Trust In Leader And Self-Efficacy:

The Impact on Organizational Commitment

The Authors

Aslinda Mohd Shahril, Suria Sulaiman and Zurinawati Mohi@Mohyi

Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, UniversitiTeknologi Mara, Shah Alam,
Selangor, Malaysia

This study explores the relationship of trust and self-efficacy towards organizational
commitment and the respondents are employees in various hotels in Klang Valley. The
findings showed that employees trust and organizational commitment is influenced by
various factors that being discussed in the study. When the organization earned trust from
employees, they can expect them to deliver their expected performance.
While the findings show that the relation between self-efficacy and organizational
commitment is quite weak. Organization need to provide the employees more benefits and
other advantages in order to gain commitment from employees. In order to enhance the
employees knowledge and commitment, the organization can take proactive measure such as
provide effective training, counseling, effective communication and show leadership skill.

Keyword(s): Trust, Self Efficacy, Organizational Commitment

Introduction

Employees commitment will create a positive and negative scenario for the
organization and itself. If the employees have trust towards the organization and self-
efficacy, it will give a good sign where the productivity of the work is high and low
turnover. If it is negative, it can cause job dissatisfaction and may cause turnover to occur
and productivity is low.

This paper explores the relationship between trust and self efficacy and the impact
towards organizational commitment. The researchers want to investigate how the level of
trust and self-efficacy of employees in the 3-5 stars hotel in Klang Valley contributes to
organization commitment. The respondents for the study are the employees in three major
departments which consist of front office, food and beverage and housekeeping.

For this study, the researchers want to find on the followings:

i. Is there any significant relationship between trust and organizational commitment in

the hotel industry?
ii. Is there any significant relationship between self-efficacy and organizational
commitment in the hotel industry?
iii. Is there any relationship between trust and self-efficacy in the hotel industry?

Brief synopsis of the literature

Trust means confidence – confidence that others’ actions are consistent with their words,
that those people with whom you work are concerned about your welfare and interests apart
form what you can do for them, that the skills you have developed are respected and valued
by your co-workers and the larger organization, and that who you are and what you believe
truly matter in the workplace (Rogers, 1995).

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between trust and organizational

commitment.

Self-efficacy is people’s level of motivation; affective states and actions are based on what
they believe more on what is objectively the case (Bandura, 2006). It is also defined as
people’s belief about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that
exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy belief determined how
people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave.

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and organizational

commitment.

Organizational commitment refers to the attachment, emotionally and functionally, to one’s

place of work and can be examined in several ways (Elizur, 2001). Organizational
commitment focuses on a bond linking individuals to the organization (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990).

Hyphothesis 3 : There is a significant relationship between trust and self efficacy.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Trust

Organizational
Self Commitment
Efficacy

Independent Dependent Variables

Variables

Relationship between trust, self-efficacy and organization commitment

Research Design

The method of measurement that are used to collect data about trust, self-efficacy and
organizational commitment are through survey. The instrument used is through
questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed to 3 – 5 stars hotels at the Klang Valley
which are Hotel UiTM, Intekma Resort and Convention Centre, Concorde Hotel Shah Alam,
The Regent Kuala Lumpur, Quality Hotel and Pan Pacific Kuala Lumpur.
The measurements should be conducted at all level of the organization focusing on food and
beverage department, housekeeping department, front office department and kitchen
department. The other methods are by using journals and books as a secondary data.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was divided to three parts: Section A which consists of trust, self efficacy
and organizational commitment items, Section B require the respondent to complete their
organization profile and Section C is about respondent demographic.

Respondent should answer 35 questions in Section A which consists of statements that used
the five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, 4 questions in
Section B relating to their own organization and complete 6 questions in Section C which
relate to the respondent profile.
About 100 questionnaires had been collected from the respondents and information had been
tabulated using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Table 1 Sample of Questions on Organizational Commitment

1 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
2 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.

3 Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organization now.

Table 2 Sample of Questions on Trust

1 I feel quite confident that my leader will always treat me fairly.
2 My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving his/her worker.
3 I have complete faith in the integrity of my manager/supervisor.

