50 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers 1 Received: 27th August 2021; revised: 7th December 2021; accepted: 18th December 2021 Knowing When and How to Trust Superiors’ Decisions: Toward a Conceptual Model of Subordinate Managers’ Behavior Emil KOTSEV University of Ruse, Faculty of Business and Management, Bulgaria, ekotsev@uni-ruse.bg Background/Purpose: The study explores subordinate managers’ propensity to trust superiors’ decisions. Its pur- pose is twofold: first, to provide lower-level managers with a tool to know when and how to trust superiors’ decisions for a better organizational performance, and second, to lay the foundations for the development of a conceptual model of subordinate managers’ behavior. Methods: The research philosophy adopts an inductive content analysis perspective. A mixed-methods research design is applied, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Data is collected through questionnaire, focus groups, interviews, and literature review. A total number of 219 managers from eight Bulgarian business organiza- tions filled the questionnaire and 92 of them participated in group discussions and interviews. Results: The majority of the managers surveyed tend to trust their immediate superiors. As a result of group discus- sions, the main advantages and disadvantages of managers with opposing attitudes toward trust are identified. A decision tree model of subordinate manager’s appropriate behaviors is proposed. Conclusion: Inferior managers can have an active role in managing trust in their superiors’ decisions. Several situa- tional factors, including superior’s competence and integrity, and organizational culture, determine the degree of trust that the subordinate manager should observe concerning the decisions and requests of the immediate superior. Keywords: Trust, Distrust, Subordinate manager, Immediate superior, Managerial behavior DOI: 10.2478/orga-2022-0004 1 Introduction 1.1 Scope of the subject For more than a century, scholars have been studying managers and their behavior. So far, research focus has been mainly put on the work of managers as superiors and much has been written about them as decision-makers and team leaders. Remarkably, their activity as subordinates stands in the shadows, nevertheless it is apparent at all lev- els of management (even CEOs have to report to a board of directors). As Bhawuk & Ferris (2000) put it, managers have to switch their roles all the time: they are bosses one moment and subordinates the next. However, the way they deal with the two roles remains unexplored (Alvehus et al., 2016). The limited research on the role of managers as fol- lowers and subordinates can be explained with its contra- dictory and heterogeneous nature. The perception of their active role in the management process at first glance con- tradicts the understanding that subordinates (regardless of their position) are passive executors of decisions made by superiors. As a matter of fact, managers are not regular executors – they do the operational planning, organize the implementation process, exercise control, and are respon- sible for the outcome. As a result of neglecting this role, there is a shortage 51 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers of concepts in the modern scientific literature that describe and explain the behavior of the manager as a subordinate. This shortage is even more noticeable in terms of guiding models that recommend certain behaviors of subordinate managers regarding the specifics of the situation (as op- posed to the literature on leadership, in which these models abound). To fill this gap, it is time for scholars to consider the main challenges faced by inferior managers, analyze them systematically, and focus their efforts on developing more comprehensive models of subordinate managers’ be- havior. As one of these challenges, the issue of interperson- al trust can serve as a starting point for future debates on the subject. Many researchers and practitioners perceive trust as a key organizational factor that can build compet- itive advantages and increase the efficiency and ability to develop (Bieńkowska et al., 2018), defining its role as critical and crucial (Agnihotri, 2017). It has already been proven that trust influences important organizational as- pects, such as managerial effectiveness (McGregor, 1967), employee involvement (Thomas et al., 2009), individual performance (Colquitt et al., 2007), team performance (De Jong et al., 2016), commitment (Chow et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Guinot et al., 2014), decision-making (Na- torski & Pomorska, 2017) and dyadic cooperation (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013). At the same time, over-trusting can have negative consequences (Möllering & Sydow; 2019; Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2020), especially if it affects the performance of responsible tasks, as is usually the case with most managers. The rich research material gathered over the years pro- vides favorable opportunities for a more detailed insight into this issue through the prism of managers as subor- dinates. The effectiveness of their work as implementers of higher managers’ decisions is a function of the trust between superiors and inferiors (Vecchiotti, 2018). It is important to study interpersonal trust in the organization (Hasche et al., 2020) and even more important to inves- tigate the vertical relationships of managers particularly, because they can exert influence downwards and upwards (Kotsev, 2021). In this respect, the present study can be seen as an at- tempt to contribute to the filling of three significant gaps in existing research. First, contemporary theories on trust and leadership/followership often view the different streams as overall constructs instead of multifaceted phenomena (Hasel & Grover, 2017). Although there are some studies trying to integrate leadership, followership and trust theo- ries (e.g. Han & Harold, 2019; Khan et al., 2020), present research continues to be predominantly focused on lead- ership practices for building trust of followers (e.g. Le & Tran, 2021, Dirks et al., 2021). This paper might be con- sidered a first of its kind as it combines modern follow- ership and trust theories to develop a functional tool for subordinate managers. Second, unlike most previous studies, here both par- ties (the trustor and the trustee) hold managerial positions. This implies a better assessment of the situation by the subordinate manager, due to the opportunity to use her (or his) experience as a team leader in the relationship with the superior. However, scholars are not unanimous on whether this assessment favors superior’s decisions trust- worthiness. According to Hurley (2006), roughly half of all managers in the USA don’t trust their superiors, while Andersen & Kovač (2012) report different results in Eu- rope. A contribution of this paper is the provision of addi- tional data on trust between management levels. Trying to provide further clarification, trust propensity of Bulgarian inferior managers is studied. Finally, unlike contemporary trust research as conduct- ed by organizational science, which is interested mainly in trust determinants (e.g. Lleo et al., 2016; Bencsik & Juhasz, 2020), trust formation (e.g. Valenti et al., 2020; Zidane, 2021), and trust impact (e.g. Burke et al., 2007; Cho & Ringquist, 2011), this paper attempts to provide an answer to questions “when” and “how”. The study as- sumes that subjective trust is a personal choice (Srinivas et al., 2018) and it can vary depending on the person and the situation (Yin et al., 2020). However, I refuse to accept that the ultimate trust is a cure-all for every organizational ill and try to recommend a “dosage of the drug” according to the specific situation. As a result, the paper suggests a deci- sion tree model, recommending when and how lower-level managers can trust their superiors. 