Next Article in Journal
Green Supply Chain Decisions Considering Consumers’ Low-Carbon Awareness under Different Government Subsidies
Previous Article in Journal
Objective Environmental Indicators and Subjective Well-Being: Are They Directly Related?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/su12062278
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Managerial Perception and Organizational Identity: A Comparative Analysis

by
Serhat Erat
1,*,
Hakan Kitapçı
2 and
Kültigin Akçin
1
1
Faculty of Business Administration, Science of Strategy, Gebze Technical University, 41400 Gebze, Turkey
2
Faculty of Business Administration Management, Gebze Technical University, 41400 Gebze, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(6), 2278; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062278
Submission received: 3 February 2020 / Revised: 11 March 2020 / Accepted: 12 March 2020 / Published: 14 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on manager trust and sustainable organizational identity is analyzed, also including the role of mediation on manager trust. First, we analyzed what the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on trust in the organization and sustainable organizational identity is. Secondly, we examined the mediator effect on organizational trust, in addition to the effects of transformational leadership and procedural justice on sustainable organizational identity. The sample of the study consists of 558 subjects from Turkey, 106 subjects from Azerbaijan, and 95 subjects from Kyrgyzstan—a total of 759 subjects. To analyze the collected data, we used correlation analysis, regression analyses, and ANOVA testing. For these analyses, we used the SPSS statistical software. The results indicate that transformational leadership and procedural justice positively and significantly affect manager trust. Moreover, manager trust has a positive and significant impact on creating a sustainable organizational identity. The results of the regression analyses further show that in the relationship between transformational leadership and procedural justice with sustainable organizational identity, there is a full effect of mediation on the perception of manager trust. Moreover, there is an indirect relationship among transformational leadership and procedural justice with creating a sustainable organizational identity, and this relationship is established through the perception of manager trust. The results of the study suggest that an efficient way to increase the trust of managers by employees is to increase procedural justice and to follow a transformational leadership style in the workplace. Moreover, it is expected that corporations following these strategies can sustain their organizational identity.

1. Introduction

Organizations need powerful leaders who can motivate their employees to maintain their existence, grow, reach organizational objectives, and compete, all while delivering the perception of a sustainable organizational identity. In addition to managerial skills and experience, the reliability and fairness of managers considerably increases the credibility of the employees towards the leader and the company.
A leader with transformational ability exhibits consistent behavior in all respects, such that the perception of confidence between the leader and the employee can develop [1]. Transformational leaders manage changes in organizations with this management skill and via the courage they display [2]. Consequently, this leadership style is essential for the adoption of a sustainable organizational identity and the success of the organization. Since transformational leaders effectively involve their followers in processes, they increase the confidence of the employees in the leader, organization, and themselves [3]. First, a sustainable organizational identity ensures trust [4]. Later, trust reinforces the stability of the sustainable organizational identity [5].
Recent research on transformational leadership argues that manager trust has an important role in achieving the aims of an organization [6]. In addition to this, the relationship between transformational leadership and procedural justice has also been analyzed, and a strong relationship has been established between these variables [7]. Studies in the related literature show that leaders with transformational abilities successfully influence the attitudes of employees [8,9] and increase employee job satisfaction, workplace performance, and loyalty [10,11], leading to higher trust in managers [11,12].
The leading factor among the factors affecting sustainable organizational identity is transformational identity [13], and this leadership style, with specific visions, determines the sustainable organizational identity [14]. Studies show that a sustainable organizational identity leads to trust [4], and, in an environment of trust, sustainable organizational identity will be stable and long lasting [5]. Moreover, the literature shows that organizational justice has a positive and significant effect on creating a sustainable organizational identity [13]. The studies in the literature have revealed that leaders with transformational qualities are capable of influencing the attitudes and behaviors of employees [8,9].
This study has two purposes. First, we analyze the effect of a transformational leadership style and procedural justice on organizational identity and trust in the organization. Secondly, we examine the mediating effect of organizational trust on creating a sustainable organizational identity. The literature review shows that studies on this subject are limited in number. Hence, it is believed that this study will contribute to the literature.
The paper proceeds as follows: The next section summarizes the related literature. Section 3 introduces the data and methodology. The analysis is presented in Section 4. The last section concludes the study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership, which was used by Burns for the first time in 1978, is based on the principle of “raising the awareness” of the employees who follow the leader and attracting attention by the implementation of targets or results, as well as the implementation of conclusions, particularly in the political field. Bass later described the significance of transformational leadership in the 1990s and, for it to be considered as reliable by employees, describing a transformational leader as a person who defines a vision for the organization [15].
Transformational leaders should be able to recognize the judgments, needs, and beliefs of their followers and alter these when necessary, improve them with new strategies, and provide new visions [16,17]. The starting point of transformational leadership is the motivation [18] of the followers to achieve more than they would without leadership, such that the organization may continue its life and restructure its mission [19], since the environmental factors constantly develop and change. Rather than emphasizing the role of standards or power in management, transformational leadership supports the creation of visions, trust, fundamental values, continuous learning [20], and collective consciousness and purpose among employees [21].
Transformational leadership is based on vision, building trust, basic values, and continuous learning, as well as long-term sustainability [20]. It creates a state where individuals are in contact with others, raising both motivation and morality in both leaders and followers [22]. Transformational leaders are highly admired, respected, and trusted by their followers, and their followers want to resemble them [23].

