00483480310488360

Personnel ReviewWork team trust and effectivenessAna Cristina Costa

Article information:To cite this document:Ana Cristina Costa, (2003),"Work team trust and effectiveness", Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp. 605 -622Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360

Downloaded on: 25 February 2016, At: 09:37 (PT)References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13683 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Ferda Erdem, Janset Ozen, Nuray Atsan, (2003),"The relationship between trust and team performance",Work Study, Vol. 52 Iss 7 pp. 337-340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438020310502633Sheila Simsarian Webber, (2002),"Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success", Journalof Management Development, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 201-214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710210420273María Isabel Delgado Piña, Ana María Romero Martínez, Luis Gómez Martínez, (2008),"Teams inorganizations: a review on team effectiveness", Team Performance Management: An International Journal,Vol. 14 Iss 1/2 pp. 7-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860177

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:422317 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Work team trust andeffectiveness

Ana Cristina CostaSection of Work and Organisational Psychology, Delft University of

Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Keywords Trust, Behaviour, Performance management, Team working, The Netherlands

Abstract This article aims to explore the nature and functioning of trust in work teams. Trust isdefined as a multi-component variable with distinct but related dimensions. These includepropensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness, co-operative and lack of monitoring behaviours. Amodel was tested relating trust with perceived task performance, team satisfaction, and twodimensions of organisational commitment, i.e. attitudinal and continuance. Survey data from 112teams(n ¼ 395) was collected in three social care institutions in The Netherlands. The results aresupportive of a multi-component structure for trust and of its importance to the functioning ofteams and organisations. Work team trust appeared strongly related with team member’sattitudes towards the organisation. Trust between team members was positively associated withattitudinal commitment and negatively with continuance commitment. Trust was also positivelyrelated with perceived task performance and with team satisfaction. In addition, perceived taskperformance appeared strongly related to team satisfaction.

IntroductionScholars have long been interested in the study of trust in organisations (e.g.Gambetta, 1988, Coleman, 1990). During the past few years this interest hasturned into a major focus of organisational literature and research, leading to arenewed emphasis on the nature, causes and consequences of trust (Hosmer,1995, Kramer, 1999; Shaw, 1997, Rousseau et al., 1998). This resurgence ofinterest is partly explained by the changes in the way of thinking andfunctioning of organisations during the last two decades of the millennium. Asorganisations have become flatter and more team centred, traditionalmanagement forms have given way to more collaborative approaches thatemphasise co-ordination, sharing of responsibilities and the participation of theworkers in the decision processes (Keen, 1990). New emphasis is given oninterpersonal and group dynamics at the workplace, where trust is seen as oneof the critical elements. If trust is absent, no one will risk moving first and allmembers will sacrifice the gains from collaboration and co-operation inincreasing effectiveness (Sabel, 1993).

Although scholars agree on the importance of trust in sustainingeffectiveness, research on this topic has been highly affected by the lack ofagreement in defining this concept. One problem of studying trust is the vastapplicability of the term “trust” to different contexts and levels of analysis.Within the organisational literature, trust has been studied with regard tointerpersonal work relationships, teams, organisations, governance structuresor even societies as a whole. As result, an enormous variety of approaches and

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Work team trustand effectiveness

605

Personnel ReviewVol. 32 No. 5, 2003

pp. 605-622q MCB UP Limited

0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483480310488360

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

definitions have emerged across disciplines, appearing sometimes largelydisconnected and ignoring each other’s contributions, or criticised each other’sresearch methods and accomplishments very severely. Recognising that trustreflects a multitude of roles, functions and levels of analysis has been a turningpoint for theory and research on this topic. Instead of accentuating thedifferences between conceptualisations, researchers have started to concentrateon the common elements across perspectives in order to provide coherentknowledge with regard to trust and its role in the functioning of organisations(e.g. Hosmer, 1995; Kramer, 1999; Rousseau et al., 1998). Nevertheless, given itswide domain of research, clear boundaries for the trust concept are necessary inorder to understand what is meant by trust and how to define it. In this article,we address trust at the work team level that refers to the extent to which teammembers trust each within a work team. Similar to other studies that focus onwork team processes (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Anderson andWest,1996, 1998) we view work teams as performing organisational units. Thismeans that work teams are real organisational groups, that have some goal orattainable outcome which team members contribute to and are responsible for,and where there is sufficient task interdependence such that individuals need todevelop share understandings and expected patterns of behaviour.

We adopt a multidisciplinary perspective on trust by developing and testinga model based on presuppositions from different literatures including sociology(e.g. Barber, 1983; Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Luhmann, 1979), economics (e.g.Cummings and Bromiley, 1996) and the psychological work on interpersonaland team relationships (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Rousseau et al.,1998; Zand, 1972). The present research aims to contribute to theunderstanding of the nature and functioning of trust at team level bydescribing trust as a multi-component variable and identifying the factors thatoperate combined when trust is taking place, and examining the implications oftrust for the effectiveness of the team.

The concept of trustTo date no definition of trust has been universally accepted. Despite thedifferences of opinion, several issues seem common across definitions. AsRousseau et al. (1998) note from micro psychological theories (e.g. McAllister,1995; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Zand, 1972) to social/economics approaches(e.g. Barber, 1983; Cummings and Bromiley, 1996) positive expectationstowards the behaviour of others and the willingness to become vulnerable toothers are critical elements to define trust.

In most definitions, trust appears related to individual attributions aboutother people’s intentions and motives underlying their behaviour (Smith andBarclay, 1997). For example, for Lewicki and Bunker (1996) trust involves“positive expectations about others”. These attributions influence and areinfluenced by general beliefs and expectations of individuals about the

PR32,5

606

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

treatment they will receive from others (Mayer et al., 1995). In turn, these areclosely linked to the engagement, or the willingness to engage cooperativebehaviours when interacting with others (e.g. Gambetta, 1988; Deutsch, 1962;Kramer et al., 1996).

“The willingness to be vulnerable” fromMayer et al. (1995) is one of the mostcited definitions of trust and has played a central role in manyconceptualisations. For instance, McKnight et al. (1998) refer to trust as thebelief and the willingness to depend on another party. Jones and George (1998)associate the willingness to become vulnerable to a set of behaviouralexpectations that allows individuals to manage the uncertainty or riskassociated with their actions. Risk appears central in many definitions of trustand consists of the perceived probability of loss as perceived by the trustingperson(s) (Mayer et al., 1995). For Luhmann (1979) risk is a prerequisite in thechoice to trust. If actions could be undertaken with complete certainty trustwould not be needed (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Underlying the “decision totrust” is also the individual willingness to become vulnerable (Zand, 1972), andthe expectation or belief that others will act in a way that is beneficial or at leastnot detrimental for the relationship (Gambetta, 1988). Trust is also contingentto a certain situation and tends to be based not only on personal information,but also on non-personal (situational) information. Lewicki and Bunker (1996)argue that trust involves not only expectations about other peoples’ motivesand intentions, but also considerations about the situation and the risksassociated with acting on such expectations.

