TRUST OR CONSEQUENCES: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACULTY TRUST AND FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITIES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
by
GAYE R. WILSON
LINDA J. SEARBY, COMMITTEE CHAIR JULIA S. AUSTIN
CATHERINE F. DANIELOU JOHN A. DANTZLER
MARILYN J. KURATA
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2011
Copyright by
Gaye Roebuck Wilson 2011
iii
TRUST OR CONSEQUENCES: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACULTY TRUST AND FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITIES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
GAYE R. WILSON
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between FLC
membership and faculty trust in higher education colleagues and faculty trust in higher
education administration in public and private universities in the United States. This
quantitative study examines trust in colleagues and trust in administration in higher
education, two factors of faculty trust that Hoy, Tschannen-Moran and others have shown
to contribute to the relationship of teacher trust in administration and colleagues,
collaboration, and to positive student outcomes in K-12 public schools. Grounded in trust
theory as conceptualized by Castelfranchi and Falcone (2010) and using Hoy and
Miskels (2008) trust model (to include benevolence reliability, competence, honesty, and
openness), this study sought to discover if the same held true for higher education for
variables of Faculty Learning Communities, faculty status (tenure/non-tenure track), and
length of service at current institution for trust in colleagues and trust in administration.
These three independent variables in combination do not appear to significantly predict
levels of faculty trust in colleagues or in administration. Limitations of the study and
recommendations for further research are addressed.
Keywords: Trust, higher education, Faculty Learning Community
iv
DEDICATION
This document, and the years of study it represents, is dedicated to the two most
important and influential men in my life. To the precious and most vivid memory of my
father, Rev. E. W. Roebuck, who believed in the power of education to lift people from
poverty, and to my husband, Larry, who has encouraged and supported me beyond
imagination in this quest.
One gave me roots and the other has given me wings.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
No one ever accomplishes a feat of this magnitude without an army of support.
First and foremost to God be the glory. My faith and personal relationship with my
Lord Jesus Christ has sustained me as He has moved mountains throughout this process,
and I am thankful.
My family has been extremely supportive as we have eaten many dinners of
sandwiches and chips, and often planned family vacations and holidays around one
academic deadline or another. Thank you Larry, Jeremy, Trey, Katie, Courtney, Summer,
Matthew, Anna, and Austin for your patience, deep love, and support.
I am forever grateful to Kristen Campbell for her friendship, honesty, expertise,
high editing standards, and a phenomenal command of APA formatting.
I am thankful for the support of the members of my committee: To Dr. Linda
Searby, whose patience, encouragement, and understanding rivals that of a saint; Dr. John
Dantzler, who kept me centered and helped me deal with the frustrations of speaking
statistics; Dr. Julia Austin and Dr. Marilyn Kurata, who patiently read my work and
often gently brought me back to reality; and Dr. Catherine Danielou, whose infectious
enthusiasm and sense of humor helped me through some of the most difficult times when
I wanted to give up. The dedication of these five educators to their profession and
mentorship made all the difference in this incredible journey.
vi
I must acknowledge the cheerleaders Carl Brezausek who did all he could to
teach me statistics, graciously encouraging, answering questions and clarifying concepts
usually more than once. And finally, to Dr. J. Daniel Osborn, who was the catalyst for
my pursuit of this degree. I am ever indebted to Dan for the lessons he taught me about
professionalism and grace.
To God be the glory.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................2 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................3 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................5 Community ...........................................................................................................5 Distrust ..................................................................................................................5 Faculty...................................................................................................................6 Faculty Learning Community ...............................................................................6 Faculty learning Community Participant ..............................................................6 Trust ......................................................................................................................7 Research Questions ....................................................................................................7 Assumptions of the Study ..........................................................................................8 Limitations .................................................................................................................8 Significance of the study ............................................................................................9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................10
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................10 Trust as a Concept ...............................................................................................13 Dimensions of Trust ............................................................................................14 Benevolence ...................................................................................................15 Reliability .......................................................................................................16
viii
Competence....................................................................................................16 Honesty ..........................................................................................................17 Openness ........................................................................................................18 Dimensions of Distrust .......................................................................................20 Betrayal ..........................................................................................................20 Revenge..........................................................................................................21 Diminished Productivity, Citizenship, and Commitment ..............................22 Employee Engagement .......................................................................................23 Related Theories .................................................................................................25 Contingency Theory.......................................................................................25 Situational Leadership Theory .......................................................................27 Trust in Organizations..............................................................................................28 Trust in Higher Education ........................................................................................30 Faculty Learning Communities in Higher Education ..............................................31 Defining Faculty Learning Community ..............................................................32 Necessary Qualities for Learning Communities .................................................33 Faculty Learning Communities and Student Outcomes .....................................34 Organizational Culture ........................................................................................35 Higher Education Culture ...................................................................................36 Summary ..................................................................................................................38
3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................40
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................40 Instrument ..........................................................................................................41 Research Questions ..................................................................................................42 Population and Study Sample ..................................................................................42 Rationale for Site Selection ...............................................................................42 Data Collection ........................................................................................................43 Survey Response Rates Reasons and Potential Solutions.....................................44 Survey Response Rates .......................................................................................46 Addressing Survey Non-response .......................................................................46 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................47 Limitations ..........................................................................................................48 Assumptions ........................................................................................................49 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................49 4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................51
Convenience Sample Returns ..................................................................................51 Demographics .....................................................................................................52 Response Selections ............................................................................................53 Internal Reliability for Measure of Trust ............................................................55 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................56 Linear Regression Analysis ................................................................................58 Assessing Adequate Sample Size .......................................................................59
ix
Outlier Analysis ..................................................................................................60 Trust in Colleagues .............................................................................................61 Trust in Administrators .......................................................................................66 Multicolinearity...................................................................................................70 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL DECISION MAKERS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ..............................................................................................72 Summary of the Study .............................................................................................72 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................73 Review of Findings ..................................................................................................74 Findings Related to Research Question 1 ..........................................................74 Findings Related to Research Question 2 ..........................................................75 Findings Related to Research Question 3 ..........................................................76 Findings Related to Research Question 4 ..........................................................76 Findings Related to Research Question 5 ..........................................................77 Findings Related to Research Question 6 ..........................................................78 Findings Related to Research Question 7 ..........................................................78 Findings Related to Research Question 8 ..........................................................78 Discussion, ...............................................................................................................79 Limitations ...............................................................................................................79 Implications for Educational Decision Makers........................................................80 Recommendations for Further Study .......................................................................82 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................84 LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................86
APPENDIX
A HEFTI SURVEY INSTRUMENT.....................................................................103
B LETTER OF INVITATION AND CONSENT .................................................111
C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ........................................114
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Sample Items for Each Aspect of Faculty Trust ...............................................................4
2 A Framework of Higher Education Organizational Culture ...........................................38
3 Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Data ..................................................53
4 Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for all Schools .........................54
5 Percentages of Responses for all Respondents ...............................................................55
6 Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for Mid-American
Community College ........................................................................................................57
7 Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for West Coast Private ............57
8 Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for North East Public ..............58
9 Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for Sample Groups of
Trust in Colleagues and Trust in Administration ............................................................58
10 Standard Multiple Regression of Three Independent Variables on Trust in
Colleagues Score ...........................................................................................................64
11 Standard Multiple Regression of Three Independent Variables on Trust in
Administrators Score .........................................................................................................68
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Histogram of Trust in Colleagues Scores .......................................................................65
2 Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals by Standardized Predicted Values .....................66
3 Histogram of Trust in Administrators Scores .................................................................69
4 Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals by Standardized Predicted Values .....................70
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
FLC Faculty Learning Community
LPC least preferred coworker
HEFTI Higher Education Faculty Trust Inventory
UAB University of Alabama at Birmingham
IRB Institutional Review Board
VIF variance inflation factors
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The growth of any craft depends on shared practice and honest dialogue among the people who do it. We grow by trial and error, to be surebut our willingness to try, and fail, as individuals is severely limited when we are not supported by a community that encourages such risks.
