HELPING INTENTION, TRUST AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURE, POWER AND GROUP: A SCENARIO-BASED EXPERIMENT

This study aims to examine helping intention, trust, and performance appraisal which are critical variables of the organizational environment, in the context of culture, power, and group. In accordance with this purpose, the helping intention, trust level, and performance scores towards employees are examined according to the values/norms, being high-power/low-power, and being ingroup/outgroup. Therefore, the scenario-based experimental method, which is not common in the management literature but powerful in explaining the causality between variables, is used in a 2x2x2 factorial design. As a result of the analysis carried out, it is seen that the performance scores and the helping intention stated in the context of values are higher compared to norms, while the level of trust is lower. It is also found out that performance scores and helping intention towards ingroup are higher compared to the outgroup. Here, contrary to expectations, it is seen that the level of trust does not differ according to ingroup or outgroup. Finally, it is determined that high-power individuals give lower performance scores and demonstrate lower levels of trust and helping intention compared to low-power individuals. The results also showed that there are some 2-way relations of independent variables that are effective on dependent variables.


Introduction
In understanding work-related behavior, personal values, cultural norms, group behavior, and power are fundamental. This importance of values and norms has been implied, but its relation to the perception of power and group behavior has not been explicitly tested in previous management literature. Previous studies that rely solely on personal values in explaining one's behavior have come under significant criticism. Many studies now show that cultural norms along with values play a significant role in determining one's behavior (Audretsch, 2020;Gelfand & Harrington, 2015;Masson, Jugert, & Fritsche, 2016;Smith, 2017). Although the normative perspective has vital importance in explaining work-related behaviors (Fischer, Ferreira, Van Meurs, Gok, Jiang,
It is generally accepted that power is a significant factor in creating social relations (Lee & Tiedens, 2001). Accordingly, there are implicit or explicit power differences among employees in many organizations. For example, due to formal organizations' nature, managers can control more resources and have high-power. On the other hand, comparatively, subordinates have less control over resources and have low-power (Ferguson, Ormiston, & Moon, 2010). Power is a concept that has long been examined in social sciences. Although the concept of power has been discussed in detail in management sciences (Lee & Tiedens, 2001), the relationship between power and desired organizational outcomes still needs to be examined (To, Leslie, Torelli, & Stoner, 2020).
Groups are at the base of the constitution of human societies. Such that by nature, people tend to belong to a group and describe the world by classifying. Here the primary classification is being ingroup or outgroup (Varga, 2018). Studies conducted in the context of groups show that individuals' behavior towards ingroup and their behavior towards outgroup differ (Gelfand & Harrington, 2015) and there is apparent favoritism towards ingroup (Dunne, 2018). So, determining how individuals' behavior differs towards ingroup and outgroup is vital to predicting and managing their behavior in organizations.
In this study, the variables of helping intention, trust in employees, and performance appraisal, which have an essential place in management and human resources, are discussed in the context of norms vs. values, ingroup vs. outgroup, and high-power vs. low-power. These variables, which are the subject of much research in the literature, are not considered in terms of culture, power, and group in Turkish academic literature. Moreover, the use of the scenario method in this study, unlike the general research methods used in the literature, constitutes the research's motivation.
There are lots of evidence that show Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is vital to the survival of today's organizations. Accordingly, helping behavior, one of the dimensions of the OCB (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), is necessary for organizations to function more effectively (Fischer et al., 2019). In this context, it has been shown that the level of help that employees receive can affect different areas of their careers, including their work performance (Yoon & Farmer, 2018).
Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that performance appraisal is necessary for organizations' healthy functioning (Mishra & Roch, 2017). In addition, since performance appraisals have an interpersonal aspect, it is only natural that they are affected by values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs (Cho & Payne, 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to examine how performance appraisals are affected by cultural norms and values (Mishra & Roch, 2017). Thus, not only the role of norms and values but also how group dynamics affect the performance appraisals will be discussed (Smith, DiTomaso, Farris, & Cordero, 2001).
The concept of trust is also necessary for both society and organizations, in particular, to work effectively (Kaltiainen, Helkama, Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2018) and has lately become one of the focal points in the field of social sciences (Van Hoorn, 2015). As societies become more diverse with globalization (Glanville & Shi, 2020), the concept of trust has gained more importance. It has shone out significantly in terms of global business (Ajmal, Helo, & Kassem, 2017). Because trust is a form of relationship in social environments that supports coordination and interaction (Ajmal et al., 2017), establishing trust within an organization can improve areas such as organizational competitiveness, innovation, creativity, (Zhu, Habich, & ThØgersen, 2018), productivity, teamwork, job satisfaction (Kaltiainen et al., 2018).

