INTRODUCTION
The importance of trust-based relationships within organizations has been notable for decades (McCauley & Kuhnert, Reference McCauley and Kuhnert1992). Since the mid-1990s, the construct trust has been positioned as the basis for the quality of interpersonal relationships and a source of competitive advantage for organizations (Tan & Lim, Reference Tan and Lim2009). Trust between people and groups within organizations has been highlighted as a very important ingredient for being able to achieve long-term stability in the organization and the welfare of its members (Cook & Wall, Reference Cook and Wall1980). Recently, Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, and Jia (Reference Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li and Jia2008) have stated that trust is an essential element in any positive and productive social process. Ultimately, the literature has suggested that organizational trust is necessary for the proper operation of organizations (Arrow, Reference Arrow1974; Gulati & Nickerson, Reference Gulati and Nickerson2008).
Along these lines, various studies show the existence of a positive relationship between trust and performance (e.g., Rich, Reference Rich1997; Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, 2000; Mayer & Gavin, 2005). However, other studies show no significant relationships (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, Reference Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone1998; Dirks, Reference Dirks1999) and even a negative relationship (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, Reference McEvily, Perrone and Zaheer2003; Krishnan, Martin, & Noorderhaven, Reference Krishnan, Martin and Noorderhaven2006). The empirical evidence on the effect of trust on performance has therefore led to contradictory conclusions (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Katsikeas, Skarmeas, & Bello, Reference Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello2009; Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur, & Schmid, Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011) requiring further in-depth studies (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Dyer & Chu, Reference Dyer and Chu2011; Gaur et al., Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011).
Because of this, some authors have suggested the need to introduce certain variables giving us a better understanding of the relationship (Patzelt & Shepherd, Reference Patzelt and Shepherd2008; Dyer & Chu, Reference Dyer and Chu2011; Gaur et al., Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011). Trust has often been identified as a variable affecting organizational learning (Davenport & Prusak, Reference Davenport and Prusak1998; Dymock, Reference Dymock2003; Hoe, Reference Hoe2007). Hoe (Reference Hoe2007) states that, if there is no trust, employees tend to become defensive about their actions owing to the fact that each action needs to be justified and supported by objective information, which inhibits organizational learning (Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, Reference Costigan, Ilter and Berman1998). Hoe (Reference Hoe2007) also points out that interpersonal trust is essential for the success of organizational learning. Along these lines, Song, Kim, and Kolb (Reference Song, Kim and Kolb2009) maintain that a high level of interpersonal trust promotes the exchange of knowledge and the desire to take part in cooperative practices. It could therefore increase the richness of the organizational continuous learning process. Finally, Lagrosen and Lagrosen (Reference Lagrosen and Lagrosen2012) conclude that trust must be a previous requirement for being able to achieve effective organizational learning. It therefore seems reasonable to consider that organizational learning capability could be introduced into the study of the relationship between trust and organizational performance.
According to Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995), trust can be defined as the desire to be vulnerable toward the other party when that party cannot be controlled or monitored. This definition explicitly recognizes the relationship between trust and risk, as making oneself vulnerable involves a risk (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995; Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005). So, trust has been associated with certain actions or behaviors involving risk (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995; Dirks & Ferrin, Reference Dirks and Ferrin2001), which appears to be implicit in learning, above all, generative learning (Chiva, Grandío, & Alegre, Reference Chiva, Grandío and Alegre2010). In turn, organizational learning capability and the factors facilitating it have been shown to have a positive effect on organizational performance (e.g., Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, Reference Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente and Valle-Cabrera2005; Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). It follows, then, that organizational learning capability could mediate the relationship between trust and performance.
The aim of this research is, therefore, to offer a better understanding of how trust affects organizational performance through organizational learning capability. Despite the growing theoretical importance being acquired by concepts such as trust and organizational learning capability, there is no empirical evidence showing how these variables are simultaneously related to organizational performance. To examine this gap in the research, we have carried out a quantitative analysis of a sample of Spanish firms with recognized excellence in human resources management.
After this introduction we make a brief review of the concept of organizational trust and review the theory of relations between the constructs of this research, putting forward its hypotheses and a theoretical model. We then explain the methodology used in this research. Finally, we give the results and draw conclusions, profiling the implications and limitations of our study and proposals for future research.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
Organizational trust
The study of organizational trust and trust in organizations has been acquiring growing importance over the last few years, which is reflected in the recent reviews and compilations published (e.g., Tan & Lim, Reference Tan and Lim2009; Cook & Schilke, Reference Cook and Schilke2010; Kramer & Lewicki, Reference Kramer and Lewicki2010), largely owing to the benefits it generates in organizations (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Hurley, Reference Hurley2006; Kath, Magley, & Marmet, Reference Kath, Magley and Marmet2010). Attempting to integrate all essential components based on the different approaches used to investigate trust in organizations, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995: 712) define organizational trust as ‘the willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.’ Trust therefore involves the willingness to be vulnerable and take a risk concerning the possibility that the other party will not live up to the expectations of this benevolent behavior (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, Reference Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis and Winograd2000; Lämsä & Pucetaite, Reference Lämsä and Pucetaite2006).
Organizational trust has been described as a multidimensional variable that can be lateral or vertical (Fox, Reference Fox1974; McCauley & Kuhnert, Reference McCauley and Kuhnert1992; Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, Reference Costigan, Ilter and Berman1998). According to McCauley and Kuhnert (Reference McCauley and Kuhnert1992), lateral trust refers to the trust that can exist between workmates or equals sharing a similar employment position. The term vertical refers to trust between workers and their immediate superiors, their subordinates, top management, or organizations as a whole (McCauley & Kuhnert, Reference McCauley and Kuhnert1992). Thus, organizational trust includes both types of trust in the organization. Despite this, there are other kinds of trust in organizations, aside from organizational trust, such as inter-organizational trust (Davenport, Davies, & Grimes, Reference Davenport, Davies and Grimes1999; Bell, Oppenheimer, & Bastien, Reference Bell, Oppenheimer and Bastien2002), although they will not be developed in this study. In this study organizational trust refers to trust between employees working together or depending on each other, trust between supervisors and their subordinates, and trust to the organization as a whole.
