Employee confidence in the enterprise and organizational commitment: a search for the relationship between constructs

Daniele Estivalete Cunha1, Andressa Hennig Silva1, Vania de Fátima Barros Estivalete1, Tatiane de Andrade Neves Hörbe1, Gilnei Luiz de Moura1

1 Santa Maria Federal University


This study was developed based on the identification of an association of confidence of the employees into the enterprise with organizational commitment. Thus, a descriptive research took place, with a quantitative approach, surveying 76 collaborators from the company Beta, which works in the field of monitoring and security. The instruments used to collect data were the ECEO (Scale of Confidence of the Employee in the Enterprise) and the EBACO (Scale of Basis of Organizational Commitment). For the analysis of data, it was used: descriptive statistics, factorial analysis, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, in order to establish a relationship between the constructs. The study points that the original factorial structure of the two instruments was not confirmed in this research. As main results, it was evident that trust is much more represented by the ethical standards and organizational solidity, while commitment is configured as an affiliation between the members of the organization. It was also indicated that there is an association between the factors. And as limitations of the study, based on the size of the sample, the authors can infer that the results cannot be generalized.

Keywords: Confidence in the Organization; Organizational Commitment; Organizational Behavior.


The constant changes originated from the present globalized and competitive environment, in which enterprises are inserted, they bring a certain level of daily unpredictability, thus generating a feeling of uncertainty in the relationship between companies and their collaborators. In this scenario, the search for competitive advantages does not depend only on the objective aspect of business, such as market analysis, advancement of new products, or being ahead of other competitors. Such economical and technological factors cannot be considered enough to guarantee a sustainable position of the enterprises in general (Horta et al., 2012).

Everyday more and more companies feel the necessity to face the subjective aspects that are around the working relationships, and that influence organizational behavior. This interest on the subjective aspect emerged during the decades of 1970s and 1980s, when organizational theories started to be concerned in understanding the present relationships inside the organizations, as well as to understand the view and the influence of employees in organizational realities (Castells, 1999). Since then, literature indicates the changes in the relationship between employer and employee.

For Butler (1983) the organizations started to structure the labor relations in means to consolidate trust links, which can fulfill at least partially the needs generated from the uncertainties present in decision making processes, risk behaviors, and the working relations themselves, providing safety to the enterprise and to the people involved. Trust started to be studied more intensively from the decade of 1990s, and since then it was given a considerable attention in the organizational field due to its influence over many aspects of the laborer behavior, such as: working performance, responsible behavior, problem solving attitude, recognition/support of authority, negotiation of mutual gains, organizational commitment, learning processes, team performance, and behavior for adaptation under crisis (Dirks, 1999; Ford, 2001; Tzafrir et Dolan, 2004; Lämsa et Pucetaité, 2006).

Among these behaviors of the employee, the organizational commitment deserves more attention to be listed together with the confidence, as is can be seen as a differential in the relationship employee-enterprise, once commitment is build upon trust (Morgan et Hunt, 1994). Within this context, organizational commitment emerges as a variable imbricated to trust, as it refers to the actions and attitudes of the employees in order to contribute to a good performance of the company as a whole (Mowday et al., 1982).

Thus, once businesses create working environments based on trust, people feel safer and more committed to perform their roles above the expected. The individuals predispose themselves to take risks, admit errors, and to learn from those errors (Reina et Reina, 1999). Based on that, it is believed that to develop trust it is necessary to amplify the commitment, which in place would incite many benefits in the organizational daily routines, such as: increased collaboration, work satisfaction, retention of home talents, knowledge sharing, among many other benefits that can contribute to increase the effectiveness over the vast number of organizational daily tasks.

From the context build, it was defined the following problem-question to guide the research: “What is the relationship of the level of trust and the commitment of the employee with the enterprise?”. In order to respond to the question, the general goal of the study consists in investigating the relationship between the level of trust related to the commitment of the employee to the enterprise. In specific terms, the aims are: i) To measure the trust of the employee to the organization; ii) To measure the commitment of the employee to the organization; and iii) To relate the factors of trust and organizational commitment.

This study is divided in seven sections. The introduction briefly presented the context and the goals of the research. The theoretical reference describes the terminologies trust, commitment, and discusses the relationship between these two constructs. The section of methodology presents the instruments for data collection and the proceedings used to analyze the results, to be presented and discussed over section six. In the last section, there are the final considerations of the study, the implications of the findings, present limitations, and suggestions for future researches in the field.



the topic trust emerged as an interest focus in researches specially from the decade of 1990s, a moment that journals and books started to present almost exclusively the topic, and to present the managerial implications of trust, the issue of trust under organizational context, and its relevance to political institutions (Kramer, 1999). Since then, the study of trust under organizational spectrum has called attention of researchers, specially in the past few years (Kramer et Cook, 2006; Schoorman et al., 2007; Dirks et al., 2009; Özyilmaz, 2010; Polat, 2010; Poliszkiewicz, 2011; Farahbod et al., 2013; Mansour, 2014).