1.2 Literature review and conceptual framework Scholars’ interest in followership and subordination has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the 21st century (Bligh, 2011). A growing number of academic and business publications recognize that it is the followers rather than the traditional leaders who make things happen in today’s organizations (Mullen, 2016). Even so, research on followership still lags behind leadership studies: only 8% of all articles published in The Leadership Quarterly at the end of 2017 used the term “follower” (or a derivative) in their title, compared to 83% that used the term “leader” (Bastardoz & Van Vugt, 2019). Interpersonal trust has also generated considerable in- terest in the organizational sciences in recent years (Ma et al., 2019). It is found important especially in situations that demand collaborative effort (Coletti et al., 2005) and even more important in supervisor-subordinate relationships, as trust improves cooperation and mitigates agency problems by enhancing information exchange and reducing subor- dinates’ perceived need to engage in short term opportun- istic behavior (Hartmann & Slapničar, 2009). Moreover, employees’ trust in supervisors is positively linked to all 52 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers forms of organizational commitment: affective, continu- ous, and normative (Akkaya, 2020). These undeniable advantages have led many studies to focus on interpersonal trust between managers and subor- dinates. Regrettably, most of them do not go beyond iden- tifying leadership behaviors (e.g. Whitener et al., 1998; Biljsma & Van de Bunt, 2003) and other trust-building factors (e.g. McKnight & Chervany, 2006; Tomaževič & Aristovnik, 2019), omitting the possibility of a wrong or malicious decision by the superior. Knowing that people (including higher-level managers) are not perfect, such optimism seems out of place. The unconditional readiness to adopt and implement a decision that does not contrib- ute to the achievement of organizational goals calls into question the concept of generalized trust as a panacea for everything, embraced by many scholars since the 1990s (Reeskens, 2009). Fortunately, subordinates do not always demonstrate such conformity. Exploration practice shows that they tend to resist superiors, perceived as incompetent (Darioly & Schmid, 2011). It appears that distrust is not the opposite of trust (Van De Walle & Six, 2014) and sometimes it could be the better option. Recent studies confirm that when dis- trust is present, organizations remain alert and are prepared for unexpected adversities (Raza-Ullah & Kostos, 2020). In fact, any reasonable doubt in the trustworthiness of the potential trustee can make distrust rational (Ziegler, 1998). Building on the work of Mayer et al. (1995), recent studies have confirmed that trust cannot be maintained or developed when the levels of superior’s competence (abil- ity) and fairness (integrity) are low (Poon, 2013; Bugdol, 2018), or the organizational culture does not support it (Jabeen & Isakovic, 2018; Jeong & Chun, 2019). Further- more, the level of inferior managers’ certainty in their sub- jective trustworthiness evaluation is an additional variable that has to be considered (Holtz et al., 2020). Under the diverse influence of suchlike factors, superior managers are trusted to different degrees (Andersen, 2019). To date, no model has been developed (at least to my knowledge) to suggest the proper degree to which inferior managers can trust and comply with their superiors’ deci- sions and requests. However, the potential application of the model proposed here is not limited to this function. It can also serve as a basis for creating a broader conceptual model of the overall behavior of the manager as a subordi- nate. In addition to trust propensity, a future broader con- cept may include other important personal characteristics that affect the superior-inferior relationship. It should be clearly stated that the present study fo- cuses on ‘inferior-superior’ relationships and not on the ‘follower-leader’ connection, where trust is a determinant (Balcerzyk, 2020). Furthermore, it only applies to immedi- ate levels in the organization. In this regard, the terms ‘sub- ordinate manager’, ‘inferior manager’, and ‘lower-level manager’ are used interchangeably, as are the terms ‘supe- rior’, ‘senior manager’, and ‘higher-level manager’. 1.3 Aim, objectives, and research questions The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to provide lower-level managers with a tool to know when and how to trust superiors’ decisions for a better organizational per- formance, and second, to lay the foundations for the devel- opment of a conceptual model of lower-level managers’ behavior. The main objectives are as follows: O1. To explore in eight Bulgarian business organiza- tions inferior managers’ propensity to trust superiors’ deci- sions or to trust their own judgment. O2. To identify and analyze the advantages and disad- vantages of managers with a propensity to trust or distrust their superiors. O3. To build a decision tree model to recommend when and how lower-level managers can trust their superiors. Taking into account the conceptual framework and ob- jectives of the study, the following research questions are addressed in this paper: Q1. Do Bulgarian managers as subordinates tend to trust the decisions of their immediate superiors or tend to trust their own judgment? Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of managers who tend to doubt superiors’ decisions? Q3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of managers who tend to trust superiors’ decisions? Q4. When is it advisable for inferior managers to trust the decision of a superior and when to doubt? The paper is organized into four sections. The next section describes the methods used in the study. The third section is the review of research findings and is the heart of the paper. It is split into two sub sections, one entitled ‘Analysis’ (referring to empirical results), and the other ‘Modeling’ (dedicated to the transformation of the results into a decision-tree model). Finally, an interpretation of results is provided, conclusions, limitations, and future re- search directions are outlined. 2 Methods 2.1 Research design The research philosophy of this study adopts an induc- tive content analysis perspective. The study applied a mixed-methods research design, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches to ex- plore a complex phenomenon such as trust in detail (Hal- comb & Hickman, 2015) and to provide a better under- standing of managers’ trust propensity and behavior. A combination of two research strategies was used to obtain empirical data. Since the study aims to lay the foundations for the development of a new conceptual model, explora- 53 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers tory research was involved. It also aims to survey inferi- or managers’ trust propensity, defined as “a dispositional willingness to rely on others” (Colquitt et al., 2007), and to describe its impact on task performance, which implied descriptive research strategy. In the first phase of the study, taking advantage of a questionnaire approach already developed to study lead- ership styles (Myers, 1970), I developed a ten-item ques- tionnaire, designed to measure managers’ trust propensity relating research question Q1. Expert reviews and a pilot study with 17 graduate students were conducted for con- tent and face validity of the questionnaire. Reliability was tested by test-retest of the same respondents two weeks lat- er (P=.71). Moreover, being