Measuring team trust: A critical and meta‐analytical review

Summary Team trust is gaining attention in research and practice due to its benefits for team performance, yet clarity about the intricacies of its measurement is needed. Therefore, we meta‐analyzed 118 studies (N = 7,738) to untangle the role of measurement features by investigating the degree to w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of organizational behavior 2020-06, Vol.41 (5), p.479-501
Main Authors: Feitosa, Jennifer, Grossman, Rebecca, Kramer, William S., Salas, Eduardo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Concept formation
Group performance
Measurement
Meta-analysis
Organizational behavior
Organizational change
Source studies
Teams
trust
Wording
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Team trust is gaining attention in research and practice due to its benefits for team performance, yet clarity about the intricacies of its measurement is needed. Therefore, we meta‐analyzed 118 studies (N = 7,738) to untangle the role of measurement features by investigating the degree to which they influence the trust–performance relationship. Results showed that the trust–performance relationship is contingent upon time lag and source of measurement. Specifically, cross‐sectional and single‐source studies produced higher effect sizes than time‐lagged and different‐source studies. In contrast, the moderating roles of conceptualization–operationalization alignment and referent of trust measures were not supported. Post hoc analyses revealed that affective trust is more strongly related to global, versus specific team outcomes, and that mixed‐referent items are particularly effective within intact teams, whereas the trust–performance relationship is constrained when direct consensus items are used within ad hoc teams. Furthermore, we provided a critical review that highlights the importance of composites, multilevel forces, and item content and wording. Finally, we clarified key gaps in the literature, calling for research where needed. This review serves as a bridge between conceptualization and measurement and lays the groundwork for advancing knowledge of team trust.
ISSN:0894-3796
1099-1379
DOI:10.1002/job.2436