What makes an effective team? The role of trust (dis)confirmation inteam developmentInju Yang *EDC Paris Business School, France

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 12 December 2013Accepted 1 April 2014Available online 19 May 2014

Keywords:Team developmentTrust(Dis)confirmationEmotions

A B S T R A C T

Most newly formed teams manage to function in spite of the fact that their members do not know eachother. Over time, teams progress into successful units; however, sometimes, they regress into a situa-tion where morale is worse than when the team was created. We explain how such opposing group out-comes can arise by examining team members’ (dis)confirmation of expectations in line with thedevelopment of trust. We argue that the process of (dis)confirmation of expectations created based onearly swift trust is crucial in defining the direction of team development (progression or regression) becauseit gives rise to emotions which further underpin (dis)trust. We present six sets of propositions which takentogether construct a framework for understanding the role of (dis)confirmation and subsequent emo-tions during the process of trust updating and of team development. We provide a conceptual view ofindividuals’ experiences within a team and their impact on team dynamics in a way which could formthe basis of future empirical testing.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Team members desire assurance that each other’s actions willenable their interdependent objectives to be met, and such assur-ance can be provided either through control mechanisms or throughtrust (Barber, 1983). On the other hand, increased dependency mayincrease conflict (McCann & Galbraith, 1981) as interdependence interms of the amount of resources and coordination necessary withina team means that one cannot realize expected outcomes withoutcooperation from another colleague (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998;Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). The traditional empha-sis on bureaucratic structures and control systems in organiza-tions has been shifting toward more fluid team and project-basedteam in the face of business environment turbulence (Sluss &Ashforth, 2007).

Here trust is crucial in defining group dynamics and is associ-ated with effective work teams (e.g. Bedwell et al., 2012) as it allowsindividuals to justify their decision to contribute (Kramer, Brewer,& Hanna, 1996). However, how or why individual members decideto trust within a team is not always clear. For example, how can in-dividuals in a newly formed team learn to trust each other whenthere is no history of interactions and therefore no prior knowl-edge of each other? Furthermore, after these group members engagein some level of interaction, how and why do some groups lapseinto noncooperation or even into conflict-ridden chaos?

To explain how such positive or negative team outcomes arise,our paper looks at individual team member’s psychological expe-rience during the process of team development. Team interactionsgive rise to affective reactions and cognitive judgments for each teammember. We take the view that there is some level of trust even atthe beginning of team formation (i.e. swift trust) based on whichteam members form expectations of future interactions. We furtherargue that (dis)confirmation of an individual’s initial expectationsabout interaction among team members causes affective or emo-tional reactions (i.e. cognitive appraisal; Ellsworth, 1991; Lazarus& Folkman, 1984). These emotional reactions are critical in updat-ing trust information and defining the direction of team outcomeseither positively or negatively. A framework which takes into accountthe role of (dis)confirmation in line with development of trust allowsus to understand the bidirectional development of teams. We adaptthe input-mediator-output (IMO) model (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson,& Jundt, 2005) to illustrate how the development of trust occurs handin hand with team development.

Our paper presents contributions to the literatures of trust, con-flict, team development, and diversity. This paper contributes to trustliterature by illustrating the changing nature of trust in a newlyformed team. Acknowledgement of swift trust rather than zero trustat the early stage of team formation allows us to shed light on therole of (dis)confirmation of expectation based on swift trust duringthe process of trust updating (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995;Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). This paper also contributes to conflictliterature as disconfirmation of expectations could be an impor-tant cause of conflicts. As conflicts occur from disagreement of valuesand ideas (Jehn, 1997), disconfirmation of expectations could explain

* Tel. : 01 46 93 02 70; fax. : 01 47 78 85 70.E-mail address: Inju.yang@gmail.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.04.0010263-2373/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ locate /emj

how conflicts are perceived in the first place. Moreover, by lookingat trust as an input and not just a mediator toward output of a team,this paper contributes toward understanding of dynamics of teamdevelopment. While most teams function at the early stage of teamformation, not all teams evolve into effective teams. The interven-tion of (dis)confirmation of expectations and subsequent emo-tions could explain why that may be the case. Finally, this papercontributes to the literature of diverse teams. In line with cautionagainst deep level diversity within a team (cf. Zander, Mockaitis, &Butler, 2012), this article draws attention to the possible differ-ences in expectations or assumptions of individuals from diversebackgrounds.

The overall outline of the paper is the following: in the first partof the paper, we review the concept of trust as well as trust evo-lution. In the second part of the paper, we present sets of propo-sitions in line with the group development (IMO model) but alsoboundary conditions which might influence proposed relation-ships. Finally, implications and future research are discussed. Notethat we define a team as two or more socially interacting individu-als who are interdependent as regards workflow, goals, and out-comes (cf. Bunderson, 2003; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &Cannon-Bowers, 1996). We also adapt an overall process of teamdevelopment which all team members go through together from thecreation of the team, rather than the case of one single individualjoining an existing team. The type of team we consider here is a tra-ditional team with a designated leader (e.g. De Souza & Klein, 1995),including project teams, although our ideas may be applicable toother types.

Considering trust

Trust is a micro level phenomenon that has its basis in individu-als (Dyer & Chu, 2003). However, the definitions of trust can be con-fusing (cf. Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Shapiro, 1987) and eveninconsistent (cf. Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008) as the debate on thetopic is widely divergent (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998).Trust may be defined as a positive willingness of one to be vulner-able to another (Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,1998); positive expectations of another (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine,2007); a perceived belief (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Dirks &Ferrin, 2002) of the trustworthiness of another in conditions of in-terdependence and risk (Shapiro, 1987). Core characteristics of trust-worthiness are said to include ability, or domain-specific competenceof a trustee; benevolence, or that the trustee would do good to thetrustor; and integrity, that the trustee adheres to a set of prin-ciples that the trustor finds acceptable (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2007;Mayer & Davis, 1999).

Trust may be based on various foundations. The behavioral tra-dition of research views trust as rational choice (Hardin, 1993) whilethe psychological tradition attempts to understand the complexintrapersonal states associated with trust, including expectations,intentions, affect, and dispositions (Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al.,1998). For example, at various times it has been suggested that trustis process based, characteristic based, institution based (Zucker, 1986),situation based (Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003), cognition and affectbased (McAllister, 1995), deterrence based (DBT) (Shapiro, Sheppard,& Cheraskin, 1992), cognitive based (CBT), knowledge (behavioral)based (KBT), and affect (identification) based (ABT) (Lewicki & Bunker,1996).

For the notion of distrust, there are also two competing views.One school of thought considers distrust as the bipolar opposite oftrust (Kramer, 1999), meaning that low trust expectations are equiv-alent to high distrust (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). However,others look at distrust as confident negative expectations, which isa distinct construct from trust (e.g. Lewicki et al., 1998; Mesquita,2007).

Discussing the implications and subtle differences of each notionof trust or distrust is beyond the scope of this paper. For the sim-plicity of our argument, we adapt the view of trust as positive ex-pectations that others’ conduct is helpful or at least not harmful (e.g.Gambetta, 1988). We also do not differentiate between high dis-trust and negative expectations. In addition, from an affective per-spective (which is the core interest of our paper), both negativeexpectation and distrust are based on negative emotions such as sus-picion, wariness, and fear (e.g. Golub, Gilbert, & Wilson, 2009; Lewickiet al., 1998).

Trust evolution over time

Since trust can be been viewed as a feature of interactions(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Schoorman et al., 2007), it is argued thattrust develops within relationships (McAllister, Lewicki, & Chaturvedi,2006). Both cognition (CBT) and deterrence (DBT) suggest that trustbegins at zero (Deutsch, 1958) or even below zero (Shapiro et al.,1992), and these approaches assume that trust develops gradually(e.g. Blau, 1964; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Contrary to this view,however, other researchers find that trust may form very quickly.For example, people who have no interaction history may never-theless demonstrate (swift) trust for each other (cf. Robert, Dennis,& Hung, 2009; Zucker, 1986). Studies identify predispositions, cat-egorical assumptions, and situations that are critical to the cre-ation of ‘swift trust’ (cf. Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006;McKnight et al., 1998; Robert et al., 2009).

Despite the disagreement on the level of initial trust (zero base-line or swift trust), most researchers believe that further trust de-velops based on observation and perception of others’ behavior overtime (cf. Lewicki et al., 2006; Shapiro et al., 1992). Process-basedtrust (PBT) or trust based on history occurs when repeated inter-actions and multifaceted relationships enhance understanding ofothers (Muethel & Hoegl, 2013; Robert et al., 2009; Zucker, 1986).During this stage, reciprocation occurs as a conscious decision process.For example, an individual who observes another’s cooperative be-havior develops a conclusion about the other’s trustworthiness basedon that observation, and then performs a reciprocation behavior (cf.Ferrin et al., 2008). Individuals devote time to consider each other’strustworthiness to build a high level of trust in the partner (cf. Ferrinet al., 2008). Information is gathered about specific characteristicsof the trustee including ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayeret al., 1995).

While reciprocity in exchange relations enhances trust, theabsence or violation of reciprocity erodes it (Deutsch, 1958; Kramer,1996). Subsequently, distrust could arise through the evolving at-titude developed toward the other party (Jones & George, 1998) whenthe absence or violation of reciprocity occurs. In relation to initialtrust, we believe that the concept of swift trust is more suited toexplaining some level of cooperation at the beginning of group for-mation. This perspective allows us to gain insight into how emo-tions are generated and intervene as team members’ positiveexpectations based on initial swift trust has been confirmed ordisconfirmed during the team development. We will discuss thispoint later when we are developing our propositions.

Team formation, team member exchange and team cohesion

Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) define team processes as theteam member’s interdependent acts that convert inputs to out-comes. Ilgen et al.’s (2005) ‘input-mediator-output (IMO)’ modelextends the conventional input-process-output (IPO) model(Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1984). The term mediator is intendedto capture a broader range of critical mediating variables includ-ing both processes and emergent states (cf. Mathieu et al., 2008)and trust can be considered one of its mediating variables (Wildman

859I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

et al., 2012). However, in this paper we look at trust not just as amediating variable but also as an input. We do so by consideringswift trust based on shared team membership as an input at the teamformation stage and trust (based on history of interactions) as a me-diator influenced by (dis)confirmation of initial positive expecta-tions and emotions during team member exchange (TMX). We viewteam tangible and intangible outcomes including performance andcohesion as outputs underpinned by (dis)trust.

Input: team formation – membership-based swift trust

It is argued that new employees almost always enter organiza-tions with inflated expectations about the amount of support theywill receive and the quality of interactions they will have with otheremployees (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992). Similarly, pro-spective group members are often optimistic about their future ex-periences in their new group (Brinthaupt, Moreland, & Levine, 1991).Such positive expectations can be explained by swift trust. Swift trustis a form of trust that is presumptive and depersonalized, allow-ing individuals to make a rapid trust judgment without personalknowledge of each other (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Meyerson, Weick,& Kramer, 1996). Swift trust occurs as people use inferential short-cuts to make up their minds quickly and easily (Rempel, Holmes,& Zanna, 1985), and it can be quickly formed toward other partieswithout people being aware of the formation of these attitudes(McCulloch, Ferguson, Kawada, & Bargh, 2008).

The extent to which an individual feels and perceives (catego-rizes) another to be a part of their social in-group determines theirinitial trust toward that person (cf. Kramer, 1999; Williams, 2001).The categories used can be based on random assignments to groups,or on demographics such as race and gender or stereotypes (cf. Kim,Dirks, & Cooper, 2009; Meyerson et al., 1996). Knowledge of sharedmembership can bypass the need for personal knowledge (Brewer,1981; Meyerson et al., 1996) and signals presumptive trust (cf.Kramer & Lewicki, 2010).

So how does an individual choose one category from the manypossible categories that may be applicable? Both theories of socialcategorization and social identity refer to the process of groupingoneself or others into a social category (Hogg & Terry, 2000). However,the theory of categorization tends to highlight the differences or con-trasts between categories which often leads to in-group bias andstereotyping of out-groups (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). Socialidentity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985), onthe other hand, highlights group membership as enhancing self-image and self-evaluation. Therefore, even though social categori-zation and social identity in general are assumed to be quite similar,they are distinct and perhaps competing views which could lead todivergent group outcomes.

Studies show that the relationship between surface-level diver-sity in a team and performance is less than clear (cf. Harrison & Klein,2007; Wildman et al., 2012). Here, we could assume that strong cat-egorization of (sub)groups based on demographic factors (e.g. age,gender, race) can result in distrust and negative outcomes (cf. Joshi& Roh, 2009; Lewicki et al., 2006). On the other hand, identity basedon shared team membership can lead to swift trust, and when thetrust is maintained, it will subsequently lead to positive group out-comes (cf. Wildman et al., 2012; McKnight et al., 1998). While it isnot clear at the team formation phase which view will become dom-inant, identity based on team membership may underpin the initialtrust created when an individual joins a team.

This is mainly because, while categorization could be arbitrary,team membership is an overlapping common factor among teammembers, and the need for affiliation (McClelland, 1985) moti-vates team members to view each other as trustworthy (e.g. Blau,1964; Coleman, 1988). In addition, Holmes (1991) claims that a pe-rson’s early feelings about team members create a sense of opti-

mism and fantasies about the potential of the relationship.Individuals can exhibit surprisingly high levels of trust even withouta history of interaction (Weber et al., 2005). The notion of ‘the shadowof the future’ (Axelrod, 1984), rewarding each other for the futureinteractions, also support this line of argument.

Trust rests on an assumption that another person shares one’sown values (cf. Luhmann, 1991) and awareness of shared team mem-bership may be enough to lead individuals to form a swift trust ofother team members. In other words, a team exists to perform rel-evant tasks and share common goals in an organizational context(Mathieu et al., 2008), and these become assumed shared valuesamong team members upon formation. Therefore, our first propo-sition is the following:

Proposition 1: At the formation of a team, awareness of team mem-bership leads team members to assume swift trust based on teamidentity.

Mediator: team member exchange – (dis)confirmation, emotions,process-based trust

Social exchange theory explains how people provide valuable re-sources through their interactions with others (Blau, 1964; Thibaut& Kelley, 1959) and social exchange relationships tend to be em-bedded in a work team (e.g. Erdogan & Liden, 2006). Extending thenotion of social exchange to be more specific to team level, ‘teammember exchange’ (TMX; Seers, 1989) refers the reciprocal contri-bution of ideas, feedback, and assistance within a team. TMX shouldbe differentiated from leader-member-exchange (LMX; Dienesch &Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) where individuals form a spe-cifically dyadic, reciprocal relationship with their supervisor as aunique individual. Even though high quality relationships charac-terized by honesty and the open exchange of information supportboth TMX and LMX, TMX ignores specific dyadic relationships amongvarious team members (cf. Banks, Batchelor, Seers, O’Boyle, Pollack,and Gower, 2014).

Interpersonal trust is the primary basis for social exchange re-lationships in organizations (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008) and swifttrust based on team identity allows members to make contribu-tions toward team work. Many studies report a positive correla-tion between people’s expectations of other’s cooperation (in otherwords, trust) and their own levels of cooperation (e.g. Messick et al.,1983). While the theory of ‘sucker effect’ suggests that people with-hold their cooperative actions for fear that others will take advan-tage and not reciprocate (Kerr, 1983), swift trust may give teammembers good reasons to suspend their uncertainty (De Jong &Elfring, 2010) that others will not free-ride.

Individuals who identify with each other at a collective level,which is the case for members who have identity based deperson-alized swift trust, will likely prefer generalized exchange to other formsof team member exchange (cf. Flynn, 2005). In generalized ex-change, reciprocation is indirect (Flynn, 2005) and the nature of re-ciprocation one receives is ambiguous (Van Dyne, Cummings, &McLean-Parks, 1995). Similarly, the idea of ‘expectation of general-ized reciprocity hypothesis’ (cf. Foddy, Platow, & Yamagishi, 2009) isbased on the idea that group members entertain a generally posi-tive expectation of diffuse or indirect reciprocity within the bound-aries of a shared identity or group (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Byengaging in such generalized team member exchange, individualsshow their goodwill to each other (Murakami & Rohlen, 1992). There-fore, our second proposition is the following:

Proposition 2: Swift trust based on team identity leads to team memberexchange.

The requirements for trust vary with time (Muethel & Hoegl,2013), and initial swift trust perceptions are tentative and fragile

860 I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

(Gambetta, 1988; Kim et al., 2009; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Earlytrust such as swift trust is assumptive (Lewis & Weigert, 1985) inthat individuals behave as if the other has similar values, beliefs, andattitudes (Jones & George, 1998; Luhmann, 1991; Tsui, Porter, andEgan, 2002) and with expectation that the other party will recipro-cate trustworthily (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Naturally, early ex-change episodes are dedicated to gathering relevant knowledge asfast as possible to find out about each other (cf. Perks & Halliday,2003). The outcome of trusting behaviors and repeated social in-teractions provides information that will reinforce or change cog-nitions about the other party’s trustworthiness (e.g. Lewicki et al.,2006; Mayer et al., 1995).

Despite the norm of reciprocity of social exchange (cf. Gouldner,1960), which is argued to be universal, it cannot assure generic be-havioral cooperation. Team members might have different prefer-ences during TMX regarding the degree of direct or indirect exchange,or the duration between each exchange. When these preferencesdiffer, members’ expectations of appropriate behavior would not bemet and such disconfirmation can lead to misunderstanding and dis-appointment (cf., Kim et al., 2009). This may entail the trustor’s evalu-ating the degree to which his or her expectations failed to materialize(cf. Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) and such violation of the norms of rec-iprocity makes team members feel suckered (Kerr, 1983).

(Dis)confirmation is defined as the extent to which team me-mber’s expectations based on their initial swift trust are (not) metby other members’ behavior during team member exchange. There-fore, while congruent expectations would lead to confirmation, dis-similar expectations among team members would result indisconfirmation of swift trust. Subsequently, the observation andexperience of team member’s exchanging behavior constitutes (dis-)confirmation of each team member’s initial trust. Game theory re-search suggests that cooperative behaviors, when reciprocated, tendto spiral into ever higher levels of cooperation (cf., Ferrin et al., 2008).However, research also shows that trust could be violated in rela-tionships of shorter rather than longer duration, because parties innewly formed relationships are less likely to have had the oppor-tunity to develop mutual understanding (e.g. Swann, Milton, & Polzer,2000). Therefore, our third proposition is the following:

Proposition 3: Team member exchange leads to (dis)confirmation ofexpectations based on swift trust.

Swift trust based on team membership identity underpins pos-itive expectations of how other members will behave at an early stageof group formation. Since swift trust is very much rational and teamidentity is still cognitive, members monitor each other’s contribu-tions closely. Even though in theory the underlying mechanism ofexchange is rational choice (Kollock, 1994), emotions such as feelinggood or feeling bad (cf. Lawler & Yoon, 1998) are produced duringTMX processes. This is because people will experience higher levelsof positive affect as the number of successful episodes in line withconfirmation of initial trust increases, whereas failed exchanges inline with disconfirmation of trust generate negative feelings. Affect,as the general phenomenon of subjective feelings (e.g. Ashforth &Humphrey, 1995), is an umbrella term encompassing mood andemotion (Forgas, 1995). Theory of ‘cognitive appraisals of emotions’emphasizes people’s emotional responses to events (e.g. Ellsworth& Scherer, 2003; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) and understanding howsomeone is likely to cognitively appraise an event provides infor-mation on that person’s probable emotional reaction (e.g. Lerner &Keltner, 2001; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).

Behaviors that obstruct goals generate negative emotions, whereasthose that are goal conducive produce positive emotions (Carver &Scheier, 1998; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In this vein, differencesbetween the initial expectations of another’s trustworthiness andthe subsequent experience where these expectations are not met

(Boyle & Bonacich, 1970) lead team members to develop negativecognitive appraisals (cf. Ayoko, Konrad, & Boyle, 2012). To an evengreater extent, violations of identity-based trust have strong im-plications as regards affective responses to episodes of exchange,because they provide unique frames of reference that direct suchfeelings (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). For example, if an individual adoptsa collective level identity when engaging in generalized exchangeat the early stage of group formation, they expect others to do thesame. When they realize that others are behaving differently, theyare more likely to experience feelings of negative emotions such asfrustration, anger, and betrayal (Kramer et al., 1996). Similarly,Berscheid (1983) argues that people have emotional experiencesduring interactions that occur early in a relationship as they are sur-prised by the other’s actions or words (McKnight et al., 1998).

Any behavior contrary to their expectations (i.e. disconfirma-tion) during team interactions will evoke negative emotions (cf.Williams, 2007). While cost-benefit analyses can be subjective (cf.Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012), neglecting to fulfill expectations (cf. Kimet al., 2009) or imbalance in the exchange gives rise to dissatisfac-tion (Khazanchi & Masterson, 2011) or other negative emotions. ‘At-tribution theory’ (Weiner, 1986) also suggests that the trustor’s causalanalysis about locus and controllability gives rise to specific emo-tional reactions, an assertion that has been supported empirically(e.g. Rudolph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004). Team membersfeel anger if they believe that loss or suffering has arisen from a trus-tee’s violation of the role expectations within the team, and thetrustee is attributed blame for the negative outcome (e.g. Barclay,Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005). This is especially the case for initial trustwhich is still depersonalized and fragile.

On the other hand, interactions involving successful exchangesand confirmation of expectations suggest that members’ interestsand values are aligned or compatible (Lawler & Yoon, 1998), givingrise to positive emotions. Therefore, overall (dis)confirmation of pos-itive expectations (i.e. swift trust) during TMX produces either pos-itive or negative emotions. In other words, exchanges that areperceived to be goal conducive or confirmative produce positive emo-tions (Carver & Scheier, 1998), perceived threats to cooperation ordisconfirmation of expectations are associated with negative emo-tional responses (Lazarus, 1991). Our fourth proposition is thefollowing:

Proposition 4a: Confirmation of expectations based on swift trust leadsto positive emotions.

Proposition 4b: Disconfirmation of expectations based on swift trustleads to negative emotions.

Trustworthiness lies ultimately in the eye of the beholder (cf. Kimet al., 2009). Emotional reactions such as joy, comfort, anger or fearare key antecedents leading to the evaluations of trustworthinessand subsequent trust (Jones & George, 1998; Tomlinson & Mayer,2009). Individuals not only evaluate the implications of events fortheir own goals and concerns but they determine who is respon-sible for their positive or negative outcomes (Ellsworth, 1991; Lazarus& Folkman, 1984). In addition to causal attributions resulting in spe-cific emotional reactions, those emotional reactions can be expectedto affect further cognitive processing (cf. Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009).The ‘feelings-as-information’ model also suggests that people use theirapparent affective reactions as a basis of judgment (Schwarz, Bless,& Bohner, 1991).

People who are in a positive rather than negative mood evalu-ate other individuals and their own past life events more favor-ably (e.g. Forgas, 1992; Schwarz & Clore, 1988). Furthermore, affectivestates influence the motivation to trust because they are associ-ated with the motivation to approach or avoid others (e.g. Lazarus,1991). Positive emotions can influence not only affective attach-ments and liking for the specific individuals involved in the

861I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

exchange (Lawler, 2001) but also trust by increasing the feeling thatanother is trustworthy (Jones & George, 1998) and by positivelybiasing perceptions of trustworthiness, attributions, and motiva-tions that are relevant to trust maintenance (Williams, 2001).

On the other hand, understanding how emotions are impli-cated in trust should be especially relevant during trust violations,as violations are emotionally charged events for trustors whichinvolve anger or/and disappointment (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012;Schoorman et al., 2007). As the intensity of feelings increases, “other(non-affective) sources of information may be increasingly ignored”(Clore, Schwarz, & Conway, 1994, 387). The events individuals tendto remember best are ones that are associated with strong emo-tional reactions (e.g. flashbulb memory; Robinson, 1980). Negativeemotions have an affective influence on trust (Dunn & Schweitzer,2005) since distrust is based more on negative emotions (e.g. Golubet al., 2009; Lewicki et al., 1998). Luhmann (1991) also points outthat the role of emotion is important in explaining how, and underwhat circumstances, trust turns to distrust. For example, the trus-tor’s anger will lead to reduced willingness to be vulnerable to thetrustee (cf. Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009).

A person’s negative emotions signal to them that the relation-ship is in need of attention (Frijda, 1988). If trust continues to de-teriorate, one can no longer take the role of the other and believein the other’s trustworthiness (Jones & George, 1998). In particu-lar, unmet expectations are likely to operate through the character-based perspective (cf. Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Negative emotionsdeviate from initial positive expectations and trigger attribution pro-cesses which can lead members to attribute the problem to the per-sonal failure of others ( Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007). Suchnegative events and subsequent negative emotions are likely to leadpeople to question the competence of those who disagree with them,and subsequently trust them less (cf. Langfred, 2007). For example,neglect may undermine multiple bases of trustworthiness includ-ing social competence (e.g. interpersonal understanding) (cf.Williams, 2007) as well as benevolence. Studying interorganizationalrelationships, Bell, Oppenheimer, and Bastien (2002) found that earlyviolations of benevolence damage trust significantly.

Therefore, we acknowledge the importance of affect or emo-tions, especially the emotional experiences that occur during in-teractions of team members. Emotional experience acts as a basisfor judgment and determines the direction of trust developmenteither toward trust (positive) or distrust (negative). While affect basedtrust (ABT) is understood as high level trust that develops as ex-change relationships become deeper (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata,& Rich, 2012; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Lewis & Weigert, 1985;Williams, 2001), we argue that trust in interdependent teammembers over time is influenced by emotions, even if it stays at thecognitive level (i.e. CBT). Deeper levels of trust develop over time,largely as a function of the parties having a history of interaction(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Muethel & Hoegl, 2013). Even though trustliterature has tended to focus on cognitive factors (cf. Tomlinson &Mayer, 2009), we believe that cognitive judgments on team members’behaviors are based on emotional reactions as discussed earlier. Inaddition, CBT has causal precedence in the development of ABT ashigher CBT signals that the other partner may be suitable for an emo-tionally driven, high-quality, reciprocal exchange relationship char-acterized by high ABT (cf. Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013). Inthe same vein, studies of conflict, which is highly related to trust(cf. Langfred, 2007) during team interactions, suggest that cogni-tive conflict can also be punctuated with high levels of emotion (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1997).

As emotional security plays an important role in trust (Rempelet al., 1985), emotions may create a temporary irrationality aboutthe data on ability, benevolence, and integrity and even after theemotions dissipate, the effect on the cognitive evaluations mayremain (cf. Schoorman et al., 2007). Emotion can be a more pow-

erful determinant of impression formation than cognition and canoften override cognitive processes (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Ulti-mately, “affective responses (e.g. anger, disappointment, joy) influ-ence how people evaluate their feelings for, attachment to, and trustin others” (Williams, 2001, 379). Moods and emotions contributeto the ongoing experience of trust, providing people with signalsconcerning the changing nature of their ongoing experience of trust(Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Jones & George, 1998). Therefore, ourfifth proposition is the following:

Proposition 5a: Positive emotions arising from confirmation of expec-tations lead to positive judgments of trustworthiness, which in turn leadto trust.

Proposition 5b: Negative emotions arising from disconfirmation of ex-pectations lead to negative judgments of trustworthiness, which in turnlead to distrust.

Output: team outcomes

Trust encourages people to think and feel in the same way, sharingviews of the world and norms of behavior. In ongoing teams, trusthas a direct impact on effort and performance (De Jong & Elfring,2010; Rispens, Greer, & Jehn, 2007). Barber (1983) suggests that thedynamics of trust lead to solidarity and the dynamics of distrust leadto disintegration. Team members with higher levels of trust are morelikely to interpret behavior positively, and group members’ attrac-tion to or liking of the group (Evans & Jarvis, 1980) underpins co-hesion and personalized group identity (Han & Harms, 2010). Teamcohesion is defined as ‘a dynamic process that is reflected in the ten-dency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuitof its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of memberaffective needs’ (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, 213). In thesame vein, trust can foster greater cooperation (Ferrin et al., 2008),team satisfaction, attitudinal commitment as well as perceived taskperformance (Costa, 2003; Rispens et al., 2007).

On the other hand, without a foundation of trust, team membersare more likely to avoid interaction processes to protect them-selves from perceived vulnerability to the actions of other teammembers (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). As distrust may lead to good riskmitigation a priori, distrust perceptions may also limit communi-cation and create a priori paranoia between teams (Lewicki et al.,1998). Similarly, while conflict is negatively associated with trust(Massey & Dawes, 2007), relationship conflict leads to avoidance,reduced interaction, and alienation of members, resulting in be-havioral disintegration (Li & Hambrick, 2005). Reduced interac-tion will in turn be detrimental for interdependent group work andleads to further conflict and misunderstanding, as members will nothave enough knowledge of each other to achieve coordination (cf.Wildman et al., 2012). In addition, even though distrust, like trust,reduces complexity by dictating a course of action, it is based onsuspicion and monitoring (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). The trustor’s angerwill lead to reduced willingness to be vulnerable to the trustee (cf.Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009), and when one finds that the other is be-having competitively, one may fight fire with fire and competein response, or one may even withdraw from the relationship (cf.Ferrin et al., 2008). Therefore, our sixth set of propositions is thefollowing:

Proposition 6a: Trust among team members leads to positive team out-comes in both team performance and team attitudes, mainly via be-havioral integration of team members.

Proposition 6b: Distrust among team members leads to negative teamoutcomes in both team performance and team attitudes, mainly via be-havioral disintegration of team members.

862 I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

Figure 1 illustrates the model of trust evolution during teamdevelopment which we present together with the sets of proposi-tions in the following section. We adapt the input-mediator-output (IMO) model (Ilgen et al., 2005) for team development toillustrate the evolution of trust at different stages, from identity-based trust to knowledge-based trust. We also highlight the role ofemotions generated by (dis)confirmation during team member ex-change (TMX) in determining the direction of knowledge-based trust.The propositions presented in the paper (P1 to P6) are also shownin Fig. 1, labeling arrows between concepts. Thus, a basis is laid forsubsequent empirical research relating to the entire model, or toits individual constituent parts.

Boundary conditions

Each relationship in our proposed model could be strength-ened or weakened or even change direction in certain situations.For example, trust could generate positive emotions (reverse cau-sality of P5) and likewise positive team outcomes could lead to trust(reverse causality of P6). On the other hand, a leader may be ableto heighten team membership and encourage open communica-tions (which would influence P1, P2 as well as P3). Therefore, con-sideration of the effects of such boundary conditions couldcomplement our model, although we will not present proposi-tions relating to boundary conditions here given the complexity ofinfluential effects of each issue which is beyond the scope of thispaper. We also would like to note that the discussion below is neitherexclusive nor exhaustive.

Leadership

The ultimate responsibility for effective management of work-groups lies with the group leaders who coordinate the efforts ofgroup members (Jackson & Joshi, 2004). As team leaders often havethe most power (cf. Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013), team membersview their leader’s behaviors in the early stages of team develop-ment as the main cause of what transpires in the team (cf. Ayokoet al., 2012). When group processes are carefully controlled by a teamleader, team members are associated with higher levels of perfor-mance (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Extant research views leadershipprimarily as an input factor that influences processes (Kirkman &Rosen, 1999; Wildman et al., 2012). Subsequently, leadership be-havior is understood as one of the antecedents of trust (Gillespie& Mann, 2004; Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002) and trust in acoworker is affected by the extent to which the coworker is trustedby the leader (Lau & Liden, 2008).

In this vein, team leaders may provide positive role models forthe behavior of other team members (Ayoko & Callan, 2010), and aleader plays a critical role in establishing the behavioral norms andclimate of the team (cf. Wildman et al., 2012). In addition, an ef-fective team leader is better at managing negative events that affectthe team (Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). For example,transformational leadership may be aligned to critical team workprocesses to develop team communication and conflict manage-ment skills (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004). In re-lation to sharing and managing team members’ expectations, whichis most relevant to our model, a leader may stimulate team members

Individual Level

Experience

Team Level Experience

OutputsInputs

Swift Trust (Initial trust)

Confirmation of Expectations based on Initial Trust

Trust

Team Outcomes

Mediator

P2

P3

Emotions

P4

P1

P5

Team Member Exchange

Team Formation

P6

Fig. 1. Intervention of Swift Trust (Dis)confirmation during Team Development.

863I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

to communicate their expectations with each other or inspire themto accept different expectations and perspectives.

Individual characteristics of team members

Various individual differences such as value-orientation, per-sonality, and propensity to trust (e.g. Higgins, 1998) could be im-portant factors at the very beginning of the team relationship(Colquitt et al., 2007; Robert et al., 2009; Schoorman et al., 2007).Propensity to trust describes the baseline level of trust an individ-ual is willing to extend to strangers (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas,2007), and people who are trustworthy tend to view others as trust-worthy (Good, 1988). This suggests some individuals may be moresusceptible to depersonalized trust based on factors such as teammembership identity whereas others may not.

Accordingly, while trust in coworkers is found to partially mediatethe relationship between a person’s propensity to trust strangersand their preference for working in a team (Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery,2003), the relationship between individuals’ propensity to trust andtheir subsequent identity framework will have further impact ongroup process as well as outcomes. Here, we suspect that trust pro-pensity influences not only swift trust at the formation of the teambut also team member exchange during the process of team devel-opment. The investigation on impact of trust propensity could bedone in line with the notion of the critical member (cf. Ellis, Bell,Ployhart, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 2005) as studies show the signifi-cant influence of one single member on outcomes at team level (cf.Mathieu et al., 2008). However, questions still remain regarding therelationship between trust propensity and level of emotional re-actions, especially when expectations are unmet. For example, willhigh levels of trust propensity and of high expectations give rise tostrong negative emotions or will high levels of trust propensity leadto a high level of tolerance of unmet expectations?

Culture

(National) Culture influences not only the preferences to workin a group (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Wagner, 1995) but it can alsoaffect the perception of ability, benevolence, and integrity(Schoorman et al., 2007), which are important criteria in buildingKBT or PBT. Even though trust relationships move from CBT to ABT(cf. Schaubroeck et al., 2013), the extent to which this is the casemay depend on the level of interdependence engrained in a culture(cf. Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). For example, CBT is more importantin eliciting cooperation in individualistic cultures, while ABT is morevalued in collectivistic cultures (Ng & Chua, 2006).

Considering different dimensions of culture and trust judg-ment, collectivistic trustors prefer situational information and in-terpersonal ties, whereas individualists prefer dispositionalinformation and common category membership (Branzei, Vertinsky,& Camp, 2007). On the other hand, people in collectivistic culturestend to have lower generalized trust than people in individualisticcultures (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008). Similarly, task-orientedcultures seem to have a higher initial trust of strangers and there-fore a higher trust propensity, while relationship-oriented cul-tures need time to develop a relationship prior to working on thetask (cf. Schoorman et al., 2007). Finally, more action-oriented, com-petitive, performance-oriented cultures (i.e. masculine cultures) tendto place a higher value on the ability variable whereas more col-laborative, being-oriented (i.e. feminine cultures) tend to put moreemphasis on the benevolence variable (cf. Schoorman et al., 2007).Therefore, we could assume that culture influences the perceptionof trust based not only on initial identity but also on the processand outcomes of TMX. Exploring our model of trust evolution, cultureshould exert its considerable power as a moderator in each stageof team development. Moreover, along with national culture, culture

based on industry or job type may also influence how trust is per-ceived and developed (cf. Chua et al., 2008).

Reverse causality

Trust promotes recurrent cycles of successful cooperation amongteam members (Ferrin et al., 2008), and cooperation in turn influ-ences trust levels. In addition, high levels of trust generate posi-tive emotions among team members. While reverse causality isalways possible with feedback loops especially in long-term ongoingteams, considering time as a constraint (Arrow, Poole, Henry,Wheelan, & Moreland, 2004) would help to clarify sequence of cau-sality during group development. The temporal perspective of thisarticle focuses on group formation of a new team, during which onedirectional evolution from expectations to emotional reactions andto subsequent trust would make sense.

Discussion

While existing research on group development has extended ourunderstanding of how teams should compile skills and develop adap-tive processes in order to be effective with their normative models(e.g. Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2008), ourmodel could explain why, in reality, some teams may fail. We achievethis by looking at trust not just as an emergent state/mediator (cf.Mathieu et al., 2008) but also as an input into group processes. Weview swift trust as a baseline during team formation (input). Sub-sequently, positive or negative emotions are generated during teaminteractions depending on whether team member’s swift trust isconfirmed or disconfirmed (mediator), and those emotions under-pin subsequent process-based (dis)trust which determines team out-comes (output).

Our paper contributes to trust literature by illustrating the chang-ing nature of trust in a newly formed team. Acknowledgement ofswift trust rather than zero trust at the early stage of team forma-tion, allows us to shed light on the role of (dis)confirmation duringthe process of trust updating (Mayer et al., 1995) during team de-velopment. As unmet expectations could be one of the most fre-quently causes of breakdowns in trust, our paper illustrates howthese unmet expectations could arise from the baseline of swift trust.This article also responds to a call that researchers must take intoaccount trust as an exchange mechanism when predicting team per-formance (Mach, Dolan, & Tzafrir, 2010; Mayer & Gavin, 2005).

We join the discussion in highlighting the importance of beingconscious of expectations during interactions. Research so far high-lights how individual’s expectations that a leader demonstrates in-dividualized support is linked to high levels of trust in leaders(Korsgaard et al., 2002). Young and Perrewé (2000) also empha-size the role of met expectations in dyad mentor–protege relation-ships relating benevolent behaviors and interpersonal trust. Weextend such arguments to the team level by suggesting that (un)metexpectations during team interactions may be critical during teamdevelopment.

The disconfirmation of expectations could also explain how con-flicts are perceived in the first place. How one perceives, defines, andinterprets a conflict episode is often more critical than the natureof the conflict itself (cf. Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Studies on fairness andreciprocity principles (Choi, 2008) also concern expectations of tan-gible and intangible work outcomes. In this vein, this article sug-gests that perspective taking, the intrapsychic process of imagininganother’s thoughts, motives, or feelings from that person’s point ofview (Davis, 1996) may be the first step to reduce conflict withina team as it helps members to understand better each other’sexpectations.

We explicitly investigate the role of emotions in the context ofoverall team development by illustrating how emotions arise from

864 I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

(dis)confirmation of initial expectations. The literature on group de-velopment has implied that emotions within the constructs of co-hesion and conflict provide a snapshot of group life (cf. Kozlowski& Ilgen, 2006); however, emotions have far-reaching effects on overallgroup development and how and when emotional reactions takeplace is important to consider. For example, it is suggested that trustviolations that occur early in a relationship are far more harmfulthan when trust is violated later in a relationship’s development(Lount, Zhong, Sivanathan, & Murnighan, 2008). This article is in linewith the suggestion that trust-related schemas and emotional re-actions are the two primary psychological mechanisms that influ-ence trust attitude formation within a team (Wildman et al., 2012).

By looking at trust as an input and not just as a mediator of outputof a team, this paper contributes toward understanding of the dy-namics of team development. While most teams function at the earlystage of team formation, not all teams evolve to effective teams. Rel-atively little is known about how and why groups develop differ-ently (cf. Arrow et al., 2004) even though Tuckman’s (1965) four stagesof development, namely: forming, storming, norming and perform-ing suggests that a storming stage (where conflicts are abundant)is necessary before task groups can enter the performing phase,whereas some teams get stuck at the storming stage. Here, emo-tions appear to serve as an indicator of the phase of group devel-opment as well as a trigger which helps the team to progress to thenext developmental phase (Ayoko et al., 2012) and the interven-tion of (dis)confirmation of expectation based on swift trust and sub-sequent emotions could explain why teams may evolve in differentdirections.

This article contributes to the discussion of diverse teams. Weemphasize the role of the social identities of team members in groupformation and development. At this point, we untangle the complexrelationship between diversity and team outcomes by challengingthe view that team members automatically categorize themselveson the basis of surface-level demographic features such as ethnicgroup, age, gender, etc. (e.g. Wildman et al., 2012; Williams, 2001).People have multiple identities and these identities are more or lessrelevant at different times (cf. Eggins, O’Brien, Reynolds, Haslamw,& Crocker, 2008). Our model illustrates that team membership couldbe the first identity that team members assume at the time of teamformation, even though other identities such as those based on de-mographic features are available for them to choose. Divergence inteam development occurs when teams manage to strengthen (orweaken) identity based on team membership in comparison to othercategory based identities such as ethnicity. Along with cautioningagainst deep level diversity within a team (Zander et al., 2012), thisarticle draws our attention to the different expectations or assump-tions based on diverse values (i.e. deep level diversity) rather thanon demographic features per se (i.e. surface-level diversity).

With these contributions in mind, we discuss further implica-tions for research and practice below.

Implications for research

For individuals working in organizations, perhaps the most prom-inent social context is their immediate work group (Hackman, 1992).Group-level analyses tend to overlook dynamics between individu-als, but individual level analysis is pertinent in looking at group for-mation as this gives us insight into how individuals come togetherto work as a group. Psychological group formation is a powerful uni-fying force among a set of interdependent actors (cf. Collins, 1989),and identity orientations are important in predicting employees’ will-ingness to interact and cooperate (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell,2002).

When extending the above discussion to the issue of diversity,social categorization is quite critical in this matter (cf. Joshi & Roh,2009) being based often on personal biases and categorization as-

sumptions (Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002). However, somestudies indicate that individuals are more open and experience higherlevels of satisfaction in groups with maximum social category di-versity (Harrison & Klein, 2007). In line with this view, our frame-work illustrates that team membership identity based oninterdependence (cf. Homan et al., 2008) rather than on demo-graphic categorization may help to resolve the problematic natureof diversity (cf. Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2006). Van Knippenberg,De Dreu, and Homan (2004) also suggest that identity moderatessocial categorization in diverse teams.

In addition to team composition, it is also important to take intoaccount the member interaction effect (Cheng, Chua, Morris, & Lee,2012). Our illustration of TMX as an ultimate antecedent of eitherpositive or negative spirals of team development via (dis)confir-mation of initial expectations and subsequent emotions is in linewith the claim that deep level diversity (e.g. of attitudes rather thandemographics) plays a more important role (cf. Hogg & Terry, 2000).Molleman (2005) also states that attitudes including personalitybecome more noticeable and salient when team members collab-orate and make extensive mutual adjustments. By extending thisline of argument, future research could investigate what exact eventstrigger the chain of identity threats, diversity fault lines (cf.Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber, & Ernst, 2009), and emotionalconflicts (Li & Hambrick, 2005). For example, events triggering emo-tional responses in diverse teams might not necessarily trigger thesame responses in non-diverse teams. Furthermore, as fault lines(Lau & Murnighan, 1998) become stronger when characteristics ofdemographic categories are highly correlated (e.g. Bezrukova, Jehn,Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009), studies exploring which categories (i.e.team membership or demography) under what context influencemembers the most could be useful.

As regards the above discussion but looking at the issue of trust,we have adapted an approach that is analogous to the way inti-mate relationships move through three stages, from romantic love,to an evaluative stage, to an accommodative relationship (cf. Boon& Holmes, 1991), noting that there are positive expectations or il-lusions at the beginning of team formation. By doing so, we are ableto highlight the feelings of disappointment and betrayal that mayarise from disconfirmation during team interactions or TMX.However, some claim that early positive beliefs may actuallystrengthen trust over time (McKnight et al., 1998) via the self-confirming nature of trust (cf. Van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998).Thus further studies are needed to determine what types and levelsof negative or positive events undermine (cf. Mishra, 1996) orstrengthen trust, given that the status of trust during interactionsdoes not stay still.

In this article, we highlight the role of emotions in contribut-ing toward trust development; however, we do not argue that alltrust develops into affect-based trust (ABT) per se. Nonetheless, wesuspect that there is a high correlation between cognition based trust(CBT) and ABT at later stages of ongoing teams. Attachment formedbetween parties during frequent interactions leads to the forma-tion of affect (cf. McAllister, 1995) which would be quite commonfor ongoing teams. Given ‘spillover’ effects of ABT on CBT (ratherthan the other way around) (Ng & Chua, 2006), ABT may functionas a hygiene factor for CBT for ongoing teams. However, while evo-lution from CBT to ABT is likely to be observed among insiders aswell as newcomers (cf. Schaubroeck et al., 2013), it is also sug-gested that individuals’ baseline expectations for competence andreliability (i.e. CBT) must be met before deeper relationships (i.e. ABT)can be formed (McAllister, 1995). Culture may be a boundary con-dition (Ng & Chua, 2006), and cross-cultural comparisons with in-depth interviews may shed some light on these complexrelationships.

In addition, even though our model is illustrated in the contextof a new team for simplicity, we expect that the model can be

865I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

extended and tested in the scenario where a new member joins anexisting team. As members move on and off teams for a variety ofreasons ranging from promotions and turnover to changing taskdemands that necessitate compositional changes (cf. Mathieu et al.,2008), how would these changes influence shared expectations andtrust in ongoing teams? On the other hand, looking at virtual teams(VTs), lack of face-to-face cues about interpersonal affect such aswarmth and attentiveness are suggested to be major sources of con-flict (cf. Ayoko et al., 2012). Moreover, as the management of con-flicts and emotionality as one of the most critical and difficult tasksfacing VTs (Zaccaro & Bader, 2002), future research could explorethe relationship between expectations and conflicts among teammembers in VTs.

Finally, the proposed conceptual model in our paper could betested empirically. For example, critical incident techniques (e.g.Shamir & Lapidot, 2003) would be very useful in tracking relation-ships over time and in assessing the dynamics and development oftrust as they give useful insights especially as to how and when emo-tions (in)validating positive expectations based on swift trust aregenerated. Multiple cases could enable building more robust, gen-eralizable, and parsimonious theory using comparisons betweenmultiple effective and ineffective teams (cf. Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007).In-depth qualitative studies could be useful too (cf. Perks & Halliday,2003), however, simply telling ‘stories’ and describing individuals’feelings may be insufficient (Watson, 2011), as team members maynot be aware of, nor be able to articulate, what and how events haveaffected them or shaped their perceptions. On the other hand, whilebehavioral observations of team interactions may help to analyzethe development of conflicts and emotions (cf. Ayoko et al., 2012),they may not be able to tell how an individual member’s psycho-logical experience has evolved. Given the likelihood of complexi-ties of expectations and emotional reactions, each stage of teamdevelopment should be examined with a mix of case studies, in-depth interviews, longitudinal quantitative and qualitative work tocapture the complex nature of trust as it changes in interdepen-dent relationships.

Implications for practice

As our model suggests, one of the major challenges in manag-ing teams stems from the fact that each individual has different ex-pectations regarding appropriate behavior during team memberexchange. To overcome such challenges, a manager should encour-age team members to share information about their values and ex-pectations at the stage of initial team formation. While some teamsmay easily achieve consensus among all members, other teams mightonly agree to certain rules only after considerable discussion, ne-gotiation or voting (cf. Langfred, 2007). However, once norms thatteam members could universally adhere to are explicitly defined,teams could reduce negative surprises. The formative phase isclaimed to be a major point exerting considerable influence on sub-sequent project team processes and performance (Hackman, 2002).In addition, while empirical findings suggest that increasing teamexpectations could increase newcomer effectiveness (Chen &Klimoski, 2003), shared high expectation of exchange behaviorsamong team members may actually enhance overall team pro-cesses and outcomes (cf. Ayoko et al., 2012).

In addition, as social categorization processes are flexible and opento influence (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), highlighting common factorssuch as team membership and goals would help team members tomaintain team identity and therefore trust. These conversations anddiscussions could deal with the high uncertainty and anxiety facedby team members from diverse cultural backgrounds (cf. Cheng et al.,2012). Studies also show that increasing group distinctiveness canenhance group identification which in turn leads to increased per-formance since it is of particular importance to consider matters

of identity and identification when restructuring departments orwhen teamwork is introduced for the first time (van Dick, 2001).People-oriented leadership initiating trust-building activities (Long& Sitkin, 2006) and managing team members’ perceptions of threats(Williams, 2007) could foster trust (cf. De Jong & Elfring, 2010) andleverage diversity (Zander et al., 2012) among team members.

Managers could have training to develop communicative and sen-sitivity skills, given the importance of being aware of expectationsduring TMX. The notion of high level self-monitoring of thought andbehavior (cf. Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006) is asso-ciated with the development of social exchange, particularly in pro-fessional networks (e.g. Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). While humanbeings sometimes have difficulty encoding, representing, and in-ferring others’ social relationships (e.g. Janicik & Larrick, 2005), train-ing intended to improve capacities such as self-monitoring ofthoughts and behavior and a team building process to prompt teammembers to reflect on their behavior and interpersonal relationscould be helpful. Such training could be directly focused on devel-oping interpersonal relationships (cf. Banks et al., 2014).

Conclusion

Examination of individual members’ initial trust expectationsbased on their team membership identity allows us to explain teammember exchange behaviors. By looking at trust not just as a me-diating state but also as an input and output of the IMO model, weprovide an overview of the psychological aspects of team forma-tion and development, thus providing a possible explanation as towhy one team evolves into an effective unit and another into a non-effective one. In determining whether team development spirals ina positive or negative direction, we highlight the role of (dis)con-firmation of expectations based on initial trust and subsequent emo-tions since affective responses to groups are an integral part of workexperiences (Williams, 2001). We also draw attention to the subtledifferences between theories of social categorization and social iden-tity by challenging the view that team members automatically cat-egorize themselves based on surface-level demographic featuresleading to initial distrust. Alternatively, we argue that a commonidentity based on team membership could actually lead to swift trustamong team members at the time of team formation. This ap-proach may explain the inconsistent findings in existing literaturebetween diversity and team outcomes.

References

Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2004) Time, changeand development: the temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research 35,73–105.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academyof Management Review 14, 20–39.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995) Emotions in the work place: a reappraisal.Human Relations 48, 97–125.

Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York.Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010) Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and

social outcomes: the moderating role of transformational and emotionalleadership. European Management Journal 28, 220–235.

Ayoko, O. B., Konrad, A. M., & Boyle, M. V. (2012) Online work: managing conflict andemotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal 30,156–174.

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014)What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic reviewof team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35, 273–295.

Barber, B. (1983) The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press, NewBrunswick, NJ.

Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005) Exploring the role of emotions ininjustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 629–643.

Bedwell, W., Wildman, J., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W., & Salas, E. (2012)Collaboration at work: an integrative multilevel conceptualization. HumanResource Management Review 22, 128–145.

Bell, G. G., Oppenheimer, R. T., & Bastien, A. (2002) Trust deterioration in aninternational buyer-supplier relationship. Journal of Business Ethics 36(1/2), 65–78.

866 I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

Berscheid, E. (1983) Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey,T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, et al. (Eds.), Close Relationships (pp. 110–168). W. H.Freeman, New York.

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K., Zanutto, E., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009) Do workgroup faultlineshelp or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and groupperformance. Organization Science 20(1), 35–50.

Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. G. (1991) The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving

uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation andProsocial Behavior (pp. 190–211). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bosch-Sijtsema, P. (2007) The impact of individual expectations and expectationconflicts on virtual teams. Group & Organization Management 32, 358–388.

Boyle, R., & Bonacich, P. (1970) The development of trust and mistrust in mixedmotives games. Sociometry 33, 123–139.

Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Camp, R. D. (2007) Culture contingent signs of trust inemerging relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes104, 61–82.

Brewer, M. B. (1981) Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer& B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences (pp. 345–359).Jossey-Bass, New York.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996) Who is this “we”?: levels of collective identityand self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 83–93.

Brinthaupt, T. M., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1991) Sources of optimism amongprospective group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17,36–43.

Bunderson, J. S. (2003) Team member functional background and involvement inmanagement teams: direct effects and the moderating role of powercentralization. Academy of Management Journal 46, 458–474.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007) Trust in leadership: amulti-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly 18, 606–632.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998) The measurement ofcohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Sport and ExercisePsychology Measurement (pp. 213–226). Fitness Information Technology,Morgantown, WV.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998) On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. (2003) The impact of expectations on newcomer performancein teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchange, and empowerment.Academy of Management Journal 46(5), 591–607.

Cheng, C., Chua, R., Morris, M., & Lee, L. (2012) Finding the right mix: how thecomposition of self-managing multicultural teams’ cultural value orientationinfluences performance over time. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33, 389–411.

Choi, J. (2008) Event justice perceptions and employees’ reactions: perceptions ofsocial entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology 93, 513–528.

Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M., Weber, T., & Ernst, C. (2009) The challenge ofleading on unstable ground: triggers that activate social identity faultlines. HumanRelations 62(11), 1763–1794.

Chua, R., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008) From the head and the heart: locatingcognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academyof Management Journal 51, 436–452.

Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994) Affective causes and consequences ofSocial Information Processing. In P. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook ofSocial Cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 323–417). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journalof Sociology 94, 95–120.

Collins, R. (1989) Sociology: proscience or antiscience? American Sociological Review54, 124–139.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trustpropensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk takingand job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 909–927.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012) Explainingthe justice–performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust asuncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology 97, 1–15.

Costa, A. C. (2003) Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review 32, 605–622.Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996) The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):

development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust inOrganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 302–330). Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Davis, M. H. (1996) Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Westview Press, Madison,WI.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, teamperformance and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology 88(4), 741–749.

De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010) How does trust affect the performance of ongoingteams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy ofManagement Journal 53, 535–549.

De Souza, G., & Klein, H. J. (1995) Emergent leadership in the group goal-settingprocess. Small group research 26, 475–496.

Deutsch, M. (1958) Trust and suspicion. Conflict Resolution 2, 265–279.Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986) Leader-member exchange model of leadership:

a critique and further development. Academy of Management Review 11, 618–634.Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006) Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel

Review 35, 557–588.Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004) Transformational

leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management17(2), 177–193.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002) Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findingsand implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87,611–628.

Dukerich, J., Golden, B., & Shortell, S. (2002) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:the impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperativebehaviours of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 507–533.

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotionon trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88, 736–748.

Dyer, J., & Chu, W. (2003) The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costsand improving performance: empirical evidence from the United States, Japan,and Korea. Organization Science 14, 57–68.

Eggins, R. A., O’Brien, A. T., Reynolds, K. J., Haslamw, S. A., & Crocker, A. S. (2008)Refocusing the focus group: AIRing as a basis for effective workplace planning.British Journal of Management 19, 277–293.

Ellis, A. P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, D. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005) Anevaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: effects oncognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology 58, 641–672.

Ellsworth, P. C. (1991) Some implication of cognitive appraisal theories of emotion.International Review of Studies on Emotion 1, 143–161.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003) Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J.Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), The Handbook of AffectiveNeurosciences (pp. 572–595). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006) Collectivism as a moderator of responses toorganizational justice: implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation.Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 1–17.

Evans, C. R., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980) Group cohesion: a review and reevaluation. SmallGroup Behavior 11, 359–370.

Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008) It takes two to tango: aninterdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness andcooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes 107, 161–178.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990) A continuum of impression formation, fromcategory-based to individuating processes: Influences of information andmotivation on attention and interpretation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–74). Academic Press, San Diego.

Flynn, F. (2005) Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations.Academy of Management Review 39, 737–750.

Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006) Helping one’s wayto the top: self-monitoring achieve status by helping others and knowing whohelps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 1123–1137.

Foddy, M., Platow, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2009) Group-based trust in strangers: the roleof stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science 20, 419–422.

Forgas, J. P. (1992) Affect in social judgments and decisions: a multi-process model.In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp.227–275). Academic Press, San Diego.

Forgas, J. P. (1995) Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). PsychologicalBulletin 116, 39–66.

Frijda, N. H. (1988) The laws of emotion. American Psychologist 43(5), 349–358.Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust

across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management 38(4), 1167–1230.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. (2000) From superordinate goals to decatogorization,

recategorization, and mutual differentiation. International Journal of Psychology35, 193–194.

Gambetta, D. (1988) Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making andBreaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 213–237). Blackwell, New York.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2006) Cross-functionality and innovation innew product development teams: a dilemmatic structure and its consequencesfor the management of diversity. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology 15(4), 431–458.

Gillespie, N., & Mann, L. (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: thebuilding blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19, 588–607.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), (2002) Heuristics and Biases: ThePsychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Golub, S. A., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009) Anticipating one’s troubles: thecosts and benefits of negative expectations. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) 9(2),277–281.

Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D., & Zhu, J. (2013) A multilevel model of team goal orientation,information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal 56,827–851.

Good, D. (1988) Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust. In D. Gambetta (Ed.),Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 31–48). Blackwell, New York.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. AmericanSociological Review 25(2), 161–178.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domainperspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6, 219–247.

Hackman, J. R. (1987) The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook ofOrganizational Behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hackman, J. R. (1992) Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D.Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizationalpsychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 199–267). Consulting Psychologists Press, PaloAlto, CA.

Hackman, J. R. (2002) Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. HBSPress, Boston.

Han, G., & Harms, P. D. (2010) Team identification, trust, and conflict: a mediationmodel. International Journal of Conflict Management 21, 20–43.

867I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

Hardin, R. (1993) The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics and Society 21,505–529.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs asseparation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review32, 1199–1228.

Higgins, T. E. (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivationalprinciple. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp.1–46). Academic Press, New York, NY.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processesin organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review 25, 121–140.

Holmes, J. G. (1991) Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H.Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57–104).Jessica Kingsley, London.

Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., &Van Kleef, G. A. (2008) Facing differences with an open mind: openness toexperience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Journal 51(6), 1204–1222.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) Teams in organizations:from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology56, 517–543.

Jackson, J. E., & Joshi, A. (2004) Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevelanalysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior26(6), 675–703.

Janicik, G., & Larrick, R. (2005) Social network schemas and the learning of incompletenetworks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88, 348–364.

Jehn, K. A. (1997) Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions inorganizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 538–566.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998) The experience and evolution of trust: implicationsfor cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23, 531–546.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009) The role of context in work team diversity research: ameta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal 52, 599–627.

Kerr, N. L. (1983) Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 45, 819–828.

Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2011) Who and what is fair matters: a multi-focisocial exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32, 86–106.

Kiffin-Petersen, S., & Cordery, J. (2003) Trust, individualism and job characteristicsas predictors of employee preference for teamwork. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management 14, 93–116.

Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009) The repair of trust: a dynamic bi-lateralperspective and multi-level conceptualization. Academy of Management Review34(3), 401–422.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999) Beyond self-management: antecedents andconsequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 42,58–74.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001) The impact of team members’ cultural valueson job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams:the mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal 44,557–569.

Kollock, P. (1994) The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study ofuncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology 100, 315–345.

Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002) Trust in the face of conflict:role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal ofApplied Psychology 87(2), 312–319.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996) Team leadershipand development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders andteams. In M. Beyerlein, S. Beyerlein, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Advances inInterdisciplinary Studies of work Teams (pp. 253–292). JAI, Greenwich, CT.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groupsand teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 7, 77–124.

Kramer, R. M. (1996) Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in thehierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler(Eds.), Trust in Organizations (pp. 216–245). Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996) Collective trust and collectiveaction: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler(Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 357–389). Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kramer, R. M. (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives,enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology 50, 569–598.

Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010) Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches toreducing organizational trust deficits. In J. P. Walsh & P. B. Arthur (Eds.), TheAcademy of Management Annals (Vol. 4, pp. 245–277).

Langfred, C. W. (2007) The downside of self-management: a longitudinal study ofthe effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal 50, 885–900.

Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008) Antecedents of coworker trust: leaders’ blessings.Journal of Applied Psychology 93, 1130–1138.

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: thecompositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review23, 325–340.

Lawler, E. (2001) An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology107, 321–352.

Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. K. (1998) Network Structure and Emotion in Exchange Relations.American Sociological Review 63, 871–894.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, Appraisal and Coping. Springer, New York.Lazarus, R. S. (1991) Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist 46,

352–367.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 81, 146–159.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996) Developing and maintaining trust in workrelationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiersof Theory and Research (pp. 114–139). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998) Trust and distrust: new relationshipsand realities. Academy of Management Review 23, 438–459.

Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006) Models of interpersonal trustdevelopment: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.Journal of Management 32, 991–1022.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63(4),967–985.

Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005) Factional groups: a new vantage on demographicfaultlines, conflict and disintegration in work teams. Academy of ManagementJournal 48(5), 794–813.

Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2006) Trust in the balance: How managers integratetrust-building and task control. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook ofTrust Research (pp. 87–106). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K.

Lount, R. B., Zhong, C., Sivanathan, N., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008) Getting off on thewrong foot: restoring trust and the timing of breach. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 34(12), 1601–1612.

Luhmann, N. (1991) Trust and Power. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor,MI.

Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2010) The differential effect of team members’ truston team performance: the mediation role of team cohesion. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology 83, 771–794.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) What differences make a difference? The promiseand reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the PublicInterest 6(2), 31–55.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) A temporally based frameworkand taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 26,356–376.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007) The role, function, and contributionsof attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly 18, 561–585.

Massey, G. R., & Dawes, P. L. (2007) Personal characteristics, trust, conflict, andeffectiveness in marketing/sales working relationships. European Journal ofMarketing 41, 1117–1145.

Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008) Team Effectiveness1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future.Journal of Management 34, 410–476.

Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. (1999) The effect of the performance appraisal system ontrust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology84, 123–136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) An integrative model oforganizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 709–734.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005) Trust for management and performance: whominds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of ManagementJournal 48, 874–888.

McAllister, D. J. (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations forinterpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38,24–59.

McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2006) Trust in developing relationships:from theory to measurement. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meetings.Atlanta GA.

McCann, J. E., & Galbraith, J. R. (1981) Interpersonal relations. In P. C. Nystrom & W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), 7 (pp. 60–84). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McClelland, D. C. (1985) How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.American Psychologist 40, 812–825.

McCulloch, K. C., Ferguson, M. J., Kawada, C. C. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008) Taking a closerlook: on the operation of nonconscious impression formation. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology 44, 614–623.

McGrath, J. E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998) Initial trust formationin new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 23,473–490.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001) The social networks of high and lowself-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 46, 121–146.

Mesquita, L. F. (2007) Starting over when the bickering never ends: rebuildingaggregate trust among clustered firms through trust facilitators. Academy ofManagement Review 32, 72–91.

Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E., & Lui, L. (1983)Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 294–309.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups.In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory andResearch (pp. 166–195). Sage, London.

Mishra, A. K. (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R.M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory andResearch (pp. 261–287). Sage, London.

Molleman, E. (2005) Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personalitytraits: do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation 14,173–193.

Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2013) Shared leadership effectiveness in independentprofessional teams. European Management Journal 31, 423–432.

868 I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869

Murakami, Y., & Rohlen, T. (1992) Social-exchange aspects of the Japanese politicaleconomy: culture, efficiency and change. In S. Kumon & H. Rosovosky (Eds.), ThePolitical Economy of Japan: Cultural and Social Dynamics (pp. 63–105). StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA.

Ng, K. Y., & Chua, R. Y. J. (2006) Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differentialeffects of cognition- and affect-based trust. Management and Organization Review2, 43–66.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994) Stereotyping and Social Reality. Blackwell,Oxford.

Perks, H., & Halliday, S. V. (2003) Sources, signs and signalling for fast trust creationin organisational relationships. European Management Journal 21, 338–350.

Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002) How leaders influence theimpact of affective events on team climate and performance in R and D teams.Leadership Quarterly 13, 561–581.

Realo, A., Allik, J., & Greenfield, B. (2008) Radius of trust: social capital in relationto familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39,447–462.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) Trust in close relationships. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 49, 95–112.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994) Developmental processes of cooperativeinterorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 19, 90–118.

Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. (2007) It could be worse: a study on the alleviatingrole of trust and connectedness in intragroup conflict. International Journal ofConflict Management 18, 325–344.

Robert, L. P., Dennis, A. R., & Hung, C. (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face to face and virtual team members. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems 26(2), 241–279.

Robinson, J. A. (1980) Affect and retrieval of personal memories. Motivation andEmotion 4, 149–174.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) Not so different afterall: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23, 393–404.

Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004) A meta-analytic reviewof help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective. Cognition andEmotion 18, 815–848.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A., & Hannah, S. T. (2013) Developing trust with peers andleaders: impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry.Academy of Management Journal 56(4), 1148–1168.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007) An integrative model oforganizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review32, 344–354.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991) Mood and persuasion: affective statesinfluence the processing of persuasive communication. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24 (pp. 161–199). Academic Press, SanDiego.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988) How do I feel about it? The informative functionof affective states. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, Cognition, and SocialBehavior (pp. 44–62). Hogrefe, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Seers, A. (1989) Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-makingresearch. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 48, 118–135.

Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003) Trust in organizational superiors: systemic andcollective considerations. Organization Studies 24, 463–491.

Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992) Business on a handshake.Negotiation Journal 8, 365–377.

Shapiro, S. P. (1987) The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal ofSociology 93(3), 623–658.

Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993) Social accounts in conflict situations: using explanationsto manage conflict. Human Relations 46, 349–370.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007) Relational identity and identification: definingourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review 32, 9–32.

Smith, C. A. & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 48, 813–838.

Swann, W. B., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000) Should we create a niche or fall inline? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 79, 238–250.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. InS. Worchel & W. G. AuBtin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp.7–24). Nelson-Hall, Chicago.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley andSons Inc, New York.

Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009) The role of causal attribution dimensions intrust repair. Academy of Management Review 34, 95–104.

Tsui, A. S., Porter, L. W. , & Egan, T. D. (2002) When both similarity and dissimilaritymatter: Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations 55,899–929.

Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychology Bulletin 63,384–399.

van Dick, R. (2001) Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory andresearch from social and organizational psychology. International Journal ofManagement Reviews 3(4), 265–283.

Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998) When do we need proceduralfairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology75, 1449–1458.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean-Parks, J. (1995) Extra-role behaviours: Inpursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). InL. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17,pp. 215–285). JAI, Greenwich, CT.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004) Work group diversityand group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal ofApplied Psychology 89(6), 1008–1022.

Wagner, C. (1995) Biochemical role of folate in cellular metabolism. In L. B. Bailey(Ed.), Folate in Health and Disease (pp. 23–42). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992) The effect of metexpectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 288–297.

Watson, T. J. (2011) Ethnography, reality, and truth: the vital need for studies of “howthings work” in organizations and management. Journal of Management Studies48, 202.

Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005) Normal acts of irrational trust:Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Research inOrganizational Behavior 26, 75–101.

Weiner, B. (1986) An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag,New York.

Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., et al. (2012)Trust development in swift starting action teams: a multilevel framework. Groupand Organization Management 37, 138–170.

Williams, M. (2001) In whom we trust: group membership as an affectivecontext for trust development. Academy of Management Review 26,377–396.

Williams, M. (2007) Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotionmanagement: a threat regulation model trust and collaboration across boundaries.Academy of Management Review 32, 595–621.

Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000) What did you expect? An examination ofcareer-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journalof Management 26, 611–632.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2002) E-Leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams:minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics 31(4),377–387.

Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Butler, C. L. (2012) Leading global teams. Journal of WorldBusiness 47, 592–603.

Zucker, L. G. (1986) Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure,1840-1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in OrganizationalBehavior (Vol. 8, pp. 53–111). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

869I. Yang/European Management Journal 32 (2014) 858–869