It is widely acknowledged that trust arises through distinct psychological processes (Lewis & Weigert, Reference Lewis and Weigert1985; Zucker, Reference Zucker1986; McAllister, Reference McAllister1995; Lewicki & Bunker, Reference Lewicki and Bunker1996; Kramer, Reference Kramer1999). Interpersonal trust has an affective base and a cognitive base (Lewis & Weigert, Reference Lewis and Weigert1985; McAllister, Reference McAllister1995). The rational decision to trust the other party involves the cognitive base of trust. This decision is based on qualities such as responsibility, dependability, and competence, and puts the other party's trustworthiness to the test (Lewis & Weigert, Reference Lewis and Weigert1985; Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, Reference Costigan, Ilter and Berman1998).
Affect-based trust is grounded in the emotional links between individuals (Lewis & Weigert, Reference Lewis and Weigert1985). When this type of trust relationship arises, we are emotionally involved, we show sincere interest and concern for others, we believe in the intrinsic virtue of these relationships, and that these feelings will be reciprocated (McAllister, Reference McAllister1995).
On the other hand, the model developed by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995) is also a widely accepted explanation of the process by which one party develops trust toward another. These authors propose three major factors that influence perceived trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ability-based trust corresponds to ‘cognitive trust,’ which emphasizes the importance of a person's competence or expertise in certain areas in the process of trust building. Benevolence refers to the extent to which the trustee is perceived to want to do good to the trustor, aside from selfish motives. Finally, integrity refers to the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable. Once employees are willing to make themselves vulnerable to others (their co-workers, immediate superiors, subordinates, top management, or the organization as a whole) they are more likely to engage in behavioral manifestations of trust.
Organizational trust and performance: A case of mediation or organizational learning capability
The majority of the literature seems to agree that organizational trust has important benefits for organizations, implying that it promotes organizational success (e.g., Argyris, Reference Argyris1964; Zand, Reference Zand1972; Scott, Reference Scott1980; Gambetta, Reference Gambetta1988). Organizational trust can be an essential factor in improving business performance and a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Barney & Hansen, Reference Barney and Hansen1994). A firm's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global and turbulent market may hinge on its ability to build trusting relationships (Huff & Kelley, Reference Huff and Kelley2003), since advantages accrue to organizations that foster an internal climate of trust (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, Reference Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis and Winograd2000). Organizational trust is often perceived to be as the ‘lubrication’ that makes it possible for organizations to work (Bennis & Nanus, Reference Bennis and Nanus1985), an integrative mechanism creating and sustaining social systems (Blau, Reference Blau1964; Barber, Reference Barber1983), and the source of increased efficiency and effectiveness (Zand, Reference Zand1972; Golembiewski & McConkie, Reference Golembiewski and McConkie1975; Culbert & McDonough, Reference Culbert and McDonough1986).
In addition, a climate of mistrust within the firm results in lower product or service quality, satisfaction, and subsequent loyalty (Johnson & Auh, Reference Johnson and Auh1998). In contrast, higher levels of organizational trust are linked with improved customer loyalty (Sonnenberg, Reference Sonnenberg1994). Trust in organizational settings results in more positive attitudes (Dirks & Ferrin, Reference Dirks and Ferrin2001) such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Nyhan & Marlowe, Reference Nyhan and Marlowe1997). Generally, positive employee attitudes toward work also positively affect customer satisfaction (Morrison, Reference Morrison1995; Rucci, Kirn, & Quinn, Reference Rucci, Kirn and Quinn1997; Backhaus & Tikoo, Reference Backhaus and Tikoo2004). Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger (Reference Heskett, Sasser and Schlesinger1997) found that employees’ attitudes toward their company and their jobs lead to positive employee behaviors toward customers. They call this phenomenon the service profit chain, proposing that worker capability, job satisfaction, and commitment are linked to customers’ perceptions of value. That value perception would lead to customer satisfaction and loyalty (Koys, Reference Koys2001).
Although the literature appears to recognize that trust is a variable positively affecting organizational performance (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, Reference Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone1998; Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, Reference Davis, Schoorman, Mayer and Tan2000; Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Salamon & Robinson, Reference Salamon and Robinson2008; Gilbert, Halliday, Heavey, & Murphy, Reference Gilbert, Halliday, Heavey and Murphy2011), the empirical evidence that has analyzed the effect of trust on organizational performance has generated contradictory results (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Katsikeas, Skarmeas, & Bello, Reference Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello2009; Gaur et al., Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011). Indeed, despite the diversity of approaches used to study trust, and the fact that practically all the studies emphasize the benefits of trust for the parties involved, some researchers have also referred to the possible damaging effects of trust. For example, Dirks and Ferrin (Reference Dirks and Ferrin2001) point out that trust can generate negative, as well as positive effects. Similarly, Nooteboom, Berger, and Noorderhaven (Reference Nooteboom, Berger and Noorderhaven1997) state that trust also involves the risk of being betrayed. Gargiulo and Ertug (Reference Gargiulo and Ertug2006) also suggest that, although trust-driven behaviors are generally beneficial, extreme levels of these same behaviors can have negative effects on organizational performance. Therefore, merely having a high level of organizational trust may not necessarily improve firm productivity or profitability.
