TO SPEAK UP OR NOT?
The effects of team psychological safety and team learning goals on the relationship between intrateam trust, peer control and team performance.
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Master’s Thesis HRM EBM722B20 June 12, 2020 Mariska Laning S3715027 Ebbingedwinger 7 9712 MA Groningen Tel.: 06-49375347 E-mail: m.laning@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema 2nd assessor: Yingjie Yuan
2 ABSTRACT
Considering the positive outcomes of peer control in the workplace it is important to understand when and how team members want to speak up. Therefore, the present research examines the roles of trust and psychological safety at a team level in an organizational context as potential antecedents of this phenomenon. Moreover, the rather new variable of ‘team learning goals’ is introduced. Specifically, I propose that intrateam trust is positively related to peer control, and that the positive relationship between intrateam trust and peer control is stronger (weaker) when team psychological safety is high (low) rather than low (high), and that the positive relationship between intrateam trust and team performance is fully mediated by peer control, such that intrateam trust promotes peer control, which in turn promotes team performance, and lastly that the positive indirect relationship between intrateam trust and team performance as mediated by peer control is stronger (weaker) when team learning goals are high (low) rather than low (high). Team members and their supervisors from various Dutch institutions and organizations participated in this study. Results show that intrateam trust is indeed positively related to peer control. However, no support was found for the moderating role of psychological safety and the positive mediating role of peer control. Furthermore, the results do suggest an interaction effect between peer control and team performance, such that it ameliorates the negative effects of peer control on team performance quality. I discuss the theoretical and practical implications of my findings.
Keywords:
3 TO SPEAK UP OR NOT?
The effects of team psychological safety and team learning goals on the relationship between intrateam trust, peer control and team performance.
In the wise words of the Greek philosopher Aristotle: “Totum maior summa partum”. Also translated as: “The whole is greater than the sum of parts.” ~Aristotle.
This famous quote is about how much better things are together in comparison with individual pieces and is highly applicable when it comes to today’s world of teamwork. In this world of team- and knowledge- based work formal control is losing relevance and is becoming less effective (Hagel, Brown & Jelinek, 2010; Kirsch, Ko & Haney, 2010; Kreutzer, Walter & Cardinal, 2014). Formal control refers to a process that regulates the behaviors of organizational members in favour of the achievement of organizational objectives (Cardinal, Sitkin & Long, 2004). The decline of formal control effectiveness is due to several processes, including globalization, speeding up of markets, continuous change, increasing flexibility of labor relations and virtualization of organizational forms (Bijlsma-Frankema & Costa, 2005; 2007). Work relationships have become looser, more distant, and less easy to monitor (Bijlsma-Frankema & Costa, 2005; 2007). Furthermore, extra-role behaviors such as participation in organizational learning processes are becoming increasingly important and these behaviors cannot be enforced with formal control (Organ, 1988).
4 employee resistance to change (Ezzamel & Willmott, 1998). To conclude, there are situations in which control is effective and situations where it is not.
Similarly, studies of peer control effects showed a mix of positive and negative results. Peer control is an informal form of control, which is exercised by peers (de Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema & Cardinal, 2014). This phenomenon is relatively less well examined compared to other forms of organizational control (Loughry, 2010). Although studies support the overall positive effects of peer control (e.g. enhanced coordination of tasks, intrinsic motivation, information sharing, higher agreement about goals and values, and organizational learning (Bijlsma-Frankema, De Jong, & Van de Bunt, 2008; Marks & Panzer, 2004; Weibel, 2010; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999)), others reported negative effects (e.g. interfering relationships among co-workers, influencing peers to act against organization’s interests, and taking time away from workers’ assigned duties (Barker & Cheney, 1994; Delbridge, 2010; Westphal & Khanna, 2003)). But why is peer control beneficial in one situation and not in another? And which circumstances play a part in this distinction?
5 important and relevant to test when control does work out as intended and when it does not, and how trust may play a part in how control works out.
In this study I focus on peer control given the relevance of employee voice for organizational effectiveness (Morrison, 2014). Hence, it is a mechanism that may promote innovation, learning, and error prevention/correction if it works as intended (Morrison, 2014). If it does not work as intended, organizations miss a lot of input for improvements (Weiss & Morrison, 2019). In addition, there is an increasing importance of teams that underlines the need for peer control studies (de Jong et al., 2014). Moreover, a focus on conditions under which peer control can benefit work groups is recommended by Loughry (2010).
6 vulnerable. In addition, I argue that through the positive reception of peer control (namely, it is seen as something that is not threatening), it will have a positive effect on team performance. Furthermore, I examine the role of team learning goals. Team learning goals can give direction to peer control and to the behaviors of a team member addressed (the controllee). If direction is given properly by team learning goals, team members know which way to go, and peer control can serve this aim. So, I expect that team learning goals will strengthen the relationship between peer control and team performance.
