Team leaders ought to identify, embrace, and likely adjust strategies to build the team cohesion through which amid intense stresses, deep, continuous, and intertwined interactions remain tolerant of co-operative behavior. Suppose such interactions can be formed and sustained (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). In that case, the outcomes will be higher than the amount of their parts standard of success, more than will be expected in terms of the group members’ competences, skills, and capabilities. Strong group interactions and behaviors, which sometimes often evolve gradually when the community blends, are not complicated (Herborn et al., 2014). They rely on several variables. This paper intends to evaluate various models that are meant to enhance coordination, trust, and teamwork among multiple individuals and groups within an organization. Specifically, three models will be examined i.e., process theory of trust development, big-five personality model, and Theme-centered interaction model.
Process Model of Trust Development
Most studies regarding trust in inter-organizational ties rely on a specific study and view trust as a very static concept, usually at the personal or organizational scale. This section provides a theoretical model to promote further cross-level analysis, which describes how inter-agency confidence is related through the different study stages (Kao et al., 2019). At the same time, the relational dimension of trust is highlighted in the model by analyzing how trusting grows over successive engagement phases. Researchers have established pathways that drive trust growth across rates in the formation of inter-organizational relationships based on multiple research studies. Right at the outset of a strategic agreement, as the central entity, this section evaluates how trust is slowly becoming part of the framework of organizational practice (Herborn et al., 2014). The suggested model seeks to explain better how trusts evolved in inter-organizational partnerships by combining micro and macro methods.
The trustee seems to be a trustworthy participant who has such standards, and the trustworthy spouse is the one that is judged by the trustee, whether trusted or not. Within the context of trust, it is generally differentiated between the two or more parties that share in the relationship: the trustor and the trustee (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). The trustor and the trustee reflect various appraisal rates either through an entity or an institution in the sense of inter-organizational relationships. Such boundary crossings are mostly project managers, department leaders, or their affiliates, mainly accountable for and more directly active in inter-organizational association than most organizational participants (Kao et al., 2019). The three separate interactions of trust and confidence in inter-organizational partnerships can indeed be perceived as vital in research on both the level of individuals and organizations: interpersonal, institutional, and inter-organizational. Such partnerships constitute the cornerstones of the trust paradigm of cross-level processes established in this review (Belz & Binder, 2017). The primary objective is to assess a trust development theory of the procedure rather than a trust correlation theory of difference. A process model is based on a framework that describes the following sequence in which transition achieves a particular outcome (for example, first A and then B to achieve C). Therefore, a process concept is focused on how, when, and in what order the cycle occurs over time. This describes different stages and changes between these stages (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018).
Fig 1. A process model for the cross-level development of trust (Kao et al., 2019)
Swift trust analysis reveals that people appear to develop their original trust commitments about the group before their first interaction with another entity. The creation of tentative trust convictions is especially important during the relationships’ introduction before forming a new inter-organizational partnership (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). Border crossings begin the cycle of trust-building by gaining insights into the trustworthiness of the possible partner entity. Building on an organization’s incorporation strategy will come from three outlets with necessary information regarding the reputation of a potential partner entity: the relevant past relationships between the organizations, the general public information(s), and/or the hierarchical groups under which the partner entity belongs (Belz & Binder, 2017).
Managers should undoubtedly derive from increasing encounters with the organizations on the effectiveness of the partner organization. Such experiences can involve not only past inter-organizational contacts but also existing partnerships or meetings of infusions and acquisitions. The principle of trust arising from prior communication is focused on the idea that companies historically could know about the problem (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). In the organization, knowledge regarding past experiences is preserved and available to its participants even though they have not been interested directly. Past encounters turn a “under socialized partnership” into an “informal social network” willing to facilitate the development of trust by the context of previous partnerships and interactions (Kao et al., 2019).
Although the individual’s implicit trust–organization will provide a foundation for prior partnerships, corporate track records, and/or structural categories, the structure of the trust relationship varies as relationships develop and discussions take place. The difficulty of managing cross-organizational interactions typically entails risk-taking and direct negotiation with administrators (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). The company’s initial perceptions as a foundation for confidence tend to overshadow the experiences arising from patterns of interaction among managers in the relationship. At the development point, the border crossing is essential for the management of the inter-organizational partnership contribution to different forms of services. Inter-dependencies with the partner organization commence at this stage to develop, leading to a new analysis of the partner institution’s trustworthiness (Kao et al., 2019). This analysis should be informed considerably by prior interpersonal experiences of the frontier cross-section. At this phase, the trust formed particularly by the partner organization and its employees should be passed on to the partner organization during negotiations. Drawing from an institutional concept, organizational trust becomes institutionalized at the company’s level as more and more workers engage in the partnership during the corporate process (Belz & Binder, 2017). They distinguish between the two institutionalization sub-processes: objectification and habituation.