The interest in the topic can be attributed to the benefits of trust for employing organizations, as well as for their employees, and also the recognition of the importance of this element into society and in the economy (Kramer, 1999), as confidence within organizational context is responsible to influence the performance at work, the responsible behavior of the laborer, the problem solving behavior, the recognition/support of authorities, the negotiation of multiple gains, and the organizational commitment (Tzafrir et Dolan, 2004; Lämsa et Pucetaité, 2006). Or in other words, trust in the organizations has become an indispensable condition to the well-being of collaborators, besides generating a competitive advantage (Caetano et Sousa-Lima, 2007).

Yet in relation to the benefits, the studies of Fock et Koh (2006) demonstrate that when there is a high level of trust of the members towards the organization, the cooperation arises spontaneously, once people work according to common ethical standards, or even shared values. On the other hand, in organizations in which the level of trust is considered low, there is no spontaneous cooperation, thus demanding systems of rules and regulations that work coercively, substituting trust to promote cooperation. The onus related to control and coercion, that will force cooperation, does not exist in societies and organizations that share a high level of trust, making them more effective from the economical standpoint.

Then, trust is one of the basis of social construction, or in other words, it si the support in which social, interpersonal, and among groups inside of an organization (intraorganizational), as well as interorganizational relationships are build and consolidated (Jones et George, 1998; Lazaric et Lorenz, 1998; Dirks, 1999; Cohen et Prusak, 2001; Dirks et Ferrin, 2001). In this sense, trust is a multilevel phenomenon that can be investigated from the individual, a group, or another larger unit (such as enterprises), or between organizations (Kramer, 1999; Costa, 2000).

According to the authors Zanini et al. (2009), to investigate trust from the perspective of the individual related to his working organization seems useful once it demonstrates the balance in the relationship of employer and employee, based on new management models. The fact that it is a phenomenon with different levels of analysis, as well as it can be investigated by many areas of knowledge – Psychology, Business Administration, Sociology, and Anthropology – it has lead to the lack of a consensus as well as to its conceptualization, including the measurement of different dimensions (Watson, 2005). Hence, many definitions are found in literature.

Organizational trust for Costa (2000) is related to the formal system (laws and regulations) and to the practices that keep the enterprise as a whole. For the authors Mayer et al. (1995) trust is linked to the readiness (expectation) of a part as being vulnerable to the actions of another individual. This means that the idea of trust of the employee in the company is based in shared rules and in the expectancy that the enterprise will work honestly, cooperatively, and fair in its professional relationships (Rueda et al., 2014).

With the objective to measure the trust of the employees in the organization, Oliveira (2004) build and validated the Scale of Trust of the Employee in the Enterprise (ECEO), which aims to evaluate the perception of employees regarding: a) the solidity of the organization (meaning the financial resolution and stability of the organization, which can be seen by the fulfillment of financial obligations with the employees); b) the ethical standards used in the relationship with the laborers, clients, and other organizations (reporting the ethical principles of honesty, equality, transparency of the company when sharing information, keeping up with commitments, and respect); c) promotion of professional development of employees (which involves means to motivate the development of laborers); d) financial recognition of the tasks performed (which involve the financial recognition of the employee by tasks done, involving salary payment, pay increase); e) rules related to layoff (which mean the rules and proceedings known by the employees or personal evaluation of directors, used or not in the layoff of employees).

From the study of Oliveira (2004), the definition of trust of the employee in the organization as believing there is a certain respect to ethical standards, confidence in the communication sent, economic power of the organization and its capacity to recognize the performance of an employee, both financial and professionally. The proposed definition by this author considers that the employee analyzes the moral and ethical standards of the organization, as well as its economic structure and the capacity to honor its commitments, and yet, to recognize the efforts of the individuals. In this sense, trust in the organization is based on the premise that all parts involved fulfill their roles in appropriate manner to maintain the good atmosphere ideal for the relationships, building an environment of mutual safety that contributes to the improvement of quality of life and higher productivity (Rueda et al., 2014).

As seen before, trust is considered a key factor to understand the connection between the identification of the employee with the organization, and the construction of a strong identity with the enterprise, which can also be responsible to feed organizational commitment (Puusa et Tolvanen, 2006). The trustful relationship between the parts generate a climate of safety, leading to the sensation of well-being, and then promoting higher levels of commitment of the employee to the organization. The following topic will deal with the discussion of organizational commitment, providing a definition and searching to understand the evolution of its studies, so later discuss the relationship between the constructs trust and commitment.



The studies related to organizational commitment originated around fifty years ago, with an initial goal to map and explain the bond established between individuals and the organization. From the decade of 1980s, according to Filenga et Siqueira (2006), there was an increased interest to deepen the study of commitment at work, as researchers demonstrated there was a variable that influence the fulfillment of organizational objectives and goals. Since then, the topic had an increased impulse and interest for organizational theories in Brazil and around the world.

Organizational commitment, according to Meyer et Allen (1991), can be understood as a psychological state characterized by the connection between individuals and an organization. The topic is also linked to the bond the individual has with the enterprise to which he works, identifying common objectives, and besides that, it also relates to the desire the individual has in being continuously part of the organization (Robbins, 2002; Padovam, 2005). In Brazil, studies regarding organization commitment, besides they are not extensive, have depth and quality enough, as seen in the studies from Bastos and his collaborators (Medeiros et al., 2005).

