Journal of International Trade, Logistics and Law, Vol. 7, Num. 1, 2021, 118-129 118 THE IMPACT OF TRUST IN LEADERS ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR OF EMPLOYEES Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN İstanbul Medipol University, Turkey Mehmet Saim AŞÇI İstanbul Medipol University, Turkey Received: April 30, 2021 Accepted: June 04, 2021 Published: June 15, 2021 Abstract: The positive impact of organizational citizenship behavior on individual and organizational outputs has been studied extensively in recent years. This study aims to examine the importance and impact of trust in leaders on increasing the organizational citizenship behaviors. The population of the study is the while-collar employees of the organized industrial zones (OIZ) of the Marmara region. The data collected with the participation of 320 employees shows us that except for the dimension of sportsmanship; altruism, civil virtue, conscientiousness, and courtesy-based organizational citizenship behaviors are highly correlated with trust in the leader. According to the regression analysis, civil virtue is found to be the organizational behavior dimension most affected by the trust in the leader. Keywords: Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Trust Jel Codes: D23, L29, M54, M19 1. Introduction Regarding leaders as a hero of some kind of corporate legend is actually quite appropriate positioning. For they are the ones who motivate the organizational community to go to places they can never dream of going otherwise. They are the ones who have the power to change employee behaviors and transform organizations with their concrete results. Leadership is one of the most important competitive priorities an organization can have. Thus, it is no surprise that most of the research on management focus on the qualifications of successful leadership (Maccoby, 2004: 77). Leaders must be equipped with unique and extraordinary competencies and the capacity to attract audiences to be able to lead. Leaders differ from managers in that they can influence members of the organization and harmonize their efforts with the goals of the organization while the latter draw their power from their hierarchical position (Hersey et al., 2007: 90). Leadership is the human factor that brings together a group and motivates it towards shared goals. The motivational impact of a leader is like the chemical that transforms the pupa in a cocoon into a magnificent butterfly with all its potential and beauty. Leadership is what turns potential into a reality (Davis, 1988: 141). An effective leader can ensure the participation of the members in organizational activities by ensuring that they voluntarily exceed their formal role definitions even in non-obligatory conditions. This phenomenon of voluntarily taking an extra role is considered "organizational citizenship". Inspiring the organizational citizenship role among the members of the organization requires the leader to be seen as competent, qualified, trustworthy, inspiring, and visionary by the members and to prioritize goals and ideas instead of assuming simply displaying authoritarian attitudes (Antonini, 2000: 30). In this case, members of the organizations can even see their leaders better -more clever, kinder, more charismatic- than they actually are. Members tend to interpret the attitudes of their leaders more favorably and take more risks than they normally would upon their request even if they have suspicions of their motivations (Maccoby, 2004: 81). The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 119 Leaders who can understand the feelings of the members of the organization and have the expressive ability to resonate with them (Goleman, 2007: 199) can influence the feelings of the members intensively and integrate them into their own motivations. And this inspires members to emulate and strive to be like the leaders (Bass, 1985: 34). Members of the organization adopt the exemplary behaviors of the leader and practice them voluntarily (Conger et al., 2000: 749). The interaction between the organizational community and the leaders has been studied by researchers under the title of “Leader-Member Exchange". According to the leader-member exchange theory, several personal relations based on social interaction are also formed between the leader and the members of the organization despite their formal relations. In order to build such a relationship, both parties must offer something that they find valuable to the other party, and this exchange must be regarded as fair or equal by the parties (Graen and Scandura, 1987: 183). Leader-member exchange theory is based on the work of Graen et al. (Graen, 1976; Danserau et al. 1975). Studies in this field have continued to develop in two main areas as the people-oriented leadership model and the leader-member exchange model (Schriesheim et al., 1999). With his work on reciprocity, Gouldner (1960) made significant contributions to explaining the relationship between leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Accordingly, reciprocity has two fundamental dynamics. The first is the principle that people who receive help respond with help, and the other is the principle of not harming the person helping. According to Gouldner, reciprocal relations carry ordinary social relations to a higher level and the reciprocal function shows its effect when the leader or organizational member makes a positive contribution to the other party. People do not settle with only fulfilling the role expected from an organization member and feel the need to display behaviors to be beneficial to the organization by exceeding this expectation framework. This need constitutes one of the main motives of organizational citizenship behavior (Rhoades, 2002: 719; Wayne, et al., 1997: 87 and Gerstner and Day, 1997: 834). 