Article Category: Research Article
Data publikacji: 22 gru 2023
Zakres stron: 94 - 111
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2023-0014
Słowa kluczowe
© 2023 Anna Wziątek-Staśko et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Digitization and its implementation open up wide prospects for innovation, defining a new kind of innovation in all areas of socioeconomic life. Digitization is an integral part of the progress of civilization as it experiences a period of acceleration in the 21st century (Kowalczyk, 2017). Progress in digitization contributes to the optimization of the process of entering new markets, but also to the expansion of existing markets, as well as the implementation of new, innovative products. Digitization has become the most effective tool in business process management (Orłowska & Żołądkiewicz, 2018).
The increasing use of digital resources by organizations means that organizational structures and processes are constantly evolving. The organizational practices, skills, and perspectives of organizations that characterized the industrial age are becoming obsolete and giving way to new digital practices, skills, and conscious ideas about how work can be done. Many enterprises are in the process of digital transformation and have developed some capability to handle different areas of their business digitally. However, this does not necessarily mean they should be classified as truly digital (Soule et al., 2016).
Trust is a category of key importance in the management process of a modern organization. Trust management is a set of activities used to create systems and methods enabling subsidiaries to make assessments and decisions regarding the credibility of risky activities in relation to other entities, which in turn enable those entities to build their own credibility. (Grudzewski et al., 2009).
Trust in the digital era is a rich topic. Lack of trust and suspicion often turn out to be justified when a specific situation occurs, and in organizations competing with each other, the costs associated with trusting the wrong business partner can be very high. Trust is one of the elementary factors of success, and its absence is tantamount to economic backwardness (Grudzewski et al., 2008). In an environment full of uncertainty, high dynamism and risk, it is necessary to know perfectly clearly who can be trusted and under what conditions. Trust takes on a special importance in the process of human capital management, exposing its dimensions and specificity in the employee-manager relationship. The aim of this article is to present the authors’ research results indicating the determinants of trust in managers among SME-sector organizations in Poland that are undergoing digitization.
The development of computer techniques back in the 1950s gave rise to the term “digitization”, meaning the processing of analogue materials into digital form (Brennen & Kreiss, 2014). Digitization is the economic and social transformation caused by the massive adoption of digital technologies for generating, sharing and processing information (Katz et al., 2014). It entails changing various types of information into digital form, including ordinary written and spoken language (Żabińska, 2016). It can also refer to the process of implementing and increasing the use of digital technologies by society, enterprises, sectors of the economy, and public administration (Drewnowski & Małachowski, 2018).
In the progress of civilization, digitization is a sequence of interdependent technological solutions, and innovations are their manifestation. Undoubtedly, digital technologies support the human intellect in its creativity and innovation (L. Kowalczyk, 2017), and they are becoming a main driver of innovation and change in most sectors of the economy. New technologies have revolutionized the internal and external processes of organizations (Valdez-Juárez et al., 2023). Drivers of this development include:
Internet of Things (IoT) and Internet of Everything (IoE); Ubiquitous connectivity; Applications and services based on cloud computing; Big data analytics, as well as services offering analysis of large or complex data sets; and Automation and robotization, multi-channel, omni-channel models of product or service distribution (Pieriegud, 2016).
Digitization is one of the stages in the development of an organization. It is a strategy focused on the use of the best IT solutions, aimed at optimal use of the potential of digital resources of the organization. The digitization stage is far more complex than just transferring selected elements of the organization to the digital world (for example, introducing electronic document circulation or mail systems). It can mean an evolution in the computerization of an organization to integrate all its elements into one efficient mechanism (Rojek, 2001).
The use of digital technologies can cause changes in an organization’s business models, products, processes or organizational structure. These changes can be observed from the perspective of individuals (e.g., growing demand for online media) or entire organizations (a complete change of business model brought about by digital technologies) (Hess et al., 2016). Digitization should be seen less as a “thing” and more as a “way of doing things” (Dörner & Edelman, 2014). Digitization applies to the entire organization, and success in this regard depends on the thorough management of digital change during the transition period, as well as on embedding organizational capabilities, such as change management skills and competencies, throughout the organization (Kohnke, 2017). People are the key element of this process, and the most important decisions made in the organization depend on the people themselves. Employees define the areas of transformation and directions of further development of an enterprise (Pollak, 2021).
The lack of management resources, but also financial constraints faced by micro-, small- and medium-sized organizations, can make it difficult to implement digital technologies. Moreover, even after the elimination of financial constraints, the implementation of digital technologies by SME-sector organizations may still be difficult due to a lack of clarity as to the return on investment or partial ability to use and implement the radical digital transformation presented by the fourth industrial revolution also called Industry 4.0 (Telukdarie, 2023). Industry 4.0 is not just about technology or processes. It also defines the role of people in the work environment.
Even the most advanced technology cannot exist without human participation (Moczydłowska, 2023). The perception of intra-organizational communication, primarily in the context of a formalized flow of information between the employer, employees, teams and individual departments of the enterprise, is slowly losing its relevance. Communications within the enterprise can become static due to the hierarchical subordination of the recipients of messages in relation to their senders. This style of intra-organizational communication, which does not take into account the complexity of the processes that take place within the organization (such as its participation in a larger network of cooperating entities), struggles to cope with the emerging challenges.