Palmer, 1998, p. 144
Statement of Problem
Because we depend on others to act in accordance with our expectations, trust
serves as a tenuous agreement between individuals and groups in social systems
(Solomon & Flores, 2001). For decades, research findings have supported the premise
that trust is a key element in building and maintaining positive interpersonal
relationships, communication, and organizational effectiveness (Axelrod, 1984;
Gambetta, 1988; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Rogers &
Riddle, 2003). Additionally, research has indicated trust as an essential element in the
development of healthy and open learning environments (Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo, & Bliss,
1996; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). In short, trust is critical
in educational settings as it may affect institutional heath, faculty efficacy, and student
performance (Hoy & Miskel, 2008), yet previous studies on trust have targeted mostly K-
12 public schools. The role of faculty trust in higher education has been inferred based on
findings involving K-12 trust research with little trust research conducted in higher
education.
2
Research into education administration continues to identify trust deficits that can
negatively affect a wide variety of organizational outcomes from student achievement
and effective pedagogy to faculty performance and retention (Cox, 2004; Tierney, 2006).
Active faculty learning communities in colleges and universities have been shown to
positively affect faculty retention, engagement, and job satisfaction as well as student
engagement and learning outcomes (Cox, 2002; Palmer, 2002).
Faculty learning communities are compelling tools for bringing about scholarly
dialogue and professional development in a culture that breeds disciplinary isolation
(Baker, 1999; Waller, 1932), yet faculty learning communities on college and university
campuses are uncommon (Cox, 2002, 2004; Palmer, 2002). Trust has been shown to be
vital in developing and maintaining active learning communities on college campuses.
Existing theory, empirical inference, and rational thought help make the argument that
there is a relationship between trust and faculty learning communities, but there are no
studies that investigate this relationship.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between faculty
learning community membership and faculty trust in higher education colleagues and
faculty trust in higher education administration in public and private universities in the
United States. This quantitative study examined trust in colleagues and trust in
administration in higher education, two factors of faculty trust that Hoy, Tschannen-
Moran and others (Hoy, 2003; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Solomon & Flores, 2001;
Tschannen-Moran, 2003) have shown to contribute to the relationship of teacher trust in
3
administration and colleagues, to a school community that supports teacher retention,
teacher collaboration, and to positive student outcomes in K-12 public schools. Grounded
in trust theory as conceptualized by Castelfranchi and Falcone (2010) and using Hoy and
Miskels (2008) trust model to include benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and
openness, this researcher sought to discover if the same holds true for higher education.
Data Collection
To what extent does faculty trust in colleagues relate to aspects of collaboration
and cooperation? In other words, how does faculty trust influence the creation of learning
communities in higher education? To better understand the current climate of trust in the
target universitiesthose with active faculty learning communitiesthe Higher
Education Faculty Trust Inventory (HEFTI), a short operational measure of the three
dimensions of trust, was selected to measure the dimension of faculty trust in colleagues
and administrators in higher education. The HEFTI consists of 28 Likert-type items (1-4,
strongly disagree to strongly agree) that measure faculty trust in the dean (an 11-item
scale), in colleagues (a 9-item scale), and in students (an 8-item scale). The alpha
coefficients of reliability in the Shoho and Smith sample were 0.96 for trust in the dean,
0.93 for trust in colleagues, and 0.84 for student trust (Shoho & Smith, 2004). Sample
items for each aspect of faculty trust are shown in Table 1.
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the survey items to determine
items that clustered together and those that did not, as well as insuring that each trust
referent (the dean, colleagues, and students) contained items which focused on all five
facets of trust (benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and openness). Iitems with
4
initial factor loadings in the exploratory analysis of at least .40 were retained (Smith &
Shoho, 2004). Two of the items in Factor III (Trust in Students) with factor loadings of
.25 and -.31 were eliminated. The remaining 28 items, with factor loadings above .40,
measured the three aspects of faculty trust and explained over 63% of the variance. This
finding provided strong support for the construct validity of the measure of faculty trust
in higher education institutions.
Table 1 Sample Items for Each Aspect of Faculty Trust
Trust Dimension Sample Items
Faculty Trust in Colleague Faculty in this college have faith in the integrity of
their colleagues.
Faculty in this college are suspicious of each
other. *
Faculty Trust in Dean The Dean in this college keeps his or her word.
The Dean doesn't tell faculty what is really going
on. *
Notes: *This item is reverse scored.
The three sites for this study were recruited based on outstanding reputation for
teaching and learning, and the presence of faculty learning communities. Included are
Mid-American Community College, a public community college in the Southeast United
States with a student population of greater than 3,100; North East Public, a public 4-year
university in the Northeast United States with undergraduate enrollment of greater than
6,500 students; and West Coast Private, a private 4-year university in the Western United
5
States with just over 4,000 undergraduate students. All were regionally accredited
institutions.
The invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 171 faculty members of the
three colleges through a liaison assigned by each schools administration. Ninety faculty
members at East Coast Private University were sent solicitation emails with a 37%
response (n = 34). North East Public University received 19 emails with a 68% return rate
(n = 13), and Mid-American Community College invited 62 faculty members with a
response rate of 35% (n = 22).
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used in this study. Community
A community in some senses may not have a physical location, but may be
demarcated by being a group of people with a common interest. A community is a
sociological construct: a set of interactions and human behaviors that have meaning and
expectations between the communitys members. A community involves not only
actions, but actions based on shared expectations, values, beliefs, and meanings between
individuals (Bartel, 2007).
Distrust
Distrust is the certain expectation that the motives, intentions, and behaviors of
another individual are ominous and detrimental to ones own interests; distrust involves a
sense of fear and expectancy of trouble or danger, which initiate steps that reduce
6
vulnerability in an attempt to protect ones own interests (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies,
1998).
Faculty
Faculty is a group term referring to the members of the teaching staff of an
educational institution who may hold the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant
professor, instructor, lecturer, research associate, research assistant, or the equivalent of
any of these academic ranks. One college teacher is a member of the faculty (Northeast
Texas Network Consortium [NTNC], 2002).
