research. papers IN statistics analysis -SEM

r Academy of Management Journal 2015, Vol. 58, No. 6, 1637–1657. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0246

UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT BEARS THE TRUST: THE EFFECTS OF FEELING TRUSTED ON

EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION

MICHAEL D. BAER Arizona State University

RASHPAL K. DHENSA-KAHLON Aston University

JASON A. COLQUITT JESSICA B. RODELL University of Georgia

RYAN OUTLAW Indiana University

DAVID M. LONG College of William & Mary

The construct of feeling trusted reflects the perception that another party is willing to accept vulnerability to one’s actions. Although this construct has received far less at- tention than trusting, the consensus is that believing their supervisors trust them has benefits for employees’ job performance. Our study challenges that consensus by ar- guing that feeling trusted can be exhausting for employees. Drawing on Stevan Hobfoll’s conservation of resources theory, we develop a model in which feeling trusted fills an employee with pride—a benefit for exhaustion and performance—while also increasing perceived workload and concerns about reputation maintenance—burdens for ex- haustion and performance. We test our model in a field study using a sample of public transit bus drivers in London, England. Our results suggest that feeling trusted is a double-edged sword for job performance, bringing with it both benefits and burdens. Given that recommendations for managers generally encourage placing trust in em- ployees, these results have important practical implications.

There is a clear consensus that trusting—being willingto accept vulnerabilitytotheactionsofanother party based on positive expectations about their attri- butes (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995)—is a bene- ficialcomponentofworkrelationships(Dirks&Ferrin, 2001; Gambetta, 1988; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Meta-analyses have reinforced this consensus, finding that employees who trust their supervisors tend to have better job performance, more frequent citizenship behavior, and higher job satisfaction (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). That same consensus extends to re- search addressing feeling trusted—the perception

that another party is willing to accept vulnerability to one’s actions. Scholars have suggested that placing trust in employees is a signal to them that they are valued (Pfeffer, 1998)—a key to employee empowerment and engagement (Kahn, 1990; Mishra & Mishra, 2012) and a foundational element of high-involvement workplaces (Lawler, 1992). In support of such arguments, three different empir- ical studies have linked feeling trusted to increased levels of job performance (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009; Deutsch Salamon & Robinson, 2008; Lau, Lam, & Wen, 2014).

Although the consensus about feeling trusted is intuitive, we believe it is incomplete and potentially problematic. Indeed, feeling trusted may be both a benefit and a burden to employees. To illustrate,

The first two authors contributed equally to this research.

1637

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

consider what it is like to be a bus driver. They are expected to maintain tight schedules while also providing safe, professional, and courteous service. Delays due to traffic congestion are typically blamed on them, yet getting back on schedule often requires ignoring traffic laws—an unsafe and illegal proposition (Evans & Johansson, 1998; Tse, Flin, & Mearns, 2006). Moreover, they must generally tackle these stressful demands without support from coworkers or supervisors (Evans & Johansson, 1998). Now consider that managers’ trust in em- ployees often takes the form of additional assign- ments and responsibilities (Lawler, 1992; Mayer et al., 1995; Mishra, 1996). For bus drivers, these requests are likely a taxing addition to an already stressful job.

Drawingonconservationofresourcestheory(Hobfoll, 2001), which outlines the causes and outcomes of stress, we develop a model that portrays feeling trusted as a double-edged sword for emotional exhaustion and job performance (see Figure 1). On the one hand, feeling trusted by a supervisor can trigger employee pride; on the other, it can increase perceived workload while sig- naling a reputation that requires effort to maintain. Ex- ploring the double-edged nature of feeling trusted is important, given that scholars have generally touted the benefits of managerial practices that place trust in em- ployees (Lawler, 1992; Mishra & Mishra, 2012; Pfeffer, 1998). If feeling trusted is also a stressful experience that contributes to emotional exhaustion, scholars may need to include recommendations for addressing its nega- tive side effects. Our study of these relationships with a sample of bus drivers highlights the potential costs of stress and the resulting emotional exhaustion, given that bus driver fatigue can lead to serious and costly acci- dents (Taylor & Dorn, 2006).

Our study makes a number of theoretical contri- butions. By challenging the consensus that feeling trusted is uniformly beneficial, we advance knowl- edge about trust dynamics and effective managerial practices.Promotingfeelingsoftrustisacoreaspectof many prescriptive and normative discussions of or- ganizational effectiveness (e.g., Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1998). Yet, trusting employees may tax them to the point where their performance suffers. Our study aids our understanding of that phenomenon in a way that could not be extrapolated from existing work. In so doing, we add to the nascent literature on feeling trusted, which has drawn a fraction of the attention given tothe phenomenonof trusting. Finally,byusing conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001) to inspire our choice of variables and aid in the devel- opment of our theory, we bringa noveland useful lens to the study of trust dynamics. We discuss how our researchinformsbothourunderstandingof thetheory and its future applications.

CONTEXT

We tested our model in a sample of bus drivers in London, England. All bus services within London are overseen by Transport for London (TfL)—a public sector organization. Some of TfL’s key areas of direct responsibility include planning all bus routes, speci- fying service levels, operating an emergency control center, and awarding contracts to operate the bus routes. All of the buses that provide service within London are operated by private sector companies, which are required to carry the traditional red color scheme and conform to the same fare schedules. These companies must meet TfL’s guidelines and service levels in order to retaincurrent route contracts

FIGURE 1 Theoretical Model

1638 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

and acquire new routes. Although TfL has oversight of theseprivate companies, the day-to-day operationsand human resource management are the responsibility of the individual businesses.

Our study was undertaken in one of these com- panies, and it provided an interesting setting for ex- amining feeling trusted and its potential impact on emotional exhaustion and job performance. Al- though the work of drivers may seem solitary, our conversations revealed meaningful interactionswith supervisors that created opportunities to demon- strate trust. Supervisors described asking drivers to mentor junior employees, provide input into others’ performance appraisals, and comment on traffic routes and timing issues. Drivers described being asked to do supervisors’ tasks, such as putting out route cards or handling schedule swapping, while being kept “in the know” about sensitive information (e.g., new routes, upcoming changes, thoughts on upper management). One bus driver commented on the frequency of these requests, noting, “Sometimes, it feels like I’m the supervisor and my supervisor is the driver! I get asked a lot about stuff when I’m on the road, which makes sense as I’m my supervisor’s eyes and ears, I guess.”

Drivers suggested that they viewed these assign- ments and information sharing as signals of their supervisors’ trust in them, and that they felt af- firmed by those signals. One driver commented, “I feel I am taken into their trust with certain duties. When there are drivers not coming in, [my super- visor] trusts me to get the job done.” Similarly, an- other driver observed:

I’ve been here for over 30 years and I know this place and industry well—even better than the managers here. I am asked for advice sometimes by manage- ment, so, despite all the challenging things that go on, I do feel respected.

One driver specifically reflected on the trust placed in him by being asked to mentor junior drivers:

Some drivers hate being asked to mentor. They can’t be bothered to help out. But, I think it’s quite an honor. It shows I can represent the company and good driv- ing well. We don’t get valued here much at times, it feels, but being asked to mentor is quite satisfying.

Although these drivers focused on the positive as- pects of feeling trusted, their comments alsoindicated thattheirsupervisors’ trustfrequently tookthe formof additional demands on their time and energy.

Our observations and conversations revealed that these demands were in addition to an already difficult

job. To this point, one driver observed, “Some people might think bus driving is easy, but have you seen London roads over the years? It’s a bloody night- mare!” The managing director of the bus company acknowledged that drivers also face substantial pres- sure from management to meet performance targets:

We are under pressure to meet demands of TfL— buses have to run on time, passengers’ complaints have to be virtually non-existent. To meet these de- mands, we have to run a tight ship, with targets. Per- formance has to be set and measured. If these aren’t met, then there are consequences for routes, depots, and, oftentimes, drivers. We don’t want to lose routes, but this does happen. To avoid this, we have to meet stringent targets. It’s not a free lunch.

Given the already stressful environment of bus driving, the additional workload associated with feeling trusted had the potential to significantly im- pact employees’ well-being and performance. This additional workload was keenly felt by some drivers, as evidenced by one driver’s remark:

I feel tired at the end of a busy week from doing my work—and then some more on top of it. I enjoy it though, so I’m not complaining, but sometimes I do wish that management would ask others to step in. I know why they don’t, but there’s only one of me!

