Leader–Employee Trust (In)Congruence and Illegitimate Tasks: The Mediating Role of Leader–Member Exchange

In the quiet machinery of a workplace, two forces often determine whether a day feels like a partnership or a struggle: trust and the tasks assigned. Trust, in this context, is not merely a feeling of goodwill but a psychological state where one person is willing to be vulnerable because they believe the other will act with good intentions. When a leader trusts an employee, they might hand over more responsibility, believing the person is capable. When an employee trusts a leader, they believe the leader has their best interests at heart. Usually, we assume that more trust is always better, a simple equation where high trust leads to high performance and happiness. However, the reality of human relationships is rarely that linear. Sometimes, the very act of being trusted can feel like a burden, especially if the person receiving that trust does not feel they can trust the person giving it. This imbalance can turn a new opportunity into a source of stress, leading employees to view their work not as a chance to grow, but as an unfair imposition.

Researchers Guangya Ma, Chunying Cui, Junhan Ji, and Lei Lu set out to investigate this complex dynamic, asking a simple but profound question: what happens when the trust between a boss and a worker does not match? They were particularly interested in "illegitimate tasks," a specific type of work that employees feel they should not have to do because it falls outside their reasonable job description or feels beneath their role. The study, conducted across multiple organizations in mainland China, sought to understand how the alignment—or misalignment—of trust affects the quality of the relationship between a leader and a team member, and how that relationship, in turn, shapes whether a worker sees their daily duties as fair or unfair.

To find the answer, the team gathered data from 35 managers and 259 employees across six companies in industries ranging from technology to real estate. They did not rely on a single snapshot in time; instead, they tracked these pairs over three months, asking questions at three different points. First, they measured how much the managers trusted their staff and how much the staff trusted their managers. A month later, they asked the employees to describe the quality of their relationship with their boss, looking for signs of mutual respect, support, and open communication. Finally, they asked the employees to report on the tasks they had been given, specifically noting which ones felt unreasonable or illegitimate. This careful, step-by-step approach allowed the researchers to see how trust levels influenced the relationship, and how that relationship influenced the perception of work, without the confusion of all the answers being given at once.

The findings revealed a nuanced picture that challenges the idea that trust is always a simple good. The researchers found that when both the leader and the employee trusted each other equally, the relationship was strongest. In these cases of high mutual trust, the bond between them was of the highest quality, characterized by a deep sense of reciprocity and support. Conversely, when both parties had low trust in each other, the relationship was weak and distant. But the most revealing discovery occurred when the trust levels did not match. The study showed that the relationship suffered most when the leader trusted the employee highly, but the employee did not trust the leader in return. In this scenario, the employee often felt the leader's trust as a pressure, interpreting new responsibilities as unfair demands rather than opportunities. Interestingly, the reverse situation was less damaging; when an employee trusted a leader who did not fully trust them back, the relationship remained relatively stable because the employee's own trust helped them interpret the leader's hesitation as a managerial decision rather than a personal slight.

This imbalance in trust directly influenced how employees viewed their work. The study demonstrated that the quality of the relationship between the leader and the employee acts as a bridge. When the relationship is strong and balanced, employees are more willing to accept extra tasks or responsibilities, viewing them as part of a fair exchange. They feel that the leader has their back, so they are willing to stretch their role boundaries. However, when the trust is unbalanced, particularly when the leader trusts more than the employee does, the relationship quality drops. In this weakened state, employees become more sensitive to the nature of their assignments. They are more likely to see new tasks as illegitimate, feeling that these demands are unreasonable or that they are being taken advantage of. The research suggests that the perception of unfair work is not just about the task itself, but about the context of the relationship in which it is delivered.

These results offer a clear message for organizations and leaders. The study indicates that simply trusting an employee is not enough to ensure a positive outcome; the employee must also trust the leader for that trust to be effective. If a leader places high expectations on an employee who does not trust them, the employee is likely to feel overwhelmed and resentful, viewing their work as illegitimate. The authors suggest that leaders should be mindful of these dynamics, recognizing that a mismatch in trust can undermine the very cooperation they seek to build. By fostering a relationship where trust is mutual and balanced, leaders can create an environment where employees feel secure enough to accept challenges without feeling burdened by them. Ultimately, the study highlights that the health of a workplace depends not just on the tasks assigned, but on the invisible, often unspoken, levels of trust that exist between the people doing the work.