Trust in Typical and High-Reliability Contexts: Building and Reacting to Trust among Firefighters

Colquitt, Jason A.; LePine, Jeffery A.; Zapata, Cindy P.; Wild, Ray

doi:10.5465/amj.2006.0241

Cited by 153 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the direct and referent-shift consensus models, a dispersion model focuses on differences in the amount of consensus between units, rather than differences in the mean levels between units. In the context of trust, some prior studies have shown that team members do not always agree on their levels of trust as evidenced by statistics that indicate the degree of agreement (Colquitt, LePine, Zapata, & Wild, 2011;De Jong & Dirks, 2011;Gillespie, 2005). In the present research where consensus in trust in leaders concerns the similarity and differences in team members' individual levels of trust in leaders, the dispersion model is most appropriate.…”

Section: Collective Constructs and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Fulmer

2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing organizational research has demonstrated that team members' trust in leaders is positively related to a team's bottom-line outcomes. However, little is known about how collective trust in leaders develops among team members. To address this gap, the present study examines the effects of multiple emergent processes on the extent to which team members exhibit consensus in trust in their leader. In particular, it was proposed that the most important factors for the emergence, and the degree of consensus, of collective trust in leaders should have the same referent target as the collective construct (i.e., the leader) and concern behaviors that involve interactions between the leader and team members. Thus, the leader behavior and interactions variables of showing concern, leading by example, and monitoring were expected to exert stronger influence on the consensus in trust in leaders than leader attributes (ability and integrity) and team factors (open communication and demographic diversity). Further, the degree of consensus in trust in leaders was predicted to have both an independent and interaction effect with the mean level of trust in leaders in influencing team performance and voice behavior. Three waves of survey data were collected from teams with new leadership in a large academic military institution. Data from 719 team members from 105 teams were used to test these predictions by analyzing consensus concurrently and changes in consensus over time.The results generally supported the relative importance of leader showing concern and leading by example on the degree of consensus in trust in leaders in the concurrent model. For changes in consensus, leading by example was particularly important. In addition, while consensus was not independently related to the team performance and voice behaviors, it interacted with the mean level in influencing the outcomes in both the concurrent and change models. Taken together, the findings suggest that some leader behaviors are important for the development of collective trust or consensus in trust in leaders, and further suggest that consensus can act as a boundary condition for the effect of the mean level of trust in leaders on team outcomes. By focusing on the consensus in trust in leaders, this research begins to shed light on how consensus in trust develops among team members with respect to their leader and has implications for understanding trust, leadership, and emergence.

show abstract

Section: Collective Constructs and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Fulmer

2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that the issues and events were selected by the respondents at the time of the interview, and the narratives they told might have been influenced by the current level of trust in the relationship (Gergen and Gergen, 1988;Bruner, 1991;Polkinghorne, 1995). Due to this issue, and the relatively small body of research using longitudinal data in the areas of Board work and the CEO-Chair relationship (Stewart, 1991;Huse, 1998;Huse et al, 2005;Cornforth and Macmillan, 2016), and trust development (Serva et al, 2005;Ballinger et al, 2009;Colquitt et al, 2011), we suggest that the topic merits a longitudinal research setting. However, we find our narrative approach and the data generated by this study are valuable due to the qualitative, rich nature and dyadic setting of the study.…”

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Further Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relative importance of the three characteristics has been argued to vary according to the context (Serva and Fuller, 2004;Colquitt et al, 2011), with greater subordinate vulnerability increasing the importance of the perceived leader integrity or ability, rather than benevolence (Lapidot et al, 2007).…”

Section: Trust Development In Dyadic Organisational Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of trust in the CEO-chair relationship

Koskinen

Lämsä

2017

BJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Final Draft 1 Development of trust in the CEO-Chair relationship AbstractPurpose: This study explores trust development in the dyadic relationship of CEO and Chair of the Board. Approach:A narrative approach is adopted to examine the meanings that CEOs and Chairpersons give to trust in their relationship, and to explore trust as an evolving phenomenon that can increase or decline over the course of the relationship. The data include 16 CEO-Chair dyads from Finnish limited companies. Findings:The results suggest that trust may exist on different levels and evolve in various ways during the course of the relationship. Integrity and agreement on company strategy are proposed to form the foundation for trust in the CEO-Chair relationship, whereas ability and benevolence are necessary for trust to develop to a higher level. Research limitations:Studying trust development based on data generated at one point of time and in only one country are the major limitations of the study.Practical implications: It is proposed that the level of trust influences value creation in the relationship. Originality/value:The study adds to the limited number of previous studies on the CEOChair relationship and contributes to the literature on trust development by making visible the viewpoint of both partners, and the meaning of the different components of trust.

show abstract

“…Colquitt et al, 2011) rather than a truly longitudinal repeated measure of variables across time periods. Further, previous longitudinal research investigating trust has focused predominantly on trust at a team level of analysis.…”

Section: Newcomer Trust Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting to Know You

Werff

Buckley

2016

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recent theoretical advances, the pattern of trust development between coworkers has yet to receive focused longitudinal attention. Furthermore, current theory suggests that employees attend to an array of independent trust cues in any given situation but fails to identify which cues are important when. In a four-wave longitudinal field study, we demonstrate how new coworker intentions to engage in trust behaviors (reliance and disclosure) evolve during employee socialization and examine the trust cues that prime decisions to trust. We present a latent growth model of trust development that reveals, for the first time, that reliance and disclosure intentions in early work relationships develop in a positive, nonlinear pattern over time. Furthermore, the study indicates that propensity to trust has a statistically significant effect on the initial status of intention to rely on and disclose information to coworkers but not on changes in trust behavior over time. The multiwave design permits comprehensive assessment of the change in impact of different trust cues over time and demonstrates that the importance of certain cues varies depending primarily on the type of trust in question and potentially changes as a relationship matures. We discuss the theoretical implications and directions for future research.

show abstract

Trust in Typical and High-Reliability Contexts: Building and Reacting to Trust among Firefighters

Cited by 153 publications

References 34 publications

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Development of trust in the CEO-chair relationship

Getting to Know You

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About