The literature suggests, but provides no empirical evidence, that high trust levels within organizations may aid human resource management reform efforts. This article seeks to fill this empirical gap by assessing the effect of organizational trust across a variety of attitudinal variables. The analysis indicates that increased levels of organizational trust strengthen the pay-for-performance link; appraisal, and the supervisory role in that process; and positively influence organization-specific attitudes toward merit pay. As such, the findings suggest that a supportive and trusting organizational climate may be a necessary precursor to "successful" reform of human resource management systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carnevale, D. G.
(1991). The learning support model: Personnel doctrine beyond the mass production paradigm. Paper prepared for the American Society for Public Administration Annual Conference, Washington, DC, March 23-27.
2.
Carnevale, D. G.
, & Wechsler, B. (1991). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Paper prepared for the American Society for PublicAdministration Annual Conference, Washington, DC, March 23-27.
3.
Condrey, S. E.
, & Brudney, J. L. (1992). Performance-based managerial pay in the federal government: Does agency matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(2) 157-174.
4.
Golembiewski, R. T.
, & McConkie, M. L. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. New York: Wiley.
5.
H. J. Res
. 267, Public Law 103-88, 104th Cong., Sept. 30,1993.
6.
H. R. Rep
. 103-247, Performance management and recognition system termination act, 104th Cong. (1993).
7.
Lawler, E. E., III
. (1981). Pay and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
8.
Lawler, E. E., III
. (1990). Strategic pay: Aligning organizational strategies and pay systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Lawler, E. E., III
(1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Nachmias, D.
(1985). Determinants of trust within the federal bureaucracy. In D. H. Rosenbloom (Ed.), Public personnel policy: The politics of civil service. Port Washington, NY: Associated Faculty Press, Inc.
11.
Nalbandian, J.
(1991). Performance appraisal: If only people were not involved. In F. J. Thompson (Ed.), Classics of public personnel policyPacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
12.
National Research Council
. (1991). Pay for performance: Evaluating performance appraisal and merit payWashington, DC: National Academy Press.
13.
Nigro, L. G.
(1981). Attitudes of federal employees toward performance appraisal and merit pay: Implications for CSRA implementation. Public Administration Review, 41(1), 84-86.
14.
Nigro, L. G.
(1982). CSRA performance appraisals and merit pay: Growing uncertainty in the federal work force. Public Administration Review, 42, 371-375.
15.
Perry, J. L.
(1989). Making policy by trial and error: Merit pay in the federal service. Policy Studies Journal, 17, 389-405.
16.
Roberts, G. E.
(1992). Linkages between performance appraisal system effectiveness and rater and ratee acceptance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 19-41.
17.
Thompson, F. J.
(1994). Deregulation and public personnel administration: The Winter commissionReview of Public Personnel Administration, 14(2), 5-10.
18.
Vroom, V. H.
(1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
