Trust Repair in A Cultural Context: Undertaking A Synthesis of Trust Life Cycle Through Critical Literature Review

Trust is an important source to develop business understandings and relationships. It also greatly affects social efficiency of business activities and transactions. Trust deficit is so prevalent in the society; thus, it makes practical sense to explore its connotations, roots, linkages and effects. The subject of trust is very broad, however, in order to capture possible research gaps and explore scope for future research, this study is limited to the level of ex - amining mutual relationships among individuals at work places, and undertakes a critical literature review of the trust life cycle and trust repair process, examining empirical evidenc - es with regards to trust, distrust, trust deficit and repair, seen through cultural lens. Some limited research has identified core underlying variables (related to cognition, affect, and behavior, called “expectation assets”) which are supplemented by social and organizational factors, which also influence trust related expectations, and also influence the restoration and enhancement of trust. Research studies also highlight the relationship of trust with culture, with dominating perspective being ‘etic’, which relates to the understanding that trust is a global phenomenon affecting across various cultural domains and its effects can be observed as well as measured across cultures. Whereas, from an alternative ‘emic’ (culture-specific) perspective, though trust is a global phenomenon that cuts across all functional domains of a society, however, numerous differences exist that need to be considered while deciding trust levels as well as their intensity within a social setting.


Introduction
"For any theory of organizational trust, the devil is in the detail, and the details are in the context" Technological and socio economical changes and disruptions are becoming a great challenge for the contemporary organizations, while giving rise to the feelings of uncertainty and anxiety among employees as they are feeling vulnerable especially since Covid-19, (Kähkönen et al., 2020). In the post pandemic era trust repair amongst the employees and employers has gained utmost importance as the restructuring and downsizing is prevalent, leading to the interest and requirement as to how to achieve trust among various elements of organizations while work environments are becoming more and more complex. While working on the principles of sustainability, trust provides many benefits to the employees and their organizations; enhancing employee cooperativeness, effective problem solving and knowledge sharing. Literature on the subject of trust has significant research volume built over time and has established scholarship. It is a dynamic subject and very much relevant to everyone at different levels, whether at work, individually or collectively, culturally or socially. Trust plays a pivotal role in all sorts of business settings and any harm to its sanctity can adversely affect efficiency and efficacy of economic engine of a society (Bachmann & Zaheer, 2013). Anecdotally, one can comment that trust deficit is much prevalent; hence, it makes practical sense to explore its connotations, roots, linkages and effects. This is a broad subject, but in order to capture possible research gap or set a research scope, it has been limited to the level of work relationships at individual level, specifically the element of trust deficit and repair, seen through cultural lens. Mayer et al. (1995), while proposing a trust model involving trustor and trustee, suggest that trust is formed by trustor's perception of the trustee as well as the ability of the trustor to cultivate his faith in the trustee. The decisive ingredients of trustworthiness are assumed to be integrity, ability and benevolence of an individual (Ashleigh et al., 2012), A trustor's eagerness to trust and on the other hand a trustee's willingness to uphold trust are the basic fundamentals for trust to take effect between both the parties. In another model, trustworthiness between two parties is assumed as the willingness of trustor to be vulnerable to the future actions of a trustee and is a function of prevalence of socially accepted norms on mutual trust (Baer et al., 2018a) Lewicki et al. (2006), comment that despite theoretical progress in explaining the conceptual linkages of trust, yet efforts to measure trust and its elements have lagged, also trust research has been focused in its measurement as a onetime "snapshot" studies that provide limited insights into ever changing nature of trust and its related antecedents. This very fact caused decline in trust growth over time in the context of interpersonal relationships.
Trust is inherently context-bound concept (Bachmann, 2010), where context means e.g., industry-specific conditions, country-specific environment, implying trust quality, its nature and consequences vary in context to regional and national settings and happening. Hence nature of trust could systematically differ across cultures (Zaheer, 2006).
There is no denying the fact that trust is a fundamental bulwark for cultivating and maintaining human relationships for effective working outcomes, because trust deficit always has negative consequences both for individuals as well as organizations. Despite the importance of trust, its violation has not been studied in-depth, in terms of both short-term (verbal statements) and long-term (structural rearrangements of relationships) strategies in a cultural context, which can address the issues related to measuring trust in more effective manner, since trust is not directly observable and is rather inferred.