There are different types of trust – the conviction in integrity, trust in professionalism, and integrity concerning partnerships, simple trust, genuine trust, trust in the organization, and trust in one’s self-esteem, trust in one’s position, and trust in leadership (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). While trust by nature can also be flexible, there seems to be a universal truth: some comportment creates trust more quickly than others. Everybody commits mistakes, but not everyone is guilty. Yet if the intention is to develop trust, it’s not a choice to accept that you have seriously screwed up. Consistency, durability, and efficiency are some of the best ways to gain trust. Hold every commitment and do the most you can if you make a commitment. Many of them aim to do so, but often the falls break (Kao et al., 2019).
Reducing these mistakes is a way of gaining trust quickly. Attention without judgment is perception. People should make themselves the most trustworthy of their life for illustrative purposes. People are likely to listen to others regardless of their mind rank. Exhibiting interest leads to developing partnerships and strengthening trust. The concern in the creation and preservation of connections is, therefore, essential. By being intelligent and intriguing, a person is interested in someone (Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). When a person people know his or her honesty, he should gain trust quickly. Rarely is listening attentively (or actively) today – a reality that renders the skill indispensable to build trust. Finally, one’s consciousness is described as knowledge of one’s own identity, emotions, motivations, and desires. Individuals are very much ignorant of the meaning they put out (Kao et al., 2019). Moreover, individuals cannot change their acts so their thoughts can be conveyed through their knowledge, and trust can’t be set up with incorrect signals. Without trust, individuals don’t modify themselves (Belz & Binder, 2017).
Big Five Personality Model
The number of reports and case studies on leadership are qualitative. Five-Factor personality Framework offers a systematic analysis of personality traits. This is built using the personality five-factor model. It explains how leadership is associated with five dominant personality traits. Psychology scientists have found and embraced the Five-Factor Personality Model. This model depicts five significant personal attributes that determine the ultimate human personality at the highest level of organization and professionalism. These Big five factors include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Every element consists of a group of more similar features that correlate (Herborn et al., 2014). Extraversion, for instance, involves associated attributes including sociability, anxiety, impulsivity, and pleasant feelings. Openness implies a desire to be knowledgeable, imaginative, informative, fascinating, and experienced. Conscience suggests a willingness to cultivate self-discipline, to work wisely, and to succeed. It’s not random, but it means expected. Extraversion implies strength, optimistic feelings, and sociable propensity (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017). Agreeability indicates that individuals prefer to be caring, discreet, and friendly rather than hostile and contrary to some. Neuroticism implies a tendency to display negative feelings like rage, fear, sadness, or weakness quickly.
Fig 2: Big Five Personality Model (Herborn et al., 2014)
All the workplaces are unique. Each organization is made up of different individuals who establish a separate category of personages though similarities can exist between them. Although each company is distinct, certain parallels may be explored to provide a “typical” contemporary workplace experience. Knowledge regarding personality traits is the secret to behavioral analysis and knowing how circumstances impact people. The first step in reaching one’s objectives is the recognition of personality characteristics. The foundation of performance is to draw on one’s strengths and consider how to improve one’s vulnerabilities (Herborn et al., 2014). People are most able to achieve lifelong happiness as they utilize their personalities to make the choices that are better suited to our desires. Additionally, knowing other people’s attitudes can allow one to create closer connections. For some instances, it may be helpful to meet someone with specific characteristics. Personal relationships will encourage any individual to view circumstances from a particular viewpoint. In the workplace, it is crucial to building a diverse environment where innovation and new ideas will flourish (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017). Additionally, it is often necessary for individuals to have common core convictions, principles, and goals to support themselves. People would be more cynical because they are generally positive individuals but prefer to associate themselves with negative individuals. That kind of toxic trait will harm the working atmosphere (Herborn et al., 2014).
Employing workers in recognition of their personalities (through behavioral inquiries, attitude assessments, etc.) will promote an equitable and supportive working atmosphere. Discussing the distinction between temperament and attitude, before immersing in different forms of characteristics and how personality attributes may be categorized (Shibutani, 2017). While the two are sometimes used interchangeably, in reality, they are two distinct subjects. Except in a partnership, personality is reasonably easy to recognize. It’s always quick to figure out whether anyone’s friendly, talkative, amusing, or enthusiastic even though they see the first. This is still quick to figure out whether someone is pessimistic, shy, or dull (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017). Nonetheless, it is not easy to instantly recognize character qualities such as integrity, fairness, empathy, etc. during encounters with others. Character involves an individual’s knowledge to appreciate and acknowledge their decisions and behavior thoroughly. Although it’s indispensable for every decent relationship, people concentrate specifically on personality for this segment’s intent.