The flow of information is assigned a fundamental role in the management of each business entity at each of the following levels: supporting the decision-making process, analyzing actions already taken,. managing and controlling actions This is only a fragment of the entire communication process that can occur in an organization. Seeing organizational communication as only an exchange of information is unjustified and even dangerous, as it may lead to a weakening of the level of employee involvement, as well as lowering their sense of community with the organization. Thus, when taking into account the present needs of an organization, as well as the importance of effective communication, attention must be paid to the importance of information systems that can take into account, for example, multitasking.
The internal communication systems functioning in Polish organizations have been an area resistant to change and to the introduction of modern solutions. The reasons for that should be sought primarily in individual human mentality and habits, but also in the financial limitations of the organization (Biesaga-Słomczewska, 2015).
Changes caused by the phenomenon of digitization with regard to human resource management objectives include:
Attracting a talented and diverse workforce – effective recruitment can result in a more skilled and diverse workforce. It can also contribute to customer satisfaction, and stimulate innovation or creativity (e.g., through advertisements of vacancies on the Internet and the possibility for candidates to submit application documents electronically); Talent search – selection of the most talented applicants. Many organizations use electronic selection methods, which consist of electronic job analysis and job applications, electronic personality tests, and online interviews; Improving the knowledge, skills and abilities of employees – the variety of technologies allows organizations to manage the training process more effectively, for instance, in the field of e-learning or e-training. Managing and increasing employee performance – assessing the current performance of employees, identifying particularly high- and low-performing employees, and providing them with feedback. Appropriate measurement using technology is used for this purpose; Motivating and retaining talented employees from different backgrounds – companies have reason to worry about the shortage of talent, both inside and outside the organization. There is also a risk of losing current employees. Organizations have started to use technologies like Employee self-service systems (ESS) to make the compensation and benefits process easier for employees. ESS uses web technologies to provide employees with access to a centralized HR database (Stone et al., 2015).
Changing the attitudes of employees and improving their skills is of key importance for the process of digitalization of the organization. Traditional mindsets and practices must evolve towards digital mindsets, digital practices at every organizational level and within every function (Soule et al., 2016).
“Digitization” is an ambiguous term. Based on our research of the literature, for the purposes of this article, the following understanding of this term was adopted: Digitization is one of the stages of organization development; it is a continuous process of adaptation and design; and it involves the implementation of organizational processes that optimally use and manage the potential of modern technologies, while anticipating the consequences of their using intelligent IT solutions.
It has been assumed that digitization includes the following:
Changing an organization’s business model; Searching for skillful implementation and use of modern information technologies in internal organizational processes in order to improve them; Changing ways of thinking and philosophy of action; Optimizing the use of digital resources.
In addition, it was assumed that digitization, in relation to the processes taking place inside the organization, could do the following:
Open up new possibilities in creating business models; Support human intellect, creativity, innovation; Increase the level of innovation through the entire organization; Merge all the organization’s elements into a resilient mechanism; Increase competition; Increase efficiency; Provide new opportunities to generate value; Enable the implementation of a business digitization strategy; and Change organizational structures.
Trust is considered a key condition for the development of the social economy, but also an essential element of social capital (Rapacz & Jaremen, 2015). It is a basic human need on one hand, and on the other hand, it is an result of cultural assumptions affecting the culture of the organization and personnel management (Karczewski, 2003). Trust is a positive concept; it is the expectation that a given trusted object will have a property that is desired or behave in the way that is expected (Jøsang, 1996). Trust is a special human bridge leading to an uncertain, future world in which other people play the main roles (Sztompka, 2007). The exploration of the “trust” category is particularly salient to management functions, management processes, decisions made, and agreements or contracts. Above all, however, it remains in relation to stakeholders, to their competences, and to their behavioral intentions, plans or attitudes (Bugdol, 2010). In an organization based on trust, it is a valuable resource that should be managed, while ensuring its development and accumulation (Grudzewski et al., 2009). Trust reduces uncertainty and risk (Domański, 2014), usually refers to the future and cooperation (Shneiderman, 2000) and is built up over time (Grudzewski et al., 2009). It is a hybrid phenomenon that should be placed somewhere between calculation, predictability, good will, and the willingness to expose oneself to the distrust of the other party (Grudzewski et al., 2009). It is important to understand that trust does not develop in a “vacuum” but evolves in a complex of contexts:
Individual context – differences between individuals, including propensity to trust and their person’s history of interactions leading to a certain level of trust; Organizational context – concerns interactions between individuals that inform them about the credibility of others, including the formation of reputation or gossip; and
Cultural context, which influences trust through social norms and expectations (Lee & See, 2004).
Trust is the willingness of individuals to take risks (Mayer et al., 2007). It is considered to be one of the basic psychological factors that guarantees the cohesion of social structures (Grudzewski et al., 2007). It is variable, depending upon social perception and the mutual relationship with the interaction partner (Weiss et al., 2022). Trust is also seen as a willingness to take risks. There are three components to trust:
Ability – the belief that the other party is capable of taking actions necessary to meet the expectations placed on them, and has the appropriate resources and competencies; Integrity – the belief that the other party has a fixed set of values, and the stability and repeatability of their actions, which enables them to be predicted by the trusting party; and Goodwill – the positive attitude of the trusting party (Mayer et al., 1995).