According to Rousseau et al. (1998) risk creates the opportunity for trust,which then leads to risk taking. Risk taking sustains the sense of trust giventhat the expected behaviour materialises (Boon and Holmes, 1991) andpresupposes an action towards those whom we are trusting. In Gambetta’s(1988) definition of trust risk taking involves “engaging in some form ofcooperation” with the other part. For Smith and Barclay (1997) besides “actingin a spirit of cooperation” trust also involves refraining from controlling ormonitoring others. Throughout research a variety of behaviours has appearedindicative of trust including open communication (Currall and Judge, 1995;Smith and Barclay, 1997), acceptance of influence (Blau, 1964; Smith andBarclay, 1997), forbearance from opportunism, (Smith and Barclay, 1997), andlack of monitoring (Currall and Judge, 1995; Smith and Barclay, 1997). Incontexts of ongoing relationships such as work teams these behaviours mightoccur simultaneously, one type of behaviour may lead to another one, or even insome situations some behaviours may be less present than those of others. Therelative importance of each form of behaviour depends on the nature andcontext of the work relationship (Smith and Barclay, 1997). Since trust involvesgranting latitude to others over actions that will have an impact on ourselves,decisions to confer trust do probably involve assessments of the accompanyingrisks and alternatives available to avoid such risks (Morris and Moberg, 1994).

Work team trustand effectiveness

607

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

In discussing how expectations underlying trust affect subsequentbehaviour, several scholars have alluded to the fact that trust is amultidimensional construct. From a sociological point of view, Barber (1983)argues that trust involves moral, emotional and cognitive bases. Lewis andWeigert (1985) explain trust as highly complex phenomenon with distinctcognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions. Within economics,Cummings and Bromiley (1996) use the same dimensions to define trustbetween individuals or groups in more work-related contexts. More focused ondyadic work relationships, psychologists such as McAllister (1995) distinguishbetween contents of cognition-based and affect-based trust and the specificfactors that influence the development of each form. Mayer et al. (1995) proposefurther that cognitive and affective dimensions of trust influence and areinfluenced by a general propensity to trust others, which develops from generalbeliefs about the treatment individuals expect to receive from others.

In line with several of these multi-dimensional conceptualisations of trust,we propose that trust is not only a psychological state based on expectationsand on perceived motives and intentions of others, but also a manifestation ofbehaviour towards these others (see Costa, 2000; Costa et al., 2001). Consistentwith Mayer et al.’s (1995) integrated model of trust, we distinguish between:propensity to trust, or the general willingness to trust others (Rotter, 1980)grounded in the individual’s personality, life experiences, cultural background,education and several other socio-economic factor; perceived trustworthiness,referring to the expectations and considerations about other people’s motivesand intentions underlying their actions; and trust behaviours (in Mayer et al.,referred to as risk taking) which refer to the actions that reflect the willingnessto be vulnerable to others whose actions one does not control. Mayer et al.(1995) propose a sequential model with these distinctive components of trust.However, in reality these components constitute interpenetrating and mutuallysupporting aspects of the one unitary experience that we call trust (Lewis andWeigert, 1985). Earlier work shows that individuals who trust their teamcolleagues have high propensity to trust others, strongly perceive other teammembers as being trustworthy, often engage co-operative behaviours and donot monitor the work of their colleagues (Costa et al., 2001).

Contrary to some other definitions (e.g. Rousseau et al., 1998), we viewco-operative behaviour and lack of monitoring as components of trust and notas an effect of trust itself (see Figure 1). We argue that these behaviours are animportant component of trust because they enable individuals to act on theirown judgements (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Moreover, it is through theobservation and interpretation of such behaviours that individuals learn abouteach other’s motives and intentions, and are able to make inferences oftrustworthiness (Zand, 1972). Therefore, we consider co-operative behavioursand lack of monitoring to be components of trust together with propensity totrust and perceived trustworthiness.

PR32,5

608

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Trust and effectivenessEffectiveness is a notion often used to express multiple individual and teamoutcomes. With regard to teams, Hackman (1987) argues that effectivenessshould measure the output of the team, the state of the group as a performingunit, and the impact of the group experience on individual members.Researchers usually assess effectiveness by measuring dimensions ofperformance and members’ attitudes towards the team or the organisation(Cohen and Bailey, 1997). In this study, effectiveness is assessed in terms ofperceived task performance, team satisfaction and commitment to theorganisation.

Apart from the general assumption that trust is an important lubricant ofthe social system and a facilitator of co-ordinated action among individuals,several important benefits for teams and organisations have been associatedwith trust. The relation between trust and performance has been explored atboth individual and group levels (see Dirks and Ferrin (2001) for a wider reviewof these studies), however, somewhat inconsistent findings can be found acrossstudies. In other words, some studies report a main effect between trust andperformance while others do not. For instance, McAllister (1995) found apositive relation between the behavioural consequences of trust and thesupervisor’s assessment of performance. Smith and Barclay (1997) found also apositive relation between trusting behaviours and perceived trustworthinesswith task performance using different rationales. However, in Dirk’s (1999)study the relation between trust and team performance was not significant.One explanation can be related to the fact that in most empirical studies trusthas been conceptualised as a psychological state, such as belief or an attitudetowards a known individual or group of individuals in opposition to trust as amultidimensional or multi-component construct. The rational behind theseapproaches rests on the premise that a high level of trust increases thelikelihood that one will take a risk (e.g. co-operate or share information) withanother partner or group, which in turn is expected to lead to a higher

Figure 1.Conceptual model

Work team trustand effectiveness

609

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

performance (e.g. Dirks, 1999). In this way, rather than affecting performancedirectly, trust may moderate the relation between group processes andperformance (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). However, by considering trust as amulti-component variable including also behaviours such as co-operative andlack of monitoring some support can be found for the positive main effect oftrust on team performance.

Although team performance can be evaluated from a management point ofview, team members have the best understanding over how well their teamperforms tasks in relation to their objectives. Moreover, perceived taskperformance has been found to correlate strongly with more objectivemeasures and relationship continuity (Smith and Barclay, 1997). Therefore,we can expect a positive relation between trust within teams and perceivedtask performance:

H1. Trust between team members will be positively related with perceivedtask performance.

