Abstract
Orientation: Work identity (WI) is developed and influenced by various factors in the workplace, which could include interdepartmental conflict (IC) and organisational trust (OT).
Research purpose: To explore the effect that IC has on WI and the mediating role OT plays in the relationship between IC and WI within a temporary service organisation.
Motivation for the study: There is a lack of empirical research examining the relationships that interdepartmental conflict has with work identity and organisational trust.
Research approach/design and method: A quantitative, cross-sectional field survey was used to gather data. Applying a stratified sampling technique, the population of N = 952 yielded a response rate of 31.6%, amounting to n = 302. SmartPLS software was used to analyse the data and conceptual model using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.
Main findings: The results revealed a weak relationship between interdepartmental conflict and WI, as well as a significant negative relationship between IC and OT. The results also showed a positive relationship between OT and WI. The mediation analysis results indicated that OT significantly and positively mediates the relationship between IC and WI.
Practical/managerial implications: Leadership in organisations needs to be aware of the valuable impact of WI on organisational outcomes, and that it is negatively affected by IC and positively influenced by OT.
Contribution/value-add: No previous WI studies could be found that tested the mediating role of OT in the relationship between IC and WI. Although studies have looked at WI, IC and OT in various settings and along with other variables, none have considered the interrelationship among these three variables.
Keywords: workplace identity; interdepartmental conflict; trust; temporary employment service organisation.
Introduction
Research on work identity (WI) has garnered great interest (Miscenko & Day, 2016); however, very few studies have focused on the effects that employee interactions have on its formation (Horton et al., 2013). Employee interactions could be influenced by interdepartmental conflict (IC) and organisational trust (OT). Work identity deals with the question ‘Who am I at work?’ and is central to how people define themselves on a personal and collective level (Kirpal, 2004; Nordhall et al., 2025; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and is regarded as important for organisations, as it is known to predict work engagement (Bester, 2012), which is significantly correlated to work performance (Tian et al., 2019). Within temporary employment services (TES) organisations, which involve high service levels and collaboration across multiple functional (interdepartmental) departments to deliver on service outcomes, the role of OT and WI becomes very important. Previous research has largely neglected to investigate trust relationships at the co-worker level (Han & Harms, 2009). As workplace interactions define a large part of the social work environment (Schneider, 1987), they also play an important role in the way employees think, feel and behave (Kahn, 2007). Most researchers agree that any social workplace interactions contribute towards the development of WI (Buche, 2003; Ibarra, 2003; Mpangeva & De Braine, 2024; Toivanen, 2021). Positive interactions between workers set a social atmosphere in which employees are more actively involved, leading to more productive outcomes (Ali et al., 2018). In contrast, high levels of conflict cause an unstable work environment that restrains organisational productivity (Ahamefula, 2014). Trust remains key in any successful relationship (Trussell, 2015) and underpins the outcomes of employee interactions (Rahayuningsih, 2019), which, as suggested above, play a key role in employee work satisfaction (Lee & Teo, 2005) and the building of healthy work identities (Meadows & De Braine, 2022). When conflict between members occurs, trust has the ability either to alleviate or to exacerbate the level of conflict (Elgoibar et al., 2021; Schoorman et al., 2007).
Evidence shows that effective interaction between members of different functional departments remains a key challenge for most organisations (Hogg & Van Knippenberg, 2003), specifically when there is interference between individuals or groups in attempts to achieve organisational goals (Robey, 1984). Although previous studies on WI have shown that job demands, such as job overload (De Braine, 2012) and job resources, such as organisational support (which includes relationships with supervisors and colleagues, flow of communication and support and role clarity) and team climate predict WI (De Braine, 2012; Van Rensburg, 2020), none have examined the employee interactions of IC and OT on WI in a TES organisation. This study, through the use of a cross-sectional survey approach, attempts to address this void, specifically the effect that IC has on WI and the mediating role OT plays in this relationship.
