Trust and team performance

As illustrated above, many classifications, forms, and definitions of trust exist. Two perspectives of trust are especially relevant when it comes to team performance: the social capital perspective and the emergent state perspective (DeJong

& Elfring, 2010; Klotz et al., 2014). I explain both perspectives in the following.

2.3.2.1 Social capital perspective

In their literature review on entrepreneurial teams, Klotz et al. (2014) identify prior experience and social capital as two main categories of team characteristics that strongly influence entrepreneurial team outcomes. The importance of prior experience for entrepreneurship in general, and more specifically for opportunity recognition and selection, is already explained in section 2.2. The influence of intra-team trust, one aspect of social capital, on these entrepreneurial processes is described in the following.

Prior studies show the relevance of social capital for entrepreneurial activities in general, and especially for opportunity recognition (e.g., Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Gordon, 2006; Ozgen & Baron, 2007). A central element of the relation-ship between social capital and opportunity recognition is the need to handle information asymmetry and resource uncertainty in entrepreneurship (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003). Information asymmetry describes the difference between actors who possess early information about a new way of using resources, e.g., based on technological change, and actors who receive the same information later. Thus, due to their information advantage, early-informed actors might recognize resource-related opportunities earlier (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003). Resource uncertainty refers to the fact that entrepreneurs are often not sure whether they can acquire the necessary resources (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003). Conse-quently, they might refuse opportunities based on the fear that they might not be able to purchase the necessary re-sources.

There are different definitions with varying emphases on social capital. Adler and Kwon (2002) categorize the different definitions into external, internal, and both external and internal ties to facilitate the understanding of different research aspects. They describe social capital as a "resource available to actors as a function of their location in the structure of their social relations" (Adler & Kwon, 2002, p. 18). External ties refer to available external resources and networks that are used to capture information and competencies that are not available internally, whereas internal ties focus on the structure, characteristics, and dynamics within a team or organization that increase its ability to achieve common goals.

Besides the bridging perspective, which focuses on external ties, and the collective perspective, which emphasizes internal ties, a third, neutral perspective includes external as well as internal ties (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

Scholars disagree on the link between social capital and trust. Some see trust as one form of social capital (Coleman, 1988), others as a source (Putnam, 1993) or a result of social capital (Lin, 1999). To summarize the different under-standings, Adler and Kwon (2002) argue that the valuable goodwill, referring to sympathy, trust, and forgiveness that individuals have towards others, is the key element for social capital research. Thus, when analyzing how a team achieves a common goal with the help of its members' valuable goodwill, one central element is trust (Inglehart, 1997).

Consequently, trust is important to understand social processes between actors, e.g., entrepreneurial team members.

2.3.2.2 Emergent state perspective

When analyzing the influence of intra-team trust on team performance, trust is often seen as a psychological or a so-called emergent state (e.g., DeJong & Elfring, 2010). Emergent states are "constructs that develop over the life of the team and impact team outcomes" (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005, p. 520). Although trusting another person generally relates to the individual level, when analyzing trust in teams, researchers (e.g., DeJong & Elfring, 2010) study trust as a team-level construct and refer to intra-team trust as a shared expectation including all team members. Thus, intra-team trust is an important emergent state providing crucial information about teams (DeJong & Elfring, 2010).

Many scholars agree that diminishing uncertainty in a crucial element of trust, leading to positive expectations towards the trusted individuals (e.g., Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Focusing on intra-team trust in the present study, I follow DeJong and Elfring (2010), who define interpersonal trust "as a psychological state of individuals involving confident, positive expectations about the actions of another" (DeJong & Elfring, 2010, p. 536).

In addition, they explain that the term intra-team trust refers to "shared generalized perceptions of trust that team mem-bers have in their fellow teammates" (DeJong & Elfring, 2010, p. 536). They underline that intra-personal trust and intra-team trust are analogous in nature and outcome (DeJong & Elfring, 2010).

The influence of intra-team trust in established teams, for example entrepreneurial teams, is assumed to be stronger than in short-term teams, such as project teams, as intra-team relations and the subsequent implications are more im-portant in established teams (Saunders & Ahuja, 2006). Scholars agree that intra-team trust plays an imim-portant role in team performance (DeJong & Elfring, 2010; Langfred, 2004; Porter & Lilly, 1996; Zand, 1972), especially in entre-preneurial teams (Klotz et al., 2014), but literature on how intra-team trust influences team performance is scant (Dirks

& Ferrin, 2001).

Dirks and Ferrin (2001) distinguish two different ways in which trust may influence outcomes and define the circum-stances that determine the appropriate way. First, trust can directly affect team performance and, second, trust can indirectly influence team performance by enabling or constraining main effects as a moderator. Prior studies analyze the direct effect of trust on different outcomes, e.g., team performance (Friedlander, 1970; Klimoski & Karol, 1976).

However, trust is often the condition that determines the link between special forms of input and team performance as output (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). The level of trust shows how people appreciate the behavior of others in vulnerable or risky situations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). This impression is based on how they evaluate past situations and how they predict future actions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Consequently, a central element when analyzing trust lies in the interpre-tation of past behavior or expected future behavior. Thus, the interpreinterpre-tation of situations is the condition that influences the outcome (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). To understand whether trust influences the outcome directly or indirectly, Dirks and Ferrin (2001) apply the concept of "situational strength" (p. 461), which is often used to study the influence of psychological states (e.g., Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). They distinguish between

"strong situations" (p. 462), in which trust directly influences the output, and "weak situations" (p. 461), in which trust is the condition that facilitates or hinders the outcome, for example team performance. In strong situations, everyone would act in a likewise manner and, consequently, there is no room for interpretation (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). In weak situations, the interpretation plays a major role (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). To put it differently, when analyzing the effects of different influencing factors, there are situations in which trust is the main determinant of the outcome, and there are other situations in which trust acts as a moderator of another main determinant (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).

In a prior study, Dirks (1999) shows that intra-team trust helps to understand the effect of motivation on team perfor-mance and team processes, as trust channels the team members' energy towards a better outcome. Prior entrepreneurial studies are in line with this approach and understand intra-team trust as a condition that indirectly influences the out-come if there is another, stronger input factor. Chen and Wang (2008), for example, analyze the influence of external social networks on the innovative capability of a new venture depending on the intra-team trust within the entrepre-neurial team. They find that intra-team trust is an important moderator.