How to Build Trust in a Team: What the Research Supports

Abstract

This article is about a task that new and experienced managers both find hard: how to build trust in a team. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of trust in leadership (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002) covered 106 samples with 27,103 people and found links between trust in a leader and job satisfaction, commitment and intentions to leave, and a small link with job performance. A meta-analysis of 112 studies covering 7,763 teams (De Jong and colleagues, 2016) found that trust within teams was positively related to team performance. A field study of 51 work teams (Edmondson, 1999) found that a shared belief that the team is safe for taking interpersonal risks was linked with learning behaviour. These are associations in specific groups, not in finance teams. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not HR, legal or medical advice.

The meeting where nobody had any concerns

You have been the finance manager for three weeks. At the end of your first team meeting you ask: "Any concerns?" Nobody says a word.

That afternoon two people send you private messages. One says the new approval step is slowing the close. The other says the reporting template has a problem that the whole team has known about for months.

How to build trust in a team: what the research says

The research cited here does not test a trust-building programme. It describes what trust in a leader and trust between team members are linked with, and what a shared sense of safety looks like in teams that learn. The studies were meta-analyses and a field study in a manufacturing company, and none was limited to finance. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis of trust in leadership found

Dirks and Ferrin (2002) meta-analysed four decades of research on trust in leadership, with 106 independent samples and 27,103 people. Trust in leadership was related to job performance, citizenship behaviour, job attitudes and intentions. The links were strongest for job satisfaction (r = .51) and commitment to the organisation (r = .49). Intentions to leave had a substantial negative link (r = -.40), and the link with job performance was small (r = .16).

Transformational leadership, perceived organisational support and fairness in how people were treated had the strongest links with trust. The length of the relationship showed no meaningful link. Trust in a direct leader was often more strongly related to outcomes than trust in organisational leadership. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the silent meeting through this. As the direct leader, you are the nearest person to the team's trust, and in this study that nearness mattered. This is an inference. The meta-analysis shows associations, and it does not say how a new manager earns trust in the first weeks.

What a meta-analysis of 112 studies found about team trust

De Jong and colleagues (2016) meta-analysed 112 independent studies covering 7,763 teams. Trust between team members was positively related to team performance, with an above-average effect size (ρ = .30). The link held after controlling for the team's trust in its leader and for past team performance. It held for both thinking-based and feeling-based trust.

The strength of the link depended on task interdependence, authority differentiation and skill differentiation within the team. The authors argue that the review brings together scattered research on trust and team performance and shows when trust matters most. This is summarised from the published abstract and a repository page.

Read your own team through this. A close team, where one person's output feeds the next, differs from a loosely linked one on the first of those factors. This is an inference. The abstract summary used here does not give the direction of those differences.

What a study of 51 teams found about psychological safety

Edmondson (1999) introduced the idea of team psychological safety, a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. She studied 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, measuring the conditions, the team processes and the outcomes.

Psychological safety was associated with learning behaviour in the team. Team efficacy was not, once psychological safety was controlled. Learning behaviour linked psychological safety with team performance. The study concludes that both structural factors, such as contextual support and team leader coaching, and shared beliefs shape what teams achieve. This is summarised from the published abstract and a repository page.

Read the private messages through this. Two people had something useful to say, and the meeting was not where they felt able to say it. This is an inference. The study was of manufacturing teams, and it does not tell you why those two chose private messages.

How to build trust in a team: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Say what you got wrong, first. In your next team meeting, name one thing you decided that cost the team time, and say what you will do differently. Edmondson (1999) describes psychological safety as a shared belief about interpersonal risk, and a leader who takes the first risk shows what is safe. This is an inference, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Last month I added the approval step without asking you. It cost the team two days. From now on I'll ask before I change the close."

2. Close three small loops this week. Do what you said you would do, and tell people it is done. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found that trust in a direct leader was often more strongly related to outcomes than trust in the organisation's leaders. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "The template fix I mentioned on Monday is live. Thanks to Maria for flagging it."

3. Ask a question you do not know the answer to, and use the answer. Pick something specific enough to answer, then change one thing as a result. De Jong and colleagues (2016) found that trust within teams was linked with team performance, and a visible change shows that the answer was heard. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "What slows the close down for you most? I'll pick one thing from your answers and fix it by the end of the month."

If you have just been promoted over former colleagues, How to Manage Former Peers After a Promotion is about that. If work keeps coming back to you, there is How to Delegate as a Finance Manager: Why Work Comes Back. When someone has made a mistake, see How to Tell Your Boss You Made a Mistake in the Numbers for the other side of it. And if two people in the team are in conflict, How to Handle Conflict Between Two Team Members may help.

Questions People Ask

How long does it take to build trust in a team?

The research cited here does not give a timeline. In the 2002 meta-analysis, the length of the relationship showed no meaningful link with trust in the leader. What the abstracts describe are the conditions linked with trust, and not how many weeks it takes.

What is psychological safety?

Edmondson (1999) describes it as a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. In her study of 51 teams it was associated with learning behaviour.

Can you rebuild trust after a mistake?

The studies cited here did not test repairing trust. How to Tell Your Boss You Made a Mistake in the Numbers covers one version of that conversation.

Can coaching help build trust in a team?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you notice how your own habits show up in the team, and plan changes. It is not treatment and not HR advice. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a quiet team

A quiet team is one thing. It is more when people describe bullying, harassment or fear of retaliation, or when someone seems unwell or in distress. In those cases involve your HR team or occupational health, and if you are the one affected, talk to your doctor or a qualified mental health professional. This article is not HR, legal or medical advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000110 (Summarised from the published abstract and a repository page.)

• 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. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. DOI: 10.2307/2666999 (Summarised from the published abstract and a repository page.)