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Organizational Citizenship In today's increasingly competitive environment, organizations need their members to voluntarily assume roles beyond the ones defined in their job descriptions to be successful. An organization in which only the organizational tasks determined as required by the formal organization are fulfilled is deemed to have a weak social structure (Katz, 1964: 132). The efforts of the members to exhibit extra role behaviors voluntarily are called organizational citizenship (Kaufmann et al., 2001: 436). Organizational citizenship can be defined as the "voluntary behaviors of the members of the organization, which contribute to the effective and efficient fulfillment of the functions of the organization as a whole, without worrying about formal rewards" (Organ, 1988: 3-4). The essence of the concept of organizational citizenship behavior lies in the positive behaviors and societal contributions of individuals living in a country beyond their civic consciousness and obligations arising from the legal legislation. Given that this attitude can also be inspired in the organizational environment, such understanding and attitudes of individuals who display positive behaviors are found to be important in achieving organizational goals (Çelik, 2007: 75). Organizational citizenship behavior is closely related to work satisfaction, motivation level, morale, and organizational commitment of the organization members. The level of organizational commitment is influenced by factors such as age, fee and additional payments such as premiums, bonuses, dividends etc., employee's experience and seniority in the workplace, the sense of trust aroused by the management in the members of the organization, occupational safety conditions, ergonomic conditions in the workplace, training and development facilities and supports offered to the members (Zafar, 2006: 42). The stronger the organizational citizenship bonds of the members, the higher their individual performances increase. Positive developments in individual performances play an important role in achieving organizational goals (Özdevecioğlu, 2003: 118-119). The gains that organizational citizenship behaviors provide to the organization can be listed as follows (Gürbüz, 2006: 58):  Ensuring the sustainability of organizational performance,  Increasing organizational and individual efficiency,  Contributing to coordination between individuals and groups within the organization,  Strengthening the sense of commitment of experienced employees to the organization, Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN& Mehmet Saim AŞÇI 120  Facilitating the organization's adaptation to the environment. Organizational citizenship behavior is entirely based on the individual choices of the organizational community. In a formal organizational structure, however, members are not expected to display such behavior. For this reason, it does not have any sanctionary equivalent. The organizational community displays positive behaviors beyond the formally defined expectations with their own free will and makes efforts to provide positive and non-obligatory contributions without any expectation of reward (Deluga, 1994: 318). Organizational citizenship behavior has five dimensions: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civil virtue (Börü and Güneşer, 2006, 45). Altruism includes the behaviors of help and cooperation among the organizational community in the process of fulfilling their organizational tasks or in the face of difficulties encountered in any challenging situation. Such behavior can be displayed to the members of the organization as well as people outside the organization such as customers or suppliers. The "altruistic" behavior displayed to people outside the organization can have a positive impact on their feelings and opinions towards the organization. Courtesy is the behavior of informing other individuals who may be affected by the decisions, words, and actions of the members of the organization. Behaviors such as providing detailed information to the relevant persons and not neglecting to make the necessary reminders, sharing information on the meetings they have attended and the negotiations they have carried out fall under this dimension. Conscientiousness is defined as behaviors displayed beyond the basic role behaviors expected from a member. Going to work even when one has a reasonable excuse such as sickness and continuing the work without taking a break, when necessary, can fall under the conscientiousness dimension of organizational citizenship. Avoiding making complaints frequently and tolerating the challenges arising from the nature of the work environment constitute the dimension of sportsmanship. Civil virtue, on the other hand, refers to participatory behaviors that are sincerely interested in things required by the organizational policy. Organizational community behaviors such as regular attendance to meetings, reading the correspondences made via organizational communication sources, making constructive contributions to discussions on the organizational development, and expressing their opinions sincerely and explicitly are regarded as positive organizational citizenship behaviors in terms of civil virtue (Organ, 1988: 17). 