Group Openness/Trust Scale

Abstract

The Group Openness/Trust Scale (GOTS), developed by educational leadership scholar Cletus R. Bulach in 1993, is a comprehensive, 60-item diagnostic psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the interpersonal and normative architecture of group climate within organizations, with foundational validation conducted in educational environments. The instrument operates upon a bi-dimensional conceptualization distinguishing between group openness and group trust, while systematically bisecting these domains into two distinct psychological realities: perceived normative organizational expectations (Items 1–30) and actual individual behavioral enactment (Items 31–60). Within this framework, interpersonal trust is operationalized across five core behavioral facets—character, truthfulness, professional ability, confidentiality, and predictability—whereas organizational openness is quantified through two complementary communication processes: telling (disclosure and constructive feedback) and listening (receptivity and solicitous inquiry). Administered via a 5-point Likert-type response format, the GOTS has demonstrated solid psychometric stability, yielding Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficients of .80 for group openness and .82 for group trust, alongside 1-week test-retest reliability estimates of .78 and .80, respectively. By measuring the congruency or divergence between perceived social press (expectations) and genuine interpersonal actions, the instrument provides organizational researchers, industrial-organizational psychologists, and school administrators with a granular diagnostic framework for assessing psychological safety, climate health, and the interpersonal dynamics requisite for institutional reform and collaborative efficacy.

Keywords

Group Openness/Trust Scale, GOTS, interpersonal trust, organizational openness, school climate, psychological safety, educational leadership, interpersonal communication, psychometrics, normative expectations, collaborative culture

Authors

The Group Openness/Trust Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically evaluated by Dr. Cletus R. Bulach. During the initial development and psychometric deployment of the scale in the early 1990s, Dr. Bulach served as a faculty member in educational administration and leadership, conducting extensive field investigations into organizational climate, supervisory behavior, and school reform initiatives across Kentucky and Georgia in the United States. Dr. Bulach later held a distinguished tenure as an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of West Georgia (Carrollton, Georgia), where his research program centered on school culture, character education, teacher-principal interpersonal dynamics, and systemic school reform.

Bulach’s scholarly agenda was deeply rooted in the premise that institutional restructuring and academic achievement cannot materialize within dysfunctional, low-trust relational ecosystems. In conjunction with colleagues such as Bobby Malone and Michael D. Richardson, Bulach published extensively on how the interpersonal climate fostered by administrators directly influences educational change implementation, professional morale, and institutional effectiveness. Inquiries regarding the historical psychometric datasets, conceptual architecture, and field implementation of the GOTS typically reference Dr. Bulach’s foundational 1993 publication in People and Education and his subsequent organizational climate monographs.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Group Openness/Trust Scale is to measure the dual psychological constructs of openness and trust within workgroups, educational facilities, and organizational hierarchies. Rather than treating an organization’s climate as an undifferentiated, monolithic affective state, the GOTS was engineered to dissect the specific behavioral mechanisms that generate either an atmosphere of psychological risk and defensive self-preservation or one of mutual vulnerability, authenticity, and shared institutional vision.

Theoretical Rationale: The Expectations-Behavior Discrepancy

A central theoretical rationale undergirding the GOTS is the recognition that organizational failure often stems from a psychological disconnect between perceived behavioral norms and authentic behavioral practice. Employees frequently perceive that leadership or their peer group demands absolute loyalty, transparent communication, and collective risk-taking; however, the actual operational culture may penalize vulnerability, causing individuals to mask their true feelings, withhold constructive criticism, and adopt defensive posturing. The GOTS deliberately measures this phenomenon through its dual-tiered structure:

• Perceived Group Expectations (Items 1–30): Diagnoses the institutional press, psychological climate, and perceived social contracts governing the work environment (i.e., “What do I perceive my colleagues and superiors expect me to do?”).
• Actual Behavioral Enactment (Items 31–60): Assesses the personal, enacted behaviors and day-to-day relational choices made by the respondent (i.e., “What do I actually do when interacting with my colleagues?”).

