Search results

Theories of trust imply that team trust develops and grows over time, yet relatively few researchers have taken on the challenge of studying team trust in longitudinal research designs. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a concise summary of the existing literature on team trust over time, and to offer a conceptual model of team-level trust development over time to aid future research on this topic.

We draw from the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework, as well as previous multilevel models of organizational trust development, and published findings from longitudinal team trust studies.

Taking a temporal perspective, we consider how team-level mediators and outcomes can both predict and be predicted by team trust trajectories and feedback loops over time, as well as how those relationships with team trust might change based on the existence of other moderating variables including trust violation and repair.

Future longitudinal team research may use the model as a starting point for investigating the antecedents, as well as the team processes and dynamic emergent states, that can effectively predict trajectories of team trust across various stages of teamwork.

Based on our review of extant literature, we provide several recommendations for training and organizational intervention including the importance of management’s consideration of team-level trust in providing feedback, enhancing cohesion, and mitigating conflict.

We provide insight into the development of team trust trajectories and offer a framework to help guide future longitudinal team trust research.

In this chapter we discuss attitudinal and affective factors in the context of science teams. We review some of the key findings on conflict, trust, and cohesion in teams and discuss the differentiation between team-related and task-related definitions of each. In so doing, we discuss their relevance to team effectiveness in science teams and provide guidance on notional areas of research for understanding how these are related to effectiveness in science teams.

This chapter examines the role of team processes in predicting overall effectiveness for multidisciplinary teams charged with commercializing new technologies. Theory suggests that both social- and task-related processes are essential in order for diverse teams to achieve their full potential. Furthermore, these team processes evolve over time, creating even more complexity related to technology commercialization. A panel of teams is surveyed over time to capture this dynamism and the role of key social and task processes. Results suggest that social team processes, such as cohesion and identification, predict affective performance (i.e., team satisfaction and commitment). Objective team performance is primarily a function of task cohesion and trust. Furthermore, affective performance serves as a mediator between social team processes and objective performance for these high-tech teams. Post-hoc analyses examine the differences in the development of both task and social processes for high- and low-performing teams. High-performing teams have higher levels of task-focused interaction, functional conflict and task cohesion early on in the commercialization process as compared with low-performing teams. Effective teams establish key social processes early on, which provides the foundation for team success.

Purpose – Trust and justice are generally considered distinct but closely related constructs. Individual perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness have been shown to reciprocally influence one another, each independently promoting trust (Colquitt & Mueller, 2007). We consider instances where these may instead diverge: how intentional efforts to build trust may unintentionally erode justice, and how the use of fair procedures may reduce trust.

Approach – We argue that the anomalous divergences between trust and justice are evident only when simultaneously considering judgments at two levels: the interpersonal level (i.e., within dyads inside the team) and the team level (i.e., shared perceptions of all team members).

Implications for research and practice – The unintended effects described in this chapter describe a “dark side” to a number of taken-for-granted practices in organizational life (favor-paying, punishment processes, and approaches to redress). We expect that this chapter should promote new research using the team context to bridge the trust and justice literatures, and provoke a careful reconsideration among practitioners of these approaches.

Originality – We propose three previously overlooked disjunctures between trust and justice. First, we show how procedurally unfair approaches to allocating favors may be beneficial in building dyadic trust between team members. Next, we describe how fair (open and transparent) group processes for punishing perpetrators may erode trust by skewing group members’ perceptions of the prevalence of trust violations. Finally, we describe how the most effective forms of redress at the interpersonal level may provoke perceptions of injustice at the team level.

Research on organizational teamwork is increasingly highlighting the patterned nature of the relational processes (e.g., communication, backup behavior) and psychological states (e.g., trust, shared cognition) that underlie team effectiveness. However, studies of teams often rely on methodologies that do not explicitly assess the underlying patterns of relational processes and states. Social network approaches offer an appealing alternative to the typical methodologies used in team research given that network approaches provide both the theory and methodology necessary to conceptualize and investigate patterns of interactions among group members. Despite the advantages of social network approaches, many team researchers are unfamiliar with the network paradigm and its associated methodologies. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify how networks can be leveraged to answer key research questions related to the study of team functioning and effectiveness. We begin by discussing the evolution and eventual convergence of team research and network approaches. Then, we examine the current state of the literature at the intersection of teams and networks in order to identify key takeaways and remaining questions. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for the future of team network science.

Teams do not operate in a vacuum, but in specific real-world contexts. For many teams, this context includes high-demand, high-stress conditions which can negatively impact team functioning. In this chapter, we discuss how stress may impact team cohesion and examine stress mitigation strategies to overcome these effects.