Reviewing the relationship between perception of trust in organization with employee extra-role behavior

This study seeks to examine trust indicators as a foundation for employee extra role behavior. A face-toface interview of employees was administered at Saderat Banks in Shiraz for a period of two weeks. A total of 296 usable questionnaires were collected. In addition, seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) were adopted. Research findings indicated that trust in management, psychological supports, management values and reward expectation as a perception of trust in organization indicators had positive correlation with employee extra – role behavior. Participation in decision making by employee and contribution of autonomous employee were strong indicators and intrinsic job motivation besides sharing knowledge were found to be weaker indicators of employee extra – role behavior. The need to go face to face and the lack of realizing the scientific concept of research by older people were the limitation of this research which leaded to delay in collecting the questionnaires. We can also take advantage of research findings to guide organization to build trust in workplace which in turn leads to employee extra – role behavior. Findings of this study emphasized major factors that lead to employee perceptions about trust which can lead to discretionary employee efforts.


INTRODUCTION
The intellectual capital of any organization is usually considered most valuable asset and organizational performance depends on the capturing, developing and exploiting the explicit and implicit knowledge that exists in the organization.Generally, the problem confronting organizations is that, although they need to access the knowledge of their employees, this contribution calls for extra role behavior which is often outside their explicit job description and therefore discretion (Reychave and Sharkie, 2010).
One problem facing organizations is that the traditional employment relationship of long term commitment, reciprocity and job security has declined and been replaced by higher levels of precariousness (Cappelli, 1999;Sharkie, 2005).
Mc Evily et al. (2003) developed the notion of trust as an organizational principle by specifying that trust influences organizational outcomes.However, we are still left with a set of findings that have yet to be integrated in a way that yields a set of generalizable propositions about the effects of trust on organizations.Dirks and Ferrin (2001) claim that perceptions of trust in the organization may be a significant antecedent of employee extra-role behavior, because without trust, skills and knowledge are likely to be withheld instead of being disseminated.A review of empirical studies spanning 40 years by Dirks *Corresponding author.E-mail: ali_mosavi75@yahoo.com. and Ferrin (2001) suggests that not only does trust moderate workplace performance, but it also has important effects on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as more positive attitudes to work and higher levels of cooperation.
Employee extrarole behavior is concerned with behavior of employees which is discretionary in that it is outside the specific obligations incorporated in the formal employment contract.It is also a behavior which is likely to positively contribute to the advancement of the collective interests of management or the organization rather than the selfish interests of the individual (Ferrin et al., 2007).
This study examined perception of trust indicators in the organization that may lead to employee extrarole behavior.These indicators consist of reward expectation, management values, psychological support and trust in management.It then considers employee extrarole behavior which includes the concept of discretionary work that is done in addition to what is expected of employee in job.Indicators of this variable include participation in decision making by employee, contribution from autonomous employee, intrinsic job motivation and sharing knowledge.

