There have been many changes in the structure of organizations in recent decades due to changes in technology, globalization, and fast paced change. One of these changes has been the increased utilization of teams, and more specifically virtual teams in attempts to pool knowledge and experience through collaboration. The interaction of these groups and teams has presented the necessary element of trust for effective collaborations (Sheppard, 1995).
There has been research and discussion on what trust is, how it is formed, and how it is defined from various perspectives. These perspectives have covered interpersonal aspects (Hamsher, Geller, & Rotter, 1968), cognitive aspects, behavioral aspects, to integrated or multiple approach aspects (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). A large majority of these studies relative to teams and groups has been from the perspective or variable of face to face interactions. However, the advent and increase of technology and globalization has led to the utilization of distributed teams that interact primarily through virtual means.
The virtual media adds factors that are inherently not feasible to induce the formation or reinforcements of trust formation and maintenance. The absence of face to face contact then raises the question as to how trust is formed and maintained, or is it formed at all? Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) explored this specific question in virtual environments through case studies. They proposed that there was the appearance that trust was still evident to degree both initially and throughout the collaborative task that impacted the outcomes. Nonetheless the absence of prior social engagement or knowledge of the individuals on the virtual teams, raised a question as to what was used to formulate trust.
Two areas of study added possible theory to explore the formation and maintenance of trust in a virtual setting. Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) applied the swift trust model proposed by Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer (1996) to virtual teams to show that high trust can still be evident in these groups. The swift trust model implied that the individuals in these groups still attribute trust to other members when they do not have adequate time to build trust slow through face to face or behavioral observations. This assumption of high trust, or lack thereof, has also been explored through the theoretical perspective of attribution theory (Jarvenpaa, Shaw, and Staples, 2004; Cramton, Orvis, and Wilson, 2007). Whether an individual is attributing initial high or low trust and its impact on the outcomes of a collaborative task can be empirically explored through these theories.
For a team leader or manager of these teams, there are certain elements or maintenance to this research has pointed to that can help ensure the development of trust, and the continued maintenance or growth of this trust throughout the collaborative task toward better performance and motivation.
- Pre-task introductions or social engagement prior to the task
- Watching team member perceptions during the process – it was discovered that people tend to attribute no immediate response or slow responses on individual character. Communication to understand what is situational at the other end can assist in the false attributions.
- On-going social relationship building — teams that maintained sharing and social relationship interaction tended to maintain or develop high trust.
- Establishing and maintaining mutual knowledge of the task among all members (Cramton, 2001) through utilization of various collaborative technologies this can be accomplished and managed if used correctly.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.
Cramton, C. D., Orvis, K. L., & Wilson, J. M. (2007). Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. Journal of Management, 33(4), 525-546.
Hamsher, J. H., Geller, J. D., & Rotter, J. B. (1968). Interpersonal trust, internal-external control, and the Warren Commision Report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 210-215.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250-264.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Meyerson, D., K. E. Weick, R. M. Kramer. 1996. Swift trust and temporary groups. R. M. Kramer, T. R. Tyler, eds. Trust in Organizations:Frontiers of Theory and Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 166–195.
Sheppard, B. H. 1995. Negotiating in long-term mutually interdependent relationships among relative equals. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research
on negotiation in organizations, vol. 5: 3-44. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Comments on this entry are closed.