developing trust in virtual teams

Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Marie-Line Germain, PhD

The latter part of the 20th century has provideda dramatic change in work team structures bymoving from centralized, co-located teams to

decentralized, dispersed, or virtual teams, which elim-inate the need for physical proximity among teammembers (Beranek, 2000, as cited in Webster & Wong,2008; Haywood, 1998; Henry & Hartzler, 1997; Powell,Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hen-drickson, 1998). This increase arises from forces suchas interorganizational alliances, globalization, out-sourcing, and alternative work arrangements, such asjob sharing and telecommuting (Saunders, 2000). Vir-tual teams are often constructed because organizationsrequire skills, local knowledge, experience, resources,or expertise from employees who are distributed.Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have contributedgreatly to shifting the arrangement of team membership beyond the physicaland geographical boundaries of the workplace (Ahuja & Carley, 1999).

Today, teams are popular forms of work design in the United States(D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010). Approximately 50–80% of U.S. organizationsuse teams of some sort (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999;D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010; Gordon, 1992). Although statistics on the exactnumber of virtual teams currently in existence are unavailable (Cascio &Shurygailo, 2003; Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010), a study commissioned byWorldCom in 2001 reports that 61% of employees in large companies haveworked on virtual teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). In the UnitedStates only, 8.4 million employees were estimated to work in virtual teams orgroups (Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004). Already, more than 50% ofcompanies employing more than 5,000 workers make use of virtual teams.For instance, Nortel Networks Corp., with employees located in 150countries around the world, and Price Waterhouse, with 45,000 employeesin 120 different countries around the world, make extensive use ofvirtual teams (Gerber, 1995; Solomon, 2001). In 1999, Hewlett-Packard’s

29

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 4 ( 3 ) P P . 2 9 – 5 4

& 2011 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.20119

Rapid globalization, advancesin technology, flatter organizationalstructures, synergistic cooperationamong firms, and a shift to knowledgework environments have led to theincreasing use of virtual teams in orga-nizations. Selecting, training, and so-cializing employees in virtual team-work has therefore become an impor-tant human resource function. Thisarticle provides an overview of the re-search on trust in virtual teams, itsimportance, and how to overcomesome challenges of trust developmentin virtual teams. Recommendations forvirtual team developers and humanresources professionals are presented.

(HP) first virtual team saved $800,000 per year in compliance cost and$200,000 per year in avoided costs and faster cycle times in Korea. In 2002,HP adopted the virtual team structure and business model (Snyder, 2003). Inthose organizations, virtual teams are used in a variety of applications,including problem-solving, product development, quality control, projectmanagement, decision making, planning, and negotiation (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). These numbers can only be expected to increasewith corporate globalization, partnerships, and joint ventures and techno-logical complexity requiring specialization (Cascio, 1999; Henry & Hartzler,1997; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Timmerman & Scott, 2006). Thus,selecting, training, and socializing employees in virtual teamwork hasbecome an important human resource function (Shin, 2004; Webster &Wong, 2008).

Yet because of their dispersed nature, virtual teams face particularchallenges. Indeed, to work effectively, team members ought to trust eachother (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003). That is, members of a team should be willingto be vulnerable to the actions of their teammates (Mayer, Davis, & Schoor-man, 1995; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Zand, 1972). The challengelies in the fact that trust is known to best develop when people can physicallymeet (Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).

The purpose of this paper is to review the research literature on trust invirtual teams within the past decade and to offer coping strategies humanresources (HR) practitioners or managers can use to overcome some of thechallenges of trust development based on best practices.

Review of the Literature

This section presents definitions of trust in virtual teams while providingcharacteristics of high-trusting teams.

Defining Virtual Teams

Virtual teams are a form of organization that allow teams to be composedaccording to qualifications and expertise without limitations of time, space,and the costs and disruptions of relocation (Gerber, 1995; Schweitzer &Duxbury, 2010; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1996), ‘‘who workinterdependently using technology’’ (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000, p. 18), and aremutually accountable for their results (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003). Members canbe from the same organization or a variety of organizations, in the UnitedStates or across the world. Unlike the traditional teams that are allowed todevelop slowly, these teams are required to be effective in completing tasksand meeting various demands from the beginning to the end of the group life(Kuo & Yu, 2009).

Trust in Virtual Teams

Although virtual teams have taken on more importance in recent years,dispersed collaboration has existed in most periods. As early as the middle

30 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

ages, trade relied on coalitions of dispersed collaborators (Aubert & Kelsey,2003; Greif, 1989). At a time when information could take months to travelfrom one partner to another, trust in these commercial partners and theirfulfillment of promises relied on the reputation of the partner and promisesof future trading. Similarly, for more modern collaborators, most researcherscontend that trust is a determining factor in the effectiveness in any complexsystem requiring coordinated action (Granovetter, 1985; McAllister, 1995;Seabright, Levinthal, & Fichman, 1992).

Interpersonal trust has an important history in the psychology, sociol-ogy, negotiation, strategy, and organizational behavior disciplines (Cook &Wall, 1980; Currall & Judge, 1995; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Lewis &Weingert, 1985; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Ring & Van deVen, 1992; Webber, 2008; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Group trust isone increasingly salient marker of virtual team success and performance(Dirks, 1999; Handy, 1995; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluck, & Gibson, 2006; Krebs, Hobman, &Bordia, 2006; Peters & Karren, 2009; Polzer et al., 2006). In fact, manyresearchers believe that building trust is the greatest challenge faced byorganizations operating in this environment (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarven-paa & Leidner, 1999; O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994; Piccoli & Ives,2003). Trust, a key psychosocial trait, is likely to be more critical in virtualteams because of the lack of traditional social control (Cascio, 2000) yet moredifficult to develop because of little or no personal contact among the teammembers (Handy, 1995). Visual isolation inhibits the development of trust.Being able to detect and interpret behavioral clues that reveal intentions,referred to as translucence, plays an important role in developing trust andcooperation (Orbell & Dawes, 1991). Similarly, ‘‘telltale signs’’ such as facialexpressions and voice tone reveal intentions and make cooperation possible(Frank, 1993, p. 165). When individuals are spatially dispersed, the socialinformation upon which interpersonal trust is based is less readily available(Zucker, 1986). Face-to-face encounters are considered irreplaceable forboth building trust and repairing shattered trust (Nohria & Eccles, 1992), yettrust is critical in virtual teams for reducing the high levels of uncertaintyendemic to the global and technologically based environment (Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999). ‘‘Trust is the glue of the global workspace—and technologydoesn’t do much to create relationships’’ (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen,1994, p. 243).

Advantages of Virtual Team Trust on Organizational Variables. Kirkman,Jones, and Shapiro’s (2000) (as cited in Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003)content analysis of the comments of employees in two Fortune 500companies in the process of implementing self-managing work teamsfound that 23% of all comments centered on the issue of trust.

