Human relations: The importance and role of trust in team performance - Essay Example

Human relations: The importance and role of trust in team performance Trust is a key element of a collaborative working process. Teams demonstratinghigh productivity are characterized by high rates of mutual trust, which exists among the members. Chief executors have success in implementing changes due the trust of the employees. Staff trusts that the leader is skilled enough to implement the hopes and values of the workers. Organizational background of trust in the company encourages the workers reveal their ideas and feelings, use each other as the sources of information and experience, and study together. In case trust is absent, people are forced to assume defensive positions that prevent learning process. Literature overview Handy (1996) wrote that "distributed leadership", a type of leadership in which the role of leadership moves from the specialist to specialist in accordance with the stage of the working process and skills that are required, has replaced older model, "follow-me" kind of leadership. Besides, De Pree (1989) speaks about "raving leadership", "abandoning oneself to the strengths of others" as methods for completing work tasks and achieving organizational purposes successfully. "Underlying these practices is faith in the integrity and belief in the ability of others whom an individual deems trustworthy". (p. 77) "The practice of empowerment evidenced by organizations' reliance on self-managed teams requires management to entrust the work force with responsibility and authority". (De Pree, p. 36) On the contrary, workers reveal trust in the leaders and colleagues by means of accepting above-mentioned elements of their roles at work. Organizations that are based on team working, are expected to perform conventional structures as soon as the quality and quantity are concerned, implementing adaptive alterations and encouraging employee development. Banker et al. (1996) write about support for the effect of team-based activity. In particular, they stated that organizational shift from a casual working background to work based on team activity leads to improvements in performance and quality. Trust has always been regarded by the scientists as a basic source of interaction within the society, but it hasn't been considered as the element that is worth consideration or study. (Gambetta, 1988) But as soon as the collaborative approach to resolving the programs in organization appeared, the importance of empirical evidence related to the problem of trust became evident. Many scholars started to regard trust at a workplace from a horizontal perspective (trust among the colleagues), or a vertical perspective (trust of chief executors, leaders, managers). Thus these studies represent multi-dimensional approach to the examining trust on organizations. There are two dimensions of trust among the people that are observed by the scholars. They are affect-based trust and cognitive-based trust. Attention is also paid to the effect of these types of trust on behaviors at the workplace. Trust of chief executives and the relation of this trust to key variables (intention to leave the company) are regarded by the scientists as well. It is possible to point out 5 hypotheses concerning trust among employees, chief executors and managers. But before observing these hypotheses it is necessary to observe literature on this topic. Kuhnert and McCauley in 1992 stated that trust at the workplace is a frame consisting of multiple dimensions, vertical and lateral elements. Lateral trust is referred to "trusting" relations among the employees; vertical trust defines trust of employee towards his supervisor or subordinate. Both types of trust represent interpersonal form of trust, but trust of chief executives is an exception. As the scholars write, "For most employees, the decision to trust top management is based more on the outcomes of organizational decisions made by these top managers and less on direct personal experience of their character, words, and actions". (McCauley, p. 46) Theorists of human relations sphere (for instance, McGregor, 1967) wrote about the importance of manager's trust of employees. McGregor worked out so-called Theory X, and Theory Y. Managers described by Theory X suppose that workers cannot be trusted. Managers of Theory Y assume sharing initiative with the subordinates. "Theory Y supervisors are the ones taking risks by increasing their dependence on others; that is, empowerment requires supervisory trust". (McGregor, p. 83) Historically, supervisory trust was the focus of scholars' attention, rather than subordinate trust. There were some reasons for trust of colleagues to be more important for contemporary working background. One of them is shift to team-based work. Sims and Manz, for instance, reported that in 2000 about a half of the workers in the USA are involved into collaborative work. The issue is that collaborative working in teams demands mutual dependency to achieve organizational goals on all levels. Self-directed working teams are designed to function without direct interference and control from the side of the managers. Actually, the functions of the managers of the first line have been reduced in many companies due to the existence of self-directed working teams. Interpersonal (or dyadic) trust has several dimensions. This type of trust has affective and cognitive elements (McAllister, 1995, Lewis and Weigert, 1985). The cognitive component of trust refers to rational desire to trust or accept trust of another person. This desire to trust appears due to reasons of a positive nature, for instance, dependability, competence, responsibility, and these reasons make the existence of trust evident (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). These three features inherent to cognitive-based trust may be compatible in interpersonal relationship, which involve employees and their supervisors. "An inference of competence, for example, is likely to be grounded in concrete observations such as "the worker completes assignments without error." Dependability could be inferred from observations such as "the worker completes assignments on time."" (Lewis, p. 37) It is necessary