Interpersonal trust & team effectiveness in manufacturing & IT sectors.

Neelam, Netra ; Kunte, Monica ; Gupta, Priya 等

Introduction

Recent studies have proved that there is interrelationship between team effectiveness and trust (Langfred, 2004; Kirkman et al, 2006; Simons & Peterson, 2000). The present study focuses on finding out if there is significant difference in the perception of team effectiveness and interpersonal trust between employees of IT and manufacturing sectors. The study also attempts to find the extent and direction of interrelationship between the various dimensions of team effectiveness and interpersonal trust. The diagrammatical representation of the model we are going to test is given in Fig. 1.

Team Effectiveness

Kozlowski and Bell (2003: 334) have defined team as: "collectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity." McGrath (1964) and Mathieu et al. (2008) have described team effectiveness in terms of input-process and output analysis.

Time seems to play a significant role in input-process and output analysis of team effectiveness.

Based on a study of 231 knowledge workers belonging to 27 work teams, Janz et al. (1998) found that design, process, and contextual support factors have important implications for team effectiveness. Positive relationship between team autonomy and team job motivation reduces as teams worked under more interdependent conditions. Several gaps remain in the current team effectiveness literature. Team work is largely dependent on coordination and backup system. Coordination implies the streamlining of the sequences and time of team activities (Marks et al., 2001). Backup implies providing coaching & mentoring to team members, by behaviorally helping members in the team activities, by working in his/her place if required or assisting team member for completion of the team work (Marks et al. 2001).

Various theories explain the antecedents of team effectiveness. For example: Socio-technical theory (e.g. Pasmore, 1988; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987) and work design theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) have focused on the design of the group's task. Self-leadership theory (Manz & Sims, 1986; Matz, 1986) has identified the supervisory behaviors as determinant of effectiveness of self-managed team whereas theory of participative management (Lawler, 1986; 1992) has pointed out the various dimensions of organizational context for success of team. Campion et al (1993) recognized job design and group process variables as predictors of team effectiveness. Cohen and Bailey (1997) have perceived team effectiveness in terms of performance, attitudes, and behaviors. Performance can further be categorized as team performance and role based performance. Another emerging concept looking into team effectiveness is team empowerment both structural and psychological (Mathieu et al., 2006).

Cohesion, or the commitment of team members to the team's overall task or to each other is another important aspect of team performance (Goodman, Ravlin & Schminke, 1987). Collaboration has also been identified as important antecedent of team effectiveness (e.g., Levesque et al 2001; Mathieu et al., 2005). Most studies on team effectiveness are related to the blue-collared employees (e.g., Cordery, Mueller & Smith, 1991; Goodman, 1979; Kemp, Wall, Clegg & Cordery, 1983; Wall, Kemp, Jackson & Clegg, 1986; Wageman, 1995; Walton, 1972). Few studies have examined the effectiveness of teams comprising knowledge workers and even fewer studies on information systems teams (Campion, Papper & Medsker, 1996; Henderson & Lee, 1992). It is more intense for teams who performed intellectual or decision-making tasks as compared to more physical ones. Further performance of virtual team level largely depends on the frequency and intensity of communication, adaptability to modes of communication and finally trust. Task related knowledge and clarity about it is another significant predictor for team performance (Mathieu & Schulze, 2006).

Langfred (2004) provided evidence that team-level trust has a downward concave curve relationship with the level of monitoring within the team or team autonomy. When individual autonomy is high and monitoring is low, team performance is negatively affected. Trust was found to be a positive moderator of the relationship between team training proficiency and team performance (Kirkman et al, 2006). It also appears to be a moderator within Top Management Team performance models in which it moderates the relationship between task and relationship conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000).

Interpersonal Trust

Zolen et al (2004) has found in geographical and cross-functional work environment initial perceived trustworthiness is of significance and influenced by commitment and follow-up carried during interaction. Rousseau et al. (1998) defined trust as "a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party." They have studied trust at individual level, group level, firm level and inter firm level. Trust has also been found to be positively associated with revenue and profit at the organizational level of analysis (Davis, et al., 2000; Simons & McLean Parks, 2002). Antecedents of trust are teamwork, leadership, and organizational culture (Fairholm, 1994; Nicholas, 1993; Ryan, 1999). Matzler and Renzl (2006) have found strong relationship between interpersonal trust, job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Trust has been found to reduce conflicts, decrease transaction costs, facilitate rapid formulation of ad hoc work groups and promotes effective responses to crises. Brashear et al (2003) found that interpersonal trust is most strongly related to shared values and indirectly related to organizational commitment and turnover intention.