Satisfaction and commitment have been often associated with trust. Forinstance, Gladstein (1984) found a strong link between intra-group processes(including open communication) and satisfaction. In contexts of buying andselling relationships, Smith and Barclay (1997) reveal that trust behaviours ofopen communication and forbearance from opportunism lead to mutualsatisfaction between partners. In this way, we can expect that trust betweenteam members will have a positive effect on team satisfaction:

H2. High levels of trust between team members will be positively relatedwith team satisfaction.

While describing the commitment-trust theory, Morgan and Hunt (1994) foundthat work relationships characterised by trust engender co-operation, reduceconflicts, increase the commitment to the organisation and diminishes thetendency to leave. Mowday et al. (1982)) view commitment to the organisationin terms of attitude and continuance. Attitudinal commitment is seen as apositive attitude towards the organisation, reflecting the extent to whichindividuals come to identify with the goals and values of the organisation andwant to maintain their membership to the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982).Whereas continuance commitment is described as a more calculative attitudetowards the organisation, reflecting a membership based on economic reasons,prior investments or lack of alternatives available (Kanter, 1968). Therefore, therelationship between trust and both forms of commitment is expected to beopposite:

H3. High levels of trust between team members will be positively relatedwith attitudinal commitment and negatively related with continuancecommitment.

PR32,5

610

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Conceptual modelOur conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1 consists of two parts. The firstpart addresses the nature of the trust concept. In this model trust is presentedas a latent variable, composed of propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness,cooperative behaviours and lack of monitoring behaviours. The second part ofthe model examines the relation between trust and several team effectivenessvariables such as task performance, team satisfaction, attitudinal commitment,and continuance commitment.

MethodSampleA survey study was conducted in three social care institutions in two differentprovinces in The Netherlands. Social care institutions are semi-publicorganisations that function within the framework of the law on socialprovision of employment. These organisations perform the social function ofproviding jobs for those who have difficulties in finding one, and at the sametime are commercial and market oriented. The three institutions in this studywill be mentioned further as Social-Care A, B and C. Initially 144 teams (552individuals) were asked to participate in this study. A total of 395 individualsprovided data via a questionnaire, making possible the identification of 112teams with a minimum number of three members. The participation rate was71.5 per cent. The average age was 40.5 (SD ¼ 10.3 years). Of these 395respondents, 12.5 per cent completed a basic education, 38 per cent completed alow occupational training, 42.4 per cent completed a middle occupationaltraining, 22 per cent completed a high occupational training and 1.5 per centcompleted university. The size of the teams ranged from three to six, with anaverage of 4.25 individuals per team. The sample included 44 teams fromSocial-Care A, 41 from Social-Care B and 27 from Social-Care C. The averagetenure of the teams was respectively 2.6 years (SD ¼ 1.2), 2.5 years (SD ¼ 1.0),and 3.6 years (SD ¼ 5.1). Of these teams, 55 (48 per cent) included only malerespondents, eight (7 per cent) included only female respondents and 47 (45 percent) included respondents from both genders.

MeasuresAll variables in our model were measured with validated instruments. Thereliability of the scales is satisfactory showing Chronbach alphas . 0.70 (seeTable I). The scales consisted of self-report items scaled in a seven-point Likertscale (1 ¼ completely disagree to 7 ¼ completely agree).

. Trust. This was measured with four scales (Costa, 2000): seven itemsmeasuring propensity to trust (e.g. “People usually tell the truth, evenwhen they know they would be better of by lying”); eight items measuringperceived trustworthiness (e.g. “In my team some people have success bystepping on other people” (reversed item); eight items measuring

Work team trustand effectiveness

611

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

cooperative behaviours (e.g. “In my team we provide each other withtimely information”); and three items measuring monitoring behaviours(e.g. “In my team people check whether others keep their promises”).

. Perceived task performance. This was measured with a nine-item-scale“task performance” from the Expanded Delft Measurement Kit from Roeet al. (1997). An example is “I think our team deserves a good evaluationfrom our supervisor”.

. Team satisfaction. This was measured with a five-item scale from Smithand Barclay (1997) that assesses the extent to which team members aresatisfied with their teamwork. One item of this scale is “We are satisfiedwith each other’s contributions to our team”.

. Attitudinal commitment and continuance commitment. These weremeasured with five-scale item developed by Freese and Schalk (1996). Anexample of an attitudinal commitment item is “My personal norms andvalues correspond with what the organisation finds important”, and ofcontinuance commitment item is “I have few changes to leave thisorganisation.”

Level of analysisThe team scores were obtained by aggregating the individual scores on eachitem within each team. This aggregation was obtained by computation ofmeans in order to permit comparisons across teams without variances in thesample size. The level of agreement within the teams was examined withanalysis of variance (ANOVA) and with the within-group interrater agreementindex – rwg( j) – of James et al. (1984, 1993). The minimum evidence fordifferences across teams is provided by an F-ratio . 1.00 (Hays, 1991).

No M SD a F rwg( j)

Propensity to trust 6 31.11 7.86 0.84 2.13** 0.82Perceived trustworthiness 6 28.63 6.89 0.87 2.34** 0.81Cooperative behaviours 6 33.87 7.98 0.81 2.10** 0.81Monitoring behaviours 3 14.51 3.02 0.71 1.97* 0.75Perceived task performance 4 25.54 5.61 0.75 2.03** 0.79Team satisfaction 3 17.75 3.40 0.85 2.40** 0.82Attitudinal commitment 4 21.69 3.46 0.71 2.13** 0.80Continuance commitment 3 12.49 3.77 0.76 2.00** 0.79

Notes:* p , 0.05** p , 0.01No is the reliable number of items in each scale, M is mean scale, SD is standard deviation, a isChronbach alpha, F is ratio ANOVA, rwg( j) is the within-group interrater agreement

Table I.Scale characteristicsand within-groupagreement

PR32,5

612

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Values of rwg( j) equal to 0.70 or above demonstrate high consistency withingroups and justify the aggregation within that team. This is the same valueprovided by Nunnally (1978) as an acceptable level for internal consistency.

In this study the results of one-way ANOVA indicate that the between-groupvariance was significantly greater than the within-group variance in all scales(see Table I). Moreover, all rwg values were above 0.70. The aggregation ofscores at team level is therefore justified.

