Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Supervisor

｢지방정부연구｣ 제15권 제4호(2011 겨울) : 59～79

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

: Test of Its Mediating Effects

* First author

** Corresponding author

공공조직에 있어 상사신뢰의 영향 및 결과변인

: Mediating Regression Model을 이용한 상사신뢰의 매개효과 분석

Kim, Dae-Won*

Park, Cheol-Min**

상사에 대한 신뢰는 조직의 효과성을 확보하는 데 있어 중요 요인으로 널리 인정되고 있다. 조직적 맥락에서 신뢰의 중요성을 지지하는 경험적 연구들이 상당수 존재하지만, 특히 공공부문에서 상사 신뢰의 영향 및 결과변인에 초점을 맞춘 연구들이 그리 많지는 않다. 이 연구는 신뢰에 관한 선행연구들을 검토한 후 공공부문에서 상사(5급 이상 간주)에 대한 구성원들(6급 이하 간주)의 신뢰에 영향을 미치는 중요 영향 및 결과변인을 이론적으로 탐색하고 이를 검증하기 위한 분석모형을 제안하였다. 신뢰의 수준과 영향 및 결과변인을 확인하기 위해 부산지역(조직 Ⅰ/ 213명) 및 제주지역(조직 Ⅱ/ 186명)으로 부터 각각 경험적 자료를 수집하였다. 영향변인으로는 절차적 공정성, 조직지원인식, 직업적 안정성, 의사소통을, 결과변인으로는 감정몰입, 잔류몰입, 변화에 대한 냉소주의, 이직의도를 선정하였다. 이들 영향요인들이 신뢰에 미치는 영향력과 신뢰가 결과변인에 미치는 영향력을 측정하기 위해 일련의 회귀분석을 실시하였다. 특히 이 연구에서는 영향변인이 결과변인에 미치는 영향과정에서 신뢰의 매개효과도 함께 측정하였다. 분석결과, 절차적 공정성, 조직지원인식, 의사소통은 신뢰의 예측변인으로 나타났다. 그리고 신뢰는 감정몰입, 잔류몰입, 변화에 대한 냉소주의, 이직의도에 각각 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 나아가 신뢰는 앞서의 영향변인과 결과변인간의 관계를 부분적으로 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 이 연구는 공공부문에서 상사 신뢰를 진단하고 관리하는데 관심이 있는 인적자원관리자에게 유용한 정보를 제공할 것으로 판단되며, 특히 본 연구에서는 2개의 공공 조직을 연구대상으로 하여 상호 검증을 통해 분석결과의 엄밀성을 확보하였다는 점에서 연구 가치를 찾을 수 있다.

주제어 : 상사 신뢰, 선행 및 결과변인, 매개효과, 부산․제주지역

I. Introduction

The Issue of trust in organizational contexts has attracted increasing concerns in recent years (Clark and Payne, 1997; Hosmer, 1995; Mayer and Davis, 1999: Mayer et al., 1995; Tyler and Kramer, 1996). An entire issue of the Academy of Management Review (1998) was devoted to the topic, as was a chapter from a recent Annual Review of Psychology (Kramer, 1999). It appears that trust is increasingly being recognized as an important factor in determining organizational success, organizational stability and the well-being of employees (Cook and Wall, 1980; Shaw, 1997; Tyler and Kramer, 1996).

The increasing concerns in trust have emerged against the tendency of a general decline in the degree to which senior executives are perceived as trustworthy. Rogers argued that the psychological contract of trust that once existed between organizations and their employees ended with the business trends of the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. And that wide-spread perceptions of greed, short-term focus, and unethical leadership behavior have all contributed to a growing cynicism in the workplace (Kramer, 1999). Tyler and Kramer (1996) and Sheppard et al. (1992) have also argued that insensitive organizational practices and inappropriately high executive salaries have contributed to a generalized decline in trust in senior executives.

Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Supervisor

｢지방정부연구｣ 제15권 제4호(2011 겨울)

To enhance such perceptions, Rogers argued, senior executives need to place a high value on trust and then communicate that value to all employees in a way that conveys sincerity and commitment (1995). Horton and Reid (1991), Reynolds (1997), Shaw (1997) and Williams (2001), among many others, have argued that high levels of trust between senior executives and employees strengthen an organization's ability to remain competitiveness in globalized and competitive settings. Competitive advantage is assumed to accrue from reduced transaction costs, more effective communication, increased co-operation among organizational members and diminished resistance to change (Kramer, 1999).

In spite of the intuitive appeal of such arguments, until recently there has been little empirical research devoted to clarifying the dimensions and dynamics of trust in senior executives. This is certainly true with respect to public-sector senior executives. It is widely accepted that there has been radical and ongoing reform of the public sector in most Western countries over the past decade or so (Halligan and Power, 1992; Hughes, 1994; Pollitt, 1993). Hughes argued that public sectors of Western countries are undergoing major changes as governments try to respond to challenges of technological change, globalization, and international competition.

Recent years have seen wider-ranging reforms, which represent a paradigm shift from the traditional role of public administration (1994). Economic rationalism, restructuring, down-sizing and corporatization have become public-sector buzz-words. In response to these new challenges, new models of public-sector leadership have emerged. Senior executive competency standards suggest that leadership in the work environment, facilitating workforce effectiveness and building and maintaining relationships are critical to effective public-sector management. Within broader competency standards, fostering mutual trust and respect in the environment has been explicitly acknowledged as a key element of public-sector leadership effectiveness (PSMO, 1998). Given the claims that trust is central to public-sector leadership effectiveness, we argue that the general understanding of the construct needs to be firmly grounded in theory and supported by empirical research. Beyond anecdotal evidence, systematic research is needed to determine the antecedents and consequences of trust in public sector senior executives. A fully formed model, based on a thorough review of the organizational psychology and management literatures, which identifies both the antecedents and consequences of trust in public-sector, will enable the design of organizational interventions that take account of the complex multivariate relationships between relevant organizational factors.