This structural pairing enables researchers and organizational consultants to quantify the “authenticity gap” or dissonance between organizational expectation and daily operational reality. A workgroup exhibiting high perceived expectations for openness but low enacted behavioral openness reflects a climate paralyzed by systemic apprehension, cynicism, or hypocrisy.

Research and Practical Applications

In research domains, the GOTS is utilized as an empirical bridge connecting micro-level interpersonal psychology with macro-level organizational performance. It is frequently employed in studies evaluating:

• Educational Reform Implementation: Testing hypotheses regarding why reform interventions succeed or collapse based on underlying faculty trust (Bulach & Malone, 1994).
• Psychological Safety and Innovation: Evaluating how group members’ willingness to take interpersonal risks fosters organizational learning and creative problem-solving.
• Leadership Diagnostic Audits: Functioning as a multi-rater or group-level baseline instrument to assess the interpersonal health of academic departments, healthcare units, or corporate teams prior to team-building or structural interventions.

Psychological Construct

The conceptual architecture of the GOTS is grounded in a multifaceted operationalization of two distinct yet highly reciprocal interpersonal domains: Group Trust and Group Openness. Bulach synthesized clinical, social psychological, and organizational development frameworks to formulate behavioral indicators that manifest within everyday collaborative interactions.

The Sub-Dimensions of Group Openness

Openness within the GOTS is operationalized not as mere extraversion or social talkativeness, but as a disciplined communication loop comprising balanced Telling and Listening behaviors:

• Telling: Characterized by behavioral risk-taking. In a closed environment, individuals exercise behavioral self-censorship, suppressing unconventional ideas, personal values, and constructive critique (Items 2, 3, 11, 12, 32, 33, 41, 42). In an open environment, individuals transparently voice dissent (Items 10, 40) rather than displaying superficial compliance while harboring underlying hostility.
• Listening: Reflects a posture of intellectual humility and relational validation. It involves actively seeking input regarding one’s own behavioral shortcomings (Items 5, 35) and exploring the internal psychological states of colleagues (Items 8, 38). Without robust listening, high telling degenerates into an aggressive, unidirectional broadcasting climate rather than genuine collaborative openness.

The Five Sub-Dimensions of Group Trust

Trust is conceptualized as an individual’s willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of others, predicated upon the expectation that others will perform actions critical to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control them (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). The GOTS differentiates this broad construct into five distinct behavioral sub-dimensions:

• Character (Benevolence and Integrity): Grounded in the perception that team members are fundamentally well-intentioned and possess ethical integrity. Items probe the degree to which an individual believes peers care about their personal well-being (Items 19, 49) versus feeling compelled to maintain emotional detachment (“play it cool” / keep distance; Items 16, 46).
• Truthfulness: The bedrock of interpersonal reality within the group. When truthfulness is low, verbal interactions become strategic, requiring perpetual decryption of hidden agendas. Items address transparency in messaging (Items 13, 43) and the moral fortitude to admit personal error without defensive rationalization (Items 28, 58).
• Ability (Competence): Trust is severely compromised if colleagues are ethically upright but technically inept. The scale examines faith in peers’ collective capacity to provide substantive help when challenges arise (Items 17, 18, 47, 48).
• Confidentiality: The functional safety barrier protecting interpersonal vulnerability. When confidential communications leak into institutional gossip networks (Items 21, 51), systemic psychological safety evaporates, prompting retreat into self-preservative isolation. Items assess confidence in peer discretion (Items 23, 53).
• Predictability: Volatility in peer reactions, erratic leadership styles, or affective instability under stress induce high cognitive load and defensive vigilance among team members. The scale assesses behavioral constancy across shifting environmental conditions (Items 30, 60) and fidelity to stated intentions (Items 25, 55).