AnalysesFor the test of our hypotheses, we used structural equation modelling (SEM).We took a two-stage approach, assessing first the measurement properties ofthe constructs without considering the hypothesised relationships, and second,the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In both procedurescorrelation matrices were used. The adequacy of the models was examinedusing several indices of fit. The chi-square, with non-significant valuesshowing a good model fit. The ratio x 2/df, with values below 2.0 suggesting agood model fit (Wheaton et al., 1977). The comparative-fit-index (CFI) (Bentler,1990), the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) and the adjusted-goodness-of-fit-index(AGFI) (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980). These indices indicate a good model fit forvalues . 0.90. The parsimonious fit was assessed with the parsimonious-goodness-of-fit-index (PGFI) and the parsimonious-normed-fit-index (PNFI).Values . 0.50 or . 0.60 indicate a good parsimony fit. The analysis of theresiduals was made using the root-mean-square-error-of-approximation(RMSEA) and the root-mean-squared-residual (RMR). Values of RMSEA ,0.08 indicate a good fit and , 0.05 a very good fit. For the RMR, in generalvalues . 0.08 indicate a poor fit, between 0.08 and 0.05 suggest a mediocre fit,and , 0.05 indicate a good fit (Byrne, 1998).

ResultsMeasurement modelsTwo confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were run to examine the structuralproperties of the trust components and the dependent variables in the study(Table II). For the trust components the measurement model distinguishedbetween propensity to trust (six items) perceived trustworthiness (six items),co-operative behaviours (six items) and monitoring behaviours (three items).Although the four-factor model shows a significant x 2, the CFI indicates a goodmodel fit (CFI ¼ 0.94). Both the GFI and AGFI are moderated, and theparsimonious fit indices PGFI and PNFI indicate a good parsimonious fit.Following Bentler and Bonnet (1980) and Byrne (1998) we ran also severalCFAs for concurrent model structures with one, two and three factors. Asshown in Table II, the decrease in the number of factors is accompanied by asuccessive decline in model fitting. The x 2 increases as fewer factors arespecified in the models, the goodness of fit indices indicate a decrease in fit, and

Work team trustand effectiveness

613

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

the ratio x 2/df increases as the models include fewer factors. Only the modelswith three and the four factors show and adequate fit according to this ratio,x 2/df ¼ 1.65 and x 2/df ¼ 1.32 respectively. However, only the four-factormodel obtained a comparative fit . 0.90. Therefore, we favoured thefour-factor model for trust above the other concurrent models.

For the dependent variables the measurement model distinguished betweenperceived task performance (four items), team satisfaction (three items),attitudinal commitment (three items) and continuance commitment (threeitems). This structure fitted the data reasonably well. Although chi-square issignificant the ratio x 2/df is , 2.0. The adequacy of concurrent models withone, two and three factors was also examined (see Table III). The results show aconsiderable decrease in model fit for these concurrent structures. Not only thex 2 is highly significant and x 2/df . 2.0, but also the other fit indices show aninadequate fit results. Accordingly, we considered the four-factor model toprovide an adequate structure for the dependent variables.

Hypotheses testingBased on the four-factor structure obtained from the measurement model forthe trust components we created a model for trust using four observedvariables. These observed variables were obtained by summing the item scoresin each factor into a total score.

In Table III the results indicate that this model fits the data well: x 2 2.41(df¼2, p ¼ 0.30), GFI is 0.99 and the AGFI is 0.95. The CFI is 0.99 and theRMSEA and RMR are both, 0.05. In this model, perceived trustworthiness isthe strongest component of trust (g ¼ 0.91) and explains 83 per cent of the totalvariance of trust. Co-operative behaviours explain 57 per cent of the totalvariance of trust and are the second strongest component of trust (g ¼ 0.75).

Models x 2 df p x 2/df GFI AGFI CFI PGFI PNFI

TrustFour factors 237.13 180 0.03 1.32 0.83 0.78 0.94 0.65 0.63Three factors 300.86 182 0.00 1.65 0.80 0.74 0.88 0.63 0.60Two factors 469.56 184 0.00 2.55 0.68 0.60 0.71 0.54 0.52One factor 578.67 185 0.00 3.13 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.48 0.43

Team effectivenessFour factors 73.25 48 0.01 1.52 0.90 0.84 0.87 0.55 0.56Three factors 128.00 51 0.00 2.50 0.84 0.75 0.73 0.54 0.50Two factors 150.62 53 0.00 2.84 0.81 0.73 0.67 0.53 0.48One factor 232.89 54 0.00 4.31 0.74 0.63 0.45 0.57 0.34

Notes:Independent model for trust: x 2 ¼ 1,094.12 (df ¼ 210, p ¼ 0.001)Independent model for team effectiveness: x 2 ¼ 405.46 (df ¼ 66, p ¼ 0.00)

Table II.Fit indices for themeasurementmodels

PR32,5

614

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Structuralmodels

gError

R2

x2

GFI

AGFIRMSEA

RMR

CFI

PGFIPNFI

Trust

2.41(df¼

2;p¼

0.30)

0.99

0.95

0.04

0.04

0.99

0.20

0.32

Propensity

totrust

0.31

0.88

0.12

Perceived

trustworthiness

0.91

0.31

0.73

Co-operativebehaviours

0.75

0.65

0.45

Monitoringbehaviours

20.25

0.95

0.05

Conceptualmodel

137.47(df¼

102;p¼

0.01)0.87

0.82

0.06

0.10

0.84

0.65

0.60

Modified

model

122.27(df¼

101,p¼

0.07)0.89

0.84

0.04

0.08

0.88

0.65

0.61

Perceived

task

perform

ance

0.28

0.73

Team

satisfaction

0.35

0.65

Attitudinal

commitment

0.25

0.75

Continuance

commitment

0.60

0.40

Trust

!perceived

task

perform

ance

0.17

Trust

!team

satisfaction

0.16

Trust

!attitudinal

commitment

0.38

Trust

!continuance

commitment

20.27

Team

satisfaction

!perceived

task

perform

ance

0.50

Table III.Fit indices for thestructural models

Work team trustand effectiveness

615

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

With g ¼ 0.32, propensity to trust explains 10 per cent of the variance of trust.Monitoring behaviours, as expected, relates negatively with trust (g ¼ 20.25).All these structural relations were statistically significant (t-values . 1.96).

The conceptual model was tested with five latent variables; trust, perceivedtask performance, team satisfaction, attitudinal, and continuance commitment.The results for this model indicate only a marginal fit to the data (see Table II).The x 2 is significant (x 2¼ 137.41/df ¼ 102, p ¼ 0.01), the other fit indicesshow values lower than 0.90, and the residual fit indices indicate values above. 0.05, which is consistent with the poor fit of this model. The modificationindices suggested a path from perceived task performance to team satisfactionto improve the fit. In others studies (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Smith and Barclay,1997) team performance is found to be a strongly related to team satisfaction.