After an intense investigation about the path of construction and development of the most present approaches in the research of organizational commitment, Bastos’ study (1994) shows that there is no consensus among theoreticians in regards to the origin of studies about the commitment to an organization, as well as there is no agreement to the many different focuses given to the constructs. In his study, the author identified five main areas, originated from Sociology, Social Psychology, and from the Organizational Theories, namely: authority within working environment; instrumental or calculated side bets; attitude/affectionate; normative and behavioral (Bastos, 1994).

However, the emphasis that dominated literature of organizational commitment for longer was the affectionate approach, followed by the instrumental and the normative ones (Medeiros et al., 2005). The affectionate approach of organizational commitment was structured from 1979, with the studies of Mowday, Steers, and Porter, in which the authors printed to their studies an attitudinal approach (Ribeiro et Bastos, 2010). Such commitment preconizes a strong relation of identification of the individual with a certain organization, which can be characterized by three elements allusive to their target: to be available to perform a considerable effort, a strong belief and acceptance of goals and values, and a strong desire to continue to be part of the team (Mowday et al., 1982).

Therefore, this approach involves a strong desire from the part of the individual to continue to be part of the organization and an identification and sharing of values and objectives of the enterprise. The affectionate commitment represents a more intense link to the company, considering that this type emerges and is nurtured by the feelings of the laborer, the acceptance of creeds, the identification and assimilation of values (Bandeira et al., 2000). On the other side, the instrumental approach of organizational commitment is derived from the studies of Becker (1960), who defined the instrumental side as a tendency of the individual to engage in consistent lines or courses of action, continuing in the company due to the costs and sacrifices associated to his layoff, which are called side bets. In this sense, the consistent lines are associated to the permanence of the individual in the organization, the side bets, and to the multiple investments performed (Becker, 1960).

This means that under instrumental commitment, the individual ponders the cost/benefits to stay or to join another organization. In this judgment, the option to stay is strongly contaminated by the feelings of safety, based on the information considered are related to the environment and to the known and experienced relationships. In regards to the evaluation of the alternative to leave, it is influenced by the uncertainty, once the relationships and the environment is unknown (Ribeiro et Bastos, 2010). The normative approach is based on the studies of Wiener (1982), who defines it as a set of normative pressures internalized by the individuals so they behave according to the objectives, targets, and interests of the organization. These normative pressures are, in general, originated form organizational culture, from which the enterprise imposes the actions and the behavior of individuals, in order to involve them with their ideals (Medeiros et al., 2005).

Such components of organizational commitment, which focus was so far one-dimensional, were later seen as multidimensional models after some researchers realize that they were components present in the psychological bond between the individual and the organization. Hence, the researchers started to describe the presence of one more component in commitment, using different expressions for it: commitment typologies (Mowday et al., 1982); dimensions as basis for commitment (Becker, 1960); components of commitment (Meyer et Allen, 1991).

Among the diverse multidimensional models of commitment, the most accepted model by the researchers was the one presented by Meyer et Allen (1991), which proposes three components of commitment, affectionate, instrumental, and normative. The scales developed by these authors are divided in two: one with 24 items, and the second, in a reduced format, with 18 items. They are set with closed questions regarding organizational commitment, under likert format (Meyer et al., 1993). This model was validated in Brazil by Medeiros et Enders (1999) and Bandeira et al. (2000). However, the results from both studies found moderate indexes of internal consistency for three components of the theory, and low percentage scores for the explained total variation, which demonstrates the existence of indicators that are not so adequate in the instrument.

In the Brazilian context, the authors Medeiros et al. (2005) developed and validated the Scale of Basis for Organizational Commitment (EBACO, in Portuguese), based on the most relevant models of commitment found in literature. This scale identifies seven basis of organizational commitment: affectionate, obligation to stay, obligation for performance, affiliative, lack of rewards and opportunities, consisted line of activities, and lack of alternatives (Medeiros et al., 2005). The amplification of the dimensions is due to the dimensionality of the normative approach (divided in obligation for performance and obligation to stay), and the instrumental one (present by the consistent line of activity and lack of alternatives), as well as the inclusion of the affiliative base, as shown by Medeiros et Enders (1999).



It is important to highlight that, according to Bastos (1994), multiple aspects of the working context can be considered as a target of bonds developed by the laborer. Therefore, there is not a single source of attachment to work, even though multiple sources of attachment can potentiate the power of connection the employee has to his working environment and to the organization. According to Kwon et Suh (2004), the success of working relations can be associated to the existence of trust and commitment between the ones involved.

Some previous publications infer that organizational commitment and trust employed in the enterprise are relevant topics in the study of the strategies that aim for motivation, retention, and increase in the results of employees in companies (Golembiewski, 1995; Frankfort-Nachmias et Nachmias, 1996). The study of Romzek (1990) indicates that low rates of organizational commitment are critical factors to motivate and maintain laborers in the organizations. According to Carnevale et Wechsler (1992), trust complements organizational results achieved with the presence of organizational commitment. It is worth mentioning that there is trust when one of the parts believes in the integrity of the other part.

