The Transformative Impact of Empowerment, Respect, and Trust on Organizational Performance and Employee Well-being

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article examines the multifaceted relationship between empowerment, respect, and trust in contemporary organizational environments and their collective impact on workplace outcomes. Through an interdisciplinary synthesis of organizational behavior, positive psychology, and management science research, this investigation elucidates the mechanisms through which these three interconnected constructs catalyze enhanced employee performance, organizational commitment, and psychological well-being. The analysis further explores the systemic implications of these dynamics for organizational resilience, innovative capacity, and sustainable competitive advantage. This comprehensive examination offers both theoretical insights and evidence-based recommendations for organizational leaders seeking to cultivate high-performance work environments predicated on empowerment, respect, and trust.

Keywords: Psychological empowerment, organizational trust, workplace respect, employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, psychological safety, leadership development, organizational effectiveness

Introduction

The contemporary business landscape is characterized by unprecedented volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), compelling organizations to recalibrate their approach to human capital management (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). Within this context, the psychological dimensions of the employer-employee relationship have emerged as critical determinants of organizational success. Among these dimensions, empowerment, respect, and trust have garnered significant scholarly attention due to their profound influence on both individual and collective outcomes (Spreitzer, 2008; Grover, 2014; Mayer et al., 2015).

Empowerment—conceptualized as the delegation of authority, provision of resources, and cultivation of self-efficacy—constitutes a fundamental shift from traditional command-and-control paradigms toward more collaborative and participative organizational structures (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Respect, operating at both the interpersonal and institutional levels, encompasses the recognition of individuals’ inherent dignity, unique contributions, and legitimate perspectives (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). Trust, characterized by willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of another’s intentions or behaviors, functions as a relational lubricant that facilitates efficient coordination and cooperation (Mayer et al., 1995).

While the independent effects of these constructs have been extensively documented, their interrelationships and synergistic impacts remain comparatively underexplored. This article addresses this gap by examining how empowerment, respect, and trust function as an integrated system that transforms organizational dynamics and outcomes. The analysis proceeds through several interconnected sections: first, conceptual clarification of the three focal constructs; second, examination of their proximal effects on individual cognition, emotion, and behavior; third, exploration of their distal impacts on organizational performance indicators; fourth, discussion of contextual factors that moderate these relationships; and finally, derivation of theoretical and practical implications.

Conceptual Framework: Empowerment, Respect, and Trust

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment transcends mere delegation of authority to encompass a multidimensional psychological state characterized by meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Meaning reflects the congruence between work requirements and an individual’s values and beliefs. Competence denotes self-efficacy with respect to work activities. Self-determination represents autonomy regarding work methods, pace, and effort. Impact reflects the degree to which an individual perceives their ability to influence strategic, administrative, or operational outcomes (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Empirical research has established robust associations between psychological empowerment and various positive outcomes, including job satisfaction (Seibert et al., 2004), organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004), work engagement (Stander & Rothmann, 2010), innovative behavior (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), and reduced turnover intentions (Harris et al., 2009). The empowerment construct has evolved from its early conceptualization as a unidirectional bestowal of power to a complex, reciprocal process that involves both structural enablers and psychological internalization (Maynard et al., 2012).

Workplace Respect

Respect in organizational contexts operates at multiple levels and manifests in various forms. Drawing on the theoretical work of Darwall (1977) and empirical research by Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff (2010), workplace respect can be categorized into recognition respect (acknowledgment of universal dignity and rights), appraisal respect (esteem based on demonstrated qualities or accomplishments), and identification respect (valuing unique perspectives and contributions).

Respect functions as both an interpersonal behavior and an organizational climate. At the interpersonal level, respectful interactions involve attentive listening, considerate treatment, and acknowledgment of others’ perspectives (Carmeli et al., 2015). At the organizational level, respectful climate encompasses policies, practices, and norms that communicate valuation of employees’ dignity, contributions, and well-being (Singh et al., 2019).

Research indicates that experienced respect correlates positively with psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), organizational identification (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017), knowledge sharing (Duan et al., 2019), and prosocial behavior (Grover, 2014). Conversely, perceived disrespect is associated with emotional exhaustion, counterproductive work behaviors, and intentions to exit (Tepper, 2000; Schilpzand et al., 2016).