Ⅱ. Literature Review and Model

Mayer et al. (1995) noted that research on trust in organizational contexts has been characterized by problems with the definition of trust itself. That is confusion between trust and its antecedents and outcomes, and lack of specificity of trust referents leading to confusion in levels of analysis. Conceptual and methodological limitations also characterize the limited research which has been conducted within public-sector. In studies by Carnevale and Wechsler (1992) and Nachmias (1985), for example, no clear rationale for the selection of trust items was provided, and alpha reliabilities for measures of trust were not reported.

In the present study, in order to redress some of these issues, we focus specifically on senior executives as the referent for trust, we clearly define and operationalize the construct of trust in senior executives and we propose a model which identifies potential antecedents and consequences of trust in senior management. Senior management, for our purposes, is defined by membership of an organization's strategic and operational executive. Here it means above the fifth grade public employees. The group would normally be comprised of the executive staffs, all of whom contribute directly to the organization's key strategic decisions.

1. Trust Defined

Trust has been defined as an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon (Rotter, 1967). Cook and Wall suggested that trust was the extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people (1980). Mishra argued that trust was one party's willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the latter party is (a) competent, (b) open, (c) concerned, and (d) reliable (1996).

Albrecht and Sevastos (2005, 2006) developed measures of trust and trustworthiness drawing from Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) theory of reasoned action and Rosenberg and Hovland's (I960) tripartite model of attitude structure. Consistent with Mayer et al.'s (1995) call for specificity in trust referents, the measures have a particular focus on senior management. For the present purposes, we define trust in senior executives as an employee's willingness to act on the basis of the words, actions, and decisions of senior executives under conditions of uncertainty or risk. Consistent with definitions previously offered by Mayer and Davis (1999). McAllister (1995), and Currall and Judge (1995), the definition posits willingness to act as a defining feature of trust. Beyond defining trust as a psychological state (Rousseau, 1998), the definition offers practical utility to human resource practitioners, organizational development consultants and senior executives in that it focuses on understanding what people are willing to do under conditions of uncertainty or risk.

We argue that conditions of uncertainty or risk are implicit in the relationship between employees and senior executives because senior executives reserves the power and authority to, at their discretion, significantly influence employment conditions. Even though public-sector executives may be somewhat more constrained in their discretionary powers than their private-sector counterparts. Especially, private -sector executives tend to take decisions about down-sizing and restructuring. Such decisions can have a profound impact on employees' health, well-being (Schweiger and De Nisi, 1991; Rousseau. 1998).

2. Antecedents and Consequences of Trust

Our review of the organizational psychology and management literatures suggested that factors antecedent to trust might include communication climate, job security, perceived organizational support and procedural justice. With respect to communication climate as an antecedent of trust, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) would suggest that, in general terms, trust can be developed through increasing the quantity and or quality of communication exchanges over time. Consistent with this view, and with a specific focus on organizational contexts, Whitener et al. (1998) argued that openness of communication is an important determinant of organizational trust. Studies by Butler (1991), Gilbert and Tang (1998), Mishra and Morrisey (1990), and Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) provided empirical evidence in support of the association between communication and trust. On the basis of this research we posited communication climate as a potential antecedent of trust in public-sector senior executives.

Perceived organizational support refers to the extent to which employees experience that they are valued by their organization and that the organization cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1990). The theoretical linkages with trust are, again, predicated on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) whereby employees who perceive good treatment by their organization, in return, reciprocate with positive attitudes and positive behaviors towards the organization. Tan and Tan (2000) provided indirect evidence that organizational support is a potential antecedent of trust in management by reporting that organizational support predicted organizational trust in samples consisting of both public and private sector employees.

With respect to job security as an antecedent of trust in public-sector senior executives, the psychological contract literature (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) would suggest that employees' feelings about job security will influence levels of organizational trust. Although public-sector employment conditions provide greater security of employment than those for private-sector employees, the significant restructuring and redundancy programmes undertaken in the public sector over the past two decades suggest that satisfaction with job and career security can potentially influence employee attitudes and behaviors. Carnevale and Wechsler argued that: "the decisions to trust the motives and intentions of organizational agents and to take risks in relation to the organization, derive in part from beliefs about job security. Individuals who are confident that their jobs are secure will be more likely to take risks and develop trusting attitudes than those who believe their jobs to be in some jeopardy (Carnevale and Wechsler, 1992: 478). For these reasons we included job security as a potential antecedent of trust in public-sector senior executives.

We also posited procedural justice as a potential antecedent of trust in public-sector executives. Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991), Konovsky and Pugh (1994) and Mayer and Davis (1999) have found that procedural justice is associated with organizational trust. These findings are consistent with Lind and Tyler's (1988) assertion that employee perceptions of fair treatment and fair processes leads to a generalized sense of positive regard towards management.