While the literature is almost unanimous in claiming that organizational trust creates economic advantages, there is much less debate about the mechanisms through which trust can generate such favorable results (Rus & Iglič, Reference Rus and Iglič2005). The idea that high-trust relations might improve economic performance has been widely theorized, but relatively little empirical evidence has been found to support it. Although for decades researchers have suggested that trust increases performance, there has been little empirical evidence to prove this statement. Gaur et al. (Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011) state that organizational trust can be a double-edged sword, with potential to improve performance under certain conditions but with potential to reduce performance under others. Because of all this, it seems necessary to explore the routes along which this relationship operates. The resource-based view focuses on advantages stemming from internal organizational resources that produce economic value (Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003). According to the resource-based view, organizational trust per se may not generate a sustainable advantage. Organizational trust itself may not hold the answer to enhanced performance, but rather it must be combined with other firm capabilities to produce positive effects. We therefore expect that the impact of organizational trust on organizational performance cannot be measured directly, but can only be quantified by examining the indirect effect on some intervening firm capability (e.g., organizational learning).
With all these considerations taking shape together, in this research, we suggest that organizational learning capability could explain the relationship between trust and performance. Thus, we suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between organizational trust and performance is mediated by organizational learning capability.
Trust and organizational learning capability
Organizational learning capability is an organizational and management characteristic facilitating organizational learning or allowing an organization to learn (Goh & Richards, Reference Goh and Richards1997: 577; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b). Organizational learning, or the process by which organizations learn (Alegre & Chiva, Reference Alegre and Chiva2008), can be defined as the process through which organizations change or modify their mental models, processes, or knowledge, maintaining or improving their performance (Cyert & March, Reference Cyert and March1963; Argyris & Schön, Reference Argyris and Schön1978; Hedberg, Reference Hedberg1981; Senge, Reference Senge1990; Brown & Duguid, Reference Brown and Duguid1991; Dibella, Nevis, & Gould, Reference Dibella, Nevis and Gould1996).
According to Chiva, Alegre, and Lapiedra (Reference Chiva, Alegre and Lapiedra2007) and Chiva and Alegre (Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b), the factors facilitating the organizational learning process or allowing organizations to learn are experimentation, risk taking, interaction with the external environment, dialog, and participation. When individuals feel that they can trust each other, they are more willing to take risks in relationships (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995). Dirks and Ferrin (Reference Dirks and Ferrin2001) state that a high level of trust with a workmate increases the probability that one will take a risk with that workmate (e.g., cooperating, sharing information). A climate of trust within organizations facilitates exploration and experimentation with new behaviors, in part because individuals feel safe to experiment (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, Reference Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein and Grant2005). It seems that organizational trust could facilitate experimentation, decision making, openness, the expression of opinions and ideas, and the acceptance of risks (Argyris, Reference Argyris1964; Gibb, Reference Gibb1965; Nyhan & Marlowe, Reference Nyhan and Marlowe1997; Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, Reference Costigan, Ilter and Berman1998). So when a person trusts in another or the organization, he or she accepts risks, loses fear and is therefore more predisposed to delegate, participate, cooperate, experiment, or have dialog.
In addition, affect- and cognition-based trust have also been demonstrated to represent the foundation for interpersonal cooperation in organizations (McAllister, Reference McAllister1995). Affect-based trust involves reciprocated interpersonal care and concern for another person (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, Reference Rempel, Holmes and Zanna1985; Pennings & Woiceshyn, Reference Pennings and Woiceshyn1987), subjective feelings of security against being exploited, and the comfort and assurance that one's interests are being served by another party (Mittal, Reference Mittal1996; Massey & Kyriazis, Reference Massey and Kyriazis2007). Accordingly, affect-based trust enhances cooperation, facilitates the honest and open exchange of information (Fryxell, Dooley, & Vryza, Reference Fryxell, Dooley and Vryza2002), and expression of ideas and openness (Chowdhury, Reference Chowdhury2005) because the parties can be confident that their interests will be fully protected. On the other hand, cognition-based trust is derived from the belief that another party is dependable, reliable, responsible, and competent (Lewis & Weigert, Reference Lewis and Weigert1985; McAllister, Reference McAllister1995). If one party believes that the other party is professional, dedicated, knowledgeable, capable, and will act in a responsible manner, she or he would more likely be willing to cooperate, participate, or delegate power, thus reducing control. Consequently, an environment of trust within organizations could promote behaviors that would facilitate organizational learning capability.
On the other hand, organizational trust increases the transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries. Employees are willing to share knowledge in situations where they can trust the recipient of this knowledge (Connelly & Kelloway, Reference Connelly and Kelloway2002). If employees perceive their subordinates, co-workers, supervisors, or organization as a whole as trustworthy, they will be more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors such as sharing knowledge or expertise. Trust is a complex construct with different bases and determinants, which operate at multiple levels in the organization to facilitate knowledge exchange. Research has shown that affect- and cognition-based trust have a positive influence on knowledge sharing (Chowdhury, Reference Chowdhury2005; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, Reference Mooradian, Renzl and Matzler2006; Wu, Hsu, & Yeh, Reference Wu, Hsu and Yeh2007). Affect-based trust allows the trustor to share sensitive personal information, ideas, and knowledge, and makes the trusting individuals open to one another (Chowdhury, Reference Chowdhury2005). Alternatively, cognition-based trust is grounded in co-worker reliability and competence. A high level of cognition-based trust would allow the trustor to actively engage in collaborative work and seek knowledge from those he or she trusts (Chowdhury, Reference Chowdhury2005). Therefore, both affect-based and cognition-based trust increases knowledge sharing.