7 This research has important implications for practitioners, as the present research informs practitioners about contextual team climate factors. Hence, it can give important implications about how to create a climate in which employees dare to speak up.
In this research, I first develop a theoretical framework using different theories in explaining the proposed relationships. Furthermore, this study uses survey data of team members from Dutch organizations and their managers to examine the relationships between intrateam trust, team psychological safety, peer control, and team learning goals on team performance.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Team performance
Over recent decades, an interest in team research has emerged. Scholars reported positive team outcomes such as Team performance. A definition of Team performance is “the extent to which the productive output of a team meets or exceeds the performance standards of those who review and/or receive the output” (Hackman 1987, p. 323). According to Devine and Philips (2001) Team performance is “the extent to which the team’s outputs meet the standards set by the organization in terms of quantity and quality of work; these standards reflect how well the team members accomplish their goals or mission” (p.520). Both definitions include meeting performance standards. The definition of Devine and Philips (2001) is chosen in this study since it is more recent and more specific. Hence, more appropriate for operational measurement.
Intrateam trust
8 accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (p. 395). Trust is proposed to promote we-thinking instead of I-thinking, opportunity salience instead of risk salience and approach behaviors instead of avoidance (Rosendaal & Bijlsma-Frankema, 2015). According to De Jong and Elfring (2010) trust is defined as team members’ shared psychological state involving confident, positive expectations about the actions of their teammates. Building on these authors, I define Intrateam trust as team members’ willingness to be vulnerable to one another, involving confident, positive expectations about the intentions and actions of other team members.
Team psychological safety
Psychological safety was studied by organizational scholars as early as the 1960s (Sher, Gul, Riaz & Naeem, 2019). There are different definitions of psychological safety. According to Kahn (1990) psychological safety is defined as “feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career” (p. 708). This definition is focussing on individual perceptions of psychological safety. On the other hand, the focus of Edmondson (1999) is more on a group-level construct. Sher et al. (2019) stated that team members feel relaxed around one another and openly engage in behaviors that enable learning if there are feelings of psychological safety. According to Edmondson (1999) Team Psychological safety is defined as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (p. 350). Since this research is focussing on teams in organizations, the definition of Edmondson (1999) is central in this study.
Peer control
9 formal authority over one another (Loughry, 2010). Agency theory research defines “peer monitoring” consistent with Peer control (Loughry, 2010), as occurring when individuals notice and respond to their peers’ behavior or performance results (Loughry & Tosi, 2008). Furthermore, Peer control can be seen as team members speaking up to each other. In the voice literature a well-known definition is the one of Van Dyne and LePine (1998). They define voice as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize,” and as “making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagree” (p. 109). Building on Loughry (2010) and Van Dyne and LePine (1998) I define Peer control as team members speaking up to each other, in case of the other’s sub-optimal behavior, with the intention to improve alignment with organizational norms and goals.
Team learning goals
10 The Relationship between Intrateam trust and Peer control
Speaking up can be seen as a risky behavior for employees (Detert & Burris, 2007). According to Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin (2003) the most frequently mentioned reason for being unwilling to speak up in the workplace was the risk of being viewed negatively by others. However, trust reduces the level of resistance and brings harmony to the controller–controllee relationship (Das & Teng, 2001). Furthermore, Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) found that trust increases team members' willingness to look out for each other and encourage a climate of speaking up, because of the positive orientations team members have of each other. Similarly, de Jong & Elfring (2010) and Jones & George (1998) found that trust helps team members to suspend uncertainty about and vulnerability toward their fellow teammates, thereby allowing them to interact with their teammates as if this uncertainty and vulnerability were favourably resolved. Hence, employees with increasing levels of trust will feel more comfortable in speaking up despite the inherent risks associated with it (Ng & Feldman, 2013). Indeed, Colquitt, Scott and LePine (2007) found that trust is related to risk-taking behaviors such as delegation of important tasks or full information exchange.
Therefore, I expect that intrateam trust will promote speaking up, because when there is trust, team members are more willing to be vulnerable as well as they have positive expectations of the intentions and action of others. These positive expectations suggest that team members will receive peer control as positive, and not as threatening (controllee effect), which in turn can encourage a member to speak up (controller effect). In the next paragraph I will also introduce a moderator that is expected to strengthen this effect.