Further to our discussion of potential antecedents of trust, it needs to be noted that Mayer and Davis (1999) identified additional factors that directly influence trust in senior executives. These trustworthy factors, were integrity, benevolence and competence. Albrecht and Sevastos (2006) extended the set of trustworthy factors to include affective reactions to senior management and social norms. For this research however, in an attempt to identify more macro-level relationships between factors routinely reviewed in the organizational behavior and human resources management literatures. We focus on the more distal antecedents of trust in senior executives as described above.

Beyond looking at antecedents, it is important to understand potential consequences of trust in public-sector senior executives. Although there has been limited research addressing consequences of trust in senior management, our review of the literature suggested potential consequences of trust in senior executives might include organizational commitment, cynicism towards change and turnover intention. In brief, studies by Tan and Tan (2000) and Laschinger et al. (2000) suggested that trust influences affective and continuance commitment. Studies by Andersson and Bateman (|997), Butler (1999) and Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) suggested that attitudes towards change are a likely outcome of trust. The potential link between trust in senior executives and intention to turnover is also supported in the literature (Albrecht et al., 2002; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Mishra and Morrisey, 1990). On the basis of these previous research findings we proposed a tentative model (see Figure 1) that positions trust as a central factor to the way that employees experience aspects of organizational climate.

3. Analysis Model

In order to conduct a test of the model, we collected data from two public-sector organizations. The first organization sampled was City of Busan (Organization 1). The second organization was Province of Jeju (Organization 2).

Figure 1. Potential Model for Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Supervisor

Consequences

Antecedents

Trust

Procedural

Fairness

Job

Security

Organizational

Support

Communication

Affective

Commitment

Change

Cynicism

Continuance

Commitment

Turnover

Intention

Ⅲ. Methodology

1. Data Collection

The data for this study cover 2 local governments of Busan and Jeju. Prior to the actual collection of data, the requirements prompting the need to collect data have to be fully understood, as well as how and how much survey groups are selected must be identified, which will show the verification of the study. The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method. From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to collect data for the study.

The target population of this study included employees serving some local public organizations including in Busan and Jeju Province of Korea were used for testing above potential factors having an influence on trust. The sample size included all 399(organization 1= 213, organization 2= 186) employees of the target population. Data was collected through use of a written questionnaire hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox. The survey was carried out between March 2009 and June 2010, and the sample were resultingly returned for a return rate of 73.2% as organization 1, 68.4% as organization 2 respectively. In addition, demographic information such as employee age, tenure, gender, and education was also inquired for more accurate response to each variable on trust.

The survey subjects who have full-time and permanent appointments with their organizations were questioned to respond to survey questions using a 5 or 7 point Likert-type scale. Further information on the demographic characteristics is as displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample Traits

Items		Busan (n = 213)	Jeju (n = 186)
		Frequency(%)	Frequency(%)
Gender	Male	155(72.7)	144(77.5)
	Female	58(27.3)	42(22.5)
Age	Below 30	15(7.0)	15(8.3)
	31-40	111(51.9)	88(47.3)
	41-50	76(35.5)	73(39.3)
	Above 51	12(5.8)	9(5.1)
Tenure	Below 5	23(11.0)	16(8.6)
	6-10	58(27.0)	60(32.5)
	11-15	47(22.3)	47(25.3)
	16-20	39(18.2)	28(15.1)
	Above 21	46(21.5)	34(18.5)
Education	Below High School	39(18.1)	38(20.4)
	College	75(35.2)	66(35.7)
	University	85(40.0)	71(38.1)
	Graduate School	14(6.7)	11(5.8)

2. Measures

1) Trust

The primary variable of our research was trust in senior executives. Trust in senior management was assessed with a three-item scale developed by Albrecht and Sevastos (2005). The validity and reliability of the measure have been demonstrated in private and public-sector organizations using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equations modelling. Items included; 'I will act on the basis that senior management would honour any agreements made with employees', 'I will act on the basis that senior management will keep the promises they make to employees' and 'I will act on the basis that senior management would lead well under conditions of uncertainty'.

Response alternatives were anchored on a seven-point scale where I corresponded to 'extremely unlikely' and 7 corresponded to 'extremely likely'. Acceptable alpha reliabilities were obtained for organization 1 (a = 0.82) and for organization 2 (a = 0.82).

2) Antecedent Variables

The potential antecedent variables (as modelled in Figure 1) included procedural fairness, perceived organizational support, satisfaction with job security and communication effectiveness.

The measure of procedural fairness was adapted from existing measures (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Tsui et al., 1997). It measures the extent to which supervisors use fair and consistent standards to assess performance and the extent to which organizational processes which safeguard equity and fairness of rewards are in place. Items included; 'the process used to assess my performance is fair', 'my supervisor uses consistent standards when assessing my performance' and 'my performance ratings represent a fair and accurate picture of my job performance'. Employees responded on a five-point scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5). This three-item scale resulted in acceptable alpha reliability estimates in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.91; organization 2, a = 0.89).

Organizational support was calculated using a shortened version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS: Eisenberger et al., 1990). Employees responded to three questions on a seven-point scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (7). Items included; 'The organization is willing to help when I need a special favour', 'The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work' and 'The organization cares about my opinions'. Acceptable alpha reliability estimates were obtained in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.91; organization 2, a = 0.87).

Communication climate was measured with a five-item scale assessing the extent to  which employees feel informed of changes and developments within the organization. The items were drawn from Goldhaber et at. (1979). Items included; 'people are informed about the direction the organization is taking', 'people are kept up to date on developments that relate to future plans' and 'people are kept informed about changes within the workplace'. Responses were anchored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = 'strongly disagree' to 5 = 'strongly agree'. Acceptable alpha reliability coefficients were found in both samples (organization I. a = 0.92; organization 2, a = 0.90).