Literature review
Interdepartmental conflict and work identity
Organisational conflict remains a persistent phenomenon in all organisations (Kolb & Putnam, 1992; Nicotera & Jameson, 2021). One form of organisational conflict is IC. Interdepartmental conflict often arises from high task interdependency among different functional departments (Robey et al., 1989). Interdepartmental conflict is a form of intergroup conflict. Intergroup conflict is defined as ‘the perceived incompatibility of goals or values between two or more individuals, which emerges because these individuals classify themselves as members of different social groups’ (Böhm et al., 2020, p. 950). Different departments can be categorised as different social groups within an organisation. According to social identity theory, membership of a social group, such as work team, provides members with a social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Zhu, 2013) with its own distinctive values and norms that set the group apart from other groups (Horton et al., 2013), which often leads to the defence of the group’s identity (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). Conflict between interdepartmental teams can most likely occur when there is any disagreement or misalignment of goals between the groups (Kazimoto, 2013). Mismanaged conflict is known to result in mistrust among group members, affects effective decision-making (Horton et al., 2013) and can increase the experience of stress (Ahamefula, 2014), thus inadvertently affecting positive workplace relations. Mistrust between interdepartmental teams has been shown to increase frustration and conflict (Seavey, 2010), which can be regarded as work demands on employees.
Against this background, it is concluded that the quality of interdepartmental team interactions determines the quality of an individual’s working environment, thus affecting them physically and psychologically.
Work identity is defined as ‘a self-concept constituted of a constellation of organisational, occupational and other identities that shape the roles individuals adopt and the corresponding ways they behave when performing their work’ (Walsh & Gordon, 2007, p. 49). It is also regarded as a perception of a person’s work role based on their work self-concept (Sulphey, 2020). Work identity has a significant impact on employee commitment, loyalty and stability and intergroup relations (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003) and is cited as the ‘root construct for many organisational outcomes’ (Albert et al., 2000, p. 13) and is related to work engagement (Bothma, 2011), decent work (Mpangeva & De Braine, 2024), organisational culture (Chulu, 2023), PSYCAP (Van Rensburg, 2020) and many other behaviours and outcomes (Dirks & De Jong, 2022).
The interaction between WI and the work environment is reciprocal (Miscenko & Day, 2016). Work identity is affected by workplace relationships (Gewirtz & Parett, 2021; Toivanen, 2021). Saayman and Crafford (2011) revealed that tensions and work demands encourage employees to negotiate their work identities. So, when conflict between interdepartmental teams is followed by open and cooperative interactions, WI is expected to be higher. These situations forge positive relations between interacting members, leading to a positive work environment. On the other hand, ongoing disagreements and poor relations between members are perceived as a negative work environment, and WI is expected to be lower:
H1: Interdepartmental conflict is significantly related to WI.
Interdepartmental conflict and organisational trust
Organisational trust refers to ‘the degree of trust between units of an organisation’ (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996, p. 302). It is also defined as ‘positive expectations individuals have about the intent and behaviours of multiple organisational members based on organisational roles, relationships, experiences, and interdependencies’ (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000, p. 35). Trust is cited as a multi-dimensional construct and a critical component in intergroup relations and conflict (Kappmeier, 2016). When interactions between interdepartmental employees take place, a number of interrelated psychological conditions are at play, in a process that can be described as the willingness of a member (the trustor) to accept specific conditions (the risk) when another member (the trustee) becomes involved (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Normally, the trustor has a positive expectation that the trustee can be trusted (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). However, with the specific task outcome in mind, the trustor will identify the level of risk involved should the task not be completed in time or within specification. This leads to mistrust. A study of nurses found that mistrust between interdepartmental teams increased frustration and resulted in higher levels of conflict (Seavey, 2010). Trust researchers agree that OT relies on the principles of competence, openness and reliability (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013; Cummings & Bromiley, 1996).
Employees are more likely go the extra mile when they feel trusted (Du Plessis et al., 2015). Trust has been shown to be related to individual performance and organisational citizenship behaviour (Colquitt et al., 2007; Legood et al., 2020).
High levels of trust increase employee commitment, alleviate conflict and improve work performance (Schoorman et al., 1996), while low levels of trust increase turnover intention and hamper organisational growth, service delivery and profits (Davis et al., 2000). Functional departments are interlinked and dependent on one another to complete job tasks successfully (Wisner & Stanley, 2008), which often involves risk-taking (Mayer et al., 1995). In this regard, Mayer and Gavin (2005) explained, ‘trust is a generalised intention to take the risk, whereas the outcome is actually risk taking’ (p. 874).
