Although the importance of trust has long been recognized by social scientists, the studies on trust flourished only after 1990s in the organizational research. Not surprisingly, there are some reasons why trust had not been a main topic of organizational research until the 1990s. On the one hand, as the hierarchy of an organization was more flattened, the organization reasonably needed to substitute something for the hierarchy system as an organizational control and it started to focus on trust. On the other hand, as more organizations adopt a team-based structure, they realized the need for trust among team members for team effectiveness. In the line of reasoning, trust can be viewed as two following perspectives:trust as a substitute for hierarchy-based control and trust for team effectiveness. Considered the recent review studies on trust, such as Dirks & Ferrin (2001), Dirks &Ferrin (2002), Colquitt et al. (2007), and Burke et al. (2007), most of the studies on trust were conducted in terms of the former perspective: trust as a substitute for the hierarchybased organizational control. In contrast, the latter perspective has been shed little light on. Specifically, even though there were theoretically or practically implicit agreements that trust should be something indispensible for team effectiveness, research on trust has never been extended to trust for enhancement of team effectiveness (hereafter, team trust), and thus the concept of trust has never been fully developed. For the reasons, the research on team trust starts at the point, where research on trust and research on team are overlapped each other, not only for the development of two fields but also for the establishment of team trust as a new academic field. To the end, - to conceptualize a new term, team trust, on the balanced consideration of trust research and team research - we investigated and reviewed the trust-related studies conducted in team context in the following manners. First, we investigated what types of team trust are related to team effectiveness. Reviewing all of the trust-related studies, we classified team trust in terms of two dimensions: level (which is either individual- or team-level) and trust direction (which is either vertical or horizontal trust). Second, we analyzed how team trust functions in Input-Mediator-Outcome (IMO) model, one of team effectiveness models, classified all of the antecedents and the consequences of team trust,and found that team trust might function as an emergent state in the IMO model. After investigations and reviews, we finally concluded that team trust could be considered to be team members’ shared trust to each other, not individual team member’s trust, and that team trust might have effects on team effectiveness and function as an emergent state in the IMO model. We also found two important limitations of the existing studies on team trust. First,although there were several types of trust relationships in a team in terms of the level analysis, the existing studies have mainly investigated only one type and not cared about the difference among them. Second, even though impersonal as well as personal trust could be considered for the conceptualization of team trust, the existing concept of trust has been restricted only to personal trust. On the basis of investigations and findings, we finally proposed team trust as a multi-dimensional construct. Since teams in an organization can be viewed as not only the groups composed of team members but also the sub-systems of the organization, we could newly conceptualize team trust as a multi-dimensional construct and definitely define team trust as trust to team entity which includes both personal and impersonal facets. Moreover,for the model elaboration, we divided the facets of teams into two sub-categories. For the personal facet of team, we divided it into trust in team leader and trust in coworkers,focusing on the difference between leaders’ and members’ roles. For the impersonal facet, we divided it into trust in intra-team control system and trust in team prestige because the nature of team, regardless of the nature of team members or the team dynamics, would be determined mainly by internal control system of the team and its comparative importance in the organization. In short, investigating and reviewing all of trust-related studies, we newly defined team trust as a multi-dimensional construct and suggested four sub-dimensions of it: trust in leader, trust in coworkers, trust in the internal control system, and trust in the team prestige. Further, we discussed how to measure each sub-dimensions of team trust as well as overall team trust. That is, while the personal trusts (i.e., trust in team leader and trust in team coworkers) can be measured with existing measures for interpersonal trust, the impersonal trusts (i.e., trust in internal control system and trust in team prestige) cannot be measured without developing new measures. For the reasons, we suggested that the measurement items for the impersonal trusts should be created in such a way that a ‘team,’ not team members, is a trustee and impersonal factors (e.g., team design factors, team work process,team’s role importance in the organization, team’s contribution to the organization and so on) are added to describe the team. Finally, the overall team trust can be represented by aggregating all of four sub-dimensions because team trust can be described as an aggregate model of multi-dimensional construal types.