Through the years, thousands of features have been established. An accurate means of defining every personality trait of an adult is almost painful. To simplify the model, different forms of personality assessments are required to help people understand their abilities, interests, modes of speech, and other essential features (Shibutani, 2017). Some personality scientists believe people can embrace the idea that all traits of personality are raised. Nevertheless, everyone can recognize that there are opportunities to affect the degree to which the actions reflect a specific personality trait. For instance, those inherently deficient in Big Five attributes will communicate this characteristic through an external strategy (e.g., policy), an initiative on behavior-change (e.g., incentives) or behavioral communication (e.g., coaching) (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017). This is important to acknowledge connection when you want to grasp the ultimate versatility in personality traits. While most people have a strong preference for choosing the one hand over the other, people will choose the other if circumstances warrant such a move. This sounds awkward. However, we do. People will get pretty nice with their off-hand with practice. Often, the habit will render it reasonable to behave toward a particular personality trait.
Personality affects our ability in certain respects to succeed. It renders one aware of or unaware of other dimensions of our area of existence. It also affects how people view the specific things of their everyday lives. Personalities influences how people react, biasing our attitudes, to environmental stimulus. People work with particular issues selectively, not others. As stated, economic and environmental conditions work to improve, neutralize, or hinder our personality traits. Individuals with more concentration on extraversion and agreeableness are orientated more towards individuals and partnerships (Shibutani, 2017). They will probably feel more familiar with human contact and control, such as counseling, protection procedures. Therefore, because there is a substantial standard of transparency, emerging protection measures can be discussed more openly and are less likely to push the transition.
Self-inspiration is probably a significant protection target to switch from other-directed acting as peers, managers, or employers keep people liable for self-driven actions. We are responsible for ourselves. In an optimal, stable organization, workers are not expected to obey protective protocols without management structures (Shibutani, 2017). If a person works alone, even in one’s property, where no one else lives, he or she is liable for sticking to the protection procedure.
Through the Big Five personality trait model, it is clear that knowledge is related to self-responsibility. But neuroticism can also be correlated with it. Such constant fear serves to inspire individuals to do the best thing for wellbeing while operating without oversight. It is an environment between absolutely relaxed, comfortable, and rational on injuries and anxious, sensitive, uncomfortable, and depressed on safety issues. It is not intense neuroticism; however, a range anywhere between absolutely stable and rational theories of personality traits defined across the study. Instant connections between personality and health at work haven’t even been extensively examined (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017). As a result, people will be better advised to increase consciousness and recognize the position that individuals can play in disease proneness and injury prevention. Yet observational findings are indicative of connections between personality and instead voluntary engagement in protection initiatives.
Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) model
Theme-centered interaction (TCI) is a Ruth C. Cohn framework intended to strengthen collaboration and community dynamics. Throughout fact, TCI facilitates supportive cooperation between individuals and facilitates “living learning.” Consequently, TCI has been an excellent model for guiding and helping communities to enhance the learning experience. Therefore, TCI is mainly used when “working with communities and teams” (Scharer, 2019). The paradigm is a relational view of life that reflects on the child, as well as in kindergarten, post-secondary learning, adult education, and therapy and training. Various opinions and behaviors are valued, thus establishing an environment of esteem whereby each person is deemed essential and encouraged by his or her ability and wishes to improve (Weitzel, 2020).
The relationship between groups may affect four factors: each one, the community relationship, the concept, and the globe. A balanced combination between these four variables must be accomplished to make an aggregate function on a mission effectively. Nevertheless, disruptions must be taken into account to preserve that stability and improve ‘living learning.’ In an attempt to effectively accomplish the objective, Cohn reflected that some of the problems emerge from the community leaders trying to alter group participants to accommodate them into the relationship. She indicated that, if she suspects, another person is misbehaving, the offender should wonder what he or she can do for him (Scharer, 2019). Ruth Cohn thought any counterpart should be taken as it is – with its positives and disadvantages – and that the person must improve himself. Therefore, she concentrated on the humanist concept of society, which is generally overlooked yet still ignored in real life. The person-centered notion of man understands that each person influences the past, present, and the future; acknowledges and sees others as worthy of protection, recognizes the possibilities to gain knowledge from others; knows the personal freedom of the person and the cooperation of himself, and comprehends that each person needs to take responsibility for one (Weitzel, 2020). Ruth Cohn respected any person’s commitment to change society for the better. She established the TCI theory based on these observations (Kaiser, 2017).
