|
| Collab-U | CMC Play | E-Commerce | Symposium | Net Law | InfoSpaces | Usenet | NetStudy | VEs |
Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams
Table of Contents
Abstract
This paper explores the challenges of creating and maintaining trust in a global virtual team whose members transcend time, space, and culture. The challenges are highlighted by integrating recent literature on work teams, computer-mediated communication groups, cross-cultural communication, and interpersonal and organizational trust. To explore these challenges empirically, we report on a series of descriptive case studies on global virtual teams whose members were separated by location and culture, were challenged by a common collaborative project, and for whom the only economically and practically viable communication medium was asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication. The results suggest that global virtual teams may experience a form of ‘swift’ trust but such trust appears to be very fragile and temporal. The study raises a number of issues to be explored and debated by future research. Pragmatically, the study describes communication behaviors that might facilitate trust in global virtual teams.
Introduction
"...you cannot build network organizations on electronic networks alone...If so,... we will probably need an entirely new sociology of organizations."
Nohria & Eccles, 1992, pp. 304-305.
Organizations are challenging the opening quote and forming virtual project teams that interact primarily via electronic networks (Grenier & Metes, 1995; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). VeriFone, a multinational company, is reported to rely on teams that interact electronically to run its everyday business. Company management, including its top executives, are distributed geographically (Stoddard & Donnellon, 1997). Microsoft uses virtual teams to support major global corporate customer sales and post sales services as do other organizations that service global clients with interdependent customer needs crossing country boundaries (Jarvenpaa, Ives, & Pearlson, 1995).
A virtual team is an evolutionary form of a network organization (Miles & Snow, 1986) enabled by advances in information and communication technology (Davidow & Malone, 1992; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). The concept of virtual implies permeable interfaces and boundaries, project teams that rapidly form, reorganize, and dissolve when the needs of a dynamic marketplace change, and individuals with differing competencies who are located across time, space, and cultures (Kristof et al, 1995; Mowshowitz, 1997). As companies expand globally, face increasing time compression in product development, and use more foreign based subcontracting labor, (Peters, 1992; Stewart, 1994), virtual teams promise the flexibility, responsiveness, lower costs, and improved resource utilization necessary to meet ever-changing task requirements in highly turbulent and dynamic global business environments (Mowshowitz, 1997; Snow et al, 1996).
While the promises are laudable, a dark side to the new form also exists: such dysfunctions as low individual commitment, role overload, role ambiguity, absenteeism, and social loafing may be exaggerated in a virtual context (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Moreover, customers might perceive a lack of permanency, reliability, and consistency in virtual forms (Mowshowitz, 1997). Recommending only limited use of the virtual setting in global teams, some inculcate initial lengthy face-to-face gatherings with repeated same time and same place encounters interspersed throughout the project (De Meyer, 1991). Handy (1995) questions whether virtual teams can even function effectively in the absence of frequent face-to-face interaction.
The heart of Handy’s argument centers on trust and a belief that "trust needs touch" (p. 46). Paradoxically though, only trust can prevent the geographical and organizational distances of global team members from becoming psychological distances (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994): trust allows people to take part in risky activities that they can not control or monitor and yet where they may be disappointed by the actions of others ( Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Deutch, 1958; Gambetta, 1988; Lewis & Luhmann, 1988; Weigert, 1985).
This paper reports an exploratory study that examined trust in teams that relied on virtual interaction only, unconfounded by any influences of face-to-face interaction. The study was guided by three questions. First, can trust exist in global virtual teams where the team members do not share any past, nor have any expectation of future, interaction? Second, how might trust be developed in such teams? Third, what communication behaviors may facilitate the development of trust? The global virtual teams had members who (1) were physically located in different countries, (2) interacted through the use of computer-mediated communication technologies (electronic mail, chat rooms, etc.), and (3) had no prior history of working together. The next section of the paper will review relevant literature. The third section presents the methodology. The fourth section reports the analyses. The fifth section presents a discussion of the results and the sixth section concludes the paper.
Conceptual Foundations
Following Kristof et al. (1995), we define a global virtual team to be a temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically communicating work group (Figure 1). The notion of temporary in the definition describes teams where members may have never worked together before and who may not expect to work together again as a group (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). The characterization of virtual teams as global implies culturally diverse and globally spanning members that can think and act in concert with the diversity of the global environment (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997; Jackson et al, 1995). Finally, it is a heavy reliance on computer-mediated communication technology that allows members separated by time and space to engage in collaborative work.
Figure 1: Definition: Global Virtual Team
Trust in Teams
Can trust exist in global virtual teams? Noting the lack of shared social context in such teams, much of the theoretical and empirical literature on interpersonal and organizational trust would suggest a negative response to this question.