It is relevant to mention that the relationship commitment-trust is already present in literature, once this connection originated from the area of marketing, proposed by Morgan et Hunt (1994). The authors developed the Theory of Commitment-Trust, associating it to the marketing of relationships, defining that it refers to all marketing actions directed to establish, develop, and maintain successfully the relational exchanges. Therefore, they call attention that there are different types of marketing of relationship, as to know: relational exchanges between partners, functional departments, or even between employees and organizations.

According to Morgan et Hunt (1994), despite many different contextual elements influence the success of the marketing of relationship, the main ones are the commitment and trust. This happens because these elements carry the preservation of investments in relationships, generating cooperation, and they support the maintenance of long-term relationships. Commitment is considered as a great desire to maintain a valuable relationship, while trust is the disposition of dependency on the partner.

The lack of commitment makes that the relationships do not last long enough. Then, commitment and trust are directly related to the behavior of collaboration (Fock et Koh, 2006). Previous studies demonstrate that in the relationship between individuals and organizations, the idea of commitment is fundamental to mediate the impact of trust in organizational results (Lyndon et Zanna, 1990; Agnew et al., 1998; Gruen et al., 2000;).

Among the consequences related to organizational commitment, two strands have been analyzed. The first refers to the decisions to stay or leave the position; the second mentions one’s self evaluation of performance at work. In this sense, it is acknowledged that commitment conducts to lower rates of turnover, low levels of absenteeism, and performance improvement.

As seen the evidences that support the connection between the definitions, it is observed that while searching to understand the subjacent relationship between the constructs of the organizational commitment and trust of the employee to the enterprise is considerably important, once the strengthening of the social relationships emerges from the awareness of the level of trust the individuals place in the organizations, thus implicating in the degree of commitment of the individual to the company.



In order to investigate the relationship of the level of trust over the commitment of the employee to the enterprise, a quantitative research was set related to the approach used to understand the issue, and a qualitative section was added to observe the goals present in the relationship.

As such, the instrument for data collection was a questionnaire composed by three sections. The first was the personal and organizational profile of the interviewees, where there were questions related to age, gender, marital status, education, employment period and position. The second section there were questions related to the identification of the trust of the employee in the organization. For such, it was used the Scale of Trust of Employees in the Enterprise - ECEO, developed and validated by Oliveira (2004). Such scale aimed to measure how much the employee believes he can trust in the organization.

It is important to mention that this study decided to use the reduced scale, which has 28 items initially distributed in five elements, as for example: ethical standards, rules related to layoff, promotion, and development of employees, organizational financial recognition, and organizational solidity. Such scale was conceived from the results found in the representation of each element, after statistical analysis (Oliveira, 2004). The reliability index of some items (Cronbah’s Alpha) was tested, and in some factors, it was found a reliability index below 0.5, which were omitted. From the exclusion of the items with inadequate index of reliability, it was build a reduced scale, with 28 items. In the study performed by Oliveira (2004), the result found demonstrated that the use of ECEO in its full or reduced format would be optional, and indifferently for the option, the results would not be contaminated.

In the end, the third section had questions related to organizational commitment, measured by the Scale of Basis of Organizational Commitment – EBACO, designed and validated by Medeiros et al. (2005). This scale has seven elements, related to the following bases of organizational commitment: affectionate, obligation to stay, obligation for performance, affiliative, lack of rewards and opportunities, consisting line of activity, and lack of alternatives; distributed in 28 assertives, being 4 for each one of the seven bases. The EBACO scale was developed using a set of 6 points, which the attribution of the number 1 means “totally disagree” and the attribution of the number 6 means “totally agree”.

In this study, the evaluation scale of this theoretical model was switched from the original six-point scale of EBACO to a likert scale, presented in five points. Such changes were placed with the objective to include an alternative as “neutral”, as once according to the understandings of Vieira et Dalmoro (2008), this option gives more freedom to the respondent when expressing his opinion. Yet, these authors also declare that the five-point scale is more indicated because it is easier and faster to be answered (Vieira et Dalmoro, 2008). Then, from this substitution, the two instruments used in the study were standardized, in order to facilitate their understanding by the respondents of the research.

To investigate such issues, the object of study was a company, here called “Beta”, as it required to be kept anonymous. The company Beta is functioning for 14 years, in the area of vigilance and security, with around 100 collaborators. The headquarters is located in the central region of the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and other 12 franchises, distributed through the state. It is important to mention that all employees of the Beta company were invited to participate in the research by answering the questionnaire, however there was an answer from 76 respondents only. After data collection, these questionnaires were tabulated and further statistical analysis were performed through the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences®- SPSS 18.0.

First, simple statistical analysis was performed (calculation of frequency and percentage of answers) to identify the profile of the respondents. In sequence, there was the exploratory factorial analysis (EFA), aimed to identify the representative factors of the set of variables, or in other words, the constructs under investigation. For the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was performed, which works to verify the adequacy of data, as for Malhotra (2006), such values must be above 0.6 to be considered satisfactory. And also, the Barltett’s Sphericity Test, which aims to test the inexistence of a perfect correlation among the variables (Malhotra, 2006).