According to Levin, and Cross (2004), knowledge sharing within organizations is more successful if the knowledge recipient regards the knowledge source as being both benevolent and competent. Competence-based trust allows knowledge seekers to believe that a knowledge source knows what she or he is talking about and so compels them to learn from that person (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, Reference Abrams, Cross, Lesser and Levin2003). Knowledge seekers who trust a source's competence to make suggestions and influence their thinking are more likely to listen to, absorb, and take action on that knowledge (Levin & Cross, Reference Levin and Cross2004). Thus, competence-based trust enhances the receipt of useful knowledge. Likewise, according to Sharratt and Usoro (Reference Sharratt and Usoro2003), integrity-based trust has an important role to play in motivating knowledge sharing. One is not likely to be motivated to share one's knowledge with another individual or community if one perceives them to be dishonest or unreliable. On the other hand, the higher the perceived benevolence of another individual or community, the more likely one is to feel less threatened by making an erroneous contribution or one that lacks relevance, thereby encouraging the participation and development of an organization's members. An individual's faith in another's benevolence and integrity increases that individual's willingness to take risks by cooperating and sharing valuable knowledge with others (Renzl, Reference Renzl2008). Therefore, competence-, benevolence-, and integrity-based trust play a central role in effective knowledge transfer, which in turn could positively affect organizational learning capability.
All these considerations appear to suggest that trust within organizations could encourage organizational learning capability. We therefore put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Trust is positively related to organizational learning capability.
Organizational learning capability and performance
Organizational learning has been regarded as one of the strategic means of achieving long-term organizational success (Senge, Reference Senge1990; Liao & Wu, Reference Liao and Wu2010). The primary aim of organizational learning is to enhance performance quality and quantity, allowing the firm to increase and improve sales, to achieve more support, and to create, maintain, and enlarge its customer base, thus leading organizations to superior long-term performance (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Reference García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez2012).
Organizational learning is broadly considered a critical competence and a key element for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage and enhancing organizational performance (Jiménez-Jimenez, Sanz-Valle, & Hernandez-Espallardo, Reference Jiménez-Jimenez, Sanz-Valle and Hernandez-Espallardo2008). According to Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003), financial performance can be enhanced by an organization's ability to learn. Firms that are able to learn about customers, competitors, and regulators stand a better chance of sensing and acting upon events and trends in the marketplace which, in turn, should lead to superior profitability and superior levels of customer retention (Slater & Narver, Reference Slater and Narver1995; Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003).
Various authors argue that all organizations have a stock of knowledge that needs to flow constantly via learning processes so they can act in accordance with the demands of the environment (Dierickx & Cool, Reference Dierickx and Cool1989; Crossan, Lane, & White, Reference Crossan, Lane and White1999; Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). According to Prieto and Revilla (Reference Prieto and Revilla2006), firms need to transform and perfect their stocks of knowledge depending on the conditions of their environment, and this is possible through learning processes. These stocks of knowledge refer to everything that is known or is necessary to know, including knowledge and know-how at individual, group, and organizational level (Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). An organization with a strong organizational learning is not simply a collector or storehouse of knowledge but a processor of it (Liao & Wu, Reference Liao and Wu2010).
In an environment of growing competition requiring firms to make use of information and knowledge, organizational learning has become one of the essential elements for organizational performance (Senge, Reference Senge1990; Garvin, Reference Garvin2000; Akgün, Byrne, Lynn, & Keskin, Reference Akgün, Byrne, Lynn and Keskin2007). Through organizational learning, firms can update their knowledge base to respond to uncertainties and adapt to external changes at a faster rate than rivals to maintain a long-term competitive advantage (Harrison & Leitch, Reference Harrison and Leitch2005; Zhao, Li, Lee, & Chen, Reference Zhao, Li, Lee and Chen2011). Decarolis and Deeds (Reference Decarolis and Deeds1999) state that the generation, accumulation, and application of knowledge can be a mechanism for achieving better performance, showing a positive relationship between flows and stocks of knowledge and organizational performance. This link between learning processes, stocks of knowledge, and the improvement of organizational performance has usually referred to the potential effects on economic and financial success (Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006).
Organizational learning helps firms to be more proactive by responding or adapting to external changes and also by anticipating or even creating them (Jiménez-Jimenez, Sanz-Valle, & Hernandez-Espallardo, Reference Jiménez-Jimenez, Sanz-Valle and Hernandez-Espallardo2008). A firm that is continuously engaged in learning tends to stand a better chance of tracking and responding to customer needs, sensing and seizing on market opportunities, and offering appropriate and finely targeted products, results which lead to superior levels of profitability, sales growth, and customer loyalty (Slater & Narver, Reference Slater and Narver1995; Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003; Jiang & Li, Reference Jiang and Li2008).
So, in general, the empirical evidence appears to show that organizational learning and the factors facilitating it have a beneficial effect on organizational performance (Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, Reference Bontis, Crossan and Hulland2002; Zollo & Winter, Reference Zollo and Winter2002; Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, Reference Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente and Valle-Cabrera2005; Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). We therefore put forward the following hypothesis (Figure 1):
Theoretical model of the research
Hypothesis 3: Organizational learning capability is positively related to organizational performance.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data collection and sampling
The empirical study was based on a population of 402 Spanish firms with proven excellence in human resource management. The population was obtained from merging different databases or lists of firms that consider people as a key element of their organizations and are considered by their workers as good firms to work for, or organizational environments where human resources management is considered important. The databases used were taken from the lists of ‘CRF Top Employers,’ ‘Great Place to Work Institute,’ ‘mercoPersonas,’ and ‘Actualidad Económica.’