2.2. Procedural Justice

While the perception of procedural justice affects the behaviors and attitudes of employees to decisions taken by managers, it also strengthens the relationship between managers and employees. It consists of the perception of the methods, mechanisms, and processes, and concerns how managers treat employees [24,25]. Again, the perception of procedural justice refers to the perceptions of employees in terms of the procedures used in decision-making processes and the perception of how fair decisions are [26].
Procedural justice is of vital importance in ensuring organizational justification and focuses on the suitability of sharing processes in the organization, such as consistent behavior as well as correct and ethical decision making, without being influenced by prejudices and correcting errors that may occur [27]. Procedural justice relates the ability [28] to change a decision for the benefit of employees by using impartial information and the involvement of employees in the decision-making process, such that they can believe impartial and objective decisions are taken [29].

2.3. Manager Trust

Although there are various definitions of trust, in general terms, it signifies “relying on” something [30], having good faith for confidence and confiding words and actions [31], and the confidence acquired at the end of coherent and positive attitudes based on respect and kindness [32]. Trust is the expectation that employees will not be harmed by the behaviors of other employees, and, in fact, it is an expectation that they will benefit from them [33].
Manager trust refers to the belief of employees that their manager is honest and that their manager is as good as his/her word [34,35]. This includes the perceptions of employees about the support they will receive from managers and the belief that managers are competent enough and that they will be just and take decisions based on ethical principles [36]. It also means the belief that managers give understandable and correct answers and that managers will be fair and consistent about this [34].

2.4. Perception of Sustainable Organizational Identity

The creation of a sustainable organizational identity is still a prominent issue in management and organization studies. Sustainable organizational identity studies have focused on how organizations define themselves, what they represent for stakeholders [37], and how they play an essential role in developing and managing the behaviors and strategies of companies [38], including the guidance of the relationships of the organization with its environment [39].
Sustainable organizational identity is a concept that reveals the fundamental characteristics of an organization to its employees [40], signifying the meaning attached to how an organization is recognized and remembered [41], and it is the combination of the characteristics that make the organization meaningful and distinguish it from other organizations [42].
Employees who share the same identity and ideas with the organizations they are working in demonstrate positive and beneficial behaviors in the workplace [43]. A high perception of a sustainable organizational identity creates a psychological connection between the employee and the organization. This perception of the common identity and subsequent coordination increases the cooperation and trust between the employees, while it leads employees to make more efforts to achieve the organization’s objectives [44].

2.5. Transformational Leadership, Sustainable Organizational Identity, and Its Effects on Manager Trust

Organizational identity is effective in helping to make organization decisions [45,46]. Leaders determine the identity of the organization and create a foundation that would serve as a guide in decision-making processes [40]. Transformational leaders demonstrate behaviors such that they are the role models for their followers. Hence, the respect, trust, and admiration for them increases and their followers start to define their identity by these leaders and want to resemble them [47].
The success of transformational leaders is revealed as the ability to offer suggestions to their followers beyond their own interests and to create a mission and vision that inspire others and gives them an identity [48]. A positive image of the organization, participation in positive socialization activities, charismatic and transformational leadership characteristics of managers, having positive feelings about the profession, and organizational communication are the principal factors that affect the perception of a sustainable organizational identity [13].
There are studies that argue that transformational leadership has a significant effect on the creation of a sustainable organizational identity [49,50,51]. Transformational leaders pay attention to their direct reports and followers [15,52] and ultimately win their admiration [53]. Transformational leaders are self-confident, and they rely on their capacity and abilities [54]. Rezaee et al. discovered a meaningful relationship between transformational leadership and sustainable organizational identity in their study, conducted on 226 workers in the petrochemical sector [55].
For success and motivation in organizations, trust mediates in the creation of an environment that enables mutual communication between employees and managers [56]. Hence, we should consider that the behaviors of managers for increasing confidence in the organization are very important [57].
Yolaç [58] discovered that the contribution of transformational leadership to manager trust is considerably high. The study was conducted on 240 people, working in different sectors in Istanbul. In the study, the behavior of the leader was observed to be the principal factor in determining trust in the manager. Childers [59] conducted a study on 84 people working in hotels and revealed that there is a positive correlation between transformational leadership and trust (r = 0.49, p < 0.001).
Based the general findings established in the related literature, we developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The behavior of transformational leaders positively affects the perception of manager trust.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The behavior of a transformational leader positively affects the perception of a sustainable organizational identity.

2.6. The Effects of Procedural Justice on Sustainable Organizational Identity and Trust

In a study that aimed to ascertain the effect of the perception of organizational justice on sustainable organizational identity perceptions, it was revealed that organizational justice perceptions have a significantly positive effect on employees’ perceptions of a sustainable organizational identity. Olkkonen and Lipponen [60] conducted a study on 160 employees and asserted that procedural justice affects the behavior of creating a sustainable organizational identity. It was discovered that procedural justice behaviors affect the creation of a sustainable organizational identity positively and significantly [60]. Furthermore, there are also some pieces of evidence proving that there is a significant relationship between the perceptions of justice and creating a sustainable organizational identity [61,62].
Similarly, Gülşen [63] conducted a study on 384 people and revealed a similar, powerful, and statistically meaningful relationship between procedural justice and creating a sustainable organizational identity. In this case, it was observed that the perception of procedural justice was enhanced, just like the perception of a sustainable organizational identity [63].
The perceptions of justice regarding the processes within the organization shape people’s relationship with the organization, their position within the organization, and the identity information of the organization, which helps the person to recognize themselves through the eyes of the organization, all while motivating the person to identify with the group or the organization [64]. In addition, these perceptions increase trust in managers and the organization and contribute positively to business results [24,65]. Tyler and Blader [64] also asserted in their studies that justice is influential on the creation of a sustainable organizational identity, since it affects the satisfaction of group membership.
In the studies that strive to explain the relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust, it has been revealed that organizational justice generally influences organizational trust. For example, Bidarian and Jafari [66] determined that there is a positive and meaningful relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust, and it was concluded that when justice perceptions increase, the trust in management and the organization increases accordingly. Çakar [67], in a study conducted on 224 employees from six companies operating in the manufacturing sector, discovered that procedural justice affects trust in managers both positively and meaningfully.
Based on the literature review, we derived the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Procedural justice positively affects manager trust.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Procedural justice positively affects the perception of a sustainable organizational identity.