The modified model shows a considerable improvement of fit (see Table III).In particular, the x 2 becomes non significant and the residual coefficientRMSEA decreases to 0.04, which indicates a good model fit. The other indicesshow also improvement and GFI reaches 0.89, showing almost an adequate fit.Based on these results we considered the modified model more adequate to fitour data.

The results of the structural equations are displayed in Figure 2. Trust ispositively related with perceived task performance (g¼ 0.17), and teamsatisfaction (g ¼ 0.16), both confirming ourH1 andH2. The strongest relationsare for attitudinal commitment (positive effect – g ¼ 0.38) and for continuancecommitment (negative effect – g ¼ 20.27) confirming also our H3.

DiscussionThe present study aimed to explore the nature of trust and the relation withteam performance and other variables concerning team member’s attitudestowards the team and the organisation.

With respect to the nature of trust, this study supports the conceptualisationof trust as a multi-component construct. As in other studies (e.g. Cummings

Figure 2.Structural relations

PR32,5

616

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

and Bromiley, 1996; Smith and Barclay, 1997), several dimensions wereidentified which suggest that trust is a complex variable with a number ofcomponent parts. Although our components cannot be directly compared withthose found in other studies, our results support the distinction betweenpropensity, trustworthiness and behaviours of trust often proposed in theliterature as dimensions of the trust construct (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995). Perceivedtrustworthiness was the strongest component of trust. This is consistent withthe dominant way of thinking in the literature about trust and“trustworthiness” – the evaluation of the characteristics and actions of theperson(s) to be trusted. Co-operative behaviours were the second strongestcomponent of trust, which supports in particular the incorporation ofbehaviours in models of trust. Monitoring behaviours, though, explained theleast variance of trust. Propensity to trust explained also only a smallpercentage of the total variance of trust within teams. However, we considerthat both components still should be viewed as important aspects of trust.Since we were dealing with teams where members are working togetheralready for some years, trust between these members may be more based onattributions of trustworthiness made to one another than on generalexpectancies. As suggested by Bigley and Pearce (1998), differentcomponents can be more important in some contexts than others, dependingon the degree of familiarity between individuals and the degree of dependence.For instance, Rotter (1980) argues that as situations or people becomeincreasingly unfamiliar the influence of trusting dispositions on behaviourgrows.

Except for monitoring behaviours, all components appeared positivelyrelated with the trust factor. This is consistent with the notion that trustexcludes the deliberate control of others (Ikpen and Curral, 1997). However,teams may demand different requirements for co-operative behaviours andmonitoring behaviours depending on various issues such as, work objectives,risks involved, amount of resources committed, etc. (Das and Teng, 1998). Forinstance, Bijlsma-Frankema (2000) found a positive relation betweenmonitoring and trust in managers in general hospital a case study.Consequently, a high level of trust may not automatically dictate an increaseof co-operative behaviours and a lowering of monitoring behaviours. Insituation where the risk of trusting is high, monitoring may become a base fortrust.

The relation between trust and the dependent variables in this studyconfirms the idea that trust is important for the functioning of teams inorganisations. Consistent with other studies (e.g. McAllister, 1995; Morgan andHunt, 1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997) various benefits were associated withtrust. These benefits are reflected not only in the team outcomes, but also inmember’s attitudes to the organisation. High work team indicates highperceptions of task performance, high team satisfaction, high attitudinal

Work team trustand effectiveness

617

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

commitment and low continuance commitment. In relation to task performance,our findings support the main effect between trust and performance also foundin similar studies examining trust in other contexts (e.g. McAllister, 1995;Smith and Barclay, 1997). The conceptualisation of trust as a higher-orderconstruct as we present here provides a clearer picture in relation to theseeffects, since distinct components of trust are incorporated in one singlevariable. Also consistent with other studies, a positive relation was obtainedbetween trust and team satisfaction (e.g. Smith and Barclay, 1997). However,team satisfaction was more strongly related with perceived task performance.This suggests that the overall positive relation of trust has some limitations.

Work team trust was particularly strongly associated with the committedwith the organisation. When work team trust is low, levels of attitudinalcommitment tend to decrease, while more calculative (continuance)commitment tends to arise. Such implications can bring additional problems,for instance in contexts of change when additional levels of effort andinvolvement are needed to successfully implement those changes.

Generally speaking, this study indicates that trust is an important conditionfor the functioning and well being of teams in organisations. Yet, the extent towhich trust may be considered a determinant factor in this functioning remainsinclusive, since it is dependent on the trust requirements that are associatedwith the functioning of teams and organisations.

Limitations of the study and directions for future researchThis study represents a step forward in establishing a multi-componentconceptualisation of trust and in theory building on trust in organisations.Although our study was successful in using aggregated data, severallimitations are associated with these results. The foremost limitation is thenumber of teams in our sample (n ¼ 112). Despite the fact that we were able toobtain a sufficient number of teams to perform SEM analyses, the complexityof the model led to initial GIF situated in the marginal acceptance zone.Therefore, our conclusions should be carefully interpreted. Another limitationrefers to the fact the teams in this study came from organisations within asingle sector of activity, which makes it inappropriate to generalise theseconclusions to other sectors of activity. Cautions in the interpretation of theseresults are also associated with the use of self-ratings of task performance.

Directions for future researchThe idea that trust has numerous benefits for teams and organisations hasbeen, and continues to be, a major impetus for research on trust. Over the pastdecades, researchers have increasingly recognised the importance of trust atindividual, team and organisational levels. However, empirical evidence hasgenerally, but not consistently, supported this perspective. Differentapproaches to the concept of trust have lead to several conceptualisations

PR32,5

618

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

and operational measurements of the variable trust that can lead to someinconsistencies across research findings. Further research should address thesedifferences.

One variable that may have influenced the results in this study, is the riskassociated with poor performance. In some organisations deficits in trustreduce efficiency, in others it reduces effectiveness and increases costs, or evenmakes the organisation fail. Within contexts with relatively low risk of poorperformance, such as the teams in our study, we have seen that co-operativeand monitoring behaviours operate as two opposite ends of the samecontinuum with respect to trust. However, in contexts where poor teamperformance may bring damaging effects for the organisation, monitoringbehaviours may be actually necessary in order to prevent destruction. Therelation between trust and risk seems a key issue in the behaviouralmanifestations of trust.