Faculty Learning Community
Faculty Learning Community is a small group of interdisciplinary faculty (8 to 12
is the recommended size) engaging in an active, collaborative, year-long curriculum
about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and activities that
provide learning, development, interdisciplinarity, the scholarship of teaching and
learning, and community building. In the literature about student learning communities,
the word student usually can be replaced by faculty and still make the same point
(Cox, 2004).
Faculty Learning Community Participant
A faculty learning community participant may select a focus course or project to
try out innovations, assess resulting student learning, and prepare a course or project
mini-portfolio to show the results; engage in frequent seminars and some retreats; work
7
with student associates; and present project results to the campus and at national
conferences (Cox, 2002).
Trust
The willingness of one party (an individual or group of individuals) to be
vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent,
reliable, competent, honest, and open.
Research Questions
1. Was there a relationship between level of trust in colleagues and the linear
combination of participant in faculty learning communities, length of service, and
academic status?
2. Was there a relationship between trust in colleagues and participation in faculty
learning communities?
3. Was there a relationship between trust in colleagues and length of service?
4. Was there a relationship between trust in colleagues and academic status?
5. Was there a relationship between level of trust in administration and the linear
combination of participant in faculty learning communities, length of service, and
academic status?
6. Was there a relationship between trust in administration and participation in
faculty learning communities?
7. Was there a relationship between trust in administration and length of service?
8. Was there a relationship between trust in administration and academic status?
8
Assumptions of the Study The following assumptions were held by the researcher:
1. Participants responding to the online survey would, in fact, be those to whom the
survey was sent.
2. Respondents would be aware of the term and meaning of faculty learning
communities because participating institutions have faculty learning communities
in place.
3. Respondents would understand the questions in the instrument and that responses
would accurately reflect their beliefs.
4. Participant responses would constitute a representative sample of the faculty
community in each of the participating universities.
Limitations
This research was limited by the response rates and the interest of the participants
taking the time to participate fully and accurately. Other limitations outside the control of
the primary researcher included a lack of participation, accuracy of faculty responses, and
the phenomenon of over-surveying. Faculty are bombarded with requests for information
both from within and outside the organization, and this could have been perceived as just
another activity competing for their limited time. These known limitations, while not an
exhaustive list, represented those that could affect the generalizability of the study results.
9
Significance of the Study
The potential significance of this study may lie in the practical application of the
findings. Research and conclusions of this study may be useful in augmenting existing
research and literature concerning faculty trust in higher education as well as informing
practice of those responsible for faculty development.
Trust is an important aspect of a healthy and productive organization (Axelrod,
1984; Gambetta, 1988; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995; Rogers & Riddle,
2003). Research of Shoho and Smith (2004) revealed that administrators willing to
embark upon an exploration of faculty trust find their assessment of trust to be much
more favorable than what the faculty reports. The findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of this study may serve as a source of information to inform both
practice and policy considerations for faculty professional development in higher
education.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
As a general rule, trust makes it easier to take risks resulting in collaboration that
leads to more favorable organizational outcomes (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Review of
the literature revealed a plethora of previously espoused theories concerning the
development of trust in a variety of settings (Butler, 1995; Castelfranchi & Falcone,
2010; Deutsch, 1958; Fukuyama, 1995; Loomis, 1959; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, &
Werner, 1998; Zand, 1972; Zuker, 1986). Although it is not exhaustive, this literature
review represents a rich theoretical basis for understanding the mechanisms of trust in
organizations in general and higher education in particular. Contingency theory and
situational leadership theory are reviewed in the context of trust theory, and the history
and current perspective on faculty learning communities in higher education are also
included.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is the logical structure or lens through which a researcher
views the problem he or she is investigating. Problems can and do arise from a multitude
of circumstances. Investigation and resolution must take place within a logical framework
chosen from the multiple possibilities available to the researcher. The reasons for this
choice are explained while rejected perspectives are identified and justification given for
their rejection.
11
Italian social scientist Diego Gambetta (1988) theorized trust to be one of the
most important social concepts present in all human interaction. Trust facilitates coping
with the social environment given that without trust, there is no cooperation and
ultimately there is no society. Gambettas theory holds that trust is the subjective
probability by which an individual, A, expects that another individual, B, performs a
given action on which its [actor As] welfare depends ( as cited in Castelfranchi &
Falcone, 2010, p.19).
Building on Gambettas theory, Castelfranchi and Falcone (2010) developed a
five-part, layered, relational model constructed with an agent (X) who is the trustor, an
addressee (Y) who is the trustee, a causal process (t) or the task to be performed, the
goal of the trustor X (gx), and the context (C) representing the situation or environment.
The model as presented by Castelfranchi and Falcone is a five-part relational model
(TRUST p = (X Y C t gx)) that reads: X trusts in Y, in context C, for performing the task t
and realizing the result p, which corresponds to Xs goal Goal(gx) = gx. The base of the
Castelfranchi and Falcone trust model contained three critical elements: mental attitude,
which is a judgment or an opinion about the requirements for trusting another agent; a
decision, which is the intention to trust or rely upon another agent and makes the trustor
vulnerable (Mayer et al., 1995); and an action, which is the deliberate act of entrusting
with acknowledgement of the social relationship (Castelfranchi & Falcone.
Fukuyama (1995) developed a social theory of trust based on the cultural habits
that affect the extent to which human interactions are exclusive to kinship. Defining
culture as inherited ethical habits (p. 34), he inferred that the level of family
exclusiveness affects the openness of the family structure, which, in turn, affects the level
12
of non-kinship interaction with other members of the society. He then suggested that the
amount of non-familial interaction allows for varying levels of trust in voluntary
associations.
Fukuyama (1995) explained these cultural differences by the amount of social
capital each individual within a society is able to acquire. Social capital is defined by
Fukuyama as: The ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups
and organization (p. 10). Social capital consists of familistic association, which refers
to the family group and the amount of trust the family has for its members as well as
outsiders, and what Fukuyama calls voluntary associations, which are groups of non-
kin peoples coming together to work toward a common goal.
The review of the literature shows that most of the research into trust and
education has involved studies of K-12 public schools. Past research findings point to
trust as a critical element in developing healthy, purposeful, and mindful school
environments (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006; Tarter et al., 1989). Additionally, results in
studies of trust and school climate support the premise that the behaviors and collegial
interactions of administrators are paramount to healthy and open learning environments.
Hoy, Tarter, and Witkoskie (1992) found that in elementary schools, teacher trust in the
principal predicted teacher trust in colleagues. Trust in colleagues ( = .62, < .01) was
then predictive of overall school effectiveness. In 1995, Tarter, Sabo, & Hoy looked at
trust and effectiveness in middle schools and found that in the middle school structure,
school effectiveness was predicted by both teacher trust in colleagues ( = .44, < .01)
and teacher trust in the principal ( = .54, < .01), indicating that trust functions
13
differently within different organizational structures (Henderson & Hoy, 1982; Hoy &
Kupersmith, 1985). However, there is a knowledge gap about trust in higher education.