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 8 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2021.8.4(29) The rest of the manuscript is organized as follows: first, we review the literature in the areas of value vs. norm, ingroup vs. outgroup, high power vs. low power, the literature review followed by the development of hypotheses. In the methodology section, the scenario-based experiment we used to test the hypotheses is introduced. After the results and discussion parts, the paper is concluded with the limitations and future research opportunities.

Values vs. Norms
A value is a concept that directs individuals to choose specific behaviors over others because they are personally or socially more acceptable (Gomez & Taylor, 2018). On the other hand, social norms are unofficial rules accepted or considered appropriate by society (Varga, 2018). Values differ between individuals, whereas norms differ between social groups, and both have a significant impact on individuals' behavior (Masson et al., 2016). Here, the most critical question is that in which kind of situations values or norms have more impact on individuals' behavior. In this context, studies are showing that within a particular culture, personal values can differ significantly from individual to individual, and these personal values are of little importance, especially at certain behaviors (Smith, 2017). For example, according to Leung and Morris (2015), norms are more salient when the right behavior is unclear. On the other hand, values are more important when the behavior is private or in a non-identifiable situation. Moreover, according to their study, values are more effective in weak situations with fewer constraints, while norms have a more critical role in situations where social assessment is apparent.
Performance appraisal, which is one of the main elements for functioning organizations, can be affected by contextual factors such as values, norms, attitudes, beliefs, etc. especially considering today's diverse workforce (Cho & Payne, 2016). Accordingly, Adler, Campion, Colquitt, Grubb, Murphy, Ollander-Krane, & Pulakos (2016) showed that contextual factors could considerably affect performance appraisal. Performance appraisal based on faulty values or norms can lead to dissatisfaction and unhappiness among employees (Mishra & Roch, 2017). According to some studies, because people have different values and norms, their perceptions of fairness and justice may differ, and the culture is the main reason for that difference (Ajmal et al., 2017). And other studies show that cultural norms or individual values can affect performance appraisal (Cho & Payne, 2016). Considering that norms and values will be effective on performance appraisals, the related hypothesis is formed as follows: H1a: Performance scores based on values differ from performance scores based on norms.
Although there are different definitions of trust, it can be broadly defined as a "psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions of the behavior of another" (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998:395). Also, Özer & Zheng (2019:494) defined trust in the context of organizations as follows: "Trust is to behave voluntarily in a way to accept vulnerability due to uncertain behavior of another (the trustee), based upon the expectation of a positive outcome". Establishing trust within an organization can improve areas such as organizational competitiveness, creativity, innovation, teamwork, productivity, and job satisfaction (Kaltiainen et al., 2018). It is safe to assume that trust is a concept that can be deeply affected by culture. Accordingly, Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, (1998) showed the relationship between specific norms and values and trust. According to their study, the chance of building a trusting relationship would be higher when people share the same norms and values. So, assuming that the norms and values would affect the trust level in employees, the hypothesis is formed as follows: H1b: Trust level in employees based on values differ from trust level in employees based on norms.
Helping behavior, which is one of the organizational citizenship behaviors that is considered vital for organizations to work effectively, is an element that strengthens the relationships among employees (Fischer et

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 8 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2021.8.4(29) al., 2019). Although it is not included in the employees' job description, helping behavior is performed without any apparent rewards. The importance of helping behavior has been stated by studies that show it can positively affect task performance, career advancement, turnover intention, etc. (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, & Furst, 2013;Yoon & Farmer, 2018). It is accepted that cultural values and norms can affect individuals' willingness to help. However, many factors, such as self-reward and empathy, influence individuals' helping behaviors. The social norm that states that those who need help should also be helped an essential factor (Staub, 1974). Also, individuals' value structures such as cooperators, individualists, or competitors can affect their helping behaviors (McClintock & Allison, 1989). Considering the effects of values and norms on individuals' helping intention, the related hypothesis is formed as follows: H1c: Helping intention level based on values differ from helping intention level based on norms.