Satisfaction with job security was measured with a three-item scale adapted from Cook and Wall (1980). Items assessed satisfaction with; 'your job security', 'the prospects of your long-term employment with the organization' and 'your career path'. Response alternatives were anchored on a seven-point scale ranging from 'extremely dissatisfied' (1) to 'extremely satisfied' (7). Again, acceptable alpha reliability coefficients were found in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.75; organization 2, a = 0.81).

3) Consequence Variables

The four potential consequences of trust in senior management (as modelled in Figure 1) included affective commitment, continuance commitment, cynicism to change and intention to turnover.

Affective commitment was measured with a three-item scale adapted from Allen and Meyer (1990). Statistical analysis of questions addressing 'how it feels to be a part of this organization' resulted in acceptable alpha reliability coefficients in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.89; organization 2, a = 0.92). Response alternatives ranged from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (7). Items included; 'I feel emotionally attached to this organization'. 'I feel like part of the family at this organization' and 'I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization'.

Continuance commitment was measured with a three-item scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Continuance commitment assesses the extent to which employees stay in their organization because they perceive that they have few alternatives outside their organization or that too much of their life would be disrupted if they decided to leave. Again, a seven-point response scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (7) was used. Items included; 'I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization'. 'It is only the lack of opportunity elsewhere that keeps me working at the organization' and ' 'If I decided to leave this organization, too much of my life would be disrupted'. Alpha reliability coefficients were acceptable in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.81; organization 2, a = 0.83).

Cynicism towards change was measured with an three-item scale developed by Wanous et at. (2000). Employees were asked to indicate degree of agreement with change statements on a scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (7). Lower scores suggest less cynicism. Items included; 'suggestions on how to solve problems won't produce much real change', 'plans for future improvements won't amount to much' and 'people responsible for making things better around here don't know enough about what they are doing'. Acceptable alpha reliability coefficients were found in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.92; organization 2, a = 0.93).

Intention to turnover was measured with a three-item scale. Two of the items were drawn from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Seashore et at.. 1982) and one was drawn from Allen and Meyer's (1990) Continuance Commitment Scale. Response alternatives ranged from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (7). Higher scores suggest greater intention to resign. Items included; 'I often think about quitting', 'I will probably look for a new job within the year' and 'Sometimes I feel like leaving this organization for good'. Acceptable alpha reliability coefficients were found in both samples (organization 1, a = 0.83; organization 2, a = 0.84).

Table 2. Items of Variable

Variables	Items
Trust	- I will act on the basis that senior management would honour any agreements made with employees. - I will act on the basis that senior management will keep the promises they make to employees. - I will act on the basis that senior management would lead well under conditions of uncertainty.
Procedural Fairness	- The process used to assess my performance is fair. - My supervisor uses consistent standards when assessing my performance. - My performance ratings represent a fair and accurate picture of my job performance.
Organizational Support	- The organization is willing to help when I need a special favour. - The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. - The organization cares about my opinions.
Communication	- People are informed about the direction the organization is taking. - People are kept up to date on developments that relate to future plans. - People are kept informed about changes within the workplace.
Satisfaction with Job Security	- Satisfaction with your job security. - Satisfaction with the prospects of your long-term employment with the organization. - Satisfaction with your career path.
Affective Commitment	- I feel emotionally attached to this organization. - I feel like part of the family at this organization. - I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization.
Continuance Commitment	- I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. - It is only the lack of opportunity elsewhere that keeps me working at the organization. - If I decided to leave this organization, too much of my life would be disrupted.
Cynicism towards Change	- Suggestions on how to solve problems won't produce much real change. - Plans for future improvements won't amount to much. - People responsible for making things better around here don't know enough about what they are doing.
Intention to Turnover	- I often think about quitting. - I will probably look for a new job within the year. - Sometimes I feel like leaving this organization for good.

3. Analyses

As a first step in the analyses, descriptive statistics were generated for all variables of this study. Next, in order to make an initial assessment of the strength and direction of the relationships between trust in senior executives and its potential antecedents and consequences, correlation matrices were computed for both samples. Multiple regression analyses were then conducted on both data sets to determine the extent to which each of the hypothesized antecedent variables explained unique variance in trust in senior executives. Regression analyses were also conducted to determine the extent to which trust in senior management explained variance in each of the four posited outcome or consequence variables. The influences of age, tenure, and personality(negative affectivity) were considered in all regression analyses.

The proposed model (see Figure 1) shows trust mediating the relationship between the antecedent and the outcome variables. Trust was thus posited to serve as the mechanism through which the antecedents influence the outcomes. Mediation effects are evidenced under three conditions (Baron and Kenny, 1986; James and Brett, 1984). First, the antecedent variables must be shown to have an effect on the proposed mediator. Second, the antecedent variables and the proposed mediator, when considered separately, should both have an effect on the outcome variables. Third, the effects of the antecedent variables on the outcome variables should disappear or be diminished when the effect of the mediator is simultaneously considered. Therefore, in addition to the analyses previously described, regression analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which the antecedent variables explained variance in each of the outcome variables, independent of the influence of trust. Finally, a series of regression analyses were conducted, again in both samples, to determine the extent to which the inclusion of trust in senior management mitigated the effects of the four antecedent variables on the outcome variables. As with previous analyses, the influences of age, tenure and negative affectivity were considered in all regression analyses.