11 That is why I argue that intrateam trust promotes speaking up. This leads to the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Intrateam trust is positively related to peer control. The Moderating role of Team psychological safety
As previously stated, there are potential risks associated with speaking up, so if employees want to speak up they first assess these risks, before they decide whether to voice their opinion (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012). However, when there are feelings of intrateam trust team members are more likely to speak up. According to Edmondson (1999) team psychological safety involves but goes beyond intrateam trust. It includes a team climate in which members feel safe and are more comfortable being themselves, which is characterized by mutual trust and respect. Furthermore, team members experience that it is safe to say what one thinks, express disagreement with each other, ask questions and prove vulnerable to one another (Edmondson, 1999). In addition, psychological safety creates a context where taking interpersonal risks is encouraged and minimizes the potential negative ramifications of making mistakes or taking initiative (Edmondson, 1999). In these contexts, team members are more likely to feel that they are safe to speak up, make suggestions, and challenge the current way of doing things (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).
Therefore, I expect that when there is a high feeling of team psychological safety, team members’ willingness to be vulnerable will increase, and team members will be more likely to exert peer control.
12 their ideas, opinions, and viewpoints and felt more concern for negative interpersonal consequences (Edmondson, 1999). Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between intrateam trust and peer control is stronger (weaker) when team psychological safety is high (low) rather than low (high).
The Mediation role of Peer control
As previously stated, when there are feelings of intrateam trust and team psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; 2004), peer control will be received by team members as positive and as something that is not threatening, which will result in positive effects. According to Loughry and Tosi (2008) peer monitoring positively affects performance. This might happen in several ways. For instance, peer control creates accountability for increased effort, communicates the importance of certain tasks, and motivates peers to focus on team goals (Frink and Klimoski, 1998). Peer monitoring can also detect opportunities to assist, motivate, or encourage poorly performing coworkers (LePine & Van Dyne 2001). In addition, Loughry (2010) found that peer control benefits team productivity.
Therefore, I expect that under influence of intrateam trust and team psychological safety the reception of peer control will have a positive effect on team performance. In the next paragraph I will also introduce a moderator that is expected to strengthen this effect.
Indeed, previous research found a positive effect of peer control on team performance (De Jong et al., 2014).
13 Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between intrateam trust and team performance is fully mediated by peer control, such that intrateam trust promotes peer control, which in turn promotes team performance.
The Moderating Role of Team learning goals
According to Bunderson & Sutcliffe (2003) an emphasis on learning is associated with higher team performance because it helps a team to refine processes and practices and thereby discover new and better ways for achieving team goals. Furthermore, Edmondson (2004) showed that team members lack motivation to engage in learning-oriented actions if they do not have a clear and compelling shared goal. Hence, people are more likely to offer ideas, and seek or provide feedback if “they believe that their effort makes a difference in achieving an outcome that they care about” (p. 34). Similarly, Salas & Fiore (2004) showed that team efforts are more likely to be effective when they are guided by a shared understanding of direction.
Hence, it can be expected that peer control will be more effective when team learning goals are high, which will result in higher team performance. Building on prior work (Bilal et al., 2018; Hirst, van Knippenberg, Chen & Sacramento, 2009) that shows a relationship between team goal orientation and creativity, I propose a new set of relationships in which team learning goals is conceptualized as a moderator on the positive relationship between intrateam trust, peer control and team performance
In accordance with this reasoning, Alexander, and van Knippenberg (2014) found that teams high in learning orientation are energized to pursue collective goals. They are energized by finding solutions to challenging issues and take a proactive approach to addressing them when they are raised by members of the team. This leads to my fourth hypothesis:
14 Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework, which forms the foundation for the design of this research.
METHOD
Sample and procedures
For this research, four students contacted team members and their supervisors of various Dutch organizations with the request to participate in a study on peer control. To alleviate common-source concerns (Podsakoff et al., 2003), this study used supervisor report for the measurement of team performance.
We contacted 55 teams with a total of 417 team members and 52 supervisors. The respondents received a link to an online questionnaire containing measures of team behaviors. The respondents worked in a profit (39,3 %) and non-profit (60,7 %) sector.
45 supervisors (response rate 86,54 %) and 302 subordinates (response rate 72,42 %) completed the questionnaire. I excluded the teams with a response rate lower than 60 %. For one team no supervisor data was available. Hence, the final sample contained 33 supervisors (Mage = 43.79, SD = 10.5; 51.5 % Female) and 191 of their direct reports (Mage = 42.32, SD = 12.91; 51.3 % Female).
15 Measures
The complete scales can be found in the appendix.