Research Objectives
This study entails to undertake an in-depth examination of the existing research encompassing the domain of life cycle of trust vis a vis trust healing and repairing process (defining trust itself, why people trust each other, studying that how trust gets broken, how trust violations are attributed and what does it mean to repair and what it takes to regain the trust confidence. It would also involve discussing trust repair strategies, which in turn opens the avenues for future research. The study focuses on measurement from actor and victim's perspective (with respect to trust), from different cultural setting i.e. (applying a cultural lens).

Methodology
This study relies on the analysis of the secondary data, in terms of a critical analysis of the research literature gathered on the subject, keeping in view research objectives coupled with relevant keyword searches (trust, distrust, broken trust, trust repair, context, interpersonal trust, cultural context of trust, etc.), and referring to research studies of key trust scholars, trust related papers in high impact factor journals and several handbooks on the subject, edited by key trust scholars. Johnson (2017) quoting different studies such as (Andrews et al., 2012;Smith et al., 2011) has termed critical literature review as an effective approach in inquiry, when a huge amount of data is being collected and collated while existing data is also being widely made use of. Further, relying on secondary analyses of large datasets (e.g., past research studies) provides a mechanism for researchers to review and analyze existing research and address important research questions, which otherwise could be very expensive and time-consuming to study.
In order to enhance the reliability of this study, a critical literature review is undertaken focusing on a judgment structure, by evaluating the theoretical background of the research papers, their assumptions and one that provides a logical structure of the paper, for better evaluation (Gheondea, 2015).

Literature Review
"Vertrauen ist der Anfang von allem" (trust is the beginning of everything)-Deutsche Bank. The subject of trust has assumed a pivotal role in the overall existence and functioning of an organization. In past empirical studies, it used to be treated as a mediating variable, a variable of secondary interest, but gained importance in 1990s, as a subject important in its own right. A number of books have covered this subject in more general terms, such as, problems related to trust with respect to personal interactions, and exploration of diverse determinants of trust and its benefits, in addition to the strides made on the theoretical front as well. Despite impressive progress, many questions regarding trust still remain unanswered in terms of its origins and foundation, as well as causes for its shortfall in relations, i.e., trust decline (Kramer, 2006a).
Trust has been characterized in diverse ways in organizational sciences and is a point of active discussion for the social science experts and practitioners, especially with respect to leadership behaviors (Banks et al., 2018), but till to date a universally accepted definition of trust remains elusive. Seppanen et al. (2007) in the course of their review came across about 70 definitions of trust. The spectrum of its definition at one end classify its ethical and moralistic facets, Hosmer (1995, p. 399) defines it as "ethically accepted behavior, a decision morally correct, or socially acceptable actions." Burt and Knez (1995) simply defined it as, "anticipated cooperation".
Other theorists argue; trust is basically one's psychological state of mind linked to several interrelated cognitive processes and orientations (Campagna et al., 2020). Other prospective definitions interpreted that trust in fact is a general expectancy about the future attitude of others and has a lot of bearing on the social system to which the trustor and trustee belong to (Luhmann, 1988). With regards to cognitive components of trust, other researchers argue that trust should be assumed as one of the complex psychological phenomena or states of mind that invest its stakes on others' behaviors (Kramer et al., 1996). Cognitive models provide necessary understanding of trust-related phenomena, but not sufficient enough to explain future attitudes and emotional responses of others, more aptly put as, "one not only thinks trust but feels it as well". (Fine & Holyfield, 1996). to sum it up, in terms of broad definition of trust, it entails rational account, and degree of knowledge including possible incentive about the trustee that can enable an individual to ultimately trust the other person Hardin (1992Hardin ( , 2002) fittingly states, "you can more confidently trust me if you understand my interests whose fulfillment shall help me to live up to your expectations Bedi (2020)".
Hence, it's mandatory that one's trust should encapsulate the interests of the trustee too. However, how a person finally decides to trust others needs to be questioned on many grounds and criteria, which cannot be quantified empirically. Few of the researchers prioritize social norms while others give precedence to ethics and values (Bush et al., 2020). It is cognitively too narrow leaving any room for the emotional or social perspectives to have some bearing on the trust decision-making process. Thus, researchers have emphasized that the decision to trust someone should not be entirely based on risk calculations rather it should also encompass the interests of others and society as a whole (Kramer, 2006a). According to Hardin (1992Hardin ( , 2002 trust decision is based on, the "personal attributes of the person imposing interest, a trustee, and the contextual realities upon which a trust is based". It becomes an even more complex and special point of concern in a working group environment (Breuer et al., 2016).
Dietz (2011) refers to different scholars quoting different types of trust: 'contract trust', 'competence trust' and 'goodwill trust' (Sako, 1992), 'deterrence-based', 'calculus-based', 'knowledge-based' and 'identification-based trust' (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996), each has their distinct roots, but commonly emphasize the fact that people use various forms of trust while interacting, dealing or socializing with people. Dietz (2011), argues that these are not necessarily types of trusts that differ from each other rather they vary in substance and context in which they take place. He categorizes this fact as; "the virtual goodness of beliefs of the trustee, a decision, a risk-taking act (a preparedness to be vulnerable), feedback on the outcomes, creating a trust's cyclical dynamic", thus he argues that fundamental reasons/ circumstances of imposing trust may differ, however, the process remains the same, which he classifies as universal dynamic, common to all trust encounters. Figure 1 shows a depiction of the trust process (Dietz, 2011).  Dietz (2011) hypothesizes that 'situational parameters' and the sources of interpersonal trust are in fact loosely bound in a way that the former may undermine the latter. According to Weibel (2003, p. 668): the institutional framework has a direct bearing on interpersonal trust, however, the quality of social interaction is not considered subservient to the institutional arrangements. While making someone to trust, we undertake various resources, however, given regulatory constraints and cultural sensitivities our options always remain limited. He argues whether is it possible for the researcher to know why people actually trust each other. To what extent? And on what basis? A subtler and more appealing quality of examination of what shapes trustor decisions and actions would greatly expand our understanding of this very puzzling construct, when attention is paid to their resource evidence and a trustee's qualities with regard to his/her perceptive influences.