2.2. Discovering Organizational Needs and Ensuring Participation Leaders must be aware that the organizational community will have complex needs to live a humane and healthy life and to perform efficiently in the workplace. People will do what they do best if they are motivated by that, and the motivational process is based on a response that will satisfy their individual needs. Leaders should also consider the informal structure of the organization, given that organizational activities are influenced by human nature as well as the formal design and structure of the organization. For both individuals and groups will participate in the organizational activities more actively when their needs are met. Leaders who actually make a difference are those that know a secure job or financial motivations are not enough to keep the organizational community satisfied and design the works and human relations in a way to increase the contributions of members to achieving goals and targets under conditions that inspire personal development. In this way, they will be able to harmonize the needs of the organization and the needs of its members. Leaders integrate the needs of individuals and the organization by creating "enriched" and motivating tasks through transforming work organizations and bureaucratic structures with their leadership styles that allow the organizational community to use their creativity and self-control skills. They add meaning to the work of the members by giving them as much autonomy as possible and expanding their responsibilities. Thus, by allowing members to feel more useful and important, they try to overcome the limits of narrow, authoritarian, and inhumane styles of management. In all these efforts, they are aware of the fact that human and technical needs are actually interdependent and need to be balanced (Morgan, 1998: 46-51). Successful leaders also ensure the participation of the organizational community to create opportunities for teamwork in order to increase the level of success of their organizations. Well-managed participation makes a very important contribution to the acceptance of change and the formation of a favorable team spirit. What we mean by participation here is "the mental and emotional inclusion of people in a group environment that encourages them to contribute to and share responsibility for group goals." The participant is not only included with their work but with their whole being. It would be a great mistake to aim to include the individual only with their work. With the proper management of participation, the organizational community is both motivated to participate and provided the opportunity to use their own initiatives and creativity in achieving organizational goals. Employees see their leaders The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 121 as pioneers who give their support and contribution to the organization under such conditions, and they feel ready to work with them. The organizational community's trust in the leader will inspire team spirit and a sense of responsibility among them, leading to responsible organizational citizenship instead of irresponsible, machine-like behaviors (Davis, 1988: 183- 187). 2.3. Organizational Trust and Trust in Leader Relationship Many researchers in various fields such as sociology, anthropology, history, economics, and psychology have been shifting their focus on the concept of trust in their studies (Manogram et al, 1994: 251). The reason why trust attracts the attention of various disciplines and is used as the subject of their studies is its significant function in the formation and execution of social relations. Trust functions as a necessary basic element for all interactions, from ordinary daily relationships to strong commitment relationships that individuals establish with their leader or the organization they are a member of (Misztal, 2013: 123). Giving people the opportunity to be able to live and work together, trust is the main facilitator of all social activities. As sadly shown by the failed attempts to resolve the conflicts between nations, religious or ethnic groups throughout history, trust has a fundamental role in conflicts. As John L. Locke emphasizes in his book The De-Voicing of Society, trust is the foundation of human society (Locke, 1998: 110). Trust is like the air that we breathe, the foundation of all activities; so much so that Charles Fried, the famous legal scientist from Harvard, describes it as by saying, "There comes a point where we no longer seek it to achieve something else, we seek it for its own