The potentially exhausting effects of feeling trus- ted were highlighted by another driver who, in the previous week, had been asked to extend his shifts to fill in for late drivers and mentor new drivers. He commented:

These days, every and any job can make you feel used up at the end of the day, can’t it? This week, I’m more tired because I’ve had to do more than my share. I don’t mind it, don’t get me wrong, but we’re only human. I guess this is part and parcel of work these days, isn’t it?

Trusted drivers may also feel pressure to retain their supervisors’ good opinion, as illustrated by a driver who explained:

I do well around here, and it’s important for me to be seen as good at my job, otherwise what’s the point, right? So, if I get asked to do extra cover, then I often step in, and I’m always keen to make sure that I prevent accidents and complaints from coming in against me.

This driver’s willingness to “step in” when needed likely contributed to an increased workload and, subsequently, to feelings of being worn out at the end of the day. In sum, these drivers’ experiences suggested that feeling trusted may be accompanied by

2015 1639Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

drains on employees’ time and energy—drains that may go unnoticed and unaddressed by management.

Although feeling trusted is likely a relevant experi- enceforemployeesatalllevelsofanorganization,itmay have a more significant impact on employees at lower levels—like bus drivers. In common with many other lower-echelon employees (Karasek, 1979; Westman, 1992), bus drivers have relatively low control over how they accomplish their tasks (Evans & Johansson, 1998; Tse et al., 2006). In lower-echelon jobs, increased job demands may be more stressful, given that these em- ployees generally have fewer coping options (Karasek, 1979;VanYperen&Hagedoorn,2003).Yet,researchalso suggests that, in lower-echelon jobs, increased decision latitude and support may also be more uplifting, given that these employees start from a lower position of these resources (Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003; Westman, 1992). Thus, our sample provides an opportunity to ex- amine feeling trusted in a context in which it has a meaningful impact on emotional exhaustion and job performance.

THEORY DEVELOPMENT

To understand the construct of feeling trusted, one must first understand the construct of trust. Mayer et al. (1995) described “trust” as a willingness to be vulnerable based on perceived trustworthiness. For example, a supervisor might trust an employee by being willing to delegate an important task to her. That willingness reflects trust, with the actual delegating reflecting risk taking in the relationship (Mayer et al., 1995). The distinction between trust and risk taking matches what McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998) termed “trusting intentions” versus “trusting behavior.” The willingness to delegate is a trusting intention; the act of delegating is trusting behavior.

Against that backdrop, feeling trusted reflects the perception that another party is willing to accept vulnerability by engaging in risk taking. For exam- ple, an employee might sense that a supervisor has delegated an important task to her. That percep- tion reflects feeling trusted. Deutsch Salamon and Robinson’s (2008) “felt trust” measure asked em- ployees whether they were trusted by management in a general sense. Lau et al. (2014) assessed “feeling trusted” by asking employees whether their super- visors were willing to rely on their judgments and share personal feelings with them. For their part, Brower et al. (2009) examined “being trusted” by asking supervisors whether they were willing to make decisions that increased their vulnerability to their employees. Given that only the trustors can

truly “know” that they are willing to be vulnerable to an employee (Lau & Lam, 2008), employee ratings of supervisor trust are more appropriately termed “feeling trusted” to reflect the perceptual nature of the construct (Lau et al., 2014; Lau, Liu, & Fu, 2007).

Regardless of these operational differences, feeling trusted has been viewed solely as having a positive relationship with job performance in empirical studies (Brower et al., 2009; Deutsch Salamon & Robinson, 2008; Lau et al., 2014) and conceptual discussions (Lawler, 1992; Mishra & Mishra, 2012; Pfeffer, 1998). A more complex—and more mixed— picture emerges when feeling trusted is viewed through a stress lens. Put simply, feeling trusted can be exhausting. Emotional exhaustion—the central component of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001)—is a chronic feeling of emotional and physi- cal depletion. Employees who are emotionally exhausted feel drained and “used up” from their work (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Emotional exhaus- tion is a critical concern in a number of jobs, with bus drivers among them. Indeed, bus driving has been described as “an unhealthy occupation” with de- mands and conditions—for example, noise, expo- sure to toxic fumes, low levels of physical activity, irregular eating habits, prolonged sitting, poor cabin ergonomics—that “portend ill health” (Evans & Johansson, 1998: 99; see also Tse et al., 2006).

Our theorizing about feeling trusted and emotional exhaustion is informed by Hobfoll’s (2001) conser- vation of resources theory (see also Hobfoll, 1988, 1989). We theorize that feeling trusted can be exhausting in addition to energizing, and conserva- tion of resources theory is well suited to explaining these countervailing forces (Bono, Glomb, Shen, Kim, & Koch, 2013). Whereas many theories of stress solely address those things that increase stress (Hobfoll, 1989), conservation of resources theory notes that many things—what Hobfoll calls “resources”— actually reduce stress. This theory presents resources as being vital to managing stress in a threatening world. Resources are defined as “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued in their own right, or that are valued because they act asconduitstotheachievementorprotection of valued resources” (Hobfoll, 2001: 339). Hobfoll, Lilly, and Jackson (1992) identified a set of resources valued by most individuals, including, for example, adequate housing (an object), self-discipline (a personal char- acteristic), healthy family and friends (a condition), and optimism (an energy).

Conservation of resources theory argues that stress will increase whenever resources are lost or

1640 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

threatened, or whenever investment of time and effort does not yield suitable resource gains (Hobfoll, 2001). Stress will decrease whenever resources are gained, though such gains will be less salient than equivalent amounts of loss. Using the examples above, an em- ployee would feel more stress if some failure reduced or threatened optimism, or if a period of hard work failed to yield deeper levels of optimism. The em- ployee would feel less stress if success restored some optimism, but that gain would not offset the loss and threat already experienced. Given these dynamics, the theory argues that stress is best managed by judi- ciously conserving and investing resources to nurture gains while guarding against losses and threats.

We used conservation of resources theory to in- spire our choice of mediators as we developed a model linking feeling trusted to emotional ex- haustion. Although we are not aware of this theory having been applied previously in a trust context, a supervisor accepting vulnerability to an employee should have implications for the theory’s three cen- tral mechanisms: resource gains, resource losses, and resource threats. We therefore focused our the- orizing on constructs that should be predicted by feeling trusted, and that have implications for the objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or en- ergies that comprise resources. We used pride to capture the resource gain dynamic because it repre- sents both psychological and emotional gains that may occur as a result of feeling trusted. We used perceived workload to capture the resource loss dy- namic because the risk-taking behaviors associated with feeling trusted often take the form of additional assignments that are given to an employee. We used reputation maintenance concerns—a new construct reflecting employees’ desires to retain the positive image that others have of them—to capture the re- source threat dynamic because the value of reputa- tion in the workplace should make threats to that resource a salient concern for most employees.

Studies employing conservation of resources the- ory have typically focused on resources, or in- dicators of resources, that are relevant to the research question. To illustrate, recent articles have oper- ationalized resource gains and losses as structural support (Parker, Johnson, Collins, & Nguyen, 2013), positive and negative workplace events (Bono et al., 2013), organizational inducements and psychologi- cal resilience (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012), customer mistreatment of employees and supervisory support (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011), and job satisfaction (Chen, Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011). Our focus was on identifying mediators that evoked

the resources identified by Hobfoll et al. (1992) while also being relevant to our research question and our research context.

Feeling Trusted and Emotional Exhaustion

Pride is a positive, uplifting emotion that results from taking credit for a valued achievement or from being a valued person (Lazarus, 1991). It is an ex- pansive or swelling emotion, though displays of it are subject to customs about modesty and humility. Relative to other positive emotions such as happi- ness, pride tends to have more relevance to a per- son’s ego (Lazarus, 1991). Research has shown that pride is strongly related to self-esteem (Brown & Marshall, 2001; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Indeed, Tracy and Robins (2007) proposed that pride is the key af- fective component of self-esteem, providing a boost to self-evaluations while conveying that increased status is merited. Scholars have noted that pride is also similar to self-efficacy, in that it represents an emotional response to a person’s cognitive appraisal that she has increased skills or self-mastery in a given context (Tracy & Robins, 2004; Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Pride is also similar to the competence di- mension of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), in that both represent an appraisal of personal mastery (Bandura, 1989; Spreitzer, 1996).

