Int. J.

of Human Resource Management 14:1 February 2003 117-127

Trust me, I'm your boss: trust and power

in supervisor-supervisee communication

Michael WUemyns, Cynthia Gallois and Victor J. CaUan

Abstract This study examined employees' perceptions of trust, power and mentoring in
manager-employee relationships in a variety of sectors, including health care, education,
hospitality and retail. The main theoretical frameworks used were communication
accommoidation theory and social identity theoiy, in examining the manager-employee
relationships from an in-group/out-group perspective. Computer-aided content analyses
revealed a number of emergent communication and relationship themes that impact upon
the level of 'in-groupness' and therefore trust in supervisor-supervisee relationships.
While it may be illusory to believe that any organization can enjoy complete tnist among
its workforce, it is clear that ceitain conmiunication characteristics can result in greater
trust in manager-employee relationships, even within the context of organizational
constraints. It is argued that the results of the study could be used to inform human
resource management academics of key aspects of managerial communication that should
be further researehed, and also provide insights into the main communication skills that
managers should focus upon to improve trust in the workplace.

Kejrwords Trust; communication; workplace; power.

Introduction

Trust is an elusive concept, especially in the current organizational climate of job

insecurity, reduced resources and the decline of unions (McCune, 1998). In terms of
supervisor-supervisee communication, McCune argues, it is difficult to trust someone
who has a distinct advantage over you. Recent studies have found that 43 per cent of
employees believe their managers cheat and lie to them, and 68 per cent of employees
do not trust their managers (see Davis and Landa, 1999). Such findings cleariy have
important implications for oiganizations and the individuals who woik for them. For
example, Davis et al. (2000) found that trust was significantly related to sales, profit
and turnover, and to employees' perceptions of their managers' integrity and
competence.
While it is acknowledged that factors such as organizational culture, structure and
availability of resources are important determinants of trust in the workplace, this paper
focuses on the more micro, but important issue of how supervisors and supervisees
relate to each other, and the implications for trust and mistmst. This paper reports the
results of a thematic content analysis of employees' perceptions of their supervisors' or
managers' communication style, where issues relating to trust and power emerged as

Michael Willemyns, College of Business Sciences, Zayed University, PO Box 19282, Dubai,
UAE (e-mail: michael.willemyns@zu.ac.ae): Cynthia Gallois, School of Psychology,
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia (e-mail): cg@psy.uq.edu.au); Victor J. Callan, UQ Business School, University of
Queensland, Australia 4072 (e-mail: v.callan@gsm.uq.edu.au).

The Inlematiomil Journal o / Human Rexource Managemenl

ISSN 0958-5192 prim/ISSN 14«64399 online 6 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http:/Avww.landf.oo.uk/jounials
118 The International Jounuil oj Hunttiit Re.sourvc Maiuifieineni

highly salient themes in the study. The paper takes an in-group versus out-jiroup
approach in examining power and trust in supervisory communication. Thi.s is an
important perspective, as much research has found that hoth upward and downward
communication in organizations is significantly distorted or withheld as a function oi'
interactants' group identity, power dynamics and level ot° trust or mistrust towards each
other (Morand. 1996). Indeed, Morand argue.s that the more an employt-e perceives u
manager in 'in-group' terms, the more the manager is trusted.
The main theoretical frameworks used are communication accommodation theory
(CAT) and social identity theory (SIT). First, these will be briefly outlined and
discussed in terms of their relevance to trust in supervi.sor-supervisee relationships.
This will be followed by an overview of the results of the study's findings in relation
to trust and power. The paper concludes with a critical discussion of the implications of
supervisor-supervisee communication in terms ofthe so-called 'quick fix' approach to
trust in supervisor-supervisee relationships, as well as implications for trust beyond the
quick fix.

