Team identification, trust and conflict: a mediation model

Abstract

Purpose -The current study aims to address the relationship between trust, team identification, and team conflict. Specifically, it aims to examine whether trust in peers mediates the relationship between team identification and team conflict. Design/methodology/approach -This is an empirical paper based on two field studies. In Study 1, 241 employees in a US Fortune 500 company distributed in various and mostly R&D teams were surveyed. In Study 2, 205 employees in a health care organization in the Midwest were surveyed. Findings -Team identification was related to lower levels of both task conflict and relationship conflict. This relationship, however, is mediated by the employees' trust in their peers. Research limitations/implications -This finding addresses concerns about the mechanisms by which employee attitudes contribute to work behaviors.Practical implications -This study highlights the importance of cultivating team members' sense of "we" rather than a sense of "I" in the team context, reinforced the crucial role of trust in organizational context. Further, by shedding light on the process by which teams come into conflict, our results suggest a means by which managers and organizations can work towards creating optimal levels of conflict in their work teams. Originality/value -As far as it is known, this is the first field study that has examined the mediating role of trust between team identity and team conflict.

Best Practices in Military Design Teams

“…(Pratt, 1998). Team identity refers to the extent to which a team member sees the team's goals as their own and feels interconnected with the team's fate (Han & Harms, 2010). Previous research has found a positive relationship between team identity and team performance (Han & Harms, 2010;Lembke & Wilson, 1998), and the importance of cultivating a sense of "we" (as opposed to "I") in a team setting.…”

“…Team identity refers to the extent to which team members see the team's goals as their own and feel interconnected with the team's fate (Han & Harms, 2010). Previous research has found evidence for a positive relationship between team identity and team performance (Han & Harms, 2010;Lembke & Wilson, 1998;Pratt, 1998). Teams who know one another and strongly identify with the team, its goals, and mission are more motivated to exert effort for the overall team success (Tyler & Blader, 2000).…”

“…is another critical aspect of preparing a planning team to work together effectively. Team identity refers to the extent to which team members see the team's goals as their own and feel interconnected with the team's fate (Han & Harms, 2010). Previous research has found evidence for a positive relationship between team identity and team performance (Han & Harms, 2010;Lembke & Wilson, 1998;Pratt, 1998).…”

“…Rebuilding trust once broken is different (and often much more difficult) than building and maintaining it. If trust is damaged (e.g., if a discourse session breaks down into personal attacks), it can take significant effort and time to mend (Fukuyama, 1995;Han & Harms, 2010). Thus attention to maintaining trust is important.…”

“…Creating an environment in which members feel comfortable to freely engage in the exchange of ideas is a foundational component for design teams. While trust is vital in any team (Han & Harms, 2010;Ilgen, Hollenbeeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), its importance is amplified in an environment in which people are expected to think creatively, share information openly, and engage in frank and energetic discourse. To coalesce around the challenging work the team is embarking upon, team members need a sense of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).…”