2.7. The Effects of Manager Trust on Creating a Sustainable Organizational Identity

Trust in organizations is related to the sustainable organizational identity [68], and trust is influential in determining the sustainable organizational identity [69]. In organizations, the level of trust between employees and managers and the effectiveness of groups significantly strengthen the sustainable organizational identity perceived by individuals [70].
The level of trust between employees and managers has proven itself as an essential concept in explaining how sustainable organizational identity behaviors and trust in organizations emerges and develops [71]. Consequently, the concepts of a sustainable organizational identity and trust are extremely important for the success of organizations [5]. Nevertheless, there are few studies examining the relationship between organizational trust and a sustainable organizational identity. For example, Rousseau [68] related organizational trust with a sustainable organizational identity. On the other hand, Dumitru [72] conducted research on the relationship between trust and identity with 222 students and revealed a meaningful relationship (r = 0.54, p < 0.05). Similarly, Gün and Söyük [73] observed a positive and meaningful relationship between a sustainable organizational identity and manager trust in a study conducted with 396 healthcare workers (r = 0.247, p < 0.01). Again, Tüzün [4] revealed that the direct effect of the perceived sustainable organizational identity on organizational trust was meaningful in a study conducted with 545 people working in the financial sector (r = 0.82, p < 0.05).
Based the general findings established in the related literature, we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Manager trust and the sustainable organizational identity are positively related.

2.8. Intermediate Variable Effect of Manager Trust on Creating a Sustainable Organizational Identity and Procedural Justice

The intermediate variable effect of trusting the manager in creating a sustainable organizational identity and procedural justice is reviewed here. As explained above, various studies have revealed that transformational leadership [49,50,51] and procedural justice [60,61,63,64] positively and meaningfully affect the creation of a sustainable organizational identity.
Organizational trust refers to the beliefs of employees that the organization will support employees and that the words of the leaders are accurate [35] and representative of the beliefs of the parties involved for future work. Hence, past experiences provide hints about reliability [74], and as workers’ perceptions of justice regarding procedural justice increase, their confidence in managers and the organization also increase [75]. From this aspect, the concept of trust occupies an effective place in all of the results affected by organizational justice [76]. Trust in the leader is a very significant organizational variable [77] and it is declared that, first of all, it is essential to increase the perceptions of justice in order to ensure trust in the organization [78].
When procedural justice within an organization increases, it will increase the trust of employees in the manager. Hence, it is assumed that the effect of the leadership and justice dimensions is important in the formation of the perception of a sustainable organizational identity. In other words, it can be assumed that the relationship between transformational leadership and procedural justice with organizational identification is ensured by manager trust. Accordingly, organizational trust is associated with both procedural justice and transformational leadership and the creation of a sustainable organizational identity, implying that organizational trust may have an intermediate role when procedural justice and transformational leadership affect the sustainable organizational identity.
The literature review has shown that there are many studies that have analyzed the effects of transformative leadership on manager trust and the sustainable organizational identity, and the effects of procedural justice on manager trust and the organizational identity. However, there are only few studies that have analyzed the effects of transformative leadership and procedural justice together on manager trust and the organizational identity. Moreover, there is no study in the related literature that has analyzed the intermediate effect of manager trust on the effect of transformational leadership and the intermediate effect of the perception of procedural justice on manager trust and the organizational identity.
Based on the general findings established in the related literature, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Manager trust plays an intermediate role in the perception of a sustainable organizational identity and transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Manager trust plays an intermediate role in the perception of a sustainable organizational identity and procedural justice.

3. Methodology

The data used in the present study were collected via a convenience sampling method [79] from academics working in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan. To collect the survey data, an online surveying method was used in Turkey and a face-to-face survey method was used in Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan. According to the official 2019 statistics, the number of public universities in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan are 129, 27, and 31, respectively. In these universities, there are 50,000 academics in Turkey [80], 12,000 in Azerbaijan [81], and 14,000 in Kyrgyzstan [82]. Based on a 95% confidence interval, the minimum number of subjects in the sample to represent the population is equal to 384. The total number of subjects used in the study (758) is much higher than that number.
For the procedural justice scale, Niehoff and Moorman [83] developed a procedural justice scale consisting of 15 questions. The Cronbach’s (1951) alpha internal consistency coefficient for the procedure justice scale was 0.952. Although this affirms that values starting from 0.70 and above can be reported to be reliable, reliability coefficients in the range of 0.65 to 0.70 were accepted as satisfactory values by Nunnally and Bernstein [84].
With regard to manager trust, for measuring the variable, a scale consisting of 8 items, developed by Nyhan and Marlow [85] and adapted by Demircan [67], was used. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient of the trust scale was 0.895.
For the transformational leadership scale, Bass and Avolio’s [86] transformational leadership scale was used. It consists of 4 dimensions that include 3 items separately, namely, the idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. In the analysis, we examined transformational leadership in one dimension. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient for the transformational leadership scale was 0.890.
For the organizational identity scale, a 5-item organizational identity scale developed by Mael and Ashforth [87] was used. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient of the organizational identity scale was 0.846. Figure 1 presents the hypotheses tested in the study.