H2: Interdepartmental conflict is significantly related to organisational trust.
Organisational trust and work identity
Trust refers to the common belief that (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996):
[A]nother group or individual makes good-faith efforts based on commitments made, is honest in whatever agreements preceded to these commitments and does not take excessive advantage of another when such an opportunity is available. (p. 303)
Previous identity research found that WI is derived from self-perception based on interaction between employees (Buche, 2003). In a TES environment, successful task completion requires various functional teams to have high levels of trust in one another (with reference to ability, benevolence and integrity as according to the Model of Trust, Mayer et al., 1995). Therefore, it is assumed that negative interactions because of a lack of trustworthiness negatively affect employees’ work performance and WI. High levels of trust between interdepartmental teams in a TES organisation are therefore important to enhance WI, productivity and, ultimately, organisational outcomes. Organisational trust can be argued as a form of organisational support, enabling people to work well with one another, thus enhancing WI. Consequently, organisational support predicts WI (De Braine & Roodt, 2011; Van Rensburg, 2020; Van Tonder, 2018).
H3: Organisational trust is significantly related to work identity.
Interdepartmental conflict, organisational trust and work identity
Organisational trust is a form of organisational support. It is an important element in relationships (Schoorman et al., 2007); therefore, we can assume that it would mediate the relationship between IC and WI. Trust plays a crucial role in workplace relationships, particularly when conflicts of interest arise (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013; Kappmeier, 2016) and ICs occur (Bloch, 1985). Furthermore, task and relationship conflict are affected by trust (Montani et al., 2025). Trust builds strong workplace relationships (Sunil & Sumitha, 2023). Healthy workplace relationships, in the form of collegial or supervisory support, enhance WI (Mpangeva & De Braine, 2024). It is therefore posited that where interaction between interdepartmental teams is based on a can-do (ability) and will-do (benevolence) attitude from trust, there will be lower levels of IC. When work is completed in a climate of mistrust between interdepartmental teams, the probability for IC becomes higher, thus affecting WI.
H4: Organisational trust mediates the relationship between IC and WI.
Research design
Research approach and method
A quantitative research approach was followed, and a cross-sectional field design was used, whereby a survey was used to collect the data. In order to yield the highest possible response, instead of a web-based survey, a ‘traditional’ paper-and-pen survey was used. The primary data sources for this study were two national TES organisations, with 544 and 408 employees (a total pool of 952 potential respondents). The survey yielded a 31.7% response rate (N = 302).
Respondents within the two TES organisations represented most racial groups within the South African population. As displayed in Table 1, the sample contained slightly more female participants (56.3%). The majority of participants (51.1%) held a post-secondary-school qualification and more than 2 years’ work experience (84.7%).
| TABLE 1: Biographical and demographic profile of respondents (N = 302). |
Measuring instruments
The scales used were (1) Work-based Identity Questionnaire (WI-28), (2) Organisational Trust Inventory – Short Form (OTI-SF) and (3) the Interdepartmental Conflict Scale (Conf 1–5). All three scales used in this study were measured on a 7-point intensity response scale. Participants were requested to select the one option that best described their own situation and feelings.
The Work-based Identity Questionnaire (WI-28) was used to assess the WI of the participants. The scale was developed by Roodt et al. (2009) to measure facets of WI, including occupational identity, professional identity, career identity, job involvement, person–organisation fit, work centrality and organisational identification. The inventory consists of 28 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (to no degree) to 7 (to a large degree). A Cronbach’s alpha (CA) of 0.95 has been reported for the reliability of this scale (De Braine & Roodt, 2011). Organisational trust was measured by the shortened version of the Organisational Trust Inventory – Short Form (OTI-SF), which was developed by Bromiley and Cummings (1995) and comprises 12 items. The Bentler comparative fit index indicated that the instrument was reliable and yielded a CA of 0.98 (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). The Interdepartmental Conflict Scale, developed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993), was chosen specifically, as similar types of instruments are scarce. The questionnaire consists of seven questions to determine the level of conflict and was thus used to test the level of conflict between the functional departments. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) reported an internal reliability consistency of α = 0.87.