Later, the analysis of the communalities was performed, which aims to search for the proportion of variation that a variable shares with all the other variables. According to Corrar et al. (2009), the value of communalities must be above 0.5. It was also observed the explained total variation index, present when variables explain a construct. For this index, it is expected to find rates above 60%.

After the definition of the factors, it was observed the trust of internal coherence of the constructs. In order to observe such results, it was used the Cronbach’s Alpha, as Field (2009) mentions that the acceptable trust rates present results between 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8, also considering that substantially low results indicate to an untrusted scale.

In the end, after these analysis, and with the objective to establish a relationship between the elements in the scales of trust and commitment, there was a treatment using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, which indicated the strength of association between the variables. According to Pestana et Gageiro (2008), rates between 0.2 and 0.39 represent low association; between 0.4 and 0.69 indicate moderate association between the variables; between 0.7 and 0.89 show high association, and results between 0.9 and 1.0 denote very high association.



In this section, there will be presented and discussed the results related to this research. Initially the results presented are related to the profile of the investigated population. In sequence, there are the results regarding the level of trust of the employees of the investigated enterprise, followed by the results of organizational commitment. In the end, the last topic of this section points to the results related to the existing relationships between the two investigated constructs.

Profile of the sample

Out of the 76 participating individuals of this study, 82.9% are male, with ages varying from 23 to 25 years old (27.6%). In regards to education and marital status, 52.6% declared having High School diploma, and 51.3% are married. In the employment bonding, 44.6% work for Beta for around 1 year or less and are not in any leading position in the company (78.9%).

Trust of the employee in the enterprise: amplifying the understanding

In order to perform the factorial analysis of the variables of the Scale of Trust of Employee in the Enterprise, there were 28 questions used in an instrument, with the goal to identify possible associations between the variables, as to group them in common factors. Initial tests of the factorial analysis were set under Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), and Bartlett’s sphericity test. These statistical proceedings permitted to identify the quality of the correlations between the variables, indicating it is possible to continue with the factorial analysis (Pestana et Gageiro, 2008). The results of the test are characterized as satisfactory, with KMO presenting a coefficient of 0.888, and Bartlett’s test presenting significant result (sig 0.000).

Just after these proceedings, with the intention to extract the factors, the criteria of eigenvalues above 1.0 and with the percentage of explained variance was used. There were found six factors with eigenvalues above 1.0, which the first was responsible for 48.650% of the variation, as seen on Chart 1.

Chart 1. Factors extracted from the factorial analysis of the construct trust of the employee in the enterprise, with respective eigenvalues and explained variance.

Table 1

Source: The authors themselves.

As it was seen that three of the factors found in the factorial analysis presented only one question, it was decided to discharge them. Therefore, as a final result of the factorial analysis, there were three elements. Later, the communalities were observed. Based on the criteria of communalities above 0.5 for each question (Latif, 1994), one variable was suppressed from factorial analysis. Chart 2 presents the indexes related to the Cronbach’s Alpha, in which demonstrated a good association between the variables.

Chart 2. Cronbach’s Alpha of the Scale of Trust of Employee in the Enterprise

Table 2

Source: The authors themselves.

From a more detailed analysis, it is possible to identify the corresponding variables to each factor, as well as to verify the factorial load found in this study, as demonstrated in the Chart 3.

Chart 3. Factorial Analysis of the Scale of Trust of the Employee in the Enterprise

Table 3

Source: The authors themselves.

It is important to highlight that in this study the data acted differently from the original scale, which predicted the construction of six factors, and in the present work three factors were found, named according to the assertive that composed each element.

In order to identify the corresponding rates of the factors of the Scale of Trust of Employee in the Enterprise, in a likert scale of five points (varying from 1- Totally disagree to 5- Totally agree), it was seen that the Ethical Standards and Organizational Solidity was the dimension with higher average rate (4.08), followed by the dimension Rules and Responsibilities of the Organization (3.80), as seen on Chart 4.

Chart 4. Average, Median, and Standard Deviation of the factors extracted from the factorial analysis of the Scale of Trust of Employee in the Enterprise

Table 4

Source: The authors themselves.

From the results found, it is considered that the trust of the employee in the studied company can be explained by the factors: Promotion, Financial Recognition, and Growth of the Employee, Ethical Standards and Organizational Solidity, and Rules and Responsibilities of the Organization, which had the highest average among the respondents, and it can be considered an element that contributed the most to build the trust of employees in the investigated organization.

It is possible to consider that trust and ethics are merged topics. Hence, once the moral background of trust pervades ethical issues, this matter must be considered one of the present preoccupations in the management of organizations and of people (Reed, 2001). To trust means to deal with the expectancy of a person, group, or company in adopting ethically justifiable behavior, which means that actions and decisions must be morally correct, supported by ethical principles (Hosmer, 1995).