Ingroup vs. Outgroup
People, who are social beings, are included in a particular group in today's social world, and they classify other individuals they interact with into specific groups. Therefore, groups play an essential role in the creation of human societies (Varga, 2018). People tend to belong to a group as an instinct because of their nature. The group they belong to has a vital role in forming their personality and determining their behavior. On the other hand, the exclusion of an individual from a group can cause some psychological and physical problems (Varga, 2018;Yang, Wei, Zhao, & Liu, 2017). A person who considers himself/herself a part of a group causes those who are not included in that group to be categorized as outgroup. Here, groups can be based on many different factors, including gender, family, religion, ethnic elements, etc. When groups are formed and individuals are classified according to these groups, people are no longer seen as individuals but as a part of that group (Rabinovich, Morton, Postmes, & Verplanken, 2012). Because of the nature of the group relationships, ingroup favoritism is widespread in social groups. While people treat other groups' members preferably, they can act discriminately to people who belong to different groups (Pan & Houser, 2013). A series of studies led by Tajfel in the early 1970s provided strong evidence favoritism towards ingroup and discrimination towards those identified as outgroup (Yamagishi, Jin, & Miller, 1998). This disposition is defined as "positivity toward the ingroup and negativity toward outgroups" (Brewer, 2016:91).
The general view in performance appraisal is that raters will give higher scores to the employees that belong to their group, while lower scores to outgroup employees. Studies are showing that raters can make favorable evaluations towards the ingroup employees and unfavorable evaluations against those in the outgroup (Smith et al., 2001). For example, in a study conducted on bank employees, it was observed that although they showed a similar performance according to objective performance indicators, the ingroup employees received higher performance scores than the outgroup employees (Cook, 1995). There can be different psychological reasons behind the ingroup favoritism, such as favorable beliefs about ingroup, dehumanization of outgroup members, etc. (Hughes, Ambady, & Zaki, 2017). On the other hand, contrary to expectations, expectancy violation theory suggests that underperforming ingroup individuals can be evaluated with lower scores (Roberson, Galvin, & Charles, 2007). Based on these explanations, the relevant hypothesis is formed as follows: H2a: Performance scores towards ingroup employees differ from performance scores towards outgroup employees.
Some studies have shown that although trust levels vary in different cultures, individuals in the same group trust each other more (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2015). Experiments conducted within the scope of trust games and ultimatum games also reveal that ingroup individuals are more trusted (Zuo, Chen, & Zhao, 2018). Also, due to the positive prejudices against ingroup members in general, a sense of trust can be built more comfortably against individuals in the same group (Kaltiainen et al., 2018). In an organizational environment, trust relationships at the

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 8 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2021.8.4(29) group level can exist, especially in large organizations. It is possible that the division as ingroup and outgroup would affect both top-down and horizontal relations. Based on these explanations, the relevant hypothesis is formed as follows: H2b: Trust level towards ingroup employees differ from trust level towards outgroup employees.
Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) argues that helping ingroup positively affects one's well-being while helping outgroup has no positive effect or even sometimes has a negative effect. Studies conducted across different group identities show that ingroup bias is a prevalent phenomenon free from gender, race, religion, culture, etc. (Johnson, Rowatt, & Labouff, 2012;Kwak, Kwon, Yun, Jeong, & Huettel, 2018). Accordingly, several studies have shown that being ingroup or outgroup plays a vital role in helping behavior (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005;Smith, 2017). However, there are also studies showing no significant relationship between ingroup and outgroup in the context of helping intention. There may be different reasons behind helping intention, such as the perception of us vs. them, having similar cultural values, or empathy (Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). In this study, we are expecting a significant relationship between helping intention and being ingroup or outgroup; therefore, the related hypothesis is formed as follows: H2c: Helping intention level towards ingroup employees differ from helping intention level towards outgroup employees.