Intrateam trust. In accordance with prior research (De Jong et al., 2014) I measured
intrateam trust by asking team members to indicate to what extent they agree with a 4-item scale, created by De Jong and Elfring (2010). Example items are: “I am able to count on my team members for help if I have difficulties with my job” and “I am confident that my team members will take my interests into account when making work-related decisions” (α = .86). Response scales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Team psychological safety. Team psychological safety was measured by using items
from Edmondson (1999) multiple-item scale. From the original 7-item scale, two items were removed since they seemed less relevant within the context and two items were removed from the scale as they cross-loaded on another factor in a factor analysis conducted. This resulted in a three item scale for measuring team psychological safety. Sample items include: “It is safe to take a risk on this team” and “Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues” (α = .79). Respondents rated the items using a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Peer control. I measured peer control with a single item network question developed by
Guilio Ockels (PhD student RUG): “If this team member does something that I perceive as not right, I confront him or her directly”. Respondents indicated their agreement with this item on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Team learning goals. I measured team learning goals by using a 4-item scale, created
16
Team performance. I relied on managers ratings of team performance. In accordance
with prior research (De Jong et al., 2014) managers were asked to indicate how well/ poor their team performed on two criteria: “The amount of work provided by a team member” and “The quality of work provided by a team member”. Response scale ranged from 1 till 10. These two team performance measures were highly correlated (r = .81, p = .00, α = .90). Hence, besides separately testing my study hypotheses based on both above measures, I also created a composite team performance measure, and I repeated hypotheses tests using this combined measure.
Control variables. I considered team members’ age and gender as possible control
variables as previous research has shown that they could affect people’s engagement in taking risks (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010) and in speaking up (Weller & Long, 2019). Gender was coded 1 for “male” and 2 for “female”.
In this study, given the focus on teams, I conducted a team level analysis. Team scores were obtained by aggregating the individual scores on each scale by computing the mean scale score within each team.
RESULTS
Data analysis
17 Factor analysis
I conducted a factor analysis (forced principal components, varimax rotation, using s cut-off criterion of .40), to test the validity of the 13 scale items used. As a reference, I used .20 as the criterion value difference. Hence, two items were removed. The factor analysis (see Table 1) produced three factors and variable loadings between .66 and .89. Item 2 of intrateam trust cross loaded with .28 on team psychological safety.
TABLE 1: Factor analysis
Assumptions
To test my hypotheses, I conducted regression analyses. Regression analyses require that several assumptions are met. Skewness and kurtosis values as well as a histogram (shown in Figure 2, 3, and 4) were obtained to examine the normality of the dependent
Intrateam trust Team psychological safety Team learning goals Intrateam trust 1 .74 Intrateam trust 2 .69 .41 Intrateam trust 3 .89 Intrateam trust 4 .73
Team psychological safety 1 .76
Team psychological safety 2 .66
Team psychological safety 5 .78
Team learning goals 1 .81
Team learning goals 2 .83
Team learning goals 3 .83
Team learning goals 4 .79
Note: Factor loading < .2 were suppressed
FIGURE 2:
18 variable. All team performance measures contained zero
outliers. Based on the standardized values for skewness (S= .231, SE= .180) and kurtosis (K= -.973, SE= .358) for team performance quantity, and skewness (S= -.267, SE= .180) and kurtosis (K=.666, SE= .358) for team performance quality, the distribution was not normally distributed. However, for team performance composite the standardized values for skewness (S= -.015, SE= .180) and kurtosis (K= -.393, SE= .358) indicate that the distribution of team performance composite was normally distributed with a little deviance to the left. Since there were no outliers, there was no need for conducting the regression analysis twice.
Multicollinearity
To test whether the variables met the assumption of collinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated. If the value of tolerance is less than 0.2 and the value of VIF is above 5 then the multicollinearity is problematic (Hair et al., 2006). Hence, the outcomes (Table 2) indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern.
TABLE 2: Collinearity analysis
Tolerance VIF
1. Intrateam trust .29 3.48
2. Team psychological safety .26 3.84
3. Peer control .87 1.16
4. Team learning goals .77 1.30
Notes. N= 191. Dependent variable: Team performance
FIGURE 3:
Histogram team performance quality
FIGURE 4:
19 Preliminary analysis
Correlations and descriptive statistics for all variables are reported in Table 3. TABLE 3:
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
As expected, a positive significant correlation can be observed between intrateam trust and peer control (r = .31, p < .01), suggesting I found support for the first hypothesis that intrateam trust positively relates to peer control. Furthermore, team psychological safety correlated significantly positive with intrateam trust (r = .84, p < .01), peer control (r = .31, p < .01) and team learning goals (r = .35, p < .01). An interesting outcome is that intrateam trust, team psychological safety and peer control all corelate negatively with team performance and that no correlation was found between team learning goals and team performance.