Cummings & Bromiley (1996) maintain that a person trusts a group when that person believes that the group "makes a good-faith effort to behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit or implicit, (b) is honest in whatever negotiations preceded such commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another even when the opportunity is available" (p. 303). Several factors, such as shared social norms, repeated interactions, and shared experiences, have been suggested to facilitate the development of trust (Bradach & Eccles, 1988; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Mayer et al, 1995). Another factor asserted to promote trust and cooperation is the anticipation of future association (Powell, 1990). Such anticipation of future association is higher among group members who are co-located than among physically dispersed members. Co-location, or physical proximity more generally, is said to reinforce social similarity, shared values, and expectations, and to increase the immediacy of threats from failing to meet commitments (Latane et al., 1995). Furthermore, face-to-face encounters are considered irreplaceable for both building trust and repairing shattered trust (Nohria & Eccles, 1992; O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).
Developmental View
Yet, trust is pivotal in a global virtual team to reduce the high levels of uncertainty endemic to the global and technologically based environment. How might trust be developed in such teams?
The developmental views of trust are closely intertwined with the relationship development processes (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). McGrath’s (1991) Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) theory describes work groups as time-based, multi-functional, and multi-modal social systems. Effective groups are engaged simultaneously and continuously in three functions: (1) production (problem solving and task-performance), (2) member-support (member inclusion, participation, loyalty, commitment), and (3) group well-being (interaction, member roles, power, politics). Member-support and group well-being relate directly to relationship development. Teams carry out the three functions by means of activities that relate to four possible modes: (Mode 1) inception and acceptance of a project, (Mode 2) problem solving, (Mode 3) conflict resolution, and (Mode 4) project execution. The modes/functions are not a fixed sequence of phases, but dependent on the team, tasks, technology, time, and other environmental contingencies (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994). McGrath’s TIP theory (1991) suggests that a team with no past history that is working on a challenging problem with much technological and environmental uncertainty (such as a global virtual team) will have to engage in all four functions and modes to avoid detrimental effects on performance. Yet, at the same time, because the technological environment may constrain and limit the group’s functions and modes (McGrath, 1990; Warkentin et al, 1997), the development of trust may be inhibited.
The media richness (e.g., Daft et al., 1987) and social presence theories (e.g., Short et al., 1976) also question the possibility of relationship development, and subsequent trust development, in virtual teams. These theories suggest that computer-based communication media may eliminate the type of communication cues that individuals use to convey trust, warmth, attentiveness, and other interpersonal affections. However, contrary to the theories, empirical studies have found relational information sharing in computer-mediated teams (Adler, 1995; Chidambaram, 1996; Walther, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997). According to Walther’s social information processing theory (1996, 1997), computer-mediated communication does not differ from face-to-face communication in terms of the capability of social information exchange, but rather in terms of a slower rate of transfer. Others studies have concurred that communication is more a function of the context, setting, and timing than the characteristics of the media (Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Zack, 1993).
Walther found that social discussion, depth, and intimacy were greater in computer-mediated communication groups than in face-to-face groups, even for groups with geographically dispersed and culturally diverse partners who had never met face-to-face (Walther, 1995 and 1997). Building on the Social Identification/Deindividuation theory (SIDE) (Lea & Spears, 1992; Lea et al, 1992), Walther (1997) developed a hyperpersonal model to explain his results. Grounded on the social identity/self-categorization theory of group behavior, the SIDE theory argues that people self categorize themselves as either part of the in-group or out-group based on the characteristics of others in the group (Deaux, 1996; Francis, 1991; Turner, Sachdev, & Hogg, 1983). Similarity with others positively reinforces members’ own identities and contributes to their willingness to cooperate. The SIDE theory suggests that in the absence of individuating cues about others, as is the case in computer-mediated communication, individuals build stereotypical impressions of others based on limited information (Lea & Spears, 1992). Walther (1997) acknowledges this tendency to resort to categorical information processing, over-attributions on minimal social cues, and idealization of the communication partners in computer-mediated communication groups, but also predicts that the effects from deindividualization should decrease in the face of information on individual differences, particularly if the team had diverse membership. Yet, the greater the team member diversity, the more time will be required for team members to form strong bonds (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997). Moreover, some teams may develop strong bonds and trust despite heterogeneity and short time spans whereas others may not (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Poole & DeSanctis, 1992). Thus, the third question we will explore is what communication behaviors enable trust to be established.
Cross Cultural Communication
The global nature of virtual teams merits a discussion of possible cross-cultural differences in communication behaviors. While there is a wealth of research on computer-mediated communication and research on cross-cultural communication, there is a paucity of research on cross-cultural computer-mediated communication. As part of the third research question, we will consider the possible influence of cultural differences on the communication behaviors of global virtual team members.