Communication accommodation theory (CAT)

This overview of CAT is selective, with a focus on issues of power and trust in
supervisor-supervisee communication. For a more detailed discussion of CAT concepts
and empirical findings, see Jones et al. (1999). CAT is a robust iiamework for
examining interpersonal and in-group/out-group communication, as well as interactants'
motivations, goals and communication strategies. Such motivations and goals include
seeking the approval of the other person or signalling in-group or out-group
membership (affiliation or social distance and power). CAT proposes that interactanLs
draw upon a wide range of communication strategies, including approximation,
interpersonal control, discourse management and relational strategies, to achieve such
goals. While labelled 'strategies' in CAT. interactanLs are not always conscious of using
such communication strategies (Jones et al.. 1999; Willemyns et al.. 2(X)0). The
strategies will now be briefly outlined.
Approximation strategies refer to interdctants adjusting their communication style to
sound more like or less like the other person (termed convergence and divergence,
respectively). Interactants have been found to modify communication characteristics
such as vocabulary, jargon, accent and non-verbal behaviours. CAT proposes that
individuals converge in order to signal affinity with, or seek the approval of, the other
person. For example, in a study of communication in employment interviews,
Willemyns et al. (1997) found that interviewees converged in speech style towards that
of their interviewers. Conversely, individuals have been found to diverge in order to
signal interpersonal or social distance or disapproval. CAT draws upon similarity-
attraction theoiy (Byrne, 1971), which contends that individuals are likely to be
attracted to people who are similar to themselves, in terms of personal characteristics or
group memberships. In relation to the present study, individuals are more likely to trust
in-group members than out-group members (Morand, 1996).
Interpersonal control strategies refer to the speaker's communication strategy of
positioning him- or herself, and/or the other person, in a particular role or power
position (Jones et al.. 1999). For instance, in interactions with an employee, a manager
may explicitly and implicitiy communicate their superior status in the relationship.
Conversely, supervisors may reduce perceived power differences by referring to their
supervisees as their 'fellow team members', or by referring to themselves in terms of a
nurturin^i, mentoring role.
 Willemyns et al.: Trust me, I'm your boss 119

Discourse management strategies are manifested in a more discouise-oriented, but

equally powerful fonn. For instance, a long tradition of power and communication
research has shown that higher-status individuals are more likely than their lower-status
counterparts to display behaviours such as intemipting, dominating the conversation,
controlling the choice of topic and the use of directives, and are less likely to use an
informal tone or self-disclosure. Conversely, powerless communication is characlerized
by a higher incidence of indirectness, disqualifications, hedges, hesitations and tag
questions (see Jones et al., 1999).
Relational strategies are a recent addition to CAT, with a focus on communication
behaviours that indicate support, empathy, inclusion, valuing the other person and face
issues. For example, in relation to face issues, positive face is manifest in behaviours
that allow the recipient to save face, such as a manager not reptinunding an employee
for making a mistake, or at least providing negative feedback privately and in a tactful
manner. Conversely, face threat or attack is manifest in speakers challenging or
embarrassing the listener (Morand, 1996).

Social identity theory

Social identity was defined by Tajfel (1974) as an individual's knowledge that he or she
belongs to certain social or status groups, together with some emotional and value
significance of the group membership. The more a person identifies with his or her in-
group (e.g. manager), the more he or she will feel distinct fiom out-group members (e.g.
employees). When one's social identity is salient, so too are out-group dynamics.
Drawing upon social identity theory, CAT proposes that an interactant's communication
style contains social markers that convey infonnation about the speaker, such as
personality, social identity, status and power (Callan et al., 1983).
Gallois and Giles (1998) contend that, in some interactions, the relationship is mostiy
interpersonal (e.g. friendships) and the interactants perceive each other as individuals,
while, in other situations, people interact primarily in terms of group-based identities or
stereotypes (e.g. formal supervisee-supervisor relationships). Hogg and Abrams (1988)
argue that communication is more often a function of the relative status or power of the
interactants than of their personality. Thus, most communication in supervisor-
supervisee relationships is seen as a function of the interactants' status or role.
[t is argued here that a pattern of positive interactions with an out-group member may
lead to 'breaking through' the inter-group barrier and, thereby, to an increase in tmst. In
terms of the present study, this would mean a lower likelihood of the supervisor being
perceived and related to as a member of a status out-group by their supervisee, and vice
versa. Again, this has implications for trust in the woikplace, as we are more likely to
identify with and trust in-group members than out-group members (Morand, 19%).

