Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Research in Management and Humanities

DWIJMH VOL. 3 NO. 1 (2024) ISSN: 2980-4817

Available online at www.dwijmh.org

Journal homepage: http://www.dwijmh.org

Does employees’ trust in the management predict

employees’ work engagement?
Jay G. Cumlat (a) Margarita A. Galat (b) Libertine Gertrude R. Macaspac (c),
Fredolin P.Julian (d)
a.) Instructor: School of Arts, Sciences and Education, Divine Word College of Laoag.
b.) Professor: School of Arts, Sciences and Education, Divine Word College of Laoag.
c.) Professor: Accreditation and Quality Assurance, Divine Word College of Laoag
d.) Professor: Graduate School of Management, Divine Word College of Laoag.

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT
The study aimed to measure the effect of employees' trust in management on the
work engagement of employees. Deepening the concepts of the study, the literature
Article history:
Received: December, 12, 2023.
was reviewed and appropriate research methodology was applied. The study used

Received in rev. form. January 15, assessment and correlational research design. The population of the study was
2024 employees of the institution (DWCL) and the data was gathered through research
Accepted: March1, 2024 questionnaires. The finding of the study demonstrates that employees have a high
trust in management competency, integrity and the working relationship and
Keywords: Trust, competency,
integrity, working relationship, employees also have a high work engagement. However, the result of the ANOVA
cognitive, affective, physical work
engagement. indicates that employees' trust in management is not associated with the work
engagement of the employees. Thus, the hypothesis of the study is rejected. The
high work engagement of employees can be influenced by other factors not
JEL Classification: D23; O15
considered in the study.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This open-access article is distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction
Managing an organization effectively involves attention to both tangible and intangible elements. While
visible factors like facilities and salaries are often prioritized, neglecting intangibles such as organizational climate,

* Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9693-1541 566

© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by DWIJMH. Peer review under
responsibility of Divine Word International Journal of Management
and Humanities.
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

motivation, and trust can lead to detrimental outcomes. For instance, Kanten and Er Ulker (2013) found that
organizational climate impacts counterproductive behavior, with positive climates reducing such behaviors.
Similarly, motivated employees, as noted by Permarupan et al. (2013), demonstrate increased productivity and
engagement. Trust, as highlighted by Varshney and Varshney (2017), fosters teamwork and enhances productivity.
The issue of trust has long been a concern in management, evident in theories like X, Y, and Z by McGregor (1960)
cited by Bennis and Stephens (2000) and Ouchi (1981), which reflect varying attitudes towards employee work ethic.
Recent surveys, such as one by Harvard Business Review (Harrington, 2017), reveal declining trust in organizations
due to ethical issues. Heartbeat's (2020) global employee engagement survey indicates that only 41% of employees
are engaged worldwide, with lower rates in industries like education and non-profit. While Gallup’s (2022) survey
report indicated that only 21% of employees are engaged at work. Addressing this gap, this study explored the extent
of trust between employees and administrators in educational institutions and its impact on work engagement. The
study is structured into introduction, literature review, research methodology, data presentation and analysis, and
result discussions to contribute to understanding the effect of trust on work engagement and productivity.

Literature Review
The literature review presents existing literature and studies related to the current study to deepen the understanding
of the study and to establish the theories to be investigated.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The Concept of Interpersonal Trust Collective Trust

Understanding trust is essential for comprehending the current topic. Merriam-Webster defines trust as "assured
reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something." Similarly, the Dictionary defines it as
"a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something." In this study, trust refers to
reliance on someone due to their competence. McLeod (2020) describes trust as an attitude towards people one hopes
will be trustworthy. This indicates that trust and trustworthiness are distinct, with trust being an attitude and
trustworthiness being a quality possessed by someone we trust.

Mishra (1996) defines trust as "one party's willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the
latter party is competent, open, concerned, and reliable." Cambridge Dictionary states trust involves not only hoping
someone is competent but also honest and reliable, reflecting trustworthiness. Trust evolves from cognitive to
affective dimensions based on rationality and emotion (McAllister, 1995; Erdem & Ozen, 2003).

In workplace settings, trust among team members fosters cooperation and coordination. It creates an environment
where individuals feel safe, enabling openness and acceptance of mistakes (Edmondson, 1999). Effective teamwork
requires both cognitive and affective trust (Jones & George, 1998; Erdem & Ozen, 2003).

