Trust can simply be defined as the willingness of a relationship stakeholder (trustor) to rely on another relationship stakeholder (trustee) to behave in an agreed or expected manner. Perceptions of trustworthiness can influence the trust relationship between trustors and trustees. A trustor will typically not expect exploitation by a trustworthy trustee, but will expect exploitation by an untrustworthy trustee (Krot & Lewicka 2012). Trust is a fundamental requirement for effective human interaction, and has been described as the basic essence of social relations by Firmansyah et al. (2019). These definitions and assumptions are generally applicable in most types of social relationships, including labour relationships (Flanagan & Runde 2009; Grogan 2017; Virues, Velez & Sanchez 2019).

Labour relationship trust is a complex and dynamic social phenomenon that entails far more than mere compliance with laws and formalised work regulations (Searle & Skinner 2011). Perceptions of the levels of labour relationship trust are normally subjective and are thus related to a plethora of employer and employee expectations (Williams 2007). These expectations are unique and typically informed by the trustor or trustee’s unique experience of societal variables that affect them (Bendix 2015; Randy 2010). Numerous researchers have recommended further research into various aspects of trust in organisational and labour relationships (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007; Fawcett, Fawcett & Jin 2017; Krot & Lewicka 2012).

A recent study confirmed that subordinate employee perceptions of the levels of trust, compliance, fairness and good faith in supervisory relationships are interrelated. It was concluded that these perceptions are strongly related to subordinate employee perceptions of the levels of relationship quality in PLRs (Ehlers 2017). Unfortunately, the aforementioned study did not investigate the significance of differences between perceived levels of compliance, fairness and good faith in PLRs with lower and higher levels of trust.

No results of studies that specifically deal with relationships between subordinate perceptions of the levels of compliance, fairness and good faith and perceived trust levels in PLRs, or supervisory relationships, have been published recently. There is thus a knowledge gap in this regard.

This article aims to investigate the relationship between perceived levels of trust and perceptions of compliance, fairness and good faith in PLRs. The researcher subsequently investigated the validity of the following research propositions, and related hypotheses:

Proposition 1: There is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of compliance and trust in PLRs:

Proposition 2: There is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of fairness and trust in PLRs:

Proposition 3: There is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of good faith and trust in PLRs:

The following definitions were accepted for purposes of this article:

The remainder of this article contains a literature review, a discussion of the mixed-method research methodology that was adopted in this study, a discussion of findings and an overview of limitations and recommendations of the study. Specific findings are described in the concluding section of the article.

There are no laws that specifically require high levels of trust in labour relationships, even though trust is regarded as the foundation of labour relationships (Williams 2007). Labour relationship trust refers to the willingness of a vulnerable labour relationship stakeholder (trustor – very often an employee) to rely on a more powerful relationship stakeholder (trustee – very often an employer or employer representative) to behave in an agreed upon or expected manner (Cropanzano et al. 2007; Ehlers 2017). An employee will not typically anticipate exploitation by an employer when labour relationship trust levels are perceived to be high, and vice versa (Flanagan & Runde 2009; Krot & Lewicka 2012; Linde, Schalk & Linde 2008; Searle & Skinner 2011).

Numerous environmental variables that reside in the formal and psychological dimensions of labour relationships can influence trust levels in PLRs (Cropanzano et al. 2007). Trustworthiness perceptions of subordinates lay foundations for trust in PLRs. Mayer, Schoorman and Davis (2007) believe that such perceptions are strongly influenced by subordinate perceptions of the ability (skills, competencies means), benevolence (willingness to create benefits for subordinate) and integrity (predictability and reliability) of their supervisors. Ehlers (2017) found that interrelated subordinate perceptions of the levels of trust, compliance, fairness and good faith in supervisory levels are strongly related to their perceptions of relationship quality in PLRs.

Subordinate expectations, experiences and outcomes of previous trust exchanges will typically result in revised positive or negative perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness. These revised perceptions will then influence a subordinate’s willingness to trust a supervisor in future trust exchanges. Subordinates of trustworthy supervisors are less likely to anticipate exploitation and could therefore be more willing to increase their trust in their supervisors. Accordingly, subordinates of untrustworthy supervisors are more likely to anticipate exploitation and could therefore be less willing to increase their trust in their supervisors and may even have distrust in their supervisors (Starnes, Truhon & McCarthy 2016).