Communication, and trust and mentoring

Not all supervisors are mentors; however. Bell (1996) argues that, when supervisors
take on a mentoring role (formally or infonnally), the individuals as well as the
organization benefit. House (1981) identified four dimensions of mentoring: emotional
support (e.g. trust, concern, listening and esteem); appraisal support (e.g. affirmation,
feedback); informational support (e.g. advice, suggestions, directives and information);
and instrumental support (e.g. money, labour and time). These factors are clearly related
to issues of trust in supervisor-supervisee relationships.
120 Till' International Jounuil <if Human Rexounc

In a major study of management style in large Australian corporations. Evans (1

found that a number of features are related to employees' perceptions of their managers'
trustworthiness. These features included the employee's perceptions of thf supervisor's
appreciation of the employee's worth, as manifest in praise, compliments, etc. A trusted
supervisor was also seen as one who cuuld he relied on to care for the employee's
personal and professional welfare: thai is. as one who takes a mentoring approach.
Openness in communication was seen as highly important, as gatekeeping of
information, or keeping employees in ignorance, creates uncertainty, tear and distrust.
Essentially, supervisors were most likely to be trusted if they were seen to take a caring,
mentoring approach with their supervisees, while still being regarded as competent and
deserving of their authority. By contrast, managers perceived as untrustworthy were
seen as self-serving, failing to give recognition, stifiing the employee's potential, quick
to blame and criticize, and perceived as incompetent. It can be concluded that a trusted
supervisor not only manages the task responsibilities of his or her role, but manages the
relationship and power differences positively at the same time.

Sodal identity and mentoring McManus and Russell argued that 'obtaining in-group
status may be a pre-requisite for employees to receive mentoring from their supervisors'
(1997: 147). They found that in-group members received more attention and support
from their supervisor than out-group members, while out-group members experienced
a more formal relationship with their supervisor. In mentoring-style supervisor-
supervisee relationships, in-group and out-group dynamics are salient due to the
paradoxical combination of the affiliative nature of the mentoring relationship and the
inherent power differences in it. Thus, an understanding of how communication
influences in-group/out-group perceptions (and vice versa) is important to under-
standing trust in mentoring relationships.

General hypotheses.

Based on CAT and other supervisor-supervisee communication research, it was

expected that issues of trust and power would emerge as significant categories in the
content analyses. More specifically, it was expected that, in positively perceived
conversations, managers' communication would be perceived in terms of a mentoring,
caring, in-group and trusting relationship. For example, it was expected that managers'
communication would be characterized in terms of minimal power distance ('in-
groupness'), personal similarities, self-disclosure, active listening, suppon, empathy,
inclusive communication and positive face. Conversely, it was expected that salient
themes in negatively perceived interactions would include managers' communication of
dominance, distancing, lack of willingness to listen, lack of support or empathy and
face threat.

Method

Participants

The panicipants were 1S7 working psychology students (ninety females and sixty-seven
males, ranging in age firom 17 to 58; mean age 22.12 years) who had been in full-time
employment for at least six months, or part-time for at least twelve months. Their
occupations and places of work covered a wide spectnim, including the service sector
 Willemyns et al: Trust me, I'm your boss 121
(retail outlets,restaunmts),education (e.g. teachers) and the health sector (nurses, health
practitioners or assistants).

Procedure
Questioniiains Participants received two questionnaires and were asked to return
them anonymously by mail or via a survey-retum box within a week. The
questionnaires asked participants to describe a satisfactory and an unsatisfactory
interaction with a supervisor or manager. Participants wrote up to one page (responses
ranged from ISO to 2S0 words) describing the conversation in as much detail as they
could recall, including specific statements made by themselves and their manager. The
questionnaire also obtained brief responses (one or two sentences) to open-ended probe
questions (e.g. 'How important was the manager's personality [or status] to the way he/
she communicated? Please provide an example'). The questionnaires also obtained
structured quantitative data about the participants, their managers and the actual
interactions, using six-point Likert-type scales (e.g. 'How distancing is your manager?'.
'How considerate was your manager during the interaction?').'

Development of the coding scheme The development of the coding scheme was
conducted using NUD*IST4 qualitative research software (NIJD*IST4, 1998). Tran-
scripts of employees' descriptions of the interactions were content-coded using a
combination of a grounded theory approach (e.g. Strauss, 1987), where salient concepts
emerge from the data over several readings and iteratively refined re-categorizations
and a substantive theory-based approach, where statements relevant to CAT strategies
were coded. Thus the coding was both data- and theory-driven. The text units were
coded at the micro-level of phrases or simple sentences.

