Abstract

Recent findings have shown that, in a work environment, teams are more efficient than
individuals. As a consequence, organizations across the world are increasingly relying on
team structures to succeed in the increasingly complex world wherein they work. Thus,
teamwork is rapidly becoming an indispensable requirement for qualifying for many a job in
such organisations aiming for success. These organisations put too much emphasis on team
effectiveness, but most of them approach it from a broader viewpoint. Whereas, this paper
intends to endorse a rather different, unit-level viewpoint, videlicet, the impact of
interpersonal exchanges on the team as well as teamwork. This holistic approach determines
a team’s success by factoring in not only the team’s performance but also intra-team, unit
level interactions. Further, the paper studies the roles of organizational trust (both conditional
and unconditional), intra-team competition as well as teammate’s perception of interpersonal
justice as mediators facilitating the relationship between interpersonal exchanges, hereinafter
IPE and teamwork. For achieving the same, we have conducted extensive review of available
literature. In teams and organisations, interpersonal relationships amongst colleagues form an
integrated social structure. The role of interactions among team members, we contend, is
effective to assist the social exchanges that sustain team-work. This is due to the fact that
IPE foster mutual relations and affective bonding, allowing team members to experience
emotional meanings related to their work. Finally, we argue that quality interpersonal
exchange among team mates leads to superior teamwork. We believe that organisations must
recognise the impact of IPE and train to harness its power to improve team performance.

Keywords: Interpersonal, Teamwork, Team-effectiveness, Competition, Justice, Trust. 

Introduction

“management communication is both challenging and exciting as managers

communicated with subordinates in quite different ways in the past than they do today in
the 21st century”

It's difficult to imagine a company that doesn't need employees to communicate with one
another. It can be said that members of various teams within the corporate framework are
truly the organization's flag bearers. Employees at the company probably use social
interaction on a daily basis to address customer grievances, convince their bosses to allow
them some time off, or console a colleague who is struggling with a tough problem. In recent
years, interpersonal interaction has been consistently ranked as a critical prerequisite for
achieving good job performance in organizations (Centre for English Language
Communication National University of Singapore (2011). Interpersonal Communication.
Singapore: Author). Also because of the competitive nature of industry, a significant portion
of the workforce is now employed in jobs that require more customer contact, a certain level
of expertise, and good communication to carry out their duties. Employees in such a situation
feel the need for both internal and external knowledge to feel secure and at ease at work.
Now-a-days organizations also deal with groups of people who may perform a job that entails
a variety of tasks and requires them to work in teams (Forsyth, 2010). Individuals cannot
conduct and carry out complex and complicated procedures involving numerous tasks;
however, the alternative is to form a team of individuals that can perform similar tasks and
operate in the shortest amount of time. As a result, the significance of IPE cannot be
overstated, as it necessitates the group's interdependencies. Group dynamics, as described by
Lewin, are the processes by which groups and individuals act and respond to changing
circumstances, taking into account various aspects of group members' interaction (Forsyth,
2010). For overall organizational target achievement, the growing trends in specialization and
division of labour necessitate effective coordination and group dynamics. “In any
organization where services are made based on intangibility, interpersonal communication,
group dynamics, and teamwork are essential” ().

IPE does not just means providing information to one another but also to encourage the other
teammates. According to (Communicationtheory.org, 2010) within team communication can
occur in three forms Upwards communication, downwards communication, and lateral
communication. Downwards communication can be used by supervisors to supervise over
their sub-ordinates, upward communication is just opposite of it, here a subordinate person
communicates with their supervisors. Lateral communication is most important between
teammates, it means communication between peers in an organization.

The role of interactions among team members, is effective to assist the social exchanges that
sustain team-work. This is due to the fact that IPE foster mutual relations and affective
bonding, allowing team members to experience emotional meanings related to their work.
The reason behind this is that workplace friendships are unique IPE that workers establish
and preserve by choice rather than by obligation, and that they are able to interact with each
other outside of their formal role like in other organisational relationships.

