TRUST IN SUPERVISOR AND HELPING BEHAVIOURS
The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of peer
pressure
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
J.J. Morsink s2204657
University of Groningen Faculty of Business Economics
Westerbinnensingel 21a 9718 BR Groningen Tel: 0631244484 e-mail: j.j.morsink@student.rug.nl Supervisor K. Bijlsma-Frankema 2nd Assessor S. Täuber
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema for her helpful and critical feedback.
ABSTRACT
This study focuses on trust in the supervisor and how it will affect individual helping behaviours in teams. A mediating effect of team identification on the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours is proposed. Peer pressure is, furthermore, proposed to moderate the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification and the mediated relation between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours. To test the hypotheses, data of a survey study among 1035 team members of a Dutch non-profit organization were used. The findings suggested a positive relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours, which was partly mediated by team identification. On the contrary, the results provided no support for the hypothesized moderating effects of peer pressure. However, in additional research a negative effect of peer pressure on the relation between team identification and helping behaviours was found.
Key words: trust in supervisor, helping behaviours, identification with team,
INTRODUCTION
Katz (1964) specified three types of behaviour, which are essential for the functioning of an organization – (1) Employees must be induced to enter and remain within the system. (2) They must carry out their role assignments in a dependable fashion. (3) There must be innovative and spontaneous activity in achieving organizational objectives, which go beyond the role specifications. In 1988, Organ described these last behaviours as organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). These behaviours have enjoyed extensive research attention over the past two decades (Organ, Podsadoff & MacKenzie, 2006), since OCBs have been found to facilitate the accomplishment of team goals and to enhance organizational performance (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Organ, 1988). However, there seems to be a paradox. A recent study suggests that OCBs might be costly and risky for the individual (Bergeron, 2007), because of time constraints and the fact that task performance in comparison to helping, is given more weight in determining individuals’ performance evaluations. Moreover, supervisors often find it difficult to reward OCBs directly as well as to punish the absence of such behaviours. The question then arises, why people still help others at the cost of their own benefit. Different researchers suggest that more research should be directed toward identifying unique antecedents and conditions of OCBs to answer this question (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000).
in a work context than other OCBs dimensions. Helping is relevant to organizations, since it is the only OCB dimension that has shown a consistent, significant positive effect on group performance (Ehrhart, Bliese & Thomas, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
& Zaheer, 2003; Sitkin & George, 2005). It is argued that trust and control can be either inversely related or can be mutually reinforcing to each other. I build on the positive relationship between trust and control suggested and found in earlier studies (Tomkins, 2001; Sitkin, 1995), by hypothesizing that peer pressure can strengthen the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification and the mediated effects of helping behaviours. From a more practical perspective, the present research may help organizations, and in particular teams, to understand how horizontal and vertical relationships are interrelated in influencing team members to show helping behaviours and which part peer pressure may play in promoting these helping behaviours. This is especially important, because the spread of team-based work and task interdependency in work teams has heightened the relevance of helping behaviours to the performance of teams (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
This paper is structured into four parts. In the next section, a theoretical model is developed from my review of a variety of studies in the fields of organizational behaviours, social psychology, identification and trust. In the third part, the research design and methodology are described, followed by the results. In the last part, the results are discussed, conclusions are drawn and recommendations for future research are provided.
!
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section the concepts and assumed relationships of the presented conceptual model are explained (Figure 1). I first argue that trust in supervisor has a positive influence on helping behaviours. Then, I hypothesize that trust in supervisor has a positive influence on team identification and team identification has a positive influence on helping behaviours, such that team identification partly mediates the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours of a team member. Finally, I hypothesize that peer pressure strengthens the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification and argue the moderation effect of peer pressure on the indirect mediating effect of team identification on the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours.
Trust in supervisor
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer (1989) define trust as ‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another’ (p. 395). Two important features are highlighted in this definition: positive expectations and willingness to accept vulnerability. Positive expectations are confident beliefs held by the trustor that the trustee is competent, honest and caring or predictable in a particular situation. The willingness to accept vulnerability reflects an intention to depend on others (McKnight, Cummings & Chervany, 1998). Moreover, being vulnerable implies that there is something of importance to be lost. ‘Making oneself vulnerable is taking a risk. Trust is not taking risk per se, but rather it is willingness to take a risk’ (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995; p. 712).
supervisor develops, I still want to look at the antecedents of trust in the supervisor to understand trust in the supervisor completely. As noted by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990), subordinates tend to express more trust in their supervisor when they perceive that their supervisor shares a common perspective by articulating a vision of the future, provides a model that is consistent with that vision, fosters the acceptance of group goals and provides individualized support. When subordinates feel that their supervisor is making effort to accomplish a shared vision, rather than having a focus on his or her personal agenda, trust results. Moreover, characteristics of the supervisor also seem to have a huge impact on the development of subordinates’ trust in the supervisor. Mayer et al. (1995) emphasize on the characteristics of the supervisor perceived as needed by subordinates. For example, trust cultivates when an individual perceives his or her supervisor to have competencies and skills (ability) or/and keeps promises and is always telling the truth, no matter how difficult it might be (integrity). Furthermore, if supervisors are engaged with and involved in the relationships with their subordinates, subordinates will trust supervisors to act in ways that align with their interests.
argues that this motivation results in engaging in more sociable behaviours, such as cooperative-, altruistic- or extra-role behaviours.