In a general sense, the results indicate that the participants of this research recognize the ethical standards adopted in the company and its financial stability, as well as its capacity to find strategies that permit it to live through moments of crises present in the market. At the same time, the respondents identified the existence of rules that lead the organization to make decisions regarding the layoff of laborers, and which provide them, as a compensation, to have a more assertive forecast of their permanence in the enterprise. And with a lower weight in agreeing, the respondents believe that their efforts are compensated with financial retributions from the company, as well as they have incentives for professional growth. The perception of these elements in higher or lower rates as responded by the laborers contributes to increase the confidence of the employee in the organization.

Organizational commitment

The factorial analysis was done over the 28 questions of the instrument, trying to identify possible associations between the variables. The tests performed included the KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity test. The results found are seen as satisfactory, with KMO generating a coefficient of 0.827, and Bartlett’s test demonstrating a significant result (sig 0.000).

There are seven factors of eigenvalues above 1.0, being the first element with 39.717%, and the set of factors achieved 76.494% of the total of the variance, according to demonstrated in Chart 5.

Chart 5. Factors extracted from the Factorial Analysis of the construct Commitment, with respective eigenvalues and variances explained for each one

Table 5

Source: The authors themselves.

Next, the analysis of the communalities of the variables, and considering the criterion of communalities above 0.5 (Latif, 1994), a variable was removed from factorial analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale observed, according to the classification of Hair et al. (2009), presents some good or very good associations, however there are some unsatisfactory results, once the score is equal or below 0.7, as seen on Chart 6.

Chart 6. Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale of Commitment

Table 6

Source: The authors themselves.

It is seen that four factors (3, 5, 6, 7) did not reach acceptable results of Cronbach’s Alpha, thus excluded from the analysis.

Chart 7 presents a more detailed analysis of the construction of factors, permitting to identify the correspondent variables to each factor, as well as their respective factorial load. It is important to mention that, in this sample, the factorial structure did not fully match the original factorial structure, hence the elements were called according to their respective assertive that composed them.

**Chart 7. ** Factorial Analysis of the scale of Commitment

Table 7

Source: The authors themselves.

With a goal to identify the corresponding indexes to the scale of Commitment, it was seen that the factor Affiliative Commitment achieved highest average rate (4.35), and the factor that presented the lowest average index was the Lack of job Alternatives (2.39), as seen on Chart 8.

Chart 8. Average, Median, and Standard Deviation of factors extracted from factorial analysis of the scale of Commitment

Table 8

Source: The authors themselves.

The result demonstrates that the individuals of the studied sample show that commitment can be explained through three elements: Affective Commitment and Moral Obligations, Affiliative Commitment, and Lack of Job Opportunities. Taking into consideration that the highest average found is related to the affiliative commitment, it is possible to understand that this factor is the most important to explain the commitment of employees.

It is defined as affiliative commitment the attachment the individuals continue with the organization because they feel part of it, thus built upon psychological bond, based on the feeling of identification and affiliation. In regards to the lack of job opportunities, it is seen that this element represents the fact that less contributes to the commitment of the employee, with average results at 2.39, thus it is understood that laborers believe they have other job opportunities in the case they decide not to be part of the organization anymore, but this is not the determinant element that shows their commitment to the organization.

Relationships between trust and commitment

With the intention to identify the presence of a relationship between the factors Trust and Commitment of the Employee to the Enterprise, it was calculated the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, presented in Chart 9.

Chart 9. Matrix of correlation between factors

Table 9

Source: The authors themselves.

**The correlation is significant in a 1% level.

Initially observing the relationship between the factors, it is possible to seen a higher positive correlation found (0.794) related to the elements Promotion, Financial Recognition, and Growth of the Employee, and Affective Commitment and Moral Obligations to be considered a high association between the two constructs. It is also present a high association, with an average value of 0.769, between the factors Ethical Standards and Organizational Solidity, and the Affective Commitment and Moral Obligations. As a conclusion, it is possible to infer that as higher is the Affective Commitment and the Moral Obligations of the enterprise, higher is the perception of the Ethical Standards and Recognition from the Employees.

In regards to the moderate associations, it is seen that the average rate of 0.699 among the factors of Promotion, Financial Recognition, and Growth of the Employee, and the Rules and Responsibilities of the Organization. In the moderate associations, the average value of 0.665 in the Rules and Responsibilities of the organization, and in Affiliative Commitment. Therefore, it is possible to confirm that when the rules and responsibilities of the organization take place, the feeling of belonging and the recognition of promotions and growth of employees is also increased.

In the end, based on the negative associations found are characterized as very low, which were not considered for further analysis.



This research has as the main objective to analyze the relationship between the level of confidence over the level of commitment of the employee with the organization. It is possible to determine that the objective was accomplished, once some conclusions were possible to be reached in accordance to the requests of the research.

The interpretation of the results found reports to the condition of understanding what employees trust in the company, specially because the later demonstrate ethical standards and organizational solidity. Then, it is worth to mention to managers to guarantee the continuity of these proprieties, once the lack of confidence in any relationship, and in this case, a labor relationship, can lead to a quick dismantling of the ties, and it is known that to rebuild the previous conditions can be very costly, both for the organization and for the individual, as they demand a considerable amount of time. It is understood that the breach of trust in an enterprise prints into the group the condition of social failure, in which interpersonal relationships are seen highly compromised by the variables of trust.