Organizational Trust

Trust represents a psychological state comprising willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations regarding another’s intentions or behaviors (Rousseau et al., 1998). In organizational contexts, trust operates across multiple referents—trust in supervisors, colleagues, teams, and the institution itself—and encompasses cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (McAllister, 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007).

The multidimensional trust construct includes ability (competence and skills), benevolence (concern for the trustor’s welfare), and integrity (adherence to acceptable principles) (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust formation involves both rational assessment of trustworthiness cues and emotional connections developed through repeated interactions (Williams, 2001).

Empirical evidence consistently links trust with reduced transaction costs (Dyer & Chu, 2003), enhanced information sharing (Chowdhury, 2005), improved coordination (McEvily et al., 2003), organizational citizenship behaviors (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), and overall organizational performance (Colquitt et al., 2007). Trust serves as a critical mediator between leadership behaviors and follower responses (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) and facilitates effectiveness in virtual and cross-cultural teams (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Crisp & Jarvenpaa, 2013).

Interrelationships Among Empowerment, Respect, and Trust

While empowerment, respect, and trust are conceptually distinct constructs, they exhibit substantial interconnectedness and reciprocal influence. Trust serves as both an antecedent and consequence of empowerment; managers who trust their subordinates are more inclined to empower them, and successful empowerment reinforces trust (Moye & Henkin, 2006). Similarly, respect functions as a critical enabler of genuine empowerment, as empowerment initiatives lacking respect may be perceived as disingenuous or manipulative (Sashkin, 1984).

The relationship between respect and trust appears bidirectional. Respectful treatment signals trustworthiness by demonstrating concern for others’ dignity and welfare, and trust creates psychological safety that encourages authentic expression and mutual respect (Clarke & Mahadi, 2017). Empirical research by Saunders et al. (2014) demonstrated that respect and trust function as complementary mechanisms that facilitate effective leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors.

These three constructs collectively create a virtuous cycle: empowerment demonstrates trust and respect for employees’ capabilities and autonomy; respectful treatment reinforces perceptions of psychological safety and organizational support; and trust enables delegated decision-making and collaborative problem-solving. The absence of any component in this triad potentially undermines the effectiveness of the others, highlighting their synergistic rather than merely additive relationship (Frazier et al., 2017).

Proximal Effects on Individual Psychological States and Behaviors

Cognitive Mechanisms

The empowerment-respect-trust triad exerts profound influence on employees’ cognitive processes. Psychological empowerment enhances self-efficacy—individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to successfully execute specific tasks—through mastery experiences and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997). Respect affirmation contributes to positive identity construction, fostering both self-esteem and organization-based self-worth (Fuller et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Trust reduces cognitive load associated with monitoring others’ behavior, enabling greater focus on substantive work tasks (Langfred, 2004).

These cognitive effects extend to job-related information processing. Empowered employees demonstrate enhanced creativity and cognitive flexibility (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), respected individuals exhibit greater willingness to consider diverse perspectives (Tost et al., 2012), and trusting relationships facilitate information sharing and collaborative problem-solving (Chowdhury, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004).

Emotional Mechanisms

Empowerment, respect, and trust significantly impact employees’ emotional experiences. Empowerment engenders feelings of personal control and self-determination, mitigating stress and enhancing resilience (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Respect fulfills fundamental needs for social acceptance and esteem, generating positive emotional states including gratitude, pride, and belongingness (Rogers & Ashforth, 2017). Trust creates psychological safety that reduces anxiety and defensiveness, enabling authentic emotional expression (Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990).

Collectively, these constructs contribute to positive affective states characterized by enthusiasm, vigor, and optimism (Fredrickson, 2001). Such positive emotions expand individuals’ thought-action repertoires and build enduring personal resources, consistent with broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2004). These emotional mechanisms partially mediate the relationship between empowerment, respect, and trust and various performance outcomes (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

Behavioral Manifestations

The cognitive and emotional effects of empowerment, respect, and trust manifest in observable behavioral patterns. Empowered employees demonstrate greater proactivity, persistence in face of obstacles, and willingness to undertake calculated risks (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Parker et al., 2006). Respected individuals reciprocate through enhanced cooperation, knowledge sharing, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Carmeli et al., 2015; Duan et al., 2019).