Establishing a common concept of trust that can be applied to interdisciplinary
research can only be accomplished by looking beyond the limited definitions that
permeate trust studies in the existing literature. Trusts connection to independent
variables in relationship studies only has value within a framework containing previously
identified characteristics that define trust, consistently applied across all disciplines.
While trust is often considered to be a belief, an attitude, or an action, it is first and
foremost a concept predicated on benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and
openness. Together with Castelfranchi and Falcones (2010) socio-cognitive theory of
trust articulated in a five-part relational model (TRUST p = (X Y C t gx)), these five
dimensions form the lens through which the relationship of faculty trust and faculty
learning communities in higher education was investigated.
Trust as a Concept
Trust is a complex social construct for which there are many differing, yet
accepted, definitions. Rotter (1967) defined trust to be an expectancy of an individual or a
group that the word or promise of another individual or group could be relied upon.
Gabarro (1978) defined it as the degree to which one person feels assured that another
will not take malevolent or arbitrary actions, and the extent to which one person might
expect predictability in others behavior through what is normally expected of a person
acting in good faith (p. 298). Mayer et al. (1995) sought to define trust in terms of the
vulnerability of one group or individual to the actions of another group or individual
14
based on the expectation that the anticipated action(s) will be performed regardless of the
ability to monitor or control those individuals. Lewicki et al. (1998) conceptualized trust
to be confident positive expectations regarding anothers conduct (p. 439). Hoy and
Miskels (2008) definition of trust as an individuals or groups willingness to be
vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent,
reliable, competent, honest, and open (p. 192) was selected as the working definition for
this study. This definition represents the focus of this study of faculty trust in higher
education and consists of the key dimensions applied to the study of trust in educational
settings (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Shoho & Smith, 2004; Smith & Shoho, 2007) in which
trust is conceptualized as an attitude.
Dimensions of Trust
As demonstrated in the foregoing review of research for an accepted definition,
one can see the complexity and multidimensional nature of trust. There is no single
approach or discipline-specific measure, and any model used in the study of trust must
reflect this multidimensional nature (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Mishras
(1996) model identified four distinct dimensions that are widely supported in the
literature: concern (Baier, 1986; Cummings & Bromily, 1996), reliability (Butler &
Cantrell, 1984; Deutsch, 1958; McGregor, 1967), openness and honesty (Atwater, 1988;
Butler, 1991; Gabarro, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Nanus, 1989; Ouchi, 1981;
Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000), and competence (Barnes, 1983; Gabarro,
1987).
15
Hoy and Miskels (2008) definition of trust mirrored those dimensions but
approached honesty as a separate dimension. This study was grounded in trust theory as
conceptionalized by Castelfranchi & Falcone (2010) using Hoy and Miskels (2008) trust
model to include benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness. A
discussion of these five dimensions follows.
Benevolence. Benevolence is generally considered to be a single act of kindness
or goodwill. In a relationship of trust, benevolence is a disposition toward goodness and
kindness toward othersthe confidence that ones well-being or something that one
cares about will be protected by the trusted party or group (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran,
1999, p. 187). This confidence among the individuals in a relationship serves as a catalyst
for acceptance and the assurance that one party will not take advantage of the
vulnerability of the other (Baier, 1986; Cummings & Bromily, 1996). Benevolent
behavior of stakeholders in a relationship serves as a mechanism for building trust.
Conversely, when people have no trust in the benevolence of colleagues or
administrators, there is significant concern for injuryboth legitimate and otherwise
(Tschannen-Moren & Hoy, 1998); Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Shoho, 2007).
Without trust in the benevolence of others in a group or organization, overall
productivity is likely to be diminished as energy and creativity is expended on
alternatives for recourse in case of betrayal (McAllister, 1995). Faculty who do not trust
that administrators or colleagues are benevolent toward them will not teach efficiently as
their energy is diverted to devising ways to protect themselves (Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
When groups or individuals in any relationship show consideration of and sensitivity to
16
the interests and needs of the other, refraining from exploitation for personal benefit, they
demonstrate benevolence in a tangible way and promote relational trust (McAllister,
1995). However, benevolence cannot be sporadic; there must be a sense of consistent
behavior upon which one can depend (Smith & Shoho, 2004).
Reliability. Reliability as a component of trust refers to the extent one individual
or group can depend on the other to deliver what is expected (Smith & Shoho, 2004;
Shoho & Smith, 2007), or the extent to which behavior is predictable and benefits the
other party (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). Trust may have a basis in predictability, but simply
knowing how an individual will consistently respond in a certain situation is not
sufficient to engender trust (Deutsch, 1958). Reliability as it relates to trust is formed
when predictability is combined with benevolence to insure that an individual or group
can be depended upon to deliver what is expected to the other party in the relationship
(Hoy et al., 2006). In higher education, this might be demonstrated when a provost
delivers promised resources to the colleges. People have greater trust when they feel they
can adequately predict the behavior of those in positions above them and feel that this
behavior consistently bears benevolence (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).
Competence. Past research indicates that competence is almost always a
dimension in the development of trust (Butler, 1991; Kee and Knox, 1970; Mishra, 1996;
Solomon & Flores, 2001). In order to engender trust in a relationship, each individual
must believe that the other party is competent to effectively accomplish what is expected
(Solomon & Flores). Demonstrated competence increases the probability of a mutually
17
trustworthy relationship; therefore, an individual or groups willingness to trust is often
rooted in past experience (Kee and Knox). For example, higher education faculty who
trust their dean to act in their best interest may become less trusting with hasty decisions
or continual negligence from administration. A history of competent performance by
individuals and among groups is paramount to the development of relational trust (Hoy &
Tschannen-Moran, 1999).
Skill levels that individuals possess and the diligent maintenance of those skills
reflects their reliability, their character, and their conscientiousness (Solomon & Flores,
2001). Students depend upon the competence of their instructors, and instructors depend
upon the competence of their students, colleagues, and administrators. Making a mistake
should never be confused with lack of competence, nor should a single failure be viewed
as a breach of trust (Mishra, 1996). However, individuals who are not honest with
themselves or others about their skill levels raise significant issues of trust (Barnes,
1983).
Honesty. Research provided abundant evidence of honesty as a foundational
dimension of trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1984; Cummings & Bromily, 1996; Hoy &
Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Shoho & Smith, 2004; Solomon & Flores, 2001). Honesty has
been defined by Rotter (1967) as the expectancy, word, promise, verbal or written
statement of another individual or group that can be relied upon (p. 651). Tschannen-
Moran (2004) related honesty with having integrity, telling the truth, keeping promises,
honoring agreements, having authenticity, accepting responsibility, avoiding
manipulation, being real, being true to oneself (p. 34). Smith and Shoho (2007) referred
18
to honesty as conveying straightforwardness of conduct, integrity, and probity to
persons in a relationship (p. 128). The themes of an individuals character, integrity,
reputation, and authenticity are present in each of these definitions. For this dimension of
trust to be present in any relationship, verbal messages must be revealed in the actions of
the individual or group. Care must be taken to avoid distortion of truth or shifting of
responsibility (Byrk & Schneider, 2002; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000).