The changes taking place in organizations as a result of progressing digitization are complex, and can result in a complete transformation of the organizational structure of the enterprise (Bartczak, 2023), with a disturbing effect on the obsolescence of the possessed competences, as well as the tools used to identify and improve them. Modernization and the changes that come with it can affect the shape of values, attitudes and ways of perceiving reality, down to the level of individual employees (Wziątek-Staśko, 2019).
The development of the concept of Industry 4.0 has caused major changes within enterprises, not only in their structures or technologies, but also in the selection of staff, particularly management. This has become a challenge faced by any enterprise that values development and keeping “with the times”. Employees’ competencies are changing, and behavioral aspects are becoming important, but so are technical aspects outside the fields of work (Warcholak & Dąbrowska, 2018). Contemporary organizations have come to function and develop in an environment characterized by a high level of uncertainty. Management staff, responding to new challenges, have had to attempt to shape the organizational culture in order to increase the level of acceptance of this uncertainty, thus improving the efficiency of the enterprise (Czajkowska, 2010).
Trust plays several very important roles in an organization: it is a control mechanism, it sets a long-term perspective, and it is an element of rational choice (Skowron, 2016). Trust can be called an expectation or resource, the foundation of social interaction, but also a bet, mental state and a readiness to accept another person. In trust management, trust should be primarily an elementary organizational value rooted in quality policy, mission, vision, management programs, but also in quality awareness (Bugdol, 2010).
Trust management must be tailored to the existing needs of the organization, its partners and customers. Building an organization based on mutual trust is a difficult task. This process requires a high level of awareness, competence, and attention, but also the commitment of management employees at the highest levels of the organization. Trust management is considered on the following two levels: building one’s own credibility, and assessing the credibility of others. Traditional control systems have led to barriers to the growth of creativity, entrepreneurship and independence (Grudzewski & Hejduk, 2011). Trust is gaining particular importance in connection with changes in modern enterprises operating in the era of Web 2.0+. The constantly changing world, as well as emerging opportunities for cooperation on a global scale using technologies like cloud computing, e-communication, e-leadership, and e-business, create a pressing need for trust management (Wziątek-Staśko, 2016). Organizations that base their functioning on trust, if other necessary conditions are met, therefore gain measurable economic benefits (Czernek et al., 2018).
Building and strengthening trust can, and should, be done using organization-wide communication systems. Moreover, organizations should aim at establishing a fair and open system of justice (procedural fairness) and employee empowerment. Human Resources (HR) departments can play an important role in developing policies and procedures. Creating a culture of employee empowerment and development should become an important element organizational strategy. At the tactical level, training and development alone are not enough to build an atmosphere of trust, although they can help improve other competencies and increase efficiency and productivity.At the stage of preparing training and development programs, management should consider establishing fair and equitable selection processes, but also the possibility of including employees in such programs. Organizations and their top management should aim to build an environment of high trust, provide strong support, and demonstrate their commitment to open communication, organizational empowerment and a fair working environment (Tzafrir, 2004). Trust, when developed through open communication, bridging differences and overcoming conflicts, but also the awareness of mutual competences, determines the growth of functional phenomena in teams (Chrupała-Pniak, 2018).
In our attempt to synthetically explain the essence of trust, it was assumed that “trust” is a positive belief of the trusting entity in relation to a trustee’s competences, credibility, motives and intentions in a specific context, under conditions of uncertainty and risk. Trust is an expectation of cooperation, as well as a mutual belief that the relying party’s weaknesses will not be exploited by the trustee, and that the trustee will behave in a manner consistent with the expectations placed on them.
Each modern organization builds its present and future through its employees. People employed in an organization comprise its most valuable capital – the capital of qualifications, knowledge, skills, experience, personality and values (Moczydłowska, 2013). The process of building trust is an extremely complex and important undertaking (Szałach, 2013). The mere occurrence of trust does not automatically make an organization more efficient, but it creates an appropriate atmosphere conducive to work (Hejduk et al., 2009). The emergence of trust is a process with specific inputs and outputs (Boersma et al., 2003). The leading conditions conducive to building a culture of trust include the following:
The existence of norms and organizational rules that foster and reinforce desirable behaviors; Durability and stability of the social order, and immutability of the organization, which makes it possible to refer to analogous situations that have occurred in the past; Transparency – clear flow of information and transparent communication allowing for the understanding of ongoing processes; Familiarity, which is the basis of trust; as well as Responsibility resulting in a sense of security (Sztompka, 2007).