Feeling trusted should trigger pride for a number of reasons. Having a supervisor delegate an important task, take a more hands-off leadership style, or share sensitive information signals some level of achieve- ment. The employee has presumably achieved enough that such risk taking is reasonable. Those supervisory actions also signal the employee’s status, as trust is an ingredient that separates a leader’s in-group from their out-group (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Indirect support for this assertion comes from Lau et al.’s (2014) study onfeelingtrusted.Inasampleof18schoolsinsouthern China, the authors showed that teachers who per- ceived that principals trusted them reported higher levels of organization-based self-esteem. Relatedly, Mishra and Mishra (2012) proposed that leaders who trusttheiremployeeswill enhanceemployees’ feelings of competence.

Conservation of resources theory suggests that in- creased pride should have beneficial consequences for emotional exhaustion. Pride has implications for a number of the resources identified by Hobfoll et al. (1992), including feeling successful, feeling valuable to others, and having positive feelings about oneself. To the extent that pride represents a resource gain, emotional exhaustion should decrease as a result.

2015 1641Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

Indeed, the resource value of pride has been ad- dressed in the affect literature. Fredrickson (2001) suggested that pride leads to broadened thinking that enhances the ability to cope with stress. She further noted that pride can increase psychological re- siliency while functioning as an emotional reserve in times of need.

Hypothesis 1. Feeling trusted has a negative in- direct effect on emotional exhaustion through pride.

Perceived workload reflects a subjective judgment about the volume of work required by an employee (Spector & Jex, 1998). Employees who perceive a high workload believe they have to work very hard and are expected to do a lot of work. Of course, per- ceived workload is imperfectly correlated with ob- jective indices such as hours worked, the pace of the work, or the number of assigned tasks. Two em- ployees may have jobs that are “objectively” identi- cal but still have widely varying perceptions of workload as a function of aptitude, personality, or environmental support. Ultimately, it is perceptions of workload that wind up best predicting most stress- and strain-based outcomes (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003).

A substantial amount of theoretical and empirical research applying conservation of resources theory to the workplace has classified job demands—for example, perceived workload, role conflict, and role ambiguity—as resource losses (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Luchman & González- Morales, 2013; Westman, Hobfoll, Chen, Davidson, & Laski, 2005). Perceived workload is classified as a resource loss because addressing it drains the per- sonal resources of emotional capability, physical power, and mental agility (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001).

Feeling trusted should be associated with per- ceived workload for a number of reasons. Much of the risk taking involved with feeling trusted repre- sents additional tasks that an employee is being asked to perform. For example, Mishra (1996) pro- posed that, when managers trust lower-echelon em- ployees, they engage in risk-taking behavior that includes delegating responsibilities and decision- making authority. Similarly, Lawler (1992) theorized that placing trust in employees allows management to delegate tasks such as scheduling, training, and quality control. Having a supervisor delegate an important task or allow for more input into key de- cisions should alter the perceived job breadth of an

employee (Morrison, 1994), enlarging their job role (Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Although hav- ing a supervisor share sensitive information may not introduce new tasks per se, it could still broaden the mental responsibilities associated with the job. When repeated day after day, such supervisor ac- tions should cause employees to feel that they are working harder, and that they are expected to do more work.

Conservation of resources theory suggests that in- creases in perceived workload can have detrimental consequences for emotional exhaustion. Perceived workload has implications for a number of the re- sources identified by Hobfoll et al. (1992), including adequate sleep, free time, time for work, a feeling that life is peaceful, and stamina and endurance. To the extent that perceived workload represents a re- source loss, emotional exhaustion should increase as a result. In support of that proposition, Lee and Ashforth’s (1996) meta-analysis showed that work- load is one of the strongest predictors of emotional exhaustion.

Hypothesis 2. Feeling trusted has a positive in- direct effect on emotional exhaustion through perceived workload.

Reputation is a set of beliefs, perceptions, and evaluations that a group forms about one of its members (Bromley, 1993). The value of reputation can be seen in its impact on self-esteem and social interactions. To a large extent, self-esteem is based on people’s perceptions of how they are evaluated by others (Leary, 1999; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary & Downs, 1995). Reputation also has implications for exchange relationships at work. Effective exchanges may depend on reputation, which signals an em- ployee’s character and future behavior (Bromley, 1993;Ferris, Blass,Douglas,Kolodinksy,&Treadway, 2003). A positive reputation makes social exchanges more likely while also decreasing the transaction costs involved in those exchanges (Ferris et al., 2003; Granovetter, 1985; Tyler & Kramer, 1996). Such dy- namics can have material value, as positive exchange relationships can bring promotions, pay, and security (Doby & Caplan, 1995).

Given the benefits of a positive reputation, it is not surprising that employees are concerned about their image (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Leary and Kowalski (1990) observed that impression management con- sists of two components: impression motivation and impression construction. Impression motivation is the desire to create a particular impression; impres- sion construction is the behaviors people use to

1642 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

create that impression. Certain situations increase people’s awareness of the reputation they have and the impressions they are making (Bromley, 1993; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In situations in which reputation and image become more salient, people experience a heightened psychological concern about their reputation (Bolino, 1999; Bromley, 1993; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). Although previous research has identified behaviors related to protecting reputations (Bromley, 1993; Fombrun, 1996; Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Arnell, & James, 2007), psychological concerns about maintaining reputations have not been operationalized.

We introduce the concept of reputation mainte- nance concerns to reflect and operationalize these concerns. Employees with high reputation mainte- nance concerns feel the need to preserve others’ opinions of them, worry about holding on to their present status, and are preoccupied with keeping others’ views intact. We argue that feeling trusted is a salient and visible signal that employees have earned a positive reputation. The “bigger” that trust is, the “harder” one’s reputation could fall if trust were to be violated. Bromley (1993: 193) argued that employees are “sensitive, perhaps over-sensitive” to signals about their reputation, pointing to a sensitiv- ity to feeling trusted.

Conservation of resources theory suggests that reputation maintenance concerns can have negative consequences for emotional exhaustion. Such con- cerns represent a resource threat, which requires employees to mobilize energies to protect against resource losses. Although such mobilization can prevent further losses, the mobilization itself con- stitutes a loss in the short term (Doby & Caplan, 1995; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Reputation maintenance concerns also have implications for a number of the resources identified by Hobfoll et al. (1992), including a sense of status at work, an acknowl- edgment of one’s accomplishments, and a sense of affection from others. Indeed, research suggests that reputational threats can lead to an increase in state negative affect (Doby & Caplan, 1995).

Hypothesis 3. Feeling trusted has a positive in- direct effect on emotional exhaustion through reputation maintenance concerns.

Moderating Effects of Pride

The hypotheses above lay out both sides of the double-edged sword of feeling trusted for emotional exhaustion. There are also reasons to expect those two edges to interact, however, and exploring such

effects can aid our understanding of feeling trusted. Conservation of resources theory proposes that re- source gains can attenuate the stress associated with resource losses (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). For example, a gain in health may help buffer the detrimental effects of a reduction in financial stability. Empirical research has supported such proposals, finding that personal resources had a buffering effect on the relationship between re- source loss and postpartum depression (Wells, Hobfoll, & Lavin, 1999).

Inthe context of Figure 1, we theorizethat pride can attenuate the effects of perceived workload on emo- tional exhaustion. Feeling successful and valuable should be energizing to employees, which could help offset any reductions in free time, peacefulness, or sleep triggered by perceived workload. Fredrickson (2001)arguedthatpride can act asareserve of positive energy. Moreover, the broadened thinking that results from pride can open up additional coping strategies (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2001). Research has shown that coping strategies buffer the detrimental effects of work demands with varying degrees of effectiveness (Parkes, 1990). Employees who are experiencing pride may be more likely to select more effective coping strategies, thereby de- creasing perceived workload’s effect on exhaustion.

Hypothesis 4. The positive indirect effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion through perceived workload is moderated by pride, such that the effect is weaker when pride is high than when pride is low.

