trust in virtual teams

8/3/2019 Trust in Virtual Teams

1/9

Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams

Penelope Sue Greenberg a,, Ralph H. Greenberg b,Yvonne Lederer Antonucci a

a School of Business Administration, Widener University, Chester, PA 19013, USAb Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

Abstract Conventional wisdom assumes that trust develops from a history ofinterpersonal interactions and communication, through which people come to knowand trust one another. In virtual teams, however, establishing trust can becomplicated: members may have no past on which to build, no future to reference,and may never even actually meet face-to-face. Swift but fragile trust can developearly in a team's life cycle. Yet, if swift trust doesn't develop or even dissipates,members need to find ways of building trust in each other. To this end, anunderstanding of how trust impacts a virtual team's development will help managersand team leaders to facilitate and improve team success. Herein, we describe thethree components of trust (ability, integrity, and benevolence) and identify which ofthese are critical to each life cycle stage (establishing the team, inception,organizing, transition, and accomplishing the task) of the virtual team. Proposedaction steps for each stage show managers and team leaders how to help members

develop trust and sustain it through the project's successful completion. 2007 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDSTrust;Virtual teams;Communication;Team life cycle;Team development

1. Virtual teams and the importance oftrust

Increasingly, organizations are taking advantage ofinnovations in communication technology to en-hance performance by creating virtual teams.When valuable members are geographically andorganizationally dispersed, the creation of virtual

teams provides organizations with the flexibilityto draw on knowledge, skills, and perspectives

that would not be available for on-site collabora-tion. Virtual teams enable organizations to poolthe talents of their own employees, and employ-ees of trading partners and consulting firms, tomeet the demands of today's hypercompetitiveglobal environment.

Yet, despite the sophistication of availabletechnology and the expertise of team members,virtual teams often fail to meet their envisionedpotential. Structuring the organization and its tasksthrough networks of teams creates managerialchallenges that are different from those in tradi-tional hierarchical relationships. Because teammembers operate remotely from their managerand from each other, the traditional social andcultural norms are not available for influencing

Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected]

(P.S. Greenberg), [email protected](R.H. Greenberg), [email protected](Y.L. Antonucci).

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

0007-6813/$ - see front matter 2007 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2007.02.005

Business Horizons (2007) 50, 325333

Copyright 2006 by Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. For reprints, call HBS Publishing at (800) 545-7685.BH 242

Purchased by LAURENCE LEW ([email protected]) on December 12, 2011


2/9

team members' attitudes and encouraging cooper-ative behavior. When team members are co-locat-

ed, familiarity with one another is developed bothinformally and through task-related activities.Managers and team members are able to observefirst-hand the time and effort expended by mem-bers. But when team members are dispersed, it ismore difficult to build relationships. Many tradi-tional forms of monitoring and control are notfeasible. Communication has to be deliberatelycomposed and, if the team members work indifferent time zones, responses may be delayed.

In this article, we show managers and teamleaders how to help virtual team members use

appropriate communication and interactions pat-terns to develop trust. First, we discuss the threecomponents of trust: ability, integrity, and bene-volence. Then, we identify the stages in the lifecycle of a virtual team and provide action steps formanagers and team leaders to take at each stage(Table 1). Taking these action steps will facilitatethe development of trust among members andenable them to sustain it through the project'ssuccessful completion.

Table 1 Action steps for creating and sustaining trust

Stage Trust Manager's actions Team leader's actions

1. Establishingthe team

Dispositional trust Choosing membersFoundation for thedevelopment of trust

Technical/functional skills Predisposition to trust

Training Communication and decision

support software Being virtual

Reward structure Cooperative not competitive

2. Inception Swift trust Introductions Team-building exerciseBuild bonds of cohesionfor the development oftrust

3rd party testimonials concerningpast accomplishments of teammembers

Abilities

Validate technical/functional rolein team

Contribution to team

Establish rules of engagementfor communication and interaction

Personal/social component Begin to establish bonds

3. Organizing Trust in teammates' Evaluate participation in organizingactivities

Encourage participation in organizingactivitiesAbility

Include contribution to organizingactivities in evaluation criteria

Encourage participation from all membersIntegrity

Recognize and encourageleadership while discouragingdomination and cliques

Acknowledge and commend suggestions of

individual members to the whole team

Evaluate communication patterns

Do not exclude non-contributing members

Include communication patternsin evaluation criteria

Monitor communication patterns Require timely and substantive responses Prohibit unsanctioned subgroups from