High-Power vs. Low-Power
The concept of power, which has different definitions in the literature, is generally defined as the ability to get people to do things they would not otherwise do (Lee & Tiedens, 2001:44). On the other hand, in organizations, power is a concept that indicates to what extent a person can determine outcomes about himself/herself or other employees. People who have a specific management capacity within an organization can influence the employees' positions and behaviors by controlling the resources and administrative penalties. Because of that, the concept of power can affect both interpersonal relations and work-related behaviors of individuals working in a particular social environment (Smith & Bond, 2019). Also, people with high-power have low accountability for their behavior within the organization (Gelfand & Harrington, 2015). The concept of power, including the control of rewards and punishments about employees, can also affect performance appraisals (Ferguson et al., 2010). Such employees with high-power can make negative evaluations more easily because of their low accountability (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). Besides, the sense of responsibility that comes with power can cause them to evaluate low performance more harshly (Ferguson et al., 2010). So, the hypothesis is formed as follows: H3a: Performance scores given by high-power individuals differ from performance scores given by low-power individuals.
Trust, also, is related to the number of interconnections with other individuals. Such that, the relations of highpower individuals are more interdependent compared to low power individuals (Lee & Tiedens, 2001). Creating and maintaining such relationships is directly related to the concept of trust. After a series of experiments, Schilke, Reimann, & Cook (2015) found that people with high-power feel less trusting of others than people with low-power. Thus, the related hypothesis is formed as follows: H3b: Trust level of high-power individuals differ from trust level of low-power individuals.
Studies state that individuals with high-power can better analyze the people around them (Overbeck & Park, 2001) and show higher interpersonal sensitivity (Schmid Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009). Some studies reveal that the power level can be effective in helping intention towards others (Nadler, 2002). Besides, high-power employees

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 8 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2021.8.4(29) would show some effort to maintain their relationships and friendships within the workplace to preserve their power. It can cause them to help others more readily. The perception of responsibility that comes with power can, too, affect individuals' helping intention and cause people with high-power to be more open to helping (Yoon & Farmer, 2018). So, the hypothesis is formed as follows: H3c: Helping intention level of high-power individuals differ from helping intention level of low-power individuals.
The study also examined the dual effects of independent variables on dependent variables, performance scores, trust level, and helping intention. The hypotheses regarding these relations are as follows: H4: Values/norms affect the relationship between ingroup/outgroup and a) performance scores, b) trust level, and c) helping intention level.

Methodology
A scenario-based experimental method with a 2x2x2 factorial design was used to test the hypotheses. In the scenarios, values compared to norms, being ingroup compared to being outgroup, and high-power compared to low-power were manipulated as independent variables of the study. The scales, intention to help, trust in the employee, and performance appraisal, were adapted from previous studies in the literature as dependent variables.
The four helping intention items of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intention Scale developed by Williams and Shiaw (1999) and used by Poon, Rahid, and Othman (2006) in their studies were used to measure the intention to help. A sample item is "A colleague has to meet a few deadlines within the same period of time and needs help with his/her workload. Your workload is lighter. How likely are you to help him/her?". This scale's responses were gathered using Likert-type scales from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely).
To measure the trust in the employee, the trust scale consisting of four items developed by Mayer and Davis (1999) and used by Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen (2009) in their studies was used. Sample items from the scale used are as follows: "I would be comfortable giving my employee a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her actions" and "I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my employee." The responses were collected by 5-point Likert-type scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Lastly, to determine the performance appraisal scores given to the employee, the participants were asked to evaluate the employee at a 10-point evaluation scale from 1 (completely unsuccessful) to 10 (excellent).

Reliability and Validity Tests
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the AMOS 23 to test the validity of the dependent variables used in the study. Conformity indicators obtained via the analysis are satisfactory (Hu & Bentler, 1999 . AVE values of the scales were calculated for convergent validity, and it was seen that these values were greater than 0.5. For discriminative validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) values of the scales were compared with the square of the correlation between the scales (0.193). The fact that AVE values are greater than the square of the correlation coefficient indicates that the discriminative validity is ensured (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The factor loadings are given in the Table 1 below.

Manipulation and Realism Tests
Some manipulation and realism questions were asked to test whether the manipulations used in the scenarios were perceived correctly and realistically by the participants. Examples of the manipulation questions used in the study are as follows: "Ms. Nurdan was recruited with the reference of Mr. Ekrem, one of the school managers," "Scoring Ms. Nurdan's performance is an activity that makes you feel powerful." When the manipulation questions are examined, it can be seen that the participants correctly understand the manipulations. The first two control questions were asked as true/false; respectively, 408 and 401 participants out of 427 participants gave correct answers. The number of participants who gave correct answers to both of the two questions is 393. Data of 34 people who gave incorrect answers to at least one of the first two control questions were not included in the analyzes. The third control question asked as a 5-point Likert-scale also showed the validity of the manipulation (Mhigh_power = 3.94 > MLow_power = 2.99, p<0.001).
To measure the scenarios' realism, a test consisting of two questions developed by Dabholkar (1994) was used. These questions are as follows: "The situation described in the scenario is realistic" and "I can see myself in the situation described in the scenario." The average of the answers given to the realism questions asked as 7-point Likert-scale is satisfactory (M=5.41, SD=0.961).