Trust and Distrust
Scholars in management have treated distrust as a related, but distinct and important construct from the trust, because of its diverse perspectives in most of the available literature. Distrust on the other hand has faced resistance in assuming meaningful existence to its construct generally put forth by academics (Guo et al, 2017). Research studies show that great efforts have been made to distill and synthesize trust out of various research works undertaken on this subject (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012;Kramer & Lewicki, 2010), but the research evidence adding on organizational distrust still lacks coherence (Jong et al., 2016). Distrust has been associated with a large number of organizational issues, like revenge, organizational control, transaction costs, and cognitive processes (Guo et al., 2017). The study by (Fulmer et al., 2018) is quite relevant in this regard. In the available literature, there are two main perspectives on distrust: 'distrust as a behavior' and 'distrust as a belief'. Tempered information is considered to be the main contributory factor to the existence of distrust such as: increasing controls and monitoring (Walgenbach, 2001), looking for backup (Dunn, 1988), reducing compliance (Rafaeli et al., 2008), or avoiding business transactions (Cho, 2006). Relevant works on the subject generally emphasize that the expectation to accept unacceptable actions of the other party is considered the main trigger of distrust. Such studies are accountable for distrust on a standalone basis without showing any concern for trust (Connelly et al., 2012). These studies make use of distrust being a basic construct without making any explanation of the differentiating facts between distrust and low trust. Notwithstanding the above, few academic works have discussed the comparison between trusting and distrusting beliefs. These works to a great extent have proven that distrusting beliefs are a function of other person's psycho-motive state of mind, which includes: value incongruence, suspicion or cultivation of some ulterior motives (Fein, 1996;Fein & Hilton, 1994) and (Campagna et al., 2021). Distrusting beliefs are mostly rooted into general/perceptive value inconsistencies, whereas, trusting beliefs draw their strength from proficiency and competence of the resource being trusted (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Distrusting behavior and beliefs are in fact married to the cause-and-effect phenomenon of organizational distrust.
In any organization or work environment, employees' distrust leads to low contribution e.g. attendance/performance, greater turnover, and lowered job satisfaction (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). It also results into low/short retention as well as reduced promotion resultantly yielding less qualified and less competent employees occupying elevated positions for more responsible jobs, which creates leadership vacuum (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993), more importantly it gives birth to grievous communication gap, which may create many complications within the organization (Muench, 1960). Distrust can also result in worsened organizational productivity (Sparrowe et al., 2001). But distrust has its positive effects as well as, Lehmann (1979) interestingly maintained that for the promotion and expansion of trust; existence of distrust is essentially required. A few other studies have also rendered credence to some of the positive effects of distrust (Lumineau, 2017); Lewicki et al. (1998) have established through their observations over the time that distrust if exercised with prudence, creates conducive environment for the functioning of a group, to create economic discipline and efficiency. Trust and distrust must go hand in hand on the basis of strategic working elements with a purpose of achieving appropriateness in organizational decision making, (Zhang et al., 2021) have also presented interesting insights on this important facet on inter organizational trust especially where shared economic ventures are undertaken.
The elements of trust and distrust are mutually exclusive; therefore, trust determinants act as antidotes to distrust. Schoolman et al. (2007) state that "given that trust and distrust are two oppose entities, there would be hardly any value in treating them as distinct constructs". This is also endorsed by McKnight and Chervany (2001), who submits that the concept of distrust is specified as a unique and separate form of trust, thus proving that trust and distrust are mutually exclusive but operate and function simultaneously. But at the same time, they emphasis more clear and consistent conceptual demarcation and definitions for both trust as well as distrust, and present typologies of both terms to aid the practitioners.
The Handbook of Research Methods on Trust (Lyon et al., 2012), has shed further light on the subject bringing into discussion constructs of mistrust and repair. In terms of the consequences of trust, individuals expose themselves to risk or over-trust, leading to, in a sense, trust violations (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996;Dirks et al., 2009). The authors of the handbook based on research on the subject assert that although there have been consecutive studies on the repair of trust violations, but only limited insights could be drawn from such studies due to lack of longitudinal data gathering. Grovier (1994) defines distrust as, 'a reduced measure of confidence in an entity, may be an individual or a group, and expresses an anxiety about the party in whom the trust is imposed may act so as to harm one, or intends to act harmfully' (Holtz et al., 2020) have undertaken a dedicated study in this regard about the risk assumed by the subordinates as they impose trust in the leadership. Suspicion on the other hand has been recognized as central component of cognitive activity leading to distrust (Deutsch, 1958) and is recognized as a psychological makeup/state of entertaining and endorsing various patterns of rival thinking about the intentions and sincerity of others' behavior. (Fein & Hilton 1994, p. 168). Lewicki et al. 1998, have proposed a unique framework for understanding the dynamics of trust verses distrust operative in a relationship. Fundamentally treating the two as separate dimensions, trying to segregate their research from earlier researches treating them as one dimension. Thus, proposing coexistence of trust and distrust, basing their conclusions drawn from social science research which classifies both positive-valent as well as negative-valent attitudes being separable and distinct but coexisting.
Thus, hypothesizing that in social relationships selective aspects may be classified and characterized as trusting or distrusting while such degree of imposing trust or distrust are mutually exclusive and subjective in nature. They argue that the two elements are present in all social systems, and are functional equivalent (Luhman, 1979) and add that from an overall social structure stability point of view, there exists a balanced amount of both trust and distrust maintaining a state of equilibrium or a surface tension supporting the existence of confidence. Thus, an increase in one above the other can do more harm than good. The authors propose an exploration of simultaneous trust and distrust in relationships in more detail, when either distrust is suppressed or trustworthiness is dismissed, pointing out white color crimes, and where there has been lack of monitoring of trusted employees, leading to possible deception. Thus, the strategy of unconditional trust could be very harmful in the maintenance of social relationships and needs to be balanced with some dose of distrust.