Building trust based on openness and honesty depends on many people: managers, employees and significant stakeholders (Shockley-Zalabak & Morreale, 2011). Leading managerial behaviors that foster trust include:
Recognizing excellence – neuroscience shows that recognition has the greatest impact on trust when it occurs immediately after the achievement of the goal, including when it is tangible, unexpected, personal and public; Inducing “Challenge Stress” – the manager may assign the team a difficult but doable task. A moderate level of stress increases the concentration of employees and strengthens social bonds. This only works when the challenges are achievable and have a well-defined end stage. Unclear and impossible-to-achieve goals cause employees to give up without even starting the task. Therefore, managers should monitor performance frequently. This allows them to evaluate progress and adjust goals. Allowing freedom in performing tasks – entrusting trained employees with managing people and implementing projects in their own way as far as possible. Autonomy promotes innovation as different employees try different solutions. Enabling the execution of orders – enabling employees to join projects that seem “interesting” and “satisfying”. Employees joining a new group should be given clear expectations at the beginning and assessed at the end so that each individual contribution can be measured. Global information sharing – only 40% of employees declare that they are well informed about the goals, strategies or tactics of their enterprise. Uncertainty about the direction in which the organization is going causes the emergence of chronic stress, which inhibits the release of oxytocin and has a destructive effect on teamwork. Organizations where employees are informed about goals reduce uncertainty about where they are going and why. Purposeful relationship building – employees often receive information from their superiors that they should focus on performing tasks, and not on making friends in the organization. Neuroscience experiments prove that when employees intentionally build social connections at work, their performance improves. Employees who connect with others and help others with their projects not only earn their respect and trust, but also become more productive themselves. When employees care for each other, they perform better because they do not want to disappoint their “teammates”. Enabling personal and professional development – organizations with a high level of trust help employees develop on various levels. Showing vulnerability – managers of organizations that enjoy a high level of trust can ask their colleagues for help instead of simply giving them orders. This stimulates the production of oxytocin, thus increasing trust and cooperation. Asking others for help is a sign of a leader who involves all employees in achieving goals. Asking for help is effective because it uses the natural human impulse to cooperate with others (Zak, 2017).
Communication processes are very important in the area of trust management. Communication creates collaborative relationships, provides insightful information about team members’ personalities, forms the basis for developing shared values, and encourages continuous interaction. Open and fast communication between people is an indispensable feature of relationships based on trust. Without proper communication, cooperative relationships are prone to collapse. Communication is the basis for continuous interaction, on the basis of which employees develop common values and norms. Sustained interaction is a key mechanism that determines how team members stick together. By exchanging information, individuals identify and develop more commonalities, thus reinforcing a sense of trust. The level of participation in exercises focused on increasing information exchange among team members was found to be positively related to various elements of trust, such as perceived ability, honesty and friendliness of team members, although these characteristics did not necessarily predict overall trust (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). Conflict cannot be effectively managed until team members are willing to resolve the problem. Trust can make this crucial step possible (Gibson & Manuel, 2003).
One phenomenon that effectively lowers the level of people’s satisfaction with is “organizational schizophrenia”, in which the superior “says one thing to employees” and “does something else in practice”. This leads to a disturbance of trust based on mutual relations, with increased suspicion and perception of managers as inconsistent and incompetent (Wziątek-Staśko, 2017).
Examples of practices by which managers can strengthen the process of building trust among employees:
Common understanding of the company’s activities – developing a common context or common understanding among employees of both the nature and purpose of their work. This shared understanding can help employees focus on shared goals or values and reduce time and effort spent on individual issues. Demonstrating trust-building behaviors – modeling and recognizing trust-building behaviors such as openness and discretion. Active listening and encouraging employees to express their concerns in a friendly atmosphere can also positively affect the process of building trust between supervisors and employees. Bringing people together – managers should consider how they can create both physical and virtual spaces where employees can easily interact with each other. Moreover, organizations can use tools like collaborative spaces or messaging to help team members communicate with each other when they can’t be in the same physical place (Levin et al., 2002).
A work environment characterized by trust and social relations is the basis for open, unlimited sharing of knowledge between employees (Schuh, 2017).
One of the methods for measuring organizational trust was proposed by L.L. Cummings and P. Bromiley (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996). The authors developed a scale called the Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI), which the organization has.D.J. McAllister developed and presented measures of affect-based trust and cognition-based trust (McAllister, 1995). D.L. Reina and M.L. Reina proposed 10 questions about employee behaviors and attitudes (Reina & Reina, 2007).
R. Zeffane (2009) developed 30 research questions to measure trust among employees, and distinguished eight research areas: pride and commitment; general job satisfaction; satisfaction with the remuneration and reward system; satisfaction with training rules and procedures; satisfaction with the organizational structure and clarity of goals; communication; participation and teamwork; and climate of trust.
A. Rudzewicz proposed six main research areas to measure trust: image of the organization; knowledge about its mission, vision and goals; competencies and attitude of management; competencies and attitudes of employees; work atmosphere; remuneration policy; and opportunities for development and promotion. The main dimensions of trust were then defined using a set of more detailed research statements (Rudzewicz, 2016).
Based on the literature review, several determinants of the level of trust in managers in the organization were identified and categorized. They are presented in Table 1. On the basis of these determinants, statements were formulated to measure trust in managers, with the size of the enterprise as a differentiating category.