a part-time leadership trainer, I had the opportunity to involve trainees in my research. During an open training session, the cognitive interview- ing method was entailed as a second step to validate the questionnaire. Ten lower and middle-level managers gave their feedback by two well-recognized techniques: think- ing aloud and verbal probing (Priede & Farrall, 2011). As a result of the pretesting procedure, four items were re- moved from the questionnaire, three items were modified and reliability was raised to 0.86. In its final version, the questionnaire includes only six items, shown in Table 1. Each item consists of a pair of two statements. Respondents have to assign a score from 0 to 10 to each statement to show how strongly they agree (“0” indicating strong disagreement and “10” – strong agreement). The points assigned for each pair have to total ten. The degree of individual propensity to trust superiors (PTS) is calculated by the formula PTS = (a) + (d) + (e) + (h) + (i) + (k). The gravity of the result to 0 testifies to a propensity not to trust superiors. As the result approaches 60, the propensity to trust superiors gradually prevails. Table 1: Trust in superiors questionnaire Statement Score (a) Usually the goals set by the boss and the paths for their achievement coincide with your own views. (b) You often have the feeling that the goals and objectives assigned to you are contradictory and mutually exclusive. ………. ………. (10) (c) Before accepting a superior’s decision, you prefer to check it out. (d) You always accept superiors’ decisions without questioning them. ………. ………. (10) (e) You can easily trust your boss’s judgment when problems arise. (f) You don’t agree quickly with your boss’s judgment in ambiguous situations. ………. ………. (10) (g) If superiors’ decisions and actions are inexplicable to you, you begin to doubt their adequacy. (h) If you don’t see the point in superiors’ decisions, you tend to assume that their position allows them to take into account things invisible to you. ………. ………. (10) (i) You think people are too suspicious of superiors in general. (j) You personally often have doubts about superiors’ motives or competence. ………. ………. (10) (k) The boss always knows what has to be done, because he/she sees the “big picture”. (l) Even if the boss is competent, he/she has no idea of the details of my work. ………. ………. (10) 54 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers As a measure of central tendency of a set of quanti- tative observations with different importance, weighted arithmetic mean is used (Pulamolu et al., 2017). The indi- vidual PTSs are divided into four class intervals (0 to 15, 16 to 30, 31 to 45, and 46 to 60), calculating the weighted arithmetic mean ¯x defined by (1), where x_iare the data values to be averaged and f_i is the number of managers (the weight) in the i-th interval. Regarding research questions Q2, Q3 and Q4, a quali- tative approach is followed to gain an in-depth knowledge of the topic. Each of the three complex questions is decom- posed into simple sub questions (Table 2): Table 2: Research questions Q2-Q4 and sub questions Research questions Sub questions Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of managers who tend to doubt superiors’ decisions? Q2.1. What are the advantages of managers who tend to doubt superiors’ decisions”? Q.2.2. What supporting arguments can you provide? Q2.3. What are the disadvantages of managers who tend to doubt superiors’ decisions? Q.2.4. What supporting arguments can you provide? Q3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of managers who tend to trust superiors’ decisions? Q.3.1. What are the advantages of managers who tend to trust superiors’ de- cisions? Q.3.2. What supporting arguments can you provide? Q.3.3. What are the disadvantages of managers who tend to trust superiors’ decisions? Q.3.4. What supporting arguments can you provide? Q4. When is it advisable for inferior managers to trust the decision of a superior and when to doubt? Q.4.1. Can you describe a situation in which lack of questioning superior’s decisions resulted in better organizational performance? Q.4.2. Why did you trust the superior’s decision? Q.4.3. Can you describe a situation in which lack of questioning superior’s instructions resulted in worse organizational performance? Q.4.4. What you could do differently? Q.4.5. Can you describe a situation in which questioning superior’s instructions resulted in better performance? Q.4.6. Why and how exactly did you express your distrust? Q.4.7. Can you describe a situation in which questioning superior’s instructions resulted in worse performance? Q.4.8. What you could do differently? 2.2 Data collection Alongside the survey questionnaire, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were used for primary data col- lection (Saunders et al., 2019). These were conducted as a part of in-company training programs in eight Bulgar- ian clothing (garment and apparel) manufacturers – two large enterprises (250 employees and more) and six me- dium-sized businesses (50 to 249 employees). Eleven fo- cus groups were formed, each comprising of five to seven 55 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers managers. The duration of group discussions ranged from one hour to one hour and twenty minutes. Minutes were taken during the events for both data sources (focus groups and interviews). Participants in the qualitative data collection were low- er and middle-level managers (N = 92). All of them filled in the questionnaire and discussed issues related to questions Q2, Q3, and Q4. The homogeneity of the focus groups was ensured by division of participants: the lower-level man- agers (N=71) expressed their opinion in group discussions, while the middle-level managers (N=21) were interviewed individually. The interviews lasted an average of about an hour: the first half gathering information on the specifics of the organization (needed for the training assignment), and the second half of this time was dedicated to discus- sion of questions Q2, Q3 and Q4 in an open-ended manner based on semi-structured conversation. Departures from the guiding questions were encouraged (Silverman, 2013). An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze both group discussions and interviews. Following Lester et al. (2020) earlier work, the analysis process included sev- en phases: preparing and organizing the data, transcribing the data, becoming familiar with the data corpus, memoing the data, coding the data, producing themes and categories from underlying coded passages, and making the analysis process transparent. A 15-point checklist (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to assess the quality of the thematic anal- ysis. In addition, 127 lower managers from the same com- panies, who did not attend the training courses, filled in the questionnaire, too. As a result, a total number of 219 questionnaires were received. Survey respondents were predominantly female (81.2%), aged 25-45 (57%), and had up to 3 years of work experience as managers (53.4%). 