Trust Repair
Due to high transaction costs, the trust between employees and other organization players is crucial, but despite the benefits associated with trusted work relationships, trust violations are very common. This leads to lowered employee commitment towards organizational objectives, reduced citizenship behavior and gives rise to turnover (Robinson, 1996). It generates further negativity in terms of resentment, anger, and hostility which lingers well after the violation that ultimately amounts to employees' distress and anxiety affecting their productivity and performance (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009). In the light of foregoing negative effects of tempered or ruptured employees' trust, which also later affects interpersonal relationships; there is an increased concern of management and academic scholars as how to repair and restore trust after the commitment of certain transgressions (Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009;Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Kramer and Lewicki (2010) state that organizational scholars agree about different benefits trust accrues for the functioning and performance of an organization. At the same time, recent events and global scandals point towards prevalent deficits in trust, which is also supported by research in this area. Authors have proposed two-pronged approaches to address this major issue. First, approach damage trust repair relying on organizational theory and existing trust-repair research, and then within the organizational setting, define trust repair and assess reasons and circumstances being a source of broken trust. Subsequently focus on how trust can be enhanced, made stable and sustainable. The authors then look into the daunting challenge of how the damaged trust can be repaired. But also point out that just repairing the trust is not enough until it can be made secure and more resilient. Thus, there is a need for a more conducive environment for trust enhancement and maintaining it. The road to this, researchers claim, lies in making headway in explicit and precise conceptualization of trust and its foundations.
Numerous scholars have analyzed and synthesized the varied definitions of trust, focusing on the core element of the positive role of social expectations to understand the foundation of trust. They have then derived the variables classified as cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors (with regards to expectation, termed as "Expectation Assets"), which are supplemented with social and organizational factors to complete the trust repair model. And in conclusion; winning employee trust within an organization requires creating a conducive environment that allows employees' development and career progression. The environment should further facilitate employees to cultivate favorable expectations about peers and other staff members' motives and competencies.