Another key variable refers to the life cycle of the team and degree offamiliarity between teammembers. For example, in teams that are created for aspecific project and that exists for a fixed period of time (such as project teams),individual members will have the tendency to identify more with the productbeing performed, than with their colleagues. On the other hand, in multi-projectorganisations, teams become a much more dispersed notion, and individualsmight have difficulties in identifying to which team they belong. Whilestudying trust and its implications for the functioning of teams andorganisations, researchers should also address the contextual variables aroundtrust, in order to provide better interpretations of the results.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 62, pp. 77-795.

Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1996), “The Team Climate Inventory: the development of theCTI and its applications in team building for innovativeness”, European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 53-66.

Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation:development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 19, pp. 235-58.

Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.

Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.

Bigley, G.A. and Pearce, J.L. (1998), “Straining for shared meaning in organization science:problems of trust and distrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 405-21.

Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2000), “Correlates of trust in a general hospital”, Current Topics inManagement, Vol. 5, pp. 141-66.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Work team trustand effectiveness

619

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Boon, S.D. and Holmes, J.G. (1991), “The dynamics of interpersonal trust: resolving uncertainty inface of risk”, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (Eds), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 190-211.

Byrne, B. (1998), Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: BasicConcepts, Applications and Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research fromthe shop floor to the executive suite”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-90.

Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.

Costa, A.C. (2000), A Matter of Trust: Effects on the Performance and Effectiveness of Teams inOrganizations, Ridderkerk Print, Tilburg.

Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. and Taillieu, T. (2001), “Trust within teams: the relation with performanceeffectiveness”, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 225-44.

Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):development and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, R.M. (Eds), Trust inOrganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 302-30.

Currall, S.C. and Judge, T.H. (1995), “Measuring trust between organizational boundary rolepersons”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 151-70.

Das, T.K. and Teng, B.G. (1998), “Between trust and control: developing confidence in partnercooperation in alliances”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 491-512.

Deutsch, M. (1962), “Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes”, Nebraska Symposium onMotivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 275-319.

Dirks, K.T. (1999), “The effects of interpersonal trust on workgroup performance”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 445-55.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in organizational settings”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-67.

Freese, C. and Schalk, R. (1996), “Implications of differences in psychological contracts for humanresource management”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5No. 4, pp. 501-9.

Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, NewYork, NY.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984), “Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 499-517.

Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook ofOrganizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42.

Hays, W.L. (1991), Statistics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.

Hosmer, L.R.T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory andphilosophical ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 379-403.

Ikpen, A.C. and Curral, S.C. (1997), “International joint venture trust: an empirical examination”,in Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P. (Eds), Cooperative Strategies: Volume 1 North AmericanPerspectives, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 308-34.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliabilitywith and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 85-98.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), “rwg: an assessment of within-group interrateragreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 306-9.

PR32,5

620

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), “The experimental evolution of trust: implications forcooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 531-46.

Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanismsin utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, pp. 499-517.

Keen, P. (1990), Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, HarvardBusiness School, Cambridge, MA.

Kramer, R.M. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduringquestions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98.

Kramer, R.M., Brewer, M.B. and Hanna, B.A. (1996), “Collective trust and collective action. Thedecision to trust as a social decision”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust inOrganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”,in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory andResearch, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Ca, pp. 114-39.

Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63, pp. 967-85.

Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect and cognitionbased trust as foundations for interpersonalcooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, special issue on intra andinterorganizational cooperation, Vol. 38, pp. 2459.

McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Cherany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in neworganizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 473-90.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizationaltrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: ThePsychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.

Morris, J.H. and Moberg, D.J. (1994), “Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal”, inSarbin, T.R., Carney, R.M. and Eoyang, C. (Eds), Citizen Espionage: Studies in Trust andBetrayal, Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT, pp. 163-87.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Roe, R.A., Ten Horn, L., Zinovieva, I. and Dienes, E. (1997), Expanded Delft Measurement Kit:Technical Guideline, report on the European research program on work motivation andquality of work life.

Rotter, J.B. (1980), “Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility”, American Psychologist,Vol. 35, pp. 1-7.

Rousseau, M.T., Stikin, S.B., Burt, S.B. and Carmerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all:across-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 393-404.

Sabel, C.F. (1993), “Studied trust: building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy”,American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 1-7.

Shaw, R.B. (1997), Trust in the Balance, Jossey-Bass Publications, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, J.B. and Barclay, W.B. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on theeffectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 3-21.

Work team trustand effectiveness

621

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. and Summers, G. (1977), “Assessing reliability and stabilityin panel models”, in Heise, D.R. (Ed.), Sociology Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 17, pp. 229-39.

Further reading

Argyris, C. (1969), “The incompleteness of social psychological theory: examples from smallgroup, cognitive consistency, and attribution research”, American Psychologist, Vol. 24,pp. 893-908.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1989), “Single sample cross-validation indices for covariancestructures”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 24, pp. 445-55.

Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1989), LISREL8e, Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN.

Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M.and Tyler, T.M. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.

PR32,5

622

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Irene C. Moore, Jason B. Coe, Cindy L. Adams, Peter D. Conlon, Jan M. Sargeant. 2015. Exploringthe Impact of Toxic Attitudes and a Toxic Environment on the Veterinary Healthcare Team. Frontiersin Veterinary Science 2. . [CrossRef]

2. Kathleen Boies, John Fiset, Harjinder Gill. 2015. Communication and trust are key: Unlocking therelationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 26,1080-1094. [CrossRef]

3. Teresa Cometto, Arsalan Nisar, Miguel Palacios, Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Gaston J. Labadie.2015. Organizational linkages for new product development: Implementation of innovation projects.Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]

4. Stephen M. Fiore, Dorothy R. Carter, Raquel AsencioConflict, Trust, and Cohesion: Examining Affectiveand Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams 271-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

5. Jun Chen, Xiao-Liang Shen. 2015. Consumers' decisions in social commerce context: An empiricalinvestigation. Decision Support Systems 79, 55-64. [CrossRef]

6. Marte Pettersen Buvik, Monica Rolfsen. 2015. Prior ties and trust development in project teams – Acase study from the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 33, 1484-1494.[CrossRef]

7. Nguyen Thi Duc Nguyen, Atsushi Aoyama. 2015. The impact of cultural differences on technologytransfer. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:7, 926-954. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Merce Mach, Yehuda Baruch. 2015. Team performance in cross cultural project teams. Cross CulturalManagement: An International Journal 22:3, 464-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Bastiaan Rosendaal, Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema. 2015. Knowledge sharing within teams: enabling andconstraining factors. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 13, 235-247. [CrossRef]