Helping behaviours
Helping behaviours are described as ‘discretionary behaviours intended to benefit other work group members or the group as a whole’ (Sparrowe, Soetjipto & Kraimer, 2006, p. 1194). Helping behaviours include a range of behaviours, from helping a team member with work-related problems and sharing resources, to calling attention to errors and voluntarily helping new employees settle into the job (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). What is important is that these examples describe behaviours, which are essential for the team or the organization, yet they are not behaviours, considered as the essence of the job. Therefore, supervisors often find it difficult to reward helping behaviours directly as well as to punish the absence of such behaviours. In turn, this brings the employee in an uncertain position, because the employee does not know how the supervisor will respond. Furthermore, it is also important that to elicit helping behaviours, team members are oriented towards team goals (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), since helping behaviours are behaviours, which support the well-being of the group or organization and usually require the suppression of self-interest.
must rely on each other to achieve common goals, helping behaviours are key to achieving the best results (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Trust in supervisor and helping behaviours In the literature two theoretical perspectives are proposed (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), which describe two different mechanisms by which trust in the supervisor affects behaviours: the character-based (cognitive trust) and the relationship-based (affective trust) perspective. According to the character-based perspective, followers’ cognitive trust will cultivate when they believe their supervisor has ability, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). It is also labelled as ‘trust from the head’, as it refers to a person’s rational and objective evaluation of characteristics possessed by the supervisor (Chua & Morris, 2008). On the other hand, the relational perspective, labelled as ‘trust from the heart’, argues that affective trust develops through the basis of social exchanges (e.g. care and consideration) between the supervisor and a subordinate. Both perspectives explain the development of desired behaviours in different ways, however recent research has found that affective trust may develop through cognitive trust and therefore only affective trust will have a direct impact on OCBs of followers (Schaubroeck, Lam & Peng, 2011). Moreover, because my research focuses on relationships between individuals, I will examine only the relational perspective to understand the positive effect of trust in the supervisor on individual helping behaviours of team members. However, this does not imply that the characteristics of the supervisor are not important for the trust of team members.
between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours. Consequently, based on the above theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Trust in supervisor promotes helping behaviours Team identification
According to Tajfel (1974) a person has two types of identity. The first one is a combination of idiosyncratic personality attributes that are not shared with other people, and is called the personal identity (I, Me) and answers the question ‘who am I?’. The second one is the social identity, which answers the question ‘who are we as a whole?’. This type can exist at different levels, for example, at the family, team, organization or nationwide level and at these different levels, individuals are usually members of various social groups. Tajfel (1974) proposed that the groups which people belong to are an important source of pride and self-esteem, because they give us a sense of belonging. Individuals are said to identify with a social group when they (1) label or categorize themselves as members of it, (2) define themselves with the same characteristics used to define the social entity (e.g., values, norms, attitudes, etc.), and (3) feel psychological attachment and a sense of belonging to it (Huettermann, Doering & Boerner, 2014, p. 414). Hence, an individual comes to hold a social identity through the process of identification with a group. !
members when the team’s failure or success becomes their own personal interest (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Team identification encourages individual team members to behave in accordance with the shared team goals, attitudes and habits, and is necessary to facilitate mutual cooperation and helpfulness in a team. Social identity theory claims that individuals want to identify with favourable groups, because of the need for high self-esteem (Tajfel, 1982). If an individual identifies with a favourable group, their self-image will be boosted. Scholars have found that team identification promotes outcomes, such as team performance, job satisfaction and OCBs (Van Dick & Wagner, 2002).
supervisor and individual team members becomes more important, since the supervisor represents the team as a whole, and team members also identify with the team.