sake" (Cohen and Prusak, 2001: 50-51). Organizational trust is an employee's perceptions of organizational support, the belief that their manager is honest and will keep their words (Mishra and Morissey, 1990). "People in the organizational trapeze only do that expected somersault only when they believe that there is a strong and supportive pair of hands on the other side to hold them" (Ghoshal and Barlett; 1998: 93). Organizational trust is a phenomenon that is influenced by the rules, values, beliefs, emotions, behaviors that exist in an organization and forms the basis of internal communication. Intense social bonds facilitate other useful ways of building reputation, which are essential foundations of trust in an intricate society (Putnam, 2000: 21). Some studies conclude that trust in the manager has a positive effect on organizational commitment, decreases labor turnover rate, and decreases absenteeism (Laschinger et al. 2000: 422; Albert and Travaglione, 2003: 83), and it has a positive impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Cho and Park, 2011: 567). Organizational citizenship behaviors of the members depend on the visionary, inspiring attitude of the leader, commitment to ideas and objectives rather than mere authority, as well as members' acceptance of the leader as trustworthy and competent (Antonini, 2000: 31). Leaders with high self-confidence who use non-verbal communication methods successfully, display the vision of the organization with an exciting clarity, and have the influence and power that members seek, can build trust (House, 1992:9). Fair, trustworthy, reasonable, and consistent behaviors of leaders also get disseminated within the organization. The organizational community's high respect for leaders who exhibit such behaviors has a positive impact on their job satisfaction, efficiency, and organizational citizenship (Conger et al., 2000: 759). Leaders are inevitably cultural architects, whether they want it or not (Perkins and Wilson, 1999: 74). They need to determine the goals and directions of their organizations. They also need to harmonize these goals and directions throughout the entire organizational system, ensure the organization's commitment to shared goals (Farkas and Wetlaufer, 1999:141-142). Organizations are like automobiles. They cannot go anywhere on their own, they need the human factor to operate. And not any human, but the right human. The effectiveness of an organization's individuals in leadership positions determines how the organizational "machine" will perform. Some people are so effective in their work that they leave so little to the leader to make them better in what they do. And others are really a hopeless case that there is almost nothing to do to improve their effectiveness. However, the majority of the population falls somewhere between these two extreme ends. These people do their job as required and go with the flow; they look up to their leaders to determine the direction, pace, and duration of the flow. They need guidance and recommendation about where to go and how to go there (Vries, 2007: 19-20). And we can learn the following lessons from the methods that leaders, the elite of the organization, use to determine the performance of the organizational "machine" (Drucker, 1999: 4-6):  They treat the members of the organization based on their strengths,  They demand high standards but give people freedom and responsibility to do their jobs, Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN& Mehmet Saim AŞÇI 122  While seeing performance evaluation as an integral part of the job, they adopt a definite and honest attitude in practice,  They are aware that the most effective way to learn is to teach others,  They can command respect even when they are not necessarily loved. Another distinguishing aspect of leadership is the ability to persuade the organizational community to strive towards the determined goals. From time to time, leadership requires staying in the background without putting any pressure on the group, letting the others speak, remaining calm, showing hesitation, and delaying decisions in cases of opposition. Competent leaders create competent employees, leading to better outcomes. A leader's primary responsibility is to stimulate the organizational community towards meaningful goals. Members need to have positive feelings about the goals worth fighting for, their opportunities, and the leader's capabilities. Without common goals, everybody can be led astray in different directions. Without a common understanding, disorganization will arise. Leaders often feel that members of the organization need to grasp the meaning of their work without being told to, so they fail to seize the opportunity to set meaningful goals. As a result, the organization can be led astray in a different direction than it should go. Such negative and dysfunctional actions damp down the desire for cooperation in the organization, even leading to the disintegration of the organization (Davis, 1988: 141-147). Research has shown that setting goals effectively yields positive results. This approach was once used to encourage truck drivers to carry loads close to the legal carrying limit of their trucks. With the "do your best" instruction, about 