4. Results

First, we present a summary of the sample statistics of the survey participants in Table 1.
Table 2 presents a summary of the statistics, including the N (number of observations), mean, standard deviation, and F-values.
The F-value represents whether there are differences among the countries studied. The F-value test results are significant for all variables presented in Table 2. This shows that for the organizational identity variable, Azerbaijan differs from the two other countries. For the transformational leadership, procedural justice, and manager trust variables, Kyrgyzstan differs from the two other countries. Lastly, for the age variable, Turkey differs from the two other countries.
In Table 3, the factor load and percentage explanation are presented. Principal component analysis revealed four factors, as we expected. The scale items were sufficiently loaded with relevant factors. The principal component analysis explained 62.632% of the total variance.
The scale averages, standard deviations, internal consistency values, and correlation values of the variables used in the study are presented in Table 4.
When the correlations between variables were considered, it was comprehended that the variable that shared the highest correlation with procedural justice was transformational leadership in the positive sense. There is a positive and meaningful correlation between these two variables at a 0.764 probability level. Furthermore, the mean and standard deviation of the variables are presented in Table 4.
Multiple regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses of the research. In the regression analysis performed in Table 5, while manager trust was the dependent variable, the independent variables were procedural justice and transformational leadership. Based on the results of the regression analysis, we have strived to reveal the relative effect of the independent variable on the dependent variables.
According to the results in Table 5, all three models were significant (F = 41.023, p < 0.01; F = 8.109, p < 0.01; F = 47.932, p < 0.01).
When the variables in the model were reviewed, we observed that transformational leadership (β = 0.321, p < 0.01; β = 0.507, p < 0.01; β = 0.277, p < 0.01) and procedural justice (β = 0.407, p < 0.01; β = 0.409, p < 0.01; β = 0.526, p < 0.01) had a positive effect on the manager trust variable for all three countries.
In the table, the beta coefficient (β) presents the average change in the dependent variable when there is a one-unit change in the independent variable. For example, in Model, the beta coefficient of transformational leadership in Azerbaijan indicates that the one-unit change in the transformational leadership scale leads a 0.321-unit change in manager trust. The beta coefficients for both transformational leadership and procedural justice were positive for all three countries. While the beta coefficient for transformational leadership was the highest for the Kyrgyzstan sample (0.507), the beta coefficient for procedural justice was highest for the Turkey sample (0.526). The R2 value in Model was highest for the Turkey sample (0.567), indicating that the explanatory power of the independent variables (transformational leadership and procedural justice) is highest for the Turkey sample. It shows that changes in the independent variables explain a 56.7% change in the manager trust variable. Lastly, the F-value in Model shows that the established model is significant in terms of explaining changes in the manager trust variable.
Hypotheses 1 and 3, which predict that transformational leadership will positively affect manger trust and that the perception of the procedural justice will positively affect manager trust, respectively, were accepted.
In the regression analysis performed in Table 6, the sustainable organizational identity is the dependent variable, while the independent variable is manager trust. Based on the results of the regression analysis, we have strived to reveal the relative effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
All three models presented in Table 6 were significant (F = 17.504, p < 0.01; F = 8.846, p < 0.01; F = 53.7, p < 0.01).
When the variables in the model were reviewed, manager trust was found to have a positive effect on the organizational identity variable (β = 0.380, p < 0.01; β = 0.295, p < 0.01; β = 0.297, p < 0.01). Hence, Hypothesis 5, which predicts that the perception of manager trust positively affects the organizational identity, was accepted.
In Table 7, we analyzed the effect of a transformational leadership style on creating a sustainable organizational identity. For all three countries, the effect of a transformational leadership style on a sustainable organizational identity was positive and significant (β = 0.204, p < 0.05; β = 0.175, p < 0.05; β = 0.279, p < 0.01). As a result, Hypothesis 2 was accepted.
Table 8 presents the analysis of the effect of procedural justice on the sustainable organizational identity. For all three countries, the beta coefficient of procedural justice was positive and significant (β = 0.169, p < 0.05; β = 0.101, p < 0.05; β = 0.302, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was accepted.
When the intermediate variable was introduced in the model, the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable should be significantly decreased (the partial mediator effect) or the relationship should be entirely eliminated (the full mediator effect). Hence, in the regression analysis (Table 9), the intermediate variable effect of the perception of manager trust on the effect of the perception of procedural justice and transformational leadership on the organizational identity was reviewed. In all three models, while procedural justice (β = 0.120, p > 0.01; β = 0.061, p > 0.01; β = 0.135, p > 0.01) and transformational leadership perception (β = 0.019, p > 0.01; β = 0.014, p > 0.01; β = 0.084, p > 0.01) were meaningless, the model became meaningful when the manager trust variable was introduced in the model (β = 0.387, p < 0.01; β = 0.294, p < 0.01; β = 0.142, p < 0.01). Consequently, the perception of manager trust has a full mediator effect on the effect of the perception of transformational leadership and procedural justice on the sustainable organizational identity. Hence, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were accepted.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