Research procedure
Respondents were informed of the study through an email that included the objectives, the importance of the study and that participation would be voluntary. Employees had the option of printing a paper-based survey, completing it and returning it by email directly to the researcher. Alternatively, the survey could be completed digitally in a fillable PDF file and returned to the researcher. Instructions for completing the form were clearly stipulated on the front page. Because of its length, participants had the option to complete the questionnaire in their own time. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The returned questionnaires were anonymised and stored in a password-protected folder accessible only to the researchers.
Data analysis
In our research, we utilised SmartPLS software to analyse the data and conceptual model using the partial least squares (PLS) technique. We opted for this approach because of its widespread use and acceptance in management-related fields. The decision to use this method was based on its suitability for predicting the dependent variable through path analytical modelling and its flexibility in conducting reflective or formative modelling of latent variables without stringent sample size constraints. SmartPLS was employed to validate the instrument and test the hypotheses through the measurement and structural models, while descriptive data statistics were conducted using SPSS 24. A two-stage hierarchical model was implemented to evaluate the measurement and structural models, which followed the methodology outlined by Ringle et al. (2015). In the first stage, SmartPLS 4.1.0 was used to confirm the outer loading of the items, ensuring that they were accurately measuring the constructs. After this, we assessed the reliability and convergent validity of the instrument using statistical measures such as CA, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Furthermore, Fornell-Larcker and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) were conducted to evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs. Additionally, our analysis included direct and indirect effects, using a bootstrapping approach with a substantial sample size of 5000, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the results. In this study, 0.05 was used to determine the statistical significance of the relationships in our model.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management (IPPM) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Ref. No. IPPM-2017-116[M]).
Results
Descriptive statistics
The item descriptive statistics of each of the scales’ total scores are shown in Table 2.
| TABLE 2: Summary of the item descriptive statistics of the scales’ total scores (N = 302). |
Measurement model
In structural equation modelling (SEM), it is crucial to comprehend the relative importance of indicators to their constructs (Hair et al., 2021) to evaluate the model’s fitness. The measurement model offers global fit indices to confirm that the latent variables or indicators meet the requirements for testing the proposed hypotheses. All variables in this study are measured reflectively, and the model’s fitness was assessed using fit indices such as AVE, CR and CA. Despite the established reliability of the instruments in previous studies, it is essential to re-evaluate their dependability as they are investigated in different contexts and environments. The three constructs, namely WI, OT and IC, were each subjected to an initial assessment of their validity and reliability. During this process, items that failed to meet the predetermined benchmark and standard fit indices were excluded from the model. A modified version of the model was used for hypothesis testing.
Items’ consistency, reliability and validity
The reliability of the constructs was assessed using both CA and CR. These measures indicate how effectively a set of observed variables reflects a single underlying construct. Composite reliability is generally considered a better measure of internal consistency than Cronbach’s alpha because it incorporates the standardised loadings of the observed variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The interpretation of the CR score and CA is similar. Hair et al. (2011) and Litwin (1995) recommend a value higher than 0.7 for both CA and CR to ensure reliability. Both measures (CA and CR) exhibit values of 0.70 and above, meeting the threshold for satisfactory reliability (Table 3).
| TABLE 3: Item consistency, reliability and validity. |
Convergent and discriminant validity tests were utilised to assess the validity of the constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) test establishes convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). According to Barclay et al. (1995) and Hair et al. (2011), the latent variables should account for at least 50% of the variance in the observable variable. This implies that the AVE value of the construct should exceed 0.5, as displayed in Table 3.
Discriminant validity is important to ensure that each observable variable in a construct has a stronger correlation with the latent variable it is intended to measure than with any other construct. Henseler et al. (2015) recommend using the HTMT ratio when assessing a construct’s discriminant validity. An HTMT value of less than 0.90 is considered appropriate (see Table 4).
| TABLE 4: Discriminant validity – heterotrait-monotrait. |
After assessing the measurement model, all standardised fit indices, such as outer loading, AVE, CA, composite reliability index and HTMT, were satisfactory. However, manifest items with outer loadings of less than 0.5 were removed from the model before hypothesis testing. These items included WI_1, WI_2, WI_3, WI_5, WI_6, WI_7, WI_8, WI_9, WI_12, WI_16, WI_17, WI_19, WI_24, WI_25, WI_27, WI_28 for work identity; OT_4, OT_5, OT_6, OT_10 and OT_12 for organisational trust and IC_1, IC_4, IC_5 and IC_7 for interdepartmental conflict. This resulted in using a respecified model consisting only of the satisfactory items for the structural model.