Ⅳ. Empirical Results

1. Means and Standard Deviations

Mean scores and standard deviations for measures of trust in senior executives and the antecedent and consequence variables as derived from both samples are shown in Table 3. Overall, the data show that levels of trust in senior management were similar across both public-sector organizations. Consistent with previous studies (Nachmias, 1985) the scores correspond to an overall assessment of trust falling between 'neither agree nor disagree' and 'slightly agree'. Scores for the full set of variables were generally close to their scale mid-points.

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Trust and Consequence Variables in both Samples

Measure	Possible range	Organization 1 n = 213	Organization 2 n = 186
		Mean (S.D)	Mean (S.D)
Trust in senior executives	1-7	4.3(1.35)	4.4(1.26)
Antecedent variables
Communication	1-5	2.5(0.92)	2.7(0.81)
Procedural fairness	1-5	2.7(0.79)	2.9(0.72)
Organizational support	1-7	3.9(1.30)	4.0(1.13)
Satisfaction with job security	1-7	4.0(1.42)	3.5(1.45)
Consequence variables
Affective commitment	1-7	4.1(1.41)	3.9(1.41)
Continuance commitment	1-7	3.3(1.15)	3.8(1.11)
Cynicism to change	1-7	3.6(1.32)	3.5(1.26)
Intention to turnover	1-7	3.2(1.84)	3.1(1.71)

2. Correlation Analysis

Correlations between trust in senior executives and the proposed antecedent and consequence variables for both samples are shown in Table 4. Consistent with the proposed model, the correlations involving trust in senior management (represented in bold) suggest that trust in senior management has relatively strong associations with each of the antecedent and consequence factors. In organization 1 the correlations ranged from r = 0.26 for satisfaction with job security to r = -0.54 for cynicism towards change. In organization 2 the correlations ranged from r = -0.28 for continuance commitment to r = 0.53 for communication climate.

Table 4. Correlations between Trust, Antecedent and Consequence Variables for Organization 1(below the diagonal) and Organization 2(above the diagonal)

Items	1	2	3	4
	T	C	PF	OS
1. Trust (T)	-	.53**	.49**	.44**
2. Communication (C)	.49**	-	.57**	.51**
3. Procedural fairness (PF)	.53*	.60**	-	.22**
4. Organizational support (OS)	.53**	.58**	.64**	-
5. Job security (Sec)	.24**	.38**	.50**	.51**
6. Affective commitment (AC)	.33**	.30**	.30**	.38**
7. Continuance commitment (CC)	-.32**	-.16**	-.34**	-.31**
8. Change cynicism (Cyn)	-.54**	-.45**	-.60**	-.59**
9. Turnover intention (ITO)	-.40**	-.41**	-.52**	-.48**

Items	5	6	7	8	9
	Sec	AC	CC	Cyn	ITO
1. Trust (T)	.39**	.41**	-.26**	-.51**	-.33**
2. Communication (C)	.39**	.22**	-.59**	-.40**	-.36**
3. Procedural fairness (PF)	.38**	.44**	-.26**	-.54**	-.37**
4. Organizational support (OS)	.47**	.46**	-.23**	-.40**	-.36**
5. Job security (Sec)	-	.28**	-.28**	-.40**	-.36**
6. Affective commitment (AC)	.22**	-	-.11ns	-.42**	-.52**
7. Continuance commitment (CC)	-.18**	-.05ns	-	.35**	.16**
8. Change cynicism (Cyn)	-.40**	-.36**	.37**	-	.43**
9. Turnover intention (ITO)	-.42**	-.46**	.25**	.49**	-

Note: ** = significant at p < .01 (2-tailed); ns = not significant.

3. Regression Analyses

Table 5. Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Influence of Antecedents on

(1) Trust and (2) Potential Consequences for Organization 1 and Organization 2

Antecedents	Trust		Consequences
			Affective commitment		Continuance commitment
	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2
Column	2	3	4	5	6	7
Age	ns	ns	.18**	ns	.15**	ns
Tenure	ns	ns	.20***	.10*	.29***	.15***
Negative affect	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Communication	.14*	.27**	.13*	.20***	ns	ns
Proc. fairness	.23*	.17**	ns	.14*	-.19*	ns
Org. support	.24**	.14**	.38***	.26***	ns	ns
Job security	ns	.11*	ns	ns	ns	-.13*
Mult. R	.59***	.60***	.52***	.55***	.58***	.39***
Adj R2	.34	.35	.25	.30	.32	.11

Antecedents	Consequences
	Change cynicism		Intention to turnover
	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2
Column	8	9	10	11
Age	ns	ns	ns	-.8**
Tenure	ns	ns	ns	ns
Negative affect	ns	.9*	.29***	.19*
Communication	ns	-.28***	ns	.12*
Proc. fairness	-.29***	-.16**	-.9*	-.13*
Org. support	-.26***	-.13**	ns	-.21**
Job security	-.11*	ns	ns	ns
Mult. R	.63***	.61***	.61***	.53**
Adj R2	.39	.37	.36	.27

Note: * = significant at p < .05; ** = significant at p < .01; *** = significant at p < .001; ns = not significant.