Classification of trust level determinants in managers
| Determinants | Statements |
|---|---|
| Competence | I trust that my superiors have sufficiently high competencies to perform their duties (e.g., they know the specifics of the industry, and have skills in managing employees). |
| I trust that my superiors are willing to share their knowledge with other employees. | |
| Commitment | I trust that my superiors are fully committed to their work. |
| I trust that my superiors are professionals in their work and perform their official duties diligently. | |
| Communication | I trust that my superiors provide information to their employees in the most simple and understandable way. |
| I trust that I can speak freely with my superiors about my difficulties at work and it will not cause misunderstandings. | |
| Honesty | I trust that my superiors make reliable assessments and maintain impartiality in conflict situations between employees. |
| I trust that my superiors do not gossip about other employees. | |
| I trust that my superiors do not overlook me when passing on important information/job responsibilities for their own benefit. | |
| Loyalty | I trust that my superiors do not hinder my work with careless or ill-considered actions that expose me to uncomfortable situations. |
| Sincerity | I trust that my superiors express their opinions and assessments honestly. |
| I trust that my superiors are discreet, and I can honestly talk to them about my difficulties within or outside of work without fear that other employees will find out about them. | |
| I trust that my superiors are willing to openly admit their mistakes. | |
| Care | I trust that my superiors notice conflicts between employees and take appropriate action to resolve them. |
| Reliability | I trust that my superiors are able to devote themselves personally to achieving common goals for the entire team (for example, by offering their extra time). |
| Good intentions / kindness | I trust that my superiors have good intentions in performing their professional duties, both in relation to the organization and to colleagues. |
| I trust that my superiors do not use my weaknesses against me to achieve their business goals. | |
| I trust that my superiors will not accuse me of incompetence when I ask them for help in the performance of my official duties. | |
| I trust that my superiors do not force unnecessary competition between employees. | |
| Responsibility | I trust that my superiors accept responsibility for their mistakes. |
| I trust that my superiors take actions that are the consequences of previous declarations (promises). | |
| Justice | I trust that my superiors evaluate my performance fairly. |
| I trust that my superiors notice incompetence in their employees and undertake relevant action. | |
| I trust that my superiors do not succumb to manipulations used by other employees, which are aimed at strengthening their professional position (e.g., “snitching” on teammates to gain the recognition of the superior). | |
| I trust that my superiors treat employees equally and do not favor selected individuals. | |
| I trust that my superiors hold their subordinates accountable fairly and solely on the basis of work results, not guided by personal judgements. |
Source: own analysis.
The research was conducted among employees of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. The selection of the research sample was random. Subjects were chosen for the research sample based on two criteria: employment in an organization belonging to the sector of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and being dependent on an employee-superior. Due to the subject of the research, sole proprietorships were excluded.
In the research process, an original electronic questionnaire (Google Form) was used. The method of collecting the research material consisted of sending the questionnaire to randomly selected respondents working in the SME sector. The following factors determined the use of the electronic survey technique: the possibility of covering a large group of employees; the time needed to complete the survey; the cost-free nature of the survey platform; and the anonymity of the survey. The research was conducted between October 15, 2022 and February 14, 2023.
The survey questionnaire was divided into two main parts. The first one included 26 statements that were possible determinants of the level of trust in managers, which participants rated using a Likert Scale, from 1 (“hard to say”) to 5 (“I definitely trust”). In the second part, a single question was used to assess the impact of the proposed factors on the level of trust in managers, with respondents using another Likert scale from 1 (“does not affect my level of trust at all”) to 5 (“majorly affects my level of trust”). The quantitative research included a total of 307 employees. The characteristics of the research sample are presented in Table 2.
Characteristics of the research sample
| Demographic Questions | Demographic Indications | Proportion of subjects with each indication |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 63.5% |
| Male | 35.5% | |
| Age | 18-25 years old | 41.0 % |
| 25-40 years old | 33.9% | |
| 40-60 years old | 23.8% | |
| > 60 years old | 1.3% | |
| Position | Worker | 31.6% |
| Non-worker with no subordinate employees | 42.0% | |
| Managerial | 26.4% | |
| Size of the organization | Micro enterprise: 1-9 employees | 26.1% |
| Small enterprise: 10-49 employees | 30.3% | |
| Medium enterprise: 50-249 employees | 43.6% | |
| Total work experience | < 1 year | 9.8% |
| 1-5 years | 37.8% | |
| 6-10 years | 16.9% | |
| > 10 years | 35.5% | |
| Work experience in the current organization | < 1 year | 29.0% |
| 1-5 years | 44.3% | |
| 6-10 years | 8.8% | |
| > 10 years | 17.9% | |
| Primary | 0.3% | |
| Vocational | 0.7% | |
| Education | Secondary | 31.9% |
| Higher | 67.1% |
Source: Own analysis of conducted research.
Calculations of the power of statistical inference were carried out in the G Power 3.1.9.2 software. Cohen’s
The following hypotheses were formulated:
H1: the size of the organization diversifies the determinants of trust in managers in SME-sector organizations in Poland with regard to digitization. H2: the size of the organization diversifies the level of trust in managers in SME-sector organizations in Poland with regard to digitization.
The Likert Scale containing the following variants was used to test the validity of the H1 hypothesis:
1 – I definitely do not trust; 2 – I rather do not trust; 3 – hard to say; 4 – I rather trust; 5 – I definitely trust.
The Likert Scale containing the following variants was used to examine the level of trust and verify the H2 hypothesis:
1 – Does not affect the level of my trust at all; 2 – Insignificantly affects the level of my trust; 3 – Moderately affects my level of trust; 4 – Significantly affects the level of my trust; 5 – Influences the level of my trust to a large extent.