60% of the legal loading limit was carried by trucks; but after the objectives were determined clearly and effectively, this rate reached a level that slightly exceeded 90% of the legal carrying capacity. And it was maintained for 12 months, as long as the work continued. Truck drivers adopted and maintained this behavior, believing that they had achieved a sense of achievement even though they did not receive any rewards for more production, but only feel appreciated (Latham and Baldes, 1975:1975: 122-124; Latham and Yukl, 1975: 824-845). The leader's job is to create value and expectations for the organizational community. To achieve that, organizational goals are harmonized with individual goals. Leaders stimulate the motivation of the members to reach the goals through various incentive practices. They also structure the way to reach these goals and manage expectations in order to show the members these ways. What they do, in other words, is to facilitate the process by removing the barriers on the way to the goal. Leaders help the organizational community to do a better job and achieve success. Thus, they increase motivation and satisfaction by clarifying the way to the goals with their behaviors, increasing the level of reaching the goals of the organizational community. Since the ways to reach the goal become clear, the organizational community feels the support of the leader's emphasis on the task. In addition, more social support and thoughtful behaviors provide social satisfaction for members and facilitate the ways to reach their goals (Davis, 1988: 148-149). The information society of today works based on knowledge and interdependence, which makes it necessary for people to use their imagination and intelligence in the shared effort. Peter Drucker points that out when he says, “Organizations are no longer built on the basis of coercion, but on the basis of trust” (Drucker, 2005: 105). What is needed here is commitment, and commitment cannot be achieved without trust (Cohen and Prusak, 2001: 78). The theoretical research summarized above also supports the idea that trust in a leader is one of the most important antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors. The following hypotheses were formed to be tested in the study to examine this relationship in depth and empirically. The conceptual model of the study is given in the Figure 1. H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between the trust in leader and organizational citizenship behavior of the employees. H2: Trust in the leader has a statistically positive impact on the organizational citizenship behavior of employees. TRUST IN THE LEADER ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 123 Figure 1: Conceptual Model 3. Methodology An empirical study based on quantitative and immediate data according to the scope was designed to test the hypotheses based on the literature. The analyzes within the scope of the study were made with the IBM SPSS 25 package program. 3.1. Data Collection Method and Measurement Tools The questionnaire form created in the study consists of three main parts. The first part consists of 11 questions including the sector of the companies in the sample, the number of employees, the year of establishment, and the demographic information of the employees (age, gender, education level, position, department, seniority, total employment time, working time in their department). The second part consists of the 6-question Trust in Leaders Scale created to measure employees' trust in their leaders and the third part consists of 5-dimensional organizational citizenship behaviors developed by Organ (1988), which are frequently used in the literature. 24-item sentences were adapted to Turkish from the studies of Podsakoff et al. (1990) with the translation-back translation method and KUK views. Questions in the questionnaire were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). 3.2. Sample Selection and Demographic The population of the research is the companies operating in the manufacturing industry (textile, machinery, packaging, chemistry, food, electricity, automotive sub-industry) in various industrial zones (Istanbul Deri OIZ, Tuzla OIZ, İkitelli OIZ, Bursa OIZ, Gebze OIZ) of the Marmara region. To obtain the sample, an information e- mail containing the purpose of the study was sent to the companies through the contact information obtained from the OIZ web pages. The data was collected by hand during working hours from the companies that agreed to take part. The employees selected in the sample had at least 1-year seniority and that they were from medium (72.2%) and large (27.8%) scale companies according to KOSGEB (min. 50 according to the number of employees) criteria. The aim was to obtain around 20% of data from each company in proportion to the size of the company. A high number of questionnaires were sent to company officials for the purpose; however, only 320 of the responses were deemed valid according to the criteria. In addition, 17.2% of the companies in the sample had been operating in the sector for 0-5 years, 27.2% between 11-15 years, 30.3% between 16-30 years, and the remaining 25.3% had been operating in the sector for more than 30 years. Demographic findings of the employees are summarized in table 1 below. Whether the differences between the demographic characteristics of the employees indicate a statistically significant difference in organizational citizenship behaviors were evaluated by independent groups T-test and ANOVA test, and no statistically significant difference was found. In other words, the demographic characteristics mentioned here were not the determining criteria for organizational citizenship behavior. Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Employees Variable Criterion / Valid Rate (%) Variable Criterion / Valid Rate (%) Age of the Employee <20: 11.4 20-30: 20.7 31-40: 25.2 41-50: 17.1 >50: 25.6 Educational Level Primary Education: 48.7 High School: 33.7 College: 9.5 Undergraduate: 6.6 Graduate: 1.5 Gender Female: 20.4 Male: 79.6 Position Worker: 61.2 Office Worker: 8.1 Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN& Mehmet Saim AŞÇI 124 Foreman / Head: 18.5 Mid-Level Manager: 11.2 Top Level Manager: 1.2 Seniority 1-2 years: 35.1 2-5 years: 34.3 6-10 years: 15.9 11-20 years: 13.5 21+ years: 1.2 Department R & D: 1.2 HR: 2.8 Quality: 5.2 Purchasing: 1.2 Sales: 4.0 Accounting: 4.0 Production: 67.5 Other: 14.1 Total Tenure 1-2 years: 7.0 2-5 years: 16.3 6-10 years: 21.8 11-20 years: 36.2 21+ years: 18.7 Time Worked in the Same Department Min: 1 year Max: 35 years Average: 8.82 years 4. Analysis and Findings To test the validity of the measurement tools, explanatory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted and KMO=0.811 (p=0.00) was calculated; 6 factors were formed consistent with the original dimensions. The eigenvalues of all items were greater than 1, and the total variance was 59.301%. The trust in the leaders scale is one- dimensional and expressed in the study with the same name. The organizational citizenship behavior scale was referred to in the same way as in the literature: altruism, civil virtue, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and courtesy. Table 2: Explanatory Factor Analysis Trust in the Leader (L) Courtesy (C) Altruism (A) Sportsmanship (S) Conscientiousness (Co) Civil virtue (Cv) L3 .868 L1 .835 L4 .804 L2 .791 L5 .455 C2 .709 C1 .701 C3 .687 C4 .616 The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 125 C5 .601 A104 .787 A103 .783 A107 .677 A106 .566 S2 .754 S3 .740 S4 .685 S1 .647 S5 .493 Co4 .763 Co5 .751 Co3 .608 Cv2 .729 Cv1 .613 Cv4 .531 Cv3 .529 Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to test the reliability of the scales, and all of the factors were found to be in the statistically significant value range. The mean and standard deviation values of all variables and the correlation coefficients between the variables were calculated. The following table (Table 3) summarizes the relevant scores. Table 3: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Coefficients Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Trust in the Leader 5.1241 1.42242 (.849) .198** .204** .003 .235** .412** 2. Courtesy 6.0602 .87184 .198** (.780) .545** -.162** .508** .358** 3. Altruism 6.0377 .88338 .204** .545** (.801) -.081 .309** .355** 4. Sportsmanship 2.7745 1.28829 .003 -.162** -.081 (.712) .085 5. Conscientiousness 6.0363 1.07802 .235** .508** .309** -.180** (.730) .374** 6. Civil Virtue 5.3031 1.09692 .412** .358** .355** .085 -.180** (.652) ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. () Cronbach’s alpha coefficients S.D.= standard deviation According to the findings, no statistically significant correlation was found between trust in the leader and sportsmanship. No significant relationship was found either between sportsmanship, altruism, and civil virtue dimensions. Correlation coefficients with other organizational citizenship behavior dimensions were, on the other Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN& Mehmet Saim AŞÇI 126 hand, statistically significant. The dimension that had the strongest correlation with trust in the leader was civil virtue. Accordingly, our sub-hypotheses, "H1a: There is a significant relationship between trust in the leader and courtesy of the employee; H1b: There is a significant relationship between trust in the leader and altruism of the employee; H1d: There is a significant relationship between trust in the leader and the conscientiousness of the employee; H1e: There is a significant relationship between trust in the leader and the civil virtue behavior of the employee," were accepted. However, "H1c: There is a significant relationship between trust in the leader and the sportsmanship behavior of the employee" was rejected. Since significant results could not be obtained with the correlation analysis, a regression analysis was performed to test the H2 hypotheses for the variables other than the causal relationship of the sportsmanship dimension with trust in the leader, and its results are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4: Regression Analysis Dependent variables Std. Beta coefficients Model Summary Courtesy .198* F= 10.930 R2= .039 DW= 1.860 Altruism .204* F= 12.219 R2= .042 DW= 1.983 Conscientiousness .235** F= 16.430 R2= .055 DW= 2.036 Civil Virtue .412** F= 56.791 R2= .170 DW= 2.011 Independent Variable: Trust in Leader **p<0.01; *p<0.05 DW: Durbin