Behaviors 

Employee 

Engagement 

Organizational 
Commitment 

Planning 

Controlling Organizing 

Positive Expectations of 

Others and the Organization 

Leading 

14

 

1 

3 

 

4 

2 

 

6 

8 7 

5 

101

4 

122 

 

11 

9 

16 

 

15 

13 



Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

55 
 

be to include employees in developing and prioritizing goals resulting from this analysis. This 
involvement would then enhance employee buy-in related to the goals, as well as contribute to 
increased levels of employee trust in supervisors.  

Organizing. The organizing function of management is comprised of numerous activities 
directly or indirectly related to the allocation of resources in ways that support the achievement of 
goals and plans that were developed in the planning function (Leung & Kleiner, 2004). Included within 
the organizing framework are numerous human resource management (HRM) related activities such 
as job design and the assignment of job duties. Since HRM practices serve such a critical role, it is 
important, first and foremost, that the organization develop transparent and effective employment 
practices. Transparency is needed to help employees gain a sense of being fully aware of how the 
organization promulgates employment practices. Effectiveness of these practices is necessary for 
employees to have confidence in the utility of these activities. In combination, employee perceptions 
of full awareness and confidence in practices/policies that impact employment decisions within the 
organization serve as powerful mechanisms fostering employee trust. A study by Vanhala and Ahteela  
(2011) examining posited relationships between six common (HRM) practices and organizational trust 
provides compelling evidence that employee trust in organizations is, indeed, influenced by common 
HRM practices. Additionally, human resource management highlights the attractiveness of companies 
to potential employees in part due to human resource practices that focus on tangibles (e.g., pay, 
benefits, etc.) and intangibles such as trust-based work climate (Daft & Marcic, 2011).  

In regard to effective HRM practices, employee trust may also be promoted through the 
specific structure of their work assignments (job design). For example, the creation of enriched jobs 
may be interpreted by employees as an indication that the organization trusts the employees enough 
to give them some degree of authority, autonomy, or flexibility in performing their job assignments. 
Having received this, employees, then, may be inclined to reciprocate through increased levels of trust.  

Another example of organizing and assigning work by a manger that fosters trust is through 
the structure of authority. A structure that relies on decentralized authority, as well as empowerment, 
allows employees to become more responsible for their jobs and decisions related to their jobs, 
contributing to heightened employee trust. Another example of a common method for assigning 
organizational tasks is the use of teams. The importance and prevalence of teams in organizations is 
increasing as more organizations become global and technology allows for the use of virtual teams. 
Trust is considered one of the team characteristics that differentiate an effective team from a 
dysfunctional team (Daft & Marcic, 2011). Trust has also been linked to team performance. De Jong 
and Elfring (2010), found that intra-team trust had a positive impact on team performance and suggest 
that “…to promote team performance, team supervisors need to actively engage in managing 
interpersonal relationships and fostering trust among team members” (p. 545). Trust has also been 
determined to provide a sense of psychological safety for team-members, one in which members are 
at ease with criticisms of their work, or discussing their mistakes (Edmondson, 1999).  

Leading. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) acknowledge that trust is embedded within a variety of 
leadership theories. The value and importance of trust cannot be overstated, regardless of the 
leadership style or philosophy of the leader. Leadership theories, such as consultative and 
transformational (Gillespie & Mann, 2004); authentic (Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004); servant (Sendjaya 
& Pekerti, 2010); and LMX (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) provide 
support for trust as an essential management concept for leaders.  

Leadership is a multi-dimensional process that includes motivation and influence of employees 
(Howell & Costley, 2006). As a part of this process of motivation and influence, exceptional leaders 
are typically skilled communicators (Blazey, 1997). Communication, in turn, is positively associated 
with trust (Zeffane et al., 2011). More importantly, the quality of supervisor communication has been 



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

56 

 

linked to trust (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Unfortunately, however, the opposite may also be true with 
ineffective communication resulting in an erosion of trust (Spangenburg, 2012).  

In the context of leadership, trust plays a valuable role in the job attitudes displayed by 
employees in the work environment. Recent research indicates different aspects of trust are related to 
higher levels of many of these job attitudes, to include perceived organizational support and affective 
organizational commitment (Ferres, Connell, & Travaglione, 2004); organizational citizenship 
behaviors and job satisfaction (Lester & Brower, 2003); and employee satisfaction and loyalty (Matzler 
& Renzl, 2006).  