Organizational trust
Concept of trust is rooted in Aristotle`s literature course.So there is little agreement about this concept and how it can be found in workplace (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001).Concept of trust has been noticed by the experts in different scientific field.In fact researches investigated the same subject from different approaches each of which focusing on specific aspects of trust that have led to the broken definition (Lewicki et al., 1998;Rousseau et al., 1998).According to Porter et al. (1975) trust is similar to atmosphere.It is widely spoken and essential for organization, but when it comes to an exact definition in organization area, it will reach to the large uncertainties (Porter, 1975).
Due to the emphasis on contextual factors that may increase or decrease the confidence, social psychologists, define trust as the expected behavior of others during social interaction.Personality psychologists have looked at trust as belief, expectation or emotion that roots in human character or mental capacity of a person (Lewicki et al., 1998).In general psychologists have described trust and trust process as one of the basic foundation of personal development (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003).
Trust is one of the major issues in sociology, which can be studied as a basis for social order at different fields and levels.Low level of trust causes the employee to divert the flow of information in organization, makes suspicion and abuse widespread, open and honest communication in organization disappear, and the quality of decision is undesirable (Baird and Amand, 1995).
Trust is one of the fundamental concepts that are easily understood by everyone.At the same time defining and explaining it, is undoubtedly difficult.Many definitions of this concept confirm this claim.For example, Cook and Wall (1980) believe that the concept of trust in common language means a willingness to attribute intentions to others and having the confidence to their words and deeds.Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000) define the organizational trust construct as positive expectations that individuals have based on organizational roles, relationships, experiences and interdependencies of the various members of intentions and behaviors.Grifin (1967) defines trust as confidence to individual behavior to achieve desired goals but unstable in hazardous conditions.In Robbins (2006) opinion, the main characteristic of teams that have excellent performance is that members trust each other.Veeton and Cameron (2003) believe that because of two reasons when people find more trust in management, they will feel more capable: First, avoiding non-productive and unhelpful behaviors that arise from the lack of trust.Second, praised and noble people always make positive force for others and make them feel more worthy.
Trust is related to an individual's perception about a number of factors.The most salient are the way they have been treated by the organization, management and other employees, whether they perceive that these parties have been fair, kept their promises and met their obligations, and whether the parties can be trusted to fulfill their promises and obligations in the future (Guest and Conway, 2001;Fuchs, 2003).Management policies and practices that are likely to reflect the values and beliefs presupposed by management may have a significant effect on how employees view the organization.If employee perceptions of trust are favorable, then the prospects for extra role characteristics and the sharing of skills for the benefit of the organization are likely to be improved (Reychave and Sharkie, 2010).
Studies of the literature have suggested four measures that could be important antecedent of perceptions of trust in the organization: Psychological support (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002;Rhoads and Eisenberger, 2002), Management values (Gillespie and Mann, 2004;Lewicki, 1998), trust in management (Kerkhof et al., 2003;Amabile, 2005), reward expectation (Figure 1).Rhoades et al. (2001) argue that expectations of organizational rewards, such as pay, promotional and employment continuity prospects are used by employees as a measure of the valuation of their contribution to the organization.This is supported by the calculative view of organizational commitment, which according to Eisenberger (1990), suggests that performing in a

Management values
Psychological support satisfactory way will lead to material performance rewards.Likewise, organizational support theory suggests that opportunities for recognition, pay and promotion convey the organization's dependability and supportiveness (Rhoades et al., 2001).

H
1 : Reward expectations, as an antecedent of perceptions of trust in the organization, will be in a linear relationship with employee extra role behavior and its indicators.

Management values
The literature suggests that communicating and modeling important values and encouraging staff to adopt them and pursue a shared purpose, were practices that were likely to be antecedents to the building of trust (Gillespie and Mann, 2004), because management's moral values are likely to be reflected in their company's human resource policies and practices.
Developing a moral and value driven collective vision aligns leader's actions with those of the employee's and makes them focus on achieving the shared goals.Under this influence, employees may view leaders in an idealized way, causing them to identify with the leader, trust the leader and be inspired by the vision of what can be achieved through extra personal effort (Gillespie and Mann, 2004).These authors argument is that employees are motivated to perform beyond expectations through employee trust and respect in their leader.

H
2 : Management values, as an antecedent of perceptions of trust in the organization, will be in a linear relationship with employee extra role behavior and its indicators.

Psychological support
The literature suggests that employee's perception of the level of trust in the organization will be affected by the level of psychological support they receive.The perception of trust as relational and based on psychological support operates as a social exchange process and influences the amount of reciprocation by the employee back to the organization (Whitener et al., 1998;Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).This reciprocation is likely to be high and above the normal commercial contract relationship between an employer and an employee.From this perceived organizational support perspective, perceptions of trust in the organization represent a high quality relationship where employees draw inferences about the basis of their relationship, and use it to decide on their reciprocation of care and concern in the relationship.