Hypothesis testing (structural model assessment)
The structural model evaluates the relationship between exogenous and endogenous latent variables by analysing the R2 and p-value, representing the coefficient of determination and significance level (Hair et al., 2012). It also considers the β value, indicating the path coefficients of the model (Chin, 1998). The R2 reflects the extent to which endogenous latent variables are explained (Akter et al., 2011), while β shows the impact of factors on endogenous latent variables (Lleras, 2005). The structural model assesses relationships using β values, t-values, path coefficients and p-values. A high β value indicates a strong influence of the predictor (exogenous) latent variable on the dependent (endogenous) latent variable (Hair et al., 2012). The significance of the β value is determined using the t-value test, which should be greater than 1.96 (Hair et al., 2017, as cited in Adegbite & Govender, 2022; Adegbite & Hoole, 2024). This study utilised a nonparametric bootstrapping technique, and the t-values and p-values at the 0.05 significance level were calculated using 5000 bootstrapping samples.
Table 5 shows the study’s findings on the strength and direction of the model’s relationships (direct and indirect). The study investigated four hypotheses (H1–H4). The first hypothesis (H1) proposed that IC is significantly related to WI. The structural equation model analysis revealed a weak relationship between IC and WI (IC↔ WI: β = −0.111, t = 1.846, p = 0.065). The statistical analysis of hypothesis one reveals that the p-value of 0.065 is approaching the threshold for statistical significance. It is crucial to conduct further exploration because the t-statistic value is less than 1.96, indicating the absence of a significant relationship. H1 is rejected, and the null hypothesis is accepted based on the above. The statistical analysis from hypothesis H1 indicates that as IC decreases, there is a potential for an increase in WI. However, it is important to note that the p-value and t-statistics do not provide strong evidence to guarantee this relationship.
| TABLE 5: Hypothesis testing and causal relationship. |
The findings from the model indicate a significant negative relationship (IC↔OT: β = −0.378, t = 7.669, p = 0.000) between IC and OT. This means that for each unit decrease in IC, OT increases by 38.5%, with a standard deviation (SD)of 0.05, while accounting for other variables in the model. The study findings showed a positive causal relationship between organisational trust and work identity, with a significant correlation (OT↔WI: β = 0.390, t = 7.482, p = 0.000). This suggests that increased OT is associated with a 40% increase in WI; therefore, H3 is accepted. The study investigated the role of OT as a mediator in the connection between IC and WI in hypothesis four (H4). The aim was to examine the behaviour of the variables when a mediator is introduced. The mediation analysis results indicate that OT significantly and positively mediates the relationship between IC and WI (IC↔OT↔WI: β = −0.147, t = 5.171, p = 0.000). This suggests that OT notably impacts IC, resulting in a positive relationship with WI. Based on the above parameters, hypothesis four is accepted. It is important to note that there is no significant direct relationship between IC and WI, as tested in hypothesis one. However, introducing a mediator strengthens the relationship, indicating a significant correlation. Subsequently, out of the four hypotheses (H1–H4) tested, hypotheses H2 to H4 were accepted, while hypothesis H1 was rejected.
Discussion
This research study aimed to test how IC affects WI. In particular, the aim was to investigate the mediating role that OT has in the relationship between IC and WI. The structural equation model analysis revealed a weak relationship between IC and WI. H1 is therefore rejected. It could be assumed that although a weak relationship exists, it is not robust and suggests that other variables may influence WI.