Each of these firms was sent a pre-designed questionnaire. This questionnaire was addressed to managers with at least 2 years’ experience at the firm, preferably human resources managers. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 28 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, showing the level of agreement or disagreement with the content of each item. Before starting the fieldwork, the questionnaire was pre-tested in order to ensure that the items included were comprehensible to the recipients. This was achieved with the cooperation of people from the academic sphere whose research and interest revolve around human resources, as well as various human resources managers from different firms. The telephone interview was chosen as the method for administering the questionnaire for different reasons. One of the main reasons is that this data collection method makes it possible to interview people who are not very accessible. It also makes it possible to clear up interviewees’ queries properly, which cannot be done in self-administered surveys (Brunet, Belzunegui, & Pastor, Reference Brunet, Belzunegui and Pastor2000). Another of the most important aspects in the selection of this method was that it usually has a good response rate. According to Malhotra (Reference Malhotra2007: 198), the response rate expected in telephone interviews lies between 40 and 60%. The low level of cooperation between industry and university research in Spain (Valle, Martin, Romero, & Dolan, Reference Valle, Martin, Romero and Dolan2000: 287; Camelo, Martin, Romero, & Valle, Reference Camelo, Martin, Romero and Valle2004: 940), also led us to opt for this method.
A total of 251 valid questionnaires were received. The sample obtained therefore represented 62.44% of the population subject to study, thereby achieving a satisfactory response rate. Meanwhile, the number of responses exceeded the minimum threshold of 100 subjects necessary for the application of structural equation methodology and in order to test the psychometric properties of the measurement scales (Spector, Reference Spector1992; Williams, Gavin, & Hartman, Reference Williams, Gavin and Hartman2004). In addition, in order to improve the response rate, the interviewees were offered the chance to receive a report once the data had been analyzed. Data were collected between October and December 2010.
Measurement instruments
To measure each of the constructs or dimensions subject to study in this research, measurement scales used in other studies have been employed. The three dimensions making up this study are: organizational trust, organizational learning capability, and organizational performance.
Organizational trust
The construct organizational trust has been measured based on a measurement instrument designed by Nyhan and Marlowe (Reference Nyhan and Marlowe1997). This measurement instrument was designed to measure an individual's level of trust in his/her supervisor and the level of organizational trust. Its authors tested the validity of the measurement scale and demonstrate that it is a psychometrically valid and viable measurement instrument. Finally, of the 12 items making up the original measurement scale, we have selected the four items that measure the level of organizational trust. The scale used is a 1- to 5-point Likert type one, with 1 being the lowest level of trust and 5 the highest.
Organizational learning capability
This scale has been based on the work of Chiva, Alegre, and Lapiedra (Reference Chiva, Alegre and Lapiedra2007) and Chiva and Alegre (Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b), which suggests measuring organizational learning as a multidimensional construct bringing together the proposals made for the social perspective (e.g., Brown & Duguid, Reference Brown and Duguid1991; Weick & Westley, Reference Weick and Westley1996), the individual perspective (e.g., Hedberg, Reference Hedberg1981; Popper & Lipshitz, Reference Popper and Lipshitz2000), and the learning organization (e.g., Ulrich, Jick, & Von Glinow, Reference Ulrich, Jick and Von Glinow1993; Pedler, Reference Pedler1997). The individual view considers learning as an individual phenomenon and consequently understands that organizations learn through individuals (Simon, Reference Simon1991; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2005). The social view considers learning as a social phenomenon and therefore understands that organizations learn through communities and groups (Brown & Duguid, Reference Brown and Duguid1991; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2005). The learning organization or prescriptive literature mainly focuses on the development of normative models for the creation of a learning organization (Ulrich, Jick, & Von Glinow, Reference Ulrich, Jick and Von Glinow1993; Alegre & Chiva, Reference Alegre and Chiva2008). This literature (Goh & Richards, Reference Goh and Richards1997; Pedler, Reference Pedler1997) describes a set of actions that ensures learning capability: effective generation of ideas by implementing a set of practices such as experimentation, continuous improvement, teamwork, and group problem-solving, observing what others do, or participative decision making. The final scale consisted of five dimensions and a total of 14 items. These dimensions are: experimentation, risk taking, interaction with the external environment, dialog, and participation (Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b).
Organizational performance
We have used subjective performance evaluation measures owing to the difficulties in obtaining an objective measurement of this construct and the problems associated with the use of accounting methods (Dechow, Sloan, & Sweeney, Reference Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney1995; Christmann, Reference Christmann2000). Moreover, objective performance data might be manipulated by accounting methods (Dechow, Sloan, & Sweeney, Reference Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney1995; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009a). Financial data is criticized for being unreliable and subject to inconsistent accounting practices or even to manipulation for reasons such as avoiding payment of corporate taxes (Dess & Robinson, Reference Dess and Robinson1984; Sapienza, Smith, & Gannon, Reference Sapienza, Smith and Gannon1988; Powell & Dent-Micallef, Reference Powell and Dent-Micallef1997; Spanos & Lioukas, Reference Spanos and Lioukas2001; Inmyxai & Takahashi, Reference Inmyxai and Takahashi2010). Given the potential competitive implications of revealing such information, it is not surprising that many respondents are hesitant to report information pertaining to such indicators as profitability and return on investment (Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003). On the other hand, according to Su, Peng, Shen, and Xiao (Reference Su, Peng, Shen and Xiao2013: 125) ‘using perceived performance scales relative to objectives permits comparisons across firms and contexts.’ Indeed, various studies demonstrate the positive relationship between subjective and objective measures of organizational performance (Gatignon, Tushman, Smith, & Anderson, Reference Gatignon, Tushman, Smith and Anderson2002; Wall et al., Reference Wall, Michie, Patterson, Wood, Sheehan, Clegg and West2004; Song, Droge, Hanvanich, & Calantone, Reference Song, Droge, Hanvanich and Calantone2005). Subjective measures of organizational performance have been widely used in organizational research (Powell & Dent-Micallef, Reference Powell and Dent-Micallef1997; Camps & Luna-Arocas, Reference Camps and Luna-Arocas2009; Morabito, Themistocleous, & Serrano, Reference Morabito, Themistocleous and Serrano2010).