Since ‘age of team members’ does not significantly correlate with any main variable in my conceptual model, I did not include it as a covariate in the main analysis. The control variable ‘gender of team members’ on the other hand, correlates significantly with the
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age of team members 42.05 8.50 1
2. Gender of team members ª 1.53 .34 .35** 1
3. Intrateam trust 5.67 .44 .05 -.07 1
4. Team psychological safety 5.65 .54 -.06 -.22** .84** 1
5. Peer control 5.87 .54 .11 -.36** .31** .30** 1
6. Team learning goals 5.44 .52 -.01 .02 .35** .45** -.04 1 7. Team performance quantity 7.95 .76 -.02 .12 -.30 -.26** -.32** .00 1 8. Team performance quality
20 moderating variable team psychological safety (r = -.22, p < .01), and the mediating variable peer control (r = -.36, p < .01). Therefore, I included ‘gender of team members’ as a covariate in the main analysis. In addition, I reran the analyses excluding this covariate to fully reveal the impact of the control variable on the hypothesized relationships (Becker et al., 2016). Excluding this covariate from the analysis did not change the pattern or significance level of the results.
Main analysis
Table 4 depicts results of moderated hierarchical regression analysis (using standardized predictor variables) used to test my first and second hypothesis.
TABLE 4:
Regression results of moderated analysis
For testing my hypotheses, I used standardized independent variables. To test hypothesis 1, that intrateam trust is positively related to peer control, I conducted a regression analysis using Process of Hayes (2013), with peer control as dependent variable. Analysis (see Table 4) revealed a significant positive relationship between intrateam trust and peer control (B = .32, SE = .13, p = .02). The effect size R² = .21. Hence, I found support for hypothesis 1.
Predictor Peer control
B (SE) t p
Gender of team members ª -.37 (.07) -5.06** .00
Intrateam trust .32 (.13) 2.39* .02
Team psychological safety -.04 (.14) -.28 .78
21 To test hypothesis 2, that the positive relationship between intrateam trust and peer control is stronger (weaker) when team psychological safety is high (low) rather than low (high), I conducted a regression analysis using Process of Hayes (2013). Analysis (see Table 4) revealed no interaction effect of team psychological safety on the relationship between intrateam trust and peer control (B = .03, SE = .05, p = .56). The effect size R² = .21. The main effect of intrateam trust was significant. Hence, there was a positive significant relationship between intrateam trust and peer control (B = .32, SE = .13, p = .02). Furthermore, there was no main effect of team psychological safety on peer control (B = -.04, SE = .14, p = .78). Analyses revealed no support for hypothesis 2.
TABLE 5:
Regression Results of mediation analyses
Predictor Peer control Team performance quantity Team performance quality Team performance composite
B (SE) t p B (SE) t p B (SE) t p B (SE) t p
Gender of team members ª -.35 (.07) -5.14 .00 .01 (.06) .22 .83 -.19 (.06) -3.39** .00 -.08 (.05) -1.61 .11 Intrateam trust .28 (.07) 4.26** .00 -.17 (.05) -.3.08** .00 .01 (.05) .12 .90 -.08 (.05) -1.57 .12
Peer control -.18 (.06) -3.12** .00 -.22 (.06) -3.93** .00 -.20 (.05) -3.66** .00
Total effect model
To test hypothesis 3, that the positive relationship between intrateam trust and team performance is fully mediated by peer control, such that intrateam trust promotes peer control, which in turn promotes team performance, I conducted a regression analysis using Process of Hayes (2013), with team performance as dependent variable. Since there were two measurements of team performance, which were highly correlated, I conducted the regression analysis three times. One time for the quantity of team performance, one time for the quality of team performance and one time for team performance composite. The results, as shown in Table 5, indicated that the indirect effect of intrateam trust on team performance quantity through peer control was negative and significant (indirect effect = -.05; CI = -.09 to -.02). Similarly, for team performance quality, analysis revealed that the indirect effect of intrateam trust on team performance quality through peer control was negative and significant (indirect effect = -.06; CI = -.11 to -.03). Lastly, for team performance composite, analysis revealed that the indirect effect of intrateam trust on team performance composite through peer control was negative and significant (indirect effect = -.06; CI = -.10 to -.03). Because the effect of intrateam trust on team performance quality and team performance composite turned non-significant when peer control was entered in the equation, peer control fully rather than partly mediates the direct effect of intrateam trust on team performance quality and team performance composite. In terms of team performance quantity analysis revealed a partly mediation since the effect of intrateam trust reduces in the presence of peer control but the effect is still significant. Analyses revealed no support for hypothesis 3.