In this study, the effect of administrative perception on sustainable organizational identity was examined in comparison with cases from Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey. In the scope of the research, transformational leadership, procedural justice, and manager trust were selected as the administrative perception parameters and the effect of these concepts on the sustainable organizational identity was reviewed, together with the intermediate variable effect of the manager trust variable on the sustainable organizational identity. Overall, 558 people from Turkey, 106 people from Azerbaijan, 95 people from Kyrgyzstan participated in the study. Thus, the sample consists of 759 people in total.
Primarily, the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on the sustainable organizational identity perception was analyzed. The model was significant for all three countries (F = 41.023, p < 0.01; F = 8.109, p < 0.01; F = 47.932, p < 0.01). When the variables in the model were examined, there was a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and manager trust (β = 0.321, p < 0.01; β = 0.507, p < 0.01; β = 0.277, p < 0.01) for all three countries. The results of the study correspond to the findings in the literature [15,52,58,59,88]. According to this result, transformational leaders create an atmosphere of trust for their employees and the relationship based on trust considerably affects the organizational results of the organizations.
The procedural justice variables have a significant positive effect on the manager trust variable (β = 0.407, p < 0.01; β = 0.409, p < 0.01; β = 0.526, p < 0.01; β = 0.277, p < 0.01). At the end of the regression analysis, it was remarked that the perception of procedural justice has a significant and positive effect on the perception of manager trust. This result was also supported by the literature [66,67,89,90,91,92]. When employees believe that their organization applies procedural justice, their trust in their manager increases, leading to positive effects such as increased performance and commitment.
In the second part of the study, we examined the effect of manager trust on a sustainable organizational identity. The model was significant for all three countries (F = 17.504, p < 0.01; F = 8.886, p < 0.01; F = 53.7, p < 0.01). When the variables in the model were reviewed, manager trust had a positive effect on the sustainable organizational identity variable (β = 0.380, p < 0.01; β = 0.295, p < 0.01; β = 0.297, p < 0.01). There are few studies that have examined the relationship between organizational trust and a sustainable organizational identity in the literature. The results obtained support the few studies in the literature [4,5,72,73]. The positive relationship between sustainable organizational identity and trust is essential in the success of organizations. Consequently, employees who have a high level of trust in their organization and managers have a direct impact on strengthening the identity of organizations.
In the last part of the research, we examined the intermediate effect that trust in the manager has on the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice perceptions on a sustainable organizational identity. While the trust in the manager variable was meaningful in all three countries (β = 0.387, p < 0.01, β = 0.294, p < 0.01; β = 0.142, p < 0.01), procedural justice (β = −0.120, p > 0.01, β = −0.061, p > 0.01; β = 0.135, p > 0.01) and the perception of transformational leadership (β = 0.019, p > 0.01, β = −0.014, p > 0.01; β = 0.084, p > 0.01) were found to be meaningless. Therefore, the perception of trust in the manager has a full mediator effect on the effect of transformational leadership and the perception of procedural justice on the sustainable organizational identity. In other words, the relationship between transformational leadership and procedural justice with the organizational identification is ensured by manager trust.
If we compare the three countries in the models, it can be assumed that the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on the perception of a sustainable organizational identity is generally at the same level and is significant. In addition, the effect of manager trust on the sustainable organizational identity has been examined, where there was no significant difference between the three countries, and it was remarked that the hypotheses were affected significantly and were affected in the same way. The intermediate variable effect presented in the last part of the study was different in the three countries. The intermediate effect of manager trust on the effect of transformational leadership and the perception of procedural justice on a sustainable organizational identity was examined, and it was found that there was a significant effect for all three models. However, the Azerbaijan (β = 0.387, p > 0.01) and Kyrgyzstan (β = 0.394, p > 0.01) samples presented a more robust full mediator effect in comparison to Turkey’s sample (β = 0.142, p > 0.05). It can be stated that due to a rigorous discipline regime, the effect of management is still more present there.
The established findings in the study suggest that, in order to maintain a sustainable organizational identity and to increase manager trust, two important and efficient methods are to build procedural justice and to follow a transformational leadership style. However, there are several prominent limitations of this study. The study included only three countries and the number of samples was limited. In the study, a sector-based sample was analyzed. Accordingly, it will be essential to conduct the research by including several variables with a sector-based sample. Furthermore, demographic factors, as well as the impact of working and environmental conditions, should be taken into consideration in future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology and data curation, S.E. and H.K., formal analysis and software, S.E. and K.A.; writing—original draft preparation and writing—review and editing, S.E., H.K. and K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. O’leary, E. 10 Minute Guide to Leadership, 2nd ed.; Alpha Books: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amirkabiri, A.; Khodayari, I.; Nazari, F.; Moradi, M. The relationship between transformational leadership styles and exchanging with employees organizational commitment. J. Manag. Cult. 2005, 16, 3117–3142. [Google Scholar]