Honesty and trust are inseparable (Baier, 1986; Cummings & Bromily, 1996;
Mishra, 1996; Shoho & Smith, 2004; Smith & Shoho, 2007; Solomon & Flores, 2001).
Trust is unlikely to develop when an individuals words cannot be relied upon to
accurately reflect that persons future action because a persons reputation for integrity
develops from telling the truth and keeping promises (Dasgupta, 1988; Simons, 1999).
Although relational trust will usually survive an occasional and well-explained broken
promise, a pattern of broken promises will likely erode relational trust (Tschannen-
Moran, 2004).
Honesty is promoted by authenticity in groups, individuals, and organizations
(Dasgupta, 1988). Authentic behavior is reflected in accountability (accepting
responsibility for ones actions), transparency (avoiding hidden agendas), and avoidance
of manipulation (treating others as people rather than using them for personal gain)
(Rotter, 1967).
Openness. Openness is the method and degree to which individuals and groups
willingly make themselves vulnerable to others by sharing information, influence, and
control (Atwater, 1988; Zand, 1972). There is also transparency in disclosure of facts,
19
alternatives, intentions, and judgments (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996), shared control
by delegation of important tasks, and allowing others to initiate change (Shoho & Smith,
2004). Openness fosters reciprocal trust in groups, which is the basis for developing
confidence that neither the information nor the individual will be exploited (Hoy &
Miskel, 2008; Smith & Shoho, 2007).
When higher education administrators share personal information with faculty,
they demonstrate a level of trust that often leads to greater trust throughout the
organization (Palmer, 2002). When trust and respect are present in both groups, this
honest view of reality becomes a valuable resource for improvement in teaching,
learning, and the development of faculty learning communities (Cox, 2004). In higher
education, faculty see administration as trustworthy when information shared is both
accurate and forthcoming (Bryk & Schneider, 2002) and when decisions are made and
explained in a timely process (Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996); however, openness in
communication must also be constrained by good judgment that holds to strict standards
of confidentiality. Engendering trust through open communication requires both
administrators and faculty to always speak with good purpose (Reina & Reina, 1999)
and to avoid any hint of negativity.
The presence of trust does not necessarily mean the absence of distrust (Hardin,
2004). According to Larson (2004), distrust is often a sensible response to potential
dangers . . . and is prudent, if not always wise (p. 34). Essentially, trust and distrust both
reflect how one should respond when the motives and intentions of the other party are
unknown and making the wrong judgment could have negative consequences (Hardin).
20
Dimensions of Distrust
Distrust is a judgment that an individual cannot depend on the actions or promises
of another (Larson, 2004) and, like trust, is based on perception of trustworthiness. The
decision of distrust is most often based in knowledge of the situation and a personal
history with the parties involved (Luhmann, 1979). Lower levels of commitment and
organizational citizenship are identified as variants of distrust (Robinson, 1996). Distrust
is not a constant, but varies by issue and point in time and place. It involves betrayal,
revenge, and results in a reduction in productivity (Hardin, 2004).
Betrayal. Betrayal is the violation of an expressed or perceived trust by one
individual or group with other individuals or groups (Solomon & Flores, 2001). Acts of
betrayal are not equal in scope or consequence (Hardin, 2004). Trust involves risk
intentionally stepping into the unknownand often the consequences associated with this
risk are simply disappointment and failure (Hardin).
Violations of trust within organizations are generally related to either a damaged
sense of civic order or a damaged identity (Bies & Tripp, 1996). The first involves a
violation of rules or accepted norms such as broken promises, lying, taking credit for the
accomplishments of others, breaking a confidence, abusive authority, and favoritism
(Harris, 1994). Violations of trust that result in damaged identity include unfair or
unfounded accusations, assigning blame to others for personal mistakes, and public
criticism (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Researchers examining betrayal in the
workplace (Jones & Burdette, 1994) reported that half of the incidents communicated in
21
the study occurred more than 20 years earlier, and 25% had occurred more than 30 years
before, indicating the long-lasting effects of betrayal.
Revenge. When a violation of trust occurs, the injured partys interpretation of the
cause will likely affect the response, specifically when there is an inclination toward
revenge. Bies and Tripp (1996) conducted a study with individuals who had experienced
violations of trust in their work environment. They found that if victims believed the
violation was beyond the control of the person responsible for the violation, they were
not inclined to seek revenge. Conversely, when the victims connected responsibility to
the violator, there was always impetus for revenge, particularly when the violation was
ascribed to selfishness or malevolence.
Revenge, while an emotional reaction, is also a cognitive process that determines
the extent to which the injured person or party will pursue satisfaction or retaliation for
his or her injury (Bies & Tripp, 1996). The results of the Bies and Tripp (1996) study
indicated that disbelief and anger were the immediate reactions at the time of the
incident. The natural response to betrayal is the desire to return evil for evil.
Solomon and Flores (2001) spoke to the idea of proffering mercy rather than
revenge. They expressed mercy as the suspension of punishment and revenge as a quick,
almost instant or retaliatory, response. Revenge, while giving some form of satisfaction
to the injured party, may well escalate the situation to a series of vendettas and increased
distrust. Although cooperation might be restored after a betrayal, complete trust is not
reestablished (Lount, Zhong, Sivanathan, & Murnighan, 2008). These findings echo the
familiar adage that once broken, trust can never be completely restored. A polite facade
22
can mask a negative situation, but the damaging impact seems to linger beneath the
surface (Gibson, 2006).
Diminished Productivity, Citizenship, and Commitment. With distrust comes an
uncomfortable work environment, which often negatively impacts the effectiveness of the
organization. In low-trust situations, morale and collaboration suffer (Hardin, 2004).
Limerick and Cunnington (1993) reported this phenomenon occurred because people in
low-trust environments consumed time and energy on plans to protect themselves,
avoidance of collaborative work, and the withholding of information. In schools, this lost
effort translates into less time and energy given to teaching and learning. Robinson
(1996) found a significant relationship between distrust and a decline in employee
performance.
Good organizational citizenship has been described as the good soldier
syndromehelping, innovating, volunteering, and avoidance of undesirable behaviors
(Turnipseed, 1996). Organ (1988) was more specific in explaining organizational
citizenship as spontaneous actions of an employee who goes beyond what is expected or
required without expectation of reward. Ultimately, it is the actions of employees who
give more than the minimum required and their best efforts to the success of the
organization (Turnipseed). In organizations with high trust, organizational citizenship
also tends to be high. Conversely, when trust is low in the organization, employees fail to
maintain dedication and commitment as they try to survive in an atmosphere that does not
support or protect them (Tschannen-Moran, 2003).
23
Employee Engagement
All individuals bring to their workplace a collection of skills, knowledge,
experiences, and other personal characteristics such as creativity, self-discipline, and
motivation that they can choose to use in or to withhold from their work (Gebauer &
Loman, 2008). Employees attitudes, decisions, words, and actions make or break an
organizations ability to be innovative and deliver superior customer service, yet these
sources of organizational performance are rarely engaged to the fullest extent.
