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.

Global virtual teams (GVTs) – composed of members in two or more countries who work together primarily using information and communication technologies – are increasingly prevalent in organizations today. There has been a burgeoning of research on this relatively new organizational unit, spanning various academic disciplines. In this chapter, we review and discuss the major developments in this area of research. Based on our review, we identify areas in need of future research, suggest research directions that have the potential to enhance theory development, and provide practical guidelines on managing and working in GVTs.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to help clarify the actions of effective emergent leaders in self-managing work teams (SMWTs). Multiple methods were used to test hypotheses that leader's behaviors consistent with the development of emotionally competent team norms (interpersonal understanding, caring behavior, creating an optimistic environment, and proactive problem solving) would be more strongly linked to team trust, open communication, personal task engagement, and team effectiveness than traditional task-focused leader's behaviors (directive statements, using questions). Most hypotheses were supported. Directive leader's behaviors were for the most part negatively associated with team trust, open communication, and personal task engagement. It is argued that in SMWTs that have a history and a future together, emergent leaders who engage in behaviors that build emotional competence in the team are more likely to create team effectiveness than emergent leaders focused on directing team members.

Due to geographic dispersion and reliance on technology-mediated communication, developing collaborative capital can be a challenge in a virtual team. Knowledge sharing is one form of collaborative capital that has been identified as critical to virtual team success. This chapter develops a theoretical model that proposes that shared leadership in virtual teams is positively related to knowledge sharing between team members, and that this relationship will be partially mediated by trust. The model also shows that a team's degree of reliance on technology-mediated communication will moderate the relationships in the model.

To function effectively in both the near and distant future, leaders in global organizations must understand, develop and exercise trust and social capital. The competitive landscape in the new millennium necessitates that firms develop strategic flexibility. To do so, they must continuously renew their knowledge stock and produce innovations. To implement these strategies, leaders must build effective relationships among members and units in the organization. This relational capital is based on trust and eventually leads to the development of internal social capital. Leaders must also build effective relationships with external constituencies. This is often accomplished through strategic alliances. Similarly, leaders must build mutual trust among alliance partners that over time leads to the development of external social capital. When employees trust leaders, they are more likely to be committed to the organization’s goals, willing to develop firm-specific knowledge and likely to exercise creativity. Likewise, partners in trusting alliances are more likely to transfer knowledge, and contribute to a firm’s innovation. These actions are important in global organizations, but difficult to achieve.