Standardized regression analyses were conducted to ascertain the unique influence of the antecedent variables on trust in senior executives. Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5 show that, consistent with model expectations, communication, procedural justice and organizational support influenced trust in senior management in both samples. These effects were evidenced after controlling for the effects of age, tenure and negative affectivity. Satisfaction with job security predicted trust in senior executives in only one of the samples. Collectively, the antecedent variables accounted for 34 per cent of the variance in trust in senior executives in organization 1 and 35 per cent of the variance in organization 2. As with all subsequent regression analyses, the figures in Table 5 are standardized beta weights, statistically significant predictors are indicated with an asterisk and non-significant beta weights are represented by 'ns'.

As part of the test of the mediating effects of trust, the influence of each antecedent variable on each outcome variable, independent of the effects of trust, was assessed (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Columns 4-11 of Table 3 show that communication and organizational support influenced affective commitment in both samples, procedural justice and organizational support influenced cynicism towards change in both samples and procedural justice influenced intention to turnover in both samples. Satisfaction with job security did not have a consistent effect on any of the outcome variables across both samples.

Table 6. Regression Analyses Testing the Direct Influence of Trust on Potential Consequences for Organization 1 and Organization 2

Antecedents	Consequences
	Affective commitment		Continuance commitment		Change cynicism		Intention to turnover
	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2
Age	.19**	ns	.20**	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Tenure	.18**	ns	.26***	.17***	ns	.09*	ns	ns
Negative affect	ns	ns	.12*	.9*	.13**	.15***	.38***	.25***
Trust	.41***	.42***	-.26***	-.25***	-.48***	-.48***	-.28***	-.30***
Mult. R	.51***	.45***	.57***	.38***	.54***	.55***	.53***	.44***
Adj R2	.25	.19	.32	.13	.29	.29	.27	.18

Note: * = significant at p < .05; ** = significant at p < .01; *** = significant at p < .001; ns = not significant.

As reported in Table 6, and again consistent with model predictions, trust in senior executives was found to influence directly affective commitment, continuance commitment, cynicism towards change and intention to turnover in both samples. These effects, calculated independently of the effects of the antecedent variables, were evidenced after controlling for the effects of age, tenure and negative affectivity.

Table 7. Regression Analyses Testing the Combined Effects of the Antecedents and Trust on four Potential Consequences for Organization 1 and Organization 2

Antecedents	Consequences
	Affective commitment		Continuance commitment		Change cynicism		Intention to turnover
	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2	Org. 1	Org. 2
Age	.16**	ns	.16**	ns	ns	ns	ns	-8.*
Tenure	.23***	.9*	.27***	.15***	ns	ns	ns	-.8*
Negative affect	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	.8*	.28***	.18***
Communication	ns	.16**	.14*	ns	ns	-.21***	ns	-.11*
Proc. fairness	ns	ns	ns	ns	-.22**	-.12*	-.16*	-.12*
Org. support	.31***	.23***	ns	ns	-.18*	-.8*	ns	-.19***
Job security	ns	ns	ns	-.10*	-.15**	ns	ns	ns
Trust	.25***	.16**	-.19**	-.15**	-.28***	-.21**	ns	ns
Mult. R	.56***	.57***	.60**	.41***	.67***	.63***	.62***	.54***
Adj R2	.29	.32	.34	.14	.44	.39	.36	.28

Table 7 shows that, where both the antecedents and the mediator variable (trust) were considered simultaneously, trust in senior executives had a direct influence on affective commitment, continuance commitment and change cynicism. The influence of trust on turnover intention disappeared in the presence of the antecedent variables. Table 7 also shows that the antecedents that influenced the consequences in the absence of trust (as shown in Table 6) still directly influenced the consequences when trust was also considered. The evidence is therefore not in support of trust completely mediating the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences (James and Brett, 1984). Rather, given the modest reductions in the relevant beta coefficients, the evidence supports consideration of a partial mediation model, whereby the antecedents influence the consequences directly and, to some extent, indirectly through the development of trust.

Ⅴ. Discussions

On the basis of data derived from two public-sector organizations we have tested a model which specified potential antecedents and consequences of trust in senior executives. Building on previous research (Albrecht and Sevastos, 2005; Mayer and Davis, 1999) our results suggest that trust in public-sector senior executives can be reliably measured and that employees are able to distinguish trust in public-sector senior management from alternative organizational factors such as procedural fairness and commitment. Consistent with previous research (Carnevale and Wechsler, 1992; Laschinger et al., 2000) we also provided evidence that levels of trust in public-sector senior executives are not high.

Our results showed that situational rather than demographic factors are the most important determinants of trust. An open climate of communication, fairness and equity in organizational policies and procedures, perceived organizational support and satisfaction with job and career security were found to be significant determinants of trust. Carnevale and Wechsler (1992) drew similar conclusions, arguing that, in order for employees to trust their organization, they must be confident that the organization, and especially its agents, will allow open communication and the opportunity to participate, that they will be dealt with fairly, and that they will be given support. At a practical level, it is noteworthy that these influential antecedent factors fall within the purview and control of human resource policy makers and practitioners. Human resource managers, for example, could exert an influence on organizational trust by helping to establish and maintain performance management and promotion processes which are perceived by employees to be fair and equitable. They could also set up communication systems and conduct communication (Goldhaber, 1993) so that senior executives can communicate with employees in a form which is perceived by employees to be relevant and timely. Our results also showed that trust influences important organizational outcomes. Trust in senior management was shown to influence the extent to which employees feel emotionally committed to their organization, the extent to which employees are cynical towards change and the extent and conditions under which employees intend to remain in the employ of the organization. There are many practical implications to be drawn from these findings. Clearly, senior executives, who have the ultimate responsibility for initiating and managing change, will be interested to know that by managing trust they can influence the extent to which employees will be positively or negatively predisposed towards change. By assisting senior executives to manage trust relations within their organizations, human resource managers can thus contribute to developing a public-sector workforce, which is more committed and which is more positively predisposed towards organizational change.