H
3 : Psychological support, as an antecedent of perceptions of trust in the organization, will be in a linear relationship with employee extra role behavior and its indicators.

Trust in management
The literature suggests that one antecedent of trust is employee perception of whether management is competent and credible.This character based perception of trust suggests that employees make inferences about their leader's character, such as integrity or dependability, which in turn affects their level of trust.This perspective of trust in management exposes the vulnerability of the employee to the power of management in a hierarchical relationship, with trust by the employees is likely to depend on their perceptions of the character of the organization leadership (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).

Employee extra role behavior (ERB) or organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
A collection of texts in OCB have used various terms to describe the best employee abilities for example extrarole behavior, spontaneous organization and group interest support.In spite of different concepts and incompatible applications, most of the concepts have common aspects and the concept of OCB is formed.What is evident is that most of these concepts refer to the fact that organizational effectiveness is not unexpected when employees are active and benevolent in organization (Jung and Hong, 2008).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a set of behaviors which is out of the range of necessary behaviors but plays a pivotal role in creating favorable social and psychological environment in workplace (Blakely et al., 2005).The concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was presented by Batman and Organ in early 1980s for the first time.They define organizational citizenship behavior as: individual behavior which is voluntary and is not motivated by the formal reward system explicitly or implicitly and which will increase the efficiency of organization (Cohen and Kol, 2004).This definition puts emphasis on three characteristics of citizenship behavior: first, this behavior must be voluntary, not a predetermined task and not part of the person's official duties.Second, the advantages of this behavior has an organizational aspect, third, organizational citizenship behavior has multilateral nature (Bienstock et al., 2003).
In 1930s, Chester Barnard define OCB which he called ERB or extra-role behavior, as spontaneous behavior and includes: first, behaviors that are defined in job description and behavior that expected and accepted by management in organization, Second, extra-role behavior that helping new employees, observing the rights of others and expressing intimacy with others (Barnard, 1983).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a certain form of extra-role behavior in the field of organizational behavior, it means that behaving as a citizen who is concerned about the health and welfare of other citizens and takes care of them (Torlak and Koc, 2007).With these definitions of man as organizational citizenship, it is expected to serve organizational goal more than official duties.In other words, organizational citizenship behavior seeks to identify, manage and evaluate the employee extra role behaviors that are working in organization and the effect of their behavior, improves organizational effectiveness (Bienstock et al., 2003).
The latent variable has four indicators: participation by employees in decision making (Axtell et al., 2000;Tyler and Blader, 2000), contribution by autonomous employees (Fuchs, 2003;Pfeffer and Vega, 1999), sharing knowledge (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001;Gardener 2003), and intrinsic job motivation (Guest and Conway, 2001;Ferres et al., 2004).The following area discusses the literature that supports the inclusion of these four measures as indicators of employee extra-role behavior.
Participation in decision making by employee Tyler and Blader (2000) suggest that employees are concerned with their ability to maximize the control they have over decisions likely to affect them.This involves their perception of their level of direct participation in the decision making process and also their ability to exercise some degree of control by being able to present evidence to decision makers before decisions are made.A work environment that supports participation and the contribution of ideas is likely to be important to employees who will then feel that they have an opportunity to participate in decision making.A supportive work environment will therefore encourage greater discretionary involvement in the decision making processes of the organization.
H 5 : Participation by employees in decision making will be in a linear relationship with perceptions of trust in the organization and indicators.
Contribution from autonomous employee Fuchs (2003) supported the inclusion of autonomy as a factor in the generation of trust, skills and knowledge sharing, and showed that there was a strong relationship between the level of self-determination in the workplace and the level of trust and intrinsic motivation.He also showed a positive relationship between trust and the building of social capital, based on a perception of being able to actively participate.Pfeffer and Vega (1999) also emphasized the importance of autonomy in an organization.They claimed that frontline skills and initiatives were needed to resolve organizational problems, and that individuals need to take responsibility for improving organizational practices.
H 6 : Contribution by autonomous employees will be in a linear relationship with perceptions of trust in the organization and indicators.