10. Wai Yee Betty Chiu, Fung Fai Ng. 2015. Enhancement of organizational commitment through propensityto trust. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 22:3, 272-294. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

11. Luo Lu. 2015. Building trust and cohesion in virtual teams: the developmental approach. Journal ofOrganizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2:1, 55-72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Chih-Hsing (Sam) Liu, Bernard Gan, Yucheng Eason Zhang. 2015. Why “they” occupies the criticalnetwork positions?. Management Decision 53:1, 100-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Lianying Zhang, Xiang Zhang. 2015. SVM-Based Techniques for Predicting Cross-Functional TeamPerformance: Using Team Trust as a Predictor. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62,114-121. [CrossRef]

14. Eduardo Salas, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015.Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. HumanResource Management 54:4, 599. [CrossRef]

15. Sabahattin Tekingündüz, Mehmet Top, Dilaver Tengilimoğlu, Erdem Karabulut. 2015. Effect oforganisational trust, job satisfaction, individual variables on the organisational commitment in healthcareservices. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1. [CrossRef]

16. Xiao-Liang Shen, Matthew K.O. Lee, Christy M.K. Cheung. 2014. Exploring online social behavior incrowdsourcing communities: A relationship management perspective. Computers in Human Behavior 40,144-151. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

17. Irene C. Moore, Jason B. Coe, Cindy L. Adams, Peter D. Conlon, Jan M. Sargeant. 2014. The roleof veterinary team effectiveness in job satisfaction and burnout in companion animal veterinary clinics.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 245, 513-524. [CrossRef]

18. M. A. Rosen, A. S. Dietz, T. Yang, C. E. Priebe, P. J. Pronovost. 2014. An integrative frameworkfor sensor-based measurement of teamwork in healthcare. Journal of the American Medical InformaticsAssociation . [CrossRef]

19. Corrie B. Whitmore, Julie C. Dunsmore. 2014. Trust Development: Testing a New Model inUndergraduate Roommate Relationships. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 175, 233-251. [CrossRef]

20. Inju Yang. 2014. What makes an effective team? The role of trust (dis)confirmation in team development.European Management Journal . [CrossRef]

21. Xusen Cheng, Linda Macaulay. 2014. Exploring Individual Trust Factors in Computer Mediated GroupCollaboration: A Case Study Approach. Group Decision and Negotiation 23, 533-560. [CrossRef]

22. Carmen Camelo-Ordaz, Joaquin García-Cruz, Elena Sousa-Ginel. 2014. Antecedents of relationshipconflict in top management teams. International Journal of Conflict Management 25:2, 124-147. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

23. Émilie Lapointe, Christian Vandenberghe, Jean-Sébastien Boudrias. 2014. Organizational socializationtactics and newcomer adjustment: The mediating role of role clarity and affect-based trust relationships.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

24. Wei-Long Lee. 2014. Environmental uncertainty affects inter-organisational partner selection: Themediating role of cost and strategy in alliance motivations among SMEs. Journal of Management &Organization 20, 38-55. [CrossRef]

25. Behrouz Zarei, Yahya Chaghouee, Amir Hossein Ghapanchi. 2014. Investigating the Relationshipbetween Business Process Orientation and Social Capital. Knowledge and Process Management 21:10.1002/kpm.v21.1, 67-77. [CrossRef]

26. Jun Chen, Xiao-Liang Shen, Zhen-Jiao ChenUnderstanding Social Commerce Intention: A RelationalView 1793-1802. [CrossRef]

27. Kuntal Bhattacharyya, Pratim Datta, Arup Maitra. 2013. Resource dynamics on service effectiveness:Evidence from the small business service industry in the United States. Journal of Service Science Research5, 1-33. [CrossRef]

28. Philip S. DeOrtentiis, James K. Summers, Anthony P. Ammeter, Ceasar Douglas, Gerald R. Ferris.2013. Cohesion and satisfaction as mediators of the team trust – team effectiveness relationship. CareerDevelopment International 18:5, 521-543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

29. Xusen Cheng, Linda Macaulay, Alex Zarifis. 2013. Modeling individual trust development in computermediated collaboration: A comparison of approaches. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 1733-1741.[CrossRef]

30. Michelle C. Bligh, Jeffrey C. KohlesDo I Trust You to Lead the Way? Exploring Trust and Mistrust inLeader Follower Relations 89-112. [CrossRef]

31. Jan Selmer, Charlotte Jonasson, Jakob Lauring. 2013. Group conflict and faculty engagement: is therea moderating effect of group trust?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35, 95-109.[CrossRef]

32. Carole A. Orchard, Gillian A. King, Hossein Khalili, Mary Beth Bezzina. 2012. Assessment ofInterprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS): Development and testing of the instrument. Journalof Continuing Education in the Health Professions 32, 58-67. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

33. Gerard Francis Ayers, John F. Culvenor, Jim Sillitoe, Dennis Else. 2012. Meaningful and effectiveconsultation and the construction industry of Victoria, Australia. Construction Management and Economics1-25. [CrossRef]

34. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. From unbalanced to balanced: performance measures in a Vietnamese hospital.Leadership in Health Services 25:4, 288-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Clinical governance: a lever for change in Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital inVietnam. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 17:3, 223-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

36. Ruth Gaunt, Shalom Bouknik. 2012. Exploring the division of household labor outside the family context:utilizing resources for doing gender. Community, Work & Family 15, 189-208. [CrossRef]

37. Won-Woo Park, Sangyun Kim. 2012. The Need of Leader–Subordinate Reciprocal Dyadic Trust to Buildthe Subordinate's Trust in the Organization: The Case of Korean Air Pilots. The International Journalof Aviation Psychology 22, 97-119. [CrossRef]

38. Anthony Brien, Nazmun Ratna, Lyn Boddington. 2012. Is Organizational Social Capital Crucial forProductivity Growth? An Exploration of “Trust” within Luxury Hotels in New Zealand. Journal of HumanResources in Hospitality & Tourism 11, 123-145. [CrossRef]

39. Iain J. Clelland, Tal G. Zarankin. 2012. Towards a Dynamic Model of Interpersonal Trust: The Roleof Communicative Action in Workflow Negotiation. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6,109-125. [CrossRef]

40. H. J. Klein, J. C. Molloy, C. T. Brinsfield. 2012. Reconceptualizing Workplace Commitment to Redress aStretched Construct: Revisiting Assumptions and Removing Confounds. Academy of Management Review37, 130-151. [CrossRef]