In order to verify the research hypotheses formulated for the purpose of this article, Table 3 presents the average values of trust determinants between respondents and their organizational superiors. The presented list was supplemented with the values of the Kruskal-Wallis
Average values of respondents’ indicators of trust level toward their superiors among a population of employees at micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises
| I trust that my superiors… | Size of the enterprise | Paired comparisons | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| micro | small | medium | micro vs small | micro vs medium | small vs medium | |||||||||
| Have sufficient competence to perform their duties | 4.03 | 0.98 | 3.82 | 1.14 | 3.78 | 1.00 | 3.39 | 0.183 | 3410.0 | 0.321 | 4581.0 | 0.061 | 5893.0 | 0.465 |
| Are fully committed to their work | 4.15 | 0.80 | 3.78 | 1.12 | 3.93 | 1.06 | 3.41 | 0.182 | 3139.0 | 0.061 | 4931.0 | 0.299 | 5785.0 | 0.336 |
| Are professionals in their work and perform their official duties diligently | 4.09 | 1.12 | 3.77 | 1.07 | 3.87 | 1.08 | 5.70 | 0.058 | 2986.5 | 0.019 | 4629.5 | 0.079 | 5871.5 | 0.438 |
| Will not accuse me of incompetence when I ask them for help in the performance of my official duties | 4.05 | 0.94 | 3.73 | 1.10 | 3.98 | 0.99 | 4.09 | 0.130 | 3147.5 | 0.066 | 5189.0 | 0.678 | 5467.0 | 0.096 |
| Can be spoken freely with about my difficulties at work without causing misunderstandings | 3.86 | 1.09 | 3.78 | 1.07 | 3.78 | 1.16 | 0.33 | 0.848 | 3537.5 | 0.560 | 5191.0 | 0.687 | 6143.5 | 0.851 |
| Evaluate my performance fairly | 4.05 | 1.08 | 3.94 | 0.99 | 3.83 | 1.08 | 2.74 | 0.254 | 3392.5 | 0.293 | 4679.0 | 0.103 | 5955.5 | 0.552 |
| Do not hinder my work with careless, ill-considered actions that expose me to uncomfortable situations | 4.09 | 0.90 | 3.78 | 1.11 | 3.74 | 1.04 | 6.03 | 3195.0 | 0.092 | 4331.5 | 5996.5 | 0.614 | ||
| Will openly admit their mistakes | 3.71 | 1.08 | 3.46 | 1.24 | 3.18 | 1.33 | 8.29 | 3345.5 | 0.237 | 4156.5 | 5469.0 | 0.108 | ||
| Accept responsibility for their mistakes | 3.74 | 1.22 | 3.52 | 1.18 | 3.29 | 1.27 | 6.64 | 3289.5 | 0.176 | 4281.5 | 5647.5 | 0.216 | ||
| Provide information to their employees in the most simple and understandable way | 3.91 | 1.03 | 3.75 | 0.96 | 3.75 | 1.05 | 1.87 | 0.392 | 3328.0 | 0.211 | 4874.5 | 0.245 | 6118.5 | 0.808 |
| Are willing to share their knowledge with other employees | 4.13 | 0.99 | 3.88 | 0.88 | 3.80 | 1.09 | 6.28 | 3054.0 | 4412.5 | 6129.0 | 0.824 | |||
| Are discreet and can be spoken with about my difficulties within and outside work, without fear that other employees will find out about them | 3.90 | 1.21 | 3.57 | 1.19 | 3.49 | 1.31 | 6.09 | 3076.0 | 4380.0 | 6123.5 | 0.820 | |||
| Express their opinions and assessments honestly | 3.94 | 1.00 | 3.72 | 1.12 | 3.60 | 1.14 | 4.50 | 0.105 | 3323.0 | 0.204 | 4466.5 | 0.033 | 5870.5 | 0.442 |
| Do not overlook me when passing on important information/job responsibilities for their own benefit | 3.91 | 1.10 | 3.86 | 0.98 | 3.61 | 1.22 | 3.53 | 0.171 | 3513.0 | 0.506 | 4625.5 | 0.081 | 5654.5 | 0.214 |
| Do not force unnecessary competition between employees | 4.20 | 0.91 | 3.95 | 1.01 | 3.69 | 1.15 | 10.43 | 3211.0 | 0.100 | 4030.0 | 5490.0 | 0.113 | ||
| Treat employees equally and do not favor selected individuals | 3.85 | 1.01 | 3.39 | 1.23 | 3.15 | 1.35 | 13.63 | 2971.5 | 3804.0 | 5621.5 | 0.199 | |||
| Hold their subordinates accountable fairly and solely on the basis of work results, not guided by personal judgements | 3.98 | 0.99 | 3.49 | 1.13 | 3.29 | 1.29 | 15.88 | 2798.5 | 3734.0 | 5696.0 | 0.258 | |||
| Do not succumb to manipulations used by other employees trying to strengthen their professional position | 3.98 | 1.04 | 3.56 | 1.15 | 3.31 | 1.24 | 15.24 | 2943.5 | 3732.5 | 5534.5 | 0.140 | |||
| Notice the incompetence of their employees and undertake relevant actions | 3.79 | 0.99 | 3.45 | 1.14 | 3.25 | 1.19 | 10.16 | 3110.5 | 0.054 | 4012.5 | 5683.5 | 0.245 | ||
| Notice conflicts between employees and take appropriate action to resolve them | 3.89 | 0.97 | 3.53 | 1.11 | 3.34 | 1.18 | 10.75 | 3066.0 | 3983.0 | 5696.5 | 0.256 | |||
| Make reliable assessments and maintain impartiality in conflict situations between employees | 3.84 | 1.04 | 3.55 | 1.11 | 3.44 | 1.10 | 6.75 | 3179.5 | 0.087 | 4269.5 | 5861.0 | 0.431 | ||
| Take actions that are the consequences of previous declarations | 3.99 | 1.00 | 3.85 | 1.02 | 3.60 | 1.10 | 7.19 | 3399.0 | 0.302 | 4285.0 | 5471.0 | 0.103 | ||
| Do not gossip about other employees | 3.60 | 1.10 | 3.12 | 1.27 | 2.98 | 1.37 | 11.57 | 2904.0 | 3964.5 | 5860.5 | 0.436 | |||
| Have good intentions in performing their professional duties, both in relation to the organization and to colleagues | 4.16 | 0.91 | 3.98 | 0.92 | 3.85 | 0.93 | 6.54 | 3281.5 | 0.155 | 4317.0 | 5725.0 | 0.265 | ||