The findings indicate a significant negative relationship between IC and OT; thus, H2 is accepted. This outcome corresponds well with previous studies in which trust was found to be a controlling factor in intergroup conflict and that a higher level of trust enhances positive relationships in employees and group cooperation (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013; Kappmeier, 2016). The model of trust of Mayer et al. (1995) explains that when the perceived level of risk is low, it increases the trust between the trustor and trustee. High levels of trust between interdepartmental teams in a TES organisation are therefore important to enhance WI, productivity and, ultimately, organisational outcomes. This finding was consistent with previous studies that found that high levels of trust increase work performance, work satisfaction, sales, service levels, organisational productivity and profits (Davis et al., 2000; Lee & Teo, 2005; Rowland, 2012; Schoorman et al., 2007). This can only be accomplished if there is trust and constructive conflict handling in organisations (Elgoibar et al., 2021).
H3 was also accepted. Increased OT is associated with a 40% increase in WI. As OT is an outcome of healthy workplace interactions (Fischer & Walker, 2022), it would lead to higher levels of work identification. High OT is a form of organisational support that can strengthen WI. Organisational support is known to enhance WI (Clayton & De Braine, 2023).
The analysis revealed that OT does serve as a mediator between IC and WI, supporting H4. Mediation was expected, as trust between individuals or groups is known to enhance positive relations (Heyns & Rothmann, 2015; Mayer et al., 1995). Organisational trust can be seen as a form of organisational support. Organisational support encourages work identification (Clayton & De Braine, 2023). In this regard, Cummings and Bromiley (1996) posited that trust is centrally important in all organisational interactions. The perceived level of conflict between interdepartmental teams is mediated by the level of trust that exists between the teams, thus affecting WI.
Theoretical contribution
This study contributes to the literature on WI, with the link between IC and the mediating role played by OT. Previous research suggests that high levels of conflict are detrimental to team performance (Horton et al., 2013; Jehn, 1994). Given that workplace interactions play an important role in the way employees think, feel and behave (Kahn, 2007), understanding the effect that IC has on WI is important. Our results indicate that OT can alleviate or aggravate the effects that IC has on WI. This study is the first to investigate this relationship, as well as the role played by OT. Therefore, these results contribute to WI research.
Practical implications for management and human resource management
In order for TES organisations to improve their productivity levels, a key focus should be on how functional departments interact, the quality of these interactions and the role of OT and WI in this. Management should focus on creating work environments that support employee collaboration and constructive conflict management processes for the further enhancement and development of healthy work identities in an organisation. This study, similar to many others, reinforces the important role that trust plays in the workplace. Trust generally develops slowly, and when trust relations are damaged, they take time to be restored (Fukuyama, 1995). Trust plays a key role in effecting healthy work identities that, in turn, lead to more positive organisational outcomes such as employee commitment and loyalty (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003).
Limitations of the study
The present study had some limitations. The length of the survey could have caused a reluctance to participate and thus limited the response rate. Given the length of the survey, respondents may have experienced a lack of focus or, in some instances, have rushed to complete it.
Suggestions for future research
Identity research is an important concept to study in the ever-changing world of work (Miscenko & Day, 2016; Sulphey, 2019). Therefore, it will be valuable to study how WI is affected during times of organisational change, in pre-change and post-change. A longitudinal study is recommended. Organisational conflict and trust are broad constructs, and future research focusing on other facets and how these affect WI will make useful contributions.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of IC and OT in understanding WI. As indicated earlier, TES organisations play an important role in South Africa, and close to 1 million temporary employees are employed through such firms (Bhorat et al., 2016). The fact that they operate using a large number of functional departments requires more investigation into factors, such as IC and OT, that allow higher levels of work identification.
Acknowledgements
This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Louis J. van Tonder’s mini-dissertation titled, ‘The effect of change and IC on WI: the mediating effect of OT’, submitted to the College of Business and Economics, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg in 2018. The mini-dissertation was supervised by Roslyn De Braine. Portions of the data, analysis and discussion have been revised, updated and adapted for publication as a journal article. The original thesis is publicly available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10210/296114. The author affirms that this article complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. The author, Roslyn T. De Braine, serves as an editorial board member of this journal. The peer review process for this submission was handled independently, and the author had no involvement in the editorial decision-making process for this article. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
CRediT authorship contribution
Louis van Tonder: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Data curation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. Roslyn T. De Braine: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Visualisation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Waliu M. Adegbite: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Roslyn T. De Braine, upon reasonable request. The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because of the restrictions imposed as a result of privacy and ethics.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Adegbite, W.M., & Govender, C.M. (2022). How fourth industrial revolution skillsets mediate the relationship between work integrated learning, graduate employability, and future job. EUREKA: Social and Humanities, 4, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2022.002425
Adegbite, W.M., & Hoole, C. (2024). The nexus of work integrated learning and skills among engineering students in Nigerian universities: A structural equation model approach. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 15(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2024vol15no1art1824
Ahamefula, O. (2014). Conflict management in the workplace: Case study. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Fernando Pessoa.