Table 3 Sample of Questions on Self-Efficacy

1 When I make an arrangement of work, I am certain that I can make them work.
2 One of my problems is that I can not get down to work when I should.
3 If I can’t do a job for the first time, I keep trying until I can.
Results
Qualitative results will help in explaining both propositions of this study. The first
proposition is a combination between two variables (independent variable-trust and
dependent variable-organizational commitment). For the second proposition which is
between independent variable - self-efficacy and dependent variable - organizational
commitment. Both of the propositions will use Pearson Correlation in order to obtain the
result on both variables relationship.

Proposition 1:

The proposition contended that that trust and self-efficacy has an effect on the organizational
commitment. If the trust and self-efficacy is high, it will determine the employee’s highly
related to the organizational commitment.
Hypothesis:

H1: There is a significant relationship between trust and organizational

commitment.

H2: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and organizational

commitment

H3: There is a significant relationship between trust and self-efficacy.

Null Hypothesis

H0: There is no different (relationship) between trust and organizational

commitment

H0: There is no different (relationship) between self-efficacy and organizational

commitment
H0: There is no different (relationship) between trust and self-efficacy.

In this study, Pearson Correlation is used in order to know how variables relate to one
another. Thus, will provide information that will indicate the direction strength and
significance of the biviriate relationships among all variables in this study.
The result indicated in Table 1 that there is a positive and strong relationship between trust
and organizational commitment. The closer the r-value to +1, the stronger the relationship
and the closer the r-value to –1, the weaker the relationship.
Table 4 Relationship of Correlation

1.0 PERFECT POSITIVE CORRELATION

0.8 VERY STRONG POSITIVE CORRELATION

0.6 STRONG POSITIVE CORRELATION

0.4 MODERATE POSITIVE CORRELATION

0.2 WEAK CORRELATION

00 PROBABLY NO CORRELATION

-0.2 WEAK NEGATIVE CORRELATION

-0.4 MODERATE NEGATIVE CORRELATION

-0.6 STRONGLY NEGATIVE CORRELATION

-0.8 VERY STRONG NEGATIVE CORRELATION

-1.0 PERFECT NEGATIVE CORRELATION

Table 5 Pearson Correlations

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

meanT 3.6530 .45876 73
meanSE 2.9702 .45682 73
meanORC 3.4007 .49548 73
 Table 6 Pearson Correlations

Correlations

meanT meanSE meanORC

meanT Pearson Correlation 1 .153 .526**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .197 .000
N 73 73 73
meanSE Pearson Correlation .153 1 .148
Sig. (2-tailed) .197 . .212
N 73 73 73
meanORC Pearson Correlation .526** .148 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .212 .
N 73 73 73
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Findings 1: Trust – Organizational Commitment

The relationship between trust and organizational commitment has a strong positive
correlation relationship, which indicated 0.526 (53%) and furthermore it is supported by 2-
tailed significance test .000 (<0.05).

Findings 2: Self-efficacy – Organizational Commitment

The relationship between self-efficacy and organizational commitment from the
study indicated weak correlation relationship, which indicated only .148 (14.8%). This is
supported by the 2-tailed significance test of .212, which is > 0.05.

Findings 3: Trust – Self-efficacy

The relationship between trust and self-efficacy has probably weak or no correlation
relationship, which indicated 0.153 (15.3%), and furthermore the 2-tailed significance is
0.197, which is > 0.05.

Discussion
A significant finding of the study is that employees in these organizations have
positive trust toward organizational commitment, whereas self-efficacy showed a weak
relationship and also indicated weak relationship between two independent variables trust
and self-efficacy. The factors that contribute to this significant correlation between trust and
organizational commitment are length of service of each individual in the hotel industry,
fairness treatment by the leader to their subordinates, level of loyalty to the
supervisors/managers, integrity, sincerer of the managers and employee’s willingness to
commit with their job. A bond of trust may exist among these employees towards the
organization which also affect their job performance.

This finding also provides support for the belief that managerial practices have an
influence on the trust relationships between managers and employees. Consequently,
organization may expect to receive maximum effort and commitment from their talented and
dedicated employees. These findings support the research of Tyler and Degeoy (1996) that
trust is affected by the decisions of people in authority in organizations. It can also be said
that manager’s personality might influence his/her subordinates indirectly and at the same
time affect their commitment towards the organization. According to Robbins (1999), trust
takes a long time to build, can be easily destroyed and is hard to regain. From the cross
tabulation, it can be said that 5-6 years serving an organization will build strong loyalty
towards the managers and feeling of fairness of treatment by the managers. But in terms of
age, employees in the range of 20-29 years have the highest agreement towards the statement
of supporting their leaders and being loyal to their leaders.