Individuals from different cultures vary in terms of their communication and group behaviors including the motivation to seek and disclose individuating information and in the need to engage in self categorization (Gudykunst, 1997). One major dimension of cultural variability is individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). In individualistic cultures, the needs, values, and goals of the individual take precedence over the needs, values, and goals of the ingroup. In collectivist cultures, the needs, values, and goals of the ingroup take precedence over the needs, values, and goals of the individual (Gudykunst, 1997; Hofstede, 1980). The research suggests that individuals from individualistic cultures tend to be less concerned with self-categorizing, are less influenced by group membership, have greater skills in entering and leaving new groups, and engage in more open and precise communication than individuals from collectivist cultures (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980, 1991). In addition, the willingness to respond to ambiguous messages, interpreted by Pearce (1974) to be a trusting behavior, has been shown to be higher among members of individualistic cultures than among members of collectivist cultures (Gudykunst et al., 1996). These findings suggest that individuals from individualistic cultures might be more ready to trust others than individuals from collectivist cultures in computer-mediated communication environments.
Finally, previous cultural exposure is an important factor influencing communication behavior (Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989). People with high confidence in the knowledge of other cultures tend to be more willing to explore cultural topics. This might suggest that people who are more culturally experienced might seek and disclose individuating information more than those who are not. The social dialog in turn might help develop trust on the team, at least in the eyes of the culturally experienced person.
Swift Trust in Temporary Teams
The theory of swift trust suggests that the research questions of whether trust is possible and how it might be developed via communication behavior may be the wrong questions to ask. The more appropriate questions might be: from where is trust imported to the global virtual team and how is trust maintained via electronic communication?
Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer (1996) developed the concept of ‘swift’ trust for temporary teams whose existence, like those of global virtual teams, is formed around a common task with a finite life span. Such teams consist of members with diverse skills, with a limited history of working together, and with little prospect of working together again in the future. The tight deadlines under which these teams work leave little time for relationship building. Because the time pressure hinders the ability of team members to develop expectations of others based on first hand information, members import expectations of trust from other settings with which they are familiar. Analogous to the SIDE and hyperpersonal model, individuals in temporary groups make initial use of category driven information processing to form stereotypical impressions of others.
After the team has begun to interact, trust is maintained by a "highly active, proactive, enthusiastic, generative style of action" (Meyerson et al, 1996, p. 180). High levels of action have also been shown to be associated with high performing teams (Iacono & Weisband, 1997). Action strengthens trust in a self-fulfilling fashion: action will maintain members’ confidence that the team is able to manage the uncertainty, risk, and points of vulnerability, yet the conveyance of action has as a requisite the communication of individual activities. In summary, whereas traditional conceptualizations of trust are based strongly on interpersonal relationships, swift trust de-emphasizes the interpersonal dimensions and is based initially on broad categorical social structures and later on action. Since members initially import trust rather than develop trust, trust might attain its zenith at the project’s inception (Meyerson et al, 1996).
Developed to explain behavior in temporary teams such as film crews, theater and architectural groups, presidential commissions, senate select committees, and cockpit crews (Meyerson et al, 1996), the theory of swift trust assumes clear role divisions among members who have well defined specialties. Inconsistent role behavior and "blurring" of roles erode trust. Moreover, the theory seems to presuppose that participants come from many different organizations, have periodic face-to-face meetings, and report to a single individual. By contrast, in global virtual teams, members remain in different locations and often are accountable to different individuals. Such teams are assembled less based on their specific roles and more based on their knowledge differences, partially related to the geographic location of the individual which provides them with greater knowledge of that environment. These differences may have significant implications for swift trust. In the temporary teams described by Meyerson et al (1996), what is at stake are the professional reputations of members, the reputations of the persons to whom the team members report, impending threats from closely knit social and professional groups to which members and the supervisor belong, and perceived interdependence among the team members. In global virtual teams, the reputational and professional network effects may be weak because of less clearly defined and bounded professional networks and less emphasis on roles.
Methods
The case study method was chosen to enable us to capture the social context and dynamics of global virtual teams in order to explore what communication behaviors appeared to facilitate trust in global virtual teams. Data for the cases was generated from electronic mail archives and questionnaires.
The global virtual teams were organized via a collaboration of professors of information systems from graduate business programs around the world. Three hundred and fifty masters' students from 28 universities participated in a global virtual collaboration organized over a period of six weeks during the spring semester of 1996. Every continent was involved except Antarctica. The students’ learning objectives were to experience collaboration with others in a virtual setting and to obtain international exposure by working with people from different countries. Participants were recruited through contacts with professors who had participated in previous collaborations (see Knoll & Jarvenpaa, 1995). The letter soliciting participation explicitly stated that one of the conditions for participation included having the exercise comprise at least 20% of the students’ course grade. To further motivate the students’ participation, the professors were provided reports on their students’ levels of activity after the second and fourth weeks. Additionally, a monetary reward ($600) and industry publicity were promised for the highest performing team.