Theoretical Framework

The Group Openness/Trust Scale synthesizes multiple converging traditions across social psychology, interpersonal circumplex modeling, and organizational climate theory. Its foundational assumptions reflect the integration of four prominent conceptual paradigms:

1. Rotter’s Social Learning Theory of Interpersonal Trust

Julian B. Rotter (1967, 1991) conceptualized interpersonal trust as a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon. Rotter posited that trust is cultivated through cumulative reinforcement histories: consistent, verified commitments foster generalized trust expectancies, whereas broken promises solidify generalized cynicism and suspicion. Bulach integrated Rotter’s construct of expectancy into the GOTS by framing the first half of the instrument around perceived interpersonal expectancies (Items 1–30), acknowledging that group members enter professional arenas with cognitive schemas regarding social reliability.

2. Gibb’s Communication Climate Framework: Defensive vs. Supportive Climates

The GOTS’s operationalization of openness draws heavily from Jack R. Gibb’s classic sociological inquiry into defensive versus supportive communication environments (Gibb, 1961). Gibb asserted that individuals who perceive threat, judgment, manipulation, neutrality (indifference), superiority, or rigid certainty in their social environment construct severe psychological defense barriers. Consequently, they “play it cool,” conceal their genuine affect, and distort their messages. In contrast, supportive climates—characterized by spontaneous authenticity, empathetic listening, problem orientation, and provisionalism—encourage individuals to openly state their beliefs, critique prevailing systems, and admit fallibility. Items 14, 15, 16, 44, 45, and 46 directly embody Gibb’s defensive postures, tapping into concealment, distance-keeping, and the systematic questioning of others’ motives.

3. Gurtman’s Interpersonal Circumplex and Distrust Dynamics

The scale’s theoretical underpinnings are further informed by Michael B. Gurtman’s (1992) circumplex analysis of trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems. Gurtman demonstrated that interpersonal distrust is not merely the absolute mathematical absence of trust, but an active, distinct structural posture often characterized by hostile detachment, suspicious vigilance, and competitive isolation. This theoretical insight justifies the inclusion of active distrust indicators within the GOTS (such as expecting to question others’ intentions or engaging in malicious information brokerage) rather than evaluating trust purely as a passive, unipolar trait.

4. Pareek’s Organizational Motivational Analysis (MAO-C)

In developing the GOTS, Bulach built upon Udai Pareek’s (1989) foundational organizational climate paradigm: the Motivational Analysis of Organizations—Climate (MAO-C). Pareek’s systemic framework highlighted openness, confrontation, trust, authenticity, proaction, autonomy, collaboration, and experimentation (termed the OCTAPACE profile) as the essential cultural prerequisites for organizational health and individual motivation. Bulach refined Pareek’s broader macro-organizational dimensions into concrete, quantifiable, interpersonal behaviors tailored to the social matrix of professional environments.

Validity

In the seminal 1993 validation study, Bulach presented initial psychometric evidence supporting the content, construct, and discriminant validity of the Group Openness/Trust Scale, while explicitly identifying the need for continued replication across varied organizational ecosystems.

Content Validity

Content validity was established through an extensive literature synthesis and iterative expert panel reviews. Bulach extracted behavioral indicators from established organizational climate rubrics (including Pareek’s MAO-C), interpersonal communication models, and social learning literature. A panel of educational leadership scholars and field practitioners reviewed the item pool to ensure that the 60 indicators fully saturated the intended domains of telling, listening, character, truthfulness, ability, confidentiality, and predictability. The parallel-item design (mirroring the 30 expectation items with 30 corresponding behavioral enactment items) guaranteed that both the normative-cognitive and actionable-behavioral manifestations of each sub-dimension were systematically represented.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validation was assessed primarily within a large-scale field sample comprising 525 educators across 24 elementary schools in Kentucky (Bulach, 1993). Bulach investigated the degree to which GOTS scores correlated with independent measures of organizational health, instructional effectiveness, and school reform readiness (Bulach & Malone, 1994):

• Convergence with School Climate Dimensions: Group openness and group trust demonstrated statistically significant, positive correlations with favorable organizational climate ratings, particularly in environments marked by high principal supportiveness, professional collegiality, and low academic frustration.
• Discriminant Power Across School Performance Strata: The GOTS successfully discriminated between high-performing and low-performing elementary institutions undergoing state-mandated reform initiatives. Schools categorized as successful reform implementers exhibited significantly higher aggregate scores on both openness and trust compared to structurally identical, underperforming schools characterized by high defensive isolation and interpersonal suspicion.