communicating without including entireappropriate group Encourage social aspects of

communication4. Transition Trust transition Be available Move focus from procedures to accomplishing

taskFrom ability andintegrity

Support Punctuate the end of the organizing stage

and the beginning of the task with an eventTo benevolence andintegrity

Guidance

Change focus from individual to group5. Accomplishing

the taskTrust in teammates ' Support members Encourage supportive communication in

accomplishing the taskBenevolence Release members from localactivities Establish interim deadlines and celebrate

when metIntegrity

Emphasize that team activitieshave priority Encourage members to express their

appreciation of each other's contributionsEvaluate participation inaccomplishing the task Continue to encourage social aspects of

communication Reward achievement of interimdeadlines Continue to require timely and substantive

responses Continue to includecommunication patterns in evaluationcriteria

326 P.S. Greenberg et al.



3/9

2. Have a little faith

People trust individuals who perform reliably andcompetently, and display concern for the well-beingof others. Being on a team involves a certain amountof risk because members are dependent upon eachother to complete the team's task successfully.

Members can also potentially experience negativeoutcomes, such as the loss of time, recognition, orreputation, due to the behavior of other groupmembers. If one member does not follow through oncommitments or tries to take advantage of the othermembers, this behavior can cause more work for theteam and can lead to poor performance evaluations.In virtual teams, reliance on electronic communi-cation can promote free riding and lack of commit-ment because members do not actually have toface one another. This makes members of a virtualteam more vulnerable than members of co-locatedteams. Trust in other team members reduces

concerns about their behavior and allows team-mates to depend on each other and move forwardwith the team's task.

Trust traditionally arises in two ways. One isbased on rational or calculative assessments and iscalled cognitive trust. It is the result of an evalua-tion of evidence of performance reliability andcompetence. Cognitive trust has been modeled as afunction of the other person's integrity and ability.The second way trust arises is based on emotionalties and is called affective trust. It is the result ofthe social bonds developed in a reciprocal relation-ship in which there is genuine care and concern for

the welfare of the other person. This type of trust isbased on assessments of benevolence. Most discus-sions of trust now include all three components integrity, ability, and benevolence and describe atrustworthy person as honest, able, and caring.

Trust has traditionally been assumed to be basedon a history of interactions, through which peoplecome to know and trust one another. But in virtualteams, members meet only occasionally, if at all.Surprisingly, high levels of trust have been found inthe early stages of temporary teams, which aretypically formed to accomplish a given task in afinite period of time. Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer

(1996) identified this phenomenon in their study ofco-located teams, and several researchers (includ-ing Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004)have since documented it in global virtual teams.Members that have never worked together, do notnecessarily expect to work together again, and donot have the traditional sources of trust (e.g.,shared experiences, reciprocal disclosures, fulfilledpromises) would be expected to have low levels of

trust in their teammates. Nonetheless, evidenceindicates that high initial levels of trust often exist.This type of trust is known to be fragile, however; itdissipates easily. As such, managers and teamleaders need to take an active role in ensuringthat this initial trust actually develops and evolvesinto more traditional forms of trust.

3. Why is sustaining trust so difficult invirtual teams?

Trust is critical to the cooperative behavior thatleads to the success of all teams, but it is especiallyimportant in virtual teams. Two interrelated fac-tors, diverse locations and technology-enabledcommunication, contribute to making trust moredifficult to develop in virtual teams than in tradi-tional hierarchical relationships and on-site teams.

In on-site teams, members have the opportunity

to easily develop relationships. Brief interactions inthe hallway or before a meeting is convened allowmembers to interact socially and get to know eachother. Members can discuss each other's work andtheir reactions can be conveyed verbally (throughboth content and tone) or non-verbally (e.g., afrown, a nod, or a questioning expression). Both thesocial bonds and the professional respect leading totrust can be developed during these interactions.