Trust has been acknowledged to be even more critical in virtual teamswhere face-to-face communication is less prevalent (Gibson & Manuel,2003; Piccoli & Ives, 2003; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004; Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999; Peters & Karren, 2009; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006;

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 31

Webber, 2008). Trust is cited as affecting a variety of team processes andoutcomes such as group participation and contribution, cycle times, productquality, and even team member retention (Bandow, 2001; Salas, Sims, &Burke, 2005). Jones and George (1998) found that, in addition to mediatingcooperation and teamwork, trust also fosters a willingness to disseminate

information more freely among team members. If teammembers do not feel that their input is valued or thatthe information they provide will be used appropri-ately, they may be less willing to share that information(Bandow, 2001). Inherently, trust is needed in teamsbecause when team members work interdependently,they must be willing to accept a certain amount of riskto rely on each other to meet deadlines, contribute tothe team task, and cooperate without subversive inten-tions (Salas et al., 2005).

Trust has also been identified as a key, yet challen-ging, ingredient for the effectiveness of virtual teams (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003;Beranek, 2000; Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004; David & McDaniel, 2004;Iacono & Weisband, 1997; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004;Remidez, Stam, & Laffey, 2007). This is partially explained by the absence oftraditional control mechanisms, such as the organization’s hierarchy (Costa& Bijlsma-Frankema, 2007; Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2001; Peters &Karren, 2009; Sengun & Wasti, 2007; Weibel, 2007). Several studies havefound a significant effect for trust on individual performance (Dirks, 1999;Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Peters & Karren,2009; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Powell, Galvin, &Piccoli, 2006). In addition to effective performance, Cunningham andMacGregor (2000) identified trust as a significant predictor of satisfactionand intention to quit, acceptance of influence, openness in communication,team commitment, and cooperation (Bijlsma-Frankema, de Jong, & van deBunt, 2008). According to the study by Jarvenpaa and Leider (1999), a highlevel of trust in the team’s early life allows the team effectively to solveproblems, resolve conflicts, and have positive communications when theyare faced with technical or task uncertainty. Table 1 presents some char-acteristics of high-trusting teams based on the research of Jarvenpaa andcolleagues (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999).

With heightened trust, one is more likely to see a spirit of cooperation andinformation sharing among these diverse members, even with low levels ofshared expertise (Curs-eu & Schruijer, 2010; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005;Krackhardt & Stern, 1988; Mayer et al., 1995; Remidez, Stam, & Laffey, 2007);a more productive free flow of information (Hart & Saunders, 1997; Nelson &Cooprider, 1996); communication (Dore, 1983); collaborative relationshipperformance (David & McDaniel, 2004); leadership (Atwater, 1988); self-managed work teams (Lawler, 1992); the improvement of organizations’abilities to adapt to complexity and change (Korsgaard, Schweiger, &Sapienza, 1995; McAllister, 1995); collective learning; knowledge sharing;creative problem solving (Argyris, 1999; Reina & Reina, 1999; Senge, 1990);

Trust [is] a significantpredictor of satisfaction

and intention to quit,acceptance of influence,

openness incommunication, team

commitment, andcooperation.


and an increased level of interdependence (Wageman, 1999), where teammembers are naturally vulnerable to the actions of others in carrying outtheir work. Interdependence is a key characteristic of teams, since membersare dependent on each other to accomplish both the organization’s and theirown goals (Mayer et al., 1995). The only pathway to effective task perfor-mance and goal attainment is through cooperation, and trust is considered akey antecedent of cooperation. Trust has a variety of other constructiveeffects, including employees contributing time and attention to collectivegoals, sharing useful information, helping others, and performing extra-rolebehaviors (Kramer, 1999; Webster & Wong, 2008). For instance, virtual teammembers who believe in the trustworthiness of their fellow team memberscooperate more than those who are less sure of their colleagues (Galvin,McKnight, & Ahuja, 2001).

Conversely, teams that experienced low levels of trust among theirmembers are less likely to share information and ideas, which leads to lowerperformance (Driscoll, 1978; Zand, 1972). Those teams with low initial trustare characterized by irregular and unpredictable communication and ex-change little information. In this instance, it is difficult for the group to have acohesive culture that bonds it together (Bolman & Deal, 1992; Das & Teng,2001; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2007; Peters & Karren, 2009; Vlaar, Van denBosch, & Volberda, 2007). Low-trust team members are also likely to be lessopen and more defensive in their relationships with other members (Gibb,1964), resulting in ineffective problem solving (Zand, 1972) and reducedcreativity (Klimoski & Karol, 1976). Mutual learning will also be influencedby low trust through reduced opportunities to learn and use new skills andreduced sharing of information and knowledge of the work process (Zucker,Darby, Brewer, & Peng, 1996). Low trust may also be manifested in resistancebehaviors, such as the deliberate withholding of information (Zand, 1972),refusal to cooperate, frequent monitoring of coworkers (Strickland, 1958)and the absence of group citizenship behaviors, such as helping, civic virtue,and team sportsmanship (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). Whenmembers of a team do not trust each other, they are likely to expendadditional time and effort monitoring one another, backing up or duplicatingeach other’s work, and documenting problems (Ashforth & Lee, 1990). Teammembers engaging in monitoring and defensive behavior have fewer re-sources to devote to the primary team task, which can result in productivity

TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-TRUSTING TEAMS

EARLY IN THE FORMATION OF THE TEAM THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE TEAM

Positive initial interactions Time- and goal-oriented

Early starters Task-oriented

Discuss communication plans Address and manage conflict

Provided with robust feedback

Source. From Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999.


losses (McAllister, 1995). Lack of trust can also adversely affect members’satisfaction with the team and their willingness to continue working with theteam (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006).

Defining Trust in Virtual Teams. Trust is defined as a group member’swillingness to be vulnerable to the actions of his or her teammates on thebasis of the expectation that the other members will perform actions that areimportant to the trustor (Polzer et al., 2006). The willingness to be‘‘vulnerable,’’ from Mayer et al. (1995), is one of the most cited definitionsof trust and has played a central role in many conceptualizations. Forinstance, McKnight et al. (1998) refer to trust as the belief and thewillingness to depend on another party. Jones and George (1998) associatethe willingness to become vulnerable to a set of behavioral expectations thatallows individuals to manage the uncertainty or risk associated with theiractions. Risk appears central in many definitions of trust and consists of theperceived probability of loss as perceived by the trusting person(s) (Costa,Roe, & Taillieu, 2001; Curs-eu & Schruijer, 2010; Mayer et al., 1995). ForLuhmann (1979), risk is a prerequisite in the choice to trust. Table 2 showsvarious definitions and associated keywords from the business andpsychology fields within the past 20 years.

‘‘When we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, weimplicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that isbeneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to considerengaging in some form of cooperation with him’’ (Gambetta, 1988, p. 217, ascited in Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2008). Trust implies suspension of doubtabout the possibility that another’s action will be based on self-interest (i.e.,me-rationality), assuming that the other will reciprocate the us-rationalitythat is signaled by trust. Underlying the ‘‘decision to trust’’ is also theexpectation or belief that others will act in a way that is beneficial or at leastnot detrimental for the relationship (Gambetta, 1988).

Trust is defined as a multicomponent variable (Costa, 2003). As Rous-seau and colleagues (1998) note, from micropsychological theories (forexample, Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Zand, 1972) to social/economics approaches (for example, Cummings & Bromiley, 1996), positiveexpectations toward the behavior of others and the willingness to becomevulnerable to others are critical elements to define trust.