Methodological Recommendations and Caveats

Despite these encouraging findings, Bulach (1993) noted specific psychometric caveats. He underscored that while preliminary discriminant and construct validity were substantiated, future research required confirmatory analytical methods. Specifically, the author highlighted the risk of social desirability bias in the self-report behavior items (Items 31–60) and recommended that researchers combine self-reports with peer-ratings or multi-level structural equation modeling (SEM) to establish discriminant boundaries between the GOTS sub-dimensions and related organizational constructs such as psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) and organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988).

Reliability

The Group Openness/Trust Scale has demonstrated robust empirical reliability across multiple forms of measurement consistency, including split-half internal consistency and temporal stability over time.

Split-Half Reliability

In the primary normative validation sample (N = 525 elementary educators across 24 schools), the scale’s internal consistency was evaluated utilizing the split-half technique corrected via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula:

• Group Openness Subscale: Demonstrated a split-half reliability coefficient of r_sb = .80.
• Group Trust Subscale: Demonstrated a split-half reliability coefficient of r_sb = .82.

These values comfortably exceed the standard psychometric threshold (.70 to .80) established by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for psychological assessment instruments in research and organizational diagnosis, confirming that the items within each construct exhibit adequate homogeneity of variance.

Test-Retest Reliability (Temporal Stability)

To determine whether the GOTS measures enduring interpersonal climates rather than ephemeral, transient emotional fluctuations, a test-retest reliability study was conducted using a dedicated sample of 50 graduate students enrolled in educational administration and leadership programs. The instrument was administered twice across a one-week interval without any structural interventions between administrations:

• Group Openness Temporal Stability: Yielded a test-retest stability coefficient of r = .78 (p < .001).
• Group Trust Temporal Stability: Yielded a test-retest stability coefficient of r = .80 (p < .001).

These strong test-retest coefficients establish that the GOTS reliably measures stable cognitive and behavioral interpersonal dynamics over short temporal intervals, validating its utility as a pre-test / post-test outcome metric for organizational interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Group Openness/Trust Scale reflects the complex, multi-tiered taxonomy conceptualized by Bulach. Early psychometric exploration utilized exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to evaluate whether the operationalized facets loaded onto the theoretical constructs of Openness and Trust.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Principal component analyses (PCA) accompanied by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations revealed a primary bifurcated solution corresponding to the two overarching domains: Openness and Trust. Factor loadings for dominant indicators generally ranged between .45 and .74 across the core factors:

• Factor 1: Group Trust. Heavily anchored by items reflecting ethical transparency, interpersonal reliance, and predictability under crisis. High positive loadings emerged for statements evaluating character and honesty (e.g., Items 13, 24, 25, 43, 54, 55). Conversely, items measuring interpersonal suspicion, motive questioning, and emotional concealment (Items 14, 15, 16, 44, 45, 46) demonstrated substantial negative loadings on this factor.
• Factor 2: Group Openness. Saturated by items evaluating communicative vulnerability, constructive feedback, and active information seeking. High positive loadings clustered around expressing disagreement, sharing positive feedback, soliciting peer reactions, and sharing personal values (e.g., Items 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42).

