Master Thesis HRM
A Qualitative Investigation into Damaged Sense of Identity as an Antecedent
of Distrust in Lateral Relationships
14/06/2020
Anne J. E. van Buuren S2656620 a.j.e.van.buuren@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. Susanne Täuber s.tauber@rug.nl Co-Assessor: Dr. Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema k.m.bijlsma-frankema@rug.nl
MSc Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Trust is a widely researched concept. However, distrust is not. Especially research into distrust towards colleagues is limited, even though such distrust can stand in the way of efficient cooperation. This paper focuses on the behaviours that trigger distrust in lateral, or horizontal, relationships. I hypothesize that distrust is the result of a damaged sense of identity, which in turn results from the behaviour of colleagues. This distrust will influence employee behaviour. Using a qualitative approach, I interviewed nine people with experiences in distrust towards colleagues. Not communicating, lack of the right skills, betrayal and disrespectful behaviour were found as triggers of a damaged identity. Employees responded to these behaviours mostly emotional, in terms of ostracism and social withdrawal. If possible, employees wanted their identity restored by their colleague. This research aims to improve our understanding on the concept of distrust between colleagues. By understanding the triggers of distrust, we can gain knowledge on how to deal with and prevent distrust.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Trust plays an important part in building relations between colleagues and supervisors. When students of Hurley (2006) were asked how it feels when there is a high-trust environment, they said: “fun”, “supportive”, “motivating”, “productive”, and “comfortable”. However, when the same students were asked how it feels working in a low-trust environment, they responded with: “stressful”, “threatening”, and “tense” (Hurley, 2006). Dirks and Ferrin (2001) report that trust within an organization can bring benefits towards employees such as positive attitudes, higher levels of cooperation, and superior levels of performance. Employees feel safer and are more positive about their leader if this leader is perceived as trustworthy (Conchie & Donald, 2006; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). On the other hand, distrust is often mentioned and described accidentally, most times unintended, and, according to Siebert and Czarniawska (2018), “in the worst case, proof of faulty management” (p. 25). And even though when an employee distrusts a colleague or supervisor, they might not put as much effort in their jobs and the organization will find the consequences in their profits, it is never mentioned in, for example, financial statements (Hurley, 2006). This is surprising given the known negative consequences of distrust in organizations, such as withholding information, (Kramer, 1999), negative attitudes and distress (Conchie & Donald, 2006). Distrust can be triggered by several behaviours, when a relationship between two people is established (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Behaviours that trigger perceived trust violations and thus might lead to distrust often do so because they damage individuals’ sense of civic order and their identity.
called the individual self, the relational self, and the collective self (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). Especially the collective self is important in the context of trust within organizations, because it is based on impersonal bonds to others and derived from the common identity of the group (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001).
Recent research has focused on distrust in hierarchical relations. Bijlsma-Frankema, van de Brake, and Täuber (2019) found that the following behaviours of supervisors created distrust among employees: overpowering, shirking responsibilities, harassment, interfering relations with colleagues, and negative reactions to proposing improvements (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019). This study by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) focused on distrust in supervisors. However, research into distrust in lateral relationships is missing. Lateral in this case means at the same level (Van der Meer-Kooistra & Scapens, 2008), i.e., colleagues.
Distrust towards colleagues is an interesting topic, because employees are dealing with their colleagues in everyday life. Behaviours such as overpowering are less probable to arise in a lateral relation, as there is no power issue between two colleagues in such a relation. Current literature is very limited on this topic. It can be argued that the relationships between colleagues are different than those of an employee and its supervisor, because a colleague has less power over a person than a supervisor has. An employee is not directly responsible for their colleague’s actions, as the supervisor is. Finding the behaviours that trigger distrust between colleagues, can help preventing distrust overall. This is because there will be looked at the core of distrust.
Building on the study by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019), the following research question is proposed:
What are the behaviours that trigger distrust between colleagues?
2010). Even though job satisfaction leads to less absenteeism, illness and higher productivity (Helliwell & Huang, 2010), the role of trust is less researched. Evidence has to be found in order to find out how distrust between colleagues is triggered. As the team, and therefore someone’s colleagues, are part of someone’s identity, this research can add more insights in how someone’s identity is damaged in a professional relationship. Someone’s damaged sense of identity can lead to distrust towards a colleague. Because identity is partly established by impersonal bonds to others (the collective self-part of identity), this research will be focused on the damaged identity that started the distrust in the first place.
First, a theoretical background will be given, from which the hypotheses will be derived. Afterwards, the methodology will be explained, and main results will be given, which will be discussed afterwards. Lastly, this paper will be concluded.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Groups and identity in organizations
Belonging to a group is fundamental for reproductive success, security and mental health (Williams, 2007). People are always looking for approval of what they are doing. “One of the likeliest sources of recognition, reward and appreciation for teachers, therefore, are their colleagues.” (Hargreaves, 2001, p. 509). Being with the same kind of people in a group will give acknowledgement (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). Without acknowledgement, people will have a hard time surviving (Williams, 2007).
Johnson et al. (2006) proposed three functions of groups, one of which concerns the desire for the maintenance and enhancement of self-identity and self-esteem. Identity can be defined as how individuals define themselves with regards to immersion in relationships with larger collectives and others and how individuals derive their self-evaluation from these social identities (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Identity is established by definition and self-interpretation (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001), of which the latter can be seen as identity. There is a distinction within identity between someone’s personal self and someone’s social self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Tajfel, 1982). Someone’s personal self are the aspects in which someone tries to differentiate himself from others, whereas someone’s social self exists of the aspects in which he or she assimilates others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Social identity is “[…] that part of an individuals’ self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69). Social Identity Theory explains how people tend to classify others and themselves into several social categories, such as gender and age, but also organizational membership (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
accusations, which occurs if someone is wrongly accused of a mistake even though it was not his or her fault, and (iii) insults to self or collective, which refers to name-calling and questioning someone’s abilities. Because belonging to a group is important for one’s identity, behaviour of a group member can damage someone’s identity. Accordingly, the following hypothesis has been derived:
Hypothesis 1: Negative behaviour of a colleague elicits damaged sense of identity.