Trust facilitates boundary-spanning behaviors, cross-functional collaboration, and interpersonal helping (Colquitt et al., 2007). The combination of empowerment, respect, and trust creates conditions for what Organ (1988) termed “organizational spontaneity”—behaviors that exceed formal role requirements and contribute to organizational effectiveness. These include helping colleagues, protecting organizational resources, making constructive suggestions, developing personal capabilities, and spreading goodwill about the organization (George & Brief, 1992).

Distal Effects on Organizational Outcomes

Performance Indicators

The collective impact of empowerment, respect, and trust extends beyond individual outcomes to influence organizational performance indicators. Meta-analytic research demonstrates significant positive associations between these constructs and both task performance and contextual performance (Seibert et al., 2011; Colquitt et al., 2007). These relationships appear particularly robust for knowledge-intensive and creative tasks that require discretionary effort and intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

Financial performance metrics also demonstrate sensitivity to these psychological dynamics. Organizations characterized by high levels of empowerment, respect, and trust typically experience reduced turnover-related costs (Hancock et al., 2013), enhanced customer satisfaction and loyalty (Salanova et al., 2005), and improved revenue growth (Lawler, 1986). These economic benefits result from both direct effects on productivity and indirect effects mediated through organizational citizenship behaviors, innovation, and customer orientation (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Innovation and Adaptability

The empowerment-respect-trust triad plays a crucial role in fostering organizational innovation and adaptability. Psychological empowerment enhances creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation—critical antecedents of innovative behavior (Amabile, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004). Respectful treatment creates psychological safety necessary for idea sharing and constructive debate (Edmondson, 1999; Carmeli et al., 2015). Trust facilitates knowledge exchange and reduces resistance to change (Levin & Cross, 2004; Oreg, 2006).

Organizational adaptability—the capacity to recognize and respond effectively to environmental changes—similarly benefits from these psychological processes. Empowered employees demonstrate greater environmental scanning and opportunity recognition (Pierce et al., 2001). Respect supports resilience during challenging transitions (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). Trust enables rapid coordination and resource reallocation during periods of uncertainty (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999).

Organizational Culture and Climate

Perhaps most profoundly, empowerment, respect, and trust shape organizational culture and climate. Culture encompasses shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that guide organizational behavior (Schein, 2010), while climate represents shared perceptions of policies, practices, and procedures (Schneider et al., 2013).

When consistently enacted across organizational levels, empowerment practices contribute to development of participative culture characterized by distributed leadership, shared decision-making, and accountability (Lawler, 1986). Respect-based interactions foster inclusive climate that values diverse perspectives and dignifies all organizational members (Nishii, 2013). Trust-based relationships support collaborative culture that emphasizes interdependence, mutual support, and collective achievement (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003).

These cultural and climate dimensions represent self-reinforcing social systems that sustain psychological empowerment, respectful treatment, and trusting relationships. Once established, such cultures demonstrate remarkable resilience and serve as sources of sustainable competitive advantage due to their complexity, causal ambiguity, and path dependence (Barney, 1991).

Contextual Factors: Moderators and Boundary Conditions

The effectiveness of empowerment, respect, and trust initiatives varies across contexts. Several factors moderate these relationships:

Individual Differences

Personality traits significantly influence responses to empowerment, respect, and trust. Individuals with internal locus of control and high self-efficacy typically derive greater benefit from empowerment initiatives (Spreitzer, 1995). Cultural value orientations—particularly individualism-collectivism and power distance—shape interpretations of respectful behavior and trust signals (Hofstede, 2001; Brockner et al., 2001). Regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention orientation) affects receptivity to empowerment opportunities and risk-taking in trust-based relationships (Higgins, 1997).

Organizational Factors

Structural characteristics moderate the implementation and effectiveness of empowerment, respect, and trust. Organizational size influences communication patterns and interpersonal familiarity that underpin trust development (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Hierarchy strength affects perceived legitimacy of empowerment initiatives (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010). Industry characteristics, including competitive intensity and technological turbulence, shape the strategic value of empowerment and trust-based coordination (Davis et al., 2009).