Results
While 244  As shown in the Table 2 above, there is some degree of linear relationships among the dependent variables examined in the study. Mainly, a strong relationship was found out between performance scores and helping intention. Also, there is a moderate relationship between performance appraisal scores and trust level in the employee, while there is a weak relationship between helping intention and trust level.
The above hypotheses were tested with the help of the Univariate General Linear Model. The results obtained are as follows (see Table 3): According to the results obtained, H1a (Fig. 1), H1b (Fig. 2), and H1c (Fig. 3) were accepted. The performance scores and helping intention level of the respondents who answered the questions according to values are higher than those who answered according to norms. On the other hand, the trust level of respondents of the value scenario is lower. Moreover, H2a (Fig. 4) and H2c (Fig. 6) were accepted, but H2b (Fig. 5) was rejected. The performance scores given to the ingroup employees and helping intentions towards ingroup employees are higher than outgroup employees. Conversely, there is no relationship between trust in employees and being ingroup or outgroup. Also, H3a (Fig. 7), H3b (Fig. 8), and H3c ( Fig. 9) were accepted. Those with high power gave lower performance scores and indicated lower helping intentions and trust levels towards employees than those with low power. When we examine H4 (Fig. 10, 11, 12), we can see that only H4c was accepted. According to results, the relationship between being ingroup or outgroup and helping intention changes with values and norms. As shown in Fig. 12, helping intention level is higher for ingroup than outgroup according to values while it remains relatively still according to norms.  (Fig. 13), H5b (Fig. 14), and H5c (Fig. 15) were accepted. According to norms, performance scores tend to decrease while power level increases, but according to values, performance scores tend to increase with power level. The decrease in trust level according to value is higher than the decrease in trust level according to the norm. Lastly, while helping intention levels decreases according to norms, it does not change much according to values. While H6a (Fig.16) and H6c (Fig.18) were rejected, H6b (Fig.17) was accepted. Contrary to expectations, for highpower people, the trust level towards outgroup is higher than in ingroup. On the other hand, as expected, the trust level towards ingroup is higher than outgroup for low-power people.

Discussion
The outputs obtained in this study have revealed some crucial results for organizational management that operate in a social environment. The first one is about comparing the performance evaluations based on individual values and the evaluations based on the norms that reflect the general view of the society. Here, it is seen that the performance scores given in the context of values are higher than the performance scores given in the context of norms. While in the scenario, the objective performance score should be 4.00, the average of the evaluations made in the context of norms is 4.05, and the average of the evaluations made in the context of values is 4.81. The numbers show that individuals' evaluations based on their values differ and tend to be higher than norm-based evaluations that show the generally accepted tendency. While the evaluations made in the context of the norm are very close to the objective score, the individuals' scores in the context of their values are higher than the objective score. The regulatory influences brought about by normative pressures may play a role in these numbers (Smith & Bond, 2019).
Similarly, individuals' intention to help level differs according to values and norms. According to results, the helping intention in the context of values is higher than helping intention in norms. Here, the results show that when people act according to their values, they show a higher intention to help than norms. In other words, when the request for help is directly addressed to a specific person, he/she feels more responsible and tends to make an effort beyond expectations. Behind this result, there can be different moral or psychological reasons such as not refusing to help or empathy.
On the other hand, the level of trust towards employees stated according to personal values is lower than the level of trust stated according to norms. This result shows that the level of trust that individuals have towards others is below the normative acceptance. In other words, while the perception generally accepted by society indicates a certain level of trust, this level of trust is lower on an individual basis.
These results reveal that how values and norms affect behaviors, especially in the organization's context, differ from each other. Here, it can be stated that the evaluations made from a norms perspective in performance evaluation are closer to objective results and therefore more realistic.
When the results are examined in the group's context, as expected, it was seen that the performance scores given to the members of the ingroup were higher than the scores given to the members of the outgroup. This result is not surprising when considering ingroup favoritism. This result is in line with many studies in the literature (Chen, Brockner, & Katz, 1998;Cook, 1995;Gomez, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2000;Smith et al., 2001). When the performance evaluation results are examined, it can be seen that the average of the evaluations towards the outgroup (4.10) is closer to the objective score (4.00) than the average of the evaluations towards the ingroup