Teamwork

A team comprises of two or more individuals “with specified roles” “interacting adaptively,
interdependently, and dynamically toward a common and valued goal” (Dyer, 1984)
(Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). Teams are potent groups that offer “greater
adaptability, productivity, and creativity than any one individual can offer” (Gladstein, 1984)
(Hackman, 2002) and “provide more complex, innovative, and comprehensive solutions to
organizational problems” (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). Thus, today’s
organisations prefer a team over individual. But, mere creation of a team doesn’t lead to its
success. “Although teams have great potential, their failure can have far-reaching effects on
their respective organization” e.g., “missed deadlines, low productivity, lost revenue, faulty
products” (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012). So, how can a team’s success be
warranted? The answer lies in “teamwork”.
Contrary to popular belief that teamwork gained its popularity in the modern global business
world, it can be argued that Socrates had laid down its founding principles by naming seven
principles for “the spirit of friendship”. These included “establishing a dialogue, the belief in
changeability of ideas, not being in conflict with others, not intervening during others’ talks,
listening carefully, expressing the thoughts in a clear manner and being honest”. “Teamwork
is a set of interrelated thoughts, actions, and feelings of each team member that are needed to
function as a team and that combine to facilitate coordinated, adaptive performance and task
objectives resulting in value-added outcomes” (B. B. Morgan, Salas , & Glickman, 1993). It
creates a set of persons “who are dependent on each other and who share the responsibility
for a common goal” (Valsecchi, Wise, Mueller, & Smith, 2012). Further, no two teams are
the same, “different types of team manifest teamwork processes differently (Burke, Stagl,
Salas , & Pierce, 2006). Accordingly, numerous academics have proposed similar as well as
different models” aimed at accounting for the factors that are likely to increase the
effectiveness of work teams” (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993) (Cohen, Ledford Jr., &
Spreitzer, 1996) (Hackman, 2002) (Gladstein, 1984) (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992).
Most of these are based on the “systemic approach of input →process →output” (Hackman,
2002) (McGrath, 1991).

According to Salas, Burke and Sims (2005), teams must maintain the coordinating
mechanisms of “shared mental models, mutual trust and closed loop communication”.
Additionally, they proposed that “regardless of the team task that is examined, a focal set of
teamwork components will be required to complete the task”, and thus mooted the “Big Five”
components of teamwork, namely: -

 team leadership
 mutual performance monitoring
 backup behaviour
 adaptability
 team orientation.

Teamwork behaviour are “the overt actions and verbal statements displayed during
interactions between team members to ensure a successful collective action” (Morgan et al.,
1993). In other words, “teamwork behaviors are required of team members for effective team
performance” (Taggar & Brown, 2006). “Team members interact and share resources to
complete their duties, which means that they are interdependent regarding task
accomplishment” (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2002). In essence, teamwork facilitates the
accomplishment of collective assignments and in consequence improve team performance.

Hypothesis

Organizational trust (both conditional and unconditional) has a positive and significant
relationship with interpersonal cooperation ergo teamwork.

[Mediating Variable: Trust]

Trust is among the most important determinant which maintain high interpersonal relations
and/or exchanges. It is an “expression of confidence” in-between parties during an exchange
that “they will not be harmed or put at risk by the actions of the other party” (Axelrod, 1984;
Bateson, 1988; Zucker, 1987). IEP hugely contributes to the emergence of trust which
strengthens team-bonds and promotes members to “listen to each other and advance mutual
knowledge, fosters cooperation, participation, the sense of belongingness to the group and
consensus among team members and, lastly, allows for creative and qualitative results to
emerge” (Weiss, et al., 2020). It can be proved that interpersonal trust has potential to
“influence group process and performance indirectly through moderation”. “In this role, trust
would facilitate (moderate) the relationship between other variables and group performance”
(Dirks, 1999).

Costa (Costa, 2001) proved that trust “has significant effects on team performance and
effectiveness”. Hakanen and Soudunsaari (Hakanen & Soudunsaari, 2012) found that “IEP
and teamwork can increase the level of trust and affect the overall team performance”.
Collins and Chou’s (Collins & Chou, 2013) quantitative research showed that “in traditional
teams interpersonal-trust is the most important factor for success and effectiveness”. IPE
cannot be neglected as along with increasing productivity and performance of a team it is a
pre-condition for gaining trust. (Işık, Timuroğlu, & Aliyev, 2015).

Jones and George (1998) broke down interpersonal trust into two parts, Conditional- “where
developing attitudes are favourable enough to support future interactions”- which enables
interpersonal exchanges among team-mates and Unconditional- “where shared values create a
common bond” which exponentially improves the quality of interpersonal relationships
and/or exchanges, thus proving that both have an equally positive significance on both our
constructs.

Teammate’s perception of interpersonal justice has a positive and significant impact on

teamwork.

Moderating Variable- Justice

Today, we see more and more organizations adopting work teams that have “greater
discretion as co-workers work interdependently to accomplish a common goal” (Bosch-
Sijtsema, Fruchter, Vartiainen, & Ruohomaki, 2011). In course of which, accountability
among teammates increases (Banker, Field, Schroeder, & Sinha, 1996; Barker, 1993; Bishop
& Scott, 2000). Implying that team-mates are most likely to “play an important role in
shaping an employee’s justice perceptions” (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007).

There have historically been three components of Organizational Justice: -

 Distributive justice refers to the “perceived fairness of the outcomes received”,

 procedural justice refers to the “fairness of decision-making processes”, and
 interactional justice refers to “the fairness of the interpersonal treatment that one
receives from another person”.

We, here, have focussed on interactional justice as it could be quantified by “a broad range of
interpersonal treatment” (Roch & Shanock, 2006).