Management faces the challenge of developing collective trust, which is a shared perception of trustworthiness
among groups (Rousseau et al., 1998; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Collective trust emerges from interpersonal trust and
significantly influences organizational effectiveness (Gray, 2016). Building a culture of trust involves providing
credible evidence to support decision-making (Bucero, 2012). Trust in various groups strongly impacts collective
trustworthiness and organizational effectiveness (Holm & Nystedt, 2010; Tarter & Hoy, 2004; Hoy et al., 1992).

The Importance of Interpersonal and Collective Trust on the Organizational Outcomes

Interpersonal and collective trust significantly impact organizational outcomes. Trust involves believing that
someone or a group will not behave in a harmful manner (Gambetta, 1988). Interpersonal trust, characterized by
vulnerability to others, can evolve into collective trust when shared perceptions align (Forsyth et al., 2015).

567
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Originally psychological, trust becomes a social and organizational property when shared within a group (Lewis &
Weigert, 1985).

Management should prioritize fostering both interpersonal and collective trust to enhance performance (Yuan et al.,
2021). Research demonstrates the positive impact of interpersonal trust on group performance and organizational
outcomes (Dirks, 1999; Bakiev, 2013; Ugwu & Maduagwu, 2018). Interpersonal trust correlates with job
satisfaction, decision-making participation, and employee empowerment (Guinot et al., 2014; Ul Hassan et al., 2012),
suggesting the need for trust-building practices (Six, 2007; Bulinska-Stangrecka & Bagienska, 2019).

Similarly, collective trust predicts individual and organizational performance (Deutsch-Salamon & Robinson, 2011;
Morrissette & Kisamore, 2019). It fosters high-responsibility norms, accountability, and improved customer service
(Deutsch-Salamon & Robinson, 2008). Studies affirm that enhancing trust climates within organizations positively
impacts outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Gray, 2016; Sagholi et al., 2010; Buenaventura-Vera & Gudziol-Vidal,
2020).

Employees’ trust in management

Employees' trust in management, also known as organizational trust, refers to the collective faith employees have in
their management, characterized by perceptions of reliability, honesty, and fairness (Wang et al., 2018;
Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975, cited in Baird & St-Amand, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995). Trust is cultivated over
time through consistent behavior that demonstrates concern for employees' well-being (Taylor, 1989, cited in Baird
& St-Amand, 1995). Clear communication and fair decision-making by employers contribute to building trust
(Whitener, 1997).

The impact of collective trust on organizational performance has been explored by various studies (Deutsch-Salamon
& Robinson, 2008, 2011; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Amoah-Binfoh et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2021). While direct
correlations may not always be found, collective trust influences the development of high-responsibility norms and
accountability, ultimately affecting organizational outcomes such as sales and customer service quality.

Factors influencing employees' trust in managers include competency, integrity, and the worker-leader relationship
(Seok et al., 2014, 2015; Hill & Lineback, 2019). Competency entails the manager's ability to handle tasks effectively
and make sound decisions, while integrity involves demonstrating sincerity, honesty, and ethical values. Building
trust also requires understanding and involving employees in problem-solving, as well as possessing technical,
operational, and political knowledge (Hill & Lineback, 2019; Covey, 2009).

Work engagement

Organizations strive for sustainability and competitiveness, necessitating attention to various dimensions including
the work environment, economic factors, and human aspects (Hart & Milstein, 2003; Spreitzer et al., 2012; Florea
et al., 2013). However, human dimensions, particularly work engagement, often receive inadequate consideration
despite their crucial role in supporting sustainability (Spreitzer et al., 2012; Florea et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2016).

Concerningly, global statistics indicate low levels of work engagement, with only 21% of employees reported as
engaged at work (Gallup, 2022). Heartbeat Consulting Group (2020) further highlights declining work engagement
trends, particularly in educational institutions and non-profit organizations, with only 39% of employees engaged in
both sectors. Work engagement, defined as a positive emotional state characterized by high energy, dedication, and
focus on work, is essential for fostering creativity, task performance, and organizational citizenship behavior (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2008; Schleupner & Kuhnel, 2021).

Studies identify various dimensions and elements of work engagement, including positive emotional states, energy,
and positive work-oriented behaviors (Green et al., 2017; Kuok & Taormina, 2017). Fulfillment of needs emerges

568
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

as a primary driver of work engagement, alongside factors such as support from colleagues and supervisors,
performance feedback, autonomy, and learning opportunities (Green et al., 2017; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008;
Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).

Work engagement significantly influences individual and organizational performance, as evidenced by numerous
studies (Kim et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2022; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Wang & Cheng, 2020; Bakker et al., 2012). These
findings underscore the importance of prioritizing work engagement within organizational management strategies.

Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Employees’ Trust in Management: Employees’ Work Engagement:

Employees’ E
-Trust in Management Competency - Cognitive Engagement
- Trust in Management Integrity - Affective Engagement
- Trust in Working Relationship - Conative Engagement.

Source: Seok, et al. (2015) Kuok and Taormina (2017).

Figure 1: The conceptual framework reflects the study’s purpose of determining the effect of employees' trust in
management on the work engagement of employees.

Statement of the Problems

The study examined the effect of employees' trust in management on the work engagement of employees. It
specifically answered the following questions:

1. What is employees’ trust in management in terms of:

a. Trust in management competency
b. Trust in management integrity
c. Trust in the working relationship
2. What is employees’ work engagement in terms of:
a. cognitive engagement
b. affective engagement
c. conative engagement
3. Is there a relationship between trust in management and work engagement?

Assumptions
The study assumes that employees' trust in management influences the work engagement of employees and both
can be measured.

Hypothesis
The study by Islam, et al. (2020) found that there is a correlation between trust in leadership and organizational
transformation. Based on such findings, the current study hypothesizes that trust in management affects the work
engagement of employees.

569
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The scope of the study is the Divine Word College of Laoag and its employees and it delimits its discussion on the
employees' trust along with several dimensions such as trust in competency, trust in integrity and working
relationships and work engagement in terms of cognitive, affective and conative dimensions.

Research Methodology
In accordance with scientific standards, rigorous procedures and techniques are employed to conduct research
systematically. The methodology employed plays a crucial role in determining the quality and reliability of the study
(Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Consequently, this study adhered to appropriate research methodologies
encompassing research design, data collection instruments, population selection, study locale, data collection
procedures, and statistical data analysis techniques.

Research Design
The quantitative nature of the study led to the utilization of descriptive assessment and correlational research design
to gauge the leadership competency of administrators and its impact on employee work engagement. Descriptive
research was employed to elucidate findings from questionnaire data, employing statistical methods to tabulate
results and describe various aspects of the data, such as profiles and frequency distributions (Ariola, 2006, cited by
Abun, 2019). In alignment with the study's objectives, both descriptive assessment and correlational methods were
applied to ascertain the level of employees' trust in management and its influence on work engagement.

The Locale of the Study

The locale of the study was Divine Word Colleges of Laoag, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Population
The population of the study was composed of all employees of Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. The
total enumeration sampling was used and 276 employees were taken as respondents to the study.

Data Gathering instruments

The study adopted validated questionnaires by Seok, et al. (2015) on employees ‘trust and Kuok and Taormina
(2017) on work engagement.

Data Gathering Procedures

During the data collection phase, the researcher sought permission from the College president to distribute
questionnaires on campus. They personally engaged with both the president and employees, requesting their
participation. Subsequently, questionnaires were collected through collaboration with employee representatives and
faculty members.

Statistical Treatment of Data

Aligned with the descriptive assessment and correlational research design, both descriptive and inferential
statistics were employed. The weighted mean determined the levels of employees' trust in management and work
engagement, while ANOVA analyzed the correlation between these variables.

570
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:

Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation

4.21-5.00 strongly agree/Very high
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low

Data Presentation and Analysis

The data are presented in the following tables based on the statement of the problems.

Problem 1: What is employees’ trust in management in terms of:

a. Trust in management competency
b. Trust in management integrity
c. Trust in the working relationship

Table 1: Trust in Management Competency

Indicators Weighted Descriptive
Mean Interpretations
My head of department shows confidence in task performance and 4.04 A/H
administration
The ability of my head of department is undeniable 4.01 A/H
My head of department brings development to the department 4.00 A/H
I have confidence in the ability of my head of department 4.02 A/H
My head of department is my source of reference 3.94 A/H
My head of department can make quick decisions 3.99 A/H
My head of department is good at administration 3.98 A/H
My head of department has a convincing appearance. 3.98 A/H
My head of department has great experience in performing his//her tasks. 4.02 A/H
My head of the department is capable of delegating tasks to his//her 4.02 A/H
employees.
Composite Mean 4.00 A/H
Source: Seok, et al., (2015).
Legend:
4.21-5.00 strongly agree/Very high
3.41-4.20 Agree/High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low

The data reveals an overall trust in management competency with a composite mean rating of 4.00, indicating an
"agree/high" level. This suggests that employees' trust in management competency falls within a high range, neither
very low nor moderate. Individually, all indicators also obtain the same high mean rating. This indicates that
employees trust management/administrators' capability in tasks, administration, and leadership. According to Katz
(1997), cited by Tyranska (2016), competencies are essential for organizational success, derived from knowledge,
skills, and experience. Hence, a lack of these competencies may hinder organizational development. Abun et al.
(2023) suggest a significant correlation between managerial competencies and employees' trust, with trust increasing
when administrators are perceived as competent.