24 TABLE 6:
Regression Results of moderated mediation analysis
Predictor Team performance
quantity
Team performance quality
Team performance composite
B (SE) t p B (SE) t p B (SE) t p
Gender of team members ª .01 (.06) .24 .81 -.20 (.06) -3.64** .00 -.09 (.05) -1.72+ .09 Intrateam trust -.19 (.06) -3.20** .00 -.01 (.06) -.09 .93 -.10 (.06) -1.74+ .08 Peer control -.17 (.06) -2.84** .01 -.24 (.06) -4.15** .00 -.20 (.06) -3.61** .00 Team learning goals .06 (.06) 1.06 .29 .00 (.05) .057 .96 .03 (.05) .59 .56 Peer control × team
learning goals
.00 (.05) -.07 .95 .08 (.05) 1.66+ .10 .04 (.05) .81 .42
Conditional effects of peer control on team performance quality at values of team learning goals
Team learning goals Effect SE t p
-1.02 low -.32 .08 -3.91 .00
.00 medium -.24 .05 -4.39 .00
1.02 high -.16 .06 -2.45 .02
Index of moderated mediation Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
Team learning goals .02 .01 -.01 .05
Conditional indirect effects of intrateam trust on team performance quality at values of team learning goals
Mediator Team leaning goals Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
Peer control -1.02 low -.09 .03 -.15 -.03
Peer control .00 medium -.07 .02 -.12 -.03
Peer control 1.02 high -.04 .02 -.09 -.01
26 FIGURE 5:
Graphical representation of moderation effect
However, the moderation mediation analysis is expected to be non-significant since I only found one marginally significant interaction effect for team performance quality. Results, as shown in Table 6, indeed demonstrated this by the presence of zero in the confidence interval (CI = -.01 to .05). At all levels of team learning goals, the effects were significant. The analysis revealed that as team learning goals increased, the magnitude of the indirect effect of intrateam trust on team performance increased and vice versa. This pattern is in line with what I predicted in hypothesis 4. Overall, analyses revealed only one marginally significant moderation effect, and no moderation mediation effect, hence, no support was found for hypothesis 4.
5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5 10
Low Peer control High Peer control
27 DISCUSSION
Given the importance of today’s world of teamwork and the decline of formal control effectiveness, scholars have underlined the need for peer control studies (de Jong et al., 2014), and especially the conditions under which peer control can benefit work groups (Loughry, 2010). Consequently, in an attempt to get a better understanding of contextual team climate factors, and to examine when and how team members want to speak up, the present research examined the roles of intrateam trust, team psychological safety, peer control and team learning goals for a team’s performance.
28 (2009) and Salas and Fiore (2004) I predicted that the positive indirect relationship between intrateam trust and team performance as mediated by peer control is stronger (weaker) when team learning goals are high (low) rather than low (high). However, my study does not offer evidence to infer that team learning goals moderates the relationship between peer control and team performance quantity and team performance composite. Furthermore, results reported a marginally significant interaction effect between peer control and team learning goals on team performance quality, which suggests that the relationship between peer control and team performance quality is moderated by team learning goals, such that it ameliorates the negative effects of peer control on team performance quality.
Theoretical implications
My findings make several contributions to the literature on peer control and its consequences for a team’s performance. First, the present research moves towards a better understanding of the relationship between intrateam trust and peer control. Hence, my finding confirms that the relationship between intrateam trust and peer control is positive and significant. In other words, intrateam trust is found to complement peer control.
29 now, in order to get a better understanding of the moderating role played by team psychological safety.
Third, when testing for the mediating role played by peer control, a negative significant relationship was found between intrateam trust and team performance quantity. Although studies supported the overall positive effects of trust both at the individual and team levels, the results of previous research regarding the trust-performance relationship have been mixed. For example, some studies showed trust to be positively associated with performance (Drescher et al., 2014) but others reporting a non-significant relationship between these two constructs (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Chung & Jackson, 2013). In a meta‐analysis of de Jong et al. (2016) the hypothesis was confirmed that the relationship between intrateam trust and team performance is positive and significant. Hence, my finding contradicts the dominant assumption of previous work that intrateam trust promotes team performance (Drescher, Korsgaard, Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014; Dirks, 1999). However, it could be suggested that in this study there was not much variance in the team performance data since the mean of all team performance measures is high (M= ranging from 7.89 to 7.95). Further research with other samples may disclose whether this makes a difference. Another possible explanation could be that in this sample team members were not that much dependent on one another. Hence, previous studies found that task interdependence is one of the most promising moderators on the relationship between trust and team performance. When task interdependence is low this could weaken the impact of trust on team performance since team members work independent and there are limited requirements for interaction and collaboration (De Jong et al., 2016).