Employees' perceived acts of fairness exceptionally add to their work relationship that
generally upgrade the quality and desirability of their continuous relationship and such
commitments thusly force the employees to return in conducts to reserve the Social Exchange
relationships by means of intentional behaviours and attitudes which advantage the parties
who treat them justly.

Cropanzano (Cropazano, Li, & Benson III, 2011) defines Peer Justice as “a shared perception
regarding how individuals who work together within the same unit and who do not have
formal authority over each other judge the fairness with which they treat one another”. He
goes on to prove that “Peer procedural justice is positively associated with interpersonal
teamwork process”. A higher magnitude peer justice perception creates a favourable social
environment as it “induces team members to participate in decision-making processes, apply
decision-making rules in a consistent manner, among others” (Leventhal, 1976). This allows
them to inculcate feelings of “loyalty and commitment toward each other” (Liao & Rupp,
2005) (Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2009) and “set the tone for and reinforce positive
interactions among them”.

References
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

B. B. Morgan, B. B., Salas , E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation.
The Journal of General Psychology, 277-291.
Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Sinha, K. K. (1996). Impact of workteams on
manufacturing performance: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management, 867-890.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-management teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 408-437.

Bateson, P. (1988). The biological evolution of cooperation and trust. In D. Gambetta, Trust: Making
and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 14-30). New York: Basil Blackwell.

Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-
directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 439-450.

Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., Fruchter, R., Vartiainen, M., & Ruohomaki, V. (2011). A framework to Analyze
Knowledge Work in Distributed Teams. Group & Organization Managemet, 275-307.

Burke, S., Stagl, K. C., Salas , E., & Pierce, L. (2006). Understanding Team Adaptation: A conceptual
analysis model. Journal of applied psychology, 1189-1207.

Butt, M. R., Imran, A., Shah, F. T., & Jabbar, A. (2013). Perception of Organizational Politics and Job
Outcomes in a Public Sector Organization: The Moderating Role of Teamwork. Middle-East
Journal of Scientific Research, 1268-1276.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics
and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology,
823-850.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford Jr., G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work
team effectiveness. Human Relations, 643-676.

Collins, N., & Chou, Y.-M. (2013). Building Team Trust: A study in the asian context. The Journal of
American Business Review, 181-189.

Costa, A. C. (2001). Btrust within Teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European
Journal of work and organizational psychology, 1-10.

Cropazano, R., Li, A., & Benson III, L. (2011). Peer Justice and Teamwork Process. Group &
Organization Management, 567–596.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Work Group Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 445-455.

Dyer, J. (1984). Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art review. In F. A. Muckler, A. S.
Neal, & L. Strother, Human factors review (pp. 285-323). Santa Monica: Human Factors
Society.

Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 499-517.

Hackman, J. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

Hakanen, M., & Soudunsaari, A. (2012). Building Trust in High Performing Teams. Global Business
Creation, 1-10.
Işık, M., Timuroğlu, M. K., & Aliyev, Y. (2015). The Relationship between Teamwork and
Organizational Trust. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 133-
149.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for
Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 531-546.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice,
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of
Management, 841-866.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L.
Berkowitz, & W. Walster, Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 91-131). New
York: NY: Academic Press.

Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 242-256.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An Examination of the Mediating Role of
Psychological Empowerment on the Relations Between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships
and Work Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 407-416.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman , B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating Justice and Social
Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships.
The Academy of Management Journal, 738-748.

McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Groups
Organization, 147-174.

Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared and Configural Justice: A Social Network Model of
Justice in Teams. The Academy of Management Review, 595-607.

Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying
organizational justice distinctions . Journal of Management, 299-322.

Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork Behaviors: A Review and an Integration of
Frameworks. Small Group Research, 540-570.

Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The Science of Teamwork: Progress, Reflections, and
the Road Ahead. American Psychological Association, 593-600.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is There a "Big Five" in Teamwork? Small Group Research,
555-599.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.
American Psychologist, 120-133.

Taggar, S., & Brown, T. C. (2006). Interpersonal Affect and Peer Rating Bias in Teams. Small Group
Research, 127-145.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team
effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley,
Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117-153). New York:
Elsevier Science.
Tse, H. H., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2011). A Multi-level Analysis of Team Climate and
Interpersonal Exchange Relationships at Work. The Leadership Quarterly, 173-186.

Valsecchi, R., Wise, S., Mueller, F., & Smith, C. (2012). The practice of teamwork in health industry
call centres. Employee Relations, 50-62.

Van der Vegt, G., & Van de Vliert, E. (2002). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review
and proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 50-67.

Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New direction
for team research. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 301-315.

Weiss, A., Michels, C., Burgmer, P., Mussweiler, T., Ockenfels, A., & Hofmann, W. (2020). Trust in
everyday life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1-17.

Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power
distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology,
681-692.

Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009, April 11). Supervisory Procedural Justice effects: The
mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust . The Leadership Quarterly, pp. 143-154.

Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 443-464.