Trust Repair (Current View)
Kähkönen (2020), claims that although theoretical trust repair models are developed, these are much oriented toward individual levels, and there is a lack of empirical evidence with regard to intra-organization restoration of trust. The available academic evidence merely focuses on specific issues (e.g., fraud, scandals, and data manipulations, Lewicki et al. 2016). It is based on simple laboratory experimentations meant to measure differences among a few of the known trust repair practices, whereas, there is the limited research evidence on the matters of benevolence or competence trust violations. This research, therefore, looks into the possibility of applying certain managerial and leadership practices aiming to restore mutual trust by proposing a process model, which takes into consideration several past theoretical views based on: social exchange theory, attribution theory, and social equilibrium. Dirks et al. (2009) have studied the sum total effect of these three aspects as part of a process model for the purposes of trust restoration.

Trust and Culture
'Trust is one of the most important synthetic forces within society.' (Simmel 1950, p. 326) (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006) state that research conducted cross-culturally may be undertaken with respect to 'etic' (Culture-General) point of view, which assumes trust as being one of the global phenomena having its existence in almost all sorts of cross-cultural exchanges that can be observed, measured and compared employing appropriate measuring tools.
Whereas, from an alternative 'emic' (culture-specific) perspective, it is believed that though trust may be an important global phenomenon affecting all human beings (Schwegler, 2006), however, certain differentiating aspects have to be considered, especially with respect to the degree and intensity of imposing trust (Dyer & Chu, 2003). Wright and Ehnert (2010) have recognized the fluidity of trust, and have questioned the very notion of trust, and used trust as one of the constructs in their study while trying to make a sense of cross-cultural trust. They have conceptualized trust as one of the social constructs, which has culture-specific contextual bearings, such a concept sets aside any belief of trust being an event or a state. Authors believe that trust is an ongoing natural process, which may not be halted or interrupted for the purposes of measurements. Baer et al. (2018a) have given an interesting discourse in their study on the subject of, "social influences on the trustworthiness of individuals" and they are of the view that the environment and culture that bring up an individual do affect their trust or distrust worthiness. Therefore, a careful study of foreign cultures in important by any trustee before imposing trust in an individual coming from dissimilar cultures.
From a constructionist's point of view, what matters most is the fact that how trust gets its roots between two mutually trusting bodies (trustor and trustee)? And how it gets into snow balling process? Trust manifestation between two entities is a complex process of mutual consenting rather than being a mechanical switching (Weick, 1995). Trusting and distrusting is a lifelong process among human beings. Demonstration of trust or its degree of existence is difficult to measure as it's not a stable being, tangible or physical in nature, which could be measured in some quantitative manner. Any attempts or claims to measure the existence of trust amounts to over simplification of the phenomenon. Möllering et al. (2004). Among a host of considerations, that influence a group of human beings' culture is the most prominent factor which is ever present and most dynamic in nature. On the other hand, the consideration of trust as a bipolar dimension is too narrow and is contextually irrelevant to any useful representation of the trust phenomenon.
The questions that we seek answers with regards to cultural perspective of trust would include; do development, functioning and meaning of trust coming from varying cultural backgrounds differ? Ferrin and Gillespie (2010) conclude on the basis of theoretical evidence that it does and have quoted empirical evidence in the support of their conviction. They claim that in different aspects of trust, their research has established existence of differences across the cultures especially in terms of generalized prevalence of trust. Their research supports that mean level of trust, determinants (social, economic, environmental etc.) and consequences (allegiance to human rights, democratic values, and global responses in terms of the supportive and motivating attitude of one's supervisor) of trust, underlying purpose of trust and trust perceptions differ across cultures. They have frequently established this across a number of countries employing various methods and measures of generalized trust. However, these researchers have classified the findings, as preliminary because there is lack of replicative research to give more credence to the results. The authors further add that these studies present primary evidence that across almost all cultures certain dimension and perception of trust as well as trustworthiness does exist. At the same time, however, in aggregate these studies also prove that some facets of trust/trustworthiness are culture specific. This study as its outcome presents, that there is a universal application of integrity, trustworthiness, ability and benevolence, however, their manifestations as well as interpretations are culture-specific in at least some of the countries.