It could be argued that weak relationship in employees self efficacy are a message to
organization that it is within employees expectation that more benefit and other advantages
should be provided in order to reduced the problem of turnover as well as to encourage
recruitment to the organization and industry. Weak relationship also indicated that the
nature of the organization which already have rules and regulation, ethics and clear
guidelines for the employees to follow. As we know, middle level and higher level of
employees in the organization are already well trained as 50.7% of the respondent having
diploma and degree qualifications.

Organization with less self-efficacy of the employees should take proactive

measures such as provide coaching, problem solving, communicating, leadership and
counselling skill. These activities will support the employees to develop their commitment
toward the organization and to help them in up grading their level of service. In addition
such activities can lead to satisfaction with the employee’s development effort, increase
relationship between employees and their superior and create job satisfaction.
Managers or supervisor who are involved with employees on a daily basis, also are
in a position to provide social support and assist their employee development to increase
their commitment to the organization. Schneier, MacCoy, and Burchman (1988) argued that
manager who coach, counsel and train their employees could entrance their skill and
motivation. This considered as increased of social support to the employees. Social support
from the work environment influence employee’s attitudes and perceptions and in turn
influences development activities (Kozlowski and Hults, 1987; Noe and Wilk, 1993).

Part of manager’s job is working with developing subordinates. Kram (1996)

argued that dyadic relationships that individuals have at work could support learning
(acquiring new skills and competencies) and development (advancing their career and
developing self-esteem or a new sense of identity).

Organization today faces many conflicting problems that must be balanced in order
to compete successfully in the industry. They must continually improve performance by
reducing cost, innovating processes and products and improving quality and productivity
(Becker and Gerhart, 1996). Besides, to maintain high level of organizational commitment
and quality of services, organization should have programs and activities that create more
training for the employees to gain a level of productivity and competitiveness. One of the
human resource practices that may offer a competitive advantage is continuous learning for
all employees so that they can adapt and in turn, perform (London, 1989). In addition, the
new psychological contract implies that individual turns in a strong performance while
continuously learning and adapting, and in exchange the organization offers meaning and
purposes, developmental relationship, and a good rewards and benefit. (Hall and Mirvis,
1996).
However, offering courses or training opportunities will not be enough to ensure
organizational commitment and performance. Satisfaction with employee development
should also be monitored. There are a variety of employee development activities can be
offered by organization such as tuition reimbursement, job posting, self-assessment, job
rotation and career counseling. In a long run continuation of trust relationship between
employee and employer has to be given attention, organizational change would contribute to
a critical trust building or trust destroying episode in a long term and ongoing relationship
between the organization, represented by its management and non managerial employees.
Vital threats towards trust may include reengineering, downsizing and the increased
use of temporary employees, all which undermine a lot of employees’ trust in management.
Moreover, the opportunities for top management to develop relationships with employees,
beyond those with whom they interact frequently, have become more and more scarce.
In building strengthen trust in the long run; the organization should encourage
participation of employee in decision-making process. Deeper forms of participation such as
the delegation of decision-making power or the use of joint decision making ought to impact
trust in management even stronger. Empirically it has been found that employees’ trust in
management is higher when they are satisfied with their level of participation in decisions
and when employees can determine their work roles.

Besides, organization also has to create situation where trust in leaders is playing an
increasing role in contemporary employment relationships trust has captured the interest by
practising managers partly because trust has been seen as a key contributor to a number of
outcomes associated with organizational success. In line with this, trust has been link to
better task performance, openness in communication and information sharing, organizational
citizenship behaviour, less conflict even between partners in inter organizational
relationships and acceptance of decision and goals.

Conclusion

Trust and self-efficacy reflect different relationship towards organization

commitment in this study. Every independent variable has their strength and criteria
depends on the structure of the organization itself, the employer, employee, structure of
work, work environment, productivity, benefits, relationship, cooperation etc. However, for
the organization continually improve performance and competency there must be balance
relationship including trust, self-efficacy between employer and employee toward
organizational commitment.