In another line of reasoning, Schaubroeck, Peng & Hannah (2013) argue that, whereas team members, can derive emotional support and a sense of belonging from a group, supervisors can affirm to the individual that he or she is a valued member of the team, which will have a positive influence on the team identification of the team member. As explained by the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), -which argues that the way employees are treated by organizational authorities is important because it communicates identity relevant information-, the affirmation can be done by fair and respectful treatments of the team members by the supervisor. Moreover, the group value model also argues that supervisors are representatives of the team and thus symbolize the team and its values (Schaubroeck, Peng & Hannah, 2013). If the supervisor is trusted and displays fair procedures, it is expected that this encourages the stimulation of pride and identification within the team. However, when the supervisor behaves unfairly, it signals that the team is untruthful, which will lead to psychological withdrawal from the team, consequently reducing identification with the team (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). Based on the theoretical ideas discussed, I expect that trust in supervisor will be positively related to team identification. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Trust in supervisor promotes team identification
and are potential successful, such as high-status- or high-power groups (Haslam, Powell & Turner, 2000; Spears, Doosje & Ellemers, 1997). In line with the social identity theory, Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam (2004) argue that when team members are part of a group that reflects themselves, they are motivated to maintain these feelings of belonging and are directed to preserve the positive image of the team and are inherently concerned with their group’s welfare and its successes and are therefore likely to behave on behalf of their group’s interests. These motivations arise, because their group is integrated with their self-concept (i.e., the group and the self become overlapping psychological identities). When team members identify with a team, they have the need to enhance the group-based self-esteem through achievements of group goals by exhibiting helping behaviours (Haslam, Powell & Turner, 2000). Furthermore, because such contributions are visible to other members of the team, helping behaviours may secure the member’s standing in the group. Hence, I expect that team members engage in helping behaviours, when they are motivated to preserve the positive image of themselves and the group, since it is a sign of gratitude. Moreover, as the success or failure of their team becomes their own identity (Tyler & Blader, 2000), team members tend to develop a common achievement for themselves. This common belief motivates team members to help each other. In fact, Farmer & Van Dyne (2015) found in a study with 236 bank managers and their subordinates that identification with co-workers is positively related to helping other co-workers. Hence, I expect when team members are high on team identification; their helping behaviours towards the supervisor and team members will grow as a result. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Team identification as a mediator Summarizing, I expect that team identification partly mediates the relationship between trust in supervisor and individual helping behaviours. As stated above, Dirks (2000) argues that high trust in supervisor is a condition in which team members pursue team motives instead of personal motives. Trust will bring motivation to put effort in the roles and strategies set by the supervisor. Sabel (1993) similarly argues that if there is no trust, individuals are directed at individual motives. Thus, it can be expected that when there is low trust in the supervisor, individuals will be more focused on individual successes, consequently, a sense of belonging and team identification will not be developed. However, when trust is high, members will accept a team as part of their identity, consequently (1) goal alignment is ensured, motivating team member to facilitate team’s achievement by exhibiting helping behaviours and (2) team members will strive to preserve their image by acting “pro-socially” toward other team members (Van Dyne, Cummings & Parks, 1995). Thus, it is expected that a team member’s trust in their supervisor positively influences the feeling of identification with the team. Whereas the feeling of ‘we’ grows, the helping behaviours of a team member will grow as a result. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesize 4. Team identification partly mediates the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours
Peer pressure
members to correct and eliminate deviant behaviours (Barker, 1999; Hackman, 1992). Peer pressure is (besides norms) a form of peer control. While norms represent a set of standards of appropriate behaviours, peer pressure serves as an action aimed to enforce these standards (Feldman, 1984). There are various ways, in which team members can direct the behaviours of fellow team members, such as through direct demands for increased effort, open confrontation in company of others, or trying to induce a sense of guilt about not being a good team player (Barker, 1999; Hackman, 1992). So far, little research is done on peer pressure and its effects on teams, however recent empirical research on peer control implies that peer-based control as a motivational state, can improve performance across both individual and team levels (Stewart, Courtright & Barrick, 2012; De Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema & Cardinal, 2014).
have a negative impact on team identification and the effort and helping behaviours of other team members (Karau & Williams, 1993).
Baron, Kerr & Miller (1992) imply that monitoring is needed to overcome the problem of free riding and social loafing in teams, because monitoring provides team members with information about the actions of other team members, which gives the team member a feeling of control, that it is ‘not wrong’ to pursue team goals instead of personal and identify with the team, because everyone else is doing the same.
Moreover, in particular, peer pressure as a control mechanism is important, since peer pressure can promote efforts by conveying expectations about how team members should behave and by actively pressuring deviant team members to comply (De Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema & Cardinal, 2014). In other words, in comparison with monitoring, when exercising peer pressure a team member also takes action. This can be done by subtle signalling of disapproval to openly communicating dissatisfaction with that person in the presence of others (Barker, 1993; 1999).
presence of peer pressure may complement trust in the supervisor to the extent that peer pressure will work as a guarantee that other team members, just like you, will commit to team goals over individual goals and show helping behaviours and therefore you as a team member will not be afraid that others will lack effort. The perceived level of certainty that others will behave in the same manner will be heightened. Hence, the positive relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification will be enhanced, because due to the peer pressure and the trust in the supervisor, team members are not afraid to adopt a ‘we-rationality’ and strive for common goals, since positive expectations are developed and maintained about fellow team members’ willingness to exert effort (De Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema & Cardinal, 2014). Summarizing, I expect peer pressure to strengthen the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification, and the indirect effect of team identification on the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours.
Hypothesize 5. Peer pressure moderates the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification, such that if peer pressure is high, the relationship will be stronger than when peer pressure is low
Hypothesize 6. Peer pressure moderates the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours, which is mediated by team identification, such that if peer pressure is high, the indirect relationship will be stronger than when peer pressure is low
METHODOLOGY Sample and procedure
For this study, secondary data is used. The research setting was a Dutch non-profit organization in the realm of social security with approximately 300 teams in different locations throughout the Netherlands. 3790 employees received a questionnaire by email. The questionnaire contained questions about subjects in teams, such as responsibilities, the degree of knowledge sharing and trust in the supervisor. 1195 employees responded, which resulted in a response rate of 31,53 %. After verifying the dataset, 160 employees were excluded because they did not complete the questionnaire. The final dataset consisted of 278 teams, with a total of 1035 employees. The sizes of the team ranged from 2 to 50 employees and the average team size was 15.46 (N = 918, SD = 8,97). Female respondents represented 52,6% of the total sample and male respondents 47,3% (SD = 0,500). The age ranged from 17 to 67 year (M = 45,69, SD = 10,93).