In reference to the employees, it is also seen as a representative variable, and once it can be evaluated, it represents a greatness directly proportional to trust, indicating an important path to the development of organizations. In order to achieve productivity, effectiveness, as well as individual satisfaction and needs of collaborators, the organizations work on different efforts. In this sense, it is understood that compromised collaborators will influence organizations to compete more effectively, once they do their best for the company. The results of this study demonstrate that affiliative commitment is determinant in the enterprise studied. Such commitment is part of the feeling of belonging, an identification developed by individuals in relation to the organization.

As a conclusion, the research aimed to establish a relationship between the constructs Trust and Commitment. After the analysis, it is possible to confirm certain level of association between the factors, which corroborates with the previous findings of Morgan et Hunt (1994). Among the most significant associations, there are facts that mention that as more Promotions, Financial Recognition, and Growth of the Employee, higher is the affective commitment of the employees.

The limitation of this research was found in the size of the sample, which makes that the results of this study cannot be generalized. Then, new investigations are suggested to observe the proposed association in other context. Future studies can contribute widening the understanding about trust of the employee in the organization and organizational commitment, searching to identify the influence as well as the impact of the intention for turnover of the laborer, thus becoming a scientific contribution for the praxis in the field of organizational behavior.


Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Langston, C. A. (1998), “Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 939-954.

Bandeira, M. L., Marques, A. L., Veiga, R. T. (2000), “As dimensões múltiplas comprometimento organizacional: um estudo na ECT”. Revista de Administtração Contemporânea, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp 113-157.

Bastos, A. V. B. (1994), Comprometimento no trabalho: a estrutura dos vínculos do trabalhador com a organização, a carreira e o sindicato. Tese de Doutorado em Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF.

Becker, H. S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, pp. 32-40.

Butler, J. K. (1983), “Reciprocity of trust between professionals and their secretaries”. Psychological Reports, Vol. 53, pp. 411- 416.

Caetano, A. et Sousa-Lima, M. (2007), “Importância do papel mediador da confiança nas organizações: relações de troca social e satisfação no trabalho”, em Caetano, A., Garrido, A. M., Batel, S., e Martins, A. M. (Orgs.), Percursos da investigação em psicologia social e organizacional, Colibri, pp. 145-157.

Carnevale, D. et Wechsler, B. (1992), “Trust in the public sector: individual and organizational determinants”. Administration and Society, Vol. 23, No.4, pp. 471-494.

Castells, M. (1999), A sociedade em rede: a era da informação: economia, sociedade e cultura. 1 ed., Paz e Terra, São Paulo, SP.

Cohen, D. et Prusak, L. (2001), In good company. How social capital makes organizations work. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Corrar, L. J., Paulo, E., Dias Filho, J. M. (2007), Análise multivariada: para cursos de administração, ciências contábeis e economia. Editora. Atlas, São Paulo, SP.

Costa, A. C. (2000), “Estudos organizacionais, novas perspectivas na administração de empresas: uma coletânea luso-brasileira”, em Rodrigues, S. B, Cunha, M. P. (Orgs.), A confiança nas organizações: um imperativo nas práticas de gestão, Iglu Editora Ltda, São Paulo, pp. 284- 305.

Dirks, K. T. (1999), “The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 no.3, pp. 445-455.

Dirks, K. T. et Ferrin, D. L. (2001), “The role of trust in organizational settings”. Organization Science, Vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 450-467.

Dirks, K. D., Lewicki, R. J., Zaheer, A. (2009), “Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation”. Academy of Management Review, Vol.34 no.1, pp.68–84.

Farahbod, F., Azadehdel, M. R., Jirdehi, M. N. (2013). “Organizational justice, employees trust and organizational support”. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol. 3 no.2, pp. 74-85.

Field, A. P. (2009), Discovering statistics using SPSS. England: SAGE, London.

Filenga, D. et Siqueira, M. (2006), “O impacto de percepções de justiça em três bases de comprometimento organizacional”. Revista de Administração da USP, Vol. 41, pp. 431-441.

Fock, S. T. et Koh, H. C. (2006). “Conceptualization of Trust and Commitment: Understanding the relationships between trust and commitment and the willingness to try Internet Banking Services”. International Journal of Business and Information. Vol.2, pp. 194-208.

Ford, D. (2001), “Trust and Knowledge management: the seeds of success”. Working Paper 01-08, Queen's KBE Centre for Knowledge – Based, Enterprises, Kingston.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. et Nachmias, D. (1996), Research methods in the social science. St. Martin‘s Press, New York.

Golembiewski, R. (1995), Managing Diversity in Organizations. University of Alabama Press, United States of America.

Gruen, T.W., Summers, J.O., Acito, F. (2000), “Relatinship Marketng Activities, Commitment and Membership Behaviors in Professional Associations”. Journal of Marketing, pp.34-49.

Hair, J. F., JR., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. l., Black, W.C. (2009), Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS.

Horta, P., Demo, G., Roure, P. (2012), “Políticas de gestão de pessoas, confiança e bem-estar: estudo em uma multinacional”. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 566-585.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 379-403.

Jones, G. R. et George, J. M. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork”. Academy of Management Review, Vol.23 no. 3, pp. 531-546.