30 relationship I found, could be that peer control contributes to performance problems by taking time away from workers’ assigned duties, or in a way that team members exerting peer control do not properly understand what behavior is appropriate in promoting team performance (Welbourne & Ferrante, 2008). Furthermore, it could be that team members use indirect methods of peer control (e.g. gossiping about or avoiding poor performers) (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Loughry & Tosi, 2008). The team member(s) who notice the indirect peer control may attribute this behavior to characteristics (e.g. mood) of the person exerting the indirect peer control, rather than their own poor performance. In addition, this type of peer control can upset team members, resulting in coping behaviors, such as absence or being late (Loughry & Tosi, 2008). Nevertheless, as Weiss & Morrison (2019) argued; even if peer control does not work as intended, organizations miss a lot of input for improvements. Hence, peer control can be categorized as an important construct. Further research must therefore consider these possible negative effects of peer control, in order to prevent negative outcomes.
Fifth, the present research contributes to the existing literature by examining the moderating role of team learning goals at a team level in an organizational context. According to Hirst et al. (2009) a learning goal orientation influences individuals’ willingness to ask and use feedback to improve their skills and creativity. The current research suggests that with team members in an organizational context the same phenomena occur but than for a team’s performance. Hence, my findings showed that in a climate of trust, team members are more willing to speak up. Team learning goals can act as sort of pull factor, in a way that it can guide team members exerting peer control, to address for instance a poor performer to act more in line with these goals, in order to promote team performance.
31 Janssen et al., 1999; Karakowsky et al., 2004; Pelled, 1996; Yang & Choi, 2009), while the current research uses supervisor report for the measurement of team performance.
Practical implications
32 more research is needed. Further research may therefore focus on the dark side of trust and on HRM practices that influence the level of trust in teams.
In addition, my finding that suggests that the relationship between peer control and team performance quality is moderated by team learning goals, implies that, to promote team performance, and especially the quality of work, organizations must implement policies that enhance the use of team learning goals. Developing these goals can help a team to discuss their mistakes so that they can develop new and/or better ways to perform, thereby reducing the likelihood of future errors (Tjosvold, Yu & Hui, 2004), which in turn promotes team performance.
Limitations and further research
I acknowledge that the present research is not without limitations. First, I used convenience sampling as a data collection method. This type of method relies on data collection from population members who are conveniently available to participate in the study. The problem with this type of method is that it can cause a selection bias (Etikan, 2016). In this research, there was no random sampling since participants within our own network were asked. Further research may aim at better samples by random selection of teams within organizations, to see whether this makes a difference. Also, higher sample sizes than my 191 respondents, working in 34 teams can be considered when generalizing the results of the study.
33 distinct constructs, since intrateam trust and psychological safety are highly correlated. In addition, other outcomes then team performance could be interesting to examine, for instance commitment to organizational change processes.
Conclusion
Given the importance to understand when and how team members want to speak up, I have examined the roles of intrateam trust, team psychological safety and team learning goals for a teams’ performance. To summarize, I predicted that intrateam trust was positively related to peer control. Hence, I found support for this idea. Second, I predicted that team psychological safety moderates the positive relationship between intrateam trust and peer control. However, I found no support for this idea. Third, I predicted that that the positive relationship between intrateam trust and team performance is fully mediated by peer control, such that intrateam trust promotes peer control, which in turn promotes team performance. I found support for the idea that peer control fully mediates the relationship between intrateam trust and team performance. However, no support was found for the positive relationship between peer control and team performance. Fourth, I predicted that the positive indirect relationship between intrateam trust and team performance as mediated by peer control is stronger (weaker) when team learning goals are high (low) rather than low (high). However, I found no support for this idea regarding team performance quantity and composite. For team performance quality on the other hand, I found a marginally significant effect which suggest that the relationship between peer control and team performance is moderated by team learning goals. Organizations can use these findings to promote speaking up which can result in positive outcomes.
REFERENCES
34 Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the
relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 295.
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2004). Dilemmas of managerial control in post-acquisition processes.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 252-268.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus. International Sociology, 20(3), 259-282.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2007). Trust and Control Interrelations: New
Perspectives on the Trust—Control Nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 392-406.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M., De Jong, B. A., & Van de Bunt, G. G. (2008). Heed, a missing link between trust, monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 19(1), 19–34.
Bilal, A., Ahmad, H. M., & Majid, F. (2018). How Formalization Impedes Employee
Creativity and Organizational Innovation: A Case of Advertising Agencies in Pakistan. NUML International Journal of Business & Management 13(1), 66-78.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552-560.
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151.
35 satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283.
Cardinal, L., Sitkin, S., & Long, C. (2004). Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15(4), 411-431.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260.
Chung, Y., & Jackson, S. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge
intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442– 468. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909.