Measures
Helping behaviours. Helping behaviours were measured using a 6-item Likert scale (1 = ‘never,’ to 5 = ‘always’) from MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter (1991). Example items: ‘To what extent do you help team members who were absent?; ‘To what extent do you help other team members with heavy workloads?’. The Cronbach’s alpha of the 6-item scale was .87, trespassing the critic value of .80 for scale reliability.
Team identification. Team identification was measured using a 5-item Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree,’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’) from Meal & Ashforth (1992). Example items ‘When I talk about my team I say ‘we’ instead of ‘I’.; ‘The successes of my team are also my successes’. The Cronbach’s alpha of the 5 items was .84. The scale formed a reliable representation of team identification.
Peer pressure. Peer pressure was measured using a 4-item Likert scale (1= ‘completely disagree,’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’) from De Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema & Cardinal (2014). Example items: ‘If a team member behaves in a way we consider unprofessional, he or she is confronted directly’; ‘In my team, team members openly express dissatisfaction with other team members who behave inappropriately’. The Cronbach’s alpha of the 4 items was .94. Hence, the scale formed a reliable representation of the variable peer pressure.
Control variables. Age (in years) and gender were used as control variables. These variables have been found to influence helping behaviours (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Level of analysis
RESULTS Data analysis
First, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to test the expected factor structure of the variables in my model. After that, I checked for internal reliability by computing the Cronbach’s Alpha for each measurement scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha’s of this study show alphas bigger than 0.8 assuring the reliability of the items. Next, I conducted a correlation analysis with all the variables in my model. Before the analyses, I standardized the variables by centring them around their mean.
explain how mediation works. Therefore, I first used this method to examine the mediation effect.
Third, to assess the significance of the mediation and moderation effects and to increase the statistical power, the Hayes approach was used (Hayes, 2013). This approach is becoming the most used method for testing mediation, because it has many advantages compared to the Baron & Kenny method. In the Hayes method, all relations in the model are taken into account in the mediation analysis, including the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator. Moreover, bootstrapping as a method has been found superior to regression analysis, as it generates an accurate estimate of the standard error. So, the indirect effect of team identification on the relationship of trust in supervisor and helping behaviours will be tested, by performing a Process bootstrapping analysis model 4. To examine the full moderator-mediator model and to draw conclusions about the other hypothesized relations, I will use the Process bootstrap approach model 7. Lastly, to examine the conditional effects at all values of the moderator peer pressure, Process bootstrapping analysis model 1 will be used.
Factor analysis
Table 1. Factor analysis Factor loadings and communalities based on a forced principle components analysis with Varimax, Kaiser rotation for 19 items
Multi-collinearity
To test whether the variables met the assumption of collinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated. The outcomes (Table 2) indicated that multi-collinearity was not a concern.
Table 2. Collinearity analysis
Tolerance VIF
Trust in supervisor .88 1.14
Team identification .83 1.20
Peer pressure .81 1.23
Note: N = 1035 team members, Dependent variable: helping behaviours
Descriptive statistics
Table 3. Descriptive statistics
Note: N = 1035 team members; *p < .05; p** < .01; Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female
In Table 3 the means, standard deviations and Pearson zero-order correlations of the variables are presented. Correlations enable us to look how the variables are associated. As expected, a positive significant correlation can be observed between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours (r =.29, p < .01), suggesting a main effect
between both variables. Furthermore, the zero-order correlations between trust in supervisor and team identification and between team identification and helping behaviours were both positive and significant (r = .31, p < .01 and r = .49, p < .01). Peer pressure correlated positive significant with trust in supervisor, helping behaviours and team identification.
Preliminary analyses
Table 4. Regression analyses results
Note: N = 1035 team members; p* < .05, p** < .01, p*** < .001; Standardized regression coefficients are presented
! Regression!I!(DV!=!Helping! behaviours)! Regression!II!(DV!=!Team! identification)! Regression!III!(DV!=!Helping! behaviours)! Regression!IV!(DV!=! Helping!behaviours)!
! B! SE! t! p! B! SE! t! p! B! SE! t! p! B! SE! t! p!
Age$ .01! .00! 3,58***$ .00! $$.01! .01! 2,17*! $.03! .01! .00! 2,67**! .01! .01! .00! 2,91**$ .00!
Trust$in$supervisor$ .29! .01! 9,78***! .00! $$.31! .03! 10,3***! $.00! $$$$;! ;! ;! ;! .15! .03! 15,76***! .00!
Team$identification$$ ;! ;! ;! $$$;! ;! ;! ;! $$$$;! .49! .03! 18,09***! .00! .44! .03! 5,51***! .00*!
R2! $ $ $$.09$ $ ! ! $$$.10! $ ! ! $$$.25$ ! ! ! .27$ !