Employee engagement is a term that has come to mean the discretionary effort
workers are willing to apply to their jobs to help their company succeed, because of the
mental and emotional connection they feel with the organization (Gibbons, 2006). The
Corporate Leadership Council (2004) defined employee engagement as the extent to
which employees commit to something or someone in their organization, how hard they
work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment (p. 4).
Coyle-Shapiro and Conway (2005) found that engaged employees willingly give
their time, energy, and personal resources to the organization, trusting that their
investment will yield some meaningful reward. The underlying motive for their actions
may be based upon the norm of reciprocity, which says we are obligated to perform
certain actions for others because of what they have previously done for us. Actions of a
group or an individual arise from previous interaction with others (Malinowski, 1932).
John Gibbons (2006), through a study for The Conference Board of Canada,
reported an analysis of 12 different studies on employee engagement. He found 26 key
drivers of engagement, but the top eight were identified as follows: trust and integrity,
nature of the job, understanding how ones work contributed to the organizations
24
performance, career growth opportunities, pride in the organization, relationships with
coworkers and team members, employee development, and relationship with manager.
The number one driver regardless of age, location, or study was the direct relationship
with ones manager. Reporting the findings of the Towers Perrin Global Workforce
Study, an online global survey with almost 90,000 respondents, Gebauer and Loman
(2008) identified the top 10 factors found to drive employee engagement in a variety of
workplace settings around the world. This study confirmed the factors described in the
Canadian report with two additional items that simply further defined those eight factors.
Listed in descending order of impact, they are as follows: senior managements sincere
interest in employees well-being (trust and integrity), opportunities to improve skills and
capabilities, the organizations reputation for social responsibility, employee input into
departmental decision-making, swift resolution of customer concerns by the organization,
employees desire and ability to set high personal standards, career growth opportunities,
challenging work assignments, relationship with manager, and encouragement by the
organization for personal innovation.
Engagement affects individual performance. The reality is that the more engaged
people feel, the more they believe they can make a difference in the performance of the
organization (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005; Gebauer & Loman, 2008; Gibbons,
2006). Engagement is a complex concept influenced by many factors. People who are
engaged tend to work more efficiently, more effectively, and more selflessly, to think
more creatively, and to seek out ways to promote the organizations vision (Gebauer &
Loman, 2008).
25
Related Theories
Trust theory is closely related to other theories that rely on actions, beliefs, and
behaviors to explain the dynamic of human and organizational interactions. Examples of
related theories would include Fiedlers (1964) contingency theory and the Hersey and
Blanchard (1984) situational theory of leadership. The commonality of these theories is
that in some way, each considers the leaders ability to lead as dependent upon prevailing
situational factors, including the leaders preferred style, capabilities, and maturity as
well as the behaviors of followers (Northouse, 1997).
Contingency Theory
The idea that a particular type of leadership might be most effective in a particular
situation (Gill, 2006; Sims, Farja, & Yun, 2009) is often referred to as the contingency
theory of leadership (Fiedler, 1964). The contingency theory of leadership relies heavily
on a personality measure identified as the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) score (Fiedler
& Chemers, 1974, 1984). The LPC scale was designed to indicate the goals and
motivations that are important to an individual in a leadership situation. As a situation
changes, the goals and motivations of the leader will cause changes in his or her behavior
in reaction to the changes (Utecht & Heier, 1976).
This empirical model focused on the two leadership styles reflected in
contingency theory: task-orientation and relationship-orientation. The leaders success
depends upon leader-member relations, the structure of the task, and leader position
power (Fielder & Chemers, 1974; Northouse, 1997; Utecht & Heier, 1976).
Contingency theory has many valid applications in organizations. It can be used
to predict whether an individual successful in one position will be equally effective if
26
moved to a very different position in the organization (Utecht & Heier, 1976). The model
can highlight changes in practice that upper-management might want to make in order to
improve the odds of a good fit between an existing manager and the work context (Sims
et al., 2009). Contingency theory, demonstrated as a method of explanation for how
organizations adapt to changes in their external and internal environments, explains
organizational phenomena by considering multiple factors under changing conditions
(Choudhury, 2008).
Furthermore, Fiedler and Chemers (1974) pointed out that for most people, being
brighter or more experienced than others does not, by itself, guarantee that they will be
better leaders (p. 233). The problem is in the match of the situation to the abilities and
attributes of the leader. Contingency theory can help to explain why an individual who is
a conscientious, hard-working individual with expertise is ineffective in his or her current
leadership role (Green, Nebeker, & Boni, 1976) or why the environment has become one
of low trust.
Contingency theory is supported by a considerable body of research (Fiedler,
1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974; Green et al., 1976; Northouse, 1997) and shows the
relationship between the leaders style and group performance in varying situational
conditions. The theory was based on determining the orientation of the leader
(relationship or task), the variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and leader
position power) as evaluated in each situation, and the leader orientation that was found
to be most effective as control of the situation changed from low to moderate to high
(Northouse).
27
Leader orientation and the situational favorableness dimension combined to
produce a useful theoretical tool that has, over time, contributed greatly to the research
and understanding of leadership behavior and effectiveness from which trust in the
organization is built (Ciulla, 1999). Fiedler (1964) found that the effectiveness of the
leader is contingent upon the orientation of the leader and the favorableness of the
situation.
Situational Leadership Theory
Much like the underpinnings of contingency leadership theory, situational
leadership theory also posits there is no single best style of leadership. The theory is
based on two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the maturity or development
level of the individual or group being led (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).
According to Hersey and Blanchard (1984), there are four main leadership styles:
Tellingleaders who tell their followers exactly what to do and how it is to be done;
Sellingleaders who provide information and direction, but attempt to influence
followers through communication; Participatingleaders who focus on relationships
through teamwork and shared decision-making; Delegatingleaders who monitor
progress, but give most decision-making responsibility to the group or individual
followers.
As with contingency theory, situational leadership theory focused on either
relationships or task orientation, but added the dimension of maturity of the individual or
group the leader is charged with influencing. Just as the leadership styles are situational,
so too are the maturity or development levels of individuals and groups described by
28
Hersey and Blanchard (1984). These levels are decided based on competence (experience
and ability) and commitment (motivation to complete the task well).
McGee, Goodson, and Cashman (1989), testing the work of Hersey and
Blanchard, indicated that leadership styles with high consideration and structure can
result in more open communication, less ambiguity regarding task expectations, and
better superior-subordinate relationships (p. 459). Atwater (1988) considered the effects
of superior-subordinates expectations, and trust and loyalty, on leader behavior. Results
indicated that subordinates levels of trust and loyalty were most predictive of supportive
leader behavior.
Using situational leadership theory, leaders should be able to place more or less
emphasis on either the tasks or on the relationships with the people they are leading,
depending on what is required for completing the task (Graeff, 1983). According to Yukl
(1981), situational leadership theory consistently showed the advantage of establishing
generally harmonious and cooperative relationships with subordinates (p. 274) in
organizations.