The leading function of management can also include organizational change (Leung & Kleiner, 
2004). This is important to consider since trust is of paramount importance in the context of major 
change (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Change is ubiquitous in the current business environment, often 
accompanied by undesirable implications for employees (Yu, 2009). The level of employees’ trust in 
their supervisors impacts their concomitant attitudes toward change (Devos, Buelens, & 
Bouckenooghe, 2007). For instance, Lines, Selart, Espedal, and Johansen  (2005) found that the way 
in which changes are implemented either diminishes trust in management or increases trust in 
management. In an effort to tie this back to prior assertions that employee involvement and leadership 
communication contribute to employee trust, consider Beer’s (1987) discussion of the change process 
in which the importance of open communication and employee participation in promoting trust is 
acknowledged.  

In reality, the functions of management do not, necessarily, operate in a discrete manner. 
Instead, operationalizing the functions within the context of organizations often entails considerable 
overlap and fluidity between these dynamic functions. For example, leadership is commonly associated 
with creating a shared vision. Developing this shared vision, in turn, is considered important in framing 
the boundaries and direction of organizational efforts enacted by employees. While vision is indeed 
an important element of leadership, activities associated with this vision are also prevalent within the 
other three management functions. Specifically, the function of planning would be framed, to a large 
extent, by the vision of the organization. If employees are afforded an opportunity to contribute to 
the formulation of the vision and subsequent decision making within the planning function, 
interpersonal trust may be enhanced, thus creating the potential for improved deployment of the 
management functions. 

Controlling. The fourth function of management, control, includes managerial efforts 
directed toward monitoring both organizational and employee performance and progress toward goals 
(Costa & Bijlsma-Frankema, 2007). Organizations and managers utilize a variety of strategies or 
methods related to control. These methodologies range from overt, highly restrictive, and assertive 
forms of control to more implicit, decentralized, indirect forms of control. The methodology may 
include the use of various management information systems, but has been manifested, in the past, by 
managers directing employees, telling them how to do their jobs, and by close monitoring of the 
employees’ performance (Miles & Creed, 1995). This control strategy (use of systems, exercising of 
authority) has been deployed by managers attempting to reduce risk or uncertainty within an 
organization. While this approach may have been deemed adequate in the past, the complete reliance 
on formal controls is not sufficient in the contemporary business environment. Specifically, 
organizations face increased competition, not just locally, but globally; the pace of doing business has 
increased in speed requiring faster response time to change. To react to this new environment, one of 
the actions taken by top management has been to flatten organization structures, leading to wider 
spans of control, simultaneously adopting the use of teams in both in geographic and virtual 
environments.  

In a practical sense, the traditional forms of control may still have some value, but are no 
longer sufficient. The fundamental problem for managers is how they can give up control without 



Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

57 
 

losing control (Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999). Management must necessarily rely on trusting its employees 
not to act opportunistically, but to make the right decisions and perform in a way to fulfill 
organizational goals (Jagd, 2010). At times, trust and control seem to be considered as opposite ends 
of a continuum or at least inversely related (Dekker, 2004; Knights, Noble, Vurdbakia, & Willmott, 
2001; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Costa and Bijlsma-Frankema (2007), argue that trust and control are 
alternative strategies to be used within the organization. The reality is that the relationship between 
control and trust is much more complex. Coletti, Sedatole, and Towry (2005) present evidence that 
rather than control and trust being an either-or dilemma for managers, control actually builds trust 
between parties, perhaps because control regulates a set of expectations, so that either party is 
comfortable that the other will not take advantage of them. Over time, the control systems can 
reinforce non-opportunistic behaviors, contributing to trust. As a result, controls may later be reduced 
because trust remains. Indeed, there is evidence that trust and control may complement each other 
(Bijlsma & van de Bunt, 2003; Knights et al., 2001 further reinforcing the potential value of trust 
related to effective management.  

McDonald (2010) notes the central importance of coordination to the practice of 
management, emphasizing that coordination is not synonymous with the control. If the traditional 
form of command-and-control style of management is eroding as a result of emerging organizational 
trends, then a greater need for collaboration is apparent, as well as the use of teams to enable the 
organization to successfully compete in an environment of changing technology, increased 
globalization, and increased competition. Drucker (1999) noted that given the current business trends 
that organizations would need employees who were not only skilled but who possessed the ability to 
learn and adapt quickly to turbulent business environments. This seems consistent with increasing the 
active participation of employees in decision-making processes, as discussed earlier in the planning 
function of management. Ideally, in this type of environment, managers would believe that employees 
will not be opportunistic in their behaviors, and that employees would strive to make good decisions 
consistent with pursuing the vision, as well as goals of the organization. Thus, viewing trust and 
control not as opposites, but as complementary in nature, may be enlightening with both the manager 
and employee using the control systems in a collaborative fashion to achieve both the goals of the 
organization and the individual, trusting that each has the other’s best interest at heart. 