The scale we use is the one proposed by Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003), who validate it psychometrically. Respondents were asked to report how well their firm performed during the previous 3 years. The items making up this scale are (1) customer loyalty, (2) sales growth, (3) profitability and (4) return on investment. A 1- to 5-point Likert scale was used, where a 1 gives the participating firm the lowest score in relation to its competence and 5 the highest.
Control variable
To take account of the external sources that can alter organizational performance, we have included the size of the firms subject to study as a control variable. Other studies, such as that by Chiva and Alegre (Reference Chiva and Alegre2009a), which also include organizational development as a dependent variable, use firm size as a control variable. Firm size affects the endowment of significant inputs for the business process such as money, people, and facilities, and has been shown to influence organizational performance (Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009a). Larger firms have a greater variety of capabilities and can enjoy economies of scale, which may influence organizational performance (Ramaswamy, Reference Ramaswamy2001; Frank & Goyal, Reference Frank and Goyal2003; Jermias, Reference Jermias2008; Ebaid, Reference Ebaid2009). Using the variable firm size, each company is classified into one of six categories depending on its number of employees: (1) less than 50 employees, (2) between 50 and 100 employees, (3) between 101 and 250 employees, (4) between 251 and 500 employees, (5) between 501 and 1,000 employees, and (6) firms with more than 1,000 employees.
Psychometric properties of the measurement scales
The psychometric properties of the measurement scales have been analyzed, checking the dimensionality of the scales measuring the concepts and constructs used in the theoretical model, reliability, validity of content, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (see Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, and correlation factors). First, we have analyzed the one dimensionality of the measurement scales of the constructs organizational trust and organizational development, using confirmatory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis indicators appearing in Table 2 suggest the one dimensionality of the construct trust (p-value > .05; RMSEA = 0.000; BBNFI = 0.999; CFI = 1.000). The analysis carried out to evaluate the properties of the construct organizational development also confirm its one dimensionality: BBNFI = 0.969, CFI = 0.976, and χ2/g.l. = 4.05 (Table 2). The multidimensionality of the construct organizational learning capability was tested with a second-order factorial analysis (Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b), whose goodness-of-fit indicators showed a good fit for the model (p-value > .05; RMSEA < 0.05; BBNFI > 0.90; BBNNFI > 0.90; CFI = 0.987; and χ2/g.l. = 1.20) (see Table 3). To check the reliability of the scale, as well as Cronbach's α coefficient (Cronbach, Reference Cronbach1951), we have used two indicators: composite reliability (Fornell & Larcker, Reference Fornell and Larcker1981) and average variance extracted (Alegre & Chiva, Reference Alegre and Chiva2008). All Cronbach's α coefficient values, as well as those for composite reliability, are above the minimum acceptable value 0.7 (Nunnally, Reference Nunnally1978). Meanwhile, in all cases, the average variance extracted shows values greater than or very close to the recommended minimum of 0.5 (Nunnally, Reference Nunnally1978; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, Reference Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black1998). The content validity is justified because the scales and dimensions used come from previous empirical studies. Thus, the variables used to measure organizational performance are those proposed and used by Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003). Organizational learning capability has been measured using the scale proposed by Chiva, Alegre, and Lapiedra (Reference Chiva, Alegre and Lapiedra2007) and Chiva and Alegre (Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b). The scale used to measure trust has been based on an instrument for measuring trust designed by Nyhan and Marlowe (Reference Nyhan and Marlowe1997). Convergent validity has been evaluated using the BBNFI indicator obtained in CFA. The values obtained in the BBNFI, as well as the factorial loads for each construct (see Tables 4 and 5), lie above 0.90 (Ahire, Golhar, & Waller, Reference Ahire, Golhar and Waller1996) and the factorial loads of the items in each scale have a value above 0.4 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, Reference Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black1999), with a t value of more than 1.96 (Anderson & Gerbing, Reference Anderson and Gerbing1982), confirming the convergent validity of the measurement scales. Discriminant validity has been assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (Tables 6 and 7), all correlation coefficients are significant and below 0.9 (Luque, Reference Luque1997) and the average variance extracted in each dimension is clearly above the square of the correlation of a construct with the others making up the measurement scale (Fornell & Larcker, Reference Fornell and Larcker1981), showing the discriminant validity of the model.
Correlation factors, means, and standard deviation
Note. For the standard deviations and correlations between factors, we have worked with the mean for the items making up each dimension.
*Significant correlation (p < .05); **Significant correlation (p < .01)
One dimensionality of the measurement scales
Goodness-of-fit indicators for the second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the construct organizational learning capability
Reliability of the measurement scales
Factorial loads and significance of these (Student t)
Note. aThe value of the parameter has been equaled to 1 to fix the scale of the latent variable. The estimated parameters are standardized. All the estimated parameters are significant, with a 95% confidence level (t ≥ 1.96).
Correlation between the dimensions of organizational learning capability
Note. All the correlations are significant, with p < .01. To calculate these correlations between factors we have worked with the mean for the items making up each dimension.
DIA = dialog; EXP = experimentation; INT = interaction with environment; RISK = acceptance of risk; TDEC = taking decisions.
Evaluation of discriminant validity: Average variance extracted and correlation of its square between the dimensions of organizational learning capability
Note. The average variance extracted for each construct appears on the main diagonal in brackets. The other elements of the matrix represent the square of the correlation between the different constructs used in the research.