Trust in Organizations
Organizational trust is described as a feeling of safety and support by individuals
who are stakeholders of the organization (e.g., employees, volunteers, consumers; Mayer
et al., 1995). Trust is identified as an important element in improvement of organizational
commitment and performance as well as accomplishing both organizational and
individual goals (Gilberth & Tang, 1998).
29
Taylor (1990) identified the impacts of a trust relationship between employees
and the organization as facilitation of management, high risk taking, and effective use of
resources. Organizational trust, according to Luhman (1979), decreased complexity.
Humphrey (1995) described trust as the belief in the organization that motivates
employees to follow protocol without question or fear of rules and regulations. Fukuyama
(1995) suggested that trust is made up of the expectations that rise in a society where all
the members act in line with the shared norms, regularly, honestly and cooperatively (p.
27.
While commonalities exist between definitions, researchers from different
disciplines evaluate trust from different views and define it based on the focus of the
research. Sociologists work from a definition of trust as the fair, reliable, and ethical
behavior in interpersonal relationships while psychologists place it in a context of reliable
and unreliable behavior (Yilmaz & Atalay, 2009).
Organizational trust fosters the type of environment that encourages job
satisfaction (Perry & Mankin, 2007) and positive organizational citizenship behavior. In
their investigation on the impact of culture, leadership, and trust in relation to
organizational citizenship, Appelbaum, Bartolomucci, Beaumier, Corrigan, Dore, et al.
(2004) found trust to be a major catalyst for organizational citizenship behavior. Research
into organizational justice and trust (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005) revealed a strong
positive relationship between these two dimensions and Coyle-Shapiro et al. (2004)
reported a reciprocal relationship between the two factors which were shown to have a
positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior.
30
Interpersonal trust relationships, as well as social trust relationships, are important
to the success of strategic partnerships in organizations (Arino, Torre, & Rin, 2005).
Trust was identified as critical in times of reorganization and changes in strategic plans
(Chenhall & Smith, 2003). High quality manager-employee interaction was shown to
exist in organizations where a strong organizational environment was developed and
cultivated (Wech, 2002). Conversely, where this environment is not present, employees
feel that information is being withheld about organizational decisions and processes that
affect them, causing erosion in organizational trust (Laschinger & Finegan, 2005). A
foundation of organizational trust allows employees to perform the duties of their jobs
without fear of judgment or unfair actions of managers and colleagues (Perry & Mankin,
2007). It breeds an atmosphere of honesty and openness rather than one of fear and
suspicion.
Trust in Higher Education
The review of the literature showed that most of the research into trust and
education had involved studies of K-12 public schools. Past research findings pointed to
trust as a critical element in developing healthy, purposeful, and mindful school
environments (Hoy et al., 2006; Hoy et al., 1992; Tarter et al., 1989). Additionally,
results in studies of trust and school climate supported the premise that the behaviors and
collegial interactions of administrators were paramount to healthy and open learning
environments (Henderson & Hoy, 1982, Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985; Tarter et al., 1995).
However, there remained a gap in trust studies concerning faculty trust in higher
education.
31
In an exploratory analysis of faculty trust in higher education, Shoho and Smith
(2004) found that levels of trust in administration tend to decline as academic rank
increases. Jones (2001) investigation into trust, learning, and performance revealed
evidence of a positive relationship between trust and learning and trust and performance.
Looking at organizational trust and cooperation, communication, and decision-making,
Blevins (2001) found organizational trust to be a critical component in the establishment
of each of these variables in higher education.
A focused case study undertaken by Tierney (2006) at five large universities
determined trust to be the basis for faculty and administrative networks, and the frank and
open communication that make them valuable. Analyzing interviews and documents
revealed that trust had developed over time through repeated interaction within networks
and a number of dynamic processes. The study revealed a strong culture of trust at
Prairie Home University [sic] where faculty trust the administration because the
faculty believe it is in the administrations interest to take them seriously (Tierney, p.
112). He described a university community where faculty trust colleagues, and work
together to promote learning and to have a representative voice in university governance.
Faculty Learning Communities in Higher Education
Historically, college faculties have served in a place of isolation (Waller, 1932).
Baker (1999) spoke to the lonely work of teachers who often feel disconnected from
administrators, colleagues, and many of their students (p. 95). Interviewing a random
sample of professors regarding their research and teaching, Baker and Zey-Ferrell (1984)
found strong networks of collaboration and support for researchers that were not enjoyed
32
by teachers. The study identified teachers who did not feel the need to consult or
collaborate about teaching and teachers who did not collaborate because of previously
disappointing outcomes or unresolved anger.
Communities that connect students and faculty are shown to be an important
aspect of learning successes in higher education (Cox, 2002; Palmer, 2002). Faculty
learning communities have become valuable tools for faculty at all levels (Cox, 2004).
Faculty may have a framework for collaboration within their departments and disciplines,
but usually do not have a broader campus-based learning organization. This separation
can often result in a fragmented curriculum and isolation of faculty from colleagues in
other disciplines (Senge, 1990). Harper (1996) asserted that creating such opportunities
for conversation and community among faculty is imperative, not only to the personal
and professional growth and reflection of individual faculty, but also for the growth of
the higher education community at large (p. 265).
Defining Faculty Learning Community
Cox (2004), developer of faculty learning communities at Miami University of
Ohio, defined a faculty learning community as a small group of interdisciplinary faculty
(8 to 12 is the recommended size) engaging in an active, collaborative, year-long
curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and
activities that provide learning, development, interdisciplinarity, the scholarship of
teaching and learning, and community building (p. 8). Faculty learning communities are
groups of self-selected learners from different disciplines who meet regularly to exchange
ideas, learn from each other, and improve their own teaching practices. They are a
33
continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, with an intention
of getting things done (McGill & Beaty, 2001, p. 11). At Stony Brook University in
New York, faculty learning communities consist of small groups of supportive and
trusted colleagues who offer continual support and professional development, with focus
on each members personal teaching style and the learning style of their students,
allowing members to retain control over their own professional learning needs (Wozniak,
N., 2010), thus fostering a special kind of community of practice (Wenger, 1998).
Necessary Qualities for Learning Communities
Cox (2002) reiterated that community is the key to success. His research
revealed 10 qualities necessary for the building of community in a faculty learning
community: safety and trustto foster revelation of weaknesses or lack of knowledge;
opennessfreedom to share without fear of revenge; respectvalued and acknowledged
by the university; responsivenessprompt and respectful sharing between the members;
collaborationopportunities to work together on joint projects and presentations;
relevancefaculty learning community subject matter that relates to members teaching,
courses, life experiences, and professional interests; challengehigh expectations for
quality outcomes; enjoymentinvigorating environments that encourage merriment and
bonding; esprit de corpssharing excellent presentations with colleagues in the
academy; and empowermentmembers gaining a new sense of confidence in
themselves and their abilities.
34
Faculty Learning Communities and Student Outcomes
Establishment of learning communities in higher education generally reflected a
change in the culture, making them difficult to implement and sustain (Putnam, 2000).