Trust and distrust in organizations
When someone’s identity is damaged by a colleague, their trust towards this colleague can be violated. Trust is a broad concept; many articles have already been written about it. There are different interpretations of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Kramer, 1999; Lewicki et al., 1998), predetermined that trust is a psychological state. Trust is defined by Hurley (2006) as “[…] confident reliance on someone when you are in a position of vulnerability” (p. 56), which is backed up by Fryxell, Dooley & Fryza (2002), who mention also the vulnerability: “[…] the success of the relationship is contingent upon the willingness of individuals to make themselves vulnerable to the risk – in other words, trust” (p. 871). Deutsch (1960) mentions that a trusting choice is being made if someone choses to take a path, even though the probability that it is harmful is larger than it being a save choice. Lewicki & Bunker (1995) used the term institutional trust, which referred that it: “develops when individuals must generalize their personal trust to large organizations made up of individuals with whom they have low familiarity, low interdependence and low continuity of interaction” (p. 137).
expectations (having a fear of) that someone has towards another’s words, actions, and decisions. This fear can lead to being scared not to belong anymore. As one has a damaged sense of identity, because of negative behaviour caused by colleagues, distrust towards this colleague may arise. The second hypothesis is derived:
Hypothesis 2: Damaged sense of identity elicits distrust towards colleague(s).
Behaviour of distrusting employee
When trust is violated, several responses are identified by Bies and Tripp (1996): “revenge fantasies”, “doing nothing”, “private confrontation”, “identity restoration”, “social withdrawal”, “feuding”, and “forgiveness” (p. 255). The response that is mostly related to damaged identity, is identity restoration. In research literature, identity restoration is mostly referring to getting one’s own identity back when it is literally stolen from oneself. It is explained by Young (2018) as referring “… to identity reconstruction efforts aimed at returning identity to the likeness of a “type” it once embodied” (p. 345). Koops and Leenes (2006) explain identity restoration when looking at identity theft as “… restoring the link between identifier and person” (p. 554), getting the identity back to the rightful person. However, identity restoration as described by Bies and Tripp (1996) means that the damage done by the distrusted person has to be repaired. According to the research of Bies and Tripp (1996), people wanted the person that damaged them to apologize in public and set the record straight. Another response within identity restoration is that one may want to prove their colleagues wrong (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3a: Behaviours that the distrusting employee shows towards their distrusted colleague will be aimed at identity restoration.
same meaning. That is why the focus will be on ostracism. Ostracism is defined as “ignoring and excluding individuals or groups by individuals or groups” (Williams, 2007, p. 427). It can be characterized by an unfolding sequence of reactions that have to be dealt with while being excluded and ignored (Williams, 2007). Ostracism leads to a temporary state of misery, physical pains, threatening fundamental needs, and it causes sadness and anger (Williams, 2007; Zadro et al., 2004). When researching workplace ostracism, Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008) discovered that lowered feelings of belonging, a meaningful existence, self-esteem, and control are related to ostracism, together with decreased productivity, more negative work attitudes and a decreased well-being. Ostracism can move both ways, it can be argued that an individual excludes the group that damaged his or her identity as a whole to further save his or her identity, but it is more plausible for a group to ostracize the individual, as this person may not fit in their current identity anymore. From this, the following hypothesis is derived:
Hypothesis 3b: Behaviours that the distrusting employee shows towards their distrusted colleague will be aimed at ostracism.
without belonging to a group, contacts will vanish and sometimes even death will follow. If a colleague has damaged one’s identity and distrust arises, an individual may socially withdraw from this person, or in worst case, from the team. Lastly, the following hypothesis is suggested:
Hypothesis 3c: Behaviours that the distrusting employee shows towards their distrusted colleague will be aimed at social withdrawal.
From the hypotheses, the following conceptual model is derived (see Figure 1):
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Theoretical and practical contribution
The present research valuably advances theory by giving more evidence on the topic of distrust towards colleagues. Because current research mainly focused on distrust in general and distrust of supervisors (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2019), this research will contribute on the topic of distrust, specially aimed at distrust among colleagues. Damaged sense of identity is used as a mechanism in order to find behaviours that lead to distrust. Adding this research to the already existing research of distrust and Social Identity Theory, it will give a more complete overview of distrust in the workplace, and how to ultimately prevent it. Especially, there will be looked at how an employee behaves after distrust emerged because of his or her identity that is damaged. Behaviours may arise that have not been thought of yet in existing research.
METHODS
This research follows a qualitative design, since the goal of the study is to explore the mechanisms underlying distrust in the workplace. Qualitative research is used instead of quantitative, because behaviours need to be explored before it can be tested. Currently, there is not much research on distrust related to a damaged sense of identity in professional relationships. Interviews allow interviewees to clearly explain their experiences. In addition, distrust is a very sensitive topic. Within interviews, follow-up questions can be asked, and the interviewee can be brought to ease.
Participants
Interviews were conducted with nine people, all Dutch, between 23 and 56 years old, of whom five females and four males. The interviewees work in organizations in different fields within the Netherlands. They had the following jobs: research intern; stable worker; healthcare assistant; mechanical designer; finance administrator; debt agency employee; secretary of the facility board; high school teacher; and someone working in the back office for sales. Participants have been selected based on self-reported experiences with distrust in one or more colleagues. These people were recruited through my personal network, as I am aware this is a sensitive topic to talk about. Interviewees may not feel comfortable talking about their experiences, and strangers may not be willing to share their experiences. That is why interviewees were assured that the interviews are used anonymously.
Procedure
the interview (Kvale, 2007). First, general questions were asked about interviewee’s work, such as ‘How long have you worked in this team?’ and ‘What are your main tasks within this team?’, but also questions about goals and if these goals were reachable. After this, questions about the interviewee’s team were asked. These started with general questions about positive and negative characteristics of teammates, and if this teammate in question could be trusted. These questions were followed by questions about the distrusted teammate, such as: ‘Did you trust this person before?’, ‘When did the distrust occur?’, ‘Did this distrust have any unpleasant effects on your own job?’, and ‘Did this distrust come gradually or suddenly?’. The next topic in the interview guide was dealing with distrust. With questions about changes in behaviour, if the interviewee may have thought of other ways to react to this colleague, and if their distrust can be restored. This topic ended with a question if distrust can be avoided at all. The fourth topic was about the role of the supervisor in the situation. Questions about this were asked, as it could be that the supervisor played a role in why the interviewee started distrusting his or her colleague and how the interviewee was dealing with this. General questions such as ‘What are the most important tasks of a supervisor?’ were followed by questions if their supervisor was a good support and if they solve their own problems responsibly. If applicable, questions about distrust towards this supervisor were also asked. Questions if the interviewee trusted their supervisor were also asked. Finally, questions about respect and involvement within the team were asked, for example; ‘Did your respect within the team change?’. The interview guide, in Dutch, can be found in Appendix A.