Other possible strategies for enhancing employee trust through activities within the controlling 
function of management may be worth considering. For example, control activities could be structured 
in ways that guide employee development and promote continuous improvement. As such, data 
gained through control activities would highlight employee areas that were strengths available to be 
leveraged by the organization for competitive advantage, while areas identified as needing 
improvement could be used for guidance in training and employee development programs. Used in 
this context, control measures may be viewed more positively by employees. The potential efficacy of 
control activities to foster increased trust can also be enhanced by ensuring that managers provide 
timely, accurate and information employee performance data to employees for feedback purposes.  
 Emerging Theories. Quite often, emerging theories related to management incorporate 
elements from the four functions of management, while also encapsulating dynamics associated with 
interpersonal trust. For example, Sendjaya and Pekerti (2010) identified dynamics enacted through 
servant leadership theory (i.e, placing the needs of employees and others above those of the leader) as 
an antecedent of worker trust. In addition, key factors reflected in the theory of authentic leadership, 
such as effective communication, are recognized as an important component in worker trust (Wong 
& Cummings, 2009). Finally, trust has been found to be both an outcome of transformational 
leadership (Jung & Avolio, (2000) and as a mediator of the relationship between transformational 
leadership and outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior, performance, and affective 
commitment (Goodwin, Whittington, Murray, & Nichols, 2011). In cases where trust is a component 



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

58 

 

in emerging theories, efforts to emphasize this might contribute to a better understanding the enduring 
importance of interpersonal trust within the context of management.  
 

Conclusion 
 

Organizations will continue to evolve and new management theories will continue to emerge. 
From a pedagogical perspective, fulfilling their role in preparing business students for successful 
careers in this dynamic environment will require that business schools remain vigilant in adapting 
curricula to meet these ever-changing needs. For traditional-aged students, exposure to management 
concepts is the first opportunity for many to develop an understanding of what it means to be an 
employee or manager and what one should strive to do to be successful. On the other hand, many 
non-traditional, older students may be employed, but not managers or supervisors. For them, exposure 
to management principles (either through college courses or management training programs) provides 
the opportunity for them to compare their own organizational experiences of how it is (what they 
experience) with how it could be (the ideal, if delivered effectively by the instructor and applied in the 
workplace). For both types of students, gaining this understanding of management, with an emphasis 
on trust, can lead to a transformed workplace if they have the opportunity to successfully apply what 
they have learned. Viewed from a practical perspective, organizations endeavoring to facilitate the 
development of their managers can benefit by helping these managers understand the fundamental 
implications that trust has on employees within the organization through their actions embodied with 
the functions they perform.  

Managers typically perform the four overarching functions of planning, organizing, leading, 
and controlling. This article has discussed ways in which that these four functions can be performed 
that will increase employee trust in their supervisors, which will, in turn, have positive implications for 
the organizations. By allowing employees to participate in the planning process, organizations can 
leverage new ideas, while also indicating, through this action, that employee input is valued. This, then, 
will have positive implications on employee trust levels. Similar benefits may ensue from allowing 
employees to get more fully engaged in the organizing function by allowing them to participate in 
planning tasks and activities related to their specific jobs. Specific HRM practices undertaken during 
the organizing function can also contribute to increased trust. In deploying the leadership function, 
managers can enhance employee trust by focusing on quality communication and the open exchange 
of information. The final function, controlling, can enhance employee trust in a number of ways 
including the fact the employees will receive more timely feedback if they are directly engaged in the 
control process. 

In summary, management is an important concept to organizations and business schools. 
Since trust is espoused as a vital factor in organizations and management, college management courses, 
as well as management/leadership training programs might be improved through more intentional 
efforts to emphasize the implicit value of supervisor-employee interpersonal trust within the context 
of the management functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Similarly, the overall 
performance of organizations might be improved if managers are more mindful of how their 
enactment of the four functions of management can be promulgated in ways that will have a positive 
impact on employee trust. 

 

References 
 

Alexander, G.P. (1987). Establishing shared values through management training programs. Training 
and Development Journal, 41(2), 45-47. 



Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

59 
 

Beer, M. (1987). Revitalizing organizations: Change process and emergent model. Academy of 
Management Executive, 1(1), 51-55. 

Bijlsma, K.M., & van de Bunt, G.G. (2003). Antecedents of trust in managers: A “bottom up” 
approach. Personnel Review, 32(5), 638-664. 

Blazey, M. (1997). Achieving performance excellence. Quality Progress, 30(6), 61-64. 
Broderick, A., & Pearce, G. (2001). Indoor adventure training: a dramaturgical approach  
 to managerial development. Journal of Organizational Change Management,  
 4(3), 239-252. 
Brower, H., Schoorman, F., & Tan, H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The  

integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250. 
Caldwell, C., Hayes, L A., & Long, D.T. (2010). Leadership, trustworthiness, and ethical 

stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 497-512. 
Chawla, A., & Kelloway, K.E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership & 

Organization Development Journal, 25(5/6), 485-498. 
Cohn, M. (1988). Middle management training: an inside job. Management Review, 77(11), 18-19. 
Cole, M.S., Schaninger, W.S., & Harris, S.G. (2002). The workplace social exchange network: A 

multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 142-167. 
Coletti, A.L., Sedatole, K.L., & Towry, K.L. (2005). The effect of control systems on trust and 

cooperation in collaborative environments. The Accounting Review, 80(2), 477-500. 
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A 

meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal 
of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.  

Costa, A.C., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007). Trust and control interrelations: New perspectives on 
the trust-control nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 392-406. 

Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Shuster. 
Daft, R.L., & Marcic, D. (2011). Understanding Management. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage 

Learning. 
De Jong, B.A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The 

mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 
535-549. 

Dekker, H.C. (2004). Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence of appropriation 
concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting Organizations and Society, 29, 27-49. 

Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context, and process 
to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies. 
Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607-629. 

Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for 
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. 

Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge Worker productivity: the biggest challenge. California Management 
Review, 41(Winter), 79-94. 

Duignan, P.A., & Bhindi, N. (1997). Authenticity in leadership: An emerging perspective. Journal of 
Educational Administration, 35(3), 195-209. 

Eddy, L. (2005). AWWA’s Management Development Committee: Providing training opportunities 
for utility managers. American Water Works Association Journal, 97(8), 32-34. 

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative 
Science Quarterly, 44(4), 350-83. 

Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive 
employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608-621. 

Gillespie, N., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The  



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

60 

 

building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607. 
Goodwin, V.L., Whittington, J.L., Murray, B., & Nichols, T. (2011). Moderator or mediator? 

Examining the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm. Journal of Managerial 
Issues, 23(4), 409-425. 

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of 
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain 
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. 

Heil, G., Bennis, W., & Stephens, D.C. (2000). Douglas McGregor, revisited: Managing the human side of the 
enterprise. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Howell, J.P., & Costley, D.L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.). Upper 
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.  

Jagd, S. (2010). Balancing trust and control in organizations: Towards a process perspective. Society 
and Business Review, 5(3), 259-269.  

Jung, D.I., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the 
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional 
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964. 

Knights, D., Noble, F., Vurdbakia, T. & Willmott, H. (2001). Chasing shadows: Control, virtuality, 
and the production of trust. Organization Studies, 22(2), 311-336. 

Knoll, D.L., & Gill, H. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Journal of 
Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 313-330. 

LaHote, D., Simonetti, J.L., & Longenecker, C.O. (1999). Management training and development at 
Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc.: A process model-part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(6), 213-
218.  

Lennox, H. (2013). Intellectual capital in a recession: evidence from UK SMEs. Journal of Intellectual 
Capital, 14(1), 84-101. 

Lester, S., & Brower, H. (2003). In the eyes of the beholder: The relationship between subordinates’ 
felt trustworthiness and their work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of leadership and 
organizational studies, 10(2), 17-33. 

Leung, J., & Kleiner, B.H. (2004). Effective management in the food industry. Management Research 
News, 27(4/5), 72-81. 

Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. T. (2005). The production of trust during 
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221-245. 

Mahajan, A., Bishop, J. W., & Scott, D. (2012). Does trust in top management mediate top 
management communication, employee involvement and organizational commitment 
relationships?. Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(2), 173-190. 

Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satisfaction, 
and employee loyalty. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(10), 1261-1271. 

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal 
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. 

