Trust in Leadership and Team Performance - Essay Example

Trust is a crucial element of effective leadership that can impact followers in ways ranging from the mundane to the exotic (Burke, 2007). For example, trust has been found to explain why some employees effectively complete their jobs and in addition go above and beyond the call of duty in their work without clear recompense. Among the more heroic aspects, trust can help explain why individuals have been willing to follow the vision of leaders, in some cases placing their fate (and at times their lives) in the hands of the leaders in contexts that range from modern organizations to ancient armies and expeditions. Studies have suggested that there is a relationship between trsut and performance. (Erdem, Ozen and Atsan, 2003, p338). The idea under consideration is whether or not trust in the effective work of teamwork is a critical success factor for most organizations. The idea in the argument is to discover whether or not there actually is relationship between team performance and the trust that the members of the team place in the leadership. T he following is an analysis of the variable called trust in the leadership and follower equation in any given organization. The idea is to understand the issues that arise with respect to trusting the leader in the modern corporate atmosphere and whether or not trust is in fact still a factor with respect to the presence of leadership and leadership abilities where trust is concerned (Kook, 2007, 24). There are those that accept that trust is the very basic foundation without which a leader cannot exist, given the fact that it is due to the factor of trust that a person would be willing to be vulnerable, it would have an impact on his/her ability to gain knowledge and the creative thinking prowess that the person could cultivate. Finally, in times of change and instability, people turn to personal relationships. Trust is a positive expectation that another person will not through words, actions, or discussion act opportunistically (Nootenbloom, p36, 2002). Positive expectation assumes knowledge and familiarity with the other person/party. This is based on experience. This takes time to build. Most of us find it hard to trust someone but as we get to know the person and the relationship matures we gain confidence. Amo9ng orgniozational scholars trust has received attention as a mechanism of organizational control and more specifically as an alternative to price and authority as a response to the emphasis on opportunities that pervades agency theory and trabscatuons cot economics as a key belief and philosophies. Within the ranks of managers, trust has been recognized as a mjor issue in building supplier relations. One can begin this discussion by defining the term leader and the expected traits that a leader would have to exhibit so that there is a level of trust and respect for him and his decisions within a given team. A leader is one that has managerial authority and a level of influence over the decisions and actions of the members of his given team (Kook, 2007, 24). By this account therefore the most often come across manifestation of the leader in modern times is the corporate manager that has appointed and formal authority to carry out the expected leadership functions within a defined area of action. A leader would thus be expected to have the drive to succeed that could inspire the team, he needs to be honest and impartial, and a leader that is not intelligent would arouse derision instead of awe and acceptance (Robins and Koulter, p422, 2002). Finally the leader would have to have the desire to be the leader and be in possession of job-relevant knowledge. Trust would therefore be both the specific expectation that another’s actions will be beneficial and not detrimental and the genralised ability to take for granted to take under trust, a vast array of features of social order. One would have to clarify at this juncture that the qualities of successful leadership are the very qualities that would arouse trust in the leadership as well. The competence of person for example would depend on his technical and interpersonal knowledge and skills. The team would therefore base their trust on a knowledge that the person knows what they are asking for. No team would listen to, trust in or accept the commands of a leader that they do not respect. There have been numerous attempts that have been made in the past to understand the issue of trust in leadership, spanning disciplines like organizational psychology, management, public administration, organizational communication and education (Kook, 2007, 26). Although the vast nature of this research could be viewed as a potential strength for understanding trust, it could at times also present a challenge to accessing and making sense of this body of research. Related to the issue of trust is the issue of betrayal. Betrayal is systematic and affects the whole system. A member if the team when betrayed could still be a part of the team and feel like an outsider if betrayed, this would also mean that betrayal becomes an issue with an employee that values openness and honesty (Reina, 1998, p18). The greater is the employee’s commitment toward and involvement in an assigned job the greater would be the level of betrayal experienced by them in such a case. It also needs to be remembered that betrayal is an experience that could be determined only by the betrayed. Due to the sweeping changes that characterize contemporary corporate existentialism around the world, individuals and organizations are increasingly vulnerable to betrayal (Shen and Chen, 2007, p43). It might also be imperative here to point out that the feeling of betrayal does not always move from the leadership to the follower but at times can be reversed as well. The leader could for example feel as betrayed as a member of the team. It has been