Gathering data
into English, with the original Dutch quotes in the endnotes. With these transcripts, which can be found in Appendix B, a data matrix was created in which a summary of every answer is put next to each other in order to get a clear overview (Bijlsma-Frankema & Droogleever Fortuijn, 1997). This data matrix is used to analyse the data and can be found in Appendix C.
RESULTS
Having interviewed nine people with different backgrounds, the following results came up. A good teammate is someone that treats everyone as equals, is a team player, keeps promises, is someone you have a personal connection with and most importantly, is someone who is open and communicates well. Only two interviewees said that this person is not immediately someone you can trust, as trust is a deeper connection. However, seven respondents agreed that a teammate with these characteristics can be trusted. When asked about negative characteristics of teammates, not being honest was mentioned most frequently. Other characteristics that were not well-received concerned being lazy, being less intelligent, being in a hurry, negligence, being disrespectful, and not communicating. I will first present results related to a damaged sense of identity, then the origins, consequences and developments of distrust will be given, which will lead to the change in their own behaviours. Lastly, the results of the role of their supervisor are given.
Damaged sense of identity
The first hypothesis focused on negative behaviour leading to damaged identity of the interviewee. Several behaviours were being mentioned by interviewees when asked how their distrust to their colleague developed, of which a few can be related to their identity. As already mentioned, not communicating is seen by the interviewees as a characteristic of a bad teammate:
A4: “Yeah so you have to judge the importance of your goal and serve that goal and not your
own goal”ii. If a colleague is not communicating, the interviewee may not feel as welcome, A1:
“I became the ugly duck. And I just did not have control anymore, so I did not know what they were talking about. And I felt shitty in that place, so I was grumpy a lot. So, you’ll make it more difficult for yourself.”iii A3 also had trouble with this, saying: “[...] and ever since, I noticed that
everyone was treating me like a piece of dirt, until they started to get to know me”iv. Betrayal was another behaviour that three interviewees mentioned as reason. A6 said: “[...] He went to
another supervisor, instead of me, about something, which made me really mad that he did this and afterwards he was proudly talking about it”v. A3 felt betrayed by her colleague and said: “But I noticed that I became very passive in group settings”vi even though she is not in her daily life. Another characteristic, mentioned by three interviewees, is disrespectful behaviour, meaning “She treated people in a way that I did not like at all”vii (A7). Another person that felt betrayed, was A4: “And yes, that does not make any sense and it gives a lot of damage and it
makes a certain image from which I suffer now.”viii The fourth behaviour that was mentioned by interviewees was lack of the right skills. However, the interviewee him- or herself did not have signs of a damaged sense of identity, as they were just annoyed by their colleague. The other three behaviours, which are not communicating, betrayal, and disrespectful behaviour, are related to damaging the interviewees’ identity.
Origins, consequences, and development of distrust
Of the behaviours that developed distrust, three of them did arise from a damaged sense of identity. The second hypothesis was that a damaged sense of identity would evoke distrust towards colleagues. Not communicating is one of these behaviours. Three interviewees mentioned this behaviour, A1 saying: “So I have been working on something for three days, and
effects distrust has on the interviewees, is mostly disruption in their own work. Five interviewees said they have less time for their own job. A9 said that “Of course it is not pleasant when
someone is being so indecent at work towards the customer and you have to… it harms the interests of the organization”x. A5 also mentioned that “I think I let him stand in my way. I
accepted that he was in my way”xi. Three interviewees also had emotional effects, A1 mentioned
“And it was just sad that I just had frustrations for ten weeks”xii. With some interviewees it even led to resignation, not being able to fix the situation. Lastly, having the wrong image of the interviewee was also mentioned as an effect. A3 said: “She had told things about me to our
co-workers that were not true”xiv.
Distrust developed in most cases gradually. Six interviewees mentioned this, with A2 saying “But as I said before, when she started working four days a week, we first had interns
and that was the reason we did not notice”xv. The other three interviewees mentioned that distrust raised suddenly, with one already having resigned. A6 mentioned that it was there clearly: “I was very angry, and I thought immediately; this is just not right, it cannot be
happening”xvi. Seven out of the nine interviewees mentioned behaviours that damaged their identity which caused distrust towards their colleague.
Changing own behaviours
When looking at behaviour once distrust has raised, there are multiple changes in behaviour of the interviewee. Hypothesis 3 is about the behaviours of interviewees in response to the lateral distrust. Multiple behaviours were mentioned by the interviewees. Four of the interviewees were holding back and did not take initiative anymore. A6 had trouble approaching her distrusted colleague, wanting to avoid him, saying that “I had trouble approaching him,
preferably I avoided it. I did not do the private talks, small talks, I did not do them anymore”xvii, and A1 also said that “the confrontation that first we had fun small talks and could have serious
went directly to, for example, the supervisor of their colleague or to another colleague in order to get their tasks done, A7: “Yes, or I went directly to the manager she was working for to ask
something, behind her back”xix. A3 did not even dare to do work-related tasks, saying “So I did
not dare anymore to interact with the patients and so on”xx. Interviewees also became grumpier and more frustrated, A9 saying “When he asked something or said something that was not
appropriate, I would make a nasty comment back”xxi. Becoming more apathetic, and taking more control are other changes in behaviour.
Respect and involvement towards group. Whether their respect within the group has
changed, only four interviewees responded positively, with the reason being that their team supported the interviewee, A6:“But afterwards, I noticed that when he [distrusted colleague]
walked away - sometimes we chat via computer - and then suddenly I got one on one messages that said ‘don’t let it bother you’ or ‘well, what he did this time is really ridiculous’.”xxii. The other five interviewees said that their respect has not changed, A7 even saying that: “I am not
really concerned with admiration, I don’t think it is that important. We are all in the same boat.”xxiii. The involvement towards the group was also considered. Here, seven interviewees mentioned that their involvement has changed. A2 became grumpy towards her distrusted colleague and did not help her anymore with tasks. They were hanging out less, but only with the distrusted colleague. A2: “And when she [distrusted colleague] joined the team, we first did
[...] things together. [...] But that changed into that she did not come anymore. We did not ask her to join anymore”xxiv, and A7: “I did not isolate myself or did not work together less. Maybe
I worked together less with that distrusted colleague of course, because I had enough of it”xxv. Other changes in involvement towards the group were resignation, A9: “my way to change it
was to go away myself, leave that company and resign *laughs* yeah, that is also a possibility”xxvi and gossiping, A6: “But I noticed that my colleagues [within their support], also
annoying.”xxvii. Only two interviewees said that their involvement has not changed. A5 even said that: “No, no. I mean I… towards others, but also towards my [distrusted] colleague, I… when
he says ‘I need your help for a minute’, than I will always help him. [...] Yes, I mean I could get very angry and dissociate myself from him, but then I will only reach the opposite”xxviii.