Ruth Cohn’s Theme-centered Interaction Theory is a blueprint for promoting and supporting inter-group interaction and collaboration. The TCI framework comprises of psychoanalytical ideas, social therapy, and humanistic psychology. It is also a disposition towards improving appreciative interaction between people (Weitzel, 2020). The TCI definition is a four-factor dependent theory based on the humanistic and anthropocentric outlook on the world. A person in his surroundings sees himself independently but at the same time interdependent on others. The TCI paradigm suggests a guiding premise that employment, schooling, and growth systems should be formulated in an ethical and humanizing context (Scharer, 2019). The four variables of the TCI principle mimic a dynamic partnership structure; they control one another and only facilitate productive interactions within a Community while in harmonious stability. Therefore, the powers that control the three nodes “I,” “We” and “It” are grouped in three triangles (represented as a circle or sphere) “I” and “We” reflect the amount of humanity, while “It” displays the degree of truth (Kaiser, 2017).
Fig 3: Theme-Centered Interaction Model (Kaiser, 2017)
The “I” reflects the actual person with his opinions, emotions, values, concerns, and demands, including his entire identity. Every person who is participating in a team serves thus as an “I.” It must be evident to the participant that his preferences and actions influence the members in a group and the “It.” “I” primarily reflects the educator in the learning sense, who will take his own needs and his learners’ expectations into account. Yet he must always consider any participant as a person – whether child or adult (Scharer, 2019). For context where a nutritionist decides to create a program with eight participants to lower weight, the group leader will contribute and consider him/her as part of the group activities. Therefore, the participant leader shall serve as a model and genuinely add his views and role as per the axioms and postulates (Weitzel, 2020). The theme of weight loss is represented in “It.” ‘It’ is like the general purpose of the ‘I’ and the ‘We’ act. The mission or subject is why the group is created and illustrates the concept of “Theme-centered Interaction.” The group and the following aspects of the relationships between the group’s participants are referred to as “we.” The group typically works around a shared purpose for diverse reasons. The “We” connects with the “I” and the “It.” “We” oppose the idea that the group leader wants to withdraw but hopes that each individual can contribute to the team (Kaiser, 2017).
The three presuppositions are identical to the human beliefs and principles that the TCI philosophy holds; the axioms are referred to as the primary adherents in methodical actions and nonnegotiable operating conditions of the TCI definition. Nevertheless, there is no fixed way, although any guidelines that contravene such values are usually exempted. The integrated method of living-learning benefits from the association with at least two individuals- the product to everyday circumstances. Once the person begins to understand other people in their position in the community, they all work together as ‘living learners’ (Scharer, 2019). Thus, Ruth Cohn believed that studying and living have to be intertwined, mainly because people learn during their lives. However, this ensures that the person’s desires will be taken into consideration and, thus, the person is allowed to understand the contexts in which he or she resides since the roots of learning live in the presence of the practice (Kaiser, 2017).
Collaborative work and teamwork are essential across almost all institutions. Disorder and confusion contribute to instability and unpredictable transition. Trust has a significant impact on shifting systems and related harm, which underpins appropriate productive behaviors. A culture of trust focused on the consistent and intense partnership between the organization’s leaders would offer far more of the level of certainty and stability available. When there is a lack of trust, coordination, collaboration, ability development, and consistency can struggle. This paper has evaluated various models of corporation, trust development, and teamwork, including the process model of trust development, the big-five personality model, and the theme-centered interaction model.
Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1-17.
Herborn, K. A., Heidinger, B. J., Alexander, L., & Arnold, K. E. (2014). Personality predicts behavioral flexibility in a fluctuating, natural environment. Behavioral Ecology, 25(6), 1374-1379.
Kaiser, F. (2017). Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) as a structured-methodical approach to develop the reflexivity and formative capacity of VET teacher students in a democratic culture. Social Dimension and Participation in Vocational Education and Training, 36.
Kao, S. F., Tsai, C. Y., Schinke, R., & Watson, J. C. (2019). A cross-level moderating effect of team trust on the relationship between transformational leadership and cohesion. Journal of sports sciences, 37(24), 2844-2852.
Lumineau, F., & Schilke, O. (2018). Trust development across levels of analysis: An embedded-agency perspective. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2), 238-248.
Nielsen, M. B., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2017). Exposure to workplace harassment and the Five Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personality and individual differences, 104, 195-206.
Scharer, M. (2019). Theme-Centered Interaction by Ruth C. Cohn: An Introduction. In Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) in Higher Education (pp. 57-95). Springer, Cham.
Shibutani, T. (2017). Society and Personality: Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology. Routledge.
Weitzel, H. (2020). The concept of theme-centered interaction by Ruth Cohn. Enhancing classroom situations. GRIN Verlag.