The main goal of this study was to examine the interaction between team members’ performance and interactional justice climate in predicting mutual trust between managers and team members. A total of 93 small centers devoted to the attention of people with intellectual disability participated in the study. In each center, the manager (N = 93) and a group of team members (N = 746) were surveyed. On average, team members were 36.2 years old (SD = 9.3), whereas managers were 41.2 years old (SD = 8.8). The interaction between interactional justice climate and performance was statistically significant. Team members’ performance strengthened the link from interactional justice climate to mutual trust.
AryeeS.BudhwarP. S.ChenZ. X. (2002) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior23: 267–285.
2.
Bashshur, M., Rupp, D. E., & Christopher, J. (2004). Theoretically-based strategies for defining and measuring justice climate: Implications for multilevel research in organizational justice. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
3.
BiesR. J.MoagJ. S. (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: LewickiR. J.SheppardB. H.BazermanB. H. (eds) Research on negotiation in organizations, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 43–55.
4.
BlauP. (1964) Exchange and power in social life, New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
BraunS.PeusC.WeisweilerS.FreyD. (2013) Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly24: 270–283.
6.
BrowerH.LesterS.KorsgaardM.DineenB. (2009) A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management35: 327–347.
7.
BurkeM. J.FinkelsteinL. M.DusigM. S. (1999) On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods2: 49–68.
8.
BushbergJ. T.SeibertJ. A.LeidholdtE. M.Jr.BooneJ. M. (2012) The essential physics of medical imaging, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
9.
ButlerJ. K. (1991) Towards understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management17: 643–663.
10.
ColquittJ. A. (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology86: 386–400.
11.
ColquittJ. A.NoeR. A.JacksonC. L. (2002) Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology55: 83–109.
12.
ColquittJ. A.Zapata-PhelanC. P.RobersonQ. M. (2005) Justice in teams: A review of fairness effects in collective contexts. In: MartocchioJ. J. (ed.) Research in personnel and human resources managementVol. 24, Oxford, England: Elsevier.
13.
CostaA. C.RoeR. A.TaillieuT. (2001) Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology10: 225–244.
14.
CrossmanA.Lee-KelleyL. (2004) Trust, commitment and team working: The paradox of virtual organizations. Global Networks4: 375–390.
15.
DunlapW. P.BurkeM. J.Smith-CroweK. (2003) Accurate tests of statistical significance for r(WG) and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 356–362.
16.
FulmerC. A.GelfandM. J. (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management38: 1167–1230.
17.
JohnsG. (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review31: 386–408.
18.
KoD. G. (2014) The mediating role of knowledge transfer and the effects of client-consultant mutual trust on the performance of enterprise implementation projects. Information & Management51: 541–550.
19.
KorsgaardM. A.BrowerH. H.LesterS. W. (2015) It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management41: 47–70.
20.
KramerR. M. (1996) Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In: KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (eds) Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 216–245.
21.
LiA.CropanzanoR. (2009) Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management35: 564–599.
22.
LiaoH.ChuangA. (2004) A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal47: 41–58.
23.
LidenR. C.ErdoganB.WayneS. J.SparroweR. T. (2006) Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior27: 723–746.
24.
Martínez-TurV.PeiróJ. M. (2009) The trust episode in organizations: Implications for private and public social capital. Social Science Information48: 143–174.
25.
MartinkoM. J.HarveyP.DouglasS. C. (2007) The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly18: 561–585.
26.
MayerR. C.DavisJ.SchoormanF. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review20: 709–734.
27.
McClellandG. H.JuddC. M. (1993) Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin114: 376–390.
28.
MolinerC.Martínez-TurV.PeiróJ. M.RamosJ.CropanzanoR. (2008) Organizational justice and extra-role customer service: The mediating role of web-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology17: 327–348.
29.
NormanS. M.AvolioB. J.LuthansF. (2010) The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly21: 350–364.
30.
RuppD. E.PaddockE. L. (2010) From justice events to justice climate: A multilevel temporal model of information aggregation and judgment. In: MannixB.NealM.MullenE. (eds) Research on managing groups and teams: Fairness and groups, Bingley, England: JAI Emerald, pp. 239–267.
31.
SeppäläT.LipponenJ.Pirttilä-BackmanA.-M.LipsanenJ. (2011) Reciprocity of trust in the supervisor–subordinate relationship: The mediating role of autonomy and the sense of power. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology20: 755–778.
32.
SeppäläT.LipponenJ.Pirttilä-BackmanA. M.LipsanenJ. (2012) A trust-focused model of leaders’ fairness enactment. Journal of Personnel Psychology11: 20–30.
33.
ServaM. A.FullerM. A.MayerR. C. (2005) The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior26: 625–648.
34.
ShippF.BurnsG. L.DesmulC. (2010) Construct validity of ADHD-IN, ADHD-HI, ODD toward adults, academic and social competence dimensions with teacher ratings of Thai adolescents: Additional validity for the child and adolescent disruptive behavior inventory. Journal of Psychopathology Behavior Assessment32: 557–564.
35.
SkitkaL. J.WinquistJ.HutchinsonS. (2003) Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research16: 309–341.
36.
SmithJ. B.BarclayD. W. (1997) The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing61: 3–21.
37.
TrothA. C.JordanP. J.LawrenceS. A.TseH. H. M. (2012) A multilevel model of emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior33: 700–722.
38.
van MierloH.VermuntJ. K.RutteC. G. (2009) Composing group level constructs from individual-level survey data. Organizational Research Methods12: 368–392.
39.
ZhouX.SchriesheimC. (2010) Quantitative and qualitative examination of propositions concerning supervisor–subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality. The Leadership Quarterly21: 826–843.
