The Effect of Team versus Individual Performance Recognition on Trust and Future Orientation
Work teams are ubiquitous in today’s workplace and have become an extremely
important aspect of the business world (Levi, 2007). When studying employee recognition, it is
important to consider how different ways of recognizing teams at the workplace changes their
behaviors and attitudes. More specifically, recognizing the team as a whole instead of individual
performers may have unique consequences. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine
whether the target of the performance recognition influences individual’s trust towards the team
and willingness to work together on future tasks.
Past research has shown the importance of performance recognition on individual and
organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction (Larsen, 1993), organizational commitment
(Kerr & Slocum, 1987; Saunderson, 2004; Wallsten, 1998), and overall organizational climate
(Renwick, 2003). In addition, recognized employees are more likely to be motivated to work
hard (Hansen & Hansen, 2002; Magnus, 1981; Shepperd, 1993), have a higher employee morale
(Hopkins, 1995), and be more satisfied with their jobs (Larsen, 1993). However, previous studies
have focused on rewarding performance with financial rewards (Honeywell-Johnson &
Dickinson, 1999; Barnes et al., 2011), while this study adds a novel contribution to the literature
by focusing on rewarding performance with informal, interpersonal rewards in the form of
immediate praise. Using an experimental design, this study aims to examine the effects of team
versus individual performance recognition on trust and willingness to work together in the future.
We hypothesize that team recognition will increase individuals’ team trust and willingness to
work with the team in the future because the recognition will serve as a reinforcement that their
team is functioning well together and is worthy of the participants’ trust and future collaboration.
Thus, team recognition will aid in increasing the confidence that members have in their team.
The Effect of Team versus Individual Performance Recognition on Trust and Future Orientation
Methodology. The sample consists of 116 college students in a large Southeastern university
who participated in the study as part of a course. The sample was 75% female with an average
age of 19.8 years (SD=2.9). The participants were 66.4% White/Caucasian, 17.2 % African
American, 6.9% Asian American, 5.2% Hispanic American, and 4.3% other ethnicities.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four study conditions: condition 1 received
individual recognition twice; condition 2 received team recognition twice; condition 3 received
individual condition after task 1 and team recognition after task 2; and condition 4 received team
recognition after task 1 and individual recognition after task 2.
Participants worked with two e-confederates on two information-generating tasks. They
were able to see the screens of the other two “participants,” thus they could see how much their
team members contributed. All target participants interacted with the same e-confederates. At the
end of the first task, the target participant was either recognized individually for their number of
correct responses, or the group was recognized as a whole for the number of correct responses
they generated together. Following the recognition, the first questionnaire was administered.
Participants were asked to do a second task similar to the first one. At the end of the second task,
the target participant was either recognized individually or the group was recognized as a whole.
The final questionnaire was then administered.
Trust was assessed with three items on a Likert scale as the extent to which participants
were comfortable depending on their team (e.g., “I feel that I can trust my team members
completely”; Schoorman et al., 1996). Willingness to work together in the future was also
assessed using three items on a Likert scale (e.g., “If I had to do this task again, I would work
with the same team”). Composites were made for both variables by averaging the three items.
The Effect of Team versus Individual Performance Recognition on Trust and Future Orientation
Results. Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all
study variables. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations of study variables by
condition to better inspect the effect of team versus individual recognition on trust and future
orientation. Although t-tests yielded non-statistically significant results across and within
conditions, differences among conditions are worthy of further examination. More specifically,
participant’s team trust increases for all conditions over time, but willingness to work together as
a team decreases for all conditions except one. Team versus individual performance recognition
may be influencing these dependent variables differently. It is quite possible that participants
were trusting of their teammates on somewhat equal levels because e-confederates performed the
same across all conditions, and they were all contributing to the overall success of the group.
Providing team recognition after task 2 increased participant’s willingness to work with their
team after they received individual recognition after task 1. On the other hand, when participants
repeatedly receive individual recognition, while they still trust their teammates, they are not as
willing to work with them on future tasks.
Implications. We are contributing to the large scholarship of performance recognition by
showing that praising the whole team versus specific individuals within the team can play a role
in motivating people differently when choosing to trust their teammates and being willing to
work together on future tasks. Furthermore, this study can be applied to workplace settings by
managers who can choose whether to target their praises at specific individuals or the whole
team, depending on who they wish to motivate and the results they would like to achieve.
Targeting the team may increase workers’ willingness to work with their team again in the future
which can play a role in improving the cooperation among workers in the organization.
The Effect of Team versus Individual Performance Recognition on Trust and Future Orientation
References
Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., Derue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J. (2011). Mixing
individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds or social dilemma?
Journal of Management, 37(6), 1611-1635.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. B. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), 64-72.
Honeywell-Johnson, J. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (1999). Small group incentives: A review of the
literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 89-121.
Hopkins, H. (1995). A challenge to managers: five ways to improve employee morale. Executive
Development, 8(7), 26-28.
Kerr, J., & Slocum, J. W. (1987). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. Academy
of Management Executive, 1(2), 99-108.
Larsen, A. K. (1993). Employee recognition: A working model to enhance job satisfaction.
AORN Journal, 57(4), 909-912.
Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Luthans, K. (2000). Recognition: A powerful, but often overlooked, leadership tool to improve
employee performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(1), 31-39.
Magnus, M. (1981). Employee recognition: A key to motivation. Personnel Journal, 60(2), 103107.
Renwick, D. (2003). HR managers: Guardians of employee wellbeing? Personnel Review, 32(3),
341-359.
Saunderson, R. (2004). Survey findings of the effectiveness of employee recognition in the
public sector. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 255-275.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: The
role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting Soc. Indust.
Organ. Psych., San Diego, CA.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 67-81.
Wallsten, K. (1998). Targeted rewards have greater value — and bigger impact. Workforce,
November.
The Effect of Team versus Individual Performance Recognition on Trust and Future Orientation
Appendix
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among study variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
1. Trust (0)
3.25 .70
—
2. Trust (1)
3.47 .64
.54***
—
***
3. Trust (2)
3.58 .60
.36
.53***
—
*
***
4. Future (1)
3.84 .61
.23
.60
.44***
—
***
***
5. Future (2)
3.74 .67
.18
.43
.65
.64***
Note. N = 116. *p < .05; **p < .01;***p < .001. Trust (0)=Trust before task 1. Trust
(1)=Trust after task 1. Trust (2)=Trust after task 2. Future (1)=willingness to work
together in the future after task 1. Future (2)=willingness to work together in the
future after task 2.
Table 2
Means and standard deviations of study variables by condition
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3 Condition 4
Indv., Indv.
Team, Team
Indv., Team Team, Indv.
(n=28)
(n=31)
(n=27)
(n=30)
3.07
(.74)
3.31
(.77)
3.16
(.78)
3.43
(.45)
1. Trust (0)
3.37 (.52)
3.52 (.66)
3.32 (.82)
3.67 (.50)
2. Trust (1)
3.49 (.64)
3.55 (.66)
3.57 (.59)
3.70 (.47)
3. Trust (2)
3.86 (.65)
3.85 (.62)
3.70 (.69)
3.92 (.49)
4. Future (1)
3.63 (.74)
3.77 (.72)
3.78 (.63)
3.76 (.59)
5. Future (2)
Note. N = 116. Trust (0)=Trust before task 1. Trust (1)=Trust after task 1. Trust (2)=Trust after task
2. Future (1)=willingness to work together in the future after task 1. Future (2)=willingness to work
together in the future after task 2.