Consistent with Mayer et al.’s (1995) integrated model of trust, wedistinguish between: propensity to trust, or the general willingness to trustothers (Rotter, 1980) grounded in the individual’s personality, life experi-ences, cultural background, education and several other socioeconomicfactors; perceived trustworthiness, referring to the expectations and con-siderations about other people’s motives and intentions underlying theiractions; and trust behaviors (in Mayer et al., 1995), referred to as risk taking,which refer to the actions that reflect the willingness to be vulnerable toothers whose actions one does not control.

Inherent in Mayer et al.’s (1995) definition of trust is the idea ofreciprocity (Kirkman et al., 2000). According to social exchange theory


TABLE 2 DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

YEAR AUTHORS

DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN

VIRTUAL TEAMS KEYWORDS

2006 Polzer, Crisp,

Jarvenpaa, & Kim

A group member’s willingness to be

vulnerable to the actions of his or her

teammates on the basis of the

expectation that the other members will

perform actions that are important to the

trustor

Vulnerability

2008 Bijlsma-

Frankema,

de Jong, &

van de Bunt

Trust is taken to represent a coordinating

mechanism supporting cooperation

between actors

Cooperation

2003 Costa Positive expectations towards the

behavior of others and the willingness to

become vulnerable to others are critical

elements to define trust

Positive expectations of

others

Vulnerability

1995 Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman

The willingness to be vulnerable Vulnerability

Risk taking

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Interdependence/

reciprocity

1998 McKnight,

Cummings, &

Chervany

The belief and the willingness to depend

on another party

Dependence on others

Disposition to trust (faith)

Interpersonal-intergroup

trust

Institution-based trust

1979 Luhmann Risk is a prerequisite in the choice to trust Risk taking

1972 Zand The individual willingness to become

vulnerable

Vulnerability

1988 Gambetta Belief that others will act in a way that is

beneficial or at least not detrimental for

the relationship

Positive action from

others

1996 Lewicki &

Bunker

Trust involves not only expectations

about other people’s motives and

intentions, but also considerations about

the situation and the risks associated with

acting on such expectations

Expectations of others

Risk taking

1996 Cummings &

Bromiley

A belief (held by an individual or a group)

that another individual or group (1) makes

good-faith efforts to behave in

accordance with any commitments made

both explicitly or implicitly, (2) is honest in

whatever interactions preceded such

commitments, and (3) would not take

excessive advantage of another, even if

the opportunity became available

Good-faith efforts

Honesty

Does not take advantage

Vulnerability



(Blau, 1964), people will support a social exchange partner in proportion tothe perceived benefits provided by the partner (that is, a manager or anorganization). Reciprocity norms underscore the dynamic of trust. Trustmust be earned, and trust can be lost. Once trust is violated, however, thereare significant barriers to re-earning it (Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Rotter,1980; Zand, 1972).

According to some researchers, ability, benevolence, and integrity canparsimoniously encompass the concept of trustworthiness, the immediateprecursor to trust (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). This particular frameworkhas been used by numerous researchers studying the antecedents of trust.Previous research, for instance, has indicated that trust in another isinfluenced by perceptions of the other party’s ability to accomplish a taskimportant to the trustor, where ability is the set of skills or attributes that

TABLE 2 DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL TEAMS (CONTINUED)

YEAR AUTHORS

DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN

VIRTUAL TEAMS KEYWORDS

1997 Lipnack &

Stamps

Confidence in a person’s or organization’s

integrity, fairness, and reliability

Integrity

Fairness

Reliability

1998 Rousseau, Sitkin,

Burt, & Camerer

Intention to accept vulnerability based on

positive expectations of the intentions or

behaviors of another

Vulnerability


Interdependence

1985 Lewis & Wiegert Two forms of interpersonal trust:

cognition-based trust (reliability and

dependability) and affect-based trust

(emotional bond between two parties)

Reliability

Dependability

Integrity

Past records of others

2000 Jeffries & Reed Trust is a combination of two definitions:

‘‘a state involving confident positive

expectations about another’s motives

with respect to one’s self in situations

entailing risk’’ and the extent to which a

person is ‘‘willing to act on the basis of the

words, actions, and decisions of another’’


Risk taking

Willingness of others

1996 Porter & Lilly The confidence in group members’

dependability and expertise

Confidence in others

Dependability

Expertise

2001 Costa, Roe, &

Taillieu

Trust describes the extent to which team

members allow themselves to be

vulnerable to each other’s actions

Vulnerability

2002 Webber ‘‘The shared perception ... that individuals

in the team will perform particular actions

important to its members and ... will

recognize and protect the rights and

interests of all the team members

engaged in their joint endeavor’’ (p. 205)

Positive expectations of

others


enable the trustee to have influence. This exhibited ability can be expected topositively influence trust because the trustee will be perceived to have morecapacity to help the trustor. In turn, benevolence is the degree to which thetrustor believes that the trustee has goodwill or positive intentions towardthe trustor. Similar to ability, the more a trustee exhibits behaviors that showthey value the trustor’s needs and seek to protect the trustor, the greater theresulting trust on the part of the trustor should be. Finally, integrity is atrustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to acceptable values, whichcould include issues such as consistency, honesty, and fairness. A trustee whoshows that he/she follows values that the trustor likes should be more trusted.

An integrated perspective is presented by Cummings and Bromiley(1996), who state that trust is essentially a belief (held by an individual or agroup) that another individual or group (1) makes good-faith efforts tobehave in accordance with any commitments made both explicitly orimplicitly, (2) is honest in whatever interactions preceded such commit-ments, and (3) would not take excessive advantage of another, even when theopportunity became available (Naquin & Kurtzberg, 2009). This definition oftrust is compatible with other definitions used in the psychology literature(for a review of the psychological approach versus the economic approach,see Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) that, generally speaking, tend to comprise awillingness to accept vulnerability and positive expectations about the otherparty’s intentions, motivations, and behavior.

Interpersonal trust ‘‘increases confidence and security in the relation-ship, reduces transaction costs between parties, and promotes open, sub-stantive, and influential information exchange’’ (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 30,as cited in Krebs, Hobman, & Bordia, 2006). Interpersonal trust is thusinvaluable to organizations that depend on cross-functional teams, tempor-ary work groups, and other cooperative structures to coordinate work.

Dimensions of Trust. There are two forms of interpersonal trust: cognition-based trust and affect-based trust (Lewis & Wiegert, 1985, as cited in Webster& Wong, 2008; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010). Affect-based trust refers toa trust formed between two parties as a result of close emotional bonds andfeelings of identification (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995).

Affect-based trust develops from a close emotional connection with thetrustee (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995). Affect-based trustconsists of emotional bonds between two parties who express genuine careand concern for each other’s welfare (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; McAllister,1995; Webster & Wong, 2008). McAllister (1995) found that some level ofcognition-based trust is necessary for affect-based trust to develop, andempirical research has demonstrated strong relationships between these twodimensions of trust (McAllister, 1995; Staples, 1999). In layperson’s terms,affect-based trust can be summarized by the following statements: ‘‘We havea sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas and feelings. If Ishared my problems with this person, I know (s)he would respond con-structively and caringly’’ (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). Achievingaffective trust allows for short-term behavioral problems to occur and be


forgiven (Jones & George, 1998; McAllister, 1995). In addition, affective trustis driven by behaviors that extend beyond task-related competency toinclude extra role behaviors delivered during the life of the team.