571
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Table 2: Trust in Management Integrity

Indicators Weighted Descriptive

Mean Interpretations
My head of the department is very sincere in performing tasks and in making 4.00 A/H
decisions for the department.
My head of department is a disciplined person in task performance and 4.02 A/H
administration
I like the ethical values of my head of Department 4.09 A/H
My head of department has high integrity. 4.07 A/H
My head of department always shows a good example to his/her employees 3.98 A/H
My head of department is a person with high principles 4.05 A/H
The management of my head of department is honest and truthful. 4.01 A/H
My head of department respects his/her employees. 3.98 A/H
Composite Mean 4.02 A/H
Source: Seok, et al., (2015).

The results indicate a high level of employees' trust in management integrity, with a composite mean rating of 4.02,
interpreted as "agree/high". This suggests a solid level of trust, neither very low nor moderate. Each individual item
also reflects this high level of trust. Employees perceive management/administrators as possessing integrity,
demonstrated through sincerity, honesty, ethical behavior, and setting a good example. Shahid and Azhar (2013)
emphasize the crucial role of integrity in building and maintaining employee trust. Yohana and Akbar (2020) further
suggest that when all levels of management exhibit integrity and moral values, employees are motivated to perform
better in their roles.

Table 3: Trust in the Working Relationship

Indicators Weighted Descriptive

Mean Interpretations
My head of department has good knowledge of my background 3.96 A/H
My head of department spends time with his/her/her employees 4.04 A/H
My head of department understands me well 3.96 A/H
My head of the department always discusses work-related issues with his/her 4.00 A/H
employees.
Composite Mean 3.99 A/H
Source: Seok, et al., (2015)

This reveals that employees' trust in working relationships garners a composite mean rating of 3.99, signifying an
"agree/high" level. This indicates a solid level of trust, not excessively high but certainly not low. Each individual
indicator also reflects this high level of trust. Employees trust management in fostering working relationships, as
evidenced by efforts to understand employees' backgrounds and engage in discussions about work-related issues.
According to Zak (2017), employees in trusting organizations tend to perform better, be more productive, and
experience less stress compared to those in distrustful environments. Dirks (2022) emphasizes the crucial role of
trust in initiating, maintaining, repairing, and enhancing social relationships in the workplace.

Problem 2: What is employees’ work engagement in terms of:

a. cognitive engagement
b. affective engagement
c. conative engagement

572
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Table 4: Cognitive Engagement

Indicators Weighted Descriptive
Mean Interpretations
My mind is often full of ideas about my work 4.06 A/H
Wherever I am, things happen that often remind me of my work 3.85 A/H
My mind is fully engaged with my work 4.11 A/H
My thoughts are fully focused when thinking about my work 4.12 A/H
I give a lot of mental attention to my work. 4.21 A/H
I rarely think about a time when I am working 3.85 A/H
Composite Mean 4.04 A/H
Source: Kuok and Taormina (2017)

The data show that the overall work engagement of employees, particularly in terms of cognitive engagement,
achieved a composite mean rating of 4.04, denoting an "agree/high" level. This suggests a robust level of
engagement, not excessively high but certainly not low. Each individual indicator also reflects this high level of
engagement. Employees not only possess knowledge about their work but also consistently think about and fully
immerse themselves in their tasks. This indicates a focused approach to work, without distractions that may hinder
productivity. According to Tenney (2023), cognitively engaged employees align with the institution's vision,
mission, and strategies, actively contributing to organizational goals. Similarly, Joo et al. (2016) highlight that
cognitively engaged employees exhibit a strong connection to both their job and the organization.

Table 5: Affective Engagement/Emotional Engagement

Indicators Weighted Descriptive
Mean Interpretations
I feel very delighted about what I am doing whenever I am working. 4.01 A/H
I am very eager to do my work 4.32 A/H
I feel very happy when I am carrying out my responsibilities at work 4.12 A/H
I feel very good about the work that I do. 4.28 A/H
I feel strong enthusiasm for my work. 4.35 A/H
I feel a sense of gratification from my work performance 4.06 A/H
Composite Mean 4.19 A/H
Source: Kuok and Taormina (2017)

As indicated by the findings presented, the overall affective or emotional work engagement of employees is rated
high, with a composite mean rating of 4.19, denoting an "agree/high" level. This suggests a strong level of emotional
involvement among employees, characterized by feelings of delight, happiness, and eagerness in their work.
Research supports that emotionally engaged employees tend to exhibit higher work performance and engagement
levels (Chan, 2009; Bledow et al., 2011) and are more willing to invest effort in their tasks (Zhao & Zhao, 2017).

