Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions

• Date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213
• Published date: 01 February 2018

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW

Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model,

and future directions

Ana Cristina Costa

1

|C. Ashley Fulmer

2

|Neil R. Anderson

1

1

Brunel Business School, Brunel University

London, London, U.K.

2

Tippie School of Business, Department of

Management and Organizations, University of

Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Ana Cristina Costa, Brunel Business School,

Brunel University London, London, UB8 3PH,

U.K.

Email: ana‐cristina.costa@brunel.ac.uk

Funding information

NASA/Johnson Space Center, Grant/Award

Number: NNJ16HP08P

Summary

This article presents an integrative review of the rapidly growing body of research on trust in

work teams. We start by analyzing prominent definitions of trust and their theoretical founda-

tions, followed by different conceptualizations of trust in teams emphasizing its multilevel,

dynamic, and emergent nature. We then review the empirical research and its underlying theoret-

ical perspectives concerning the emergence and development of trust in teams. On the basis of

this review, we propose an integrated conceptual framework that organizes the field and can

advance knowledge of the multilevel nature of trust in teams. Our conclusion is that trust in

teams resides at multiple levels of analysis simultaneously, is subject to factors across levels in

organizations, and impacts performance and other relevant outcomes both at the individual and

team levels. We argue that research should not only differentiate between interpersonal trust

between members from collective trust at the team level but also emphasize the interplay within

and between these levels by considering cross‐level influences and dynamics. We conclude by

proposing 4 major directions for future research and 3 critical methodological recommendations

for study designs derived from our review and framework.

KEYWORDS

emergence, multilevel, team performance, teams, trust

1|INTRODUCTION

More than four decades of research has unequivocally shown that

trust in teams is vital for the effective functioning of work relation-

ships. Trust becomes especially relevant in environments where high

interdependence, close cooperation, teamwork, and requirements for

flexibility predominate (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). With the expan-

sion of various forms of team‐based work, the study of trust in work

teams

1

has gained momentum, and considerable research has accumu-

lated particularly at two specific levels of analysis—interpersonal trust

between individual members at the individual level and team trust that

is shared among members at the team level. Although significant prog-

ress has been made in identifying critical factors and outcomes of trust

at these levels, research has yet to comprehensively examine the

dynamic influences between individuals, the team, and the context

within which teams operate and how these contribute to explain trust

in teams. This is important as work teams are inevitably embedded in a

multilevel environment with contextual influences affecting the com-

plex workflow arrangements that develop as team members interact

over time (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

The aim of this article is thus to organize and review past work and

new developments on trust in teams by taking a multilevel approach

that encompasses both individual‐and team‐level conceptualizations

in order to reflect the dynamic and emergent nature of trust in teams.

This integration of theory and research across levels enables us to

advance an innovative and comprehensive multilevel framework that

can serve as a foundation for future theory and research on trust in

work teams. Importantly, this framework considers trust in teams

residing both at the individual and team levels. It builds on prior

research findings and theoretical perspectives to develop a multilevel

account that reflects the dynamic and reciprocal influences, as well

as cross‐level effects, all of which impact team performance and other

outcomes.

Our systematic review summarizes 125 empirical studies, research

papers, and meta‐analyses published between 1972 and 2017 across

54 different journals in Organizational Sciences and Applied

1

Consistent with prior team research, we define teams as groups of interdepen-

dent individuals who perceive themselves and are perceived by others as social

entities (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996).

Received: 7 October 2015 Revised: 11 May 2017 Accepted: 6 June 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2213

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:169–184. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 169

Psychology and 16 books. We searched for papers using various

search terms, including trust in teams,team trust, and trust between

team members, to retrieve journal articles from the Academic Search

Complete, Business Source Complete, PsycArticles, Science Direct,

Google Scholar, and Research Gate databases. We review and organize

trust studies across a wide range of teams, including ongoing (long‐

cycled) and project (short‐term) teams, as well as cross‐functional

and virtual teams.

Our review thus builds on and extends prior literature in a number

of important ways. First, as the first review targeted at trust research

on work teams, we analyze prominent definitions of trust and their

theoretical foundations in relation to the team context, noting several

prominent issues of debate in the literature. Second, we clarify concep-

tualizations of trust in teams both at the individual and team levels of

analysis, highlighting functional similarities and differences as well as

the dynamics between these levels. Third, we comprehensively review

different theoretical approaches to the emergence and development

of trust in teams. Fourth, we propose an integrative, multilevel frame-

work of trust in teams in order to guide and stimulate future research

efforts. We do this by critically reviewing and organizing the extant

findings in this area, highlighting key multilevel factors affecting trust

in teams and its outcomes. Finally, on the basis of our multilevel frame-

work, we conclude by proposing directions for future research and

methodological recommendations derived from our review.

2|THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

TRUST RESEARCH IN TEAMS

A multitude of definitions of trust, including trust in teams, can be

found in the literature. Previous reviews have extensively discussed

these definitions in terms of their divergent meanings and overlapping

features (e.g., Costa, Ferrin & Fulmer, 2017, in press; Dirks & Ferrin,

2001; Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006; Kramer, 1999). Although

a unified definition remains elusive, scholars researching trust in teams

largely recognize trust as a psychological state (Fulmer & Gelfand,

2012) that is influenced by the complex interrelations between expec-

tations, intentions, and dispositions (e.g., Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,

1995; McAllister, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).

Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al. (1998) define trust as a willing-

ness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of trust-

worthiness. Here, positive expectations of trustworthiness refer to

perceptions, beliefs, or expectations about intentions, motivations,

and behavior of the trustee(s) (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). A willingness

to accept vulnerability refers to suspension of uncertainty by assuming

that another's actions would be beneficial, favorable, or at least not

detrimental (Mayer et al., 1995; Möllering, 2006; Robinson, 1996).

Other definitions have emphasized trust's cognitive and affective

foundations (McAllister, 1995). We discuss these relevant definitions

further below.

2.1 |Integrative model of trust

Although its primary focus is on interpersonal trust between two spe-

cific parties, Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007) contend that their

integrative model can apply to trust in a group or organization. Accord-

ing to this model, trust is a function of one's propensity to trust people

in general together with perceptions of trustworthiness about the spe-

cific other(s) in terms of ability, benevolence, and integrity, which then

leads to trusting behaviors, that is, risk taking in the relationship. In

other words, trust is assumed to mediate relations between propensity

to trust, trustworthiness perceptions, and trusting behaviors. This

model also assumes that trust is dynamic, such that there is a feedback

loop from outcomes of trusting behaviors to perceived trustworthiness

of the trustee. Numerous studies have built upon this model to explain

differences in trust across work relationships, yet empirical examina-

tion of the full model is rare, particularly in teams. One study by

Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998) shows that ability, integrity, and

benevolence were associated with team trust in global virtual teams.

Meta‐analytical evidence from a range of interpersonal trust studies,

while providing strong support for the influences of both trust propen-

sity and trustworthiness perceptions on trust, also reveals their direct

effects on a number of outcomes (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).

2.2 |Cognitive and affective trust foundations

According to this model, trust has distinct cognitive and affective foun-

dations (McAllister, 1995). Cognitive‐based trust is based on the avail-

able knowledge about the trustee's competence, reliability, and

dependability (Luhmann, 1979). People choose whom they will trust

in which respects and under which circumstances, based on what they

consider as being evidence of trustworthiness (Lewis & Weigert,

1985). Affective‐based trust is based on emotional investments, genu-

ine care, and concern for the welfare of partners and the belief that

these sentiments are reciprocated (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). In work

teams, both affective‐and cognitive‐based trust has been found to

increase the ability of team members to work together (Barczak, Lassk,

& Mulki, 2010). Further, the two foundations are assumed to recipro-

cally affect each other, and their qualitative combination is expected

to differ across relationships. Although there is evidence supporting

this two‐factor model, research also indicates that cognitive‐based

trust precedes affective‐based trust (McAllister, 1995) and that cogni-

tive‐based trust may be more relevant to team performance than

affective‐based trust (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008; Hempel, Zhang,

& Tjosvold, 2009).

2.3 |Ongoing debates

In addition to conceptualizations of trust as a psychological state, it

should be noted that in behavioral economics and other related fields,

research has focused on behavioral trust. The game literature has

extensively examined trust through cooperation and norms of reci-

procity (Axelrod, 1984). Games research highlights two important con-

ditions facilitating cooperation between parties: repeated interaction

over time (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995) and a history of past

cooperative transactions (Buskens & Weesie, 2000). Games research

has been important to understand the role of behavior (e.g., coopera-

tion) in the reciprocal relation with trust. In a team setting, research

by Serva, Fuller, and Mayer (2005) shows the importance of tracking

not only behaviors but also trustworthiness perceptions and

170 COSTA ET AL.