to mention that these observations and opinions are grounded on objective criteria, so they can be influenced by consistent interference of those people who trust. When scholars include trust in the frame of rational desire call for definite level of experience and knowledge. As Simmel (1964) states, it is not necessary to trust when one of the sides has complete information about the other side. "Trust is also not a rational choice when an individual has no knowledge about another. In short, the decision to trust is rational when it falls somewhere between two extremes: no knowledge of the trustee to total knowledge. In this regard, dyadic trust appears to have a strong cognitive orientation". (p. 15) Affective dimension is another dimension of interpersonal trust (McAllister, 1995, Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Trust based on affect demand deep emotional donation to relations. Concern and care of one of the parties towards another characterize the relations. This type of trust is possible for definite kinds of relations. "It is expected that trustors will interpret focal employees' behavior more idiosyncratically in deciding whether the emotional quality of their relationships with these workers is one of deep caring and concern". (Weigert, p. 99) It has been mentioned above that interpersonal trust and behavior patterns at the workplace are interrelated. Unfortunately, significance of cognitive-based trust and affect-based trust for workplace behavior has not been paid much attention by the specialists (McCauley and Kuhnert, 1992, McAllister, 1995). As soon as the relations of these dimensions and result measures are concerned, McAllister in 1995 found out that "(1) a focal manager's affect-based trust of a co-worker was positively correlated with his or her need-based performance monitoring of this same co-worker; (2) a focal manager's affect- based and cognitive-based trust of a co-worker were positively correlated with his or her affiliative citizenship behavior toward this co-worker; and (3) a focal manager's affect-based trust of a co-worker was more strongly correlated with supervisory performance ratings of this focal manager than was cognitive trust." (p. 67) McAllister's results are relevant for the topic for several reasons. At first, these authors examined the problem using an example of chief executives, while most studies at present observe only employees and managers of middle and low level. McCauley and Kuhnert (1992), as well as McAllister (1995) stated that study that observes relations between workplace behavior patterns and interpersonal trust has obvious limitations. It is possible to discuss their statement by comparing the ratings of employee affect-based and cognitive-based trust towards the chief executors and colleagues and the rates of their workplace behavior. McAllister in 1995 observed these relations and examined performance as the measure. At the present paper the relations between two dimensions of trust and workplace behavior schemes will be analyzed. The objects for the observations are behavior patterns that are logically interrelated with trust elements, as described by the scholars. The authors point out the following behavior patterns: 1. Risk taking. 2. Motivation 3. Assertiveness (Berman et al., p. 38) Hypotheses Basing on the writings concerning the above-mentioned behaviors, it is possible to make up the following hypotheses: 1. Interpersonal trust of an employee addressed to managers and colleagues is positively related to the workplace behaviors, i.e. risk taking, motivation, and assertiveness. 2. Three behavioral patterns mentioned above are more closely related to affect-based kind of trust. 3. Both cognitive-based and affect-based types of trust of employee addressed to his or her chief executor leads to increasing employee performance. 4. Employee trust addressed to managers positively influences employee perception of company's system of rewards. Researches related to the interpersonal trust provide for results of experiments as well as empirical evidence necessary to discuss the hypotheses listed above. The studies carried out to measure the importance of both vertical and horizontal trust among the employees showed the relation between interpersonal trust of employee addressed to managers and colleagues and workplace behavior, including motivation, risk taking and assertiveness. Thus, "employee's affect-based trust of co-workers and the supervisor's assertiveness rating were highly correlated". (Berman et al., p. 39) Practical experienced supported hypothesis 2 as well. It was found that affect-based trust of employee addressed to colleagues and supervisors significantly influence employee motivation, risk-taking and assertiveness. (Berman et al., p. 39) This proves opinion of Swap and Johnson-George (1982), that affect-based kind of trust is significant for organizational environment, while cognitive-based trust is less important. The results of the researches supported hypothesis 3. As it is reported, "focal employee's self-rating on the behavior assessing initiative for personal development was significantly correlated with this employee's cognitive-based trust of supervisor and affect-based trust of supervisor". (Berman et al., p. 40) Hypothesis 4 is supported by experience and theory as well. Kuhnert and McCauley in 1992 found out that "a sound professional development program and a fair appraisal system relate with trust in top management, an effective pay-for-performance practice". (p. 27) The last hypothesis was supported by results of studies. It was found out that the employee trust addressed to chief executives of the company is related to employee desire and intention to leave the company. (Berman et al., p. 40) Discussion Theoretical and practical evidences used for discussing the hypothesis examined trust of employees in various companies from various angles of vision: trust addressed to direct supervisor, trust addressed to colleagues and trust addressed to top managers. The findings of various authors suggest that the level of employee trust addressed to direct supervisor depends upon the period of work. It is evident, that trust increases in the process of establishing relationships within the