3 Results 3.1 Analysis Results of the survey show that 75 managers (34.2%) tend to doubt the decisions of their superiors (the first two intervals), as 17 of them with scores from 0 to 15 express high distrust to superiors and a strong preference to trust primarily on their own judgment (Table 2). The remaining 144 managers (65.8%) from the third and fourth intervals tend to trust the decisions of their superiors, and 35 of them (16% of the sample) indicate a high degree of trust. Table 3: Distinctive features and number of respondents in each interval, and data values to be averaged Interval Feature 0 ÷ 15 7.5 High distrust 17 127.5 16 ÷ 30 22.5 Moderate distrust 58 1308.0 31 ÷ 45 37.5 Moderate trust 109 4087.5 46 ÷ 60 52.5 High trust 35 1837.5 Total 219 7360.5 By substitution in the formula (1), arithmetic mean value of 33.61 is obtained. Thus the answer to the first re- search question is provided: the majority of the managers surveyed tend to trust their immediate superiors. Is this good or bad news? To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two extremes (high distrust versus high trust). Basically, this implies answer- ing the second and third research questions – a task per- formed during the focus group discussions and interviews. The ideas presented by the participants regarding the an- swer to Q2 (What are the advantages and disadvantages of managers who tend to doubt superiors’ decisions?) are summarized below. A. Advantages of managers who tend to doubt superi- ors’ decisions: • They do not automatically follow the decisions and requests of the superior. This is probably due to their belief that there are always ways to get a job done better. Based on the information at their disposal, they try to understand the meaning of the decisions and modify them depending on the conditions of the specific situation. • They make the most of their knowledge and skills. As a result of their efforts, the organization receives reliable information from the “firing line”. Their expert judgment is difficult to manipulate by a superior. • These managers warn of problems and identify op- portunities. They often play the role of devil’s advocate, which allows them to identify flaws and weaknesses on time. • Often these managers prove to be an inexhaustible source of unconventional ideas. They do not hesitate to take radical approaches if they are convinced of their bene- fits. Hence, they support and maintain the innovative spirit in the organization. • Skeptical managers unintentionally improve the in- dividual results of their superiors. As senior managers ex- pect resistance from their doubtful subordinates (explicit 56 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers or implicit), they pay more attention to the quality of the decisions they make, devoting additional time to gather- ing detailed information, analyzing alternative approaches, and refining their arguments. Thus, higher-level managers maintain consistently high standards in their work, which benefits the organization as a whole. B. Disadvantages of managers who tend to doubt su- periors’ decisions: • They are often lousy team players. Their doubts can undermine team spirit, bring a split and reduce the motiva- tion for achievement of others. • Constant doubts are a serious prerequisite for the cor- rosion of relationships. Consequently, lower-level manag- ers risk not only their careers but also the effectiveness of their joint, not particularly synergistic, activities. • In organizations with a large number of skeptical managers, the likelihood of losing focus and coordination increases. The lack of trust between the different manage- ment levels leads to a waste of time for explanations and inspections. It becomes difficult to reach an agreement even on the main goals and direction. In such cases, Boc- cialetti (1995) notes that if the differences are very large, the organization becomes a chessboard, a jungle, or even a battlefield. • The information exchange between them and the su- perior is not particularly intense. Communication between the two levels is rarely sincere and open. Each of the par- ties seeks to attract more allies – an aspiration that takes a lot of energy from both sides, and at its extreme can affect the effectiveness of the entire organization. During the focus group discussions, it was pointed out that it is possible to observe significant fluctuations in the levels of trust and distrust of a lower-level manager towards different higher-level managers because the trust of the subordinate largely depends on the qualities of the senior manager. Other studies confirm this assumption – subordinates who feel that the superior cares about them and helps them, have a higher degree of trust in her (McAl- lister, 1995). The same subordinates may show a weaker tendency to trust another manager. Participants in the focus groups and interviews also have identified the advantages and disadvantages of man- agers who tend to trust their superiors’ decisions. Thus, they have provided the answer to Q3: C. Advantages of managers who tend to trust superi- ors’ decisions: • These managers are good team players, ready to re- gard organizational goals as personal goals. Superiors gen- erally approve when subordinates leave it to them to set important goals and priorities. • Seeing that subordinate managers share their goals and tasks, superiors tend to consult with them more often and delegate more responsibilities to them. In addition, be- cause they are confident that the set goals and tasks will be followed, they do not emphasize tight control of sub- ordinate performance. Thus, paradoxically, lower-level managers increase their influence and become more inde- pendent. • Favorable “superior-inferior” relationships are main- tained. The level of conflict between the two parties is kept low without much effort. This significantly reduces the level of stress in the overall work and increases the likeli- hood of lower-level managers receiving support from the higher level. • Enhanced communication between inferior and su- perior managers is observed. The level of information ex- change is high and on this basis, the management decisions taken by both parties timely reflect situational adversities. • As an advantage, which personally affects inferior managers and not the organization, one can take into ac- count the fact that usually trustful subordinates are offered favorable career opportunities (Marineau, 2017). This is easy to explain – superiors tend to promote those subordi- nates who support and follow them. D. Disadvantages of managers who tend to trust supe- riors’ decisions: • Trustful managers do not want to confront their su- periors. Too little conflict may encourage stagnancy and mediocracy. Superiors are likely to cultivate faith in their own infallibility and to ignore some warning signs of im- pending danger. • The conceptual skills of these managers are missing or poorly developed. Constant compliance with superiors leads to impairment of these skills. In the case of promo- tion to a higher position, where abstract thinking and crea- tivity are needed, this can be especially negative. • Conflicting objectives and tasks terrify trustful man- agers, as it is difficult for them to decide which one to fol- low. This is due to their blind faith in superiors and lack of anticipation of possible complications. • Trustful managers lose their sense of personal re- sponsibility. They are likely to make external attributions and blame outside forces (e.g. other employees, unfavora- ble external environment, or bad luck) for their failures. The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages pre- sented above sends a clear message: there are plenty of situations in which lower-level managers have to trust su- periors’ decisions, but in other cases, a certain amount of distrust may be more useful. Based on this very general inference and the concrete answers to Q.4 sub questions of the managers surveyed, a model has been developed that gives some guidance to subordinate managers in deciding what these “other cases” are and what exactly “a certain amount” means. 