Different locations can create disparities in work-ing contexts and situations that can lead to disrup-tions, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings.Members may be unaware of differences in the

situational and contextual factors that impact otherteam members; what is normal behavior to some maybe disruptive and/or disturbing to others in differentlocations. When teammates are dispersed, it is moredifficultto createthe bonds of cohesion that canleadto trust based on assessments of benevolence. Thereare no conversations at the water cooler, overcoffee,or during lunch that help teams form a collectiveidentity and group norms. Additionally, it can be hardfor members to see themselves as belonging, as theteam is only visible electronically. Even if videocon-ferencing is used, the development of relationships isdifficult because the social dimensions of working

together virtually are not enacted in the samemanner as when co-located.Communication among virtual team members is

also constrained by the use of technology. Technology-enabled communication does not convey the samerichness of emotion and reaction that face-to-facecommunication enables; managers and team mem-bers do not have many visual cues that signal behaviorand attitude. This means that communication invirtualteams must be moreexplicit becausemembers

327Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams



4/9

cannot see eyes rolling, nods of assent, or headsshaking in disagreement. What constitutes an appro-priate written response to replace bodylanguage maynot be known to team members and may differ fromgeographic location to location.

These factors make it critical to focus on commu-nication content and patterns. Managers and team

leaders should not just allow, but actually encouragesocial conversation in addition to task-related com-munication. Wilson, Straus, and McEvily (2006)compared the development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams, and Walther andBunz (2005) examined trust and performance invirtual teams. Both demonstrated that the socialbonds necessary for trust can be created in virtualenvironments; it just takes longer than face-to-face.

4. A team's life: The stages

Research and practice have shown that teams gothrough predictable stages. In studies on co-locatedteams, Tuckman (1965) and Gersick (1988, 1989)found that early in a team's life, members focus onorganizing activities such as getting to know eachother, clarifying goals, setting expectations, resolv-ing conflicts, and planning how to accomplish theirtask. The transition from organizing activities totask-related activities is important because it sig-nifies that the team has established norms ofcommunication and behavior, and is ready to moveon to the assigned task. Later in the team's life, astheir completion deadline becomes more pressing,

members focus on the activities directly related toaccomplishing their task.

Research regarding virtual teams has found fivedistinct stages: (1) establishing the team, (2) incep-tion, (3) organizing, (4) transition, and (5) accom-plishing the task. The challenge for managers andteam leaders is to encourage the development oftrust initially and to nurture trust throughout theteam's life. This challenge is particularly dauntingbecause evidence indicates that trust is based ondifferent assessments at different stages in theteam's life, as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in the

next section. To further complicate the situation,factors other than the stage of the project alsoaffect trust. These factors include the training andthe reward function for the team. Given thecomplexity of the manager's job in managing howthese factors impact the team, guidance on actionsteps for each of the stages would be useful.

5. Action steps for creating and sustainingtrust

Understanding the components of trust needed ateach stage can help managers and team leaderstake actions that encourage team members todevelop trust. Managers and leaders can guidemembers toward behavior that demonstrates theirtrustworthiness to other members and that posi-tively influences their trust assessments. Presentednext are steps that managers and team leaders cantake to help team members develop the types oftrust needed at each stage of the life cycle.

5.1. Stage 1: Establishing the team

Even before team members first interact, managersneed to take steps to create a foundation for trust.When assembling a team, the first characteristic of apotential team member that managers usuallyconsider is the member's functional role. Functionalproficiency is necessary for successful completion ofthe task, but it is not always enough to ensurethat trust will develop. Potential members also need

to have the personal characteristics and the inter-personal and team skills necessary for working in avirtual environment. If the potential members do nothave these characteristics and skills, training shouldbe given in these areas in effort to increase theprobability of success. In addition, the organization'sreward structure needs to be designed to encouragetrust.

5.1.1. Choosing members

As previously noted, the functional role a potentialmember has in the organization and the set of

Figure 1 Type of trust required in team stages.




5/9

technical skills and operational knowledge thatperson possesses are important in accomplishing theteam's assigned task. Managers usually assign appro-priatemembersto the team based on their functionalproficiency. Managers should communicate to theteam the reasons why each member was chosen forthe group. The manager's description of each

member's functional proficiency inspires other team-mates to make positive assessments of the ability ofthat member. Since ability is one of the twocomponents of cognitive trust that other memberswill be assessing early in the organizing stage, themore proficient team members are in their functionalarea, the more likely it is that trust will develop.

A personal characteristic of team members thatis conducive to the development of trust in others isdispositional trust (i.e., the predisposition to trust;the tendency to be more trusting). McKnight and hiscolleagues (McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002;McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998) found that

a propensity to believe others can be counted on todo what they say they will do is an importantprecursor to the development of trust. This is truefor the initial development of swift trust, and thenfor the development of trust in teammates' integrityand ability. Although a predisposition to trust doesnot guarantee that a member will actually developtrust, it will influence the member's trust assess-ments of other members. A member that trusts ateammate will interpret communication delays lessnegatively than a member that does not trust his orher teammate. The absence of a high predispositiondoes not preclude a functionally qualified potential

member from selection. In order to achieve thedesired level of trust within the team, however,managers and team leaders should compensate bypaying particular attention to each of the actionsteps discussed below. This will provide an environ-ment conducive to increasing trust.