Costa, A. C., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Trust and social capital in teams and organizations
antecedents, dynamics, benefits, and limitations: An introduction. Social Science Information, 48(2), 131-142.
Costa, A. C., Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & de Jong, B. (2009). The role of social capital on trust development and dynamics: implications for cooperation, monitoring and team performance. Social Science Information, 48(2), 199-228.
Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169-184.
36 Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated
framework. Organization studies, 22(2), 251-283.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749
De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(5), 739-756.
De Jong, B. A., Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2014). Stronger than the sum of its parts? The performance implications of peer control combinations in teams. Organization Science, 25(6), 1703–1721.
De Jong, B. A., Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring and effort. Academy Management Journal 53(3), 535–549.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134.
Delbridge, R. (2010). Critical perspectives on organizational control: Reflections and
prospects. In S. Sitkin, L. Cardinal, & K. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control (Cambridge Companions to Management, pp. 80-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1035.
37 really open? Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507-532. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.
Drescher, M., Korsgaard, M., Welpe, I., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771-83.
Duan, J., Xu, Y., & Frazier, M. L. (2019). Voice Climate, TMX, and Task Interdependence: A Team-Level Study. Small Group Research, 50(2), 199–226.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and
organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(1), 66–90.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 23-43. Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (1998). Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group- based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 358-396.
38 Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and
human resource management.
Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power style use among health professionals in interdisciplinary team collaboration (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning).
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1987) The design of work teams. Lorsch JW, ed. Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 315–342.
Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., Jelinek, M. (2010). Relational networks, strategic advantage: New challenges for collaborative control. In S. Sitkin, L. Cardinal, & K. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control (Cambridge Companions to Management, pp. 251-300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does
bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation–creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624-641.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management groups. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117–141.
39 at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Chuang, Y. T. (2004). Perceptions of team performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(5), 506-525.
Kirsch, L. J., Ko, D. G., & Haney, M. H. (2010). Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organization Science, 21(2), 469-489. Kreutzer, M., Walter, J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2014). Organizational control as antidote to
politics in the pursuit of strategic initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1317-1337.
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(3), 385-399. Lepine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional
model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67-84.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of management, 32(6), 991-1022.
Loughry, M. L., (2010). Peer control in organizations. In Sitkin, S., Cardinal, L., & Bijlsma- Frankema, K. (Eds.). (2010). Organizational control (Cambridge companions to management). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2010, p. 324–362).
Loughry, M. L., & Tosi, H. L. (2008). Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization Science, 19(6), 876-890.
Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2006). Trust in the balance: How managers integrate trust-building and task control. Handbook of trust research, 87-106.
40 Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S. (2004). Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal
computer industry. Organization Science, 15(4), 394-410.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 7(3), 349-364.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of management studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57,81–10.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 645-685.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Relational demography and perceptions of group conflict and
performance: A field investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(3), 230–246.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon Lee, & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
41 Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Salas, E. E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork?. Small group research, 36(5), 555-599.
Sher, A., Gul, S., Riaz, M. K., & Naeem, M. (2019). Psychological Safety: A Cross-level Study of a Higher Educational Institute (HEI). Journal of Management Sciences, 6(1), 30-49.
Söderlund, J., & Bredin, K. (2006). HRM in project-intensive firms: Changes and challenges. Human Resource Management, 45(2), 249-265.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: the contribution of cooperative goals and problem‐solving. Journal of management studies, 41(7), 1223-1245.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143-1158.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra‐role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1275.
42 mechanisms. In S. Sitkin, L. Cardinal, & K. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control (Cambridge Companions to Management, p. 434-462). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability:
processes of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 81– 123.
Weiss, M., & Morrison, E. W. (2019). Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees' social status. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 5-19.
Welbourne, T. M., & Ferrante, C. J. (2008). To monitor or not to monitor: A study of individual outcomes from monitoring one's peers under gainsharing and merit pay. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 139-162.
Weller, J., & Long, J. (2019). Creating a climate for speaking up. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(6), 710-713.
Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 361-398. Whitener, E. M. (1997). The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human
Resource Management Review, 7(4), 389-404.
43 APPENDIX
Measurement scales Intra-team trust
1. I am able to count on my team members for help if I have difficulties with my job. 2. I am confident that my team members will take my interests into account when
making work-related decisions.
3. I am confident that my team members will keep me informed about issues that concern my work.
4. I can rely on my team members to keep their word.
Psychological safety
1. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues. 2. It is easy to ask other members of this team for help
3. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts. 4. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
5. It is safe to take a risk on this team.
Peer control
1. If this team member does something that I perceive as not right, I confront him or her directly.
Team learning goals
44 Team Performance
