4.5 Article

Being trusted: How team generational age diversity promotes and undermines trust in cross-boundary relationships

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 346-373

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/job.2045

Keywords

being trusted; boundary spanners; social categorization; age diversity; age heterogeneity; age composition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examine how demographic context influences the trust that boundary spanners experience in their dyadic relationships with clients. Because of the salience of age as a demographic characteristic as well as the increasing prevalence of age diversity and intergenerational conflict in the workplace, we focus on team age diversity as a demographic social context that affects trust between boundary spanners and their clients. Using social categorization theory and theories of social capital, we develop and test our contextual argument that a boundary spanner's experience of being trusted is influenced by the social categorization processes that occur in dyadic interactions with a specific client and, simultaneously, by similar social categorization processes that influence the degree to which the client team as a whole serves as a cooperative resource for demographically similar versus dissimilar boundary spanner-client dyads. Using a sample of 168 senior boundary spanners from the consulting industry, we find that generational diversity among client team members from a client organization undermines the perception of being trusted within homogeneous boundary spanner-client dyads while it enhances the perception of being trusted within heterogeneous dyads. The perception of being trusted is an important aspect of cross-boundary relationships because it influences coordination and the costs associated with coordination. (c) 2015 The Author Journal of Organizational Behavior Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available