5.1.2. Training

It is important that team members be trained inhow to efficiently and proficiently use group-employed communication and application-specificsoftware. Lags in responses that are due to userincompetence may be misinterpreted as reflecting

a lack of functional ability or commitment,something which could lead to quicker dissolutionof swift trust than would otherwise be expected. Itmay also lead to slower development of cognitivetrust and can destroy established trust at any time.In one situation involving team members located intwo countries, a disparity in communication soft-ware skills clearly contributed to lower assessmentsof abilities. This led to delays in accomplishing thetask.

Training on being virtual is also important. Kock(2004) pointed out that the natural communica-tion medium is face-to-face, and that it requiresmore cognitive effort to transfer knowledge viacomputer-mediated communication than face-to-face communication. This actually makes working ina virtual team more difficult. In addition, team

members may not be aware of the importance ofcareful composition and expression of ideas andopinions when members have diverse technical andcultural backgrounds. For example, joking, kidding,or chiding to encourage members to conform withgroup norms may work in some face-to-face situa-tions, but can cause virtual team members to feelthey have lost face and the respect of the team. Itcan also cause any member that is the object of thejoking to form negative assessments of the benev-olence of the member(s) making the joke. Someteam members may be comfortable using IM (instantmessaging) language; however, this may cause other

members of the team who are not familiar with thatlanguage to feel excluded. Exclusion can also causeany member to form negative assessments of thebenevolence of other members. Training can helpmembers become aware of these potential issuesand teach individuals how to avoid them.

5.1.3. Reward structure

In a study on rewards and trust, Ferrin and Dirks(2003) found that competitive versus cooperativereward structures influence trust through actions(e.g., information sharing) and perceptions (e.g.,perceived motives and perceived performance of

others). Competitive rewards base remuneration onindividual performance and sometimes involveperformance rankings. In contrast, cooperativerewards base remuneration on overall team perfor-mance. The authors found that competitive rewardshad a negative impact on members' perceptions ofthe information sharing and motives of others, onmembers' willingness to share information, and onmembers' assessments of team performance; con-versely, cooperative rewards had a positive impact.In general, competitive rewards have a strongnegative influence on trust and cooperative rewardshave a strong positive influence on trust. Compet-

itive rewards can detrimentally influence thewillingness to share information. They can alsoinfluence the way team members perceive thebehavior of others and result in negative evaluationof others' integrity. Increasing competition amongindividuals fosters secrecy and inhibits informationsharing. Since most teams require cooperativebehavior to reach their objectives, the rewardstructure should be designed to encourage it byusing cooperative rewards.




6/9

5.2. Stage 2: Inception

When first placed into teams, members initiallylook to external sources to develop the swift trustthat is necessary for the team to immediately startworking together. Since most members do not knoweach other, they rely on their own dispositional

trust and on external cues rather than theirassessments of the characteristics of the otherteam members. In an article on trust in virtualteams, Hung, Dennis, and Robert (2004) identifiedthree important external cues: personal endorse-ments from known third parties, role-based infor-mation, and rule-based factors. Upon teaminception, the manager should provide memberswith enough information in these three areas tocreate a high level of swift trust.

5.2.1. Introductions

Because members rely on endorsements from third

parties, the manager's introduction of team membersshould include individual endorsements of eachparticipant. If the member has experience on virtualteams, this should be noted; if not, other character-istics that qualify the member should be included. Forexample, the member may have suggested innovativechanges to processes or procedures that have beenimplemented andhave succeeded, or he or shemay beexcellent at integrating ideas and concepts into solidactionable statements.

In the absence of information about an individ-ual, members may adopt a presumption about thatperson based on their knowledge of that member's

functional role (e.g., accountant, sales manager).The manager's introduction should include themember's functional role qualifications and whythat function is important to the success of theteam. This validation of roles will allow members todevelop initial trust in each other and help lay afoundation for later trust in members' abilities. Theteam building exercise described in Section 5.2.2.would then expand on this information and rein-force the importance of the functional role.