DIA = dialog; EXP = experimentation; INT = interaction with environment; RISK = acceptance of risk; TDEC = taking decisions.
Given our use of subjective evaluation measures, we conducted a Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003; Podsakoff & Organ, Reference Podsakoff and Organ1986) to assess whether common method variance exists and to deal with the potential social desirability of the responses. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis with the 22 indicators loading onto a single factor (χ2 (209) = 1,667.871; CFI = 0.483; RMSEA = 0.167; BBNFI = 0.454; χ2/df = 7.98) showed a poor fit, suggesting that the single factor does not account for all of the variance in the data. Consequently, and in accordance with this procedure, we do not consider common method variance to be a problem in our research.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
To empirically validate this research model, structural equation methodology has been employed, using the EQS 6.1 statistical software. One of the requirements or application conditions of structural equation models is that the observable variables should follow a normal multivariant distribution (Batista-Foguet & Coenders, Reference Batista-Foguet and Coenders2000). EQS provides an indicator to evaluate multivariant normality called the Mardia coefficient (Reference Mardia1970, Reference Mardia1974). Having shown that the variables used in our study do not meet the requirement of multivariant normality, following the recommendations of Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (Reference Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black2006), we have opted for maximum likelihood estimation, with robust estimators. All the χ2 values presented in this research therefore correspond to the statistical goodness-of-fit tests developed by Satorra and Bentler (Reference Satorra and Bentler1994). In addition, in order to obtain descriptive statistics and some reliability indicators and to calculate univariant statistics, we have used the SPSS 17.0 software.
Following the procedure used by Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003), we have checked the presence of a mediating effect by carrying out a comparison between a direct effects model and another model including a mediator variable (organizational learning capability). These two models are estimated and assessed to detect whether there are significant differences between them (Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003). In our case, the first model (direct effects) examines the relationship between trust and organizational performance, while the second model (partial mediation) examines this same relationship, adding organizational learning capability as a mediator variable. Following Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003), the mediating effect of organizational learning capability on the relationship between trust and organizational performance can be supported when: (1) the partial mediation model explains more of the variance of organizational performance than the direct effect model; (2) there is a significant relationship between trust and organizational learning capability; (3) the significant relationship between trust and organizational performance observed in the direct effects model is considerably reduced or disappears in the partial mediation model; and, finally, (4) there is a significant relationship between organizational learning capability and organizational performance.
Results of the model comparison analysis
Table 8 shows the results of the model comparison analysis. The fit indicators obtained show that the two models obtain an excellent fit. The results show that organizational learning capability mediates the relationship between trust and organizational performance. First, the partial mediation model explains more variance of organizational performance than the direct effects model (0.201 vs. 0.119). Second, there are positive relationships between trust and organizational learning capability (Hypothesis 2: β = 0.624, t = 5.637, p < .01), as well as between organizational learning capability and organizational performance (Hypothesis 3: β = 0.365; t = 3.033, p < .01). Third, the significant relationship between trust and organizational performance indicated in the direct effects model (β = 0.342, t = 4.158) becomes insignificant in the partial mediation model (Hypothesis 1: β = 0.114, t = 1.121). Bearing these three points in mind and following the methodology used by Tippins and Sohi (Reference Tippins and Sohi2003), the existence of the mediating effect of organizational learning capability on the relationship between trust and organizational performance is proven. This partial mediation model therefore represents a significant improvement on the direct effects model (Figure 2).
Results of the mediation model: The mediating role of organizational learning capability (OLC) in the relationship between trust and organizational performance
Note. aThe estimated parameters are standardized and the Student t values have been specified in brackets.
bIncludes only the effect of altruistic leadership on organizational performance.
cIncludes the direct effect of altruistic leadership on organizational performance and the mediating effect of organizational learning capability on the relationship between altruistic leadership and organizational performance.
dInsignificant parameter.
eThe value of the parameter has been equaled to 1 to fix the scale of the latent variable.
Direct effect and mediation model.
DISCUSSION
For years it has been suggested that trust is important for the operation of organizations (Argyris, Reference Argyris1964; Arrow, Reference Arrow1974). However, although the empirical evidence has generally assumed that organizational trust is positively related to organizational performance, the mechanisms explaining this relationship are much less clear (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005). In addition, some research also suggests that trust does not always give rise to the desired positive behavior for the proper operation of organizations. It seems that trust could improve performance under certain conditions but reduce it under others (Gaur et al., Reference Gaur, Mukherjee, Gaur and Schmid2011). The literature suggests that empirical research offering a more complete view of the mechanisms by which trust contributes to improving organizational performance and the achievement of a better understanding of this relationship is necessary (Mayer & Gavin, Reference Mayer and Gavin2005; Deutsch-Salomon & Robinson, Reference Deutsch-Salomon and Robinson2008). Because of this, we have carried out the empirical research we describe in this article, in which we introduce a new variable into the relationship between trust and organizational performance: organizational learning capability.
An essential element of trust is the willingness to take risks with the other party (Johnson-George & Swap, Reference Johnson-George and Swap1982; Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, Reference Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis and Winograd2000; Lämsä & Pucetaite, Reference Lämsä and Pucetaite2006; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis2007). The literature on trust appears to suggest that trust gives rise to certain actions such as the delegation of powers, experimentation with new behaviors, the expression of ideas or greater acceptance of risks (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995; Nyhan & Marlowe, Reference Nyhan and Marlowe1997; Dirks, Reference Dirks1999; Tzafrir, Reference Tzafrir2005). In this research, we suggest that trust between the members of an organization could encourage certain behaviors or actions involving risk and that they could facilitate experimentation, the acceptance of risk, interaction with the environment, dialog, and participative decision-making. This willingness to take risks to which trust leads could foster some dimensions or factors promoting organizational learning capability (Chiva, Alegre, & Lapiedra, Reference Chiva, Alegre and Lapiedra2007; Chiva & Alegre, Reference Chiva and Alegre2009b).