There are three guiding principles of cognitive trust described by Newell et al. (2007): ability, benevolence and integrity. Ability refers to trustor's confidence on the knowledge base and competency of the trustee, benevolence is the trustor's faith on the goodwill and intention of the trustee. Integrity refers to trustee's reliability and dependability under the trustor's perspective.

Commitment trust is found at the initial stage when the entrepreneur commits himself to work for fulfillment of the objective mainly with motivation of reward of financial gain and challenge. Integrity is the dominant factor at this stage. This stage is soon to be followed by collaborative trust which is build over time, with employees and partners getting well aware of each other's competency. They have now developed a positive or a negative feeling for each other. This is the stage probably when they start preparing the succeeding generation. The ability factor is the key element at this stage of trust development. Finally, we have companion trust which is based on the feeling of benevolence. It is developed through special interaction outside the periphery of work. Trust emancipates individual's "expectation about those actions of others which have a bearing on her choice of the action, when the action must be taken before she can observe the actions of those others" (Dasgupta, 1988 : 312).

Trust incrementally develops over time depending upon other's choice to reciprocate cooperation and declines with same intensity when the other chooses not to reciprocate (Axelrod, 1984; Deutsch, 1958; 1973; Lindskold, 1978; Pilisuk & Skolnick, 1968). Swift trust may be developed in moderate interdependent tasks between parties where there is role based interaction, conscious efforts for reducing inconsistencies, broad professional standards laid out, recruitment of additional workforce from known labor pool lowering expectations for trust-destroying behavior (Meyerson et al., 1996). Ferrin (2003) defined multiple factors which determine level of trust are characteristics of the trustee and trustor, the kind of past and present relationship between the parties, mode of communication and structure of governance that define communication between the parties.

Abrahams et al. (2003) defined behaviors (e.g., discretion, consistency, collaboration) and practices (e.g., building shared vision, ensuring transparency in decision-making, holding people accountable for trust) that promote interpersonal trust in organizations. Measurement targets of trust vary from managers to subordinates, peers to team members etc. Various dynamics of trust include diary accounts and narratives (e.g., Baumeister, Stillwell & Wotman, 1990), critical incident techniques (e.g., Shamir & Lapidot, 2003), in-depth interviews (e.g., Butler, 1991), and case studies and communication analysis (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Wilson, Straus & McEvily, 2006). High level of Trust may create a "blindness" that can allow the trustor to be exploited and taken advantage of (e.g., Deutsch, 1958; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Kramer, 1996; Wicks, Berman, & Jones, 1999) and that a certain amount of "prudent paranoia" is appropriate in a relationship (Kramer, 1996).

Sample

The sample is constituted by 528 respondents of average age of 28 years. 265 respondents were from manufacturing sector and 263 respondents from IT sector (Table 1).

Team Effectiveness Measurement

For measuring Team effectiveness we have used 30-items bi-polar scale of Pareek and Purohit (2011: 672). It was developed by a team of health administrators based on literature review of team effectiveness and their own experiences and understanding of team effectiveness. The scale is measured in 5-point Likert scale. Half of the items are stated in positive and half in negative in order to avoid mental bias. Team effectiveness is broadly classified in two components: team functioning and team empowerment. Team functioning constitutes: cohesion, collaboration and confrontation. Team empowerment constitutes: task clarity, autonomy, support and accountability. Team Cohesiveness imply intensity of the interpersonal bonds between team members (Cook et al., 1997). It is linked to many positive outcomes e.g. problem awareness, acceptability to change, enhanced motivation, increased morale, better decision making and greater creativity (Budman et al., 1993; Chidambaram, 1996). Collaboration implies sharing of thoughts and ideas between members and collective action towards a common goal, in a spirit of harmony and trust (D'Amour et al., 2005).

