Workplace Trust Survey (WTS)

Abstract

The Workplace Trust Survey (WTS) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report diagnostic instrument developed by psychometric and organizational behavior researchers Natalie Ferres, Julia Connell, and Anthony Travaglione (Ferres, 2002; Connell et al., 2003; Ferres et al., 2004). Designed to capture the nuanced, multi-referent nature of interpersonal and systemic trust within contemporary work environments, the instrument operationalizes trust across three distinct structural tiers: Trust in Organization (systemic/institutional referent), Trust in Co-workers (lateral/interpersonal referent), and Trust in Immediate Supervisor (vertical/hierarchical referent). Drawing upon foundational sociocognitive models and social exchange theory, the WTS assesses an employee’s willingness to be vulnerable based upon expectations of benevolence, competence, integrity, open communication, and institutional fairness.

Psychometrically, the comprehensive WTS comprises 35 items (or validated abbreviated subsets) evaluated on a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Across extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across public, private, and healthcare sectors, the tripartite structure has demonstrated robust model fit (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .92, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06). Subscale internal consistency estimates consistently yield Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding .90 (Organization: α = .93–.95; Co-worker: α = .91–.94; Supervisor: α = .92–.96). The instrument displays marked convergent validity with perceived organizational support, affective organizational commitment, psychological safety, and organizational citizenship behaviors, alongside robust discriminant validity against general job satisfaction and negative affectivity. In clinical organizational consultations and empirical research, the WTS serves as an indispensable tool for diagnosing workplace culture, predicting employee turnover intentions, assessing leadership interventions, and mitigating organizational cynicism.

Keywords

Workplace Trust Survey, organizational trust, supervisor trust, co-worker trust, psychometrics, social exchange theory, organizational justice, employee engagement, psychological safety, organizational behavior

Authors

The Workplace Trust Survey was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated through an extensive research program conducted by Australian organizational psychologists and management scholars:

• Dr. Natalie Ferres: Completed the foundational psychometric development and initial structural validation of the Workplace Trust Questionnaire during her postgraduate research at the School of Management, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle (Callaghan, Australia). Her subsequent scholarship focuses on leadership development, psychological safety, and executive trustworthiness.
• Prof. Julia Connell: Professor of Management and organizational researcher who has held senior academic appointments at the University of Newcastle, Curtin University, and the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Her research concentrates on organizational change, employment relations, workplace learning, and employee well-being.
• Prof. Anthony (Tony) Travaglione: Professor of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, formerly Pro Vice-Chancellor of Curtin Business School and Head of School at the University of Newcastle. His research spans leadership integrity, employee commitment, organizational trust, and emotional intelligence in modern enterprise settings.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Workplace Trust Survey (WTS) is to provide an empirically grounded, structurally differentiated assessment of interpersonal and institutional trust within organizational settings. Prior to the development of the WTS, existing trust inventories frequently conflated different referents of trust—treating workplace trust as an undifferentiated, monolithic sentiment—or focused exclusively on dyadic manager-subordinate relationships without accounting for broader systemic or horizontal dynamics. The WTS was intentionally engineered to rectify these conceptual and psychometric limitations by delineating the distinct targets toward which an employee directs cognitive, affective, and behavioral trust.

Trust within an enterprise functions as an indispensable social lubricant that moderates interpersonal friction, reduces perceived transaction costs, and sustains collective psychological well-being. When employees experience a deficit in workplace trust, organizations suffer elevated rates of voluntary attrition, organizational silence, absenteeism, operational stagnation, and psychological strain. By deploying the WTS, organizations and behavioral scientists can systematically identify the exact organizational loci where trust deficits exist. For instance, an enterprise may exhibit high lateral cohesion (co-worker trust) alongside profound vertical alienation (supervisor trust) or deep structural skepticism (organizational trust). Differentiating these operational dimensions enables tailored organizational interventions rather than generic, unfocused initiatives.