The students were assigned to teams of four to six people in such a manner that each member on a team resided in a different country. The students from a given university were assigned to teams based on the order that their name appeared on their professor’s list. The teams were self-managing and were charged with completing three tasks: two voluntary assignments lasting one week each and a final project lasting four weeks. The students’ course grade as well as the $600 reward were based solely on the successful completion of the final project. The students were also told that each team member would evaluate the others’ contributions at the end of the final project and that this information would be shared with their professors.
Assignments
The first two voluntary assignments were designed to encourage the participants to exchange information about themselves and gain experience with the World Wide Web. The first assignment asked the participants to send a description of themselves to their team members. The second required each team member to locate one web site that they felt was relevant to business persons with information systems (IS) responsibilities and provide a paragraph explaining the relevance of the site.
The third assignment--the final project--required the teams to propose and develop a WWW site providing a new service or offering to IS World Net that would be of interest to IS practitioners in all the countries in which the members of a particular team resided. The proposal was to be a three to five page justification of the site. (IS World Net is an electronic community comprised of IS practitioners and academicians around the world that communicates and disseminates information via the Internet and newsgroups). The students were told that each team member was to submit the same final deliverable to their professor and the team deliverable was to represent the collective efforts of the group. The final assignment was expected to take about 20-30 hours of each student’s time over the four week period.
Technology
The host institution established a WWW site on the Internet (http: //uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bgac313/index.html). The purpose of this central repository of information was to ensure that all students had access to the same information at the same time. Students communicated solely through electronic means. Electronic mail reached the individual team members via a "team address." Occasionally students used the reply function to respond to messages sent by individuals, thereby communicating with that individual alone.
Data Collection and Survey Analyses
Data for the research was provided by the team members’ email message archives, by the members’ responses to the demographic questions in the first exercise, and by the members’ responses to two questionnaires. Students were notified at the start of the exercise that all mail messages sent to the "team address" were archived. Team members were sent an electronic survey to complete immediately following the deadline for the second voluntary exercise (Time 1). The survey was designed to assess the level of trust in the team. The survey also contained questions designed to assess various antecedents of trust as described in Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner (1998). A second survey identical to the first, but with some additional questions related to outcomes of trust, was sent to the team members a day following the deadline for the completed final project (Time 2). The students were not required to complete the surveys and were not prodded to do so by their respective professors. Repeated questionnaire reminders were perceived to violate the goal of maintaining a realistic project atmosphere.
Measurement
Two separate measures were used to ascertain the level of trust on the team. One measure was a modified version of the Schoorman et al. (1996; see Mayer & Davis, in press) scale which was based on Mayer et al's (1995) overall conceptualization of trust. The other was a modified 5-point scale measure of trustworthiness from Pearce et al (1992). Both instruments were modified to reflect the team, rather than the original dyad, as the unit of analysis. These measures capture a general construct of trust. Since the purpose of the study was to explore the nature of trust in virtual teams, it was important to have some independently developed and validated measure of trust.
Data on culture was obtained from responses to the first team exercise. For all students who provided their birth places, the information was coded according to Hofstede’s (1980) classification of countries as having individualistic or collectivist cultures as follows: students were considered as coming from an individualistic culture if they were born and reared in Australia, Austria, Canada (excluding Quebec), Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, or the United States. Individuals were coded as coming from a collectivist culture if they reported being born in: Brazil, Catalonia, China, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Macedonia, Pakistan, Philippines, Quebec, Singapore, Spain, or Vietnam.
Data on international experience was also obtained from the responses to the first exercise. Students who spoke only one language and reported not having traveled or lived in another country, and were not married to someone from another country, were coded as having no prior international experience. Students who reported speaking a second language or who had traveled to other countries were coded as having moderate international experience. Students who had lived in a foreign country for at least one year or who were married to someone from a country different from their own were coded as having extensive international experience.
Statistical Analyses
Before selecting teams for case analysis, a standard item reliability test was performed to determine the items that contributed to the reliability of the trust measures. Because, as mentioned, there were many questions on the surveys designed to assess variables other than the two trust measures of interest in the current paper, a factor analysis was performed before the reliability tests to ensure that the trust measures were unique constructs. The two trust measures did form two separate constructs, although a few items that did not have a loading of greater than .4 on the proper construct were eliminated. Following the factor analysis, the reliability analysis was conducted with the remaining items for the two measures of trust.
To determine if there were differences in perceptions of trust related to culture at time period 1 or time period 2, t-tests were conducted. Also, to determine if the individuals with little versus extreme prior international exposure perceived different levels of team trust at time period 1 or time period 2, t-tests were conducted. The above tests were conducted at the individual level of analysis.