Confrontation or conflict is a part of any team task but contention of such issues effectively and action towards seeking the best possible ways to accomplish goals as well as relational issues such as social loafing and personal hostility (Druskat & Wolff, 1999; Wageman, 1995) is of significance in team effectiveness. Task clarity implies awareness, understanding and internalization of both the goal and processes involved in the task by the group members (Sawyer, 1992). Autonomy is the measure of the extent to which team members experience substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in their work (Hackman, 1987; Susman, 1976). Four distinct facets of autonomy identified by researchers are planning, product, people, and process-related.

Support implies availability of financial, information, and human resources for achievement of the task goals (Janz et al., 1997). Accountability is the willingness to take not only individual responsibility but team responsibility in completion of task and enhance incremental performance contributions requiring the combined work of two or more members (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). The Chronbach's alpha-reliability of the scale for team effectiveness was found to be 0.879.

The internal consistency of various dimensions of team effectiveness, factor loadings of the items through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, p-value and RMSEA are given in Table 2.

Interpersonal Trust Scale

The instrument for interpersonal trust is a 24-items bipolar scale adapted from Pareek and -Purohit (2011: 236). The response on each item is to be given on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 stands for totally disagree and 4 stands for totally agree:

The dimensions of interpersonal trust taken into consideration are: communication, openness, professional support and managerial competence. Communication implies willingness to listen and share; i.e., to get involved and talk things through. Openness provides the trusting partners the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that information shared will not be used against them. Professional support refers to the extent to which employees can count on their colleagues to help and support them when needed. Supportive peer relationships in the workplace can be defined as deep associations with peers grounded on a sense of intimacy and trust, the sharing of thoughts and feelings, and the sense that one is able to seek help from the others. The Chronbach's alpha- reliability of the scale for interpersonal trust was found to be 0.609.

Test of Differences

We used t-test to compare the various dimensions of team effectiveness and interpersonal trust. It was found that there were no significant differences in the mean scores of various dimensions of team effectiveness between the IT and manufacturing industries. However significant differences in mean scores were found in interpersonal trust between the two industrial sectors with mean scores of IT industries significantly lower than the manufacturing industries for all the four dimensions, i.e., communication, openness, professional support and managerial competency (Table 3).

Correlation Analysis

From the correlation analysis we can find a significant positive correlation between organizational support and task clarity; managerial competence and task clarity; and finally managerial competence and confrontation. There is a significant negative correlation of accountability with communication and openness (Table 4). There was however no difference found in the scales of team effectiveness and interpersonal trust with respect to age or gender.

Discussion

There were no significant differences found in perceived team effectiveness in the samples of employees drawn from IT & manufacturing sectors but cohesion and autonomy were found to be two weaker dimensions of team effectiveness. Tekleab et al. (2009) have found that team cohesion is positively related to perceived performance, satisfaction with the team, and team viability. Cohesiveness can increase financial performance (Smith et al., 1994) and improve team decision making under time pressure (Zaccarro et al, 1995). Similarly, in a knowledge intensive industry, autonomy and external knowledge can complement each other for teams to reap the benefits of both and mitigate the risks. Ozaralli (2003) has concluded that a transformational leader or a competent manager can enhance subordinates' self reported empowerment & autonomy and that the more a team's members experience team empowerment, the more effective the team will be. All the six dimensions of team effectiveness are significantly and positively correlated with each other, the correlation coefficient ranging from 0.46 to 0.65. Hence, any intervention to increase one of the dimensions of team effectiveness is likely to increase the other dimensions too.

Further, task clarity has been observed to be closely linked with professional support and managerial competency. Fauske and Schelble (2002) have found in their study that lack of task clarity results in the loss of almost one third of valuable team meeting time. Our finding on the linkage between professional support and task clarity converges with the results of Conley et al. (2004) who have also found interrelationship between organizational support, task clarity and work team effectiveness in the context of teaching profession. Managerial competency is the capability of a manager to craft organization vision, communicate the vision to employees and empower and lead them for its attainment (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989)

This also include creation of a beneficial work environment (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Competent manager provides task clarity to team members. Ringer (1999), for instance, postulated that in a team environment there should be role clarity between leaders, co-leaders and other team members, otherwise, during the task-performing act the focus will be more in achieving role clarity than the task itself. Confusion and ambiguity of role clarity affect adversely team effectiveness. He also emphasized that ability in establishing with the group the primary task is the core competency of a leader or manager. We have also found that confrontation as a dimension of team effectiveness is related to managerial competency. Vilkinas and Cartan (1993) have identified that one of the core competencies of a manager is the role of a facilitator who builds a team, encourages participative decision making and manages conflict. Conflict management has a direct, positive effect on team cohesion (Tekleab et al., 2009)