years of working together. The results of various studies point to the link between employee behavioral patterns and affect-based trust. The link between motivation and affect-based trust are especially strong across various levels (colleagues, supervisor, and top managers). But the authors hesitate as for the nature of motivation existing in this link: "Whether affect-based trust is associated with the employee's intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation is not clear. Perhaps, even both forms of work place motivation are positively related to affect-based trust in relationships". (Handy, p. 87) Model created by Mayer at al (1995) assumes that increase of trust existing in relations of colleagues leads to increase of risk-taking pattern of employee behavior. If trust is divided into two dimensions, described above, it will be possible to suggest that affect-based type of trust among the colleagues is related to risk-taking pattern of employee behavior. This trust reflects a desire of colleagues to regard mistakes as the learning models, and this encourages risk-taking within the teams. According to the data of statistical reports, "40 to 50 percent of U.S. workers may be participating as members of empowered teams, thereby elevating the importance of co-worker trust in organizations". (Manz et al., p. 26) Such working background stresses the relations between the parties that are damaged in case of trust lack. As it is reported by Banker (1996), shift to team-based working resulted in positive outcomes for the company (higher rates of work quality and quantity). But these authors addressed to negative aspects of the issue as well. They wrote that the teams working in discordance showed the same results as before the move to team-based work. Thus, the observations of these authors and the results of various studies allow us assume that affect-based type of trust significantly influences relations between team-based work and company's performance. As the scholars advice in regards to the results of the studies and theoretical writings, "It may behoove organizations to look for ways to promote affect-based trust in interpersonal relationships. Team building, survival training, and similar programs seem to be aimed toward improving interpersonal relationships between a relatively large number of participants. It may at times make sense to narrow the focus of these kinds of interventions and center more on dyadic relationships in organizations. While interventions focused on dyads may produce positive jolts in affect-based trust, developing and sustaining this trust over time should be their goal". (Berman et al., p. 42) The authors also add that it is necessary to be careful in the process of forging affect-based type of trust in relations between the employees of the opposite sex. Inappropriate implementation of trust relations within the teams lead to romances at the workplace, and even cases of sexual harassment. Many companies make efforts to get the employees informed about various topics, including legislation related to sexual harassment, in cases when the company's policy implies promotion of trusty relations among the workers. In other words, the costs and advantages of such implementation are to be carefully observed and examined. Employee trust addressed to chief executors and top managers negatively influences employee intention to leave organization he or she works in. This type of trust is referred to effective system of rewards used in organization. This information is intriguing, and it draws attention to the significance of trust in prosperity of the company in general. Observations and conclusions related to the subject of the present paper create a basis for examining the links between trust in the organization and other aspects, for instance, creativity, collaborative atmosphere, humor, or stress. Works Cited Berman, J., Costigan, R., Ilter, S.. (1998) A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 Banker, R.D., J.M. Field, R.G. Schroeder, and K.K. Sinha. 1996. "Impact of Work Teams on Manufacturing Performance: A Longitudinal Field Study." Academy of Management Journal 39:867-890. De Pree, M. 1989. Leadership is an Art. New York, NY: Doubleday Gambetta, D.G. 1988. "Can We Trust Trust" In Trust. Ed. D.G. Gambetta. New York: Basil Blackwell. Handy, C. 1996. "The New Language of Organizing and Its Implications for Leaders." In The Leader of the Future. Eds. F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, and R. Beckhard. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Lewis, J.D. and A. Weigert. 1985. "Trust as a Social Reality." Social Forces 63:967-985. Johnson-George, C.E. and W.C. Swap. 1982. "Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction and Validation of a Scale to Assess Trust in a Specific Other." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:1306-1317. Manz, C.C. and H.P. Sims, Jr. 1993. Business Without Bosses. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review 20:709-734. McCauley, D.P. and K.W. Kuhnert. 1992. "A Theoretical Review and Empirical Investigation of Employee Trust." Public Administration Quarterly (Summer):265- 285. McGregor, D. 1967. The Professional Manager. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. McAllister, D.J. 1995. "Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations." Academy of Management Journal 38:24-59. Simmel, G. 1964. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (K.H. Wolff, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. Contents Literature overview.1 Hypotheses.5 Discussion..7 Abstract Trust is a key element of a collaborative working process. Organizational background of trust in the company encourages the workers reveal their ideas and feelings, use each other as the sources of information and experience, and study together. This paper observes two types of trust - cognitive-based and affect-based trust and their influence on employee behavior, and relations between employees and top managers. Observations and conclusions related to the subject of the present paper create a basis for examining the links between trust in the organization and other aspects, for instance, creativity, collaborative atmosphere, humor, or stress. Read More