Next, the responses of the members of each team were averaged to form a team measure of trust. All remaining statistical tests were done at the team level. First, a test for nonresponse bias was performed. Then, after having selected only those teams with more than 2 respondents on both surveys, we performed a paired t-test to determine if trust changed significantly from time period 1 to time period 2. Lastly, after having selected the 12 teams for case analysis, we performed t-tests of trust at time 1 and 2 on each team, computed within each team the inter-rater reliability of the team members’ perceptions of trust, and computed the descriptive statistics for the 12 cases.
Case Selection and Analysis
Case analysis was used to answer the original research questions. First, can trust exist in global virtual teams? Second, how might trust be developed in such teams? And third, what are the communication behaviors that might facilitate the development of trust? Only teams with more than two respondents on both surveys were included in the sample to be considered for the case analysis. Of the 75 teams, 29 teams had two or more members who completed both the first and the second surveys. The 29 teams were assigned to one of the following categories: (1) lower than the mean trust of the sample at Time 1 and Time 2 (LoLo), (2) lower than the mean trust at Time 1, but higher than the mean trust at Time 2 (LoHi), (3) higher than the mean trust at Time 1, but lower at Time 2 (HiLo), and (4) higher than the mean at Time 1 and Time 2 (HiHi). Of the 29 teams, ten teams fell into the LoLo category, four into the LoHi category, five into the HiLo category, and ten into the HiHi category (see Figure 2). The three most extreme teams in each category were chosen for the in-depth case analyses.
Figure 2: The Change of Team Trust Over Time
Many different approaches to case research have been advocated, some recommending researchers to go to the field without prior preconceived notions of research questions, concepts, variables, etc. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and others recommending predetermined research questions, themes, and data collection plans (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1984). We began our analysis with broad research questions, but did not have a set of a priori constructs or a data coding theme. Because the literature contained no rich descriptions of the form trust might be expected to take in the virtual team context, we felt that it was premature to develop a coding scheme. In summary, our case descriptions were based on naturally occurring communication, and the analysis procedures attempted to preserve the situated context of the teams’ communication.
The following process was used in analyzing the data for the cases: first, each team’s mail archives were analyzed message by message noting the date, time, message initiator, and message content in a table. Second, a three to five page case write-up was prepared for each team. Next, the cases were condensed into one page each with only the essential facts of each case included. These one-page cases form the basis of the next section. The cases were compared and contrasted with the other cases in their category resulting in the summaries of each category. Lastly, a comparison of cases across categories was undertaken.
Results
Preliminary Results of the Statistical Tests
The first survey had a response rate of 47% and the second, a response rate of 61%. Given that most teams had several inactive members, the response rates are reasonable. Inactive members were not expelled from participation as it was felt that coping with them was an important part of the team’s experience. The two measures of trust were correlated (p = .019 at time 1 and p = .003 at time 2) although the Pearce et al. had the higher reliability of .92 compared to .66 for the Mayer scale. We hence used the Pearce et al. modified measure of trust in all further tests. Table 1 in the Appendix 1 shows the final items used to measure trust.
There was no significant difference in perceived trust at time 1 or time 2 for individuals from individualistic versus collectivist cultures (t = -.68, p = .5 at time 1; t = .07, p = .9 at time 2). Nor were there significant differences in perceived trust at time 1 or time 2 between any of the levels of international experience (see Table 2). Because of insignificant results on culture and international experience, we did not consider these issues in selecting teams for the case analysis.
Level of International Experience:
None
Moderate
Extensive
Mean
St. Dev
N
Mean
St. Dev
N
Mean
St. Dev
N
Trust Time 1
3.9
0.43
15
4.1
0.537
23
3.87
0.67
75
Trust Time 2
3.87
0.94
13
4.32
0.685
20
4.04
0.712
67
t-tests
Experience
None vs. Moderate
None vs. Extensive
Moderate vs. Extensive
t
p
t
p
t
p
Trust Time 1
-1.16
0.236
0.16
0.831
1.42
0.116
Trust Time 2
-1.52
0.15
-0.76
0.533
1.43
0.157
Table 2: t-tests of Trust by Degree of International Experience
To test for nonresponse bias in the whole sample, a t-test was conducted comparing the perceived trust at time 1 of those teams with at least two respondents at time 1 but without two respondents at time 2 (mean = 3.93) versus those teams with at least two respondents at time 1 and time 2 (mean = 3.76). Likewise, a t-test was conducted comparing the perceived trust at time 2 of those teams with at least two respondents at time 2 but not time 1 (mean = 4.02) versus those teams with at least two respondents at both time periods (mean = 4.03). There were no significant differences (t = -1.12, p < .236 for the first test; t = .42, p < .674 for the second test). Hence, it does not appear that the level of trust biased respondents into responding, or not responding, to the surveys.