  3. Robbins, S.P.; Judge, T.A. Örgütsel Davranış, Çeviri Editörü: İnci Erdem; Nobel Yayınları: Ankara, Turkey, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tüzün, İ.K. Örgütsel Güven, Örgütsel Kimlik ve Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Ilişkisi; uygulamalı bir çalışma, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi; Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü: Ankara, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  5. Huemer, L. Balancing between Stability and Variety: Identity and Trust TradeOffs in Networks. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fitzgerald, S.; Schutte, N.S. Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-efficacy. J. Manag. Dev. 2010, 29, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pillai, R.; Scandura, T.A.; Williams, E.A. Leadership and Organizational Justice: Similarities and Differences across Cultures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1999, 30, 763–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gardner, W.L.; Lowe, K.B.; Moss, T.W.; Mahoney, K.T.; Cogliser, C.C. Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of the leadership quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. Leadersh. Q. 2010, 21, 922–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Judge, T.A.; Piccolo, R.F. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 755–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Bass, B.M. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Braun, S.; Peus, C.; Weisweiler, S.; Frey, D. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kelloway, E.K.; Turner, N.; Barling, J.; Loughlin, C. Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being. Work Stress 2012, 26, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ertürk, A. Örgütsel İletişim ve Adalet algılarının Örgütsel Kimlik Algısı Üzerindeki Etkileri. Yönetim Araştırmaları Derg. 2003, 3, 147–170. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wolfe, J.T. Organizational Identification as a Mediator of Trans-Formational Leadership Outcomes. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bass, B.M. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 1990, 18, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior; Mc Graw-Hill Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  17. Luthans, F. Organizational Behaviour, 11th ed.; Mc Graw Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. Krishnan, V.R. Leader-member exchange, transformational leadership, and value system. Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 2005, 10, 14–21. [Google Scholar]
  19. Smith, B.N.; Montagno, R.V.; Kuzmenko, T.N. Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and Contextual Comparisons. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2004, 10, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seaver, D.S. Effect of Transformational Leadership in a Crosscultural Organization: A Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  21. García-Morales, V.J.; Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1040–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Northouse, P.G. Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Reichard, R.J.; Riggio, R.E.; Guerin, D.W.; Oliver, P.H.; Gottfried, A.W.; Gottfried, A.E. A Longitudinal Analysis of Relationships between Adolescent Personality and Intelligence with Adult Leader Emergence and Transformational Leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Greenberg, J. Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Paycuts. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Greenberg, J. The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice, Russell. In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  26. Charash, Y.C.; Spector, P.E. The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 86, 278–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cropanzano, R.; Bowen, D.E.; Gilliland, S.W. The Management of Organizational Justice. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2007, 21, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ngodo, O.E. Procedural Justice and Trust: The Link in the Transformational Leadership–Organizational Outcomes Relationship. Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2008, 4, 82–100. [Google Scholar]
  29. Moon, H.; Kamdar, D.; Mayer, D.M.; Takeuchi, R. Me or We? The Role of Personality and Justice as Other- Centered Antecedents to Innovative Citizenship Behaviors within Organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, S. Understanding Employee Trust, Commitment and Innovative Behavior in the Public Sector: An Empirical Study; Korean Association for Public Administration: Seoul, Korea, 2004; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  31. Laschinger, H.K.; Finegan, J.; Shamian, J.; Wilk, P. Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: Expanding Kanter’s model. J. Nurs. Adm. 2001, 31, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Taylor, R.G. The Role of Trust in Labor-Management Relations. Organ. Dev. J. 1989, 7, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bijlsma, K.M.; Van De Bunt, G.G. Antecedents of trust in managers: A “bottom up” approach. Pers. Rev. 2003, 32, 638–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reinke, S.J.; Baldwin, J.N. Is Anybody Listening? Performance Evaluation Feedback in the U.S. Air Force. J. Political Mil. Sociol. 2001, 29, 160–176. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mishra, J.; Morrissey, M. Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships: A Survey of West Michigan Managers. Public Pers. Manag. 1990, 19, 443–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Deluga, R.J. Supervisor Trust Building, Leader Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1994, 67, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pratt, M.G.; Schultz, M.; Ashforth, B.E.; Ravasi, D. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dutton, J.; Dukerich, J.; Harquail, C.V. Organizational Images and Membership Commitment. Adm. Sci. Q. 1994, 34, 239–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Whetten, A.D.; Godfrey, P.C. Identity in Organizations. Building Theory through Conversations; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  40. Albert, S.; Whetten, D. Organizational identity. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1985; pp. 263–295. [Google Scholar]