Societal Context

Broader societal factors exert significant influence on workplace dynamics. National culture shapes expectations regarding power distribution, uncertainty avoidance, and interpersonal relationships (Hofstede, 2001). Economic conditions—particularly labor market characteristics—affect bargaining power and psychological contract expectations (Rousseau, 1995). Legal-regulatory frameworks establish minimum standards for respectful treatment and constrain certain empowerment practices (Stone & Stone-Romero, 1998).

Practical Implications for Organizational Leaders

This analysis yields several evidence-based recommendations for organizational leaders seeking to leverage empowerment, respect, and trust for enhanced performance and well-being:

Structural Interventions

Organizational structure should facilitate rather than impede empowerment, respect, and trust. Recommended structural interventions include flattening hierarchies to reduce power distance (Lawler, 1986), implementing transparent decision-making processes that demonstrate respect for stakeholder perspectives (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003), and establishing fair procedural justice mechanisms that build institutional trust (Tyler & Blader, 2003).

Leadership Development

Leaders play crucial roles in cultivating empowerment, respect, and trust. Leadership development should emphasize transformational leadership behaviors that intellectually stimulate and individually consider followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006), authentic leadership practices that demonstrate integrity and relational transparency (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), and servant leadership approaches that prioritize follower growth and community development (Greenleaf, 1977).

Human Resource Management Practices

HRM systems should reinforce and institutionalize empowerment, respect, and trust. Recommended practices include high-involvement work designs that provide autonomy and participation opportunities (Lawler, 1986), performance management systems that emphasize developmental feedback rather than punitive evaluation (Pulakos et al., 2015), and recognition programs that acknowledge diverse contributions and reinforce respect (Brun & Dugas, 2008).

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates that empowerment, respect, and trust function as an integrated system that profoundly influences both individual and organizational outcomes. Through complex cognitive, emotional, and behavioral mechanisms, these constructs collectively enhance performance, innovation, and adaptability while simultaneously promoting employee well-being and organizational identification.

The significant practical implications of these findings underscore the strategic value of investing in psychologically supportive work environments. Organizations that systematically cultivate empowerment, respect, and trust create sustainable competitive advantages that resist imitation due to their social complexity and path dependence.

Future research should further explore the dynamic interrelationships among these constructs, their differential manifestations across diverse cultural contexts, and their evolving significance within increasingly virtual and distributed work arrangements. The continued integration of insights from organizational behavior, positive psychology, and management science promises deeper understanding of how empowerment, respect, and trust collectively transform workplace experiences and outcomes.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311-317.

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300-315.

Brun, J. P., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 716-730.

Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609-624.

Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709-729.

Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Human Relations, 68(6), 1021-1047.

Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 310-326.

Clarke, N., & Mahadi, N. (2017). The significance of mutual recognition respect in mediating the relationships between trait emotional intelligence, affective commitment and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 129-134.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and normative actions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 45-56.

Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88(1), 36-49.

Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y., & Wu, C. H. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A Pygmalion mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 650-670.

Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57-68.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367-1378.

Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59(6), 815-846.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Grover, S. L. (2014). Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations, 67(1), 27-51.

Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management, 39(3), 573-603.

Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371-382.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 127-136.

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385-399.

Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. Jossey-Bass.

Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Mayer, R. C., Schoorman, F. D., & Davis, J. H. (2015). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 328-361.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231-1281.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91-103.

Moye, M. J., & Henkin, A. B. (2006). Exploring associations between employee empowerment and interpersonal trust in managers. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 101-117.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 51-76.

Rogers, K. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me”. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1578-1608.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. M., & 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(4), 514-528.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.

Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is an ethical imperative. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 5-22.

Saunders, M. N., Dietz, G., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or independent but co-existing? Human Relations, 67(6), 639-665.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S57-S88.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981-1003.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933-958.

Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations. Organization Studies, 24(3), 463-491.

Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2019). Organizational climate of respect: Effects on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(6), 1084-1107.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54-72). Sage Publications.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-