Table 6: Conative/Physical Engagement

Indicators Weighted Descriptive
Mean Interpretations
No matter how much I work, I have a high level of energy 3.88 A/H
I have a great deal of stamina for my work. 3.92 A/H
I always have a lot of energy for my work 4.04 A/H
I am often physically driven by my work. 3.95 A/H
I am frequently energized by my work. 4.14 A/H
I find my work to be physically invigorating. 3.98 A/H
Composite Mean 3.98 A/H
Source: Kuok and Taormina (2017)

573
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

According to the data provided, the overall physical work engagement of employees is rated high, with a composite
mean rating of 3.98, signifying a robust level of engagement. This indicates that while not excessively high, it is
certainly not low or moderate. Each individual indicator also reflects this high level of engagement, with employees
expressing a level of energy, stamina, and physical drive in their work. Research supports that physically engaged
employees tend to exhibit high engagement and performance ratings (Kuok & Taormina, 2017; Kiema-Junes et al.,
2022; Nyikuli et al., 2018), resulting in increased productivity and higher organizational performance (Singh et al.,
2021).

Problem 3: Is there a relationship between trust in management and work engagement?

Table 7: Employees' Trust in Management and Their Cognitive Engagement

Employees’ trust in management competency, integrity, and working relationship as a group do not
significantly predict cognitive engagement (F(3,136) = 0.964, p > .05, R2 = .021). Thus, regardless of these factors,
cognitive engagement remains unchanged.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .144a .021 -.001 .49062
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in
Management Competency, Trust in Management Integrity

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression .696 3 .232 .964 .412b
1 Residual 32.737 136 .241
Total 33.433 139
a. Dependent Variable: Cognitive Engagement

b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in Management Competency,

Trust in Management Integrity

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.075 .231 17.641 .000
Trust in Management
-.214 .150 -.332 -1.433 .154
Competency
Trust in Management
.093 .166 .142 .562 .575
Integrity
Trust in the Working
.111 .099 .185 1.119 .265
Relationship
a. Dependent Variable: Cognitive Engagement

574
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Table 8: Employees’ Trust in Management and Emotional Engagement

The combination of employees’ trust in management competency, integrity, and working relationship does not
significantly predict emotional engagement (F(3,136) = 0.342, p > .05, R2 = .007). Thus, differences in emotional
engagement are not influenced by variations in these trust factors.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
a
1 .087 .007 -.014 .55714
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in
Management Competency, Trust in Management Integrity

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression .318 3 .106 .342 .795b
1 Residual 42.216 136 .310
Total 42.534 139
a. Dependent Variable: Emotional Engagement

b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in Management Competency,

Trust in Management Integrity

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.004 .262 15.264 .000
Trust in Management
.131 .170 .180 .773 .441
Competency
Trust in Management
-.084 .189 -.113 -.443 .658
Integrity
Trust in the Working
.000 .113 .001 .004 .997
Relationship
a. Dependent Variable: Emotional Engagement

Table 9: Employees’ Trust in Management and Physical Work Engagement

The combined trust in management competency, integrity, and working relationship does not significantly
predict physical work engagement (F(3, 136) = 0.0302, p>.05, R2 = .007). Thus differences in work engagement are
not influenced by variations in these trust factors.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate
1 .081a .007 -.015 .47551
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in
Management Competency, Trust in Management Integrity

575
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .205 3 .068 .302 .824b
1 Residual 30.751 136 .226
Total 30.956 139
a. Dependent Variable: Physical Work Engagement

b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust in the Working Relationship, Trust in Management Competency,

Trust in Management Integrity

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 3.928 .224 17.544 .000
Trust in Management
-.085 .145 -.136 -.583 .561
Competency
Trust in Management
.094 .161 .149 .585 .560
Integrity
Trust in the Working
.027 .096 .046 .280 .780
Relationship
a. Dependent Variable: Physical Work Engagement

Results and Discussions

The study assessed the impact of employees' trust in management, focusing on competency, integrity, and working
relationship, on cognitive, affective, and physical work engagement. Results indicate high trust in management and
work engagement, but ANOVA shows trust doesn't predict work engagement. This holds true for Divine Word
College of Laoag, suggesting other factors like job satisfaction, company culture, and leadership may influence work
engagement (Othman et al., 2019).