Surprisingly, communication and openness were found to have inverse relationship with accountability. One of the reasons can be that many of the contemporary teams are virtual working teams especially in the case of IT sector. Interpersonal trust was found to be lower for this sector in all the four dimensions, including communication and openness. In the case of virtual community the internet or the online media also becomes a significant social actor (Friedman et al., 1999). Online media has increased the frequency of communication over space and time. But, in the absence of face to face interactions, onus is on the leader or manager to facilitate the development of good will among individuals and institutions in the virtual team (Friedman et al., 1999). The main problem in virtual team is the de-contextualization of communication which sometimes disrupts cultural convention. Further, Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) have found that virtual team working in projects may develop swift trust which does not last longer. Trust, cohesion, team identity have been identified as the challenging factors for virtual teams by many researchers (Kirkman et al., 2002). Wilson et al. (2006) have concluded through content analysis of literature that computer-mediated teams can develop same level of trust as face-to-face team over a span of time. Richer media such as audio-video media can enhance the intensity of trust, but there would still be delayed trust and fragile trust (Bos et al., 2002).

Conclusion

Team effectiveness and interpersonal trust are of paramount importance to an organization even more than the financial performance. There is no significant difference in the perceived team effectiveness between the information technology and manufacturing sectors. However, cohesiveness and autonomy were reportedly lower in both the sectors, which can be increased with higher managerial competency, organizational or professional support and task clarity. With intervention of computer aided media, there is increased level of communication and openness but decreased level of perceived accountability and security. Though the dimensions of interpersonal trust were reported to be lower in the case of employees from IT sector, for better understanding of trust level of teams, future researchers may consider task features of the teams such as level of interdependency, complexity of the task, autonomy, quality expectation, work cycle, procedural requirement as well as team structure and team composition. Other important factors that can be considered are organizational culture, tenure of the team since formation and tenure of the members in the team and in the organization.

References

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. & Levin, D. Z. (2003), "Nurturing Interpersonal Trust in Knowledge-sharing Networks", The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 64-77.

Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G. & Wright, Z. (2002), "Effects of Four Computer-mediated Communication Channels on Trust Development", in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 135-140, ACM, Minnesota, USA

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. & Wotman, S. R. (1990), "Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Conflict: Autobiographical Narratives about Anger", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5): 994.

Budman, S.H., S. Soldz, A. Demby, M. Davies & J. Merry (1993), "What Is Cohesiveness? An Empirical Examination", Small Group Research, 24(2): 199-216

Butler, J. K. (1991), "Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory', Journal of Management, 17(3): 643-63.

Campion M. A, Pappwr E. M, Medsker G J. (1996), "Relations between Work Team Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extension", Personnel Psychology, 49; 429-52.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993), "Relations between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness", Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups", Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823-50.

Chidambaram, L., (1996), "Relational Development in Computer--Supported Groups", MIS Quarterly, 20(2): 143-66.

Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. (1997), "What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite", Journal of Management, 23: 239-90.

Conley, S., Fauske, J. & Pounder, D. G. (2004), "Teacher Work Group Effectiveness", Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5): 663-703.

Cook, C.W., P.L. Hunsaker & R.E. Coffey (1997), Management and Organizational Behavior, McGraw -Hill Companies, Inc.

Cordery J. L, Mueller W. S, Smith L. M. (1991), "Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Autonomous Group Working: A Longitudinal Study", Academy of Management Journal, 34: 464-76.

D'Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L. & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005), "The Conceptual Basis for Inter-professional Collaboration: Core Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks, Journal of Inter-professional Care, 19(S1): 116-31.

Dasgupta, P. (1988), "Trust as a Commodity", in D. Gambetta, (ed), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Deutsch, M. (1958), "Trust and Suspicion", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4): 265-79.

Druskat, V. U. & Wolff, S. B. (1999, August). "The Link Between Emotions and Team Effectiveness: How Teams Engage Members and Build Effective Task Processes". In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1999, No. 1 : L1-L6). Academy of Management, USA

Elangovan, A. R. & Shapiro, D. L. (1998), "Betrayal of Trust in Organizations", Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 547-66.