Coyle-Shapiro and Shore (2008) found that employees who are involved in organisational relationships with higher trust levels are more likely to put greater effort into their work and cooperate with their colleagues. They will also be less prone to displaying deviant workplace behaviours. Joint development of procedures, transparency in decision-making processes, responsiveness and the equitable distribution of benefits and risks are typical characteristics of work relationships in which higher levels of trust reside (Stern & Coleman 2015). These characteristics are also closely related to certain behaviour forms that contribute to positive subordinate perceptions of the levels of trust, compliance, fairness, good faith and relationship quality in PLRs (Ehlers 2017).

A climate of trust facilitates an open and constructive relationship interaction and can prevent minor differences from evolving into dysfunctional labour relationship conflicts. Higher trust levels can also promote humane interpersonal relations in workplaces, and facilitate the effective prevention of inhumane, opportunistic and exploitative relationship behaviours (Flanagan & Runde 2009; Williams 2007; Kleptsova et al. 2018). Employees who have low levels of trust in their organisations will typically put less effort into their work and will also interact less effectively with their colleagues. Such employees will also be more likely to display deviant or undesirable workplace behaviours (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore 2008; Lian et al. 2014).

At least five behaviour forms can be regarded as typical characteristics of labour relationships in which higher trust levels are evident. The absence of one or more of these characteristics will typically be related to less positive perceptions of trust in such relationships (Ehlers 2017). The five key characteristics of trust in PLRs are summarised in Table 1.

Employers and employees are legally obliged to comply with all employment-related provisions of the Constitution, common law and statutory employment laws. These sources of labour law, and related case law, promote and regulate legal compliance, fair employment practices, good faith, fair discrimination and the equitable distribution of benefits in employment relationships, among numerous other objectives. Unreciprocated and charitable benevolence is, however, not an obligation of employers or employees under South African labour law (Grogan 2014; Viviers & Smit 2014).

Additional formal guidelines, or control mechanisms, are typically introduced in labour relationships to ensure the effective and harmonious achievement of relationship objectives, and to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and labour conflict. Such guidelines include labour relations vision and mission statements, objectives, strategies, policies and procedures (Greenwood 2006; Searle & Skinner 2011; Viviers & Smit 2014). The various laws, contracts, policies and procedures that apply in labour relations establish clearly defined boundaries for relationship expectations and trust in such relationships, and should therefore be complied with by all relationship partners (Nel et al. 2016; Searle & Skinner 2011; Venter & Levy 2014).

Lower levels of trust are typical of labour relationships where employees perceive the implementation or nature of rules and procedures of their employers as unjustified or invalid (Linde et al. 2008; Williams 2007). However, ongoing compliance with valid and justifiable work procedures can result in positive levels of trust, commitment, job performance and customer satisfaction, and subsequently reduce the risk of labour relationship tension, conflicts and grievances. Compliance is strongly related to employee perceptions of procedural justice in their organisations, their identification with an organisation and their perceived sense of self-worth and job satisfaction. There is a strong relationship between positive employee perceptions of procedural justice, or compliance, and positive perceptions of organisational trust levels (Cropanzano et al. 2007; Holtz & Harold 2009; Patel, Budwhar & Varma 2012; Seppälä 2012).

Positive employee perceptions of compliance are also significantly related to positive perceptions of primary labour relationship quality (Ehlers 2017). In contrast, non-compliance with any source of labour law is a characteristic cause of perceived breaches of formal employment contracting expectations that typically result in numerous forms of relationship tensions, conflicts, grievances or disputes (Grogan 2014; Searle & Skinner 2011; Venter & Levy 2014). Positive perceptions of compliance in labour relationships result from active and justified compliance with numerous labour laws, contracts, policies and procedures. Negative compliance perceptions may result from non-compliance with such formal directives (Ehlers 2017).

Compliance can be assumed to be demonstrated in a labour relationship exchange when at least five interrelated compliance criteria are met. Failure to satisfy any one or more of these criteria during relationship exchanges will strongly suggest that the behaviour was non-compliant, Non-compliance will typically have a negative effect on compliance perceptions in PLRs (Ehlers 2017). The five criteria for assessing compliance in PLRs are summarised in Table 2.