Importantly, managers should delineate the rulesof engagement. The best practice is to first identifythe similarities between the team's virtual work

procedures and established procedures, and thenidentify differences caused by working in a distrib-uted team. Even if the manager is not knowledge-able concerning these differences, it is important toidentify the rules for communication and interac-tions. In their article examining communicationrules for distributed teams, Walther and Bunz(2005) identified imperatives such as: start imme-diately, communicate frequently, acknowledgeothers, be explicit about what you are thinking and

doing, and observe deadlines. The authors foundthat merely setting a single rule requiring frequentcommunication led to a reduction in uncertainty andan increase in trust over no rules.

5.2.2. Team-building exercise

The team leader should initiate a team-building

exercise that is designed to enhance swift trust andset the stage for increasing cognitive and affectivetrust. Since the functional role of the team membercontributes to swift trust and team member abilitycontributes to ongoing trust, the exercise shouldprovide a mechanism for members to identify theabilities of each participant and how they can bean asset to the team. One way to do this involvesasking each member to interview a teammateand introduce them to the rest of the group. Toensure that the exercise is successful, the team leadercan suggest probing questions that elicit elaboration,covering such topic areas as education and qualifica-

tions, functional expertise, and virtual experience.Most of the time, members use this exercise as a

chance to get to know each other both professionallyand personally. Participants frequently find that theyhave some common experience or similar interest,such as they have both worked with anotheremployee or they have both been to the same annualmeeting. Interpersonal bonds based on commonexperiences or interests can increase cohesion,which is desirable in teams. As mentioned previously,Walther and Bunz (2005) examined communication indistributed teams. They found social communication,including simply saying hi at the beginning of an

email, had a positive impact on trust. Creating socialbonds early in the project lays the foundation forbenevolence (affective trust), which is important inlater stages of the project. This was exemplified by,and clearly the case for, a virtual team whosemembers discussed their hobbies by way of introduc-tion and used emoticons throughout their commu-nications. Such strong bonds had been establishedduring the final stages of the project that memberspresenting the team task report in one time zonewere voluntarily assisted via videoconference byother members at 1:00 a.m. their local time!

5.3. Stage 3: Organizing

At this stage, uncertainty and ambiguity still existwithin the team. Even though introductions havetaken place, members will probably not know all ofthe other participants and/or may not have workedwith them in a virtual setting. Even when the task iswell defined, which is certainly not always the case,teams still have to establish their norms of behavior,procedures for assigning tasks, interaction patterns,




7/9

and decision rules. As noted above, it has long beenacknowledged that during this stage, the team'sprimary focus is on getting organized.

During the organizing stage, trust is based oncognitive assessments. The two important determi-nants of team members' trust in other teammatesare the assessment of others' ability to accomplish

the project's goals (i.e., competence) and theperception of others' integrity in their interactionsin the team. Managers and team leaders shouldactively encourage appropriate behavior and pro-mote communication practices that enhance accu-rate perceptions.

5.3.1. Participation in organizing activities

Participation of all team members in the organizingactivities allows them to get to know one another.Managers can emphasize the importance of partic-ipation by including it as an evaluation criterion inmembers' performance reviews. Because teams

spend a substantial portion of their time gettingorganized, team success depends not only onmembers' functional contributions toward accom-plishing the assigned task, but also their contribu-tions to this stage of the project. At this juncture,some teams prepare a blueprint or roadmap forhow they are going to accomplish their task.Managers can assign some percentage of the finalperformance evaluation to the team's performanceof the activities accomplished during this stage.These activities include research, interaction pat-terns, determination of relevant decision rules, andequitable assigning of tasks.

Team leaders can encourage participation bydirectly asking non-participating members for theirinput. Team leaders should also acknowledge andcommend the suggestions of individual members tothe whole team, and encourage group members toacknowledge each other's contributions. Responsesas simple as Good idea, or Great start I'll takethe next step and, indicate that member effortsare valued. Members recognizing the contributionsof others can lead to increased trust in their ability,which is an important component of trust at thisstage. Affirmation and encouragement help engageteam members and build cohesion.