Fairholm, G. W. (1994), Leadership and the Culture of Trust, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Fauske, J. & Schelble, R. (2002), "Valuing Teacher Teams in School Reform', paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA

Ferrin, D. (2003), "Definitions of Trust", presentation to a workshop, Building and Rebuilding Trust: State of the Science, Research Directions, Managerial Interventions. Workshop organized by Kurt Dirks and Don Ferrin, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.

Friedman, B., Omas, J. C., Grudin, J., Nass, C., Nissenbaum, H., Schlager, M. & Shneiderman, B. (1999), "Trust Me, I'm Accountable": trust and accountability online, in CHI'99 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 79-80 ACM.

Goodman P. S. (1979), Assessing Organizational Change: The Rush on Quality of Work Experiment, New York: Willey-Inter-science.

Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. & Schminke, M. (1987), "Understanding Groups in Organizations", Research in Organizational Behavior, 9:121-73.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976), "Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 250-79.

Hackman, J. R. (1987), "The Design of Work Teams", in J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior: 315-42. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A. (1984), "Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers", Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193-206.

Henderson J. C. & Lee S. (1992), "Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective", Management Science, 6: 757-77.

Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A. & Noe, R. A. (1997), "Knowledge Worker Team Effectiveness: The Role of Autonomy, Interdependence, Team Development, and Contextual Support Variables", Personnel Psychology, 50(4): 877-904.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Leidner, D. E. (1998), "Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams", Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(4): http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x/full.?

Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993), The Discipline of Teams, Harvard Business Press.

Kemp N. J, Wall, T. D, Clegg, C.W. & Cordery J, (1983), "Autonomous Work Groups in a Green Field Site: A Comparative Study", Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56: 271-88.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E. & Gibson, C. B. (2006), "Enhancing the Transfer of Computer-assisted Training Proficiency in Geographically Distributed Teams", Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3): 706-16.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E. & McPherson, S. O. (2002), "Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre", Inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3): 67-79.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003), "Work Groups and Teams in Organizations", in W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12: 333-75. London: Wiley.

Kramer, R. M. (1996), "Divergent Realities and Convergent Disappointments in the Hierarchic Relation: Trust and the Intuitive Auditor at Work", in R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Langfred, C. W. (2004), "Too Much of a Good Thing? Negative Effects of High Trust and Individual Autonomy in Self Managing Teams", Academy of Management Journal, 47, 385-99

Lawler, E. E. III. (1986), High-involvement Management, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E. III. (1992), The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Manz, C. C. (1986), "Self-leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-influence Processes in Organizations.", Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 585-600.

Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. (1986), "Leading Self-managed Groups: A Conceptual Analysis of a Paradox", Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7(2): 141-65.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001), "A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes", Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 356-76.

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L. & Ruddy, T. M. (2006), "Empowerment and Team Effectiveness: An Empirical Test of an Integrated Model", Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 97-108.

Matzler, K. & Renzl, B. (2006), "The Relationship between Interpersonal Trust, Employee Satisfaction, and Employee Loyalty", Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(10): 1261-71.

McEvily, B. & Tortoriello, M. (2011), "Measuring Trust in Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations", Journal of Trust Research, 1(1): 23-63.

McGrath, J. E. (1964), Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

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 and Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neergaard, H. & Ulhoi, J. P. (2006), "Government Agency and Trust in the Formation and Transformation of Inter-organizational Entrepreneurial Networks", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4): 519-39.

Newell, S., David, G. & Chand, D. (2007), "An analysis of Trust among Globally Distributed Work Teams in an Organizational Setting", Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3): 158-68

Nicholas, T. (1993), Secrets of Entrepreneurial Leadership, USA, Dearborn Financial Publishing, Inc..

Ozaralli, N. (2003), "Effects of Transformational Leadership on Empowerment and Team Effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6): 335-44.

Pareek,U & Purahit, S. (2011), Training Instruments in HRD and OD, Me Graw Hill.

Pasmore, W. A. (1988), Designing Effective Organizations: The Socio-technical Systems Perspective. New York: Wiley.

Pearce, J. A. & Ravlin, E. C. (1987), "The Design and Activation of Self-regulating Work Groups", Human Relations, 40(11): 751-82.