Other reactions. Interviewees were also asked if there were other reactions that they
thought of using towards their distrusted colleague. A7 mentioned that she wanted to get angry, but she did not because “we worked in a department with 40 people, and everyone is sitting in
their room with the doors open, so there is no space to react like that”xxix. Other reactions were ignoring this person, A2: “I sometimes just ignored her, and would just do my own thing”xxx or confronting him or her. Two interviewees mentioned they never thought of reacting differently.
Preventing distrust and restoring trust. Distrust can be prevented by openness and
communication, A9: “To know from each other at an early stage what you can expect from each
other”xxxi, A7: “Mention it if something annoys you, [but also] mention it if someone did
something well”xxxii. Teambuilding was also mentioned. However, interesting results came from A5 and A6, A5 saying that distrust cannot be prevented, “because than you will expect of
everyone that [this person] will be open and honest about everything from the beginning. And I don’t think everyone is like that”xxxiii, and A6 added that: “I think distrust rises from a feeling,
from an experience and I think it is hard to prevent”xxxiv. Six interviewees said that it is possible that their distrust can be restored into trust, but with different reasons. Half of them said that it depends on the colleague. A2, for example, mentions that “I think so [restoring trust], but it
depends on the person. If this person really wants to improve”xxxv, while A8 said: “He [the
distrusted colleague] has to keep his promises and we will have to start discussing the right way”xxxvi, saying that they also need to discuss. A5 even takes it further and even though he
from that moment on”xxxviii. This leads to another reason, which is that both the distrusted colleague and the interviewee have to do it together. A1 mentioned “then we have to sit with the
two of us and open the conversation and be completely open and honest with each other”xxxix. A6 said that she needs positive experiences in order to restore trust; “Time, but I also think
positive experiences. That I will think: ah he is doing something for me even though he did not have to. Maybe that will fix it.”xl In Table 1, a summary of these findings can be found. In Appendix D, Table 3 can be found, which is a more elaborate table of the causes of distrust.
Table 1. Summary of causes of distrust
Interviewee’s code Second order themes Interviewee perspective:
causes of distrust Interviewee perspective: consequences of distrust
A1, A3, A5 Not communicating “So I have been working
on something for three days, and afterwards I heard that she already did something, completely different” (A1)
“And it was just sad that I just had frustrations for ten weeks”. (A1)
A2, A9 Lack of the right skills “She was going to work
four days a week [before, she worked one day a week], but physically and mentally she could not handle it.” (A2)
“So I got called out like ‘why isn’t it done?’ and then I thought: yes, because she does not do anything and does not cooperate and I cannot do anything by myself. [...] So I would think; now everything depends on me” (A2)
A3, A4, A6 Betrayal “[...] He went to another
supervisor, instead of me, about something, which made me really mad that he did this and afterwards he was proudly telling about it” (A6)
“[..] I leaned into thinking: well figure it out, you can go to the other supervisor which will take more time, it takes more energy, but I will not put any energy in you anymore” (A6)
A7, A8, A9 Disrespectful
behaviour
“She treated people in a way that I did not like at all” (A7)
“And I had the feeling that I, sometimes I just could not do my job anymore, because of what, because of decisions she took or how she was doing her job”
Role of supervisor
Because the supervisor can play an important role in the relation between colleagues, the role of the supervisor in the relation between the distrusted colleague and the interviewee has also been discussed. A supervisor can interfere in the relation between these two colleagues and trigger certain behaviours for both the employee and his or her distrusted colleague. Before looking at the results of the role of the supervisor, general tasks of a supervisor are explained and how their support towards the interviewees is in general.
Tasks of supervisor. Important tasks of a supervisor in general are creating openness,
making sure that “[…] everyone feels safe and can say what they want”xli (A8). Other important tasks are keeping an overview, A2 saying that: “Because if you have to discuss everything with
each other and no one is really the boss, to say it like that, then I think you will get more frustrations and that will not work”xlii, facilitating, A6 saying: “Well, sometimes I don’t get what
I want from the bank, and then it is nice that there is a supervisor, who is on a different level, can look at it and maybe get some more movement, what I cannot do myself”xliii, and being a ‘people manager’, optimally making use of staff, and be present. A2 mentions about the last one:
“She had no idea what we were doing in the stables”xliv. This leads to how interviewees see their supervisor and the role they played in the relation with the distrusted colleague.
Support of supervisor in general. Half of the interviewees say they can go to their
supervisor when they need support for their own work. A6 says: “Yes, if I don’t know the answer,
I go to him and we will always find a solution”xlv. Other interviewees said they could not go to their supervisor for problems, because of absence, it not being necessary, or the supervisor lacking skills, A7: Because he did not understand anything about secretary work, that is
something he… yes, no”xlvi. Five supervisors solved their own responsibilities, however four of the interviewees said that their supervisor did not take responsibility. A7 said that: “For one, he
did not understand… Sometimes you had to explain everything into detail how you were doing things and why you were doing them”xlvii.
Different role supervisor. Most interviewees said that their supervisor could have played
a different role in the relation between the interviewee and the distrusted colleague. Five responded that they wanted more support of their supervisor, either for their distrusted colleague: A2: “I think she could have also given her, the distrusted colleague, more support and be more
clear on which tasks she had to do beforehand, so that she knew what she was getting into”xlviii, or for themselves, A5: “Something we have not done yet, is sitting with the three of us - or maybe
in the beginning it happened one time - around the table. [...] And look at what everyone has to say in this matter and see if there is a way in which we can all say: ‘this is the way we are going to do it’.”xlix. Other roles a supervisor could have played were being more open and looking more to the individuals in the matter, A1: “She could have listened more to our personal story
instead of only... She really saw us as a duality, and she could have seen us more as individuals”l. Three interviewees mentioned that their supervisor could not do anything else, A8 mentioning:
“No, she really tried to fix it. But I think that, also for her, my colleague was not reachable anymore at a certain point.”li.