In the preliminary analyses multiple regressions were performed to look at the conditions of the Baron & Kenny method (Table 4). The analysis revealed that a mediation effect of team identification between the relation of trust in supervisor and helping behaviours can expected, because all the 4 requirements of a mediation analysis are found and significant. Especially, the results show that after the mediation variable team identification is added to the fourth regression (Table 4), the relationship is still significant, but the effect on helping behaviours is weaker. A partial mediation of team identification can be expected. However, to test for this mediation effect the Hayes method will be used.
Hypotheses testing
Table 5. Regression results for the mediation effect (Hayes model 4) Mediator variable model (DV = Team identification)
Predictor B SE t p
Age .01 .00 2.17* .03
Trust in supervisor .31 .03 10.39*** .00
Dependent variable model (DV = Helping behaviours)
Predictor B SE t p
Age .01 .00 2.91** .00
Trust in supervisor .15 .03 5.51*** .00
Team identification .44 .03 15.76*** .00
Total effect model (DV = Helping behaviours)
B SE t p
Total effect of IV on DV .29 .03 9.78*** .00
Indirect effects (mediation model)
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootUCLI
IV -> M -> DV .14 .02 .10 .18
Ratio of indirect to total effect .47 .07 .36 .62
Ratio of indirect to direct effect .88 .27 .55 1.63
Table 6. Regression results for the moderation effect (Hayes model 1)
Note: N = 1035 team members; R² = .44; p^ < .10, p* < .05, p** < .01, p*** < .001; Standardized regression coefficients are presented
(DV = Team identification)
B SE t LLCI ULCI
Age .00 .00 1.38 -.00 .01
Trust in supervisor .21 .03 6.95*** .15 .27
Peer pressure .31 .03 10.64*** .25 .37
Trust in supervisor * peer
pressure -.04 .02 -1.81^ -.09 .00
Conditional effects for trust in supervisor on team identification of the moderator
Peer pressure Effect SE t LLCI ULCI
-1.00 low .25 .03 7.61*** .19 .32
.00 medium .21 .03 6.94*** .15 .27
Table 7. Regression results moderation mediation (Hayes model 7)
Note: N = 1035 team members; R²mediation variable model = .44**, R²dependent variable model =.52; p^ < .10, p* < .05, p** < .01, p*** < .001; Standardized regression coefficients are presented
Mediator variable model (DV = Team identification)
Predictor B SE t LLCI UCLI
Age .00 .00 1.38 -.00 .01
Trust in supervisor .21 .03 6.95*** .15 .27
Peer pressure .31 .03 10.64*** .25 .37
Trust in supervisor * Peer pressure
-.04 .02 -1.81^ -.09 .00
Dependent variable model (DV = Helping behaviours)
Predictor B SE t LLCI UCLI
Age .01 .00 2.91** .00 .01
Trust in supervisor .15 .03 5.51*** .10 .21
Team identification .44 .03 15.76*** .39 .50
Index of moderated mediation
Mediator Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
Team identification
-.02 .01 -.05 .01
Conditional indirect effects of trust in supervisor on helping behaviours at values of the moderator
Mediator Peer pressure Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootUCLI
Team identification -1.00 low .11 .02 .07 .15
Team identification .00 medium .09 .02 .06 .13
To test my conceptual model and to draw conclusions, a moderation-mediation (model 7) and a moderation-mediation- (model 4) analysis were performed. Furthermore, to examine the conditional effects at values of the moderator, a moderation analysis (model 1) was performed. In the analyses age was included as control variable. Findings of the analyses are shown in Table 5, 6 and 7.
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 stated that trust in supervisor promotes helping behaviours. The results for this hypothesis can be found in Table 7. Consistent with hypothesis 1, the analysis demonstrated that the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours is positive and highly significant (B = .15, SE = .03, p < .001). Thus, I can state that trust in supervisor significantly promotes helping behaviours and I can accept hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 stated that trust in supervisor promotes team identification. The results for this analysis can be found in Table 7. Regression analyses revealed (mediator model) that trust in supervisor significantly promotes team identification (B = .21, SE = .03, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was accepted.
Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 stated that team identification promotes helping behaviours. The results for this analysis can be found in Table 7. The analysis (dependent variable model) revealed that there is a highly significant positive relation between team identification and helping behaviours (B = .44, SE = .03, p < .001). Therefore, I can state that team identification significantly promotes helping behaviours and I can accept hypothesis 3.
in supervisor on helping behaviours via team identification was positive and significant (B = .14, SE = .02). This was clearly demonstrated by the positive values and the absence of zero in the confidence interval, CI95%[.10, .18]. Because the effect of trust in supervisor on helping behaviours in the presence of team identification was smaller but still significant, team identification partially rather than fully mediates the direct effect of trust in supervisor on helping behaviours. Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported. Further, trust in supervisor (controlled by age) explained 43,69% (R² = .4369) of the variance in team identification.