So overall, despite the mediating effects of trust not being fully evidenced, practitioners can use our model to frame and focus organizational assessments and interventions. Collectively, the full set of predictor variables accounted for significant amounts of variance in the four important organizational outcome variables. Human resource practitioners can use the model to target potential levers to develop trust which in turn can be used to influence organizational commitment, attitudes to change and turnover intentions. In order to diagnose and monitor levels of trust we recommend that human resource professionals routinely conduct organizational climate surveys which include the variables used in this study. Survey feedback processes (Golombiewski and Hilles, 1979) can then be used to involve employees in developing strategies aimed at developing levels of trust in senior executives.

Given the preliminary nature of this study, further research needs to be conducted on the model. Additional antecedent constructs that might usefully be included in the model include psychological contract breach (Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Rousseau, 1990) and distributive justice (Price and Mueller, 1986). We would also speculate that organizational politics (Kacmar and Ferris, 1991) might be a salient predictor of trust in the public-sector domain.

Additional consequences which might be considered include organizational citizenship behavior and absence. Robinson and Morrison (1995) reported that trust partly mediated the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational citizenship behavior. Firns et al. (1997) reported that trust influences absence behavior. We would advocate the use of structural equations modelling methods within longitudinal designs to test these potential relationships and to identify more clearly directions of causality. Gender differences, differences between management and non-management employees and the influence of organizational level on trust might also usefully be researched. Public-sector environments continue to go through fundamental change. Given that trust appears to be a critical factor in determining employee attitudes to change, we would argue that the central role played by trust should be more widely acknowledged. Increasingly, the ability of any organization to succeed in meeting its objectives depends to a large extent on the formation and development of trusting relations between all employees.

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Albrecht, S.L. and Sevastos, P.P. (2005) Measures of Trust in Senior Management. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 72: 38-56.

Albrecht, S.L. and Sevastos, P.P. (2006) Dimensions and Structure of Trust and Trustworthiness in Senior Management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36: 72-89.

Albrecht, S.L.. Savery, L.K.. Firns, I.G.J. A. (2002) Trust in Senior Managers: The Effects on Other Organizational Attitudes and Absenteeism and Labour Turnover Outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 27: 115-36.

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63: 1-18.

Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. (1997) Cynicism in the Workplace: Some Causes and Effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 18: 449-69.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The Moderator-Mediator Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-82.

Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Butler, J.K. (f991) Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory. Journal of Management. 17: 643-63.

Butler, J.K. (1999) Toward Expectations. Information Sharing, Climate of Trust, and Negotiation Effectiveness and Efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24: 217-38.

Carnevale, D.G. and Wechsler, B. (1992) Trust in the Public Sector: Individual and Organizational Determinants. Administration & Society. 23(4): 471-94.

Christiansen, N.D.. Lovejoy, M.C. Szynmanski, J. and Lango, A. (1996) Evaluating the Structural Validity of Measures of Hierarchical Models: An Illustrative Example Using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Educational & Psychological Measurement. 56: 600-25.

Clark, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997) The Nature and Structure of Workers' Trust in Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 18: 205-24.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980) New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational  Commitment and Personal Need Non-Fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 53: 39-52.

Currall, S.C. and Judge, T.A. (1995) Measuring Trust between Organizational Boundary Role Persons. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 64: 151-70.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990) Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence. Commitment and Innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75: 51-9.

Fairholm, G.W. (1994) Leadership and the Culture of Trust. Westport. CT: Praeger.

Firns, I., Savery, L.. Albrecht, S. and Travaglione, A. (1997) Regard for Senior Managers and its Impact on Attitudes. Absenteeism and Labour Turnover. In Armistead. C. and Kiely. J. (eds) Effective Organization: Looking to the Future. London: Cassell.

Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. (1989) Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal. 32: 115-30.

Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, L.P.T. (1998) An Examination of Organizational Trust Antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27(3): 321-5.

Gilmore, T.N.. Shea, G.P. and Useem, M. (1997) Side Effects of Corporate Cultural Transformations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33: 174-89.

Goldhaber, G.M. (1993) Organizational Communication. 6th ed. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Goldhaber, G.M.. Dennis, H.S., Richetto, G.M. and Wiio, O. (1979) Information Strategies: New Pathways to Corporate Power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Golembiewski, R.T. and Hilles, R.J. (1979) Toward the Responsive Organization: The Theory and Practice of Survey Feedback. Salt Lake City, UT: Brighton.

Halligan, J. and Power, J. (1992) Political Management in the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horton, T.R. and Reid, P.C. (1991) Beyond the Trust Gap: Forging a New Partnership Between Managers and their Employees. Homewood. IL: Irwin.

Hosmer, L.T. (1995) Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 379-403.

Hughes, O.E. (1994) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. New York: St Martin's Press.

James, L.R. and Brett, J.M. (1984) Mediators, Moderators and Tests for Mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2): 307-21.

Kacmar, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (1991) Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and Construct Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51: 193-205.

Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991) Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:698-707.

Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S. (1994) Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656-69.

Kramer, R. (1999) Trust and Distrust: Emerging Questions, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569-91.

Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Casier, S. (2000) Organizational Trust and Empowerment in Restructured Healthcare Settings. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30(9): 413-25.

Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology cf Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Books.

McAllister, D.J. (1995) Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24-59.

Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999) The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123-36.

Mayer, R.C, Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20; 709-34.

Mishra, A.K. (1996) Organizational Response to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (eds). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishra, A. and Morrisey, M.A. (1990) Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships: A Survey of West Michigan Managers. Public Personnel Management, 19(4): 443-61.

Murphy, K.R. and Saal, F.E. (1990) What Should We Expect from Scientist-Practitioners? In Murphy, K.R. and Saal, F.E. (eds). Psychology in Organizations.: Integrating Science and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Eribaum.

Nachmias, D (1985) Determinants of Trust within the Federal Bureaucracy. In Rosenbloom, D.H. (ed.) Public Personnel Policy: The Politics of Civil Service. Port Washington. NY: Associated Faculty Press.

Nelson, A.. Cooper, C.L. and Jackson, P.R. (1995) Uncertainty amidst Change: The Impact of Privatization on Employee Job Satisfaction and Well-Being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68: 57-71.

O'Neill, H..VI. and Lenn, D.J. (1995) Voices of Survivors: Words that Downsizing CEOs Should Hear. Academy of Management Executive. 9: 23-.14.

Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s.' Oxford: Blackwell.

Price, J.C. and Mueller. C.W. (1986) Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Marshfield Pitnam.

PSMO (I99K) Executive Competency Framework. Western Australia. Western Australian Government Printers.

Reynolds, L. (1997) The Trust Effect: Creating the High Trust High Performance Organization. London: Nicholas Brealev.

Roberts, K.H. and O'Reilly, CA. (1974) Measuring Organizational Communication. Journal of Applied Psychology. 59: 321-6.

Robinson, S.L. und Morrison, E.W. (1995) Psychological Contracts and OCB: The Effect of Unfulfilled Obligations on Civic Virtue Behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 19: 289-98.

Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994) Violating the Psychological Contract: Not the Exception but the Norm. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 15: 245-59.

Rogers, R.W. (1995) The Psychological Contract of Trust: Part I. Executive Development. 8(1); 15-19.

Rosenberg, M.J. and Hovland, Cl. (I960) Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Components of Attitude. In Rosenberg. M.J.. Hovland. CI., McGuire, W.J.. Abelson. R.P. and Brehm. J.W (eds) Attitude, Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press.

Rotter, J.B. (1967) A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust. Journal of Personality. 35: 651-5.

Rousseau, D.M. (1990) New Hire Perceptions of their Own and their Employer's Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 11: 489-400.

Rousseau, D.M. (1998) Why Workers Still Identify with Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 19: 217-33.

Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999) What's a Good Reason to Change? Motivated Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84: 514-28.

Schweiger, D.M. und De Nisi, A.S. (1991) Communication with Employees Following a Merger. A Longitudinal Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal. 34: 110-35.

Seashore, S.E. Lawler, E.E.. Mirvis, P. and Cammann, C (eds) (1982) Observing and Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice. New York: Wiley.

Shaw, R.B. (1997) Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results. Integrity und Concern. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sheppard, B.H.. Lewicki, R.J. and Minton, J.W. (1992) Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

Tun, H.H. and Tun, C.S.F. (2000) Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in Organization. Generic. Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2): 241-60.

Tsui, A.S.. Pearce, J.L.. Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997) Alternative Approaches to the Employee-Organization Relationship: Does Investment in People Pay Off. Academy of Management Journal. 40: 1089-121.

Tyler, T.R. and Kramer, R.M. (1996) Whither Trust? In Kramer. R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers af Theory and Research. London: Sage.

Wanous, J.P.. Reichers, A.H. and Austin, J.T. (2000) Cynicism about Organizational Change: Measurement, Antecedents, and Correlates. Group & Organization Management. 25: 1.12-5.1.

Whitener, E.M.. Brodt, S.E.. Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998) Managers us Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behaviour. Academy of Management Review. 23: 513-30.

Williams, M. (2001) In Whom We Trust: Group Membership as an Affective Context for Trust Development. Academy of Management Review. 26(3): 377-96

김대원(金大源): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 지방세 수입예측 모형, 1991)를 취득하고, 현재 신라대학교 보건행정학과 교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리론, 지방재정론, 재무행정론 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Public Sector”(2011), “An Empirical Analysis on the Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Motivation in School Organization“(2010), “The Impact of Pay for Performance System and the Like on Employees' Motivation“(2009) 등이 있다. 주요 저서로는 ｢지방재정제도의 이론과 실제｣(공저, 2002), ｢행정학원론｣(공저, 2004) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: dwkim@silla.ac.kr / 논문접수일: 2011. 10. 15 / 심사개시일: 2011. 10. 22 / 심사완료일: 2011. 12. 04>

박철민(朴喆敏): 경북대학교에서 행정학 박사학위(논문: 공․사조직의 조직몰입 영향변인 및 결과변인 비교, 2002)를 취득하고, (재)부산인적자원개발원 연구위원을 거쳐, 현재 제주국제대학교 사회복지학과 조교수로 재직하고 있다. 주요 관심분야는 조직관리, 인적자원개발, 복지행정 등이며, 주요 논문으로는 “The Effect of Transformational Leadership and Perceived Organizational Support on Organizational Citizenship Behavior”(2011), "Preferences on the Merit Pay System in the Public Agency"(2010), “The Impact of Eustress and Distress Predictors on the Health of Leaders in Local Government”(2009) 등이 있다.

<E-mail: cmpark@jeju.ac.kr>