Implications
This study brings forth some very important implication especially for the organizational set ups or situations where people are expected to interact in groups or required to coexist as social entities per say. To put it in more academic terms, trust and distrust among individuals assume an important underlying reality, wherever, humans come together to form a system for mutual support and existence. To maintain the optimal health of such systems, extensive research emphasizes the necessity of acknowledging both trust and distrust, particularly for individuals expected to assume leadership positions. This serves as a guiding principle for their actions. No individual is above board of human limitations and distractions and no one can therefore, be blindly trusted or distrusted. It is therefore, important to understand that to maintain a mutual confidence among the leaders and followers or the managers and the workers, the existence of a certain but proportionate level of trust and distrust is a necessity. A blind trust may lead to cheating by subordinate or commission of white color crimes by those who exercise power and authority. It therefore, implies that in any organizational or systemic human set ups, the need for check and balances across the board cannot be ruled out rather should be implemented as a divine law.

Directions for Future Research
A thorough preceding analysis of the available literature on the subject reveals an ongoing debate whether trust and distrust are one-dimensional or two distinct dimensions, which require balance (i.e., presence of both trust and distrust) to maintain an effective social system. Majority of the researchers agree to the proposition of two-dimensional existence of trust and distrust (Legood et al., 2020). There is a need to undertake more trust related studies on longitudinal basis rather than being contended with cross sectional studies only. And any such research should cover trust, distrust and repair simultaneously, over time.
Proliferation of diverse conceptualization of trust and its underlying assumptions, pose challenges in presenting effective trust repair models, and thus there is a lack of empirical evidence in support of trust repair. There is thus need to synthesis and crystallize diverse conceptualization of trust and its foundational assumptions, in order to extract core factors and variables both directly related to positive expectations and contextual factors of trust. This direction has led to the development of a holistic view about positive expectations of trust relationships and trust repair, and development of an effective trust model which also supports trust enhancement which is sustainable post implementation of trust repair. This results in a more robust model of trust repair which has its grounding in the core theoretical principles associated with trust.

Conclusion
The contemporary research on trust although important and relevant to the individuals and institutions, is too broad in its concept, thus some of the researchers understand that the theory in this field has still not formed and developed to present a prospective story along with its peculiar plot and characters. There is a huge proliferation of middle range theories regarding trust, however, any prospective theory encompassing organizational level trust still remains elusive and a point of concern for the researchers. Furthermore, though empirical evidence is rapidly emerging and accumulating, there is still lack of studies employing some comprehensive multi-level conceptual measures of trust that could bridge diverse understanding of trust with regards to socio psychological, economic and sociological perspectives (Kramer, 1999). This research has helped understanding the complexity of the subject of trust and has improved our appreciation about the wide range of benefits associated with trust as well as with a measured amount of distrust as highlighted above under the heading of limitations. Further study on trust especially in the domain of its organizational level existence and application should be conducted on longitudinal basis to draw further insights for the managers and team leaders, which could help them steer their organizations smoothly in the right directions to achieve their intended missions and visions.