|
Trust
This page covers trust related aspects in the team context, though some can be relevent to day-to-day life as well.
"Trust is to manage people whom you do not see”. (Handy, 1995:p41)
According to Kramer (1996, p571) “trust is a psychological state”. Robinson (1996, p.576) defined trust as a person’s "expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that another's future actions will be beneficial, favourable, or at least not detrimental to one's interests".
As to Cummings & Bromiley (1996: p303) a person trusts a group when the person believes that the group “makes a good-faith effort to behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit and implicit, is honest in whatever negotiations preceded such commitments, and does not take excessive advantage of another even when the opportunity is available”.
Trust plays a key role as a foundation for effective collaboration (Kramer 1996), and is a salient factor in determining the effectiveness of many relationships. According to Paul et al (2004) a direct link between trust and collaborative relationship performance exists; once the need for collaboration is established trust becomes the salient factor in determining performance.
According to Holland (1998) trust is influenced by the following factors-
1. The disposition of the individual
2. How well the team members know each other
3. The power relationships between the trustor and trustee
4. The task being undertaken
5. The incentives that are provided
The author identified the following key areas that can improve trust between teams. (Delpagoda.T, 2007)
1 Rewards: Rewards motivated the employees, and improved trust, which was seen as the most effective means during critical project phases.
2 Relational links: Relational links formed initial trust between members and strengthened team integrity. This reduced process losses and improved communication.
3 Shared cultural history: Empowering teams with known members eased the team building process. This eliminated the initial effort of getting to know each other.
4 Anticipation of future association: Future associations motivated the team to create identity and work for better quality and better team interaction.
5 Expertise: Expertise led the teams, and improved trust. Less expertise de-motivated the team and decelerated trust for success.
6 Organizational commitment: Organizational commitment motivated the employees and strengthened the spirit, as the employees get the feeling of being part of organizational success and that the management valued their work.
7 High performance teams: High performance teams needed quick support when required, and appreciation was valued.
References
Cummings, L. & Bromiley, P. (1996) "The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and validation" in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory research, Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp302-30
Delpagoda, T (2007) Facilitation methodology to effectively support virtual IT project teams submitted to the University of Liverpool
Handy, C. (1995) "Trust and the virtual organization", Havard business review, May/June pp.40-50
Holland, C.P. (1998) "The importance of trust and business relationships in the formation of virtual organizations. In Sieber, P. & Griese, J. (eds),
Kramer, R.M. (1999) "Trust and Distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring questions", Annual review of Psychology (50), pp. 569-598
Paul, D.L. & McDaniel, R.R. Jr. (2004) “A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance” MIS quarterly vol. 28 No.2. P 183-227/ June 2004
Robbins, S.P, (1998). Organizational Behaviour, 11th edition, Prentice Hall publication.
Feel free to write your comments to info@moondusk.com
|