Distrust in supervisor. Seven interviewees trust their supervisor. However, three
Table 2. Distrust in Supervisor (SV)
Interviewee’s code Second order themes Interviewee perspective:
Causes of distrust SV
Interviewee perspective: Consequences distrust SV
A2 Not taking responsibility “Because she [distrusted
colleague] was getting worse and not helping the organization move forward, and because my supervisor did not take any action, it grew together [with distrust in colleague]” (A2)
“But there was always kind of, you had to do it right, because if you did something wrong, nothing was right and you could… you did everything wrong” (A2)
A8 Powerlessness “Well, I found it mostly
sad, because now I cannot move myself”
(A8)
“So yeah, I still walk the right path and tell her things that happened, but I just assume that nothing will happen with it” (A8)
A9 Stimulating the wrong
people “Not doing the job in a certain way or quality
or… not at all. It was just: ‘ah you are one of us, you can stay, you are coming from them, you have to go’.” (A9)
“First friendly, quite nice. But after I found out what a lunatic he was, and… yeah he was just mean. [...] Yes then you’ll take more and more distance from this person. [...] Just not reaching out to this person.” (A9)
DISCUSSION
This research is about the behaviours that trigger distrust in a lateral relationship in the workplace, with focus on a damaged sense of identity. Distrust in a lateral relationship can be triggered by different behaviours, and responses to distrust may be different in lateral than hierarchical relations. In the following section I will interpret the results, related to the hypotheses as described in the theory section. Furthermore, theoretical and practical implications will be given. Lastly, limitations and future research will be mentioned.
regain needs. Therefore, it can be said that hypothesis 3b is supported. Lastly, hypothesis 3c concerns social withdrawal. In this case, the exclusion is voluntarily. In some situations, interviewees agreed that they were less involved themselves, or did not include the distrusted colleague anymore. Some interviewees mentioned the support of their teammates, socially withdrawing the distrusted colleague from the group. These results are in line with those of Bies and Tripp (1996), who mention several ways to withdraw one’s self from the situation, which are avoidance, withholding help or support, work less, and quit job. These four behaviours were also mentioned by interviewees. Therefore, hypothesis 3c is also supported.
Theoretical implications
Most interviewees had their sense of identity damaged by their distrusted colleague. A theory that can be related to this is the Social Identity Theory. This theory by Tajfel (1974) explains among other things that identity prescribes and evaluates how people should behave and how people should be treated by others (Hogg, 2016). Social identity has a positive influence on group integrity (Van Vugt & Hart, 2004), by increasing members’ loyalty. This research supports Social Identity Theory in the context of that when there was no communication, interviewees felt they were betrayed by their colleague, or they behaved disrespectfully. It adds the perspective of a lateral relation in the workplace. This was not only supported by the interviewees, but also by the distrusted colleagues, who did not behave in a certain way or did not treat their fellow team members in a way that was acceptable in the eyes of the interviewee.
mentioned that distrust cannot be prevented, as there can always arise a situation in which someone does not want to be honest or fair. Distrust develops from a feeling. This research therefore only partially supports the Uncertainty-Identity theory, because interviewees felt more insecure about themselves when they distrusted the colleague. The team, of which they got their identity, betrayed them in some cases, making them feel uncertain. Especially with no communication, it is more difficult to fit in. When being put in an already existing professional team, someone needs to find his or her place.
Bies and Tripp (1996) mentioned in their research that a damaged sense of identity would violate trust, with public criticism, being accused wrongly or unfairly, and/or insult to self or collective as the underlying reasons. Three behaviours causing distrust that were mentioned by interviewees were not communicating, betrayal and disrespectful behaviour. These three led to the interviewees feeling as if they did not belong, feeling ignored, and felt as their identity was damaged. Betrayal and disrespectful behaviour can be gathered under the behaviours found by Bies and Tripp (1996). Not communicating, however, is a behaviour that was not explicitly mentioned in their research and can be seen as an addition to this research. No communication can be seen as the opposite of Bies and Tripp’s three underlying reasons, as the distrusted colleague is not saying anything at all.
shirking responsibilities. The behaviours that triggered distrust in a lateral relation, as mentioned above, can be seen as another addition to this research. This research can enrich the research by Bijlsma-Frankema, et al. (2019), because the behaviours found by Bijlsma-Frankema, et al. (2019) are focused on supervisors and therefore power-related. Combining these two studies, research on distrust in the workplace can be broadened.
Practical implications
There are some practical implications in this research. The first one is how someone can respond to colleagues they distrust. As most employees have to deal with colleagues, this research can help in practice. Colleagues have a different relationship with each other than they have with their supervisors. Talking and interacting with colleagues can be helpful to prevent distrust at all. Six interviewees mentioned that their trust can be repaired. Arguments were that there would have to be a conversation between them and the distrusted colleague, whether or not depending on the distrusted colleague, and also getting positive experiences. This is line with the findings of Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, and Murnighan (2002), who found that an open offer of penance and acknowledging intent were effective in short interactions, whereas with longer interactions the denial of intent is more effective. Using the findings of Bottom, et al. (2002), and combining it with the results in this research, colleagues, but also supervisors and teams as a whole, can use this information to improve the communication with each other. Getting positive experiences is also important to consider, making sure the distrusted colleague is not only explaining or denying his intentions, but also showing it to the employees.
2009). Interviewees mentioned not communicating as the start of their distrust. When someone is new within an organization, it would help if their supervisor or a (direct) colleague would take his or her hand and tell them how everything works. With openness, distrust can be avoided.
Limitations and future research
There were some limitations while writing this research. The largest limitation was COVID-19. Due to the restrictions, most of the interviews have been held via video call. Even though this worked, meeting in real life would have given a better connection between me and the interviewees, because it would be easier for me to make them feel at ease and be more open. With video calls, body language is more difficult to read, and therefore some signs of discomfort may have been overlooked. As distrust is a very sensitive topic, interviewees may have felt more comfortable if we met in real life.