Kramer, M. R. (1999). “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging, perspectives, enduring questions”. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.50, pp. 569-598.

Kramer, R.M. et Cook, K.S. (2006). Trust and distrust within organizations. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Kwon, I. et Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships”. Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing and Supply, Vol. 1, pp. 4-24.

Lamsa, A. M. et Pucetaité, R. (2006), “Development of organizational trust among employee from a contextual perspective”. Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 130-139.

Latif, S. A. (2004), A análise fatorial auxiliando a resolução de um problema real de pesquisa de marketing. Caderno de Pesquisa em Administração, São Paulo.

Lazaric, N. et Lorenz, E. (1998), “Trust and organizational learning during inter-firm cooperation”, em Lazaric, N., e Lorenz, E. (Eds.), Trust and economic learning, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK pp.209-226.

Lyndon, J. et Zanna, M. (1990), “Commitment in the Face of Adversity: A Vvalue-Affirmation Approach”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 no. 6, pp. 1040-1047.

Malhotra, N. K. (2006), Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 4ª ed., Bookman, Porto Alegre.

Mansour, M. (2014). “Organization justice, support and trust: evidence from Saudi companies”. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 22-25.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D. (1995). “An integrative model of organizational trust”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No.3, pp. 709-734.

Medeiros, C. A. F, Albuquerque, L., Marques, G., Siqueira, M. (2005), “Um estudo exploratório dos múltiplos componentes do comprometimento organizacional”. Revista Eletrônica de Administração, Vol.43 No.1, pp. 1-22.

Medeiros, C. A. F. et Enders, W, T. (1999), “Três (ou quatro?) Componentes do Comprometimento Organizacional” artigo apresentado no Encontro Nacional dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Foz do Iguaçu, PR, disponível em: Anais do 23ª Encontro da Anpad – Organizações - CD-ROM.

Meyer, J. P. et Allen, N. J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment”. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-98.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., Smith, C. A. (1993) “Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology”, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 538-551.

Morgan, R. M. et Hunt, S. G. (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. Employee-organizations linkagens. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Oliveira, A. F. (2004). Confiança do empregado na organização: impacto dos valores pessoais, organizacionais e da justiça organizacional. Tese de Doutorado em Psicologia, Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF.

Özyilmaz, Y. D. A. (2010). “Vertical trust in organizations: a review of empirical studies over the last decade”. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, Vol. 7 No. 13, pp. 1-28.

Padovam, V. A. R. (2005), Antecedentes de Bem-estar no Trabalho: Percepção de Suportes e de Justiça. Dissertação de Mestrado em Psicologia, Curso de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Saúde. Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, São Bernardo, SP.

Pestana, M. H. et Gageiro, J. G. (2008) Análise de dados para ciências sociais: a complementaridade do SPSS. Silabo, Lisboa.

Polat, S. (2010), “The effect of organizational support; perception of teachers on organizational trust perception of their schools”. African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4 No.14, pp. 3134-3138.

Poliszkiewicz, J. (2011), “Inter-organizational trust: conceptualization and measurement”. International Journal of Performance Measurement, Vol. 1, pp. 15-28.

Puusa, A. et Tolvanen, V. (2006). “Organizational identity and trust”. Eletronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizations Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 29-33.

Reed, M. I. (2001), “Organization, trust and control: a realist analysis”. Organization Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 201-228.

Reina, D. et Reina, M. (1999), Trust and betrayal in the workplace: building effective relationship in your organization. Berrett-Koehler, São Francisco.

Ribeiro, J. A. et Bastos, A. V. B. (2010), “Comprometimento e justiça organizacional: um estudo de suas relações com recompensas assimétricas”. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissional, Vol.30 No.1, pp. 4-21.

Robbins, S. P. (2002), Comportamento organizacional. 9. ed. Pearson Hall, São Paulo.

Romzek B. S. (1990), “Employee investment and commitment: the ties that bind”. Public Administration Review. Vol. 50, pp. 374-381.

Rueda, F. J. M., Serenini, A. L. P., Meireles, E. (2014) “Relação entre qualidade de vida no trabalho e confiança do empregado na organização”. Rev. Psicol., Organ. Trab., Vol.14 No.3, pp. 303-314.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. (2007). “An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 344–354.

Tzafrir, S.S. et Dolan, S. L. (2004). “Trust Me: a scale for measuring manager-employee trust”, Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 115-131.

Vieira, K. M. et Dalmoro, M. (2008), “Dilemas na Construção de Escalas Tipo Likert: o Número de Itens e a Disposição Influenciam nos Resultados?” apresentado no XXXII Encontro da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Rio de Janeiro.

Watson, M. L. (2005). “Can there be just one trust? A cross-disciplinary identification of trust, definitions and measurement.” Trabalho apresentado The Institute for Public Relations.

Wiener, Y. (1982). “Commitment in organizations: A normative view”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 418-428.

Zanini, M. T., Lusk, E., Wolff, B. (2009). “Confiança dentro das organizações da nova economia: uma análise empírica sobre as consequências da incerteza institucional”. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Vol.13 No.1, pp. 72-91.