Cognition-based trust occurs due to perceptions of competence, relia-bility, and dependability (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995;McAllister, 1995). It is based on reasoning about others’ reliability anddependability. The competence, integrity, ability, and past record of theperson being trusted form the rational basis for withholding trust (Luhmann,1979; Webster & Wong, 2008). In layperson’s terms, cognitive-based trustcan be summarized by the following statements: ‘‘I can rely on this person notto make my job more difficult by careless work. Given this person’s trackrecord, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence for the job’’ (Wilson etal., 2006).

Theoretically, cognitive trust has been argued to be more challenging tosustain once it is developed, compared with affective trust (McAllister, 1995,as cited in Webber, 2008). Specifically, a team could have high levels ofcognitive trust, then experience a problem completing a task on time,resulting in a decrease in cognitive trust. On the other hand, affective trustis thought to persist even under these types of situations (McAllister, 1995).The performance of a work team should be positively affected by bothcognitive and affective trust; however, affective trust, because of its deep-rooted nature, should have a more positive relationship with team perfor-mance.

Swift Trust. Many studies on virtual teamwork draw on swift trust tounderstand the trust development in short-term teamwork in context,such as academic institutions (Nandhakumar & Baskerville, 2006). Swifttrust is formed on the basis of three types of categorization: unit grouping,reputation categorization, and stereotyping (Kuo & Yu, 2009; McKnightet al., 1998). Team members may not have the opportunity to acquirefirsthand information about other team members and may thereforeimport trust from another context with which they are familiar, usingstereotypical impressions of others (Rasters, 2001). Viewing trustdevelopment as an attribution process, researchers theorize that peoplemay employ preexisting dispositions, institutional expectations, and socialcategorization to make attributions about the other person’s initialtrustworthiness. For temporary work-oriented virtual teams, because thereis insufficient time to build trust on firsthand information, categoriesgoverning some previously experienced settings are imported quickly toserve this purpose. It serves as a proxy for members of the work-orientedvirtual team to assess others’ reliability and competence in completing theirwork (Kuo & Yu, 2009). Swift trust, therefore, may lead members to work as ateam and facilitate members continually to cooperate and share information.It also helps to create a swift identity so that team members may believe thattheir virtual team is ’’us.’’ Members swiftly import their prior experience toassess the outcomes and costs of maintaining a team relationship. Groupmembers act as if trust is present from the start (Krebs et al., 2006; Meyerson,


Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Thus, in the absence of prior relationships, swifttrust enables group members to take action based on the behaviors ofanother. This aids the group in maintaining trust and dealing with theuncertainty and vulnerability of a situation of high time pressure. Manifestly,swift trust is very fragile, temporal, and dependent upon the initialcommunication behavior of team members (Panteli & Duncan, 2004).

Human Challenges in Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

People trust people, not technology.(Friedman, Kahn, & Howe, 2000, p. 36)

Despite the potential benefits of virtual teams, current literature suggeststhat virtual teamwork is rife with complex challenges (Dube & Robey, 2009).For example, several empirical studies show that building trust acrossdistance is difficult for distributed team members with no prior relationships(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Zolin, Hinds, Fruchter,& Levitt, 2004) and that team members are likely to base attributions aboutteammates on scant evidence (Cramton, 2001).

Communication and Frequency of Interaction. The lack of face-to-faceinteraction and nonverbal cues can pose big challenges to both managersand team members. These challenges result not only from searching for newways to facilitate communication with remote team members, but also frombuilding relationships to shorten the psychological distance between teammembers. The lack of proximity impersonalizes trust. Trust is pivotal topreventing geographical distance from leading to psychological distance inglobal teams (Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).

Also, the reliance on computer-mediated communication technologiesmay hamper cues that transfer ‘‘trust, warmth, attentiveness, and otherinterpersonal affections’’ (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 793; Henttonen &Blomqvist, 2005).

Other barriers to trust include failure to communicate, failure to retaincontextual information, failure to provide information evenly, difficulties ininterpreting the meaning of silence, and critical behavioral incidents (that is,unfair behavioral actions [Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005]). For example, amember with high-trusting disposition may interpret the silence of others asdue to a technical problem and not to others’ unreliability. A member with anegative trusting disposition may interpret the same silence to others’intentional nonparticipation.

Moreover, there is no time to engage in the usual forms of confidence-building activities that contribute to the development and maintenance oftrust in more traditional, enduring teams.

Inevitably, generational differences play a role in how virtual teammembers behave and what they expect from a virtual team. For instance,employees born between 1978 and 1988 are known as Generation Y. GenYers are techno-savvy. For them, technology is as transparent as the air. Theyusually communicate very effectively via online media. They also need


regular feedback to stay on track (Martin, 2005). Technology has shaped theway this digital generation learns and the way they process information.Although the technology they grew up with has become increasingly morecomplex, it’s also much easier to use. They’re continually customizing howthey gather and share information (Martin, 2005). Inevitably, generationaldifferences and the subsequent familiarity with the use of technology addscomplexity for a leader, manager, or HR practitioner tasked with developingand managing a virtual team.

Principles of Work Habits. Trust perception is seen as a key differencebetween virtual and co-located teams.

Visibility of work activity is constantly available in co-located teams(Powell et al., 2006). Thus, team members can more readily evaluate theeffort being exerted by their other team members. Virtual teams, however, donot have similar information available, due to the lack of everyday interaction(Platt, 1999), so other factors become more important in the development oftrust.

Moreover, in the virtual team environment, the quantity and quality ofknowledge sharing is influenced by the levels of trust among team members.Asking for information from and sharing information with teammates can berisky. Without the ability to observe the reactions of virtual teammates torequests for information, virtual team members may fear that such requestsmight be seen as indicators of incompetence (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn,2007). Similarly, sharing unsolicited information or knowledge with virtualteammates may be perceived as grandstanding or overloading teammateswith unwanted information. In newly formed virtual teams, the least riskyoption for knowledge sharing may be ’’ask not; offer not’’ (Rosen et al., 2007).However, this minimalist approach to communications reduces opportu-nities for virtual team members to have useful conversations, identifycommon interests, and engage in self-disclosure—all important elementsin building trust. Virtual teams risk creating destructive cycles in whichlimited communication slows the development of trust, creating a majorbarrier to knowledge sharing.

It is not a surprise that virtual teams are particularly vulnerable tomistrust, communication breakdowns, conflicts, and power struggles (Ro-sen et al., 2007).

Without sufficient trust, team members tend to expend time and energyprotecting, checking, and inspecting each other as opposed to collaboratingto provide value-added ideas (Cooper & Sawaf, 1996; Salas, Sims, & Burke,2005).

Strategies to Overcome the Challenges of Trust Development

Communication and Frequency of Interaction. Several studies (Davidow &Malone, 1992; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004) havealso shown that virtual teams rely on predictable, clear, and timelycommunication to reduce uncertainty and increase team effectiveness.Jarvenpaa and colleagues (1998) have discovered that for high-trust teams,


frequent communication allows team members to better understand a newenvironment and evaluate their options, thereby enabling successfuladaptation to various communication technologies.