On the other hand, trust also increases an individual's willingness to share valuable knowledge with others and the receipt of useful knowledge (Abrams et al., Reference Abrams, Cross, Lesser and Levin2003; Renzl, Reference Renzl2008). A high level of both affect-based and cognition-based trust increases knowledge sharing (Chowdhury, Reference Chowdhury2005). Moreover, competence-, benevolence-, and integrity-based trust play a central role in effective knowledge transfer (Renzl, Reference Renzl2008). Hence, if employees perceive their subordinates, co-workers, supervisors, or organization as a whole as trustworthy, organizational learning is more likely to occur because workers are more willing to give useful knowledge and to listen and absorb others’ knowledge.
Meanwhile, the literature has shown that organizational learning and the factors that facilitate it have a beneficial effect on organizational performance (e.g., Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, Reference Bontis, Crossan and Hulland2002; Zollo & Winter, Reference Zollo and Winter2002; Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). To be able to adapt to the conditions of their environment, firms need to transform and perfect their stocks of knowledge (Prieto & Revilla, Reference Prieto and Revilla2006). Through learning processes, firms get this knowledge to flow through their organizations so that the organization adapts better to its environment, which can lead to better organizational performance (Decarolis & Deeds, Reference Decarolis and Deeds1999). Organizational learning helps firms to be more proactive by responding to customer needs and offering more appropriate products, which lead to superior levels of profitability, sales growth, and customer loyalty (Slater & Narver, Reference Slater and Narver1995; Tippins & Sohi, Reference Tippins and Sohi2003; Jiang & Li, Reference Jiang and Li2008). Accordingly, the results of this empirical research show that, in Spanish firms with recognized excellence in human resources management, organizational trust would facilitate organizational learning capability, which would result in better organizational performance.
Although most studies have shown that firm performance has a significant relationship with firm size, we have not found this relationship. The results obtained in this study indicate that firm size (control variable) has no significant effect on a firm's performance in this population. That is, among firms with recognized excellence in human resources management and most highly rated by workers, firm size does not seem to influence organizational performance. The results of these firms may therefore depend more on other variables such as the implementation of certain human resources practices.
As noted above, some researchers have also referred to possible damaging effects, suggesting that trust can also lead to dysfunctional behaviors such as blind faith or complacency or too deep-rooted (Gargiulo & Ertug, Reference Gargiulo and Ertug2006). Despite the fact that, in principle, the results of our work appear to reject these ideas, by showing that among Spanish firms with recognized excellence in human resource management, organizational trust could positively affect certain behaviors that facilitate organizational learning, and that these in turn positively affect organizational performance, organizational learning capability (Chiva, Alegre, & Lapiedra, Reference Chiva, Alegre and Lapiedra2007) can be affected by other antecedents, such as leadership or organizational structure (Mallén, Reference Mallén2011). According to Mallén (Reference Mallén2011), organic structure and altruistic leaders positively affect organizational learning capability, and this has the same effect on organizational performance. So, it could be that organizational learning capability, despite being positively affected by a high level of organizational trust, might also be affected by structures that are not very organic or by not very altruistic leadership, which would result in a negative effect on organizational performance. Meanwhile, organizational performance is a very complex concept that can be affected by a multitude of internal and external organizational variables (Thoumrungroje & Tansuhaj, Reference Thoumrungroje and Tansuhaj2005), which makes precise determination of its causes difficult.
In terms of practical implications, this study suggests that organizations and HR managers could use trust as a tool that would help organizations to improve their organizational performance. This could be explained owing to the fact that trust between the individuals of an organization could end up causing workers to adopt certain conducts or behaviors that appear to be linked to organizational learning capability. Meanwhile, to construct and maintain the necessary new forms of organization, trust within organizations is fundamental (Kramer & Lewicki, Reference Kramer and Lewicki2010). Trust is seen as an essential feature of different modern organizational forms such as strategic alliances, distributed groups, e-commerce, and knowledge-intensive organizations (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, Reference McEvily, Perrone and Zaheer2003). Organizations and HR managers can use trust as a mechanism that enhances the transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries and promotes organizational learning capability.
Because this research was carried out in a particular population of organizations, our results are obviously limited to this type of organization. For this reason, future studies could carry out this research in other populations, such as specific sectors. It is also necessary to know whether the results of this research can be generalized to other countries sharing different cultures. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (Reference Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer1998) state that context is fundamental for being able to understand trust. Because of this, the conclusions reached in this study are limited by elements of context or culture making up the sample.
Another limit on this study is the causal direction between the constructs raised in the model. Transversal-type studies are necessary in order to show the true direction of causality. This limitation is particularly important in our mediation model, as the term mediation assumes a particular causal direction (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, Reference Colquitt, Scott and LePine2007).
So, further research is necessary to discover the consequences of trust for individuals and organizations. Identifying the mechanisms through which trust influences certain organizational results could be vitally important for the future of organizations.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the University Jaume I and Spanish Innovation Ministry (Ref. P11B2008-13 and ECO2011-26780) for its financial support for this research.
APPENDIX: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Please answer the following questions about your company or organization. To answer, indicate the number corresponding to the answer that best fits your opinion, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree.
About trust:
About experimentation:
About risk taking:
About interaction with the external environment:
About dialog:
About participative decision-making:
Please answer the following questions about the results of your company with respect to its competitors (in the last 3 years). To answer, indicate the number corresponding to the answer that best fits your opinion, with 1 being very low and 5 high.