Ringer, M. (1999), "The Facile-itation of Facilitation? Searching for Competencies in Group Work Leadership", Scisco Conscientia, 2(1): 1-19.

Ryan, K. D. (1999), "Driving Fear Out of the Medication-use Process So That Improvement Can Occur", American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc., 56(17): 1765-69.

Sawyer, J. E. (1992), "Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and Consequences", Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2): 130.

Shamir, B. & Lapidot, Y. (2003), "Trust in Organizational Superiors: Systemic and Collective Considerations", Organization Studies, 24(3): 463-91.

Smith, C. & Comer, D. (1994), "Self-organization in Small Groups: A Study of Group Effectiveness within Non-equilibrium Conditions", Human Relations, 47(5): 553-81.

Susman, G. I. (1976). Autonomy at Work: A Sociotechnical Analysis of Participative Management, New York: Praeger

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R. & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). "A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness", Group & Organization Management, 34(2): 170-205.

Vilkinas, T. & Cartan, G. (1993), "Competences of Australian Women in Management", Women in Management Review, 8(3): 31-35.

Wageman, R. (1995), "Interdependence and Group Effectiveness", Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145-80

Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R. & Clegg, C. W. (1986), "Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-term Field Experiment," Academy of Management Journal, 29(2): 280-304.

Walton RE. (1972), "The Topeka Work System: Optimistic Visions, Pessimistic Hypotheses, and Reality", Harvard Business Review, 50: 70-81.

Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. (1989), "Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management", Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 17-32.

Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L. & Jones, T. M. (1999), "The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic Implications", Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 99-116.

Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G. & McEvily, B. (2006), "All in Due Time: The Development of Trust in Computer-mediated and Face-to-face Teams", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1): 16-33.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J & Minionis, D. (1995), "Task Cohesion as a Facilitator of Team Decision Making under Temporal Urgency", Military Psychology, 7(2): 77.

Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R. & Levitt, R. E. (2004), "Interpersonal Trust in Cross-functional, Geographically Distributed Work: A Longitudinal Study", Information and organization, 14(1): 1-26.

Netra Neelam (E-mail: netra_neelam@scmhrd.edu), Monica Kunte (E-mail: monica_kunte@scmhrd.edu), Priya Gupta (E-mail: priya_gupta@scmhrd.edu) & Sonali Bhattacharya (E-mail: sonali_bhattacharya @scmhrd.edu) are from Symbiosis International University SCMHRD, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, MIDC Hinjewadi, Pune 411057.