In applied organizational psychology and corporate consultation, the WTS is employed to:

• Conduct organizational climate audits during post-merger integration, enterprise-wide restructuring, or executive leadership transitions.
• Benchmark vertical leadership effectiveness by evaluating whether immediate managers demonstrate integrity, open communication, and competence.
• Examine the health of peer-level collaboration, psychological safety, and mutual support across cross-functional teams.
• Diagnose root causes of escalating turnover intentions, counterproductive work behaviors, and organizational cynicism.
• Evaluate the longitudinal efficacy of leadership development interventions, human resource policy overhauls, and employee voice mechanisms.

In academic empirical research, the WTS serves as a foundational measurement instrument for testing complex structural models involving organizational justice, psychological contract breach, leader-member exchange (LMX), employee voice behavior, and innovative performance. By offering high fidelity across three referents, it permits fine-grained investigation into mediated and moderated social exchange processes.

Psychological Construct

The Workplace Trust Survey conceptualizes trust not merely as a passive personality trait or a generalized disposition toward credulity, but as an active, multidimensional psychological state. Grounded in the widely cited definition by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), the WTS operationalizes trust as the willingness of an employee to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (or institutional system) based on the expectation that the other party will perform particular actions important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party.

The WTS articulates this vulnerability across three distinct organizational referents, each characterized by specific cognitive, affective, and behavioral components:

1. Trust in the Organization (Systemic / Institutional Trust)

This dimension evaluates the employee’s confidence in the overarching macro-system, strategic trajectory, and institutional integrity of the employing entity (denoted as “X” in the scale items). Rather than focusing on interpersonal relationships, organizational trust captures systemic fairness, procedural reliability, and institutional benevolence. Sub-constructs embedded within this referent include:

• Strategic Direction and Vision: Confidence that the organization possesses visionary leadership, maintains economic viability, and is moving forward in a constructive direction (e.g., “There is a widely held belief that X is moving forward for the better”).
• Procedural and Distributive Justice: The shared perception that institutional decision-making processes, resource allocations, and performance evaluations are structurally equitable, transparent, and fair (e.g., “I think that processes within X are fair”).
• Organizational Support and Employee Welfare: The belief that the enterprise values employee contributions, provides a psychologically supportive environment, and prioritizes employee welfare (e.g., “I think that X offers a supportive environment”).
• Institutional Follow-Through and Open Communication: The expectation that corporate communications are truthful and that formal plans will be translated reliably into operational reality without deceit or administrative vacillation.

2. Trust in Co-Workers (Lateral / Interpersonal Trust)

Lateral trust reflects the social capital and mutual reliance shared among peer-level colleagues within the same work group or organizational echelon. Horizontal trust forms the bedrock of team-based psychological safety, spontaneous collaboration, and tacit knowledge sharing. Key facets assessed by the WTS include:

• Peer Technical Competence and Reliability: Faith in the functional proficiency, conscientiousness, and task capability of colleagues (e.g., “I feel I can trust my co-workers to do their jobs well”).
• Interpersonal Benevolence and Mutual Support: The conviction that colleagues genuinely care about one another’s well-being and will offer emotional and instrumental support in times of crisis or workload spikes (e.g., “I believe that my co-workers will support me if I have problems”).
• Integrity and Ethical Interaction: Belief that peers adhere to moral principles, communicate truthfully, and refrain from toxic workplace politicking or covert backstabbing.
• Confidentiality and Psychological Safety: The behavioral confidence that colleagues will respect interpersonal boundaries and will not weaponize or disclose sensitive personal information (e.g., “I behave on the basis that my co-workers will not disclose personal information”).