Regular communication is the best way of maintaining trust (Henttonen& Blomqvist, 2005). Members’ frequent communication in the virtual teamprovides reassurance that others are attending to the task and increases amember’s early trust in the team and feelings of cohesiveness. In a low-trustsituation, frequent communication is necessary to provide constant con-firmation that teammates are still there and still on task (Jarvenpaa et al.,2004). Communication is not a distraction to the low trustor, but insteadprovides important information that will lead him or her to think the team iscommitted and will produce a high-quality report.

Teams that have little face-to-face interaction may develop trust differ-ently than teams that interact frequently (Peters & Karren, 2009). Face-to-face teams are more likely to develop trust via social and emotionalattachments, whereas virtual teams are more likely to develop trust whenthere is timely information sharing and when there are appropriate andsound responses to electronic communication (Henttonen & Blomqvist,2005; Kirkman et al., 2000). If a team member’s response is not timely andlacks initial quality, it may take a considerable amount of time for trust todevelop. Teams that initially exchanged social communications in additionto task communications are able to develop trust quickly. In other words, in avirtual context, trust is developed through task-based relationships whereresponsiveness and follow-through are essential components (Henttonen &Blomqvist, 2005; Kirkman et al., 2000). During the formation of a virtualteam, HR practitioners and team leaders may be able to minimize thetemporary depersonalization in distributed teams by encouraging teammembers to share individuating information (Wilson et al., 2006). Indeed,there is some evidence that encouraging early disclosure of personalinformation (Moore, Kurtzberg, Fox, & Bazerman, 1999) or even pictures(Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001) helps establish affect-based rapport incomputer-mediated environments.

By substituting the social bonds in the face-to-face environment for thetask relationship components in the virtual environment, trust can beeffectively established. In sum, communication behavior such as timelyresponse, in-depth feedback, and open communication enhance the evolu-tion of trust (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005).

Computer-mediated communication does not limit interaction, andcomputer-mediated teams can share relational information; it is just aquestion of social relationships taking a longer time to develop in compu-ter-mediated groups, where the transfer rate is slower than in face-to-faceteams (Wilson et al., 2006). Walther and Tidwell (1995) also identified casesin which computer-mediated groups demonstrated more social discussion,depth, and intimacy than face-to-face groups, even when there is less socialinformation per message in computer-mediated communication because ofthe absence of nonverbal cues (Krebs et al., 2006). From this evidence, itappears that the lack of social cues does not necessarily mean that there are


no relational elements, and identities can be built via technology-mediatedcommunication.

Organizational trainers, HR practitioners, and team leaders couldaccelerate the development of affective trust through online team-buildingactivities.

As mentioned earlier, Generation Y employees present unique chal-lenges for a virtual team leader or manager. Because they were born in an erain which technology is part of their daily life, trust in technology andconfidence in communicating via the use of technology is a given. Trustingothers through technology is easier for them compared with the BabyBoomer generation, who solely relied on human interactions to commu-nicate throughout their personal and work lives. Because Gen Yers have highexpectations of technology, they can get impatient when it does not measureup (Martin, 2005). They also have a sense of immediacy. Managers andleaders of virtual teams can cater to Gen Yers by customizing tasks so thatthey can stay focused and motivated. For them, customization is key.Managers and leaders can also create an incentive program based on theirteam performance and offer increasing responsibility within the team. Theywill also need realistic estimates of how long they can expect tasks to take andimmediate, constructive feedback while congratulating them for a job welldone.

To address every virtual team member’s comfort with technology,leaders and managers of virtual teams ought to assess the users’ level ofcomfort with online communication. This may give an idea of the demo-graphics of the virtual team members, which in turn can provide usefulinformation about comfort with media, possible trust development chal-lenges, and how to best address them.

Principles of Work Habits. If individuals believe their team members’ efforttoward the team goal(s) are sufficient and predictable, then trust can emergewithin the team (McAllister, 1995; Powell, Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006; Scully &Preuss, 1996). Based on equity theory (Adams, 1965), the individualperceives that the team member’s activities will fulfill that member’scommitment toward the team goals and that the relationship among allmembers is equitable (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). Thus, if an individual’sexperience with other team members has been one of reciprocal effort (thatis, all members putting forth approximately equal effort), trust can develop,since perceptions of another team member’s characteristics (for example,adherence to a set of principles such as work habits) has been found to have apositive relationship with trust (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998).

In addition, organizations that promote transparency in a virtual en-vironment may be able to accelerate the development of trust among teammembers. If we use our knowledge of e-commerce as an example, we can seethat it is the critical nature of transparency in web designs that promotesconsumer trust (Wang & Emurian, 2005).

Citizenship behaviors can also help with virtual team success.Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined as behavior that is


not directly related to the main task activity but that is important because itsupports the organizational, social, and psychological context of work(Borman, 2004; Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995). It is well known thatOCB has a positive influence on organizational performance (Podsakoff,Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Typically,citizenship behaviors are considered extra role behaviors and are notspecifically part of an individual’s tasks in a team environment. However,performing extra role behaviors, such as helping other team members orworking longer hours to ensure a successful project, facilitate a strongerrelationship and emotional bond among the members of the team (Webber,2008). Organizational citizenship behavior is similar to benevolence, whichhas been linked to trust in organizations (Mayer et al., 1995). This type ofrelationship should result in greater affective trust or trust based on care andconcern for the team and its members.

One key component in a successful virtual team is the ability ofthe team members to deliver the promised work (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003).It is generally assumed that a critical factor in the successful completionof a project is trust in fellow team members to deliver their share ofthe work on time and with sufficient quality (for example, Jarvenpaaet al., 1998).

Managers and team members should establish behavioral normsearly in the team’s life, including responsiveness, reliability, andconsistent follow-through, to develop team trust based on task relationships(Peters & Karren, 2009). This is especially important when cross-functionalteams are utilized remotely, because conflict resolution becomes morecomplicated.

Second, a strong collective identity among team members should befostered by aligning goals, incentives, and situations through training, teamrewards, and so on (Polzer et al., 2006). Through the encouragement of‘‘team’’ behavior and commitment, the impact on the ultimate goal ofperformance should be positive.

Finally, virtual team leaders must create a culture in which members arewilling to and even encouraged to admit their mistakes. Acknowledgment ofnovel ideas, encouragement to ask for help when necessary, and stressing theimportance of candid but constructive criticisms of member contributionsare all mechanisms for building a psychologically safe culture (Rosen et al.,2007).

Other Strategies. Taking a different approach to understanding trust, a groupof researchers examined the impact of behaviors or actions that operate assubstitutes for trust (that is, formal mechanisms) (Sitkin & Roth, 1993;Webber, 2008; Zucker, 1986). Research in this area has suggested that formalmechanisms such as contracts can actually reduce trust, rather than serve toeffectively remedy trust. In fact, in some cases, such behavior/actions canresult in greater formality or rigid procedures and policies alongwith increasing the distance and coldness between the individuals (Zucker,1986).


Also, favorable team-leader action, especially letting theemployees participate in decision making, is considered a trust-buildingattribute.

In sum, to build effective virtual teams, HR practitioners should makesure that employees allow themselves to learn from each other; that theybuild on each other’s work; that a safe, secure team environment is created;and that easy collaboration is encouraged (Zakaria, Amelinckx, & Wilemon,2004).

