Networking Reference
In-Depth Information
island in 2011 [ 30 ]. In such a view of culture, the expected behavior is deeply
embedded in the cultural institutions that imbue meaning to specific signs, roles and
situations [ 24 ].
Overall, the generalized trust expectations that are obtained from culture are not
easy to formulate. Their main function is to provide a generalized expectation of
trust that becomes especially important when interacting with a trustee from the
same culture for the first time. If the trustor is very familiar with a trustee, she may
no longer rely on expectations based on culture in her trust evaluations.
Trust in Teams
Research in team trust tries to identify to which degree trust in teams is different than
the more generalized trust in the greater organizational context the team is operating
in. A number of dimensions should be considered [ 18 ]. First, it is important to
note whether the team members know each other before their interaction in the
team. If the team members do not have any information about each other, then their
trust is driven by some generalized notion of trust such as their own disposition,
their similarity to each other (homophily) [ 46 ], and their expectations based on
membership to specific groups or organizations. The second factor is whether the
team members are expected to meet again. This means that the team members can
obtain value from the ties that they form during the team activity, and that their
social standing and reputation will be affected by their performance in the team.
These aspects of team trust parallel the discussion of social trust in the scope of
One of the most important determinants of team performance is the access to
information that is necessary for the team to complete its task [ 75 ]. Teams can
rely on the members to provide easy access to information within the team, and
at the same time facilitate access to information from outside of the team through
team members' other ties. The types of ties team members have provide them with
different advantages. For example, when the team task is complex, strong ties within
the team are very useful. Strong ties in this context imply that team members share
a common understanding of the problem and the organizational context. They can
rely on each other to know specific terms and signs used, which reduces the cost
of communication [ 27 ]. This is not true in the case of weak ties, which introduces
uncertainty about the shared understanding of concepts. However, such ties may be
useful to the team by giving it access to a more diverse information and talent pool.
Mechanisms that may impact trust in teams include the creation of an ingroup
identity [ 18 ], which may lead to team cohesiveness, and expected competence
and reciprocity within the team, but it may also lead to negative consequences.
For example, cohesiveness may result in “group think” in which the members are
unwilling to take the risk of disagreeing and challenging other's views. In other
words, it may reduce the trust for conflicting and novel information in the team.
On the flip side, the pyschological safety within the team may create the reverse
Search MirCeyron ::

Custom Search