Structural Modeling and Methodological Considerations

Later psychometric investigations into organizational trust frameworks suggest that the GOTS’s structural integrity can be modeled through advanced latent variable techniques:

• Bifactor Model Structure: A bifactor representation is particularly suited for the GOTS, where a general “Group Climate Health” factor accounts for shared variance across all 60 items, while orthogonal specific group factors account for the discrete variance of Telling, Listening, Character, Truthfulness, Ability, Confidentiality, and Predictability.
• Method Effect of Normative vs. Behavioral Framing: Methodological analyses indicate that the structural pairing of items (Expectations: Items 1–30 vs. Behaviors: Items 31–60) introduces a correlated method factor. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) fit indices substantially improve when correlated uniqueness terms are specified between parallel expectation-behavior pairs (e.g., correlating the residual variances of Item 1 and Item 31, Item 15 and Item 45).
• Goodness-of-Fit Parameters: In modern confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) re-examinations of multi-factor trust-openness models, hierarchical multi-factor solutions typically exhibit acceptable fit indices when accounting for these method effects (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Group Openness/Trust Scale (GOTS)
• Author: Cletus R. Bulach (1993)
• Constructs Assessed: Group Openness (sub-facets: Telling, Listening) and Group Trust (sub-facets: Character, Truthfulness, Ability, Confidentiality, Predictability)
• Structural Framework: Dual-perspective design
  • Part I: Perceived Group Expectations (Items 1–30; prompt stem: “I have gotten the impression that they expect me to…”)
  • Part II: Actual Enacted Behaviors (Items 31–60; prompt stem: “I…”)
• Total Item Count: 60 items
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil inventory or self-administered digital assessment; group or individual administration
• Estimated Completion Time: 15 to 25 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type rating format:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Undecided / Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation Protocols:
  • Direct Scoring: The vast majority of items reflect positive relational dynamics and are scored directly: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Undecided = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5.
  • Reverse Scoring: Items that measure defensive detachment, interpersonal suspicion, or breach of trust must be reverse-scored prior to calculating composite indices (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). In the Expectations section, these include Items 14, 15, and 16; in the Behaviors section, these include Items 44, 45, and 46. (Note: Item 21 / Item 51 regarding telling interesting information/gossip should be evaluated according to local investigative criteria regarding informal communication versus breach of confidentiality).
  • Composite Scales: Higher total and subscale scores denote higher levels of group trust and group openness (positive climate), whereas lower total scores indicate systemic distrust, closed communication, and relational defensiveness (negative climate).
  • Gap Analysis Scoring: Researchers may compute a “Normative Discrepancy Score” for each behavioral pair: $\text{Discrepancy} = \text{Item}_{(\text{Expectation})} – \text{Item}_{(\text{Behavior})}$. Large discrepancies highlight organizational hypocrisy or environmental barriers preventing individuals from enacting perceived expectations.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Group Openness/Trust Scale was originally developed and published by Dr. Cletus R. Bulach in 1993 in the scholarly journal People and Education (Vol. 1, pp. 382–392). The psychometric instrument and its conceptual taxonomy are documented in the academic public domain for scientific, educational, and non-commercial organizational research purposes.

Researchers, school leaders, and industrial psychologists wishing to administer the GOTS within non-profit academic dissertations, institutional climate evaluations, or organizational research are typically permitted to utilize the instrument provided full bibliographic citation and scholarly attribution are awarded to Dr. Bulach. Commercial applications, inclusion within commercial diagnostic software batteries, or fee-based management consulting platforms require explicit authorization and licensing clearance from the author or the legal copyright holders. When adapting the scale for non-educational organizational sectors (such as healthcare, technology, or municipal administration), investigators often modify the word “educational” in Items 3, 7, 33, and 37 to “professional” or “organizational,” maintaining the underlying psychometric integrity of the items.

References

• Bulach, C. R. (1993). A measure of openness and trust. People and Education, 1(4), 382–392.
• Bulach, C. R., & Malone, B. (1994). The relationship of school climate to the implementation of school reform. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 12(2), 3–9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED378663
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
• Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.989
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080332
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
• Pareek, U. (1989). Motivational analysis of organizations—climate (MAO-C). In J. W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1989 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 161–180). University Associates.
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
• Rotter, J. B. (1991). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and psychological attitudes (pp. 399–407). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50014-4

Items of the Scale