3.2 Modelling Figure 1 shows a product of the group discussions and individual interviews on the subject – a behavior chain that covers all possible nuances of the behavior of subordinate managers in the distrust-trust continuum. It was developed 57 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers through inductive thematic analysis of the responses re- ceived to Q.4.4, Q.4.6 and Q.4.8. The chain comprises a series of behaviors classified according to the predominant orientation of the subordinate to resist or comply with the ideas of the superior. The chain is composed of five basic managerial behav- iors: • The manager confronts the superior, trying to prove the inappropriateness of the assigned task; • The manager checks the appropriateness of the task before proceeding to its implementation or to express care- ful disagreement; • The manager weighs the request of the superior, with- out expressing open consent or disagreement with it; • The manager agrees with the superior, adapting her/ his own opinion to the senior manager’s point of view; • The manager accepts the ideas of the superior as her/ his own, without questioning their appropriateness. Figure 1: Behavior chain Figure 2: Decision tree model of subordinate manager’s appropriate behaviors 58 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers The chain does not include the ultimate degree of re- sistance – rejection because managers with such an orien- tation would make the interaction between the two levels impossible. Their readiness to reject superior’s decisions and requests would violate the basic principles of subordi- nation in the organization. Adopting a well-known leadership decision tree ap- proach (Vroom & Yetton, 1973), the model of self-man- agement presented in Figure 2 enables the manager as a subordinate to independently look over and determine the behavior that is appropriate and adequate to the situation. The model is limited to four questions, the first three of which reflect influencing factors already mentioned in the literature review section – superior’s competence and integrity, and organizational culture. The answers form a tree of alternative decisions recommending appropriate behavior from the distrust-trust continuum. The decision tree analysis highlights the most important factors that in- fluence subordinate managers’ judgment when and how to trust superior’s decisions and requests. The first question inferiors have to answer is particu- larly important because it affects the superior’s ability to make the right decisions: “Do you feel more competent than your superior in the specific situation?” The answer to this question (as well as to the rest) requires absolute certainty on the part of subordinates regarding their ade- quate assessment of the situation. They can only confront the views of the immediate superior if they have sufficient- ly reliable and objective information about some particular competence shortcomings. Sometimes, however, reliabili- ty and objectivity of information are difficult to determine, as the subordinates do not have the big picture and may not have a clue about the existence of additional informa- tion. A positive answer to this question can be considered a necessary but not sufficient condition for a manifestation of resistance. A negative answer indicates that the subor- dinate does not have the competence needed to judge the decisions of the higher-level manager and should exhibit more conformity behavior. The second question concerns the motives of the senior manager: “Do the goals of the organization differ signif- icantly from the goals of the superior?” It is clear that if higher-level managers pursue their own (possibly selfish) objectives, it is necessary to counteract them in order to support the organizational goals. Subordinates must be careful in answering this question, as they may have been left with the wrong impression of the true motives and goals of the superior. It is advisable to choose a negative answer in case of uncertainty. If the answers to the first and second questions are positive, there is no need to consider the other questions – undoubtedly, subordinates must be ready to resist if they do not agree with the decision and they are convinced that organizational interests are not be- ing served, while the superior pursues personal goals. The third question is related to the norms adopted by the organizational members: “Does the organizational culture encourage free expression of opinion by subordi- nates?” This question examines the extent to which subor- dinates’ different opinions are supported or condemned by other members of the organization. If the answer is “Yes”, expressing disagreement with the opinion of the superior can be justified by others (including the immediate supe- rior) and perceived as a manifestation of commitment to organizational problem solving – a situation that favors orientation towards resistance. On the other hand, if the answer is “No”, i.e. the affinity for new ideas and employ- ee involvement is minimal, if any, asserting a different opinion may be perceived as an attempt to compromise hierarchical authority and subordination. Although recent research shows that in the event of difference of opinion, superiors are prone to cooperation and negotiation with subordinates (Ruskova & Ruseva, 2018), conformity-ori- ented behavior is recommended in this case. The last question indirectly reflects the expectations of the higher-level manager: “Do you personally often uncrit- ically support the decisions of your superior?” The need for this clarifying question stems from the fact that the quality of superiors’ decisions to some extent depends on their ex- pectations regarding the reaction of subordinates – an issue addressed during the focus groups discussions, regarding Q.4.6. If superiors are accustomed to receiving full support from their subordinates, they may not make enough effort to formulate the problem and generate alternatives to solve it. This adversely affects the quality of decisions made by superiors. Therefore, a subordinate who plays the role of a skeptic in the implementation of teamwork can be espe- cially useful as a corrective tool to neutralize superior’s unneeded relaxation and to improve the decision-making process. In most cases, this answer does not significantly affect the choice of inferior’s appropriate behavior. If the answer is “Yes”, the orientation of the subordinate man- ager should be less conformal in order to counteract the inclination of the superior described above. If the answer is “No”, more conformity behavior is recommended, which does not harm the organization but allows to achieve a cer- tain balance in subordinate’s reactions. 4 Discussion and conclusion The considered model of self-management reveals op- portunities for improving the work of subordinate manag- ers and can be a useful tool for determining appropriate situational behaviors. This provides opportunities to over- come the negatives inherent in each of the two continuum extremes. Following the model, inferior managers can re- duce their resistance if teamwork and uncritical execution of instructions received are required. In other cases, the model may recommend a more skeptical approach to su- perior’s opinion and, if necessary, taking on the role of the boy, who announces to the public that the king is naked. Superior manager’s benevolence is deliberately not 59 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers considered in the decision tree so as not to affect inferiors’ objective judgment. Subordinate managers need to appre- ciate the logic of the model before they start answering questions. This increases the probability of understanding questions accurately and retrieving correct answers. In ad- dition, only if inferior managers appreciate the questions and are convinced of their soundness they will have the necessary willpower to change their behavior in the direc- tion recommended by the model. It should be noted that both trusting and distrusting inferiors have their place and importance in the organi- zational hierarchy. Lower-level managers can strengthen their active role in managing relationships