Fairness is perceived through the eyes of the beholders. Most assessments of fairness are therefore subjective and context dependent. Employers and employees can subsequently have different expectations or perceptions of fairness in work relationships. These differences often result in tension or relationship conflict (Robbins & Judge 2017). Fairness can simply be defined as even-handed treatment in social relationships. Vulnerable societal members will be at risk of exploitation by more powerful societal members if fairness is not valued in a society (Viviers & Smit 2014). Fair employment discrimination practices, fair labour practices, fair disciplinary or dismissal practices, fair employee representation practices and fair dispute resolution practices are subsequently explicitly and implicitly prescribed in numerous South African labour laws and related codes of good conduct (Grogan 2014; Venter & Levy 2014).

Patel et al. (2012) highlight the need for fairness, equity and reciprocity in labour relationships. Such behaviours may reduce the likelihood of undesirable workplace behaviours, such as tension, grievances, absenteeism and social loafing. Other researchers agree that employees who believe that they are fairly treated in their employment relationships will be more likely to exceed their minimum job requirements or perform additional job duties. Such employees will also typically refrain from misconduct and other forms of undesirable work behaviour (Kickul, Gundry & Posig 2005). Employees can also be confidently expected to be less sensitive to issues of fairness and equity in employment relationships with higher levels of trust (DiMatteo, Bird & Colquitt 2011).

However, subordinate employee perceptions of unfair treatment can lead to lower levels of relationship trust and a variety of undesirable organisational outcomes. Some employees may resort to deliberately restricting their work output or sabotage work processes if they believe that they are unfairly treated or harassed in their work relationships (Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration [CCMA] 2011). Many employees are more likely to retaliate or litigate when they perceive a termination of their employment as procedurally and substantively unfair. Such retaliation typically results from the broken trust relationship (DiMatteo et al. 2011; Kickul et al. 2005; Southey 2010).

Fairness can be assumed to be demonstrated in PLRs when at least five interrelated behaviour criteria are met. Failure to satisfy any one or more of these criteria during relationship exchanges will strongly suggest that an exchange was unfair and will typically result in negative perceptions of fairness in PLRs (Ehlers 2017). The five criteria for assessing fairness in PLRs are summarised in Table 3.

Goodwill towards relationship partners and genuine concern for their well-being and interests are generally regarded as typical characteristics of good faith (Dietz & Hartog 2015; Hakanen 2017). Good faith can simply be defined as displaying honest and sincere intentions to create mutual benefits for all partners in labour relationships (Ehlers 2017; Heap 2009; Riley 2009; Shimanskaya 2010). Individual perceptions of good faith in the behaviour and decisions of superiors, as well as numerous other organisational behaviours, are believed to be strongly related to employee perceptions of trust levels in organisational relationships (Searle & Skinner 2011).

Positive perceptions of good faith are related to higher levels of trust in organisational relationships, and organisational trust is positively related to several positive organisational behaviour outcomes. Conversely, negative perceptions of good faith, or displays of bad faith, are generally believed to be related to lower levels of trust in such relationships (Botha & Moalusi 2010; Guest 2004). Positive perceptions of good faith have also been found to be strongly related to positive subordinate perceptions of relationship quality in PLRs (Ehlers 2017). Samadi et al. (2015) believe that frequent and convincing displays of good faith will promote gradual positive transformation and change in organisations and society and thereby decrease the need for the strict implementation of laws regulating unfair discrimination and affirmative action in workplaces.

The CCMA (2011) has identified numerous forms of workplace harassment that are typical examples of unfair workplace discrimination that relate to the absence of good faith in labour relationships. Some examples are mental bullying of subordinates, ridiculing subordinates in front of others, promoting less deserving employees, blocking employee progress, victimising employees, allowing special privileges to selected employees or intentionally blocking promotion of employees. Bad faith will thus become evident when one or more relationship partner acts in dishonest, insincere, rude, insulting, victimising, exploiting, abusing, harassing or intentionally disruptive manners in labour relationship exchanges (Bendix 2015; Grogan 2014).

As in the case of fairness, most assessments of good faith are also subjective and context dependent. Rights and obligations of employers and employees regarding good faith are not readily and clearly defined in labour laws, which makes it difficult to assess the legitimacy of differing expectations and perceptions of labour relations partners. Subsequently, diverging employer and employee expectations and perceptions of good faith often result in labour relationship tension and conflict, which in turn influence trust perceptions and levels in such relationships (Heap 2009; Robbins & Judge 2017; Shimanskaya 2010).