Another limitation of this research was the sample size. Only nine people with different backgrounds were interviewed. Even though they were from different organizations and sectors, nine is only a little sample when looking at for example country level. There is not an optimal number of interviews in qualitative data, as data saturation is for every topic different (Fusch & Ness, 2015). However, the risk of such a small sample size can be that not all potential behaviours are being captured. In this case, some interviewees were only 23 years old, which can be argued that they have less experience in the working field and therefore in the topic of distrust in the job. Including more interviews with people with more work experience would give a clearer picture. Also, some interviewees were still in the middle of the situation discussed, and therefore maybe had not thought about the situation as clearly as the interviewees that experienced distrust in the past. This leads directly to future research, as more interviews are needed to get a clearer picture of what behaviours trigger distrust.
interacts with their colleagues to really know how to respond to someone. If someone has a job in which he or she has to interact a lot with their colleagues, such as a management position, it will be a different situation than for someone who cleans, because a cleaning person may not have direct contact with his or her colleagues. If they distrust their colleague, their work would be less effected than someone in a management position that has to work closely with his or her colleagues.
Another point to focus more on in the future is that it would also be interesting to see more of the role of the supervisor. Now, the focus was put on the how employees dealt with distrust towards a colleague. Nonetheless, a supervisor can play a huge part in this. It was also looked at in this research, however I primarily focused on the relation itself and not so much on the role of the supervisor. Supervisors may have the power to control a subordinate into doing or not doing things. He or she can be an example for the employee, but it may also be that the supervisor plays a large part in the distrust. Combining this research with that of Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2019) may give a more complete image of distrust within organizations.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCE LIST
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the organization. The Academy
of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.ObO13e31812e5535
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 246–260).
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Droogleever Fortuijn, E. (1997). De kwalitatieve datamatrix als
analyse-instrument. 448–459.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., van de Brake, J., & Täuber, S. (2019). Distrust of supervisors (under review).
Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization
Science, 13(5), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
Conchie, S. M., & Donald, I. J. (2006). The role of distrust in offshore safety performance.
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00822.x
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human
Relations, 13(2), 123–139.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Subgroup representation and superordinate consensus. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(7), 887–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720202800703
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348–1366.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012743
Flinders, D. J. (1997). Book reviews: Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing by Steinar Kvale. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 20(3), 287–292.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8774.2005.00541.x
Fryxell, G. E., Dooley, R. S., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies,
39(6), 865–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00315
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research.
The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues.
International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 503–527.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00006-X
Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2010). How’s the job? Social capital in the workplace. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 63(2), 205–227.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952583.n456
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-Identity Theory. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 69–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8
Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social Identity Theory. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through
Social Identity Theory (pp. 3–17). Springer International Publishing.
Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, September, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784401484.ch03
Johnson, A. L., Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., Ferreira, M. B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.002
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821
Koops, B. J., & Leenes, R. (2006). Identity theft, identity Fraud and/or identity-related crime. Definitions matter. Datenschutz Und Datensicherheit-DuD, 30(9), 553–556.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
Krause, N. (1991). Stress and isolation from close ties in later life. Journals of Gerontology,
46(4), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/46.4.S183
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews (U. Flick (ed.)). SAGE Publications.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In Conflict, cooperation, and justice. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-98007-005
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196729
groups. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 484–493.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60(1), 141–171.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual Self, Relational Self, and Collective Self (pp. 1–4). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407188-9.00005-3
Siebert, S., & Czarniawska, B. (2018). Distrust: not only in secret service organizations.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618798939
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. In Cambridge University Press (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
https://doi.org/10.1109/20.92659
Van der Meer-Kooistra, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2008). The governance of lateral relations between and within organisations. Management Accounting Research, 19, 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.08.001
Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 585–598.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.585
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: the indiscriminate early detection system. In
The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying (pp. 19–34).
Psychology Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Wong, V. C. W. (2009). Youth locked in time and space? Defining features of social
withdrawal and practice implications. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530903102692
Wu, L., Wei, L., & Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: An empirical examination. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5(1), 23– 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-011-0119-2
Young, A. G. (2018). Using ICT for social good: Cultural identity restoration through emancipatory pedagogy. Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 340–358.
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12142
i A8“Als iemand heel erg zijn eigen ding doet, dan vind ik, dan dwing je eigenlijk bijna iemand anders om ook dat
te doen, waardoor je een beetje eilandjes krijgt en niet echt veel samenhang binnen een team krijgt met wat je doet.”
ii A4 “Ja dus het belang van je doel moet je beoordelen en dat belang moet je dienen en niet je eigen belang”
iii A1 “Ik ben echt gewoon het lelijke eendje geworden. [...] En ik had gewoon de touwtjes niet meer in handen,
dus ik wist niet meer waar het allemaal over ging. En ik voelde me dus kut op die plek dus ik was er ook chagrijnig vaak. Dus nou, dan maak je het jezelf wel moeilijk.”
iv A3 “en sindsdien merkte ik gewoon altijd dat die mensen met me omgingen alsof ik een beetje stuk vuil was of
zo, totdat we elkaar leerden kennen”
v A6 “Maar hij is toen om mij heen naar een andere leidinggevende geweest over iets, en ja daar was ik gewoon
heel, daar was ik echt heel boos over dat ie dat gedaan heeft en nou hij stond er ook nog vol trots over te vertellen wat ie gedaan had”
vi A3 “Maar ik merkte wel dat ik heel passief werd in groepsverband”
vii A7 “Dat ze ook mensen behandelde op een manier waarop ik het absoluut niet vond kunnen”
viii A4 “En ja, dat spoort niet en dat geeft heel veel schade en dat geeft een bepaald beeld, waar ik nu last van
heb.”
ix A1: “Dus dan heb ik gewoon mijn werk, heb ik gewoon al die drie dagen al aan gewerkt, en toen kreeg ik
achteraf te horen dat zij al iets heel anders had gedaan”
x A9 “Dat is natuurlijk totaal niet prettig als een iemand zo onbeschoft werkt naar een klant toe en jij moet dat...
het schaadt het bedrijfsbelang.”
xi A5 “Ik heb hem denk ik mij in de weg laten zitten. Ik heb het toegestaan dat hij mij in de weg zat.”
xii A1 “En het is gewoon jammer dat ik gewoon tien weken gewoon frustraties heb gehad.”
xiv A3 “Ze had wat dingen over mij tegen de collega’s gezegd die niet waar waren zeg maar”
xv A2 “Maar zoals ik al zei toen ze die vier dagen ging werken hadden we eerst nog stagiaires erbij en dat maakte
het allemaal dat het iets minder opviel”
xvi A6 “Ik was heel boos, en het was ook gelijk dat ik dacht van; nou dit kan gewoon niet, dit mag niet.”