For this study, it can be seen that there is a strong relationship between trust and
organizational commitment in the hotel industry. This is due to the nature of hotel industry
itself that focus on good teamwork among supervisors and subordinates. From this
teamwork spirit, trust in leader will be developed. For the hotel, the information will help
them to understand better the needs of their employees and able to enhance the relationship
between the organization and employees.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angle. H.L & Perry J.L (1985). An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment
and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol 2. No 6.
Allen, N.J and Meyer, J.P (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,
Continuance, and (ormative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology. Vol 63 No 1, pg 1-18.
Bandura, Albert (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Asia Pacific Education
Review Copyright 2004 by Education.
Bandura, Albert (1991). Self Efficacy Mechanism in Physiological Activation and Health
Promoting Behavior. In J.Madden. Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect, pg
229-270.
Bandura, Albert (2006). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management on
Organisational Commitment, Progress and Prospect. Academy of Management Journal,
39(4), 779-01.
Charlton, G (2000). Human Habits of Highly Effective Organizations. Van Schaik, Pretoria.
Costigan Robert D. (June 2006). A Cross-Cultural Study Of Supervisory Trust, International
Journal of Manpower Vol 27 No 8.
De Furia, G.L (1996). Facilitator’s Guide to the Interpersonal trust Surveys, Jossey –Bass,
San Francisco, C.A.
Dov Elizur & Meni Koslowsky (2001). Values and Organizational Commitment,
International Journal of Manpower Vol 22 No 7.
Fairholm, M. and Failholm, R. (1999). Leadership amid the Constraints of Trust.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol 21 No 2 pg 102-9.
Gowan, Mary and Hoon Park (2002). Impact of (ational Origin and Entry Mode on Trust
and Organizational Commitment. Multinational Business Review, Fall 2002.
Hall, D., & Mirvis, P.H. (1996). The (ew Protean Career: Psychological Success and the
Path with a Heart. In D.T. Hall 52 Associates (Eds), The Career is Dead: Long Live The
Career. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Kram, K. (1996). A Relational Approach to Career Development. InD.T. Hall & Associates
(Eds.) The Career is Dead: Long Live the Career. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kipnis, D. (1996). Trust and Technology, in Kramer, R.M and Tyler, T.R (Eds), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, pg 39-50.
Kozlowski, SW.J., & Hults, B.M. (1987). An Exploration of Climates for Technical
Updating and Performance. Personal Psychology, 40, 539-564.
Lamsa, A and Savolainen, T. (2000). The (ature of Managerial Commitment to Strategic
Change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol 21 No 6 pg 297-306.
London, M. (1989). Managing the Training Enterprise. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mathieu, JE & Zajac, D.M (1990). A Review & Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents,
Correlates and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 79 No 203.
Marins, Nico (2002). A Model for Managing Trust. International Journal of Manpower, Vol
23. no.8
McKnight, D.H and Webster J (2000). Collaborative Insight or Privacy Invasion. Trust
climate as a Lens for Understanding Acceptance of Awareness Systems, in Cartwright,
S. and early P.C Eds. The International Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate. John Wiley
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W (1979). The Measurement of Organizational
Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 14 No 2, pg 244-247.
Rogers Robert W. (1995). The Psychological Contract of Trust, Executive Development,
Vol. 8 No 1.
Reynolds, L (1997). The Trust Effect: Creating the High Trust, High Performance
Organization. Nicholas Brealy, London.
Robbins, S.P (1999). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 8th
edition Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. N.J.
Schneier, C.E., MacCoy, D., & Burchman, S. (1988). Unlocking Employee Potential:
Developing Skill. Management Solution, pp.9-15.
Shaw, R.B (1997). Trust in Balance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, C.A.
Wason, George and Papamarcos, Steven D (2002). Social Commitment and Organizational
Commitment. Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 4, Summer 2002.
Weichun Zhu, et al (2004). The Impact of Ethical leadership Behavior on Employee
Outcomes: the Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Authenticity. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2004.
Weiner, Y and Vardi, Y. (1980). Relatioship between Job, Organization and Career
Commitment and Work Outcomes: An Intergrative Approach. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol 26, pg 81-96.