Hypothesis 6 Peer pressure moderates the relationship between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours, which is mediated by team identification, such that if peer pressure is high, the indirect relationship will be stronger than when peer pressure is low. A moderated mediation occurs when the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some variable, or in other words, when mediation relations are contingent on the level of a moderator (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). Moderation-mediation analysis was performed to test the last proposed hypothesis. However, since peer pressure does not seem to function as a moderator on the relationship between trust in supervisor and team identification shown in Table 7 (B = -.04, SE = .02, p < .10), the moderation-mediation analysis is expected to be non-significant. Indeed, this was clearly demonstrated (see Table 7) by the presence of zero in the confidence interval CI95% [-.05, .01]. At all levels of peer pressure, the effects were significant. The counter-intuitive finding (see Table 7) of the analysis showed that as peer pressure in teams increased, the magnitude of the indirect effect of trust in supervisor on helping behaviours decreased and vice versa, although not significant.
Additional research
and his or her helping behaviours (see Table 8). Team identification was more strongly related to helping behaviours for lower level of peer pressure (B = .45, SE = .03, p < .001) than for higher levels (B = .30, SE = .04, p < .001) of peer pressure. When performing a moderation-mediation analyses for this proposed moderation effect, no significant results were found.
Table 8. Regression results moderation of peer pressure on the relationship between team identification and helping behaviours at the individual level (model 1)
Note: N =1035 team members; R² = .54; p* < .05, p** < .01, p*** < .001; Standardized regression coefficients are presented
(DV = Helping behaviours)
B SE t LLCI ULCI
Age .01 .00 2.55* .00 .01
Team identification .38 .03 12.73*** .32 .44
Peer pressure .21 .03 7.33*** .15 .26
Team identification * peer
pressure -.07 .02 -3.27** -.17 -.03
Conditional effects for team identification on helping behaviours of the moderator
Peer pressure Effect SE t LLCI ULCI
-1.00 low .45 .03 14.50*** .39 .51
.00 medium .38 .03 12.73*** .32 .44
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
This study makes both theoretical and empirical contributions to the emerging literature of helping behaviours. In my study, I introduced team identification as a possible mediator between trust in supervisor and helping behaviours. Besides, I aimed for a better understanding of the control versus trust nexus by investing the effect of the moderator peer pressure on the indirect effect of trust in supervisor on helping behaviours through the mediator.
Also, the hypothesized mediating role of team identification was supported. Firstly, trust in supervisor was positive related to team identification (hypothesis 2). Secondly, team identification was positive related to individual helping behaviours (hypothesis 3). Finally, as expected, I found that team identification partly mediated the relationship between trust in supervisor and individual helping behaviours (hypothesis 4). To my knowledge, this study was the first that found the mediating effect of team identification. The finding that trust in supervisor indirectly influences helping behaviours through team identification, is consistent with the theoretic ideas I proposed in seeking a more accurate explanation of the causal effect of this relation. I proposed that when trust in the supervisor is high, team members will accept a team as part of their identity and engage in behaviours, which promote or maintain the interest of the team (Van Dyne, Cummings & Parks, 1995).
Bijlsma-Frankema, de Jong & van de Bunt (2008) also stated that control directs behaviours of team members and their motivations towards team goals in various ways.
Additional research
Since my moderator hypotheses (hypothesis 5 & hypothesis 6) were not significant and since I want to arrive at a better understanding of the effects of peer pressure in horizontal and vertical relationships, I decided to test for the effect of peer pressure as a moderator on the relationship between team identification and helping behaviours. It could be argued that once a team member identifies with a team, a motivation to achieve collective goals arises, and hence, the motivation to avoid losses in group performance (e.g. social loafing) (Tyler & Blader, 2000). In fact, research on extra-role behaviours has linked identification to a greater effort on behalf of one’s group and reduced social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). So therefore, team identification could be enough to promote helping behaviours. Moreover, it could also be argued that due to the discretionary nature of helping behaviours, peer pressure to comply and engage in helping behaviours may work negative when team members are influenced by intrinsic motivators, such as the identification with a team (Blader & Tyler, 2009).
once a team member identifies with a team and therefore shows more helping behaviours, peer pressure is seen and experienced as negative behaviour. Team members who identify with the team might see peer pressure only as a way to direct behaviours that are not in line with the goal and welfare of the group. Clearly, helping behaviours are behaviours that will most of the time benefit the team. So, when there is peer pressure solidarity will be undermined (Druskat & Wolff, 2007) and the motivation that arises from the identification with a team to show helping behaviours out of free will, will be weakened. However, peer pressure alone seems to be an important influence for helping behaviours, since the results (see Table 8) showed that peer pressure is highly significantly positive related to helping behaviours. Thus, both peer pressure and team identification are positively influencing individual helping behaviours in teams, however when interacting, the relationship between team identification and helping behaviours weakens.
Practical implications
behaviours will be shown. So, given that trust is important, supervisors may consider existing research on how trust can be built through their actions.
Another implication of the study findings is that both horizontal and vertical relationships are important in predicting helping behaviours. As such, it is important for employers to pay attention to relationships between team members and between a supervisor and a team member when aiming for helping behaviours of team members. Especially, the feeling that a team member can identify with a team is incredible important, because the feeling of identification shapes a team members’ intentions to contribute to the team performance. Supervisors have to a great extent the possibility to create this, by for example, empowering the team with a clear understanding of who they are or to encourage them to perform at a higher level with a clearly defined purpose.