A paired-comparison t-test was conducted on the sample of 29 teams to determine if there was an overall significant difference in trust from time period 1 (mean = 3.95) to time period 2 (mean = 4.04). The test was insignificant (t = -1.35, p < .188).
Case Analyses
Of the 12 teams selected for in-depth analysis, only two had fewer than 3 respondents to the first survey and only two had fewer than 3 respondents to the second questionnaire (see Table 2). In addition, as seen in Table 3, there was a small variance among the members’ ratings of trust, with the exception of Team LoLo2 at time period 1 and Team HiLo1 at time period 2. The inter-rater reliabilities for each team were computed for trust at time period 1 and time period 2. As seen in Table 3, in 20 of the 24 instances, the reliability is above .8.
Trust Time 1
Interrater
Trust Time 2
Interrater
Team
Responses
Mean
St. Dev
Reliability
Responses
Mean
St. Dev
Reliability
LoLo1
2
3.00
0.57
0.84
2
3.00
0.62
0.81
LoLo2
3
3.33
1.10
0.40
4
3.48
0.88
0.61
LoLo3
3
3.67
0.46
0.89
4
3.75
0.50
0.88
LoHi1
3
3.43
0.42
0.90
3
4.15
0.44
0.90
LoHi2
2
3.40
0.85
0.64
4
4.40
0.49
0.88
LoHi3
3
3.87
0.55
0.85
2
4.10
0.14
0.99
HiLo1
3
4.07
0.12
0.99
4
3.67
1.33
0.12
HiLo2
5
4.25
0.44
0.90
3
3.60
0.57
0.80
HiLo3
4
4.30
0.46
0.90
3
3.93
0.42
0.90
HiHi1
5
4.44
0.55
0.85
4
4.60
0.42
0.91
HiHi2
4
4.56
0.46
0.80
4
4.60
0.40
0.92
HiHi3
5
4.47
0.20
0.99
4
4.60
0.46
0.90
Table 3: Number of Respondents in the 12 Teams
To verify that there was a significant difference in perceived trust among the teams chosen for the case analyses, t-tests were conducted. The differences in the mean levels of perceived trust varied significantly (t = -7.78, p = .000) for those teams reporting low trust at time 1 (mean = 3.36) versus those perceiving high trust at time 1 ( = 4.34). The differences in the mean levels of perceived trust also varied significantly (t = -5.19, p = .001) for those teams with low trust at time period 2 (mean = 3.57) versus those with high trust at time period 2 (mean = 4.4).
Within-Case Analyses
Twelve cases were written from the transcripts, three per category. Table 4 reports background information on each case study team: the number and home country of team members, the total number of messages in the first two weeks and the following four weeks, and who, using fictitious names, sent the messages. We next provide brief synopses of the 12 cases.
Team
Total Messages Sent
Messages before Survey 1
Messages after Survey 1
Trust Time 1
Trust Time 2
Country
Number Messages by Member Before Survey 1
After Survey 1
LoLo1
81
20
61
3.00
3.00
Australia
Chao:11
30
Denmark
Martin:1
13
France
Pierre:2
0
Philippines
Paulo:2
8
USA
Richard:4
9
LoLo2
109
34
75
3.33
3.48
Australia
Kathy:9
38
Canada
Becky:12
17
Finland
Matti:4
3
France
Mireille:5
4
Ireland
John:4
13
LoLo3
169
39
130
3.67
3.75
Australia
James:16
30
Austria
Heike:4
27
Denmark
Cecilie:6
29
Finland
Liisa:8
11
Philippines
Leo:5
33
LoHi1
122
48
74
3.43
4.15
Australia
Lawrence: 8
11
W. Australia
Olivia: 23
35
Brazil
Alejandro: 2
2
France
Vanessa: 5
9
Ireland
Kelly: 4
11
Netherlands
Lars: 6
6
LoHi2
57
16
41
3.40
4.40
Australia
Moti: 4
15
Austria
Andreas: 3
7
Canada
Shelli: 4
11
Denmark
Mans: 2
0
Finland
Magnus: 3
8
LoHi3
58
28
30
3.87
4.10
Australia
Huan: 8
9
Austria
Franz: 4
9
Brazil
Javier: 9
4
USA
Dan: 7
8
HiLo1
97
39
58
4.07
3.67
Australia
Jun:8
16
Brazil
Carlos: 10
11
Denmark
Rune: 3
3
Netherlands
Henrik: 9
16
USA
Michael: 9
12
HiLo2
71
21
50
4.25
3.60
Australia
Howe: 4
17
Brazil
Andre: 4
11
Canada
Thomas: 7
8
Denmark
Marj: 2
7
Ireland
Stephen: 4
7
HiLo3
103
36
67
4.30
3.93
Australia
Jenny: 6
12
Austria
Leike: 7
4
Canada
Vern: 14
33
Denmark
Flemming: 2
1
Finland
Paivi: 7
7
Thailand
Jasmine: 0
10
HiHi1
216
40
176
4.44
4.60
Australia
Linda:5
22
Denmark
Anders:7
44
Finland
Riikka:10
35
Ireland
Emma:11
51
USA
Donna:7
24
HiHi2
168
44
124
4.47
4.60
Australia
Janet:1
31
Canada
Pattie:20
18
France
Anne:4
14
Netherlands
Machtelt:11
27
Philippines
Randy:8
34
HiHi3
114
35
79
4.56
4.60
Australia
Julian:5
31
Canada
Melissa:8
18
Denmark
Karl:6
14
Netherlands
Boris:11
27
Philippines
Hirod:5
34
MEAN
3.95
4.04
ST DEV
0.42
0.40
Table 4: Information About the 12 Teams
Category 1: Low Initial Trust and Low Final Trust (LoLo)
Team LoLo1
Team LoLo1’s first message was, "Hi! Anybody there?" sent by Chao, the member who would send 41 of the 81 total messages. Six days later a response arrived from Paulo, asking if his message made it through, and from Richard. A fourth member, Pierre, sent a total of two messages in six weeks.