  41. Markwick, N.; Fill, C. Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. Eur. J. Mark. 1997, 31, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dutton, J.E.; Dukerich, J.M. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 517–554. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bergami, M.; Bagozzi, R. Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 39, 555–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kramer, G.E.; Ashforth, B.E. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational İdentification. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  45. Grojean, M.W.; Resick, C.J.; Dickson, M.W.; Smith, D.B. Leaders, Values and Organizational Climate: Examining Leadership Strategies for Establishing an Organizational Climate Regarding Ethics. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 55, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eren, E. Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, 13th ed.; Beta Yayınevi: Baskı, İstanbul, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  48. Geib, P.; Swenson, J. China: Transformational Leadership for Policy and Product Innovation. Adv. Manag. 2013, 6, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  49. Conger, J.A.; Kanungo, R.N.; Menon, S.T. Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 747–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shamir, B.; House, R.J.; Arthur, M.B. The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organ. Sci. 1993, 4, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Epitropaki, O.; Martin, R. The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadersh. Q. 2005, 16, 569–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodrigues, A.O.; Ferreira, M.C. The impact of transactional and transformational leadership style on organizational citizenship behaviors. PsicoUSF Bragança Paul. 2015, 20, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Morton, K.; Barling, J.; Beauchamp, M.; Masse, L.; Zumbo, D.; Rhodes, R.E. The Application of Transformational Leadership Theory to Parenting: Questionnaire Development and Implications for Adolescent Self-Regulatory Efficacy and Life Satisfaction. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2011, 33, 688–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Rezaee, A.H.; Sohrabipour, M.; Negad, P.M. An Examınatıon of the Relatıon between Transformational Leadershıp and Organızatıonal Identıty; A Case Study (Petrochemıcal Of Ilam Provınce). Indian J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 2014, 4, 365–371. [Google Scholar]
  56. Han, G. Trust and Career Satisfaction: The Role of LMX. Career Dev. Int. 2010, 15, 437–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Avcı, U. Dönüşümcü Liderlik ve Örgüte Güvenin Kariyer Memnuniyetine Etkisi: Lider-Üye Etkileşiminin Aracılık Rolü. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Derg. 2012, 4, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yolaç, S. Yöneticinin Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı İle Yöneticiye Du-yulan Güven Arasındaki İlişkide Lider-Üye Etkileşiminin Rolü. Marmara Üniversitesi Sos. Bilimler Enstitüsü Derg. 2011, 9, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  59. Childers, W.H. Transformational Leadership and its Relationship to Trust and Behavioral Integrity. Ph.D. Thesis, Saybrook University, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  60. Olkkonen, M.E.; Lipponen, J. Relationship between Organizational Justice, Identification with Organization and Work Unit, and Group-Related Outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 100, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tyler, T.R.; Blader, S.L. Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002, 89, 813–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lipponen, J.; Olkkonen, M.E.; Myyry, L. Personal value orientation as a moderator in the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesized consequences. Soc. Justice Res. 2004, 17, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gülşen, M.U. Örgütsel Adalet ve Kimliklenme. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Kocaeli, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tyler, T.R.; Blader, S.L. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Per-Sonality Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 7, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Suliman, A.; Kathairi, M.A. Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing countries: The case of the UAE. Empl. Relat. 2013, 35, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bidarian, S.; Jafari, P. The Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Trust. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 1622–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Çakar Demircan, N. Üretim Sektöründe Örgütsel Güven, Adalet Algıları ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. İktisat İşletme Finans 2008, 23, 110–132. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Edwards, J.R.; Cable, D.M. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 654–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Angelmeier, I. Organizational Identity in a Healthcare Setting: Correlates and Consequences. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA, 1–6 August 2003. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dumitru, C.D. Predictors of Organizational Trust: The Relationship between Organizational Trust and Organizational Identification. Int. Conf. Mark. Bus. Dev. J. 2015, 1, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  73. Gün, İ.; Söyük, S. Sağlık Kuruluşlarında Örgüt İklimi ve Örgütsel Güven Arasındaki İlişki. ACU Sağlık Bilimleri Derg. 2017, 1, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  74. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S. Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Konovsky, M.A.; Pugh, S.D. Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 656–669. [Google Scholar]
  76. Allen, D.; Shore, L.; Griffeth, R. The role of POS in the voluntary turnover process. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 99–118. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gibson, W.D. The Effect of Trust in Leader on Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave Present Job in the Context of the Nursing Profession. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sayın, U. Güven: İşletmelerde Algılanan Örgütsel Adalet ve iş Tatmini Arasındaki İlişkide Bir Aracı Uygulama. Master’s Thesis, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  79. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  80. The Council of Higher Education (Turkey). Available online: https://www.yok.gov.tr/ (accessed on 12 October 2019).
  81. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Available online: https://www.edu.gov.az/ (accessed on 12 October 2019).
  82. Ministry of Education (Kyrgyzstan). Available online: https://edu.gov.kg/ (accessed on 12 October 2019).
  83. Niehoff, B.P.; Moorman, R.H. Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 527–556. [Google Scholar]
  84. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  85. Nyhan, R.C.; Marlowe, H.A. Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Eval. Rev. 1997, 21, 614–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bass, B.M.; Aviolo, B.J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire--Short Form 6S. In B. M. Bass’s Measures for Leadership Development Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ); Center for Leadership Studies: Binghamton, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mael, F.; Ashforth, B.E. Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jung, D.I.; Avolio, B.J. Opening the Black Box: An Experimental Investigation of the Mediating Effects of Trust and Value Congruence on Transformational and Transactional Leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 949–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Folger, R.; Konovsky, M.A. Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 1989, 32, 115–130. [Google Scholar]