Results
Six thousand and fifty-three text units (e.g. phrases) were coded into thirty-five lower-
order coding categories (e.g. 'non-dominating', 'self-disclosure', 'supportive'), within
six second-order categories (e.g. 'interpersonal control', 'discourse nuuiagement' and
'relational' strategies) and two higher-order categories, 'accommodating' (in-group
communication) and 'counteraccommodating' (out-group communication). Table 1
shows the categories, their operational definition, typical text units and the frequencies
of text units pertaining to trust and power.

Discussion

Overview
The results indicate a clear pattem of communication behaviours and characteristics
salient for employees in terms of in-group/out-group relations with their managers, and
implications of these communication behaviours for trust. The content analysis yielded
a number of categories that were conceptually related to CAT's well-established
strategies, interpersonal control and discourse management. This was expected, as the
manager-employee communication context is very much an inter-group one, and both
strategies relate strongly to in-group/out-group and power dynamics. The results were
also encouraging in that they provided empirical support for the recently theorized
concept of 'relational communication' as a CAT strategy, with implications for
perceptions of in-group/out-group membership and, therefore, trust.
122 The IntemutUmal Journut of Hunum Resoune Mtiiitigenifiii
1 Content coding categories pertaining to trust und power, openuioi.al definitions,
typical text units and the frequencies of te.\t unit.s Iin ptirentheses)
ACCOMMODATIVE (in-gmiip) code.i COVNTERACCOMMODATIVH (out-grtrnp)
(odes
INTERPERSONAL CONTROL
Non-dotninating/equistatus (159) Dominating (291)
References to the manager communicating Manager referred to as behaving in a
with the employee as an equal; manager dominating way. e.g. '. . . left me in a no-
perceived as non-dominating, e.g. 'She win situation, as she is in the higher
didn't make you feel like manager- position telling me what to do'.
employee - she got in and worked with
you'.
Non-manager role refs (75) Coercion {138)
References to manager in a non- Communication of ability to sack
managerial role. e.g. 'He said being a employee, reduce or increase hours or
family man himself he could understand change conditions, etc., e.g. 'He told me
my problem'. to hurry up and get my act together or
else I wouldn't have a job'.
FriendsMp role references {51)
References to manager as a friend, e.g.
'She is very approachable and treats me as
a friend, not an inferior'.
Similarities {interpersonal similarities,
similar values) {101). e.g. ' When she told
me she was in the same union as I was. I
saw her in a different way'.

DISCOURSE MANAGEMENT
Willing to discuss/listen {104) Unwilling to discuss/Usten {118)
References to the manager being willing to References to the manager not being
discuss an issue or to listen to employee's willing to discuss an issue that the
concerns - 'He listened intently and employee wanted discussed or not willing
pointed out . . .'. to listen to employee or hear employee's
side of the story - 'He would not let me
explain. He would walk off while I was
talking. He cut me off. He would not give
me an answer'.
Small talk {226)
References to the manager speaking about
non-work topics, chatting, pleasant
conversation - 'We gave examples of
what sports we had played, or friends had
played'.
Self-disclosure {112)
Where the manager discloses relatively
personal information about themselves, or
their feelings about issues or other people
- 'We saw a side of him that we didn't
realize even existed - he iqmlogized to us
for not giving more positive feedback, and
explained he'd been brought up in a
 Willemyns et at.: Trust me, I'm your boss
Tbiiie 1 Continued
ACCOMMODATIVE {in-group) codes
household where compliments weren't
given much'.
RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Supportive (e.g. helpful, giving advice)
(392)
Where the manager is referred to as
helpful, giving advice or teaching, or
supportive (either emotionally supportive -
including 'caring', or instrumentally
supportive regarding work issues/
resources) - 'Ofliered opinions/advice
without being overbearing'.
Empathetic {147)
Includes references to 'understanding' the
employee's situation - 'She acknowledged
my feelings of frustration'.
Trustworthy {60)
References to manager being trustworthy,
fair, just, honest, etc. - 'I douht I would
have raised the topic with any other
superior - I trusted her'.
Praise/valtied {271)
Praise, encouragement, thanks, other
explicit statements of valuing employee -
'He said "Great work Jenny you have
done a fantastic job - 1 couldn't have
done a better job myself".'
Positive face (141)
Where the manager communicates in such
a way as to help employee save face; for
example, not becoming angry when the
employee makes a mistake, speaking to
the employee privately when discussing
sensitive issues or giving feedback - '. . .
and .she didn't get really angry even
though I gave her such short notice'.
Inclusion {164)
Providing the employee widi opportunity
to have input into workplace issues
(planning, decisions, suggestions, etc.). or
providing infonnation to the employee that
the employee would not otherwise have
obtained - 'She was able to give me extra
infonnation she had been told and I
hadn't'.
123
COUNTERACCOMMODATIVE {out-group)
codes
Lack of stipport/cmnpromise (210)
References to the manager being
unsupportive, uncaring or unwilling to
compromise - 'To point out to me that
what I was wanting was not really
appreciated, and that I was making things
difficult for her'.
Unempathetic (79)
References to the manager lacking
empathy, sympathy or understanding - 'He
didn't understand that I was finding it hard
- I was trying my best'.
Untrustworthy (188)
References to the manager heing
untrustworthy or unfair, unjust, biased, etc.
- 'We went to her with a problem and we
were the ones got into trouble - after that
we didn't trust her with our complaints'.
Criticism (466)
Any inference of or reference to being
blamed, accused, or criticized unjustly -
'He deliberately attempted to publicly
embarrass me (in front of my co-workers)
so that by the time he had finished I felt
two inches tall'.
Face threat (e.g. embarrassment,
challenges) (313)
References indicating the manager has put
the employee in a position of having to
defend him or herself, or that the
employee felt 'imposed upon' or
embanassed - 'He wanted to find out the
truth, to see if I would cover up for the
other co-worker'.
124 The tntcniiitioiiiil Jnuriuil of Hunum Re\oun-f
Intcrpcrsoiitil cmitrnl