Watson The findings reveal that all dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior expressed in Table 5 indicate a significant causality. However, the coefficients show that the dimension that is most affected by the trust in the leader is the civil virtue behavior. As a result, our sub-hypotheses "H2a: Trust in the leader has a positive impact on the courtesy of the employee; H2b: Trust in the leader has a positive impact on the altruism of the employee; H2d: Trust in the leader has a positive impact on the conscientiousness of the employee; H2e: Trust in the leader has a positive impact on the civil virtue behavior of the employee." were accepted but "H2c: Trust in the leader has a positive impact on the sportsmanship of the employee." was rejected on the correlation stage. Figure 2: Final Model Note: The dashed line indicates a statistically insignificant relationship while the straight line indicates a statistically significant relationship. TRUST IN THE LEADER SPORTSMANSHIP COURTESY ALTRUISM CONSCIENTIOUSNESS CIVIL VIRTUE The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 127 5. Conclusion and Recommendations It is frequently supported by empirical studies that organizational citizenship behavior is an important determinant in terms of employee's commitment to the organization and contribution to desired outputs (e.g., Yen & Niehoff, 2004; Gautam et al., 2005). The theoretical evidence that organizational citizenship behavior can be increased with especially the support of the leader is given in the relevant chapters of the study (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). In addition, changes in today's working conditions have led to questions about leadership and organizational commitment. This strong evidence in the literature and the changing working life form the foundation for us to focus on the problematic of which dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors of employees are important determinants of trust in the leader, and we have obtained significant findings for 4 of the 5 basic dimensions as a result of the analyzes. These findings are consistent with studies conducted using different methods in the literature (e.g., Deluga, 1995; Appelbaum et al., 2004). However, the main reason why the sportsmanship dimension was not affected by trust behavior in this study is likely to be because it is less relevant to work-related activities compared to other dimensions and is more related to positive atmosphere and personality traits in the organization. This study shows that trust in the leader has a positive impact on taking more responsibilities and participation in work-related activities. The findings of this study show that leaders have a critical role in creating an atmosphere of trust in order to create or reinforce the employee profile needed especially in today's conditions. Accordingly, we suggest that decision- makers, who are determinant in both human resources practices and organizational culture with the changes in the employee profile and working style, should consider this connection when reviewing the expectations of the employees from the organization and the management assumptions in their activities. In addition, it will contribute to the practitioners taking action on this issue if they go one step further and determine what the necessary antecedents will be for the leader to build trust. The most important limitation of the study is that it only presents findings of the white-collar employee groups in the manufacturing sector of the industrial zones in the Marmara region. We believe that targeting employees from the service sector and comparing the employees in different sectors/positions in future studies will make a significant contribution to the literature. References Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in Public-Sector Senior Management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76-92. Antonioni, D. (2000). Leading, Managing, and Coaching. Industrial Management, 42(5), 27-33. Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., ... & Serroni, C. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: a case study of culture, leadership and trust. Management decision. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). The Individualized Corporation: A Fundamentally New Approach to Management. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, Better, Best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. Börü. D., & Güneşer, B. (2006). Algılanan Örgütsel Destek ve Lider Üye Etkileşiminin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ile İlişkisi ve Güvenin Rolü. RECOMMENDATION, 7(25), 43-58. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). Kavrayamadığımız Zenginlik Kuruluşların Sosyal Sermayesi, trans. Ahmet Kardam, Mess Yayınları, İstanbul. Cho, Y. J., & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the Relationships Among Trust, Employee Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 551-573. Chughtai, A. A., & Zafar, S. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment Among Pakistani University Teachers. Applied HRM Research, 11(1), 39. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(7), 747-767. Çelik, M. (2007). Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı-Bir Uygulama. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Erzurum: Ataturk University Institute of Social Sciences. Öznur Gülen ERTOSUN& Mehmet Saim AŞÇI 128 Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation of The Role Making Process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78. Davis, K. (1988). İşletmede İnsan Davranışı: Örgütsel Davranış, (Trans.: Kemal Tosun et al.), 3rd Edition, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yayınları, İstanbul. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor Trust Building, Leader‐Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326. Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7(1), 1-16. Drucker, F. P. (1999). “Akıl Hocalarının Liderlik Dersleri”, Liderden Lidere içinde, Frances Hesselbein and Paul M. Cohen (Ed.), Trans.: Salim Atay, MESS Yay, p. 3-7, İstanbul. Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 100-109. Farkas, C. M., & Wetlaufer, S. (1999). Genel müdürlerin yönetme tarzları. In M. Tüzel (Trans.), from Harvard Business Journal: Liderlik, 117-145. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A. J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian journal of social psychology, 8(3), 305-314. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of Leader–Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. Goleman, D. (2007). Sosyal Zekâ: İnsan İlişkilerinin Yeni Bilimi (3rd Edition). İstanbul: Varlık. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 161-178. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-Making Processes within Complex Organizations. (Ed. Dunette M. D). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Pychology. 1201-1245, Chicago, Rand McNally. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior. 9, 175-208. Gürbüz, S. (2006). Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ile Duygusal Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişkilerin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(1), 48-75. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. House, R.J. (1992). Charismatic Leadership in service-Producing Organizations, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(2), 5–16. Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior, Behavioral Science, 9, 131-133. Kaufman, J. D., Stamper, C. L., & Tesluk, P. E. (2001). Do Supportive Organizations Make for Good Corporate Citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues, 436-449. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Casier, S. (2000). Organizational Trust and Empowerment in Restructured Healthcare Settings: Effects on Staff Nurse Commitment. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 30(9), 413-425. Latham, P. G. ve Baldes, J. J. (1975). The Practical Significance of Locke’s Theory of Goal Setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, February 1975. Latham, P. G. and Yukl, A. G. (1975). A Review of Research on The Application of Goal Setting in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, December 1975. Locke, J. L. (1998). The de-Voicing of Society: Why We Don't Talk to Each Other Anymore. Simon & Schuster. Maccoby, M. (2004). Why people Follow the Leader: The Power of Transference. Harvard Business Review, 82(9 ), 76-85. Manogran, P., Stauffer, J., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Leader-Member Exchange as a Key Mediating Variable Between Employees’ Perception of Fairness and Employee Citizenship Behavior. In National Academy of Management Meeting Proceedings, Dallas, TX, 249-267. Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships: A Survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management, 19(4), 443-486. Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for The Bases of Social Order. John Wiley & Sons. Morgan, G. (1998). Yönetim ve Örgüt Teorilerinde Metafor (Trans. Gündüz Bulut). İstanbul: BZD Yayıncılık. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books. The Impact of Trust In Leaders on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Employees 129 Özdevecioğlu, M. (2003). Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ile Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Bazı Demografik Özellikleri ve Akademik Başarıları Arasındaki İlişkilerin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (20). Perkins, D., & Wilson, D. (1999). Bridging The Idea-Action Gap, Knowledge Directions. The Journal of the Institute for Knowledge Management (1), 65-77. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers' Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of The Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L. and Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Research: A Comprehensive Review of Theory, Measurement, and Data-Analytic Practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113. Vries, M. K. D. (2007). Liderliğin Gizemi. Trans: Zülfü Dicleli, MESS Yayın, (525). Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange: A social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management journal, 40(1), 82-111. Yen, H. R., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Examining relationships in Taiwanese banks. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(8), 1617-1637.