xvii A6 “Ik had moeite met hem te benaderen, het liefst omzeilde ik dat. Alleen, he, dus de privégesprekjes,
kletspraatjes, die deed ik niet meer.”
konden hebben over project, gebeurde dat nu gewoon niet meer.”
xix A7 “Ja, of ik ging gelijk naar de manager waar zij voor werkte om iets te vragen, buiten haar om.”
xx A3 “Dus ik durfde eigenlijk gewoon niet echt meer te interageren met de patiënten en zo”
xxi A9 “Als hij dan wat vraagt of wat zegt of iets wat ook niet door de beugel kan, dan ga je ook een kutopmerking
terugplaatsen”
xxii A6 “Maar ook achteraf merkte je dat toen die wegliep - of wij chatten nog wel eens he, via de computer - en
dan krijg je één op één opeens een chat van ‘hee joh trek het je niet aan’ of ‘Hee nou, wat die nou weer heeft gedaan is wel heel belachelijk’.”
xxiii A7 “ik ben niet zo bezig met aanzien, dat vind ik allemaal niet zo belangrijk. We zitten allemaal op hetzelfde
ding, of hetzelfde vlak.”
xxiv A2 “En toen zij er dus nieuw bijkwam, gingen we nog wel eerst, met het nieuwe team, ook wel dingetjes doen.
Gewoon uit eten een keer of ergens wat drinken, maar dat veranderde wel in dat zij niet meer mee ging. Dat we haar niet mee vroegen.”
xxv A7 “Dat ik het niet... me ging afzonderen of minder ging samenwerken. Ik ging misschien met die
GEWANTROUWDE COLLEGA wel eens wat minder samenwerken natuurlijk, omdat ik er even genoeg van had.”
xxvi A9 “mijn manier om dat te veranderen is om daar zelf weg te gaan, bij dat bedrijf en ontslag *lacht* ja, zo
kan het ook.”
xxvii A6 “Maar je merkte ook dat daar de collega's zelf hun minpunten over zo'n collega ook gingen vertellen. [...]
en dat vond ik eigenlijk ook best wel vervelend.”
xxviii A5 “Nee, nee. Ik bedoel ik... naar andere maar ook naar mijn directe collega, ik... als die zegt "ik heb je hulp
even nodig" dan zal ik altijd bij hem komen zitten. [...] Ja, ik bedoel als ik heel boos en narrig en afstandelijk ga doen, dan ga ik juist het tegendeel bereiken”
xxix A7 “wij werkten dan zeg maar op een gang met veertig, en dan zitten er allemaal mensen in een kamertje en
de deuren staan allemaal open, dus je had echt geen ruimte om zo te reageren.”
xxx A2 “ik heb het wel eens gewoon een soort van gewoon haar genegeerd en gewoon mijn eigen ding gedaan”
xxxi A9 “Door op een ja zeer vroeg stadium van elkaar te weten wat je... wat je van iemand kan verwachten”
xxxii A7 “Zeggen als je iets vervelend vindt, zeggen als je vindt dat iemand iets goeds gedaan heeft.”
xxxiii A5 “omdat je dan van iedereen verwacht dat ie van begin af aan overal open en eerlijk over is. En ik denk
voorkomen is.”
xxxv A2 “Denk het wel maar dat ligt wel aan de persoon zelf. Of diegene echt wil verbeteren.”
xxxvi A8 “hij z'n afspraken gaat nakomen en dat we op een goede manier gaan overleggen.”
xxxvii A5 “Omdat ik me afvraag of mijn collega daar heel open in wil zijn”
xxxviii A5 “Een soort nieuw nulpunt maken, en dan benoemen wat er voorheen fout ging, en wat we vanaf dat
moment anders gaan doen.”
xxxix A1 “dan moeten we met z'n tweeën in een kamer worden gezet en gewoon het ei openbreken en dan echt
helemaal open en eerlijk tegen elkaar zijn.”
xl A6 “Tijd, maar ik denk ook weer positieve ervaringen. Dat ik denk; hee hij doet wat voor me terwijl dat
helemaal niet had gehoeven. Misschien dat dat dan het herstelt.”
xli A8 “En dat iedereen dus ja zich veilig voelt om hun zegje te kunnen doen daarin”
xlii A2 “Want als je het allemaal met elkaar moet gaan overleggen en niemand is echt de baas om het zo maar te
zeggen dan krijg je denk ik eerder wrijving en dat het niet werkt.”
xliii A6 “Ja, nou ja ik krijg soms bij een bank niet altijd voor elkaar wat ik graag zou willen, en dan is het fijn als
er een leidinggevende is die vaak, ja, op een ander niveau ergens naar kijkt en misschien wel iets in beweging kan krijgen, wat mij niet lukt”
xliv A2 “Ze had niet echt een idee hoe het nou werkte op stal”
xlv A6 “Ja hoor, als ik er niet uit kom dan haak ik hem aan en dan komen we er altijd wel uit.”
xlvi A7 “Want hij snapte gewoon niets van het secretaresse-werk, dat heeft ie ook.. ja nee”
xlvii A7 “Hij had het en dat is één ding gewoon veel te druk, omdat die ook de manager was, hij had allemaal
andere dingen. [...] En hij begreep ook... Je moest af en toe echt gewoon als Brugman uitleggen hoe jij dingen deed en waarom je het doet.”
xlviii A2 “Ik denk ook dat ze voornamelijk haar, die gewantrouwde collega, meer begeleiding hadden kunnen
geven en duidelijker van tevoren de taken kunnen doorspreken, dat zij meer wist waar ze aan begon”
xlix A5 “Wat er tot nu toe nog nooit is gebeurd, is dat we met z'n drieën bij - of in het begin misschien een keer -
maar daarna weinig meer dat we met z'n drieën aan tafel hebben gezeten. [...] En dan kijken wat iedereen daarover te zeggen heeft en kijken of ik daar een manier in kan vinden om te zeggen ‘zo gaan we het doen’.”
l A1 “zij had dus inderdaad meer naar ons persoonlijke verhaal kunnen luisteren in plaats van alleen maar, ze
S2656620 University of Groningen
APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Interview Guide
(In Dutch)
Introductie
Goedemorgen / middag, hartelijk dank dat u mee wilt werken aan ons onderzoek. Ik zal mij eerst even voorstellen. Mijn naam is … , ik ben assistent-onderzoeker in dit project en student aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Ik wil benadrukken dat er vertrouwelijk met uw antwoorden wordt omgegaan.. Uw naam wordt van het interviewverslag verwijderd en vervangen door een code. De gegevens worden anoniem verwerkt, in zinnen zoals: ‘Sommige geïnterviewden zeiden wel wraakgevoelens te hebben, maar niet naar die gevoelens te handelen.’