Good faith can be assumed to be demonstrated in a labour relationship exchange when at least five interrelated behaviour criteria are met. Failure to satisfy any one or more of these criteria during relationship exchanges will strongly suggest that good faith was not displayed during the exchange and will often have a negative effect on good faith perceptions in PLRs (Ehlers 2017). The five criteria for assessing good faith in PLRs are summarised in Table 4.

It can confidently be assumed that there is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of compliance and trust in PLRs. This assumption is strongly supported by reports in related literature (Cropanzano et al. 2007; Ehlers 2017; Grogan 2014; Holtz & Harold 2009; Linde et al. 2008; Patel et al. 2012; Searle & Skinner 2011; Viviers & Smit 2014), and the following findings from this study:

It can confidently be assumed that there is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of fairness and trust in PLRs. This assumption is strongly supported by reports in related literature (Botha & Moalusi 2010; Dietz & Hartog 2015; DiMatteo et al. 2011; Ehlers 2017; Hakanen 2017; Patel et al. 2012; Robbins & Judge 2017; Searle & Skinner 2011; Stern & Coleman 2015), and the following findings from this study:

It can confidently be assumed that there is a positive relationship between subordinate perceptions of the levels of good faith and trust in PLRs. This assumption is strongly supported by reports in related literature (Botha & Moalusi 2010; Dietz & Hartog 2015; Ehlers 2017; Samadi et al. 2015; Searle & Skinner 2011; Stern & Coleman 2015), and the following findings from this study:

It was noted that the perceived levels of compliance, fairness and good faith in PLRs with lower levels of trust were all very close to the average score of one (0.97, 0.99, 1.04). These average levels gradually increased in PLRs with average (1.22, 1.15, 1.12) and higher than average (1.65, 1.6, 1.59) trust levels (see Figure 1). This trend suggests that levels of compliance, fairness and good faith could expectedly be perceived as below, or far below, average when trust levels are very low in PLRs. McKnight and Chervany (2014) believe that trust and distrust are not opposite ends of a continuum but two phenomena that exist alongside each other in social relationships. Increases in relationship trust are often related to, or even caused by, decreases in distrust, and vice versa. Distrust levels can therefore also be confidently expected to be higher when the levels of trust in PLRs are below average. Low levels of compliance, fairness and good faith, as well as non-compliance, unfairness and bad faith in organisational relationships are known to be related to higher levels of distrust and numerous related undesirable organisational relationship behaviours and outcomes (Flanagan & Runde 2009; Kleptsova et al. 2018).

Damage to trust relationships, or increased distrust will typically arise when employers or employees fail to demonstrate legally or socially expected levels of compliance, fairness or good faith in PLRs. Such failures can also be perceived as breaches of written employment contracts or the regulations, policies and procedures that apply to PLRs in terms of such contracts. Perceived breaches of formal employment contracts can typically result in employee grievances, disciplinary action and labour disputes. Irreparable breaches of trust or intolerable levels of distrust in PLRs typically result in the termination of an employment contract by employers or employees (Bendix 2014; Grogan 2014). Breaches of subjective unwritten psychological contracts occur when subordinate employees perceive unfairness or bad faith in PLRs. Such perceptions may give rise to decreased levels of trust, and increased levels of distrust in PLRs. Perceived breaches of psychological contracts can also result in undesirable labour relationship tension, unresolved conflict, deviant workplace behaviours, stress, rumouring and numerous other undesirable relationship behaviours (Botha & Molausi 2010; DiMatteo et al. 2011; Guest 2004).

The above-mentioned views in literature and findings from this study very strongly suggest that below, or far below, average levels of compliance, fairness and good faith could be typical of PLRs in which very low levels of trust or higher levels of distrust reside.

The sample size of 68 was adequate for mixed-method research studies but too small to make generalisable findings resulting from statistical analysis of data. Nonetheless, an investigation of the statistical significance of differences between the means of perceptions of different sample groups was undertaken to obtain some indication of differences between such perceptions. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the mean scores of two independent sample groups, and yielded the following results (Salkind 2014):