Pride may also moderate the relationship between reputation maintenance concerns and emotional exhaustion, although there are reasons to believe it will have an amplifying rather than neutralizing ef- fect. According to conservation of resources theory, resource threats are stressful because mental, emo- tional, and physical energies are depleted when addressing them (Hobfoll, 1989). The stress associ- ated with resource threats should grow in proportion to the value of the resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, London, & Orr, 1988). To illustrate, consider the re- source of coworker assistance. Because helpful co- workers are a resource, the theory argues that employees will expend effort to protect that re- source, perhaps by maintaining a good rapport with a number of coworkers. Those efforts are themselves stressful. Moreover, those efforts should be more intense when coworker assistance is more vital, as in cases where employees are less capable or when their work is especially interdependent.

2015 1643Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

We argue that employees who feel more pride should be more likely to view reputation as a valuable resource. Affect scholars argue that the feeling of pride is associated with a striving to pro- tect and maintain the feeling (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2001; Lazarus, 1991). Given that a positive reputation should bring with it a certain pride, it follows that such individuals will be more concerned about maintaining that reputation. Unfortunately, those more intense maintenance efforts should themselves cost re- sources. Indirect support for that premise comes from research on self-esteem. Baumeister (1982) found that, when individuals experienced a threat to their image, self-esteem magnified those in- dividuals’ efforts to combat the threat.

Hypothesis 5. The positive indirect effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion through reputation maintenance concerns is moderated by pride, such that the effect is stronger when pride is high than when pride is low.

Implications for Job Performance

One of the most salient outcomes of emotional exhaustion for both employees and their organiza- tions is a decrease in job performance. The depletion of physical and emotional resources leads em- ployees to distance themselves emotionally, cogni- tively, and physically from their work (Maslach et al., 2001). That distancing limits their ability to effectively perform their job. Indeed, several studies have shown a negative relationship between emo- tional exhaustion and job performance (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Additional evidence comes from a meta-analysis between strain and job performance in which emotional exhaustion was one index of strain (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).

The countervailing effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion have important implications for organizations. Research has typically touted the performance benefits that come from placing trust in employees (e.g., Brower et al., 2009; Lau et al., 2014; Lawler, 1992; Mishra & Mishra, 2012; Pfeffer, 1998). Our theorizing suggests those benefits may be tem- pered by emotional exhaustion. The hypotheses be- low summarize both sides of the double-edged sword described in our theorizing by predicting serial in- direct effects (independent variable → mediator → mediator → dependent variable) through the various paths illustrated in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 6. Feeling trusted has a positive se- rial indirect effect on job performance through pride and emotional exhaustion.

Hypothesis 7. Feeling trusted has a negative se- rial indirect effect on job performance through perceived workload and emotional exhaustion.

Hypothesis 8. Feeling trusted has a negative se- rial indirect effect on job performance through reputation maintenance concerns and emo- tional exhaustion.

METHOD

Sample

Our sample for this study comprised 219 bus drivers from a large transportation company in London, England. Participants were based in four different bus depots across the city. Participants’ average age was 46 years (SD 5 10.42), and they had worked for the company for an average of 7.93 years (SD 5 7.91). Ninety-four percent of the participants were male. Employment records identified the participants as White European (53%), Black African (14%), Black Caribbean (11%), Asian (11%), White Other (5%), and Other (6%).

Although drivers spent most of their time on their buses, they interacted with their supervisors at the beginning and end of their shifts, and at depot can- teens during their breaks. They were also in regular radio contact with their supervisors throughout the day. Their “supervisor contact time” therefore wound up resembling the time in many white-collar jobs. Bus drivers have served as samples in recent management studies in top journals (e.g., Scott & Barnes, 2011; Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012), and are a particularly appropriate sample in studies that utilize a stress lens (Evans & Johansson, 1998).

Procedure

We collected data in three waves. Prior to the first wave, potential participants were identified using the transportation company’s records. We limited potential participants to bus drivers because the structure of the company was such that the super- visors of the depot office staff, mechanics, and sup- port staff were often not located in the same depot. We assigned all eligible employees a unique code that allowed us to match data from the three waves of data collection. At Time 1, a member of the re- search team visited the bus depots to hand out sur- veys to the employees. All employees received

1644 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

a sealed envelope that was labeled with their name. The survey inside the envelope was marked with the unique code. This procedure allowed employees to deposit their completed surveys in a collection box with the assurance that their responses would only be known to the research team. We distributed sur- veys to 1,195 employees at Time 1. We received re- sponses from 508 employees (a response rate of 43%). Employees who participated at Time 1 were entered into a draw to win cash prizes of £50 ($80), £100 ($160), and £150 ($240). A second survey, administered six weeks after the completion of the Time 1 survey, was completed by 251 employees (a response rate of 49%). Employees who par- ticipated at Time 2 received a canteen voucher for a free coffee/tea and a biscuit (approximately £1.50 [$2.40] per employee). The respondents and non-respondents at Time 2 did not differ significantly on gender or tenure with the company. Respondents were, on average, 3.1 years older than non- respondents. With respect to race, there were two significant differences: respondents were 51% White European and 10% Black Caribbean; non- respondents were 39% White European and 20% Black Caribbean. None of these demographic vari- ables exhibited significant main or moderating effects in our analyses. We also conducted a one-way anal- ysis of variance on the only one of our substantive variables collected at Time 1—feeling trusted—to test for a difference between respondents and non- respondents at Time 2. The test indicated that there was not a significant difference (F 5 .36, p 5 .55).

At Time 3, we distributed surveys to the supervi- sors of all the employees who completed a Time 2 survey. The supervisors of these employees were identified by the general managers of the bus depots. Twenty supervisors participated in the study. Su- pervisors’ average age was 46 years (SD 5 10.47), and they had worked for the company for an average of 16.29 years (SD 5 8.20). Sixty-five percent of the supervisors were male. Employment records identi- fied the supervisors as White European (70%), Black Caribbean (25%), and Black African (5%). We re- ceived a Time 3 survey from the supervisors for 245 of the 256 employees (a response rate of 96%). After listwise deletion of missing data across the two sources and three waves of data collection, complete data were available for 219 employees.

The Time 1 survey included employee measures of feeling trusted and age—the only demographic variable not available from company records. The Time 2 survey included employee measures of pride, perceived workload, reputation maintenance

concerns, and emotional exhaustion. Measures were counterbalanced within the survey in order to avoid item context effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The six-week temporal separation between Time 1 and Time 2 was included to mini- mize the effects of transient sources of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Doty and Glick (1998) noted that temporal separation is one of the most effective ways to reduce common method bias, and is as effective as source separation. The Time 3 survey included the measure of employee job performance.

Measures

Feeling trusted. Feeling trusted was measured using an adapted version of Mayer and Gavin’s (2005) ten-item measure of trust, which is an update of their earlier scale (Mayer & Davis, 1999). All items were adapted to reflect employees’ beliefs that their supervisors had accepted vulnerability to them. Sample items included, “My supervisor doesn’t feel the need to ‘keep an eye on’ me,” “My supervisor lets me have significant influence over how I do my job,” and “My supervisor lets me have an impact on issues that are important to them” (a 5 .86; 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).

Pride. Pride was measured using Tracy and Robins’s (2007) seven-item measure. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they “generally feel this way” when thinking about or interacting with their supervisor. Sample items in- cluded “Accomplished,” “Like I am achieving,” and “Like I have self-worth” (a 5 .94; 1 5 very slightly/ not at all to 5 5 extremely).

Perceived workload. Our four-item measure of workload included the two perceived workload items from Rodell and Judge’s (2009) measure of stressors, supplemented with two items from Bolino and Turnley (2005). Sample items included “My job requires me to work very hard” and “I am expected to do a lot of work” (a 5 .71; 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).

Reputation maintenance concerns. Reputation maintenance concerns were evaluated using a mea- sure created for this study. We developed the mea- sure using creation and validation procedures recommended by Hinkin and Tracey (1999) (see also Hinkin, 1998). We first created four items designed to reflect the conceptual definition of the construct outlined earlier. Next, we recruited 141 under- graduates from a large university in the southeast- ern United States to quantitatively assess the extent

2015 1645Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

to which the items matched the conceptual defini- tion. Complete and valid data were provided by 130 of those undergraduates (a response rate of 92%). The undergraduates were asked to rate the extent to which items were consistent with the definition of reputation maintenance concerns using a seven- point scale (1 5 Item does an extremely bad job of measuring reputation maintenance concerns to 7 5 Item does an extremely good job of measuring repu- tation maintenance concerns). The mean level of definitional correspondence for our four items was 5.92 out of 7. That level compares favorably to other uses of this technique (e.g., Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Rodell, 2013). Scholars have argued that the only requirement for a content validation exercise of this nature is sufficient mental ability to evaluate a match between items and definitions, making undergraduates an appropriate sample for this pro- cedure (Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993). The validated items included “I’m concerned about maintaining my image,” “I worry about protecting my reputation,” “I feel the need to preserve the opinion others have of me,” and “I’m pre- occupied with keeping others’ views of my character intact” (a 5 .87; 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).

Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured using the nine-item emotional exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Sample items included “I feel emotionally drained from my work” and “I feel used up at the end of the workday” (a 5 .93; 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).

Job performance. Employee job performance was assessed by supervisors using a four-item measure adapted from MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991). Supervisors were asked the extent to which they agree with several statements about the employee. The items

included“Allthingsconsidered,theyareoutstandingat their job,” “Compared to their peers, they are an excel- lentworker,”“Theyareoneof thebest at what they do,” and “They are very good at their daily job activities” (a 5 .90; 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to verify the factor structure of our survey measures. All latent factors were modeled using item-level in- dicators. Our hypothesized six-factor model pro- vided an adequate fit to the data: x2 (650) 5 1328.30, p , .001; comparative fit index (CFI) 5 .94; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 .07. All factor loadings were significant, and averaged .74 (p , .05). Our hypothesized six-factor model fit the data better than alternative models that included five-, four-, three-, two-, or one-factor structures.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Thedescriptivestatisticsandzero-ordercorrelations for our variables are shown in Table 1. Coefficient al- phas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.

Tests of Hypotheses

We tested the model in Figure 1 with structural equation modeling using Mplus 6.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Following recommendations for testing structural equation models that include latent variable interactions, we modeled the latent factors for pride, perceived workload, and reputation main- tenance concerns using scale scores as single in- dicators (Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). Because the ratio of sample size to number of estimated parameters is an

TABLE 1 Correlations and Descriptive Statisticsa

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Feeling trusted 2.65 0.85 .86 2. Pride 3.08 1.03 .36* .94 3. Perceived workload 3.23 0.82 .17* .12 .71 4. Reputation maintenance concerns 3.03 0.98 .20* .14* .26* .87 5. Emotional exhaustion 2.69 0.94 2.04 2.21* .34* .18* .93 6. Job performance 3.32 0.69 .07 .14* 2.12 2.02 2.17* .90

a N 5 219. Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal. * p , .05, two-tailed

1646 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

important concern in structural equation modeling (Kline, 2011; Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009), we used parcels as indicators of feeling trusted and emotional exhaustion. Parcels combine items from each scale into subsets that are used as indicators of the latent variable. We used four parcels as indicators of feeling trusted and four parcels as in- dicators of emotional exhaustion. For job performance, we used all four items as indicators because using parcels would have given job performance only two indicators, which can lead to an under-identified model (Kline, 2011). Pride was modeled as a moder- ator according to suggested procedures (Cortina et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 1992). First, we mean- centered pride, perceived workload, and reputation maintenance concerns to remove the nonessential multicollinearity between the variables and their product terms (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Cortina et al., 2001). Next, we created the product terms, which were used as single indicators of our latent interaction variables. The error variances for the latent variable interactions were set to (1 2 a) * variance (Kline, 2011). Following recommenda- tions by Cortina et al. (2001) and Mathieu et al. (1992), we calculated the alphas for the product terms using the formula proposed by Bohrnstedt and Marwell (1978). The direct effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion and job perfor- mance were also modeled, as those paths are neces- sary when testing for indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). We in- vestigated including several control variables, in- cluding the employee’s perceived ability (as rated by the supervisor), the employee’s tenure with the or- ganization, the employee’s tenure with the super- visor, and other demographics. Following recent admonitions, we did not include any of these control variables in our final model because they did not alter the results of our hypothesis testing (Becker, 2005; Carlson & Wu, 2012).

Given that each supervisor assessed job perfor- mance for an average of 11 drivers, there was the possibility that clustering would result in non- independence for those data (Bliese, 2000). We eval- uated the degree of independence by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(1) for job perfor- mance. That value was .18, suggesting some non- independence for performance ratings. We therefore conducted our analyses using the Huber–White sandwich estimator of variance within Mplus to cor- rect for this issue (Huber, 1967; White, 1982). The resulting model provided good fit to the data: x2 (95) 5 138.77, p , .01; CFI 5 .97; RMSEA 5 .05. The

standardized path coefficients from the Mplus output are shown in Figure 2.1

Hypotheses 1–3 predicted that feeling trusted would have indirect effects on emotional exhaustion. We tested for indirect effects using the product of coefficients approach described by MacKinnon et al. (2002). With a product of coefficients approach, in- direct effects are indicated when there is a significant product of the independent variable → mediator and mediator → dependent variable path coefficients while the direct path is also modeled. Because the products of path coefficients are generally not nor- mally distributed, researchers have suggested that the significance of indirect effects should be tested using resampling methods such as bias-corrected boot- strapping or Monte Carlo (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). MacKinnon et al. (2004) (see also MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007) have noted that this approach exhibits more power and more accurate Type I error rates. The effect decomposition results from these tests are shown in Table 2.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that feeling trusted would have a negative indirect effect on emotional exhaus- tion through pride. That prediction was supported by the 2.11 indirect effect listed in Table 2, which is consistent with past research emphasizing beneficial consequences of feeling trusted. Hypothesis 2, in contrast, predicted that feeling trusted would have a positive indirect effect on emotional exhaustion through perceived workload. That prediction was also supported, this time by the .10 indirect effect

1 To provide evidence of our hypothesized causal order, we tested an alternative model in which emotional ex- haustion mediates the effects of feeling trusted on pride, perceived workload, and reputation maintenance con- cerns. Non-nested alternative models can be compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Models with lower values of AIC are considered to be a better fit to the data and are more likely to replicate (Kline, 2011). The results indicated that our hypothesized model is a better fit to the data (DAIC 5 62.30). Additionally, pride, perceived workload, and reputation maintenance concerns did not have significant effects on job performance, indicating those effects are more appropriately modeled as being transmitted through emotional exhaustion. To provide further evidence of our causal ordering, we tested our hy- pothesized model controlling for neuroticism—an indi- vidual difference that could predict emotional exhaustion (Bakker, van der Zee, Lewig, &Dollard, 2006). Our analyses showed that, although neuroticism was related to emo- tional exhaustion, our results were unaffected by this re- lationship. Thus, we did not include neuroticism as a control variable in our final model.

2015 1647Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

shown in Table 2. Similarly, Hypothesis 3 predicted that feeling trusted would have a positive indirect effect on emotional exhaustion through reputation maintenance concerns. That prediction also re- ceived support, as evidenced by the .04 indirect effect. Taken together, these two indirect effects il- lustrate the more detrimental edge of the feeling trusted sword.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the indirect effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion through perceivedworkloadwouldbeweakerwhenpridewas high than when pride was low. Our moderation pre- dictions were tested using Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) procedure for conditional indirect effects. Their procedure provides equations and a boot- strapping technique that decompose the impact of moderators on the direct, indirect, and total effects in mediation models. Their framework classifies our hypotheses as “second-stage moderated mediation” because the moderator affects the mediator → de- pendent variable stage of the indirect effect. We esti- mated the conditional indirect effects using the parameter estimates from our structural equation models and the reduced form equations given by Edwards and Lambert (2007) in their equations 3 and 10 (pp. 3, 8). Following Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) procedure, the significance of the conditional

indirect effects, and the difference between those effects, was calculated using bootstrapped confi- dence intervals. The results in Table 3 indicate that, although the indirect effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion through perceived workload was smaller at high (.07) than at low (.13) levels of pride, the difference between the two effects was not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Hypothesis 5 predicted that the indirect effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion through repu- tation maintenance concerns would be stronger when pride was high than when pride was low. As shown in

TABLE 2 Effect Decomposition Resultsa

Effects of Feeling Trusted on Emotional Exhaustion

Indirect effect through. . . pride 2.11* perceived workload .10* reputation maintenance concerns .04*

Direct effect 2.07 Total effect 2.04

a N 5 219. * p , .05, two-tailed

FIGURE 2 Structural Equation Modeling Resultsa

a Path coefficients are standardized. * p , .05, two tailed

1648 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

Table3,theindirecteffectwasindeedlargerathigh(.12) rather than low (2.04) levels of pride, with the differ- encebetweenthetwoeffects(.16)beingsignificant.This effect is unpacked graphically in Figure 3. The top panelrevealsthattherelationshipbetweenreputation maintenanceconcerns and emotional exhaustion was stronger when pride was high than when it was low. By extension, the bottom panel reveals that the in- direct effect of feeling trusted on emotional exhaus- tion through reputation maintenance concerns was stronger when pride was high than when it was low. Taken together, these results supported Hypothesis 5.

Hypotheses 6–8 integrated our predictions by pre- dicting serial indirect effects of feeling trusted on job performance through the pride, perceived workload, and reputation maintenance concerns mediators, along with emotional exhaustion. All three serial in- direct effects were significant. The indirect effect of feeling trusted on job performance was significant through pride and emotional exhaustion (.02), per- ceived workload and emotional exhaustion (2.02), and reputation maintenance concerns and emotional exhaustion (2.01). Taken together, these results sug- gest that emotional exhaustion is a useful lens for examining the benefits and burdens of feeling trusted for job performance.

DISCUSSION

There are good reasons for supervisors to trust their employees. Feeling trusted may make employees feel better about themselves and their organizational

membership (Lau et al., 2014). It may also make them feel more responsible for their work, giving them a sense of ownership over their jobs (Deutsch Salamon & Robinson, 2008). In some circumstances, those re- actions may boost employee job performance (Brower et al., 2009; Deutsch Salamon & Robinson, 2008; Lau et al., 2014). Of course, trusting employees may have benefits for the supervisors themselves. It may allow them to focus on other aspects of their work (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) while fostering more effective exchange relationships with employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). For all these reasons, it is intuitive that feeling trusted has been portrayed as “a good thing” by both the nascent literature on feeling trusted (Brower et al., 2009; Deutsch Salamon & Robinson, 2008; Lau et al.,

FIGURE 3 Moderating Effects of Pride on Direct and Indirect

Effects

TABLE 3 Effect Decomposition Results at Low and High Levels of

Pridea

Effects of Feeling Trusted on Emotional Exhaustion

Effect

Through. . . Indirect Direct Total

Perceived workload Low pride .13* 2.07 .06 High pride .07 2.07 .00

Differences 2.06 .00 2.06 Reputation maintenance concerns Low pride 2.04 2.07 2.11 High pride .12* 2.07 .05

Differences .16* .00 .16*

a The low and high values of pride were 21.03 (1 SD below the centered mean) and 1.03 (1 SD above the centered mean). Mod- eration for the relationship occurred at the second stage (Edwards & Lambert, 2007).

* p , .05, two-tailed

2015 1649Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

2007, 2014) and conceptual discussions of the issue (Lawler, 1992; Mishra & Mishra, 2012; Pfeffer, 1998).

However, our results challenge that consensus in a number of respects. On the one hand, our study shows that feeling trusted can make employees feel more proud of themselves and their work—a feeling that can have a number of cognitive and affective benefits (Fredrickson, 2001). On the other hand, it shows that feeling trusted can make employees per- ceive a greater workload; it can bring more to do and more to think about. Our study also shows that feel- ing trusted can make employees more concerned about maintaining their reputations. It signals that a positive image has been attained, but how can that image be preserved moving forward? Taken together, concerns about workload and reputation mainte- nance can make employees feel more emotionally exhausted—a sense of depletion that negatively im- pacted job performance.

We believe these findings provide an under- standing of feeling trusted that could not be antici- pated from extrapolations of existing work. Because prior work did not explore any detrimental aspects of feeling trusted, the understanding of the phenomenon wasincomplete. Thesefindingswerealso grounded in a theoretical lens that is new to the trust literature— conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001). This lens flowed from our decision to focus on stress— operationalized as emotional exhaustion—as the linch- pin for unpacking the effects of feeling trusted. In de- veloping our theory, we cast pride, perceived workload, and reputation maintenance concerns as relevant to Hobfoll’s (2001) resource gain, resource loss, and resource threat mechanisms, respectively. From this perspective, the mediators in our theorizing have implications for how employees judiciously con- serve and invest their energy, characteristics, con- ditions, and objects as they manage stress. That pride seems to benefit job performance by decreasing ex- haustion supports the importance of resource gains. That perceived workload and reputation mainte- nance concerns seem to hinder job performance by increasing exhaustion points to the importance of resource losses and resource threats.

Conservation of resources theory also suggests that resource gains can help buffer the effects of resource losses. We did not find such an interaction in our data, as pride does not seem to moderate the relation- ship between perceived workload and emotional ex- haustion. It may be that the resources associated with pride(e.g.,feelingsuccessful,feelingvaluabletoothers) do not easily substitute for the resources lost through workload (e.g., adequate sleep, free time, a feeling of

peacefulness). It is possible, however, that these losses can be attenuated through other means, such as em- powerment, supervisor support, or coworker sup- port. The resources associated with those behaviors (e.g., understanding from a boss, help with tasks at work, support from coworkers, feeling in control) may more directly address workload-related losses.

We did find an interaction relevant to resource gains and resource threats. Our results suggest that pride amplifies the linkage between reputation maintenance concerns and emotional exhaustion. We suspect that the resources associated with pride make reputation loss all the more threatening. Em- ployees who feel more successful and more valuable have “more to lose” from a reputation perspective. If those employees more intently mobilize resources to guard against reputation loss, that mobilization would itself be emotionally exhausting. Tests of conservation of resources theory have rarely exam- ined these sorts of resource gain 3 resource threat interactions, in part because resource threats are operationalized less frequently than resource gains and losses (for a review, see Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014).

Our findings also enrich the understanding of conservation of resources theory. A recent review noted that the literature has not typically differenti- ated between resource losses and resource threats (Halbesleben et al., 2014). As a result, the three primary mechanismsofconservationofresourcestheory—gains, losses, and threats—have rarely been simultaneously operationalized. By operationalizing all three mecha- nisms, and exploring the interactions between them, we provide a more comprehensive test of the theory’s propositions. Consequently, this more comprehen- sive application of the theory contributed to a richer understanding of the relationships between our constructs. Our results suggest that future applica- tions of conservation of resources theory may simi- larly benefit from differentiating between resource losses and threats, and by investigating the inter- active effects of resource gains, losses, and threats.

Examining feeling trusted through the lens of conservation of resources theory provides a more robust look at employees’ side of the supervisor– employee trust relationship. At first look, feeling trusted appears to be an experience with a posi- tive net impact. Conservation of resources theory proposes, however, that an experience does not need to have a negative net impact in order to be stressful. Rather, experiences may have a detrimen- tal impact by “chipping away” at a person’s re- sources. The framework of conservation of resources

1650 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

theory allows feeling trusted to be examined as an experience that affects employees in both positive and negative ways. Those negatives may adversely affect employees even if the experience as a whole is positive. Our approach—using a stress lens— provides insights into feeling trusted that may help managers reduce the negative effects.

How, then, should managers handle these feel- ing trusted dynamics? One important ingredient is awareness, as managers may look at trusted em- ployees as indefatigable “rocks” who can take on ever more responsibility. Simply realizing that emotional exhaustion can be an issue—even for the most trusted—can open up steps for addressing it. One such step would be accentuating the posi- tives of feeling trusted. Those accents could often be an exercise in rhetoric, with managers pausing to acknowledge their trust, along with the actions that earned it. Research on transformational lead- ership illustrates the energizing power of rhetoric, when applied effectively (Judge, Woolf, Hurst, & Livingston, 2008).

Another step would be to limit the negatives as- sociated with feeling trusted. As the acceptance of vulnerability brings additional responsibilities for a given employee, chores that could be allocated elsewhere (or eliminated altogether) could be sub- tracted. In this way, feeling trusted might result in a different “work mix” without resulting in a higher workload. With respect to reputation, managers could pause when trusting employees with impor- tant tasks to note that an employee’s image need not rise and fall with every performance event. Research has shown that a fear of failure can result in inef- fective emotional states and self-regulation approaches (Conroy, Willow, &Metzler,2002).Reassuring trusted employees that their hard-earned reputation is not at risk with every stretching assignment could ease an unnecessary burden. Of course, an additional step is simply to offer social support. Reviews of the stress literature continue to show that support—whether from work or nonwork sources—can reduce emo- tional exhaustion and other forms of strain (Maslach et al., 2001).

Suggestions for Future Research

More research is needed to expand our under- standing of the important dynamics of feeling trusted. As a nascent area of inquiry, the number of studies pales in comparison to the literature on trusting, which has been meta-analyzed on at least two occasions (Colquitt et al., 2007; Dirks & Ferrin,

2002). Given the early focus on understanding the effects of feeling trusted on job performance, it makes sense to continue to broaden our understanding of that relationship. Are there other dynamics at play in the double-edged sword that was the subject of our study? On the positive side, it may be that feeling trusted has motivational effects, perhaps by fostering a sense of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). On the negative side, feeling trusted may give employees the sense that they have accrued idio- syncrasy credits (Hollander, 1992). Employees tempted to “spend” those credits might have some lapse in job performance.

There are likely additional mediators of the re- lationship between feeling trusted and emotional exhaustion. Trust is demonstrated through risk- taking behaviors (Mayer et al., 1995). For super- visors, those behaviors might include delegating critical tasks, relying on the employee’s expertise, promoting the employee’s ideas to upper manage- ment, providing stretch assignments, and in- creasing requests for favors. Although all of these behaviors are manifestations of trust, they likely have differential impacts on employee outcomes. For example, requests for favors might simply be exhausting, while promoting an employee’s ideas to upper management might lead to increased citi- zenship behavior. Future research could oper- ationalize multiple types of managerial risk-taking behavior to determine their effects.

Of course, feeling trusted may be relevant to out- comes that go beyond traditional measures of job performance. Studies of creative performance have shown that supportive leadership can foster insights (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). It may be that feeling trusted is even more predictive of the di- vergent, risk-taking actions that represent creativity. The risk-fostering nature of feeling trusted may also make it vital to adaptive performance, which reflects responses to demands that are unusual and un- predictable (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). If such findings emerge, the nature of em- ployees’ tasks may become a critical factor in un- derstanding the dynamics of feeling trusted. The beneficial aspects of the construct may loom larger in environments that demand novel, unscripted, and unplanned actions.

The relationships between feeling trusted and emotional exhaustion may depend on how much control employees have over their jobs. Lower- echelon employees, like bus drivers, generally have lower levels of control over how the work gets done (Karasek, 1979; Westman, 1992). For these

2015 1651Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

employees, the resource losses and gains associated with feeling trusted may be amplified. In higher- level, higher-control jobs, employees may have access to more organizational resources, enabling them to more easily cope with additional demands (Westman, 1992). For these employees, feeling trusted may also have a smaller impact on pride, given that higher-level employees may feel their position within the company implies a higher baseline of trust. Although higher-level employees may have a similar pattern of results as lower-echelon employees, future research should examine whether the impact of feeling trusted varies based on the level of the job.

The effects of feeling trusted may also depend on how it is dispersed within the unit. On the one hand, if all members of a work unit are trusted by the manager, then responsibilities and workload may be evenly dispersed, thereby reducing the negative effects of perceived workload. On the other hand, if all members of a work group are trusted, then feeling trusted may not carry the same sense of status and accomplishment, thereby reducing the positive effects of pride. After all, if everyone is special, then is no one special? Future research should examine these potential group- level effects of feeling trusted.

Individual differences may also play an impor- tant role in the relationship between feeling trusted and emotional exhaustion. For example, consci- entious employees may be better equipped to han- dle the additional assignments and responsibilities that accompany feeling trusted. Similarly, em- ployees with motives such as prosocial values and organizational concern (Rioux & Penner, 2001) may see the additional responsibilities associated with feeling trusted as enriching rather than burden- some. Thus, individual differences and motives may attenuate the relationship between perceived workload and emotional exhaustion. Conversely, conscientious employees are also more likely to impression manage (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Bolino, 1999). They may devote more effort to addressing their reputation maintenance concerns, thereby increasing the relationship between those concerns and emotional exhaustion. Conscientious employees may also be more likely to take credit for feeling trusted, thereby enhancing the relationship between feeling trusted and pride. Providing sup- port for this proposal, research indicates that con- scientious people are more likely to experience pride (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007).

Limitations

Our study has some limitations that should be noted. Its design included two sources and three data collection waves, allowing us to use temporal sepa- ration and source separation to manage common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The linkages between pride, perceived workload, reputation maintenance concerns, and emotional exhaustion could have been subject to some inflation, however. Thus, ideally, our data would have been collected in four waves. We should note, though, that all of our indirect effect hypotheses crossed times, sources, or both. In addition, although our data were collected over time to establish temporal precedence, we did not gather data on all variables at all time periods. A panel design would haveallowed ustospeak to issues of causality withmore authority. Such a design would have allowed us to investigate how changes in re- sources gains and losses across time affect emotional exhaustion, as well as any feedback loops that might exist between job performance and feeling trusted.

Additionally, our sample was predominantly male. Fortunately, primary studies and meta-analyses have revealed small and/or non-significant main and mod- erating effects of gender in studies on trust (Brower et al., 2009; Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006; Mayer & Davis, 1999) and emotional exhaustion (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner, 2005; Johnson & Spector, 2007; Purvanova & Muros, 2010). Such results suggest that gender homogeneity should not hinder the generalizability of our results. Finally, our final sample size was around 200 par- ticipants. Research replicating these relationships with larger samples would provide stronger evi- dence for the generalizability of our findings.

CONCLUSION

Our conversations with the authors of the quotes in our study were not long enough to explore all of the constructs in our theorizing. Moreover, the confidenti- alitypromisedinourdatacollectionmakesitimpossible (and unethical) to look up those particular participants’ surveydata.Itwascleartous,however,thattheyviewed their supervisors’ trust in them as a mixed blessing. We suspect that trust made them feel special, but also that it was tiring at times. Given the important role that trust plays in social relationships (Blau, 1964; Gambetta, 1988; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Rousseau et al., 1998),theseissuesarevitalinvirtuallyanyjob,inalmost any employment context. We therefore hope that our

1652 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

study spurs further explorations of this other side of the trustor–trustee coin.

REFERENCES

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. 2007. The job demands– resources model: State of the art. Journal of Mana- gerial Psychology, 22: 309–328.

Bakker,A.B.,vanderZee,K.I.,Lewig,K.A.,&Dollard,M.F. 2006. The relationship between the big five personality factors and burnout: A study among volunteer coun- selors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146: 31–50.

Bandura, A. 1989. Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology: 19–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1996. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 261–272.

Baumeister, R. F. 1982. Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. Journal of Personality, 50: 29–45.

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organi- zational Research Methods, 8: 274–289.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non- independence, and reliability: Implications for data ag- gregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Marwell, G. 1978. The reliability of products of two random variables. In K. F. Schuessler (Ed.), Sociological methodology: 254–273. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression manage- ment: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24: 82–98.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2005. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individ- ual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work– family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 740–748.

Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. 2013. Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1601–1627.

Bromley, D. B. 1993. Reputation, image and impression management. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. 2009. A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35: 327–347.

Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. 2001. Self-esteem and emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 575–584.

Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 413–435.

Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. 2010. Authentic and hubristic pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of Research in Personality, 44: 698–703.

Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. 2011. The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfac- tion change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 159–181.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Ap- plied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 909–927.

Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. 2002. Multi- dimensional fear of failure measurement: The perfor- mance failure appraisal inventory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14: 76–90.

Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. 2001. Testing inter- action effects in LISREL: Examination and illustra- tion of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 324–360.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. 2003. The re- lationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship be- haviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 160–169.

Deutsch Salamon, S., & Robinson, S. L. 2008. Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organiza- tional performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 593–601.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450–467.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta- analytic findings and implications for research and

2015 1653Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611–628.

Doby, V. J., & Caplan, R. D. 1995. Organizational stress as threat to reputation: Effects on anxiety at work and at home. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1105–1123.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374–406.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for in- tegrating moderation and mediation: A general ana- lytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1–22.

Evans, G. W., & Johansson, G. 1998. Urban bus driving: An international arena for the study of occupational health psychology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3: 99–108.

Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. 2003. Personal reputation in organi- zations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behav- ior: The state of the science (2nd ed.): 211–246. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fombrun, C. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in pos- itive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of posi- tive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56: 218–226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. 2001. Positive emotions. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions: 123–151. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gambetta, D. 1988. Trust: Making and breaking co- operative relations. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader– member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec- tive. The Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219–247.

Grandey, A. A. 2003. When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 86–96.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. 2005. Must “service with a smile” be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 893–904.

Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. 2007. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 93–106.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. 2014. Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40: 1334–1364.

Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organi- zational Research Methods, 1: 104–121.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. 1999. An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Re- search Methods, 2: 175–186.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1988. The ecology of stress. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new at- tempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psycholo- gist, 44: 513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. 2001. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychol- ogy, 50: 337–370.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. 1993. Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach & T. Marek (Eds.), Pro- fessional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research: 115–129. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Hobfoll, S. E., Lilly, R. S., & Jackson, A. P. 1992. Conser- vation of social resources and the self. In H. O. F. Veiel & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and measure- ment of social support: Taking stock of 20 years of research: 125–141. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Hobfoll, S. E., London, P., & Orr, E. 1988. Mastery, in- timacy, and stress resistance during war. Journal of Community Psychology, 16: 317–331.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. 2001. Conservation of re- sources theory: Applications to stress and manage- ment in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed.): 57–80. New York, NY: Dekker.

Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Arnell, B., & James, M. 2007. Reputation as a moderator of political behavior–work outcomes relationships: A two-study investigation with convergent results. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 92: 567–576.

Hollander, E. P. 1992. Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3: 43–54.

Huber, P. J. 1967. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In L. LeCam & J. Neyman (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley

1654 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

symposium on mathematical statistics and proba- bility: 221–233. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Johnson, H. A. M., & Spector, P. E. 2007. Service with a smile: Do emotional intelligence, gender, and au- tonomy moderate the emotional labor process? Jour- nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 319–333.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. 2008. Leadership. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior, vol. 1—Micro approaches: 334–352. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724.

Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285–308.

Kline, R. B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Korsgaard, M.A., Brodt,S. E., &Whitener, E. M. 2002.Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trust- worthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 312–319.

Lau, D. C., & Lam, L. W. 2008. Effects of trust and being trusted on team citizenship behavior in chain stores. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11: 141–149.

Lau, D. C., Lam, L. W., & Wen, S. S. 2014. Examining the effects of feeling trusted by supervisors in the workplace: A self-evaluative perspective. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 35: 112–127.

Lau, D. C., Liu, J., & Fu, P. P. 2007. Feeling trusted by business leaders in China: Antecedents and the me- diating role of value congruence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 321–340.

Lawler, E. E. 1992. The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Leary, M. R. 1999. The social and psychological impor- tance of self-esteem. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and be- havioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology: 197–221. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 32: 1–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. 1995. Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as asociometer.InM.H.Kernis(Ed.),Efficacy,agency,and self-esteem: 123–144. New York, N.Y.: Plenum Press.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression man- agement: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34–47.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. 1996. A meta-analytic exami- nation of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 123–133.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 764–775.

Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. 2006. Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderat- ing impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1163–1171.

Luchman, J. N., & González-Morales, M. G. 2013. Demands, control, and support: A meta-analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships. Journal of Occu- pational Health Psychology, 18: 37–52.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Or- ganizational citizenship behavior and objective pro- ductivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123–150.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007. Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 593–614.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 99–128.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. 1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Be- haviour, 2: 99–113.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 397–422.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. 1992. In- fluences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 828–847.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the perfor- mance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 84: 123–136.

2015 1655Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709–734.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 874–888.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relation- ships. Academy of Management Review, 23: 473–490.

Mishra, A. K. 1996. Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and re- search: 261–287. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. 2012. Positive organizational scholarship and trust in leaders. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of pos- itive organizational scholarship: 449–461. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1543–1567.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2010. Mplus 6.11. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Parker, S. K., Johnson, A., Collins, C., & Nguyen, H. 2013. Making the most of structural support: Moderating influence of employees’ clarity and negative affect. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 867–892.

Parkes, K. R. 1990. Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 399–409.

Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral re- search: A critical review of the literature and recom- mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: Develop- ment of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 612–624.

Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. 2010. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Be- havior, 77: 168–185.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. 1985. Trust in closerelationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 49: 95–112.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. 2001. The causes of organiza- tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1306–1314.

Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1274–1294.

Rodell, J. B., &Judge, T. A. 2009. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1438–1451.

Rousseau,D.M.,Sitkin,S.B.,Burt,R.S.,&Camerer,C.1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404.

Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression management: The self- concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. 1993. Improving con- struct measurement in management research: Com- ments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil and survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19: 385–417.

Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. 2011. A multilevel field in- vestigation of emotional labor, affect, work with- drawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 116–136.

Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. 2012. Chame- leonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 905–926.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Manage- ment, 30: 933–958.

Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G. 2012. Resources for change: The relationships of organizational induce- ments and psychological resilience to employees’ atti- tudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 727–748.

Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. 2003. Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 12: Industrial and or- ganizational psychology: 453–491. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. 1998. Development of four self- report measures of job stressors and strain: In- terpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occu- pational Health Psychology, 3: 356–367.

1656 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 39: 483–504.

Taylor, A. H., & Dorn, L. 2006. Stress, fatigue, health, and risk of road traffic accidents among professional drivers: The contribution of physical inactivity. An- nual Review of Public Health, 27: 371–391.

Tepper, B. J. D., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. 2001. Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 789–796.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. 2004. Putting the self into self- conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psycho- logical Inquiry, 15: 103–125.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. 2007. The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 506–525.

Tse, J. L. M., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. 2006. Bus driver well- being review: 50 years of research. Transportation Re- search Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 9: 89–114.

Tyler, T. R., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Whither trust?. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organiza- tions: Frontiers of theory and research: 1–15. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. 2003. Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 339–348.

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. 2011. Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against cus- tomers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 312–334.

Wells, J. D., Hobfoll, S. E., & Lavin, J. 1999. When it rains, it pours: The greater impact of resource loss compared to gain on psychological distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1172–1182.

Westman, M. 1992. Moderating effect of decision latitude on stress–strain relationship: Does organizational level matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 713–722.

Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., & Laski, S. 2005. Organizational stress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in oc- cupational stress and well being, vol. 4: 167–220.

White, H. 1982. Maximum likelihood estimation of mis- specified models. Econometrica, 50: 1–25.

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. 2008. Pride and persever- ance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 94: 1007–1017.

Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. 2009. Structural equation modeling in management re- search: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3: 543–604.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Emotional exhaus- tion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 486–493.

Michael D. Baer ([email protected]) is an assistant pro- fessor in the Department of Management at Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business. He received his PhD from the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business. His research interests include trust, organiza- tional justice, and impression management.

Rashpal K. Dhensa-Kahlon ([email protected]. uk) is a lecturer in the Work & Organisational Psychology Group at Aston Business School, Aston University, Bir- mingham, England. She attained her Master’s and PhD degrees from the London School of Economics and Politi- cal Science. Her research interests include organizational justice, emotions, personality, and well-being at work.

Jason A. Colquitt ([email protected]) is the William Harry Willson Distinguished Chair in the Department of Man- agement at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business. He received his PhD from Michigan State Uni- versity’s Eli Broad Graduate School of Management. His research interests include organizational justice, trust, team effectiveness, and personality influences on task and learning performance.

Jessica B. Rodell ([email protected]) is an associate pro- fessor in the Department of Management at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business. She earned a PhD and an MBA from the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business Administration. Her research interests include volunteering, organizational justice, and emotions.

Ryan Outlaw ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of management at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business–Indianapolis. He received his PhD from the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business. His re- search interests include gossip, organizational justice, and trust.

David M. Long ([email protected]) is an as- sistant professor of organizational behavior at the College of William & Mary’s Mason School of Business. He earned a PhD and an MBA from the University of Florida’s War- rington College of Business Administration. His research interests include impression management, reputation in the workplace, and organizational justice.

2015 1657Baer, Dhensa-Kahlon, Colquitt, Rodell, Outlaw, and Long

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.