Conclusion
The study finds high ratings for employees' trust in management and work engagement across cognitive,
affective, and physical dimensions. However, correlation analysis reveals trust in management does not affect work
engagement. Other unexplored factors may influence employees' work engagement.

Authors’ Contribution

Authors Contribution: Conceptualization: F.P.J., J.C., L.G.M., M.G. Methodology: F.P.J. J.C., L.G.M., M.G.
Data collection: J.C. Formal Analysis: F.P.J., L. M., M.G. Writing-Review and Editing: F.P.J., L.G.M.

All authors have read and agreed to the published final version of the manuscript

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the research
does not deal with vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.

Data Availability Statement: the data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Data are not publicly available due to privacy.

576
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest

Funding: the study is privately funded.

References
Abun, D. Lazaro, J., Bumanglag, A., & Serrano, C. (2022). The effect of managerial competencies on employees’
trust in the management. Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities (DWIJMH) (ISSN:
2980-4817), 1(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.62025/dwijmh.v1i1.5

Abun, D., Menor, R.I., Catbagan, N.C., Magallanes, T. & Ranay, F.B. (2021). Organizational climate and work
engagement of employees of Divine Word Colleges in Ilocos Region, Philippines. International Journal of Research
in Business and Social Science, 10(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i1.1017

Abun, D., Magallanes, Th., Encarnacion, M.J., Alkalde, F., & Somera, K.A. (2019). Investigation of cognitive and
affective attitude of students toward environment and their environmental behavioural intention to join
environmental movement and energy conservation. The International Journal of Business Management and
Technology, 3 (6). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16407.50085

Addison, J.T. & Teixeira, P. (2019). Trust and workplace performance, IZA discussion papers, No. 12216, Institute
of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/196714/1/dp12216.pdf

Amoah-Binfoh, K., Botwe, P.B. & Masih, E. (2016). Concept of trust and its effect on performance in an
organization. The International Journal of Business & Management, 4(2).

Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and methods of research. National Bookstore

Asamani, L. (2015). Interpersonal trust at work and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. International
Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(11), 17-29.

Baird, A. & St-Amand, R. (1995). Trust within the organization. Public Service Commission of Canada, 1.
http://www.psccfp.gc.ca/publications/monogra/mono1_e.htm

Bakiev, E. (2013). The Influence of interpersonal trust and organizational commitment on perceived organizational
performance. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 3(3),166-180

Bakker, A.B. Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis, L.L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning:
The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 555-564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008

Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International,
13, 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Bakker, A.B. & Bal, P.M. (2010). Weekly work Engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Brummelhuis, L.L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning:
The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008

577
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: the JD-R
approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389-411.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079916653414

Bakker, A.B. & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23 (1),
4-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in
occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1246–1257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024532

Bucero, A. (2012). Collective trust. PM Network, 26(8), 29.

Buenaventura-Vera, G., & Gudziol-Vidal, J. A. (2020). Trust as a mechanism to improve organizational

performance. Cuadernos de Administración, 36(66), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.25100/cdea.v36i66.7897.

Bulinska-Stangrecka, H. & Bagienska, A. (2019). HR practices for supporting interpersonal trust and its
consequences for team collaboration and innovation. Sustainability, 11, 4423. https://do.org/10.3390/su11164423

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d). Trust. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/trust

Chan, H.W.W. (2009). The positive side of emotional labor: Its effect on work engagement and job performance.
Unpublished Master Thesis, The Chinese University of Hon Kong. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48538019.pdf

Cohen, M.A. (2021). The crisis of Trust and trustworthiness in organizations. Unpublished Thesis: Seattle
University.

Covey, S.M.R. (2009). How the best leader builds trust. SHRM: Better Workplaces, Better World.
https://www.shrm.org

Deutsch-Salamon, S. & Robinson, S.L. (2011). The impact of trust on organizational performance. HRMA: Research
Briefing. https://cphr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Trust-and-Performance-Research-Results.pdf

Deutsch-Salamon, S. & Robinson, S.L. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 593-601. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.593

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3085982

Dirks, K. T. (2022). Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse of the
third. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 247-276.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083025

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

578
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Erdem, F. & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team p performance. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 9(5/6),131 – 135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590310493846

Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., and Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational
sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1355-x

Forsyth, P., Adams, C.M. & Hoy, W.K. (2015). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. Teachers
College Press.

Gallup (2022). State of the global workplace: 2022 Report. Gallup.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022-report.aspx

Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust? In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Blackwell, 213–237.

Goldberg, S. C., (2020). Trust and reliance. Routledge

Gray, J. (2016). Investigating the role of collective trust, collective efficacy, and enabling school structures on overall
School effectiveness. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 17(1).