  90. Colquitt, J.A.; Rodell, J.B. Justice, Trust and Trustworthiness: A Longitudinal Analysis Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 1183–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Zeinabadia, H.; Salehi, K. Role of Procedural Justice, Trust, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of Teachers: Proposing a Modified Social Exchange Model. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 29, 1472–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Saunders, M.N.K.; Thornhill, A. Organizational Justice, Trust and the Management of Change: An Exploration. Pers. Rev. 2003, 32, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 12 02278 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 12 02278 g001
Table
Table 1. Sample statistics.
Table 1. Sample statistics.
CountryGenderTitleTotal
Assistant ProfessorAssociate ProfessorProfessor
TurkeyMale2677239378
%70.619.110.3100
Average age37.7142.0751.26
Female1223226180
%67.717.814.5100
Average age35.642.149.2
AzerbaijanMale4315967
%64.222.413.4100
Average age34.444.148.2
Female2410539
%61.525.712.8100
Average age36.340.850.9
KyrgyzstanMale4013659
%67.822.110.1100
Average age33.939.857.2
Female229536
%61.12513.9100
Average age3744.254.1
Table
Table 2. N, mean, standard deviation, and F-values of the participants.
Table 2. N, mean, standard deviation, and F-values of the participants.
VariablesCountryNAverageStandard DeviationF-Value
Organizational IdentityAzerbaijan1064.47920.4770468.970 **
Kyrgyzstan954.17470.49357
Turkey5583.53210.94859
Transformational LeadershipAzerbaijan1063.91910.6077067.599 **
Kyrgyzstan954.16390.50614
Turkey5663.18800.99125
Manager TrustAzerbaijan1064.05660.5430668.109 **
Kyrgyzstan954.26920.53202
Turkey5663.33290.95952
Procedural JusticeAzerbaijan1063.94470.5167159.334 **
Kyrgyzstan954.05490.67478
Turkey5673.18880.99262
AgeAzerbaijan10228.20595.6364133.910 **
Kyrgyzstan9534.168410.94343
Turkey55536.03248.93311
** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Factor load and explained variance values.
Table 3. Factor load and explained variance values.
Perceptions of Procedural JusticeManager TrustTransformational LeadershipOrganizational Identity
Question NumberFactor LoadQuestion NumberFactor LoadQuestion NumberFactor LoadQuestion NumberFactor Load
pj90.762mt40.769tl50.700oi30.841
pj100.751mt50.711tl40.662oi20.812
pj70.739mt30.685tl60.658oi40.807
pj60.732mt60.640tl100.636oi10.747
pj80.728mt20.611tl90.625oi50.628
pj50.696mt10.605tl80.609
pj110.675mt70.588tl110.578
pj40.650
pj30.638
pj120.638
pj140.596
pj20.595
pj130.588
pj10.575
Variance Explained by the Factor:23.877%Variance Explained by the Factor:14.320%Variance Explained by the Factor:13.807%Variance Explained by the Factor:10.636%
Total variance explained: 62.639%
Table
Table 4. Correlation analysis.
Table 4. Correlation analysis.
VariablesAverageSt Dv. 1234
1.Procedural Justice3.4010.9730.952 a---
2.Manager Trust3.5480.9730.723 **0.895 a--
3.Perception of Transformational Leadership3.4090.9750.764 **0.695 **0.890 a-
4.Organizational Identity3.4750.9230.372 **0.397 **0.365 **0.846 a
** Correlation is significant at a 0.01 probability level. a The internal reliability coefficient of the variable (Cronbach’s alpha value). ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Regression analysis, showing the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on manager trust.
Table 5. Regression analysis, showing the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice on manager trust.
Dependent Variable: Manager Trust
AzerbaijanKyrgyzstanTurkey
Independent VariablesβtβTβt
Transformational Leadership0.3213.252 **0.5073.953 **0.2776.754 **
Procedural Justice0.4074.122 **0.4093.193 **0.52612.832 **
F41.023 **8.109 **47.932 **
R20.4430.1500.567
Adjusted R20.4330.1310.565
** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 6. Regression analysis, showing the effect of manager trust on the sustainable organizational identity.
Table 6. Regression analysis, showing the effect of manager trust on the sustainable organizational identity.
Dependent Variable: Organizational Identity
AzerbaijanKyrgyzstanTurkey
Independent Variableβtβtβt
Manager Trust0.3804.181 **0.2952.974 **0.2977.328 **
F17.504 **8.846 **53.7 **
R20.1440.0870.088
Adjusted R20.1360.0770.086
** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 7. Regression analysis, showing the effect of transformational leadership on the organizational identity.
Table 7. Regression analysis, showing the effect of transformational leadership on the organizational identity.
Dependent Variable: Organizational Identity
AzerbaijanKyrgyzstanTurkey
Independent Variableβtβtβt
Transformational Leadership0.2042.130 *0.1752.001 *0.2796.840 **
F4.535 *2.451 *46.7 **
R20.0420.0770.078
Adjusted R20.2040.0750.279
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 8. Regression analysis, showing the effect of procedural justice on the organizational identity.
Table 8. Regression analysis, showing the effect of procedural justice on the organizational identity.
Dependent Variable: Organizational Identity
AzerbaijanKyrgyzstanTurkey
Independent Variableβtβtβt
Procedural Justice0.1692.630 *0.1011.974 *0.3027.463 **
F3.064 *1.546 *55.6 **
R20.0290.0650.091
Adjusted R20.1690.0630.302
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 9. The intermediate variable effect of the manager trust variable in the effect on the procedural justice and transformational leadership variables on the organizational identity.
Table 9. The intermediate variable effect of the manager trust variable in the effect on the procedural justice and transformational leadership variables on the organizational identity.
Dependent Variable: Organizational Identity
AzerbaijanKyrgyzstanTurkey
Independent Variablesβtβtβt
Procedural Justice−0.120−0.909−0.061−0.4370.1351.958
Transformational Leadership0.0190.184−0.014−0.1000.0841.357
Manager Trust0.3873.601 **0.2942.710 **0.1422.316 *
F6.0753.073 *21.951
R20.1520.0920.106
Adjusted R20.1270.0620.101
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Erat, S.; Kitapçı, H.; Akçin, K. Managerial Perception and Organizational Identity: A Comparative Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062278

AMA Style

Erat S, Kitapçı H, Akçin K. Managerial Perception and Organizational Identity: A Comparative Analysis. Sustainability. 2020; 12(6):2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Erat, Serhat, Hakan Kitapçı, and Kültigin Akçin. 2020. "Managerial Perception and Organizational Identity: A Comparative Analysis" Sustainability 12, no. 6: 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062278

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop