- Jan 2024
-
Local file Local file
-
etting su-pervisors’ and work groups’ trust on the same “page” should beviewed as an ongoing venture
Continuous improvement of leader and employee development.
-
Because the development of their trust in each other involvesstructured interactions between supervisors and subordinates(Brower et al., 2009), more fine-grained study of these interactionscould be useful.
An interesting future research implication.
-
Third, we also note there is apotential for bias in the performance ratings in that supervisorswho had higher trust in their groups may have rated their mem-bers’ performance higher
I had not considered this as a potential bias until the authors pointed it out. Good to keep in mind.
-
This suggests an organiza-tions’ first priority should be to ensure supervisory competenciesby appropriate selection and training program
Ah, the importance of training and educating leaders is a potential solution to holistic workplace development!
-
Regarding cognitive trust, research has suggested that demon-strating performance reliability is necessary in developing cogni-tive trust
The difference between affective and cognitive is that cognitive requires a demonstration of reliability from both parties, not just the supervisor.
-
Regarding affective trust, our results suggestorganizations should facilitate supervisor and work group effortsto develop congruent trust at as high a level as possible. Such trustdevelopment may begin initially when supervisors display trust-worthy behavior to their work groups
Could this be implemented into annual training or a convocation-like practice? Affective trust
-
members’ shared beliefs about the leader’scompetence (i.e., cognitive trust in leadership) may increase con-fidence in their abilities to pursue team goals effectively (i.e., teampotency;
OH! It is the group members' collective beliefs that create the trust level in the supervisor. An average, if you will.
-
t is interesting that when work groups’ cognitive trust in theirsupervisors was greater than their supervisors’ cognitive trust inthem, both group task performance and OCB were sustained ratherthan diminished.
A workgroup believing in their supervisor or trusting them is effective regardless of how high the supervisor's level of trust is in the workgroup. I would assume the workgroup would know how the supervisor feels. But it does not seem to matter. If the supervisor has some trust and shows this, it could be all that is needed.
-
truststems from parties’ mutual understanding of their interactionalhistory.
This is an interesting concept. Both parties must have a mutual understanding of their interactional history in order to have trust in their relationship.
-
Hypothesis 2b was sup-ported, however, demonstrating that performance outcomes arehigher when supervisor– group cognitive trust congruence occursat higher rather lower levels of trust.
Cognitive trust congruence is a key factor in trust.
-
Overcoming relational risksallows group members to become fully engaged in their work(Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011) and perform at a higherlevel
Forbes article that elaborates on trust in psychological safety.
-
Wecompared the demographic data of respondents with those of theoverall guest services workforce in the company, finding no signifi-cant differences in age, gender, education, or tenure
The lack of significant findings has the potential to make this data generalizable.
-
psychological
Trust & psychological benefits
-
utual sharing of work-related andextrarole issues
Mutual sharing of the work--that is a big deal!
-
Research Question Tests
Because I have focused more on qualitative in this program, I honestly forgot about separate hypothesis and research question testing.
-
Supervisor– group affective trust congruence and incongruenceeffects on group task performance. Solid line ! congruence line; dashedline ! incongruence line
This figure is the first I have seen of its kind. I am facinated.
-
Although I spent four years in a job that conducted statistical analysis every day, this is still intimidating.
-
We therefore used an additive/average rule incomputing group level performance effort (i.e., work group motiva-tion) and outcomes (i.e., group task performance and group OCB) torepresent members’ collective contribution
This is a good to know! I had no idea.
-
iven the track record of members in my group, I see no reasonto doubt their competence and preparation for their jobs” (cogni-tive trust, " ! .77
Are these questions original or modified? I see that they were modified from the original scale items.
-
The method of back-translation (Bris-lin, 1980) was used to translate items from English to Chinese.
What is the risk of misinterpretation between languages?
-
Republic of China
Would the data look different from another country?
-
Hypothesis 3b:
My first thought was this is a lot of hypotheses, and then I realized that most of my research has been qualitative.
-
esearch Question 1: Does the direction of affective andcognitive trust incongruence between supervisors and workgroups affect group task performance and OCB?
This is interestingly phrased. A qualitative alternative could be "How do perceptions of affective and cognitive trust incongruence between supervisors and work groups impact group task performance and OCB?"
-
f trust incongruence, a range of disruptive dynamicscould send parties spiraling into opposition (
In other words, it creates a psychologically unsafe environment.
-
rust incongruence occurs when parties differ in the degree withwhich they trust each other, and hampers exchanges because thosewith less trust are hesitant to accept exposure to relational risk
Important definition
-
Groups assured oftheir supervisors’ abilities would more confidently accept perfor-mance feedback (Mayer & Gavin, 2005), whereas supervisorshaving confidence in their groups’ task-related capabilities aremore likely to offer assistance that improves groups’ collectiveperformance
Essentially, mutual trust benefits both parties and creates a continuous improvement feedback loop.
-
hen supervisors increase sub-ordinates’ perceptions of their benevolence (by rendering care andsupport), ability (by demonstrating skill and competence), andintegrity (by adhering to ethical principles), a climate of trust in thesupervisor is promoted
This reminds me of psychological safety.
-
roposed theoretical model. OCB ! organizational citizenship behavior.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.1351TRUST CONGRUENCE
The data sources and how they are reported in the figure make sense. However, I wonder if a "group-think" instance may occur.
-
too much trust could be detrimental
I never considered this as a possibility.
-
ecent research provides evidence that supervi-sors’ and group members’ trust in each other can vary (Brower,Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009), and that trust variation canweaken the positive effect trust has on work outcomes
I wonder how diversity and/or disability affect the variation of trust.
-
Trust congruence occurs when two parties express the samemagnitudes of trust in each other
Essentially mutual trust.
-
But rather than being simply a psychological experience, we arguetrust is a social reality for both supervisors and work groups(Lewis & Weigert, 1985) that builds predictability in their day-to-day interactions.
I like this elaboration better than the previous statement. It clicked.
-
We argue that focusing specifically on mutual trust (orlack of it) between these parties could allow a better understandingof if and how the nature of relations between them impacts groupeffectiveness
I had to read this multiple times. The point is that mutual trust and interactional relationships affect the overall group and the group's performance.
-
Although hypothesized congruence effects onperformance were more strongly supported for affective rather than for cognitive trust, we foundsignificant indirect effects on performance (via work group motivation) for both types of trust
Important finding.
-