Green, P.I., Finkel, E.J., Fitzsimons, G.M., & Gino, F. (2017). The energizing nature of work engagement: Toward
a new need-based theory of work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007

Guinot, J., Chiva, R. & Roca-Puig, V. (2014). Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: An empirical study.
Personnel Review, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0043

Harrington, M. (2017). Survey: People’s trust has declined in business, media, government, and NGOs. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/01/survey-peoples-trust-has-declined-in-business-media-government-and-
ngos.

Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspective, 17, 56–67.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194.

Heartbeat (2020). Global employee engagement data 2020. https://heartbeat.peakon.com/data/employee-

engagement/

Hill, L. & Lineback, K. (2012). To build trust, competence is key. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2012/03/to-build-trust-competence-is-k

Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. & Jackson, A.P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes
among inner-city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632643.579.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.632

Holm, H. J., & Nystedt, P. (2010). Collective trust behavior. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112(1), 25–53.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40587795

579
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Wiskowskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal with school
effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 38–58.

Islam, M.N., Furuoka, F. & Aida, I. (2020). The impact of trust in leadership on organizational transformation.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(4),1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22001

Jones, R. & George, J. (1998). The evolution of trust and cooperation: Implication for teamwork and tacit knowledge.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/259293

Joo, B.K., Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K. & Shuck, B. (2016). Work cognition and psychological well-being: The role of
cognitive engagement as a partial mediator. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(4), 446-469.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002188631668

Kanten, P. & Er Ülker, F. (2013). The effect of organizational climate on counterproductive behaviors: An empirical
study on the employees of manufacturing enterprises. The Macro Theme Review, 2(4).

Katz R. L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5).

Kiema-Junes, H., Saarinen, A., Korpelainen, R., Kangas, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pyky, R., & Hintsanen, M. (2022).
More physical activity, more work engagement? A Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine, 64(7), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002530

Kim, W., Park, C. H., Song, J. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2012). Building a systematic model of employee engagement:
The implications to research in human resource development. In J. Wang & J. Gedro (Eds.), 2012 Conference
proceedings of the academy of human resource development (pp. 3916-3949). St. Paul, MN: The Academy of Human
Resource Development

Kim, W., Khan, G. F., Wood, J., & Mahmood, M. T. (2016). Employee engagement for sustainable organizations:
keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst detection approach. Sustainability 8, 631.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070631

Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of
empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248–
276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635

Kuok, A.C.H. & Taormina, R.J. (2017). Work engagement: Evolution of the concept and a new inventory.
Psychological Thought 10(2):262-287. https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v10i2.236

Laschinger, H.K, Finegan, J., Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on
staff nurses' work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26(3):7-23.
https://doi.org//10.1097/00004010-200107000-00002.

Lewis, D. J., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601

Ma, J., Schaubroeck, J.M., & LeBlanc, C. (2019). Interpersonal trust in organizations. Oxford Research
Encyclopedia: Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.167

580
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause Personal stress and what to
do about it. Jossey-Bass.

McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations of interpersonal cooperation in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.

McLeod, C. (2020). Trust. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Trust. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved October 10, 2023.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust

Morrissette, A.M., & Kisamore, J.L. (2020). Trust and performance in business teams: A meta-analysis. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(5/6), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-02-2020-
0012.

Nyikuli, E.S., Makhanu, R. & Mukanzi, C. (2018). Influence of physical engagement on job performance among
employees in the civil service: A case of Kakamega Regional Head Quarters in Kenya. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.14741/ijmcr/v.6.5.11

Othman, R., Rapi, R.B.M., Alias, N.E., Jahya, A.B. & Koe, W.L. (2019). Factors affecting employee engagement:
A study among employees in the Malaysian construction industry. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i7/6178

Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z: how American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Addison Wesley.

Permarupan, Y., Saufi, R.A., Suzana, R., Kasimc, R., &, Balakrishnan, B. (2013). The Impact of organizational
climate on employee's work passion and organizational commitment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
107, 88 – 95. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720130904.2612

Rahman, S.A.A., Wahba, M., Ragheb, M.A.S. and Ragab, A.A. (2021) The effect of organizational trust on
employee’s performance through organizational commitment as a mediating variable (Applied Study on Mobile
Phone Companies in Egypt). Open Access Library Journal, 8, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107806.