with superiors by overcoming the extremes in their orientations towards trust or distrust. This will help them maintain an appropri- ate dynamic balance between the two propensities. With- out underestimating the risk of straining the relationship with a superior in case of doubt, they should keep in mind the danger of reducing organizational effectiveness and competitiveness due to the implementation of a series of inadequate management decisions made from above. By adopting such a balanced approach, they will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the proposed model of self-management. A question may arise whether there is any chance or possibility for subordinate managers to express their doubt in superiors. Some could argue that no matter whether they feel distrust inside, inferiors still have to follow the instruc- tions given and carry out the orders received. They could realistically support their statement with arguments related to organizational hierarchy and compulsory subordination. However, this would not be entirely true. As said earlier, subordinate managers can exert influence downwards and upwards. Of course, this does not mean that they can refuse to complete the task, but they may check the appropriate- ness of the task before proceeding to its implementation, just as the model suggests. There are various ways to do this depending on the situation, for example to gather ad- ditional information, or to express careful disagreement by asking for a written order. In some cases inferior managers may even choose to confront the superior and try to prove the inappropriateness of the assigned task. For instance, to propose an alternative decision and cautiously explain its advantages. Even if the superior does not accept it, the inferior would be released (at least to some extent) from responsibility for any possible damages. Most likely it would be easier for a subordinate man- ager to keep quiet and comply. However, the model is not about the inferior’s convenience and mood, but for higher managerial effectiveness and better organizational perfor- mance. Sometimes the inferior is the only one left before a wrong decision is implemented. And sometimes the inferi- or may have to act as a fuse to keep the whole installation from burning. This paper is not the first to study managerial trust-build- ing. Past work, however, has focused mainly on the role of the superior (e.g. Sitkin & George, 2005; Lapierre, 2007). Analyzing the possibility for the manager as a subordinate to choose when and how to trust superior’s decisions, the study reinforces and extends prior work on trust manage- ment. Nevertheless, it does not support the trust decision tree as proposed by Klein (2001). In contrast with Klein’s assumption that when deciding not to trust, the result can- not be positive, the current study assumes the existence of situations in which displaying a certain amount of distrust could be more practical. Moreover, it shows that in some cases the manifestation of trust can have a negative impact on the achievement of organizational goals. The carefully designed and tested questionnaire, as well as the qualitative analysis of the interviews and group discussions conducted, can be considered as strengths of this study. They reveal the predominant propensity of subordinates to superior’s decisions – the majority of the managers surveyed tend to trust their immediate superiors (thus answering Q1). The paper also identifies the main advantages and disadvantages of managers with opposing attitudes toward trust (thus answering Q2 and Q3). On this basis, a behavior chain and a decision tree model of subor- dinate manager’s appropriate behaviors are proposed. The model could provide some useful insights for managers on when to trust superiors’ decisions and when to doubt (thus answering Q4). Compared to most previous attempts for modeling managerial behavior, the model proposed here has two significant differences. First, it focuses on modeling just one behavioral characteristic (readiness to trust) and does not have the ambitions of some previous research to fully understand (e.g. Sterman, 1989) and explain (e.g. Stewart, 2019) the overall behavior of managers. Second, and per- haps more important, I believe that no other authors have tried to adapt Vroom and Yetton’s leadership decision tree to components of subordinate managers followership. The model developed may facilitate the development of similar approaches to modeling managerial behavior and organizational subordination that can be used for other important behavioral challenges of lower-level managers, such as decision-making on how close or distant should they be to a superior. A series of decision trees similar to the present one would be a valuable tool for inexperienced managers and could be used as a guide in managing rela- tionships with superiors. However, the study is not without limitations. First, it covers only garment and apparel companies. It is unclear whether the survey would yield a similar result in other manufacturing industries, commercial businesses, public institutions, and NGOs. Second, it disregards the impact of individual diversity (age, ethnicity, gender, sexual ori- entation, etc.) on trust propensity of managers. Third, too much reliance is placed on the objectivity of subordinate managers in answering questions from the decision tree. 60 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers Fourth, the proposed theoretical model has not been tested in practice and its reliability has not been properly proven. Finally, subordinate manager’s behaviors need to be considered in a more systematic approach. How do the temperament, needs, and other individual differences af- fect manager’s decision on how much to trust a superior? How does this decision correspond to other challenging questions that inferior managers face, for example, what relational distance to keep from the senior management person? How does the decision to follow instructions or take the initiative relate to trust propensity and how it af- fects both, career growth and organizational performance? These and many other complex questions wait to be an- swered. Literature Agnihotri, A. (2017). Role of trust building in leadership ef- ficiency. Journal of Advanced Management Research, 5(5), 552-565. https://www.academia.edu/35745584 Akkaya, B. (2020). Linking organizational commitment and organizational trust in health care organizations. Organizacija, 53 (4), 306-318. https://doi.org/10.2478/ orga-2020-0020 Andersen, J. A. (2019). Trust in Managers Revisited: An- tecedents, Mediating Factors, and Consequences. Dy- namic Relationships Management Journal, 8(2), 65- 73. http://doi.org/10.17708/DRMJ.2019.v08n02a05 Andersen, J. A. & Kovač, J. (2012). Why European subordinates trust their managers. Organizacija, 45(6), 300-309. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10051-012-0029-x Balcerzyk, D. (2020). Trust as a Leadership Determi- nant. European Research Studies, 23, 486-497. http:// doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1939 Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939 Bastardoz, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2019). The nature of followership: Evolutionary analysis and review, The Leadership Quarterly, 30 (1), 81-95. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.004 Bencsik, A., & Juhasz, T. (2020). Impacts of informal knowledge sharing (workplace gossip) on organisa- tional trust. Economics & Sociology, 13(1), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-1/16 Bieñkowska, A., Walecka-Jankowska, K., Zab³oc- ka-Kluczka, A., & Zimmer, J. (2018). Influence of intra-organizational trust on organizational outcomes. Operations Research and Decisions, 28(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.5277/ord180402 Biljsma, K.M. & Van de Bunt, G. (2003). Anteced- ents to trust in managers: a ‘bottom-up’ ap- proach. Personnel Review, 32, 638-664, http://doi. org/10.1108/00483480310488388 Bhawuk, D., G. Ferris (2000). Value-added relationship management: A key to effective manager-subordinate relations. Delhi Business Review, 1(2), 25-34. Bligh, M. (2011). Followership and follower-centred ap- proaches. The Sage Handbook of Leadership, Lon- don: Sage, 425–436. Boccialetti, G. (1995). It Takes Two, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Braun, V ., & Clarke, V . (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bugdol, M. (2018). The role and importance of trust in the processes of human resource management. In Manag- ing Public Trust, 73-97. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70485-2_6 Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006 Cho, Y . J., & Ringquist, E. J. (2011). Managerial trustwor- thiness and organizational outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 53-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq015 Chow, P. T., Cheung, S. O., & Ka Wa, Y . (2015). Impact of trust and satisfaction on the commitment-withdraw- al relationship. Journal of Management in Engineer- ing, 31(5), 04014087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) ME.1943-5479.0000331 Coletti, A. L., Sedatole, K. L., & Towry, K. L. (2005). The effect of control systems on trust and cooper- ation in collaborative environments. The Account- ing Review, 80(2), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.2308/ accr.2005.80.2.477 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 Darioly, A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2011). Facing an incom- petent leader: The effects of a nonexpert leader on sub- ordinates’ perception and behaviour. European Jour- nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 239-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903429576 De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 101(8), 1134-1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000110 Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team perfor- mance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004-1012, https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.1004 Dirks, K. T., Sweeney, P. J., Dimotakis, N., & Woodruff, T. (2021). Understanding the change and development of trust and the implications for new leaders. Journal of 61 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers Business Ethics, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 021-04902-4 Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Roca-Puig, V . (2014). Interper- sonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: an empir- ical study. Personnel Review, 43, 96-115. https://doi. org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0043 Halcomb, E. J., & Hickman, L. (2015). Mixed methods research. Nursing Standard, 29, 32, 41-47. https://doi. org/10.7748/ns.29.32.41.e8858 Han, S. & Harold, C. (2019). Examining why employee proactive personality influences empowering lead- ership: The role of cognition- and affect-based trust. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol- ogy, 92(2), 2019, 352-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joop.12252 Hartmann, F., & Slapničar, S. (2009). How formal perfor- mance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 722-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aos.2008.11.004 Hasche, N., Höglund, L., & Mårtensson, M. (2020). In- tra-organizational trust in public organizations–the study of interpersonal trust in both vertical and hori- zontal relationships from a bidirectional perspective. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1768-1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1764081 Holtz, B. C., De Cremer, D., Hu, B., Kim, J., & Giacalone, R. A. (2020). How certain can we really be that our boss is trustworthy, and does it matter? A metacogni- tive perspective on employee evaluations of supervisor trustworthiness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(7), 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2447 Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 84(9), 55-62. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/6822603_The_Decision_to_Trust Hasel, M. C., & Grover, S. L. (2017). An integrative mod- el of trust and leadership. Leadership and Organiza- tion Development Journal, 38(6), 849-867. https://doi. org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2015-0293 Jabeen, F., & Isakovic, A. A. (2018). Examining the im- pact of organizational culture on trust and career satis- faction in the UAE public sector: A competing values perspective. Employee Relations, 40(6), 1036-1053. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2017-0038 Jaser, Z., Alvehus, J., Carsten, M. K., Collinson, D., & Grant, D. S. (2016). Manager as a valued leader and a valued follower: making managerial work more meaningful. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 15959. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.15959symposium Jeong, D. U., & Chun, B. J. (2019). The mediation effect of trust and communication on relationship between organizational culture and innovative behavior: fo- cused on manufacturing business. Asia-Pacific Jour- nal of Business, 10(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.32599/ APJB.10.1.201903.39 Khan, S. N., Abdullah, S. M., Busari, A. H., Mubushar, M., & Khan, I. U. (2020). Reversing the lens: The role of followership dimensions in shaping transforma- tional leadership behaviour; mediating role of trust in leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ- 03-2019-0100 Klein, D. B. (2001). The demand for and supply of as- surance. Economic Affairs, 21(1), 4-11. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-0270.00268 Kotsev, E. (2021). The dual role of managers as an object and subject of influence. International May Conference on Strategic Management – IMCSM21, 46-56. http:// media.sjm06.com/2021/10/Proceedings_IMCSM21_ Issue-1.pdf Lapierre, L.M. (2007). Supervisor trustworthiness and subordinates’ willingness to provide extra-role efforts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (2), 272–97. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00160.x Le, B. P. & Tran, Q. T. (2020). Leadership practice for building trust of followers: Decisive factors of orga- nizational performance. SEISENSE Journal of Man- agement, 3(2), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom. v3i2.308 Lester, J. N., Cho, Y ., & Lochmiller, C. R. (2020). Learn- ing to do qualitative data analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890 Lleo de Nalda, A., Guillen, M., & Gil Pechuan, I. (2016). The influence of ability, benevolence, and integrity in trust between managers and subordinates: The role of ethical reasoning. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(4), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12117 Ma, J., Schaubroeck, J. M., & LeBlanc, C. (2019). Inter- personal trust in organizations. In Oxford Research En- cyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.167 Maciejovsky, B., & Budescu, D. V . (2020). Too much trust in group decisions: Uncovering hidden profiles by groups and markets. Organization Science, 31(6), 1497-1514. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1363 Marineau, J. E. (2017). Trust and distrust network accura- cy and career advancement in an organization. Group & Organization Management, 42(4), 487-520. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1059601115627529 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/10.2307/258792 McAllister, D. (1995), Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Orga- nizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24- 59. http://doi.org/10.2307/256727 McGregor, D. (1967). The professional manager, New York: McGraw-Hill. 62 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2006). Reflections on an initial trust-building model. Handbook of Trust Research, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 29-51. https:// doi.org/10.4337/9781847202819.00008 Möllering, G., & Sydow, J. (2019). Trust trap? Self-re- inforcing processes in the constitution of inter-or- ganizational trust. In M. Sasaki (Ed.), Trust in con- temporary society, 141-160. Leiden: Brill. http://doi. org/10.1163/9789004390430_009 Mullen, J. (2016). Being a good follower: An import- ant component of effective public health leadership, Public Health Reports, 131(6), 739-741. https://doi. org/10.1177/0033354916669699 Myers, M. S. (1970). Every employee a manager, New York: McGraw-Hill. Natorski, M., & Pomorska, K. (2017). Trust and Deci- sion‐making in Times of Crisis: The EU’s Response to the Events in Ukraine. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(1), 54-70. http://doi.org/10.1111/ jcms.12445 Poon, J. M. (2013). Effects of benevolence, integrity, and ability on trust‐in‐supervisor. Employee Relations, 35(4), 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2012- 0025 Priede, C., & Farrall, S. (2011) Comparing results from different styles of cognitive interviewing: ‘verbal probing’ vs. ‘thinking aloud’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(4), 271–287. http:// doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.523187 Pulamolu, K. K., Bhavani, T., & Subramanian, D. V . (2017). Intra-Tenant resource sharing in yarn based on weighted arithmetic mean. In 2017 International Conference on Networks & Advances in Computa- tional Technologies (NetACT), 262-265. http://doi. org/10.1109/NETACT.2017.8076777 Raza-Ullah, T. & Kostis, A. (2020). Do trust and dis- trust in coopetition matter to performance? Europe- an Management Journal, 38(3), 367-376. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.10.004 Reeskens, T. (2009). On the Nature of Generalized Trust. A Cross-National Inquiry into the Relation between Human Values and Generalized Trust [Conference pre- sentation abstract]. APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Pa- per, Canada. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1449881 Ruskova, S., & Ruseva, I. (2018). Empirical study on the impact of the conflicts on the motivation of the em- ployees. Annals of „Eftimie Murgu” University Reșița. Fascicle II. Economic Studies, 25, 206-214. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A prac- tical handbook (4 th ed.). London: Sage. Sitkin, S. B. & George, E. (2005). Managerial trust-build- ing through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 29, 307- 338. http://doi.org/10.1177/0268580905055479 Srinivas, V ., Kumari, V . V ., & Raju, K.V . (2018). Persever- ance of uncertainty in cloud storage services through reputation based trust. International Journal of Net- work Security, 20(5), 951-959. https://doi.org/10.6633/ IJNS.201809_20(5).17 Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321- 339. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.3.321 Stewart, R. (2019). A Model for Understanding Manage- rial Jobs and Behavior. In Managerial Work. 235-240. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780429398599-15 Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 46(3), 287-310. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522 Tomaževič, N., & Aristovnik, A. (2019). Factors of trust in immediate leaders: an empirical study in police service environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2525. http://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph16142525 Valenti, M., Celedonia, K. L., Wall-Parker, A., & Strickler, A. (2020). Trust is essential: Identifying trust building techniques from youth providers across the service ar- ray. Children and Youth Services Review, 117, 105295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105295 Van De Walle, S., & Six, F. (2014). Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(2), 158-174. https://doi.org /10.1080/13876988.2013.785146 Vecchiotti, R. (2018). Contemporary leadership: The per- spective of a practitioner. Journal of Leadership Stud- ies, 12(2), 40-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 35918-8_6 Vroom, V . H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and de- cision-making. 110, University of Pittsburgh Press. Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An ex- change relationship framework for understanding man- agerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530, http://doi.org/10.2307/259292 Yin, K. Y ., Chin, K. Y ., Meng, C. L., & Pung, N. C. (2020). The determinants of intention to use e-voting system: The case of Generation X in Malaysia. Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 10(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2020.10.1.3 Zidane, Y . (2021). Building trust within virtual projects. PM World Journal, 10(7), 1-24. Available from https:// pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/pm- wj107-Jul2021-Zidane-building-trust-within-virtual- teams.pdf Ziegler, R. (1998). Trust and the Reliability of Expecta- tions. Rationality and Society, 10(4), 427-450. https:// doi.org/10.1177/104346398010004003 63 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 1, February 2022 Research Papers Emil Kotsev received his MSc in Industrial Econom- ics and Management from the Academy of Economics – Svishtov, Bulgaria, in 1995 and his PhD in HR Man- agement from the University of Ruse in 2003. He has specialized in entrepreneurship training at Harvard Business School (USA), consulting and management training at the Mid Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce (UK) and vocational training at Bolton College (UK). His research and teaching work as an associate professor at the University of Ruse is positively influenced by his consulting and training experience in the field of organ- izational design and HR management, as well as his activity as an apparel business entrepreneur. ORCID: 0000-0001-6848-3051 https://orcid.org/0000-0001- 6848-3051 Kdaj in kako zaupati odloèitvam nadrejenih: predlog konceptualnega modela ravnanja podrejenih mene - džerjev Ozadje/Namen: Študija raziskuje nagnjenost podrejenih menedžerjev k zaupanju odloèitvam nadrejenih. Njen na- men je dvojen: prvič, da vodjem nižje ravni zagotovi orodje, ki jim pomaga odločati, kdaj in kako zaupati odločitvam nadrejenih za boljšo organizacijsko uspešnost, in drugič, postaviti temelje za razvoj konceptualnega modela obna- šanja podrejenih menedžerjev. Metode: Uporabljena je zasnova raziskav z mešanimi metodami, ki uporabljajo tako kvalitativni kot kvantitativni pristop. Uporabili smo perspektivo induktivno analizo vsebine Podatki smo zbrali s pomočjo vprašalnika, fokusnih skupin, intervjujev in pregleda literature. Vprašalnik je izpolnilo 219 menedžerjev iz osmih bolgarskih podjetij. V sku- pinskih razpravah in intervjujih je sodelovalo 92 udeležencev. Rezultati: Večina anketiranih menedžerjev ponavadi zaupa svojim neposrednim nadrejenim. Kot rezultat skupinskih razprav se kažejo glavne prednosti in slabosti menedžerjev z nasprotnim odnosom do zaupanja. Avtor predlaga model drevesa odločanja za oceno primernega vedenja podrejenega vodje. Zaključek: Nižji menedžerji imajo lahko aktivno vlogo pri upravljanju zaupanja v odločitve nadrejenih. Več situacij - skih dejavnikov, vključno s kompetenco in integriteto nadrejenega ter organizacijsko kulturo, določa stopnjo zaupa- nja, ki bi jo moral podrejeni vodja upoštevati glede odločitev in zahtev neposredno nadrejenega. Ključne besede: Zaupanje, Nezaupanje, Podrejeni vodja, Neposredni nadrejeni, Menedžersko vedenje