5.3.2. Communication patterns

When managers evaluate team performance, theytypically focus on the task at hand, and sometimeson the functional contributions of the individualparticipants. An area that has frequently beenoverlooked is members' communication contentand patterns. Because communication patterns arecritical to the development of trust, managersshould have identified communication and interac-

tion rules at the inception stage. Accordingly, themanager should focus on communication patterns ofteam members, evaluate these patterns, and pro-vide feedback to members. While participationlevels are usually higher in virtual settings than inon-site settings, members' contributions to theorganizing process should still be emphasized and

identified through their communication patterns.Team leaders should also monitor communicationpatterns. Jarvenpaa and her colleagues (Jarvenpaaet al., 1998; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Jarvenpaaet al., 2004) found that timely and substantiveresponses to the contributions of other teammembers are characteristics of successful teamsand lead to trust. Additionally, they discovered thatcontinuing to include non-contributing membersenhanced trust.

In virtual teams, the leadership role may beassumed by different members at different pointsin the project's life. Monitoring communication

allows managers to encourage leadership frommembers other than the team leader, while pro-viding the opportunity to identify and discouragedomination by some overly vocal members.Allowing domination to go unchecked can lead tonegative assessments of the integrity of other teammembers and does not allow all members to displaytheir abilities.

Team leaders should also encourage non-task-related communication. In their theory developmentand empirical research article, Walther and Bunz(2005) found that the limitations of virtual communi-cation can be overcome with time. They demonstrat-

ed that social bonds can be developed in virtualsettings;it just takes longerthan when team membersare co-located. While the importance of assessmentsof benevolence in developing trust increases overtime and has only been found to be significant in thelater stage of the team's life, social communication inthe organizing stage allows the emotional bondsrequired for benevolence to develop.

While encouraging social communication, teamleaders should watch for the development of unsanc-tioned subgroups and prohibit them from communi-cating on project matters without including the entireappropriate set of members. Being excluded from

task-related communications can lead to negativeassessments of integrity of the unsanctioned subgroupand undermine the development of trust.

5.4. Stage 4: Transition

During this stage, the team's focus changes fromorganizing activities to accomplishing the task.During the organizing stage, ambiguity and uncer-tainty existed regarding the ability of the team to




8/9

accomplish its task, the procedures for makingdecisions, and the tone of the interactions amongmembers. By the transition stage, members shouldhave exchanged information, established roles andresponsibilities, and developed working relation-ships. Once these organizing activities and therelated cognitive assessments of trust are com-

plete, uncertainties are reduced or eliminated andthe focus shifts to the task itself.

The determinants of trust also change. During theorganizing stage, team members made their cogni-tive assessments of others' abilities and integrity. Asmembers get to know each other and develop rela-tionships, the impact of cognitive trust fades andthe impact of affective trust increases. Whileintegrity will still be somewhat important in thenext stage, accomplishing the task, the importanceof benevolence (affective trust) increases. To assistmembers during the transition stage, managers andteam leaders need to affirm team member con-

tributions of the previous stages, provide guidance,and help shift members' focus to accomplishing thetask as a team.

5.4.1. Be available

It is during the transition period that team membersare most likely to againlookto external sources. Themanager needs to be available to acknowledge theeffort that went into the organizing activities andprovide guidance for accomplishing the task. Theneed for clarifications or explanations of theassigned task may arise at this point. It is essentialthat team members be made to understand that

managers recognize the early organizing stage wasnot wasted on non-task-related activities, and thatthey still have the support and confidence ofmanagement.

5.4.2. Move focus

At this juncture, the team leader must facilitate ashift of focus from the organizing activities to thetask itself. During the inception and organizingstages, members were getting acquainted with eachother and deciding how to work as a team. Now, theemphasis should move from the individual teammembers to working together as a group on the

task. Openly acknowledging the value of eachmember's contributions to the organizing activitiescan reinforce the trust that developed during thatstage. An event such as a virtual awards ceremo-ny, in which every member receives a certificatefor a certain achievement (e.g., best coordinator,most innovative), can create the camaraderieneeded to build affective trust in the final stage.While this ceremony would best be conducted as aface-to-face meeting, video conferencing or an

awards page on the website can substitute.However it is performed, the team leader shouldpunctuate the ending of one stage and the begin-ning of another.

5.5. Stage 5: Accomplishing the task

In this stage, affective trust moves to the forefront.Team members should be helping and encouragingeach other in the completion of the project. Thepressure to meet performance standards and dead-lines necessitates continued trust. Because theoutcome depends on the group, social bonds andbenevolence are the primary determinants of trust.Due to this reliance on other members, integrity ofindividual members continues to serve as a second-ary determinant of trust.