3. Trust in the Immediate Supervisor (Vertical / Hierarchical Trust)

Vertical trust captures the frontline dyadic dynamic between an employee and their direct manager. Because immediate supervisors interpret and implement institutional policies, evaluate performance, and allocate proximal rewards, supervisor trust directly shapes daily occupational stress and motivation. Crucial sub-constructs include:

• Managerial Integrity and Behavioral Consistency: Alignment between a supervisor’s words and subsequent deeds (“walk the talk”), demonstrating honesty, ethical consistency, and dependability (e.g., “I act knowing that my supervisor will keep his/her word”).
• Active Listening and Receptivity: Openness to upward feedback, employee voice, and divergent viewpoints without punitive repercussions (e.g., “I feel that my supervisor listens to what I have to say”).
• Recognition and Distributive Equity: Fair acknowledgment of discretionary effort and merit-based allocation of professional accolades and rewards.
• Autonomy and Delegation: Willingness of the supervisor to extend trust downward by empowering employees to execute tasks without stifling micromanagement.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Workplace Trust Survey synthesizes several classical and contemporary paradigms from organizational psychology, sociology, and microeconomics:

1. Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Formulated by Peter Blau (1964) and further developed by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), Social Exchange Theory posits that organizational life is governed by reciprocal, non-contractual socioemotional transactions. Unlike economic exchanges—which are characterized by immediate, explicitly negotiated, tangible quid pro quos—social exchanges involve the exchange of diffuse, unspecified future obligations. When an organization, supervisor, or peer group treats an employee with dignity, justice, and support, the universal norm of reciprocity compels the employee to reciprocate with heightened organizational commitment, discretionary effort (organizational citizenship behaviors), and elevated trust. The WTS operationalizes the cognitive appraisals that determine whether an employee feels safe entering into sustained social exchange relationships.

2. The Integrative Model of Organizational Trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995)

The WTS directly incorporates the tripartite antecedent framework established by Mayer et al. (1995), which argues that trust is predicated on three perceived characteristics of the trustee:

• Ability (Competence): The domain-specific skills, competencies, and technical capacities that enable the trustee to execute their role successfully.
• Benevolence: The extent to which the trustee is believed to genuinely desire the well-being of the trustor, devoid of purely egocentric profit motives.
• Integrity: The trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a coherent set of moral and ethical principles that the trustor finds acceptable.

The WTS operationalizes these three components across systemic (organization), lateral (co-worker), and hierarchical (supervisor) levels, demonstrating that an employee calculates ability, benevolence, and integrity distinctly across different social foci.

3. Psychological Contract Theory

Pioneered by Denise Rousseau (1995), psychological contract theory examines the unwritten, subjective expectations held by an employee regarding reciprocal obligations between themselves and the organization. Systemic organizational trust within the WTS reflects whether the psychological contract remains intact. Perceived organizational betrayal, unfulfilled executive promises, or unilateral restructuring represent psychological contract breaches that instantaneously erode the organizational trust subscale scores on the WTS.

4. Organizational Justice Theory

Extensively articulated by Greenberg (1990) and Colquitt (2001), organizational justice delineates four operational dimensions: distributive justice (outcome fairness), procedural justice (decision-making process fairness), interpersonal justice (respectful treatment), and informational justice (truthful explanations). The items comprising the WTS Organization and Supervisor subscales directly evaluate these justice dimensions, confirming that fair structural processes provide the necessary cognitive rationale for extending trust.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Workplace Trust Survey has been extensively evaluated across diverse organizational contexts, including public sector bureaucracies, educational institutions, private manufacturing corporations, and healthcare enterprises.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Ferres (2002) and Connell et al. (2003) utilizing rigorous multi-sample cross-validation designs. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have repeatedly supported the multidimensionality of the construct. Competing model comparisons show that a three-factor model separating Organization, Co-Worker, and Supervisor trust demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to alternative single-factor (unidimensional global trust) or two-factor models (interpersonal vs. institutional trust). Standardized factor loadings across items consistently range from .62 to .88, confirming robust indicator convergence on the intended latent constructs.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through statistically significant, moderate-to-strong correlations with established psychometric scales measuring theoretically adjacent constructs:

• Perceived Organizational Support (POS): The Organization subscale correlates robustly with Eisenberger’s Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (r = .68 to .76, p < .001).
• Affective Organizational Commitment: WTS dimensions correlate strongly with Allen and Meyer’s Affective Commitment Scale (Organization: r = .62 to .71; Supervisor: r = .48 to .56; Co-worker: r = .41 to .52).
• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): The Supervisor subscale exhibits profound convergence with the LMX-7 questionnaire (r = .72 to .81, p < .001), validating its sensitivity to vertical relational quality.
• Psychological Safety: The Co-worker subscale demonstrates high convergence with Edmondson’s Team Psychological Safety measure (r = .64 to .73).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been substantiated utilizing the Fornell-Larcker criterion and average variance extracted (AVE) calculations. In empirical evaluations, the AVE for each latent trust factor (typically exceeding .55 to .65) consistently surpassed the squared inter-construct correlations (φ²) between the dimensions. Furthermore, the WTS discriminates successfully from generalized positive and negative affectivity (PANAS), demonstrating that WTS responses reflect genuine social evaluations of the workplace rather than idiosyncratic neuroticism or baseline affective dispositions. While trust correlates with global job satisfaction (r = .50 to .60), nested regression analyses show that the WTS accounts for significant incremental variance in turnover intentions above and beyond job satisfaction alone.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The WTS possesses exceptional predictive utility regarding behavioral and organizational outcomes. In structural equation modeling studies (Ferres et al., 2004; Connell et al., 2003):

• Trust in Organization emerged as the single strongest negative predictor of voluntary turnover intentions (β = −.45 to −.58, p < .001).
• Trust in Co-workers significantly predicted employee willingness to engage in knowledge sharing, peer collaboration, and altruistic Organizational Citizenship Behaviors directed toward individuals (OCB-I; β = .38, p < .01).
• Trust in Immediate Supervisor accounted for substantial variance in employee affective commitment, reduced workplace absenteeism, and lower self-reported job burnout.

Reliability

The Workplace Trust Survey displays outstanding psychometric reliability across internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability evaluations:

Internal Consistency

Reliability analyses across multiple large-scale cross-industry samples (ranging from N = 300 to N > 2,500) have yielded consistently elevated Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients that comfortably exceed the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 or .80:

• Trust in Organization Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .93 to .95; composite reliability (ρ_c) > .94.
• Trust in Co-Workers Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .91 to .94; composite reliability (ρ_c) > .92.
• Trust in Immediate Supervisor Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .92 to .96; composite reliability (ρ_c) > .95.
• Overall Composite Scale: Often yields a global reliability coefficient exceeding .96.

Item-total correlations across all retained survey items consistently remain above .55, with the vast majority falling between .65 and .82, indicating strong item homogeneity within each subscale without pathological redundancy.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

In longitudinal organizational tracking studies evaluating non-intervened control cohorts over intervals of four to eight weeks, test-retest reliability coefficients (Pearson’s r) remained high:

• Organization Trust: r_tt = .82 to .86.
• Co-Worker Trust: r_tt = .80 to .84.
• Supervisor Trust: r_tt = .83 to .87.

These stability metrics indicate that while the WTS captures durable relational perceptions, it remains suitably sensitive to real-world workplace interventions, executive leadership changes, or acute organizational betrayals.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Workplace Trust Survey was delineated through a rigorous combination of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) during instrument development and validated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse corporate and non-profit populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the exploratory phase conducted by Ferres (2002), an initial pool of over 50 candidate items was subjected to principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation (Promax and Oblimin), reflecting the theoretical expectation that trust directed toward different organizational referents would be moderately correlated. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy exceeded .94, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (p < .0001), indicating the correlation matrix was exceptionally well-suited for factor extraction.

Eigenvalue analysis (Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues > 1.0) and Cattell’s scree plot inspection unmistakably confirmed a robust three-factor solution, accounting for more than 58% to 65% of the total variance across validation cohorts. Items displaying cross-loadings greater than .30 on secondary factors or primary loadings below .50 were pruned, resulting in the refined, highly stable 35-item scale comprising three distinct referent clusters.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory studies (Connell et al., 2003; Ferres et al., 2004) subjected the tripartite structure to maximum likelihood CFA estimation. The hypothesized oblique three-factor model demonstrated exceptional fit to the data, significantly outperforming alternative structural configurations:

• Three-Factor Oblique Model (Hypothesized): χ²/df = 2.14, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .938, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .932, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .051 (90% CI: .046, .056), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .044.
• Single-Factor Model (Common Method / Global Trust): χ²/df = 6.82, CFI = .642, TLI = .618, RMSEA = .138, SRMR = .112. The dramatic failure of fit indices in the single-factor model conclusively rejected the notion that workplace trust is a unidimensional construct or purely an artifact of common method variance.
• Two-Factor Model (Systemic vs. Combined Interpersonal): χ²/df = 4.35, CFI = .795, TLI = .781, RMSEA = .098, SRMR = .081. Fit was statistically inferior to the three-factor model (Δχ², p < .001).

Standardized factor loadings on the designated latent factors were uniformly strong:

• Organization factor loadings: .65 to .84
• Co-Worker factor loadings: .62 to .81
• Supervisor factor loadings: .68 to .88

Moderate latent factor intercorrelations (typically ranging between .35 and .55) confirmed that while trust in the organization, co-workers, and supervisors share a common overarching foundation of workplace psychological safety, each represents an analytically unique and empirically separable construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Workplace Trust Survey is structured as a standardized, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are its core operational specifications:

• Instrument Type: Multi-referent organizational self-report inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, online survey portal, or enterprise intranet integration. Available for individual assessment or large-scale organizational census.
• Target Population: Working adults across all organizational levels, industrial sectors, and occupational classifications.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes for the full 35-item scale; 3 to 5 minutes for abbreviated 12-item institutional sub-inventories.
• Structural Referents / Dimensions:
  • Trust in Organization: 11 items assessing systemic fairness, vision, procedural equity, and organizational support. (Target entity represented as “X” or customized with the organization’s legal name).
  • Trust in Co-workers: 12 items assessing peer competence, mutual benevolence, reliability, and social support.
  • Trust in Immediate Supervisor: 12 items assessing managerial integrity, open communication, recognition, and procedural consistency.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Items are scored from 1 to 7 corresponding directly to the chosen response option.
  • Most items are formulated in a positive direction. Where reverse-scored items or generalized management perception check items are flagged, they are reverse-coded prior to composite tabulation.
  • Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of all items within that dimension (yielding a score range of 1.00 to 7.00 per referent). Alternatively, a summed total score can be utilized for structural equation modeling.
  • Mean subscale interpretations: 1.00–3.49 indicates severe trust impairment/systemic cynicism; 3.50–4.49 reflects neutrality, ambivalence, or conditional trust; 4.50–5.49 reflects moderate/healthy operational trust; 5.50–7.00 signifies high organizational trust and robust psychological safety.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Initial Development Year: 2002 (Master’s thesis by Natalie Ferres, University of Newcastle); formal peer-reviewed academic validation studies published in 2003 and 2004 (Connell, Ferres, & Travaglione, 2003; Ferres, Connell, & Travaglione, 2004).

Copyright and Usage Permissions: The Workplace Trust Survey was developed within an academic research context. Under standard scholarly Fair Use conventions, the scale items may be utilized without financial charge by non-commercial researchers, university faculty, postgraduate students, and organizational psychologists for scholarly, educational, and empirical investigation. Commercial usage, enterprise-wide deployment by for-profit consulting firms, or integration into proprietary corporate diagnostic software platforms typically requires written authorization or licensing agreements with the lead authors (Dr. Natalie Ferres, Prof. Julia Connell, and Prof. Anthony Travaglione) or the copyright-holding academic publishers (Emerald Group Publishing / Journal of Managerial Psychology).

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
• Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32(5), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488333
• Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). The development and validation of the Workplace Trust Survey (WTS): Combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies. In Proceedings of the 17th Association of Pan-Pacific Researchers in Organizations and Systems (APROS) Conference, Oaxaca, Mexico. http://www.laisumedu.org/DESIN_Ibarra/apros/papers/029.pdf
• Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
• Ferres, N. (2002). Development of the workplace trust questionnaire (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
• Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551516
• Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080332
• Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231594

Items of the Scale