41. Andrew Coleman. 2012. The significance of trust in school-based collaborative leadership. InternationalJournal of Leadership in Education 15, 79-106. [CrossRef]

42. François Chiocchio, Daniel Forgues, David Paradis, Ivanka Iordanova. 2011. Teamwork in integrateddesign projects: Understanding the effects of trust, conflict, and collaboration on performance. ProjectManagement Journal 42:10.1002/pmj.v42.6, 78-91. [CrossRef]

43. Maarten Vandewaerde, Wim Voordeckers, Frank Lambrechts, Yannick Bammens. 2011. Board TeamLeadership Revisited: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership in the Boardroom. Journal of BusinessEthics 104, 403-420. [CrossRef]

44. Eve Kikas, Kätlin Peets, Airi Niilo. 2011. Assessing Estonian mothers’ involvement in their children’seducation and trust in teachers. Early Child Development and Care 181, 1079-1094. [CrossRef]

45. Marie-Line Germain. 2011. Developing trust in virtual teams. Performance Improvement Quarterly24:10.1002/piq.v24.3, 29-54. [CrossRef]

46. Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Anna Grohmann, Simone Kauffeld. 2011. Task and Relationship Conflictat Work. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 27, 171-178. [CrossRef]

47. Barbara Dexter. 2010. Critical success factors for developmental team projects. Team PerformanceManagement: An International Journal 16:7/8, 343-358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

48. Søren Jagd. 2010. Balancing trust and control in organizations: towards a process perspective. Society andBusiness Review 5:3, 259-269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

49. Guohong (Helen) Han. 2010. Trust and career satisfaction: the role of LMX. Career DevelopmentInternational 15:5, 437-458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

50. Merce Mach, Simon Dolan, Shay Tzafrir. 2010. The differential effect of team members' trust on teamperformance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83, 771-794. [CrossRef]

51. Carla Freire. 2010. Trust in the team leader: operationalization of the construct in an R&D context.Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 8:1, 25-38. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

52. Steven M. Norman, Bruce J. Avolio, Fred Luthans. 2010. The impact of positivity and transparency ontrust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly 21, 350-364. [CrossRef]

53. Jose Luis Daniel. 2010. The effect of workplace spirituality on team effectiveness. Journal of ManagementDevelopment 29:5, 442-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

54. Frédérique Six, Denise Skinner. 2010. Managing trust and trouble in interpersonal work relationships:evidence from two Dutch organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21,109-124. [CrossRef]

55. Reihaneh Shagholi, Sufean Hussin, Saedah Siraj, Zahra Naimie, Fereshteh Assadzadeh, Farzaneh Moayedi.2010. Value creation through trust, decision making and teamwork in educational environment. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 255-259. [CrossRef]

56. Keren V. More, Shay S. Tzafrir. 2009. The role of trust in core team employees: a three‐nation study.Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 16:4, 410-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

57. Alma Harris, Tracey Allen. 2009. Ensuring every child matters: issues and implications for schoolleadership. School Leadership & Management 29, 337-352. [CrossRef]

58. Arthur Morgan, Jocelyn Finniear. 2009. Migrant workers and the changing psychological contract. Journalof European Industrial Training 33:4, 305-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Robert Sharkie. 2009. Trust in leadership is vital for employee performance. Management Research News32:5, 491-498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

60. Xusen Cheng, Linda Macaulay, Alex ZarifisA Case Study of Individual Trust Development in ComputerMediated Collaboration Teams 277-282. [CrossRef]

61. Zhang Wei, Liu Lu, Zhu Yanchun. 2008. Using fuzzy cognitive time maps for modeling and evaluatingtrust dynamics in the virtual enterprises. Expert Systems with Applications 35, 1583-1592. [CrossRef]

62. Karen A. Jehn, Lindred Greer, Sheen Levine, Gabriel Szulanski. 2008. The Effects of Conflict Types,Dimensions, and Emergent States on Group Outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation 17, 465-495.[CrossRef]

63. Debra A. Major, Donald D. Davis, Lisa M. Germano, Thomas D. Fletcher, Janis Sanchez-Hucles, JoanMann. 2008. Managing human resources in information technology: Best practices of high performingsupervisors. Human Resource Management 46:10.1002/hrm.v46:3, 411-427. [CrossRef]

64. Yanchun Zhu, Wei ZhangThe Cognitive Model of Interfirm Trust Dynamics: How Trust Is Evolved?1-4. [CrossRef]

65. Khalid Al‐Rawi. 2008. Cohesiveness within teamwork: the relationship to performance effectiveness –case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 1:2, 92-106. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

66. Francisco Parra-Luna. 2008. A score card for ethical decision making. Systems Research and BehavioralScience 25, 249-270. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)

67. Mary Bambacas, Margaret Patrickson. 2008. Interpersonal communication skills that enhanceorganisational commitment. Journal of Communication Management 12:1, 51-72. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

68. Through the Team Lens 36-46. [CrossRef]69. Tomás F. Espino-Rodríguez, Manuel Rodríguez-DíazWhat type of outsourcing relationship should hotels

maintain? A model based on internal and relational strategic value 213-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF][PDF]

70. K. Bijlsma-Frankema, Bart de Jong, Gerhard van de Bunt. 2008. Heed, a missing link between trust,monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement 19, 19-40. [CrossRef]

71. Sonja Rispens, Lindred L. Greer, Karen A. Jehn. 2007. It could be worse. International Journal of ConflictManagement 18:4, 325-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

72. Anne Powell, John Galvin, Gabriele Piccoli. 2006. Antecedents to team member commitment from nearand far. Information Technology & People 19:4, 299-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

73. Graham Dietz, Deanne N. Den Hartog. 2006. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review35:5, 557-588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

74. Denise Skinner, Mark N.K. Saunders, Hilary Duckett. 2004. Policies, promises and trust: improvingworking lives in the National Health Service. International Journal of Public Sector Management 17:7,558-570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

75. Alicia M. Phebus, Beth Gitlin, Marissa L. Shuffler, Jessica L. WildmanLeading Global Virtual Teams:177-200. [CrossRef]

76. Riza Ergun Arsal, Jason Bennett Thatcher, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, D. Harrison McKnight, Manju K.AhujaOrganizational Factors and Information Technology Use 248-271. [CrossRef]

77. Markus F. Peschl, Thomas FundneiderTheory U and Emergent Innovation: 207-233. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

nter

natio

nal M

anag

emen

t Ins

titut

e D

elhi

At 0

9:37

25

Febr

uary

201

6 (P

T)