Best Practice Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Trust Building in

Virtual Teams

A comprehensive study by Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) found severalcharacteristics of high-trusting teams: getting started early, earlypositive interactions, high levels of activity, communication aboutcommunication strategies, expressions of time orientation, robustfeedback, and confrontation of slackers or other areas of conflict. Thissection explains how Jarvenpaa et al.’s (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner’s(1999) work provided the empirical basis for the contents of a setof message templates that can be used by virtual team leaders,members, organizational trainers, and instructors. In Jarvenpaa et al.(1998), the interactions of 75 teams with four to six members wereconsistent with other studies (Beranek, 2000; Chidambaram, 1996;Clear & Daniels, 2001; Huff, Cooper, & Jones, 2002; Iacono & Weisband,1997; Meyerson et al., 1996).

As an example of how Jarvenpaa et al.’s (1998) concepts can beimplemented, we outline in Table 3 the templates used in Remidez,Stam, and Laffey’s (2007) study with the activities identified by Jarvenpaaet al. (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999). We next give descriptionsof each of the seven templates. Included in the template descriptionsare ‘‘Strategy’’ sections with statements explaining the purpose of thetemplate. The example statements were taken from the statementsJarvenpaa and his colleagues (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999) selected as representative of communications thatpromoted trust. For example, ‘‘Looking forward very much to working withyou all’’ was identified as an expression of excitement about the forthcomingcollaboration. Other examples include ‘‘Great job’’ and ‘‘I shall keep intouch soon to congratulate us all on winning.’’ Many of the challenges indeveloping trust in virtual teams are addressed in the templates. Commu-nication and frequency of interaction, for instance, are covered in the‘‘introduction template’’ and in the ‘‘communication issues template,’’ whichsuggest expressing positive emotions throughout the team life or discussinghow members would like to communicate with each other. For someprinciples of work habits, templates dealing with time management, feed-back, and task completion are offered. Those can be particularly useful to thevirtual team leader or manager who deals with various generations ofworkers who have varying working styles and levels of comfort withtechnology.


TABLE 3 TEMPLATES FOR SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAMS

1. Introduction Template

Introduce yourself. Members of a strong team will get to know each other a little before beginning work. A good

introduction includes: (1) information about yourself and your background, (2) your past job experiences, (3) your

current focus of study, (4) why you chose to study this subject, and (5) what are your aspirations. In addition, you

should address any skills you have that might help your team solve this problem. Also, you should raise any concerns

you have about the successful completion of the project.

Strategy: Expressing positive emotions throughout the project will help your team succeed. For example, ‘‘I am

looking forward to working with you all’’ would be a good comment to include.

The ‘‘Introduction’’ message template includes several individual prompts: ‘‘Provide a little information about

yourself and your background,’’ ‘‘How often you plan to check the system for new messages (early and often is

better),’’ ‘‘Times you will not be available to communicate during the course of this project,’’ and ‘‘Address any skills

you have that might help your team solve this problem. Also, you should raise any concerns you have about the

successful completion of the project.’’ Each of these prompts is followed by fields for users to enter their answer.

2. Getting Started Template

Begin the problem-solving process by sharing your understanding of the goals. Adopt a role that will help your team

reach its goal and begin acting the part of that role.

Strategy: It is a good practice to state positive feelings about the project or the work of team members. For example,

‘‘Well done’’ or ‘‘I like this group’’ are good comments to include. In addition, it is best to do what you can to get the

project started early and to keep it moving through regular communication with your teammates.

3. Communication Issues Template

Discuss how often you would like to communicate with your teammates and any other communication practices

you would like to see everyone use.

Strategy: Expressions of enthusiasm are always a good thing to include in your messages. For example, ‘‘I think we are

going to win,’’ or related statements help your teammates feel good about their work.

4. Time Management/Milestones Template

Suggest deadlines and milestones for completing the task (e.g., ‘‘I think we can get this done by Tuesday.’’).

5. Feedback Template

You can use this option to reply to any message that your teammates have posted. Good feedback goes beyond

simple statements such as ‘‘okay’’ and ‘‘looks good.’’ It includes thoughtful compliments, critiques, edits, and

additions.

Strategy: Expressions of social greeting and positive statements are good items to include in your feedback

statements (e.g., ‘‘Hi everyone, I think we can win this.’’).

6. Issue/Conflict Template

Use this option to address any concerns about the process being followed or the participation of others. If a team

member is not participating and you feel that is hurting the team, it is important to address it in front of the entire

team.

Strategy: It is better to address concerns in the open, even if they lead to conflict. For example, if you do not hear from

someone, it is good to address it in front of the entire team (e.g., ‘‘Where is Joe?’’).

7. Task Completion/Questions Template

If you have completed a task or have questions about something, select this option. For example, if you wish to post

individual or final team rankings of the items in the problem, this is the option you should choose. You also can take

advantage of the ability to compile your results in Microsoft Word or Excel and attach these files to messages.

Strategy: Social greetings included in messages are a good way to keep team members feeling close to each other

and to keep your team functioning well (e.g., ‘‘I like working in this team’’). In addition, expressions of enthusiasm are

always a good thing to include in your messages, and they help keep your team working well.

Source. Adapted from Remidez et al., 2007.


Conclusion and Implications for Practice

High-trusting virtual teams are those that exhibit high performance(Ashleigh & Nandhakumar, 2007). They achieve this through displayingconsistent proactive behaviors, giving consistent and timely feedback, and

constantly negotiating with each other. Even whenmembers have difficulty carrying out a particular task,communicating the reasons why is considered a posi-tive act and reinforces trust. It seems that individualtolerance and experiences, social similarity, forms ofsocializing, caring talk, personal conversations, story-telling, humor, ritual, and ceremony are highlighted invirtual teams. Shared values, keeping commitmentsand promises, concern for the well-being of others,goal-setting, condensed communication, and spread-ing critical information were also found to be critical

factors in building trust.HR educators or managers in charge of training employees to work in

virtual teams should not assume that virtual teams develop the same wayface-to-face teams do. As highlighted in this article, the communicationdifferences, among others, are flagrant. Training is an essential part ofeffectively creating productive teams. In fact, Beranek and Martz (2005)found that training virtual teams resulted in higher levels of cohesiveness,improved perceptions of the process, and satisfaction, which ultimately had apositive effect on team performance. Research by Prichard and Ashleigh(2007) also found that team training resulted in greater trust compared withteams with no training.

Also, where virtual teams are used in organizations or in online courses,HR professionals should carefully select team members. Team-level trustcan be fostered through considered selection of team members. Specifically,HR professionals and managers should consider propensity to trust whenselecting members for high-priority teams, especially for teams workingvirtually, because propensity to trust has more influence on trust in virtualdyads than in co-located dyads (Yakovleva, Reilly, & Werko, 2010). Agree-able team members tend to build trusting relationships, and these relation-ships have consequences for attitudes, behavior, and team performance (forexample, Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Selecting individuals with a high propensityto trust is likely to facilitate trusting relationships in the workplace. Thisunderscores the importance of considering this individual difference invirtual team formation. One way to select members who have a highpropensity to trust consists in soliciting employees who have prior, success-ful experience with virtual teamwork.

Also, the fact that trust explains a large percent of variance in teamcommitment indicates that HR practitioners or managers should do more tobuild trust relations in virtual teams. Since studies have shown that greatercommitment leads to better performance and satisfaction and lower turn-over rates, managers of virtual teams and organizational trainers should

Training virtual teamsresulted in higher levels of

cohesiveness, improvedperceptions of the process,

and satisfaction, whichultimately had a positive

effect on teamperformance.


emphasize activities that encourage trust and introduce ways to enhance it tokeep team commitment high (Powell, Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006). HR practi-tioners should also encourage and foster repeated social interactions invirtual teams. This will aid in building trust in group members.

Above all, the importance of adequate support is vital. It is particularlyimportant for the educational setting (Curs-eu & Schruijer, 2010). Groups areused in educational settings to create a learning environment in whichstudents may learn from each other and have the chance of developingteamwork skills essential for their future careers. It is critical to ensure thatstudents are trained to reap the benefits of trust.

We often assume that we need to ‘‘touch and feel’’ in order to trust peopleand build social relationships with them. However, this assumption may notbe valid in the future. The new generation of workers may have differentpreferences and new conventions for developing relationships. At a veryyoung age, tomorrow’s workers may have already played online games andformed relationships with pen pals and best friends across the world (Dube &Robey, 2009). The combination of new ways of establishing relationships,developing trust, and communicating along with communication technol-ogy innovations may eventually lead them to base their working relationshipson new grounds. HR professionals and managers ought to prepare them-selves and organizational members for this unremitting change.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental psychology (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ahuja, M., & Carley, K. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization

Science, 10(6), 741–757.

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ashforth, B., & Lee, R. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model.

Human Relations, 43, 621–648.

Ashleigh, M. J., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Trust and technologies: Implications for

organizational work practices. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 607–617.

doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.018

Atwater, L. E. (1988). The relative importance of situational and individual variables in

predicting leader behavior: The surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group &

Organization Studies, 13, 290–310.

Aubert, B., & Kelsey, B. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual

teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. doi:10.1177/1046496403256011

Bandow, D. (2001). Time to create sound teamwork. Journal for Quality and Participation,

24(2), 41.

Beranek, P. M. (2000). The impacts of relational and trust development training on virtual

teams: An exploratory investigation. Proceedings of 33rd Hawai’i International

Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.

Beranek, P. M., & Martz, B. (2005). Making virtual teams more effective: Improving relational

links. Team Performance Management, 11, 5–6.

Bijlsma-Frankema, K., de Jong, B., & van de Bunt, G. (2008). Heed, a missing link between

trust, monitoring, and performance in knowledge intensive teams. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 19–40. doi:10.1080/09585190701763800

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.


Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture and

gender. Education Administration Quarterly, 28, 314–329.

Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 13, 238–241.

Cascio, W. F. (1999). Costing human resources (4th ed.). Dallas, TX: Southwestern College

Publishing.

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,

14(3), 81–90.

Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational

Dynamics, 31, 362–376.

Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS

Quarterly, 20(2), 143–163.

Clear, T., & Daniels, M. (2001). A cyber-icebreaker for an effective virtual group? ACM

Conference on Innovations and Technology in Computer Science Education,

Canterbury, UK.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commit-

ment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53,

39–52.

Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1996). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and

organizations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group.

Coppola, N., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions

on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.

Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605–622.

doi:10.1108/00483480310488360

Costa, A. C., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007). Trust and control interrelations: New

perspectives on the trust-control nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32(4),

392–406.

Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with

performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-

ogy, 10(30), 225–244.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed

collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Develop-

ment and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers

of theory and research (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary

constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53, 1575–1591.

Currall, S., & Judge, T. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary

role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64,

151–170.

Curs-eu, P., & Schruijer, S. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict?

Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79. doi:10.1037/a0017104

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated

framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.

David, P. L., & McDaniel, R. R. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on

virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183–227.

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing

the corporation for the 21st century. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in

organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research,

30, 678–711.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.

Dirks K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization

Science, 12(4), 450–467. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640


Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and

implications for organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

611–628.

Dore, R. (1983). Goodwill and the spirit of market capitalism. British Journal of Sociology, 34,

459–482.

Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as

predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44–56.

D’Souza, G. C., & Colarelli, S. M. (2010). Team member selection decisions for virtual versus

face-to-face teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 630–635. doi:10.1016

/j.chb.2009.12.016

Dube, L., & Robey, D. (2009). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information

Systems Journal, 19, 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2575.2008.00313.x

Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. The Academy of

Management Review, 23, 547–566.

Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust,

monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group

Organization Management, 32(4), 465–499. doi: 10.1177/1059601106293960

Frank, R. (1993). The strategic role of emotions: Reconciling over- and undersocialized

accounts of behaviors. Rationality and Society, 5, 160–184.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM,

43(12), 34–40.

Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual

teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20.

Galvin, J. E., McKnight, D. H., & Ahuja, M. K. (2001). Innocent until proven guilty: A study of

antecedents to project team members’ trust and cooperation. In Trust in an

Organizational Context, Organization Science—SDA Bocconi conference proceedings,

Moltrasio, Como, Italy, III (pp. 2–34).

Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford, UK:

Basil Blackwell.

Gerber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32(4), 36–41.

Gibb, J. R. (1964). Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. Benne (Eds.),

T-group theory and laboratory method (pp. 279–308). New York: Wiley.

Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. (2003). Building trust: Effective multi-cultural communication

processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that

work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group

processes. In G. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131–185). London,

UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training (October), 59–65.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embedded-

ness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

Greif, A. (1989). Reputation and coalition in medieval trade: Evidence on the Maghribi

traders. Journal of Economic History, 49, 857–882.

Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40–50.

Hart, P., & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of

electronic data interchange. Organization Science, 8(1), 23–42.

Haywood, M. (1998). Managing virtual teams: Practical techniques for high-technology

managers. Boston, MA: Artech House.

Henry, J. E., & Hartzler, M. (1997). Virtual teams: Today’s reality, today’s challenge. Quality

Progress, 30(5), 108–109.

Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The

evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strate-

gic Change, 14(2), 107–119. doi:10.1002/jsc.714

Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in

student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24–35.


Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,

Hawaii.

Jarvenpaa, S., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information

management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 10, 25–57.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents

of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14,

29–64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.

Organization Science, 10(6), 791–851. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791

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), 250–267.

doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0028

Jeffries, F. L., & Reed, R. (2000). Trust and adaptation in relational contracting. Academy of

Management Review, 25(4), 873–882.

Jones, R., & George, J. (1998). The evolution of trust and cooperation: Implication for

teamwork and tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 531–546.

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of

Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.

Kasper-Fuehrer, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and

building trust in inter-organizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management,

27, 235–254.

Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., & Cordery, J. L. (2003). Trust, individualism, and job characteristics as

predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 14, 93–116.

Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams?

Examining the ‘‘resistance barrier’’ to work team effectiveness. The International

Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 74–92.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluck, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancing the transfer of

computer assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 91, 706–716.

Klimoski, R. J., & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 630–633.

Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D., & Sapienza, H. (1995). Building commitment, attachment,

and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy

of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.

Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crisis: An

experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123–140.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring

questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.

Krebs, S., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual teams and group member dissimilarity:

Consequences for the development of trust. Small Group Research, 37(6), 721–741.

doi:10.1177/1046496406294886

Kuo, F., & Yu, C. (2009). An exploratory study of trust dynamics in work-oriented virtual

teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 823–854. doi:10.1111

/j.1083–6101.2009.01472.x

Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization.

San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development

and decline. In B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: A

tribute volume to Morton Deutsch (pp. 133–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relation-

ships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and

research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewis, J., & Wiegert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.


Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organiza-

tions with technology. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with

technology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. What managers need to

know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39–44.

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and

where do we go from here. Journal of Management, 30, 805. doi:10.1016

/j.jm.2004.05.002

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new

organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M., (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M.

Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.

166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Fox, C. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Positive illusions and

forecasting errors in mutual fund investment decisions. Organizational Behavior &

Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 95–114.

Nandhakumar, J., & Baskerville, R. (2006). Durability of online teamworking: Patterns of trust.

Information Technology & People, 19(4), 371–389. doi:10.1108/09593840610718045

Naquin, C., & Kurtzberg, T. (2009). Team negotiation and perceptions of trustworthiness:

The whole versus the sum of the parts. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 13(2), 133–150. doi:10.1037/a0013879

Nelson, K., & Cooprider, J. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group

performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–429.

Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In N.

Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 288–308). Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture and

time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. (1991). A ‘cognitive miser’ theory of cooperators’ advantage.

American Political Science Review, 85, 515–528.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4),

775–802.

Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust and temporary virtual teams: Alternative explana-

tions and dramaturgical relationships. Information Technology & People, 17(4),

423–441. doi:10.1108/09593840410570276

Paul, D. L., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on

virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183–227.

Peters, L., & Karren, R. J. (2009). An examination of the roles of trust and functional diversity

on virtual team performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34(4),

479–504. doi: 10.1177/1059601107312170

Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual

teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365–395.

Platt, L. (1999). Virtual teaming: Where is everyone? The Journal for Quality and Participa-

tion, 22(5), 41–43.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship

behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.


Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales

unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351–363.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to

geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group

functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.

Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on

project team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4),

361–376. doi: 10.1108/eb022787

Powell, A., Galvin, J., & Piccoli, G. (2006). Antecedents to team member commitment from

near and far: A comparison between collocated and virtual teams. Information

Technology & People, 19(4), 299–322. doi:10.1108/09593840610718018

Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive

memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6), 696–726.

Rasters, G. (2001). Trust at text value: Dividing 1 million euro and how it influenced

trust between members in a virtual research team. Paper presented at the

EIASM Workshop. Trust Within and Between Organisation. Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam (NL).

Reina, D., & Reina, M. (1999). Trust and betrayal in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Remidez, H., Stam, A., & Laffey, J. M. (2007). Web-based template-driven communication

support systems: Using shadow networkspace to support trust development in

virtual teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3, 65–83.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between

organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.

Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing

in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn

.2007.04.007

Rotter, J. (1980, October). Trust and gullibility. Psychology Today, 14(5), 35–42, 102.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘‘big five’’ in teamwork? Small Group

Research, 36(5), 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134

Saunders, C. S. (2000). Virtual teams: Piecing together the puzzle. In R.W. Zmud (Ed.),

Framing the domain of IT management: Projecting the future through the past.

Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex.

Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality

of teams. Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 267–295. doi:10.1111/j.1365

–2575.2009.00326.x

Scully, M., & Preuss, G. (1996). Two faces of trust: The roles of calculative and relational trust in

work transformation (Working paper No. 3923–96). Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. (1992). Role of individuals’ attachments in

the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management

Journal, 35(1), 122–161.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art of practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

Sengun, A. E., & Wasti, S. N. (2007). Trust, control, and risk: A test of Das and Teng’s

conceptual framework. Group and Organization Management, 32(4), 430–464.

Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal

study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 625–648.

doi:10.1002/job.331

Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of

Management, 30(5), 725–743. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.002


Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘remedies’

for trust/distrust. Organizational Science, 4, 367–392.

Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your

company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.

Snyder, B. (2003, May). Teams that span time zones face new work rules. Stanford Business

Magazine. Retrieved from www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0305/feature_-

virtual_teams.shtml

Solomon, C. M. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 80(6), 60–65.

Staples, D. S. (1999, August). A comparison of the impact of employee–manager trust on

employees in a remote-management and local-management environment. Pre-

sented as part of the symposium Journeys into Virtual Worlds: Trust in Distributed

Teams. Academy of Management Conference, Chicago.

Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200–215.

Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and

effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural

predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication

Monographs, 73(1), 108–136.

Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1996). Are you ready for virtual

teams? HR Magazine, 41, 122–126.

Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology

and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3),

17–29.

Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). On the evolution of trust,

distrust, and formal coordination and control in inter-organizational relationships:

Towards an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32(4),

407–428.

Wageman, R. (1999). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices

vs. hands-on coaching. Unpublished manuscript. Graduate School of Business,

Columbia University.

Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., & Tidwell, L. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words?

Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated commu-

nication. Communication Research, 28, 105–134.

Walther, J. B., & Tidwell, L. C. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communica-

tion, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organiza-

tional Computing, 5(4), 355–378.

Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protege internal

locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,

95(2), 358–367. doi:10.1037/a0017663

Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and

implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105–125.

Webber, S. S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success.

Journal of Management Development, 21, 201–214.

Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams. Small Group

Research, 39(6), 746–769. doi: 10.1177/1046496408323569

Webster, J., & Wong, W.K.P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms:

Identity, communication, and trust in naturally occurring project teams. Interna-

tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 41–62. doi:10.1080

/09585190701763883

Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet? Group &

Organization Management, 32(4), 500–517.

Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in

computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 99, 16–33. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.001

Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to

dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 79–91. doi:10.1037/a0017102


Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of

interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,

9(2), 141–159.

Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart? Building a

knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity & Innovation Manage-

ment, 13, 15–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2004.00290.x

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly,

17(2), 229–239.

Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-

functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Information and

Organization, 14(1), 1–24.

Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-

1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8

(pp. 53–111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B., & Peng, Y. (1996). Collaboration structures and

information dilemmas in biotechnology: Organization boundaries as trust produc-

tion. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and

research (pp. 90–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MARIE-LINE GERMAIN

Marie-Line Germain, PhD, is an assistant professor of human resourcesand leadership at Western Carolina University (a University of NorthCarolina campus). Her PhD concentration area is in human resourcedevelopment. She has been the recipient of the Malcolm S. KnowlesDissertation of the Year award from the Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment (AHRD), a Cutting Edge Research Award, and a research grantfunded by AHRD. She is the author of numerous conference papers and bookchapters, and her research has been published in several peer-reviewedjournals. She has received four teaching awards and several best reviewerawards. Her current research interest focuses on human expertise andleadership. Mailing address: Department of Human Services, WesternCarolina University (University of North Carolina), One University Drive,Killian Building, Office 226C, Cullowhee, NC 28723.E-mail: [email protected]


developing trust in virtual teams

Documents