5.5.1. Support members

One way that managers can support members at

this stage is to release them from some of theirlocal responsibilities. If members have multipledemands on their time and effort, it is likely thatthey will attend to local tasks first. By freeing uplocal demands, the manager emphasizes theimportance of the team's task. If a person at thenext desk has a request and another person that ismany time zones away has a different request,the local request is much more salient and morelikely to be accomplished. The impact of repeat-edly postponing virtual team tasks can be devas-tating to trust. Delays in responses and misseddeadlines can, correctly, communicate the lower

priority of the team task. This indicates to othermembers that the tardy member doesn't care asmuch about the success of the team and the teammembers. It lowers assessments of benevolenceand integrity, which are the determinants of trustin this stage.

5.5.2. Evaluate participation in accomplishing

the task

If the team has prepared a blueprint, the managercan use it to identify interim deadlines and recog-nize achievement of those deadlines. An encourag-ing email or a short thank you memo addressed to

the entire team identifying how the work done (evenif it is only by some members) contributes to overallteam goals can be motivating. If the managerincludes a suggestion that teammates congratulateeach other and express their appreciation, he or shereinforces the importance of communication pat-terns on affective trust. This suggestion can also be asubtle reminder that performance is evaluated oncommunication, as well as on accomplishment of thetask.




9/9

5.5.3. Celebrate the achievement of interim

deadlines

Team leaders should also commemorate the achieve-ment of interim deadlines. Managers and team lea-ders should find ways for the team to celebrate whendeadlines are met. Graphical or gauge-type depic-tions, similar to those used in fund-raising campaigns,

that measure the milestones can be updated andproudly displayed on the team's website or portal.This helps to build the strong social bonds needed forpositive assessments of benevolence, which is themost important aspect of trust at this stage.

5.5.4. Encourage supportive communication

Like managers, team leaders should encouragemembersto express their appreciation of each other'scontributions. An email saying job well done willbenefit both the sender and the receiver by main-taining the social bonds of cohesion developedearlier. Team leaders should also continue to encour-

age social aspects of communication. Not only willthis type of communication promote trust within thecurrent team, it builds bonds that may be useful forfuture teams. Finally, team leaders should continueto require timely and substantive responses to othermembers. Substantive responses serve as a form ofquality control in the accomplishment of the task andhelp members stay engaged toward that end.

6. A final word on trust

The process of developing and sustaining trust among

membersof virtual teams is wrought withcomplexity,yet important to successful project completion.External signals (reputation, roles, rules) and intrin-sic factors (predisposition to trust) determine initialswift trust. Assessments of ability and integrity(cognitive trust) determine trust in early stages of ateam's life. Assessments of benevolence (affectivetrust) and the continued assessment of integritydetermine trust in the later stages. In virtual teams,communication patterns and the incentive/rewardscheme influence how communication is interpretedand how the determinants of trust are assessed.

Herein, we have discussed the importance of

developing trust among virtual team participants inthe context of the virtual team development stages.Managers and team leaders are challenged withencouraging the development of trust at key pointsduring these life cycle stages. Three components oftrust were described and correlated to each stage in

the virtual team life cycle in order to improve thesuccess of the virtual team's tasks. Managers andteam leaders were provided specific actions neededto influence the development of appropriate trustcomponents at each of the stages in a team's life. Byunderstanding which trust components are criticalin each stage of virtual team development, man-

agement can increase the team's probability ofsuccess by monitoring and orchestrating appropri-ate activities that influence trust componentsthroughout the virtual team life cycle.

References

Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increaseand decrease trust: Mediating processes and differentialeffects. Organization Science, 14(1), 1831.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams:Toward a new model of group development. Academy ofManagement Journal, 31(1), 941.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions intask groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2),274308.

Hung, Y. -T. C., Dennis, A. R., & Robert, L. (2004). Trust in virtualteams: Towards an integrative model of trust formation.Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences.Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out

there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 14(4), 2964.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999).Communicationand trustin global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791815.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Towardcontextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in globalvirtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250267.

Kock, N. (2004). The psychbiological model: Towards a new

theory of computer-mediated communication based onDarwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327348.

McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developingand validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrativetypology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334359.

McKnight,D. H.,Cummings, L. L.,& Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initialtrust formation in new organizational relationships. Academyof Management Review, 23(3), 473490.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trustand temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research

(pp. 166195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups.

Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384399.Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups:

Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated com-munication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828846.

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 DecisionProcesses, 99(1), 1633.



trust in virtual teams

Documents