The out-gn)up interpersonal control themes were highly salient in employees'

descriptions of negative interaction.s with their managers. For example, (he eatejiorx
'dominance' was one of the largest categories that emerged from the analyses.
Combined with 'cuercive power', these categories highlight the negatively perceived,
power-marked inter-group dynamics in many manager-employee interact ion.s. Clearly,
a manager's u.se of a domineering or coercive communication style is antithetical to
manager-employee tru.st. By contrast, the in-group 'interpersonal i''.)nir(>r cixles
reflected communication behaviours thai would reduce perceptions of power differ-
ences, emphasize interpersonal similarities and position the manager more us an
individual, rather than simply as a member of a higher-status out-group. Again,
individualizing a manager breaks down employees' stereotypes of their manager,
decreases perceptions of power and maximizes perceptions of trust.

Di.scoiirse immurement
At the discourse level, the out-group categories were indicative of managers' lack of
willingness to listen or communicate, the use of directives and negatively perceived
control of conversation patterns. These discourse behaviours were clearly indicative of
power and role distance, which directly and indirectly reduce employees' trust in their
managers. By contrast, in-group categories were indicative of two-way communication,
openness and plea.sant interactions. Again, managers were described more in terms of
individual characteristics and personality rather than as stereotypical members of a
higher-status out-group. Active listening is a communication skill that has long been
known to indicate that the .speaker is t^en seriously and that the listener cares. Self-
disclosure is a powerful form of communication in terms of breaking through the out-
group barrier and personalizing oneself. Small talk, while not us revealing us
self-disclosure, can also facilitate in-group perceptions (e.g. fans of the same football
team, type of movie, etc.). Over time, such positive discourse management would lead
to an increase in perceptions of in-group membership and trust.

Relational communication
Communication behaviours coded within the 'relational communication' category
accounted for 41 per cent of the coded text units. While relational communication is a
relatively new and untested concept in CAT, recent theorizing of this concept has
emphasized the face and emotional needs of the interactants (Gallois and Giles. 1998).
The accommodative or in-group relational codes that emerged in this study were
strongly related to issues such as positive face (e.g. the nunager not being critical or
angry when the employee made a mistake), being supportive, empathetic. perceived as
trustworthy and conveying that the employee was valued (e.g. through praise and
inclusion in decision-making proces.ses). As noted earlier, the.se ure important
communication behaviours that lead to positive relationships and increased tmst
between managers and employees (Evans. 1996). By contrast, lack of support, empathy,
trust or recognition was a salient aspect of out-group relational communication.
Face threat was also a salient issue in the negative interactions. Face threat is defined
by Morand (1996) as communication that is perceived as diminishing the value or worth
of the recipient, and includes issues of criticism, blame and embarrassment. Face threat
was evident in the present study in references to employees being embarrassed, imposed
uptin or criticized. The data suggest that handled poorly, negative feedback (especially
 Willemyns et al: Trust me, I'm your boss 125
in public) is not soon forgotten by employees, and can be a major source of face threat
and distrast.