Moreover, the findings of my study suggest that once a team member identifies with a team and there is peer pressure, it becomes less likely that a team member will show helping behaviours. Hence, for supervisors it is important to keep an eye on the development of the relations in a team as it seems that when social relationships are established and perceived as important for individuals, peer pressure will have a negative influence when aiming for helping behaviours of individuals in teams.
Strengths, limitations and future research
First, the major strength of this research lies in the methodological part. Whereas previous research contained only around the 100 respondents (Poon, 2006), this research is conducted in 278 teams, with a total of 1035 respondents. With a large sample size, it is easier to establish statistical significance. More elaborated, a large sample size will increase the statistical power, and therefore its reliability. Although, this research is conducted in a real-life setting and has a representative sample for sex and age, the results are not generalizable. It might not be translatable to other organizational contexts, because the data is conducted in one organization. For future research, it would be interesting to test the hypothesized relationships in other organizations and industries to assess the generalizability of my findings.
Another limitation is the confidential and sensitive information that was asked from the participants. Some participants refused to fill in some answers, although ensured anonymity. Various reasons can be brought to the fore, including difficulties they had in giving their opinion about their supervisor and anxieties about passing on information to their supervisors. This limitation led to exclusion of participants in the dataset. So, the dataset may be biased. Moreover, the survey including self-report scales can be subject to common-method bias, which could have influenced the analyses (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003).
Third, the data obtained was from only one time period. Future research could use a longitudinal study instead of a cross-sectional study. By using a longitudinal study the researchers may achieve a better confidence in the stability of the relationships between trust in supervisor, helping behaviours, team identification and peer pressure (Rindfleish, Malter, Ganesan & Moorman, 2008).
incomplete data and the scope of this study. However, it is important to consider that those factors could have had an influence on the results. For instance, group size has a strong relationship with the development of team identification, in a way that larger size teams have a harder time developing team identification, than smaller teams (Van Kippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Additionally, as discussed earlier, it is expected that task interdependence influences the need of helping behaviours in teams (Bachrach, Powell, Collins & Richey, 2006). Furthermore, Doornenbal & Havermans (2015) found that men identify less with their team when one of the members is a woman, and that this negative influence is stronger when teams are smaller. They argue that men that are less satisfied with their team are likely to try to protect their self-identity by lowering their team identification. Although, not assessed in this study, future research could include these variables, and hence, aim for a more elaborating understanding of helping behaviours and its antecedents.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of management review, 14(1): 20-39.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. 2006. Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behaviour and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1396.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative science quarterly, 408-437.
Barker, J. R. 1999 The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive Control (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Baron, R. S., Kerr, N. L., & Miller, N. 1992. Group process, group decision, group action. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6): 1173. Bergeron, D. M. 2007. The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behaviour:
Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1078-1095.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., de Jong, B., & van de Bunt, G. 2008. Heed, a missing link between trust, monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1): 19-40.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2002. Citizenship behaviour and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 27: 505-522.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behaviour: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 70-82.
Cardona, P., & Morley, M. 2012. Manager-subordinate Trust: A Global Perspective. Routledge.
Choi, J. N. 2009. Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management
Studies, 46(8): 1396–1420.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. 2008. From the head and the heart: Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers' professional networks.
Academy of Management journal, 51(3): 436-452.
Chung, M. H., Park, J., Moon, H. K., & Oh, H. 2011. The multilevel effects of network embeddedness on interpersonal citizenship behaviour. Small Group Research, 42(6): 730-760.
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: 239–290.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need non fulfilment. Journal of occupational psychology, 53(1): 39-52.
Costa, A. C. & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. 2007. “Trust and Control Interrelations: New Perspectives on the Trust Control Nexus”, Group & Organization
Management, 32(4): 392-406.
Costa, A. C. 2003. Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32, 605- 623.
Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. 2001. Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European journal of work and organizational
psychology, 10(3): 225-244.
Cross, G. A. 2000. “Collective form: an exploration of large-group writing”, The
Journal of Business Communication, 37(1): 77-100.
Dam, K. van, Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. 2008. Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader-member exchange, perceived development climate and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 57(2): 313-334.
De Jong, B. A., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M. 2009. When and how does norm-based peer control affect the performance of self-managing teams? In academy of management proceedings, 1, 1-6.
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 of
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.
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. 2003. Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47: 101–113.
Dekker, H. C. 2004. Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 29: 27-49.
Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. 2002. Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings an implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 611–628.
Dirks, K. T. 2000. Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 1004–1012.
Doornenbal, B. M., & Havermans, L. A. 2015. Gender Diversity and Team Identification. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 194: 65-73.
Druskat V. U., & Kayes D. C. 2000, Learning versus performance in short- term project teams. Small Group Research, 31(3): 328–353.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. 2007. The effect of confronting members who break norms on team effectiveness. Conflict in organizational teams, 229-260. Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. ‘Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. 2006. Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of helping behaviour. Human
Performance, 19(2): 159-173.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management review, 29(3): 459-478.
Ellis, K. & Shockley-Zalabak, P. 2001. “Trust in Top Management and Immediate Supervisor: The Relationship to Satisfaction, Perceived Organizational Effectiveness, and Information Receiving”, Communication Quarterly, 49(4): 382-398.