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 8 Number 4 (June) http://doi.org/10. 9770/jesi.2021.8.4(29) (4.71). This situation reveals that the ingroup evaluations are biased and show greater deviations from the actual performance value. Therefore, awareness training can be given to raters about favoritism towards ingroup to obtain more accurate results. It would also be safe to say that more accurate performance results can be obtained by increasing the weight of the evaluations from outgroup members. Similarly, the level of helping intention towards ingroup members was higher compared to outgroup members. This result is also in line with expectations, and many studies in the literature (Fiedler, Hellmann, Dorrough, & Glöckneret, 2018;Levine et al., 2005;Stürmer et al., 2006;Weisel & Böhm, 2015).
Contrary to the expectations, a significant relationship cannot be found between the level of trust towards the employee and being ingroup or outgroup. These results differ from some studies in the literature (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2015;Jones, Wiley, LoPilato, & Dahling, 2020;Zuo et al., 2018). The results obtained show that there is no discrimination for ingroup and outgroup in terms of the trust. Here, the results different from the literature could be based on the nature of the scenario technique. Because the relationships described in the scenarios are fictitious, it is possible that the participants were not able to make their evaluations accurately.
When the results obtained in the context of power are examined, it can be seen that high-power individuals give lower performance scores. Here, the average of the scores given by high-power individuals (4.20) is closer to the objective score (4.00) than the average of the scores given by low-power individuals (4.65). These results align with other studies in the literature (Ferguson et al., 2010;Schmid Mast, Khademi, & Palese, 2020). In their study, Schmid & Schmid Mast (2013) showed that those with high power could make more accurate assessments. Therefore, it is understood that high-power individuals' evaluations should be more critical in the performance evaluations in organizations to provide more accurate results.
Moreover, high-power individuals show a lower level of trust towards employees. The result is similar to the study of Schilke et al. (2015). Those who have higher power naturally have more responsibility, which may cause them to act more cautiously and have less trust in their subordinates. On the other hand, the fact that low-power individuals have a closer rank to the employees may have helped them to feel a closer relationship with them and to have more confidence in them.
Finally, according to our study's findings, high-power individuals show a lower level of helping intention towards employees. Considering that the higher power-holders are in higher positions, it is possible that they consider themselves busier and thus place a lower emphasis on help requests. On the other hand, the fact that people with low power feel closer to the employee requesting help may be a factor that will increase their helping intentions. The result obtained differs from the study of Yoon and Farmer (2018), which states that people with high power are more inclined to help others.
When the two-way relationships of the independent variables in our study are examined, it can be seen that the relationship between being ingroup or outgroup and the helping intention level towards employees does not change in terms of norms but changes in terms of values. Such that, the higher willingness to help ingroup members is valid in the context of values. In other words, the helping intention level towards ingroup or outgroup does not differ in the context of norms. The reason for this may be the feeling of an obligation to act following general acceptance in order not to experience social exclusion and to be exposed to normative pressures.
In addition, the relationship between power and performance scores, trust level, and helping intention level differs according to values and norms. Performance scores tend to decrease from low power to high power in norm-based evaluations, while they tend to increase in value-based evaluations. In other words, while according to the generally accepted opinion, high-power individuals give lower performance scores, it is the opposite in evaluations made according to personal values. Moreover, the relationship between power and trust level
The relationship between power and helping intention decreases from low power to high power in the context of the norm, while it remains relatively constant in terms of values. In other words, while high-power individuals would help less according to norms, this viewpoint is not reflected in personal values. When we examine the relationship between power and trust level, it can be seen that, as expected, low-power individuals trust ingroup employees more, but contrary to expectations, high-power individuals trust the outgroup more.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that this study is based on the scenario technique. Although the reality and manipulation tests for our study were satisfied, it is still possible that the study participants evaluated the questions without internalizing the relationships mentioned in the scenarios, and this can be one of the limitations of the study. Also, due to the scarcity of studies comparing values and norms in the context of our study's dependent variables, this study can be considered a preliminary study in this field, and the findings of our study should be supported with other similar studies. While this study reveals the relationship between the dependent and independent variables of the study, it is believed that it will inspire further studies that will examine the causality behind the results found.