Applied impUcations
The results of this study indicate the importance of managers' awareness and use of in-
group communication behaviours for building and maintaining a bond of trust with their
employees. A manager may maintain appropriate role, authority and status without
necessarily resorting to negative power strategies, such as domineering or coercive
communication. The importance of providing appropriate feedback to employees while
allowing them to maintain face is also crucial to positive employee perceptions, and
therefore employee trust. Finally, the results indicate the importance of employees
being able to relate to their manager not only as a member of a higher-status out-group,
but also as an individual and a fellow human being.

The quick fix?

It would be easy - as a number of papers examining trust in the workplace do - to
conclude with a list of prescriptive behaviours that managers should employ to build
and maintain trust. Indeed, the coding scheme developed in the content analysis could
be read as such a list, with almost Machiavellian overtones (e.g. use self-disclosure to
gain trust, emphasize similarities, use praise regularly, ensure you spend time listening
to your employees, do not behave in too domineering a manner, etc). An insincere
manager who attempts to use these 'strategies' is likely to be unsuccessful at carrying
out the charade for long, which would result only in greater mistrust of the manager in
the long term.
Managers who genuinely value their employees, however, will tend to use an in-
group and trust-maintaining communication style naturally. All of the in-group
communication categories that emerged in this study can be distilled into the core theme
of communicating that the employees are valued as members of the managers'
workforce and as fellow human beings. Thus, while status and power differences may
exist structurally in the workplace, perceptions of power differentials can be minimized,
and trust maximized, by managers relating to their employees as fellow human beings
worthy of respect.

Beyond the quick fix

The findings of this study support Morand's (1996) argument that communicating with
employees at an in-group level appears to be a prerequisite for trust in manager-
employee relationships. Further, as noted earlier, trust is strongly linked to workplace
morale and productivity. Why, then, do many managers find it difficult to be pereeived
as trustworthy by their employees? While this is a complex issue, two main factors will
be briefly addressed here: interpersonal and organizational factors.

Interpersonal factors Many managers who are sincere and trustworthy may not have
the persona or communication style to convey these traits. More importantly perhaps,
many managers are not aware of the amplification of the power gap oflen inherent in
being a 'subordinate' or a comparatively powerless out-group member. Much research
shows that managers believe they communicate well and communicate often with their
employees, while their employees rate the same managers significantly lower in terms
of communication quality and quantity (Bell. 1996). An analogous perceptual gap
12b The Intemational Jounuil of Humun Resoun t Miuiu;^enicni

iiccurs in terms of power. That is. many supervisors ure unaware that perceptions ot the
p*)wer gap iirc often more salient to their supervisees than to themselves. For example,
in u studv ot postgraduate student-supervisor communication. Willemyns ,-i ul. i I9<)6i
found that many superx'isors of postgraduate students confidentially rated themselves in
positive, mentoring terms, but their postgraduate students rated them in significantly
less positive and even negative terms. This 'power-perception gap' cKists t«i some
degree in any supervisor-supervisee relationship, but is particularly amplified in
negative relationships (Gallois and Giles. 1998). In sum, managers need to be aware of
their employees' amplified perception of a power gap. and the implications of this gap
for trust. Thus, due to the inherent power differential in supervisor-supervisee
relationships, supervisors or managers may need to work harder than their employees'
co-workers in building and maintaining trust.

Organizational factors The second major factor affecting trust in the workplace
relates to organizational factors, such as an Ingrained culture of mistrust, scarcity of
resources, job security, political alliances and rivalries, etc. Such factors may force even
the most trustworthy of managers to behave in ways that undermine employees' trust in
them. While discussion of organizational issues is beyond the scope of this paper, they
are acknowledged as important determinants of trust in the workplace.