Intrinsic job motivation
Intrinsic job motivation is an indicator of the degree to which a person wants to work well in his or her job in order to achieve intrinsic satisfaction.Guest and Conway (2001) found that satisfaction with job content was highly positively correlated with the provision of challenging and interesting work and that in particular, worker satisfaction with a job was strongly related to job design and the opportunities available for direct participation.
H 7 : Intrinsic job motivation will be in a linear relationship with perceptions of trust in the organization and indicators.

Sharing knowledge
Trust is a key element in an individual's decision to share knowledge (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001;Gardener, 2003) and in high trust environments, individuals and groups may be predisposed to share knowledge and act cooperatively.
High trust situations also allow individuals to share their ideas without the downside risk of having these ideas subjected to derision.
H 8 : Sharing knowledge will be in a linear relationship with perceptions of trust in the organization and indicators.

Sampling and data collection
The questionnaire used in this study contained 43 questions addressing all the variables.A face-to-face interview of employees was administered at Saderat Banks for a period of two weeks.A total of 296 usable questionnaires were collected.In addition, seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) were adopted rather than five-point Likert scales to increase variation for statistical analysis.

MEASUREMENT MODEL ANALYSIS
Data reliability was assessed using SPSS 12.0 to determine the Cronbach's α; validity was assessed using LISREL 8.54 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).A Cronbach's α of at least 0.5 of each construct is considered to be adequately reliable (Chau and Lai, 2003).The results of reliability (Table 1) showed all eight constructs of Cronbach's α to have satisfactory values, ranging from 0.89 to 0.77, indicating acceptable levels of internal consistency.The coefficient of composite reliability is similar to Cronbach's α and reflects internal consistency of observed variables (Chau and Lai, 2003;Koufteros, 1999).The composite reliability should exceed 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988;Fornell and Larcker, 1981).The lowest score of composite reliability in the current study was 0.80, indicating evidence of reliability.The CFA results presented an acceptable level of fit (GFI = 0.88, AGFI= 0.85, NFI =0.98, NNFI =0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.059).Strong factor loadings indicated that observed variables are valid estimates of latent variables, and the standardized factor loading was adopted in this study.All first-order and second-order factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.94, demonstrating satisfactory values (Koufteros, 1999).The t-values of all indicator loadings well exceeded the critical value (t = 3.29) at the 0.001 significance level, which suggests that indicators were relevant and acceptable (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).Thus, the CFA results supported the convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE) was applied to assess convergent validity.This measurement represents the amount of variance captured from latent construct relative to the measurement error and should result in extractions of more than 50 percent of variance (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988;Fornell and Larcker, 1981).Table 1 presents the AVE measurements-all of which were greater than 0.5, meaning convergent validity is well supported.

Testing structural model of full model
After confirming the measurement model, the structural model was evaluated.The model overall fit statistics (GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA= 0.045, RMR = 0.025, SRMR = 0.026, x2 (df) = 519 (202), x2 /df = 2.5) indicated an acceptable level of fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data.Estimated structural coefficients were subsequently examined to evaluate the individual hypotheses.The explanatory power of the research model was examined in terms of the portion of variance explained.
Intrinsic job motivation was positively correlated with reward expectations (r= 0.69, ρ <0.01), management values (r= 0.44, ρ <0.01), psychological support (r= 0.65, 0.92 0.79 0.83 0.65 1) My manager/supervisor considers team member's input when making decisions 0.81 2) My manager/supervisor utilizes team member suggestions 0.75 3) My manager/supervisor consults with team members before making important decisions that will affect them 0.77 Contribution from autonomous employee 0.83 0.88 0.8 0.7 1) I have freedom to adopt my own approach to the job 0.82 2) My job allows me opportunity for independent thought and action 0.67 3) I have control over how I do my work 0.79 4) I have control over how quickly or slowly I work 0.87 5) I have control over the quality of my work 0.84 Sharing knowledge 0.91 0.84 0.89 0.68 1) In my work team I have learnt new things from my colleagues that only they knew 0.87 2) In my work team I have passed on knowledge and experiences from the past (in this organization and in others) that only I knew 0.73 3) In my work team we often jointly develop ideas that have come from one of our team members 0.82 4) My work team has contributed ideas for improvements that have been put into practice in the organization 0.79