Caption: Fig. 1 Conceptual Model for Industry Type, Team Effectiveness & Interpersonal Trust Table 1: Sample Description Manufacturing Information Technology Male 219 192 Female 46 71 Table 2 Reliability & Factor Loadings of Various Dimensions of Team Effectiveness in the Sample Factors Items Factor Chronba- Loadings ch's alpha Task The goals of this team are 0.542279 Clarity well defined. 0.45 There is confusion amongst 0.221981 members of the team about its main tasks. Each member knows what his/her 0.99 role in the team is. Members of the team are not 0.094637 clear how to work towards the team goals. Cohe- Members of this team generally 0.163245 0.51 sion feel that their concerns and views are ignored by other members. Members support each other when 0.813492 required. This team does not function as a 0.347301 strong team. Members back the decisions taken 0.69733 by the group. Auto- The team has enough freedom to 0.171691 nomy decide its way of working. 0.47 The team only carries out the 0.62999 task given to it;it cannot decide its own priorities The members of the team have 0.397696 enough freedom in their own areas. The team does not have autonomy 0.720707 in vital aspects of its working. Confro- Members generally avoid 0.099179 ntation discussing the problems facing 0.34 the team. The team generates alternative 0.327867 solutions for a problem There is a lot of hesitation in 0.135341 taking hard decisions in this team. Members in this group do not 0.263851 hesitate to express their differences with each other. Support The team is given adequate 0.120498 resources to carry out its 0.48 functions. The team does not get adequate 0.306867 support needed to perform its tasks The team has enough competent 0.088953 persons needed for its work. There is lack of various 0.473257 resources (human and financial) required by the team. Accou- The sense of responsibility and 0.14462 ntability accountability is pretty high 0.57 amongst the team members. No one cares to assess true 0.346047 extent of achievement of the goals of the team. The team uses appropriate ways 0.223277 of assessing its accountability. The team does not have internal 0.425039 mechanism of assessing its progress in achieving its tasks. Factors Items p-value RMSEA for Chisq- Distribution at 2df Task The goals of this team are Clarity well defined. 0 0.28 There is confusion amongst members of the team about its main tasks. Each member knows what his/her role in the team is. Members of the team are not clear how to work towards the team goals. Cohe- Members of this team generally 0 0.23 sion feel that their concerns and views are ignored by other members. Members support each other when required. This team does not function as a strong team. Members back the decisions taken by the group. Auto- The team has enough freedom to nomy decide its way of working. 0 0.16 The team only carries out the task given to it;it cannot decide its own priorities The members of the team have enough freedom in their own areas. The team does not have autonomy in vital aspects of its working. Confro- Members generally avoid ntation discussing the problems facing 0 0.85 the team. The team generates alternative solutions for a problem There is a lot of hesitation in taking hard decisions in this team. Members in this group do not hesitate to express their differences with each other. Support The team is given adequate resources to carry out its 0 0.9 functions. The team does not get adequate support needed to perform its tasks The team has enough competent persons needed for its work. There is lack of various resources (human and financial) required by the team. Accou- The sense of responsibility and ntability accountability is pretty high 0 0.95 amongst the team members. No one cares to assess true extent of achievement of the goals of the team. The team uses appropriate ways of assessing its accountability. The team does not have internal mechanism of assessing its progress in achieving its tasks. Table 3 t-test for Difference of Means for Dimensions of Team Effectiveness and Interpersonal Trust Variables Industry Sector Mean Standard Deviation Task Clarity IT 62.33365019 17.2283895 Manufacturing 63.79385965 19.080083 Cohesion IT 60.02851711 17.6391454 Manufacturing 55.54824561 19.2966349 Autonomy IT 55.10931559 16.5054403 Manufacturing 55.54824561 18.8903456 Confrontation IT 55.15684411 15.3382776 Manufacturing 58.22368421 15.880737 Support IT 60.90779468 16.670336 Manufacturing 59.29824561 17.580952 Collaboration IT 60.05228137 16.2754022 Manufacturing 60.06578947 19.7286013 Accountability IT 59.41064639 17.7942707 Manufacturing 58.22368421 19.2050809 Communication IT 52.34410646 12.3530459 Manufacturing 56.3490566 12.3219074 Openness IT 333.3355513 72.2421996 Manufacturing 360.0216981 71.3817479 Professional IT 64.01330798 14.0456866 Support Manufacturing 68.38679245 14.2857876 Managerial IT 58.72243346 16.1231825 Competence Manufacturing 64.17358491 14.6723063 Variables Industry Sector t-statistics p-value Task Clarity IT 0.00699 0.994425 Manufacturing Cohesion IT 0.021091 0.983181 Manufacturing Autonomy IT 0.002153 0.998283 Manufacturing Confrontation IT 0.017097 0.986366 Manufacturing Support IT 0.008177 0.993479 Manufacturing Collaboration IT 0.000 0.999948 Manufacturing Accountability IT 0.736509 0.461749 Manufacturing Communication IT 3.729549 0.000213 *** Manufacturing Openness IT 4.26948 0.0000 *** Manufacturing Professional IT 3.546849 0.000425 *** Support Manufacturing Managerial IT 4.063602 0.0000 *** Competence Manufacturing *** Significant at 1% level Table 4 Correlation Analysis between the Variables under Study Team Effectiveness Interpersonal Trust Task Clarity Cohesion Autonomy Communication -0.00576 -0.05598 -0.039125 Openness 0.011306 -0.04179 -0.028692 Professional Support 0.1192 *** 0.040851 0.05514 Managerial Competence 0.09544 ** 0.053382 0.04728 Team Effectiveness Interpersonal Trust Confrontation Support Communication -0.06099638 0.016383 Openness -0.047896881 0.015293 Professional Support 0.04912127 0.10698 ** Managerial Competence 0.09178 ** 0.00499 Team Effectiveness Interpersonal Trust Collaboration Accountability Communication -0.035613766 -0.0914 ** Openness -0.033535737 -0.10141 ** Professional Support 0.033194759 -0.01085772 Managerial Competence 0.033687329 -0.05140045 *** "Significant at 1% level of significance, and ** significant at 5% level of significance