proven that trust in leadership has a significant relationship with individual outcomes including job performances (Kurt, Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). This would mean therefore that trust is the fuction that over and abover others responsible in the performance of the team and the way in which it relates to the leader would, with the amount of trust varying, would result in the manifestation if characteristiuc similarity and some positive experience. The relationship and character based theoretical perspectives describe two different mechanisms by which trust might affect behavior and performance. The relationship based perspective is grounded in principles of social exchange and deals with employee’s willingness to reciprocate care and consideration that a leader would express in relationship with the team. In other words, individuals who feel that their leader has demonstrated care and consideration or will do so would tend to reciprocate this sentiment in the form of desirable behavior (Krammer and Tyler, 1996, p23). A social exchange relationship encourages individuals to spend more time on required tacks and be willing to engage in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to go above and beyond the call of duty. Within the aegis of a given company, managers are the primary designers of the total organizational form employed. Based in the nature of their role relative to trust in organizations, managers affect trust levels in several ways. Predispositions to trust and distrust are therefore embedded in the managerial philosophies. This would in the long run define the interactions and the overall performances of the team and whether or not the team functions in a smoother manner as compared to others. The past decade has therefore seen a growing recognition of the role of trust and distrust in an organizational deisgn (Krammer and Tyler, 1996, p23). Trust can be understood in three basic formats (Lisack and Roos, pp55, 2004). First and foremost, deterrence based trust is based on fear of retaliation or punishment in case of a violation of the trust, the idea therefore is to make the team accede to leadership wishes by instilling in them a fear of consequences in terms of punishment. The new manager employee relationship is an example of trust by fear. They fear the consequences. The employee typically trusts a new boss even though there is little to base that trust on. This trust lies in the authority held by the boss and the punishment he/she can impose. The second most important factor that inspires trust is knowledge based trust. This comes from the history of interaction. It exists when the employee has an adequate knowledge about someone and can predict the leader’s behavior. Predictability enhances trust. Finally, Identification Based Trust is achieved when there is an emotional conduction between the parties. The parties understanding each others’ intentions and appreciate the mutual wants and desires. The results of using structural equation modeling to conduct hypotheses testing show that leadership has a positive effect on team trust and team performance, and that team trust also has a positive effect on team performance (Jian and Chia, 2007) . One conclude this discussion with a discussion on former mayor, New York City, Giuliani, a modern time leader and an awe inspiring model for many. He was mayor of one of the busiest, and most renowned global cities for over seven years and his leadership of the city saw some of the most turbulent times that any city has seen in contemporary history. His was a leadership based on conflict. He fought, cajoled, and berated. He faced public criticism as times and yet he ensured that New York was cleaner and safer city to be in. After the collapse of the twin towers, his presence on TV, while he was on the site has been hailed by many as one of the best examples of how a leader needs to acting times of crisis. He was there as soon the first plane hit, helping his troops and ensuring that the best was made of a bad situation. In conclusion therefore one may state that there are number of issues that one would need to consider while understanding the issues of trust and the factors that would arouse trust in a given leader. Nevertheless, one thing that would come across clearly is that a leader who holds himself above the team can never be a member of the team and there can be no trust in such a leader. A leader in order to get trust would have to give it, he would have to be loyal and place the interests of the team before his own. Reference: Kurt D K, Dirks K T and Ferrin D L, Trust in Leadership, Mata analytical Findings, and implications for organized research, pub, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp611-628 Cook K S, Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, pub, Russel Sage Foundation, 2007 Reina M L, Trust and betrayal in the workplace, pub, Berret Kohler Store, 1999 Nootenbloom B, Trust: forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures, pub, Barnes and Nobles, 2002 Lisack M and Roos J, 2004, Be Coherent, Not Visionary, pub, Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol.34 No.1 Erdem F, Ozen J and Atsan N, The relationship between trust and team performance, 2003, pub, Journal of Work Study, Vol.52 N0.7, p338 Krammer R M and Tyler T R, Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, 1996, pub, Sage Publications, Shen M J; Chen M C, Relationship of leadership, trust and tem performance: A comparison of the manufacturing and services industry, pub, Social Behavior and Personality, May 30, 2007 Burke C S,. Sims D E,. Lazzara L E and Salas E, 2007, Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration, pub, The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 18, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 606-632 Robins S P and Koulter M K, 2002, Management, pub, A1 Books, p422 Read More