| Do not use my weaknesses against me to achieve their business goals | 4.00 | 1.13 | 3.85 | 1.08 | 3.76 | 1.01 | 4.09 | 0.129 | 3369.0 | 0.262 | 4497.5 | 0.040 | 5873.5 | 0.443 |
| Are able to devote themselves personally to achieving common goals for the entire team | 3.94 | 1.07 | 3.70 | 1.10 | 3.61 | 1.21 | 3.99 | 0.136 | 3224.5 | 0.114 | 4561.0 | 0.057 | 6092.5 | 0.767 |
M – mean value; SD – standard deviation; H – value of Kruskal-Wallis
On the basis of the collected research results, statistically significant differences were observed in subjects’ assessments of:
Not hindering work; Openness in admitting mistakes; Accepting responsibility; Sharing knowledge; Discretion; Not forcing competition; Equal treatment; Fair settlement of subordinates; Not being manipulated; Noticing the incompetence of employees; Noticing conflict situations; Making reliable assessments; Taking consistent action; Refraining from gossip, Having good intentions.
According to Table 3, respondents’ trust in their superiors’ not hindering work, openness in admitting mistakes, accepting responsibility, not forcing competition, noticing the incompetence of employees, making reliable assessments, taking consistent actions and good intentions were statistically significantly higher in the group of micro-enterprise employees than in mediumsized enterprise employees (cf. Fig. 1). It was found that the assessments regarding sharing knowledge, discretion, equal treatment, fair settlement of subordinates, not being manipulated, noticing conflict situations and refraining from gossip were greater among micro-enterprise employees than they were in small or medium-sized enterprise employees, to a statistically significant extent.
Figure 1.
Statistically significant relationships between enterprise size and indicators of trust toward superiors Source: Own analysis based on conducted research.
Table 4 presents the average values of factors affecting the level of trust in managers among employees of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The list was supplemented with the values of the Kruskal-Wallis
Average ratings of factors influencing the level of trust in managers in employees of micro-enterprises, small enterprises and mediumsized enterprises
| Factors of the level of trust in managers | Size of the enterprise | Paired comparisons | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| micro | small | medium | micro vs small | micro vs medium | small vs medium | |||||||||
| Competence adequate to the position held | 3.96 | 1.27 | 4.31 | 0.93 | 4.46 | 0.95 | 9.56 | 3280.0 | 0.143 | 4215.5 | 5494.0 | 0.079 | ||
| Commitment in the performance of official duties | 4.06 | 1.17 | 4.29 | 0.95 | 4.40 | 0.89 | 3.89 | 0.143 | 3432.5 | 0.340 | 4595.0 | 0.052 | 5788.5 | 0.308 |
| Openness in communication with other employees | 4.08 | 1.13 | 4.10 | 1.06 | 4.34 | 0.98 | 5.06 | 0.080 | 3717.0 | 0.992 | 4619.5 | 0.063 | 5381.0 | 0.055 |
| Discretion in mutual relations with other employees | 3.96 | 1.18 | 4.12 | 0.98 | 4.41 | 0.86 | 9.80 | 3559.5 | 0.603 | 4256.5 | 5141.5 | |||
| Clarity of communicated messages | 4.13 | 1.08 | 4.10 | 1.00 | 4.44 | 0.86 | 10.12 | 3551.0 | 0.582 | 4526.0 | 4879.5 | |||
| Active listening by others | 4.14 | 1.09 | 4.26 | 0.91 | 4.42 | 0.87 | 3.99 | 0.136 | 3609.5 | 0.715 | 4663.0 | 0.076 | 5555.5 | 0.121 |
| Creating an atmosphere conducive to free expression of one’s own opinion | 4.14 | 1.08 | 4.12 | 1.02 | 4.37 | 0.84 | 4.29 | 0.117 | 3559.0 | 0.598 | 4857.5 | 0.206 | 5327.5 | 0.042 |
| Integrity in the performance of official duties | 4.15 | 1.10 | 4.24 | 1.02 | 4.48 | 0.84 | 5.47 | 0.065 | 3608.5 | 0.710 | 4553.0 | 0.036 | 5455.0 | 0.069 |
| Mutual loyalty in relations with other employees | 4.10 | 1.24 | 4.26 | 1.03 | 4.33 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.677 | 3552.5 | 0.572 | 5017.5 | 0.385 | 6094.5 | 0.754 |
| Honesty in expressing opinions and assessments | 4.05 | 1.23 | 4.19 | 1.06 | 4.28 | 0.99 | 1.15 | 0.562 | 3588.0 | 0.663 | 4942.5 | 0.296 | 5955.0 | 0.533 |
| Care in relations with other employees | 4.06 | 1.05 | 4.09 | 1.08 | 4.02 | 1.05 | 0.46 | 0.794 | 3622.5 | 0.751 | 5232.0 | 0.756 | 5923.0 | 0.501 |
| Reliability, keeping the declarations/promises made | 4.13 | 0.99 | 4.27 | 1.00 | 4.47 | 0.92 | 10.36 | 3345.0 | 0.215 | 4138.0 | 5427.5 | 0.056 | ||
| Good intentions/kindness in relations with other employees | 4.16 | 1.12 | 4.16 | 0.95 | 4.16 | 1.03 | 0.49 | 0.784 | 3509.5 | 0.489 | 5224.5 | 0.737 | 6037.0 | 0.667 |
| Taking responsibility for your actions | 4.25 | 1.03 | 4.42 | 0.89 | 4.51 | 0.83 | 3.98 | 0.137 | 3429.0 | 0.318 | 4615.0 | 0.048 | 5825.5 | 0.326 |
| Fair evaluation of employees | 4.13 | 1.23 | 4.40 | 0.99 | 4.49 | 0.93 | 4.89 | 0.087 | 3331.0 | 0.173 | 4550.0 | 0.029 | 5914.0 | 0.428 |
M – mean value; SD – standard deviation;
Statistically significant differences were observed in the assessment of:
Impact of competencies; Discretion; Clarity of communicated messages; and Managers’ compliance with their own declarations.