5)
In my work team we have made improvements to the traditional way of doing things 0.66 Reward expectation 0.8 0.77 0.85 0.73 1) It is more likely that I will be given a pay rise or promotion if I finish a large amount of work 0.89 2) It is more likely that I will be given a pay rise or promotion if I do high quality work 0.68 3) Getting work done quickly increases my chances of a pay rise or promotion 0.72 4) Getting work done on time is rewarded with high pay 0.84 5) When I finish my job on time, my job is more secure 0.8 Intrinsic job motivation 0.94 0.82 0.87 0.82 1) My organization allows me to use my skills to the maximum 0.74 2) My organization allows me to achieve something I personally value 0.89 3) My organization gives me the opportunity to make my own decisions 0.81 4) My organization gives me the opportunity to learn new things 0.67 5) My organization provides me with challenging work 0.7 6) My organization allows me to extend my range of abilities 0.82 Trust in management 0.88 0.79 0.84 0.74 1) In my opinion the management is reliable 0.75 2) I feel that the management meet their negotiated obligations to our department 0.89 3) I feel that the management negotiates with us honestly 0.73 4) I feel that the management tell the truth in negotiations 0.69 5) I feel that the management do not mislead us 0.77 6) I feel that the management will keep their word 0.85 7) I feel that the management try to get out of their commitments 0.84 CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study evaluated perception of trust in the organization with employee extra-role behavior.The studies indicate that every four indicators of perception of trust in the organization must be investigated: reward expectation, management values, psychological support and trust in mana-gement.The above mentioned information shows so many different results.
To compensate the inconvenience which people sustained, the organization offers to reward individuals in exchange for the time and force that they spend achieving the goals of organization and also for their creativity and innovation and application of new and better ways of working. in better and effective performance, and even will lead to extra role and voluntary behaviors, which confirms the claim of Rhoades et al. (2001).
Management values like other beliefs have behavioral, emotional and cognitive components that are constantly interacting with each other and are visible in the actions, and behaviors of members of an organization.Based on this emphasis, Management values like any other belief are related to several negative and positive outcomes.Primarily, through management value, managers and administrators inform employees and other related people what is important for the organization.An organizational value is a concept or idea which has high respect and consideration for people.
Management values by shaping organization culture determine individual expectation, how to do, decision making ability, social interaction, and internal and external organization relation.So by the presence of leader's behavior and trust in organization, we can encourage employees to perform duties beyond official duties which confirm the claim of Gillespie and Mann (2004).
Support of leaders and organizational environment could be providing organizational support.The purpose of organizational support is generalized feelings and beliefs of people in this regard which organization values to cooperation, assistance and support of their member and is concerned about their future.Due to this feeling, people do their role as an active member of organization and they will be satisfied.Others based on this feeling try to find good opportunities to acquire necessary training and interest to play their own role properly.Those employee, who experience high level of organizational support, should perform their role due to appropriate behaviors and attitudes in order to operate the organization's benefits and compensate organizational support.
In other words, based on social exchange approach, perceived organizational support provides increased productivity, performance, employee contribution, organization development, affective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (extra-role).This case is consistent with Dirks and Ferrin (2002) research.