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2011). An evaluation of PLS based complex models: The roles of power analysis, predictive relevance and GOF index. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2011), Detroit, Michigan, 4–7 August 2011 (pp. 1–8). Association for Information Systems.
Albert, S., Ashford, B.E., & Dutton, J.E. (2000). Organisational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791600
Ali, M., Lei, S.L., & Wei, X. (2018). The mediating role of the employee relations climate in the relationship between strategic HRM and organisational performance in Chinese banks. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 3(3), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.003
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P.A. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Department of Social and Organisational Psychology, 139(5), 1090–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–309.
Bester, F. (2012). A model of work identity in multicultural work settings. University of Johannesburg.
Bhorat, H., Cassim, A., & Yu, D. (2016). Temporary employment services in South Africa: Assessing the industry’s economic contribution. Human Sciences Research Council.
Bloch, B.J. (1985). Interdepartmental conflict the neglected dimension of management South African Journal of Business Management, 16(4), 1095. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v16i4.1095
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020
Bothma, F.C. (2011). Consequences of work-based identity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg.
Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L.L. (1995). Transactions costs in organizations with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (vol. 5, pp. 219–247). JAI.
Buche, M. (2003). IT professional work-identity: Construct and outcomes. Michigan Technology University.
Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Erlbaum.
Chulu, M. (2023). Organisational culture and voluntary turnover: Moderating the effect of perceived support and work identity. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
Clayton, K., & De Braine, R.T. (2023). Performance management process changes on the work identity of employees during COVID-19. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 49, a2090. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v49i0.2090
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Cummings, L.L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organisations (pp. 302–330). Sage.
Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Tan, H.H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<563::AID-SMJ99>3.0.CO;2-0
De Braine, R. (2012). Predictors of work-based identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
De Braine, R., & Roodt, G. (2011). The job demands-resources model as predictor of work identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i2.889
Dirks, K.T., & De Jong, B. (2022). Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse of the third. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083025
Du Plessis, M., Wakelin, Z., & Nel, P. (2015). The influence of emotional intelligence and trust on servant leadership. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1133
Elgoibar, P., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M.C. (2021). Editorial: Conflict management and trust relationships in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 764332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764332
Fischer, S., & Walker, A. (2022). A qualitative exploration of trust in the contemporary workplace. Australian Journal of Psychology, 74(1), 2095226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2095226
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. The Free Press.
Fulmer, C.A., & Gelfand, M.J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
Gewirtz, C., & Paretti, M.C. (2021). Becoming after college: Agency and structure in transitions to engineering work. Engineering Studies, 13(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2021.1959597
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N.P., & Ray, S. (2021). An introduction to structural equation modeling. In Partial least Squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. classroom companion: Business. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_1
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., & Mena, J.A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Han, G., & Harms, P.D. (2009). Team identification, trust, and conflict: A mediation model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061011016614
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 1–21.
Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2015). Dimensionality of trust: An analysis of the relations between propensity, trustworthiness and trust. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1263
Hogg, M.A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 35, pp. 1–52). Elsevier Academic Press.
Horton, K.E., Bayerl, P.S., & Jacobs, G. (2013). Identity conflicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 35(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1893
Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Harvard Business School Press.
Jaworski, B., & Ajay, K.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022744
Kahn, W.A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J.E. Dutton & B.R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 189–206). Erlbaum.
Kappmeier, M. (2016). Trusting the enemy: Towards a comprehensive understanding of trust in intergroup conflict. National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, 22, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000159
Kazimoto, P. (2013). Analysis of conflict management and leadership for organizational change. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 3, 16–25.