It was found that the assessments regarding the impact of competencies and managers’ compliance with their own declarations were higher in medium-sized enterprise employees than in micro-enterprise employees. Assessments regarding the impact of discretion and clarity of communicated messages were higher in medium-sized enterprise employees than in the group of people working in micro- and small-enterprise employees, to a statistically significant extent. (cf. Fig. 2).
Figure 2.
Statistically significant relationships between size of enterprise and assessment of factors affecting trust of managers Source: Own analysis based on conducted research.
The results of this study confirm the adopted hypotheses:
H1: organization size diversifies the indicators of trust in managers in SME-sector organizations in Poland undergoing digitization. H2: organization size diversifies the level of trust in managers in SME-sector organizations in Poland undergoing digitization.
Based on the analysis of the results, the following conclusions were formulated:
The level of trust in managers, in terms of not hindering work, openness in admitting mistakes, accepting responsibility, not forcing competition between employees, noticing employees’ incompetence, making reliable employee evaluations, taking consistent actions and having good intentions, is higher among micro-enterprise employees compared to medium-sized enterprise employees. The level of trust in managers, with regard to their sharing knowledge, maintaining discretion, treating employees equally, settling subordinates fairly, not being manipulated, noticing conflict situations, and refraining from gossip, is higher in micro-enterprise employees than in small and medium-sized enterprise employees. The level of trust in managers, in terms of their competence and keeping true to their declarations, is higher among employees of medium-sized enterprises than in employees of micro-enterprises. The level of trust in managers, in terms of the impact of discretion and clarity of communicated messages, is higher among employees of medium-sized enterprises than in employees of micro- and small enterprises.
The analysis of the obtained research results fills an epistemological gap regarding trust in managers. The research results presented here are an extension of the existing theoretical and definitional solutions. The collected research material shows that managerial staff should take actions aimed at building and maintaining a culture of trust in their organizations. Trust is a key foundation of any organization, and this becomes even more important in the context of digitization. In such a multidimensional process as building and maintaining the level of trust in an organization, the following elements turn out to be undoubtedly important:
Discretion Openness Clarity in communication with subordinate employees Honesty No competitive atmosphere Having good intentions Fair treatment of employees Fair settlement of employees for performed duties Fair employee evaluation
A trustworthy manager is a person who does not succumb to manipulation by other employees, and who notices conflicts and is able to manage them appropriately. A manager that employees can trust is also a manager who does not gossip about other employees.
The building and maintenance of trust in an organization with digitized management processes can be decisive for its success. Trust in managers in the digital era is a major factor significantly affecting employee commitment and productivity. Today’s organizations are undergoing a digital transformation; employees increasingly rely on digital technologies to carry out their tasks, and managers play a key role in building a trustworthy workplace. In a digital environment where interactions and data exchange take place online, building and maintaining trust is essential. Digital technologies demand greater accountability of superiors, which can potentially build trust. Despite privacy and data security concerns, the correct application and transparent use of digital tools and data can improve organizational decision-making.
The presented article identifies the leading indicators of trust in managers in SME-sector organizations undergoing digitalization, and this contributes to filling the theoretical knowledge gap in the discussed area. However, the presented study has some limitations. First, the analysis of the issue of trust in the organization focused only on the trust existing between co-workers and managers. It is worth expanding the examined issues to include trust between other parties, managers’ trust in their co-workers and employees’ trust in the organization. Secondly, the scope of research on the issue of trust in organizations was limited to employees of the SME sector in Poland. Research should be extended to organizations beyond the SME sector. Thirdly, due to the complexity of the digitization process for enterprises, the scope of issues addressed in this study has been limited to the reality in which organizations currently operate. The analysis of this issue should be extended to include knowledge about the level of advancement of the digitalization process in organizations. Fourth, the geographical scope of the research was limited mainly to the Silesian Voivodeship. It is worth extending the study to include data on other regions. Despite the existing limitations of the presented study, the results obtained indicate trends and tendencies that may constitute an impetus for further research in this direction.