The fifth member, Martin, was not heard from until after the first assignment. Chao took the role of the team coordinator and suggested that they assign roles. She asked for volunteers for various roles but received no response.She submitted her contribution to the second assignment before the other members and after a four day lapse in communication, reminded the other members of the deadline and wrote: "are you not in the GVT assignment anymore?" Two of the other members, Richard and Pierre, sent their parts to the second assignment on time. Chao again asked if Paulo and Martin were still in the group. There was no response
Only three of the five members contributed to the final project for which Chao developed a schedule of tasks and deadlines, solicited comments, and wrote, "I have observed that effective groups are those who communicate constantly and is committed to all datelines set." A day later, Paulo asked the team to continue "on the next step" but did not comment on Chao’s message. Chao gave an idea for the final project and asserted that she was "seriously and eagerly looking forward to communicate with you." Paulo provided brief feedback on Chao’s idea, but disappeared for several days. Martin apologized for his lack of participation and reasserted his desire to "be a part of the team" and volunteered to complete a part of the project. Richard volunteered to write code for their web page. Paulo contributed links for their web page as did Martin, but Chao responded with an explanation of why they were not relevant for the project. After writing a draft of their proposal, Chao requested feedback but received none. Team LoLo1 completed the final project. Martin thanked Chao and Richard, "without whom there would not have been any team." None of the other members sent final greetings.
Team LoLo2
As a result of technical difficulties, the first few messages sent by various team members of Team LoLo2 were not received until a week after they were sent. The first message received was from Kathy, who would be the most active of the members, sending 47 of the 109 total messages. As early as the first week, she sent a schedule with tasks and deadlines for the team. Becky was uncertain about the functioning of the server and asked for confirmation of her message. She volunteered to send the team’s first exercise to the project coordinator.
The members all submitted their first and second exercises on time although the exercises were terse with little social content. Becky encouraged the team to think about the final project early, but stated that she found "the subject hard to find." John volunteered to be responsible for developing the web page and sent an idea for the final project.Team LoLo2 had a lapse in communication of 5 days following completion of the second exercise. During the following 7 day period, John, Kathy, and Becky were the only members to contribute. They agreed on the idea suggested by John and decided upon roles: one individual doing research (Kathy), two working on the web page (John and Matti), and two working on the written document (Becky and Mireille). Mireille’s response to the role assignments was to say that she was "kind of confused, still, about all that I am not sure I can be very helpful." She subsequently announced on April 17 that she would be leaving town April 25 so any contribution she made must be made before April 25. Kathy devised a schedule for the final project with tasks, members, and deadlines. She began researching their topic and sent the text of 10 articles she found in the library. However, she did not provide ideas about how to incorporate the articles.
Only one individual assigned to the document, Becky, contributed (Mireille’s only contribution was to say it "looks great" and that she had nothing to add.) Likewise, John developed the prototype of the web page with Matti’s sole contribution being to congratulate John. Kathy aggregated her work with Becky’s and reminded the team that "This is OUR PRODUCT." The feedback was again "Great job". Kathy then enclosed a revised file for review and Becky erupted: "What’s going on!!! First, we had decided on a schedule, nobody follows it. Second, we decided on who would do what, nobody care....Is this a team project or what?". She was upset because Kathy had not included some additions she had made to an earlier draft. Kathy apologized--she had "accidentally overlooked" one of Becky’s messages with the new information. The remaining four days of the project were spent finalizing the web page. The team completed the assignment on time but no pleasantries were exchanged at the end.