Implications
The findings of this study clearly have applied implications for HRM practitioners, as
they highlight the importance of developing managers' communication skills to
maximize employees' perceptions of being 'in-group' and being valued, and thereby
maximizing trust in the workplace. As noted earlier, this is beneficial both to the
individuals in the organization, as well as to the organization as a whole, in terms of
productivity.
The findings also have implications for researchers examining trust in the workplace,
as there is a dearth of researeh empirically examining the links between communication
and trust in the workplace. The present study examined trust and communication, with
working students as participants. Further research needs to be conducted examining
trust and communication in broader, more generalizable samples.

Conclnsion
The content analysis highlighted a pattern of interpersonal control, discourse manage-
ment and relational conununication characteristics of managers who were described in
positive, in-groiq) and, therefore, trustworthy terms by their employees. Conversely, it
highlighted a pattern of communication behaviours of managers who were described in
negative, out-group and untrustworthy terms. While improved communication skills
may increase trast in manager-employee relationships, numagers also need to be aware
of the magnification of the 'power-perception gap' by their employees, and the
implications of this gap for trust and mistrust. Finally, while it may be illusory ui
believe that any organization can enjoy complete trust between managers and
employees, it is clear that certain communication characteristics can result in greater
trust, even, to some degree, within the constraints of organizational factors.

Note
I Results of statistical analyses involving the quantitative data are available firom the authors
upon request.
 Willemyns et al: Trust me, I'm your boss 127
References
Bell, G.R. (1996) Managers as Mentors: Building Pannerships for Leaming. San Francisco:
Bemett-Koehler.
Byrne. D. (1971) T/ir Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Callan. V.J.. Gallois. C , and Forbes. K. (1983) 'Evaluative Reactions to Accented English:
Ethnicity. Sex Role and Context'. Journal of Cross-cultural P.iycht>logy, 14: 407-26.
Davis. T. and Landa. M. (1999) 'The Trust Deficit'. Management Accounting, 71(10): 12-16.
Davis. J.. Schoorman. D.. Mayer, R. and Tan. H.H. (2000) 'The Trusted General Manager and
Business Unit Performance: Empirical Evidence of a Competitive Advantage', Strategic
Management Journal, 2I(S): 563-76.
Evans. J. (1996) 'Leaders in Australia: The Australian Cultural Imprint for Leadership'.
unpublished paper.
Gallois, C. and Giles. H. (1998) 'Accommodating Mutual Influence in Intergroup Encounters'. In
Bennett. C.A. and Palmer. M.T. (eds) Progress in Communicatitui Scieru-es, Vol. 14. Stanford,
CA: Ablex, pp. 135-62.
Hogg. M.A. and Abrams, D.A. (1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup
Rehitiims and Croup Processes. London: Routledge.
House. J.S. (1981) Vi/ork Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jones, E.. Gallois, C . Callan, V.C. and Barker. M. (1999) 'Strategies of Accommodation:
Development of a Coding System for Conversational Interaction', Journal of language and
Social P.sychology. 81(2): 123-52.
McCune. J. (1998) 'That Elusive Thing Called Trust', Management Review, 87(7): 10-14.
McManus. S.E. and Russell. J.E.A. (1997) 'New Directions for Mentoring Research: An
Examination of Related Constructs', Journal af Vocational Behavior, 51(1): 145-61.
Morand, D. (1996) 'Dominance. Deference, and Egalitarianism in Organizational Interaction: A
Socio-linguistic Analysis of Power and Politeness'. Organization Science, 7(5): 544-56.
MID*IST4 (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) (1998)
Qualitative Data Analv.sis Program. Version 4. Melboume: Qualitative Solutions Research
Pty.
Strauss. A.L. (1987) Qualitative Aiwlysisfor StKial Scientists. New York: Cambridge University
Pre.ss.
Tajfel. H. (1974) 'Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour'. Social Science litformation, 13:
65-«3.
Willemyn.s. M., Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (19%) 'Communicating Social Identity: An Analysis
of Conversations between Postgraduate Students and their Supervisors', paper presented at the
25th Annual Meeting of Australasian Social I>sychologisis, Canberra. 2-5 May.
Willemyns, M.. Gallois. C Callan, V.J. and Pittam. J. (1997) 'Accent Accommodation in the
Employment Interview', Jountal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1): 3-22.
Willemyns. M., Gallois. C. and Callan, V.J. (2000) 'Accommodating Power in Supervisor-
Supervisee Communication: A Content Analysis', Australian Jountal of Communication, 27( I):
129-42.