Trust function and role in the organization confirmed the point that manager should strive to maintain, develop and provide conditions that end in establishing relationship based on trust in the organization.First of all, building and developing confidence in organization require manager's belief to function, and then identify the appropriate tools to build confidence.Increased mechanism, reducing power of the organization supervision different categories of employee and concentration of power, unilateral (one-way) feedback, incorrect assessment, focusing information on the manager hand, authoritarian management style, failure to comply ethics and the lack of accountability are the factors that can cause loss of trust in organization.Managers must know the exact causes of loss of trust, and the ways of preventing its progressive decline in addition to consider the fact that they will establish organization by trust or distrust with designing organizational systems.Therefore, managers should eliminate barriers and develop a climate of trust in organization by organizational justice, create a suitable environment, building rapport, and take into account sympathy and affection, seek cooperation and honesty in relationships and constructive actions, because it has considerable influence on extra-role behavior of employee and confirm the claim of Dirks and Ferrin (2002).
According to the theory of environmental management when maturity level of employees increases, people will require independence and devolution and most importantly need to be seen confident and dependable by managers instead of being constantly supervised.Also, the principle of participation means that all of the people who work in the organization must be involved in the decision making process without discrimination.It means that the people in organization have the freedom to comment and there is no barrier to the application of this principle.
Employees are seeking to have the highest efficiency in decision making that will have the strongest effect on them and managers also seek to control the result of these decisions directly.So, if they cannot control them directly, they will try to empower decision maker by evidence in indirectly, thus apply control process.Accordingly, we have to govern trust in organization to encourage employee participation in decision making.This case is consistent with Tyler and Blader (2000) research.
Autonomous working group or self-determination means organizational direct form and democracy in which a group of staff are responsible for drafting legislation, organizing and controlling tasks related to their work.The purposes of autonomous teams consist of improving the quality of work life, increasing organizational quality and efficiency, building an organization to respond to social and psychological needs of employees.So, by creating the same working environment, employees will be familiar with their duties and enjoy their success.On one part, supervisors will have more time to focus on creativity and innovation instead of using force to get employees into work.Moreover, modern concept of leadership like forming consistency, synergy and conveying the image of a favorable future will be replaced by traditional leadership duties like control, guidance and exciting affairs.The existence of autonomous teams provides an opportunity to act and think independently, control the speed, rate and quality of work.According to Fuchs (2003), trust in organization is one of the preconditions for successful implementation of autonomous teams.
Motivation is one of the important tools for encouraging employees to produce effective result, creating positive work environment and executing planed programs successfully.Compare to those who have no motivation, people who are motivated, have more activity while working.
The lack of motivation correlates with lower quality and quantity of work, and the presence time in the workplace.In another research, uncertainty about future, lack of true program and job security are known to be the causes of the lack of motivation.Factor such as interesting work, appreciation, sufficient salary, appropriate work environment and the nature of work are effective in increasing job motivation.So, based on Guest and Conway's (2001) statements, if trust dominates, it will create job motivation and internal satisfaction among people.
Sharing knowledge is a behavior more than the actual role of employee in organization.So, it is not easy to convenience people to share their knowledge and experiences.Organization must try to identify factors which influence on sharing knowledge and attempt to eliminate the barriers.On the other hand, strengthen management activity increasingly requires trusting people and group to do great tasks of managing without continuous and direct supervision.
Trust is the channel through which knowledge flows, and can be based on merit or wish.Trust indicator, expresses mutual trust between organization and individuals.The level of trust among organizations, department and employees are largely affected by the level of knowledge among individuals, between individuals and organization data bases, best activities archive and other records.
Work place in which employees do not trust each other will be difficult to manage knowledge successfully.Based on Dirks and Ferrin (2001) claim, for successful knowledge management initiative to occur trust should govern in the organization.

H 4 :
Trust in management, as an antecedent of perceptions of trust in the organization, will be in a linear relationship with employee extra role behavior and its indicators.

Table 1 .
Summary of measurement scales.