Om de verwerking van de antwoorden te vergemakkelijken, zou ik ons gesprek graag opnemen. Na afloop van het onderzoek worden alle opnames gewist. Heeft u er bezwaar tegen als ik het gesprek opneem?
Heeft u nog vragen? Zo niet, dan wil ik nu graag beginnen met een aantal vragen over uw werk.
Interview Protocol Relations with Team Members and Supervisors
PC=link naar Personal Control Theory
Ik zou graag eerst wat willen weten over u en uw werk in het team waarin u wantrouwen ontwikkelde ten opzichte van een collega. Team in het verleden? Dan vragen in het verleden
S2656620 University of Groningen
Eigen werk
1. Hoe lang werkt u al in dit team?
o Wat zijn de belangrijkste taken van uw team? • Wat houdt uw werk in?
• Wat streeft u na in uw eigen werk?
2. Zijn er ook doelstellingen voor uw eigen werk geformuleerd?
• Zijn deze in uw ogen haalbaar? Zo nee: waarom niet? Wat is het probleem in uw ogen? (PC-gebrek aan middelen?)
• Hebt u het gevoel dat u genoeg vrijheid van handelen hebt om uw werk goed te doen? (PC)
• Beschikt u over voldoende middelen om uw werk goed te doen? Zo nee: hoe komt dat?
Nu wil ik graag met u uw relatie met teamgenoten bespreken, in het team waarin u een teamgenoot ging wantrouwen
Relatie met teamgenoten-vertrouwen-wantrouwen
3. Bent u afhankelijk van samenwerking met teamgenoten om uw werk goed te doen? • Wordt er in uw team goed samengewerkt? Zo nee/niet altijd: zijn er wel eens
problemen in de samenwerking? Waar gaan die over? (PC). Worden deze
problemen meestal opgelost? Hoe, en door wie (leidinggevende?). Vindt u dit
een goede manier? Zo nee, waarom niet?
4. Hoe zou u een goede teamgenoot willen omschrijven? Per eigenschap: waarom vindt u dat prettig? Is dit een collega die u kunt vertrouwen? Maakt zo’n teamgenoot het u makkelijker om uw werk goed te doen? Hoe?
5. Welke eigenschappen waardeert u niet in een teamgenoot? Per eigenschap: wat vindt u daar vervelend aan? Kan dat tot wantrouwen in die persoon leiden? Hoe?
6. U hebt al aangegeven dat u een bepaalde teamgenoot wantrouwt/wantrouwde.
Vertrouwde u deze collega eerst wel? Wat deed deze persoon waardoor u hem/haar ging
S2656620 University of Groningen • Had het gedrag van die teamgenoot onprettige gevolgen voor u? Welke?
Waarom vond u dat onprettig? Had u het gevoel dat deze persoon u
belemmerde om uw werk goed te doen? Hoe?
• Voelde u zich benadeeld of geschaad door dit gedrag? Hoe?
• Ontstond uw wantrouwen geleidelijk of gebeurde het ineens?
Omgaan met wantrouwen
7. Ging u zich anders gedragen toen u deze collega eenmaal wantrouwde? Wat veranderde in uw gedrag?
• Waarom reageerde u zo op die persoon? Wat wilde u met uw reactie bereiken? • Hebt u wel eens overwogen om ook op een andere manier te reageren?
Waarom hebt u dat niet gedaan?
8. Denkt u dat uw wantrouwen te herstellen is? Wat is daar in uw ogen voor nodig? Hoe groot acht u de kans dat dit ook gaat gebeuren?
• Acht u voorkomen van wantrouwen beter dan genezen? Hoe zou wantrouwen voorkomen kunnen worden?
Dan komen er nu een aantal vragen over de rol van de leidinggevende in het team
Relatie met leidinggevende
9. Wat ziet u als de belangrijkste taken van een leidinggevende?
• Vervult uw leidinggevende deze taken op een goede manier?
• Zo ja: Per taak waarom vindt u dat belangrijk? Kunt u daardoor uw werk
beter doen (PC)?
• Zo nee: Per taak waarom vindt u dat belangrijk? Hoe komt het denkt u dat uw leidinggevende deze taak niet goed vervult?
10. Krijgt u voldoende ondersteuning van uw leidinggevende bij het oplossen van de problemen waarvoor u verantwoordelijk bent (PC)?
• Zo nee: Hoe komt dat denkt u?
• Probeert u dat wel eens te veranderen? Hoe? Met welke afloop?
11. Lost uw leidinggevende de problemen binnen het team, waar hij/zij verantwoordelijk voor is, goed op?
• Zo nee: Hoe komt dat denkt u?
• Had de leidinggevende in uw ogen een andere rol kunnen spelen in de relatie tussen u en de collega die uw wantrouwde?
S2656620 University of Groningen 12. Hebt u vertrouwen in uw leidinggevende?
• Zo ja: Hoe is dat vertrouwen ontstaan? • Ging dat geleidelijk of ineens?
• Zo nee: Door welk gedrag van de leidinggevende is uw vertrouwen verminderd of verdwenen?
• Wat vond u daar erg aan/ waarom kwam dat gedrag bij u zo slecht aan?
Doorvragen PC
• Zou u willen zeggen dat u deze leidinggevende wantrouwt?
• Is dat wantrouwen geleidelijk ontstaan of ineens? Wat dacht u toen?
13. Hoe gaat/ging u met deze leidinggevende om, gegeven dat u hem wantrouwde? • Waarom reageerde u juist zo?
• Hebt u wel eens overwogen om ook op een andere manier te reageren? Waarom hebt u dat niet gedaan?
•
S2656620 University of Groningen
APPENDIX B – Interview transcripts
S2656620 University of Groningen
APPENDIX C – Data Matrix
DISCLAIMER: The data matrix has only been sent to the supervisor and co-assessor of this thesis, in order to ensure the confidentiality of the interviews and anonymity of the