Farmer, S. M., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. 2015. The contextualized self: How team–member exchange leads to co-worker identification and helping OCB.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2): 583.
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy
of management review, 9(1): 47-53.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161–178.
Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in organizations. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA), 199–267.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. 2000. Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford press.
Hua, W. 2003. “Social exchange model of subordinate’s trust in supervisors”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA, August.
Huettermann, H., Doering, S., & Boerner, S. 2014. Leadership and team identification: Exploring the followers' perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25(3): 413-432.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. 1999. The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 68: 653-663.
Inkpen, A. C., & Currall, S. C. 1997. International joint venture trust: An empirical examination. New Lexington Press.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. 1993. Social loafing: A meta- analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 681–706.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behaviour. Systems Research
and Behavioural Science, 9(2): 131-146.
Konovsky, M., & Pugh, D. 1994. Citizenship behaviour and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656–669.
Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1): 569-598.
Kreiner, G. E. & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. ‘Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification’. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25:1–27. Lamertz, K. 2005. Organizational citizenship behaviour as performance in multiple
network positions. Organization Studies, 27: 72-102.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behaviour and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational behaviour and
human decision processes, 50(1): 123-150.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of
organizational Behaviour, 13(2): 103-123.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709 –734.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle.
Organization Science, 14: 91–103
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 473−490
Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. 1995. “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour”,
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 6: 127-42.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour.
Journal of organizational behaviour, 16(2): 127-142.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. 2006. Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviour in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2):145-177.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. 1995, “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour”, Personnel
Psychology, 48: 775-802.
Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. 1995. “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour”. Personnel
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10: 133-151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5): 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26: 513–563.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. 1990. ‘Transformational Leader Behaviours and their Effects on Follower Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours,’ Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107– 142.
Poon, J. M. 2006. Trust-in-supervisor and helping co-workers: Moderating effect of perceived politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6): 518-532.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate
behavioural research, 42(1): 185-227.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. 2008. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines.
Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3): 261-279.
Rubin, R. S., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. 2010. Operant leadership and employee citizenship: A question of trust? The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 400-408.
Sabel, C. F. 1993. Studied trust, building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. American Psychologist, 46(9): 1–7.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. 2013. Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 1148-1168.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. & Liden, R.C. 1996, “Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-27.
Sitkin, S. B. 1995. On the positive effect of legalization on trust. Research on
Negotiation in Organisations, 5: 185-217.
Sitkin, S. B., & George, E. 2005. Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International
Sociology, 20: 307–338.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behaviour: it’s nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4): 653.
Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. 2006. Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behaviour? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1194 – 1208.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. 1997. Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality
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: 393– 404.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behaviour influences on team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4): 863.
Sherif, M. 1966. Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Solansky, S. 2011. Team identification: a determining factor of performance.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3): 247 - 258.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. 2012. Peer-based control in self-managing teams: linking rational and normative influence with individual and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 435.
Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International
Social Science Council), 13(2): 65-93.
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33: 1–39.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioural Engagement, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA. Tomkins, C. 2001. Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances
and networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26: 161–191. Van der Vegt, G. S. & Bunderson, S. J. 2005. Learning and performance in
multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 532-547.
Dimensions, foci, and correlates,” European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11: 129-49.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviours: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management
journal, 41(1): 108-119.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-role behaviours: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in organizational behaviour, 17: 215–285.
Van Kippenberg, D. & van Schie, E.C.M. 2000. “Foci and correlates of organizational identification”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73: 137-47.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. 2000. Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2): 241.
Wayne, Sandy J., Lynn M. Shore, & Robert C. Liden. 1971. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management journal, 40(1): 82-111.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press. Zucker, L. G. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure.
APPENDIX: SURVEY ITEMS
TABLE A1
Trust in supervisor (trust)
Trust_1 ...I can be sure that my direct supervisor / team coach will help me when I have difficulties when executing my work.
Trust_2 ... I assume that my direct supervisor / team coach considers my interests when making decisions.
Trust_3 Trust_4 Trust_5
...I trust that my direct supervisor / team coach will keep me informed concerning my work.
... I can be sure that my direct supervisor / team coach will keep his or her word.
...I trust my direct supervisor / team coach. TABLE A2
Helping behaviours (helping): To what extent…
Helping_1 …do you help team members who were absent?
Helping_2 ...are you personally interested in the well-being of your team members?
Helping_3 …do you help other team members with heavy workloads? Helping_4 …do you take effort to help new team members?
Helping_5 …do you take time to listen to problems from team members?
Helping_6 …are you proactive in giving work related information to team members?
TABLE A3
Team identification (iden):
Iden_1 It feels like a personal insult when someone talks negatively about my team.
Iden_2 I am interested in the thoughts other people have about my team.
Iden_3 When I talk about my team, I say ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. Iden_4 The successes of my team are also my successes.
Iden_5 It feels like a personal compliment when someone praises my team.
! TABLE A4
Peer pressure (pressure):
Pressure_1 In my team, team members openly express dissatisfaction with other team members who behave inappropriately. Pressure_2 If a team member behaves in a way other team members
consider unprofessional, he or she is confronted directly. Pressure_3 In my team, team members make sure to let other team
members know if they do something that is considered unacceptable.