McCauley, D.P., & Kuhnert, K.W. (1992). Theoretical review and empirical investigation of 
employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 265-284. 

McDonald, P. (2010). Teaching the concept of management: Perspectives from ‘six honest serving 
men.’ Journal of Management and Organization, 16(5), 626-640. 

McGregor, D. (1967). The Professional Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Miles, R.E., & Creed, W.E.D. (1995). Organization forms and managerial philosophies: A 

descriptive and analytical review. In B. Shaw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational 
Behavior, Vol. 17, 333-372. Greenwich, CT: JAI.  



Schraeder, Self, Jordan, & Portis 

61 
 

Mills, P.K., & Ungson, G.R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: 
Organizational constitutions and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 143-
153.  

Page, C., Wilson, M., Meyer, D., & Inkson, K. (2003). It’s the situation I’m in: The importance of 
managerial context to effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 22(1), 841-862. 

Pirson, M.A., & Lawrence, P.R. (2010). Humanism in business-towards a paradigm shift?. Journal of 
Business Ethics, 93, 553-565. 

Rousseau, D.M., Sitken, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. 

Sendjaya, S. & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. 
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643-663. 

Shaffer, B. (1991). A new approach to management training. Personnel Journal, 70(1), 28-32. 
Shaw, M., & Patterson, J. (1995). Management development programs: A Canadian perspective. 

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 35-39. 
Simons, T. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal 

of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89-104. 
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N.I. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for 

trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392. 
Smothers, J. (2011). Assumption-based leadership: A historical post-hoc conceptualization of 

assumptions of underlying leadership styles. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 
16(3), 44-59. 

Sonnenberg, F.K. (1994). Trust me…Trust me not. The Journal of Business Strategy, 15(1), 14-16. 
Spangenburg, J.M. (2012). Organizational commitment in the wake of downsizing. Journal of American 

Academy of Business, 17(2), 30-36. 
Spreitzer, G.M., & Mishra, A.K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its 

substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group & 
Organization Management, 24(2), 155-187. 

Tan, H.H., & Tan, C.S.F. (2000). Toward differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in 
organization. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241-260. 

Tarley, M. (2002). Leadership development for small organizations. T+D, March, 53-55. 
Tzafrir, S.S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. 

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1600-1622. 
Vanhala, M., & Ahteela, R. (2011). The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational trust. 

Management Research Review, 34(8), 869-888. 
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: 

An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. 
Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530. 

Wong, C., & Cummings, G. (2009). Authentic leadership: A new theory for nursing or back to 
basics?. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(5), 522-538.  

Wren, D.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th Ed. New York: John 
Wiley and Sons.  

Yu, M. C. (2009). Employees’ perception of organizational change: The mediation effects of stress 
management strategies. Public Personnel Management, 38(1), 17-32. 

Zeffane, R., Tipu, S.A., & Ryan, J.C. (2011). Communication, commitment & trust: Exploring the 
triad. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 77-87.  



FOSTERING INTERPERSONAL TRUST 

62 

 

Zhu, W., May, D., & Avolio, B. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee 

outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership and 

Organizational Studies, 11(1), 17-26. 

 

Mike Schraeder is a professor of management in the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University-
Montgomery.  He earned his Ph.D. in management from Auburn University.  His research interests 
include a variety of topics related to organizational change, as well as employee attitudes.  He has 
published in numerous journals including Management Decision, Leadership and Organization Development 
Journal, and Public Personnel Management.    
 
Dennis Self is Professor of Management and Chair, Department of Human Resource Management 
and Business Law in the Sorrell College of Business of Troy University.  He holds a PhD in 
Management from Auburn University, specializing in organizational change with additional interest in 
leadership and human resource management. He has published in various journals such as Leadership 
and Organization Development Journal, Management Decision, Journal of Occupational and Organizational 
Psychology, and International Journal of Law and Management. 

Mark Jordan is a professor of management in the Mike Cottrell College of Business at the University 
of North Georgia.  He earned his Ph.D. in management from Auburn University.  His research 
interests include teams, leadership, individual differences, and organizational culture.  He has 
published in various journals including Small Group Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel 
Psychology, and Public Personnel Management. 
 
Ron Portis is an Instructor of Management and the Graduate Advisor in the Sorrell College of 
Business at Troy University-Montgomery. He earned his in MBA-Management from Grambling State 
University 1997. His research interests include organizational learning, self-monitoring, employee 
commitment and motivation, and the psychological contract.  