Kirpal, S. (2004). Researching work identities in a European context. Career Development Journal, 9(3), 199–221.
Kolb, D., & Putnam, L. (1992). The multiple faces of conflict in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130313
Lee, G., & Teo, A. (2005). Organisational restructuring: Impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-005-6416-6
Legood, A., Van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2020). A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1819241
Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Sage.
Lleras, C. (2005). Path analysis. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (Vol. 3, pp. 25–30). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00483-7
Mayer, R.C., & Gavin, M.B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organisational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
Meadows, S., & De Braine, R. (2022). The work identity of leaders in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 958679. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.958679
Miscenko, D., & Day, D. (2016). Identity and identification at work. Organisational Psychology Review, 6(3), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615584009
Montani, F., Dufour, L., & Andiappan, M. (2025). How and when does trust in coworkers make newcomers more innovative? The dual roles of psychological safety and interpersonal conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001297
Mpangeva, L., & De Braine, R.T. (2024). The transition from graduate to professional: Developing a work identity. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 22, a2785. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2785
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
Nicotera, A., & Jameson, J. (2021). Conflict in organizations and organizing. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-1275
Nordhall, O., Hörvallius, J., Nedelius, M., & Knez, I. (2025). Employees’ experiences of personal and collective work-identity in the context of an organizational change. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1382271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1382271
Rahayuningsih, I. (2019). The positive impact of organisational trust: A systemic review. Journal of Education, Health and Community Psychology, 8(1), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v8i1.12195
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com
Robey, D. (1984). Conflict models for implementation research. In R.L. Schultz & M.J. Ginzberg (Eds.), Applications management sciences: Management science application (Vol. 2, pp. 29–45). JAI Press.
Robey, D., Farrow, D.L., & Franz, C.R. (1989). Group process and conflict in system development. Management Science, 35(10), 1172–1191. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.10.1172
Roodt, G., De Braine, R., Bothma, F.C., & Jansen, P.G. (2009). The work-based identity questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire, University of Johannesburg.
Rowland, J. (2012). Does a climate of trust enhance cross-functional relationships during new product development? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wollongong.
Saayman, T., & Crafford, A. (2011). Negotiating work identity. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i1.963
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrated model of organisational trust: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review, 35, 334–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
Schoorman, F., Mayer, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Organizational trust: Philosophical perspectives and conceptual definitions. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 337–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1996.27003218
Seavey, R.E. (2010). Collaboration between perioperative nurses and sterile processing. AORN Journal, 91(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2009.09.029
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organizational Development Journal, 1(4), 35–48.
Sulphey, M.M. (2019). The concept of workplace identity, its evolution, antecedents and development. International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment, 5(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWE.2019.103022
Sulphey, M.M. (2020). Construction and validation of workplace identity scale (WIS). Economics and Sociology, 13(2), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-2/4
Sunil, R., & Sumitha, R., (2023). Trust in workplace: A conceptual study. Journal of General Management Research, 10(1), 38–58.
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610001
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24), Nelson Hall.
Tian, G., Wang, J., Zhang, Z., & Wen, Y. (2019). Self-efficacy and work performance: The role of work engagement. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, 47(12), ae8528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8528
Toivanen, K.M. (2021). Multiple identities at work: Discursive construction of work identity of young business professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/73679/1/978-951-39-8520-2_vaitos06022021.pdf
Trussell, G. (2015). Organizational trust as a moderator of the relationship between burnout and intentions to quit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minnesota State University.
Van Rensburg, L. (2020). Job demands, job resources, work identity and PsyCap in a clinical research environment. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
Van Tonder, L.J. (2018). The effect of change and interdepartmental conflict on work identity: The mediating effect of organisational trust. Unpublished master’s mini-dissertation, University of Johannesburg
Walsh, K., & Gordon, J.R. (2007). Creating an individual work-identity. Human Resource Management Review, 18(1)1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.09.001
Wisner, J.D., & Stanley, L.L. (2008). Process management: Creating value along the supply chain (p. 451). Total Quality Management. Thomson.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118
Zhu, T. (2013). Conflict management between employees from different departments: Contribution of organizational identification and controversy. Master’s thesis, Lingnan University.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