Despite the barriers, some faculty members seek a pedagogical shift out of an instruction
paradigm and into a learning paradigm of engaged faculty and student communities
(Barr & Tagg, 1995). Regrettably, learning communities always seem to push against an
institutional glacier that grinds away at innovation . . . making it like everything else
(Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith, 1990, p. 92).
Although change in higher education culture is so difficult, Cross (1998) offered
three empirically tested reasons to change the path from instruction to learning:
philosophicalbecause learning communities fit into a changing philosophy of
knowledge, research basedbecause learning communities fit what research tells us
about learning, and pragmaticbecause learning communities work (p. 10).
At Miami University, improvement of student and faculty learning was
documented in student portfolios, teaching projects, and reports. Evidence of improved
student outcomes was documented through surveys of previous faculty learning
community participants (Cox, 2004). Results of the study indicated an increase in
students ability to apply previously learned principles to new problems and solutions,
ask good questions, consider new ideas, synthesize and assimilate new information, work
productively in a group, and think for themselves. Respondents reported an increase in
learning related to learning objectives, increased and more engaged class discussion and
participation, greater student interest in subject matter, and improvement in papers and
writing assignments. Ninety-eight percent of the faculty reported this change in student
35
learning as a result of change in the faculty attitude, more reflective scholarly teaching,
and a change in faculty confidence in and comfort levels with their abilities.
Although faculty learning community assessment is by nature both an individual
and a social contextual process (Hubball, Clarke, & Beach, 2004, p. 91), community has
not often been included in faculty surveys to determine faculty development policy and
process (Cox, 2004). To be meaningful, assessment must include qualitative methods
such as self-reflection as well as acknowledging the social context of learning. Faculty
choice should influence faculty learning outcomes (e.g., implementing new methods), but
will often be altered over time through interactions with other members of the faculty
learning community (Hubball et al.).
Faculty learning communities have the potential to become safe havens, rich with
knowledge and information, places where faculty learning can flourish, places where
principles of learning and transfer for student learners apply to teachers (Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 374). Trust has been shown to be vital in developing and
maintaining active learning communities on college campuses (Cox, 2002, 2004; Palmer,
2002; Senge, 2000).
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a commanding yet imperceptible force that runs deep in
organizational life (McGrath & Tobia, 2008). Revealed in artifacts, accepted beliefs and
values, and underlying assumptions, the culture of an organization is the essence that
holds the organization together (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). This core ideology is composed
of widely shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that set the priorities and guide actions
36
and decisions of the organization (Collins, 2001, p. 193). Furthermore, according to Shaw
& London (2001), culture is more than the core ideology; it is the organizational practices
by which the beliefs and values are shared with and integrated into new members of the
organization.
Trust is essential in organizations because people do not follow leaders they
cannot trust. Paradoxically, culture affects the willingness to trust, but a willingness to
trust is the foundation for developing the beliefs and values that define the culture
(Fairholm, 1994). A culture of trust, from an organizational perspective, becomes the
environment in which leaders empower employees, an environment where commitment,
job satisfaction, and employee engagement are the norm (Seijts & Crim, 2006).
Higher Education Culture
Bergquists (1992) work on institutional culture emphasized four different
cultural archetypes in academia: collegial culture, managerial culture, developmental
culture, and negotiating culture Reflected in most higher education institutions, the
collegial culture values scholarly contribution, shared governance, and logic. Managerial
culture arises from the goals and purposes of the institution: values efficiency, effective
supervisory skills, and fiscal responsibility. In direct contrast, the developmental culture
is centered on the personal and professional advancement of all members of the academy.
Bergquist described the negotiating culture as valuing the creation of fair-minded and
egalitarian policies and procedures. Confrontation, special interest groups, mediation, and
power are characteristics of a negotiating culture in any organization and are also present
in higher education.
37
In the collegial culture, faculty members are guided by the principles of academic
freedom and highly value individual autonomy. Bergquists (1992) description of the
collegial culture clearly highlights the issue: In the collegial culture major emphasis is
placed on independent work. Typically, faculty members labor alone on projects, teach
by themselves in the classroom, and plan curriculum and courses in isolation from their
colleagues (p. 43).
Conversely, Bergquist (1992) explained a managerial culture as a culture that
finds meaning primarily in the organization, implementation, and evaluation of work that
is directed toward specified goals and purposes; that values fiscal responsibility and
effective supervisory skills (p. 5). With its strong goal orientation, the managerial
culture has had a profound impact on college and university campuses.
At a time when state and federal governments are reducing funding for public
colleges and universities, they are requiring greater transparency. This shift from a
largely autonomous faculty is an odd fit in traditional higher education institutions. A
collegial culture is generally resistant to a program of conventional business management
because it is a vastly different concept. This sharp change of cultures creates the potential
for conflict as academics work according to the values and beliefs of a collegial culture
while administrators and other stakeholders function in a world influenced by values and
beliefs created in the world of business (Bullen, 2006).
Bergquist (1992) demonstrated the differences in the cultural paradigm with a
comparison of the managerial culture (low trust) and a collegial culture, which generally
demonstrates greater trust in collaborative efforts and open communication at all levels.
The culture of a higher education institution can be identified within the Framework of
38
Higher Education Organizational Culture (Table 2) as reported by Tierney (1988). While
institutions are influenced by external factors, they are also heavily affected by the
history and processes of the institution, and the values and goals of those most involved
with determining the direction of the institution (Dill, 1982).
Table 2 A Framework of Higher Education Organizational Culture
Environment How does the institution define its environment?
What attitudes (hostility, friendliness) are present (internal and external) toward the environment?
Mission How is the mission defined and articulated? Is the mission a basis for decisions? Socialization How are new members socialized into the organization? How is the socialization process articulated? What needs to be known to survive/thrive in the organization? Information What constitutes information? Who has the information and how is it disseminated? Strategy What strategy is used to make decisions? Who makes the decisions? What is the penalty for bad decisions? Leadership Who are the organizational leaders, both formal and informal? What is expected from the organizational leaders?
Note. Adapted from Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the Essentials, by W. G. Tierney, 1988, The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Summary
The literature review has provided a retrospective and contemporary view of trust.
The working definition developed by Hoy and Miskel (2008) was introduced, as well as
the characteristics associated with higher education faculty learning communities. A
theoretical framework and foundation was outlined for trust and organizations,
specifically the higher education organization. Current research in the field of trust was
also outlined, and a number of tested and effective methodologies were discussed. A
39
description of the importance of the development of faculty learning communities was
developed that delineated the theoretical and practical aspects of this mode of
professional development in institutions of higher education. The culture of organizations
was explored with emphasis on the culture in institutions of higher education.
40
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships that existed between
faculty learning community participation and levels of faculty trust in higher education
colleagues and in higher education administration. Research examined relationships
between faculty learning community membership and faculty trust in higher education
colleagues and faculty trust in higher education administration in institutions of higher
education in the United States. This quantitative study examined trust in colleagues and
trust in administration, two factors of faculty trust that contributed to the relat