Rajhans, K. (2009). Effective organizational communication: A key to employee motivation and performance. Inter-
science Management Review, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.47893/IMR.2009.1040

Robinson, B. (2021). New Study Shows a Lack of Trust between employees and employers. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2021/09/05/new-study-shows-a-lack-of-trust-between-employees-
and-employers/?sh=50815ad7395b

Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of
trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617

Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Defining and Measuring Work Engagement: Bringing Clarity to the
Concept, in Bakker, A.B. & Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research.
Psychology Press, 10-24.

581
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications
for organizations. In S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner & D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management:
Vol. 5. Managing social and ethical issues in organizations. Information Age Publishers.

Schleupner R and Kühnel J (2021) Fueling work engagement: The role of sleep, health, and overtime. Frontier in
Public Health, 9, 592850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.592850

Seok, C.B., Cosmas, G., Mutang, J.A., & Hashmi, S.I. (2015). Development and validation of employee trust scale:
Factor structure, reliability, and validity. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 9(8).

Seok, C.B., Lastar, A.I., Chiew,T.C. Mutang, J.A., Madlan, L. & Zhi, A.C.H. (2014). Workers and head of
departments: Investigating the trust factor. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4 (3).

Shagholi, R., Hussin, S., Siraj, S., Naimie, Z., Assadzadeh, F., & Moayedi, F. (2010). Current thinking and future view:
participatory management a dynamic system for developing organizational commitment. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences 2, 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.007

Shahid, A. & Azhar, S.M. 2013). Integrity and trust: The defining principles of great workplaces. Journal of
Management Research, 5(4), 64. https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr. v5i4.3739

Shahzadi, I., Javed, A., Pirzada, S.S., Nasreen, S., & Khanan, F. (2014). Impact of employee motivation on employee
performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 16(23).

Singh, A.K., Singh, A.P. & Amish. (2021). Role of employee engagement in organizational effectiveness: Empirical
evidence in the context of Indian public sector organizations. International Journal of Education & Management,
11(2), 74-80.

Six, F.E. (2007). Building interpersonal trust within organizations: A relational signaling perspective. Journal of
Management Governance 11, 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-007-9030-9

Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., and Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at
work. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009

Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). A systems approach to quality in elementary schools: A theoretical and empirical
analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 539-554. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554052

Taylor, R.G (1989). The role of trust in labor-management relations. Organizational Development Journal, 7, 85-89

Tenney, M. (2023, October 3). Three types of employee engagement. Business Leadership.
https://businessleadershiptoday.com

Tyranska, M. (2016). Managerial competencies for various management levels. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, 11 (959), 21-38. https://doi.org/ 10.15678/ZNUEK.2016.0959.1102

Ugwu, J.N. & Maduagwu, E.N. (2018). Interpersonal trust and workgroup performance in selected public
organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Business and Management, 9(1).

Ul Hassan, M., Vatansever, N., Semercios, F., & Aksel, I. (2012). Interpersonal trust and its role in organizations.
International Business Research, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr. v5n8p33

582
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 3(1)(2024) 566-584

Varshney, D. & Varshney, N.K. (2017). Measuring the impact of Trust on job performance and self-Efficacy in a
project: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 33(5).
https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v33i5.10017

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest
Journal. 158(1S), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012. PMID: 32658654.

Wang, W., Mather, K. & Seifert, R. (2018). Job insecurity, employee anxiety, and commitment: The moderating role
of collective trust in management. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1463229

Warren Bennis, W. & Stephens, D.C. (2000). Douglas McGregor revisited: Managing the human Side of the
enterprise. John Wiley.

Wilkinson, D. & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A Guide for researchers. Routledge.

William, A.N. (2010). Employee motivation and performance. Unpublished Thesis. Douala-Cameroon: Mikkeli
University of Applied Sciences.

Whitener E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management
Review 7, 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90026-7

Yao, J., Qiu, X., Yang, L., Han, X. & Li, Y. (2022). The relationship between work engagement and job performance:
Psychological capital as a moderating Factor. Frontier in Psychology, 13,729131.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.729131

Yohana, C. & Akbar, M. (2020). The effect of integrity, professionalism, and innovation on service performance.
Journal of Business and Behavioral Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.1.03

Yuan, H., Long, Q., Huang, G., Huang, L., & Luo, S. (2022). Different roles of interpersonal trust and institutional
trust in COVID-19 pandemic control. Social science & medicine, 293, 114677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114677

Zak, P.J. (2017). The neuro science of trust. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-neuroscience-of-
trust

Zhao, L. & Zhao, J. (2017). A framework of research and practice: Relationship between work engagement, affective
Commitment, and turnover intentions. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 225-233.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.510019

Publisher’s Note: DWIJMH stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities. DWIJMH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License.

583