Team LoLo3
Team LoLo3 exchanged a large number--169--of messages among all five members and conducted chat sessions. James, the most active member for whom this was a "first ever group project," expressed concern early on over "the lack of control that a group project entails" and "what should I do when there is no communication." James volunteered to submit the first assignment and summarized what should be done. The day of the deadline coincided with technical difficulties and James failed to receive some of the contributions. He wrote, "so far we have only had really easy things to do, and we still have failed to meet the deadline properly." The group finished the second assignment on time.
Heike, who had not contributed to the first assignment, was the first to provide ideas for the final project. Leo provided two ideas and, like Heike, provided brief explanations. James gave an idea with substantial explanation. Heike proposed to combine the ideas and Liisa and Leo responded agreeably to which James responded, "Heike ranks technology transfer highest, but does anyone know anything about this? Please can EVERYONE provide DETAILS about the idea they like most. I am scared because I can’t see how to proceed." He then went into great detail (over 5 pages) on his idea. Leo thanked James "for his more rational thinking." Leo, Heike, and Liisa agreed to go with James’s idea.
James maintained responsibility and control for the web page development, Leo took responsibility for the written proposal, and Heike, Cecilie and Liisa promised to contribute links for the web page. In a period of 48 hours, Cecilie, Liisa, and Heike each send James a large number of URL addresses, but without any written explanation about the sites. James wrote, "Whoah!!! hang on a minute..." and "Please please please please do not send me any more links...I must have written about 10 times about the reason why links to technical manuals are not appropriate for our page." With one week left, James became concerned that someone would turn in the incorrect version of the proposal to their professor. He had "put way too many hours into this project" to risk receiving a poor mark. As a practice assignment, he wanted each member to try to decode a copy of the paper sent by Leo as an enclosure in a message. Heike stated that she could not decode it and Cecilie and Liisa did not respond. Leo and James completed the project. Heike stated in her closing message that "although some things didn’t work well it was a good experience to see IF it is possible to work in such a virtual environment. In my opinion, it’s much more complicated to communicate in such a way without face-to-face contact." The team did not exchange departing messages.
Summary of LoLo Teams. Besides having technical problems, LoLo teams lacked optimism, excitement, and initiative. LoLo3 had members with initiative and willingness to complete their role assignments, but the negative or distrustful leader suppressed excitement over the project. The teams also suffered from major lapses in communication or as in case of LoLo3, from a fear of communication lapses. None of the teams had messages with much social content.
Category 2: Low Initial Trust and High Final Trust (LoHi)
Team LoHi1
Team LoHi1 consisted of 6 members (three active members) and exchanged a total of 122 messages. The initiator of team activity, Olivia described herself as "very reliable--if I say I will do something, I do it." Olivia asked for a volunteer to collate the first assignment, but did not volunteer herself. Lars volunteered and asked if anyone objected. When only two members replied that they did not object, he responded, "not everyone has responded to my ‘vote’ for me collecting" the information. Olivia responded, "just do it" and proposed a rule that "silence indicates consent". This triggered discussion on rules such as respecting others’ ideas, checking email regularly, and avoiding the flaming of other members.
The team had technical problems early on: one member contributed to the first assignment on time but several did not receive the contribution; the member, in turn, did not receive others’ contributions. Another member stated that he did not understand what to do for the second assignment even though two members had already submitted their parts of the second assignment to the group. Two members explained to him what to do, but he still submitted his part two weeks late with the excuse that he had been busy.
Several messages were exchanged on the final project idea. Lawrence sent an idea to which Olivia responded that she was not sure the idea "really fits" the objective of the project, but gave no alternative. Vanessa returned from vacation and expressed discomfort with the idea but gave no alternative. Kelly gave an alternative idea and it was agreed upon for the project after which the team focused solely on the project. There were no references to rules of any kind and the nonparticipating members, Alejandro and Lars, were not assigned any tasks.
Lawrence, Kelly, and Olivia communicated frequently during the final weeks. The members had assigned tasks but they overlapped. Lawrence and Kelly worked simultaneously on coding two separate sets of web pages. Kelly asked why there was duplication of effort. Lawrence suggested that the pages were not "in competition" but that he intended to take the best from both pages. Well before the project deadline, Olivia produced a lengthy written proposal; likewise, Lawrence and Kelly produced the html code with sufficient time for comments. After the drafts had received feedback and were revised, Lars reemerged from what he said was an illness, expressed surprise that the deadline was in two days, but then gave extensive comments and suggestions on the proposal draft which were incorporated. The active members expressed satisfaction with their project as well as their team.
Team LoHi2
Of all twelve teams, Team LoHi2’s five members exchanged the smallest number of messages in the first two weeks. The members engaged in very little social introduction; they did, however, reflect about the challenges of virtual work in their opening messages. Said one, "Quickly establishing a mutual understanding is not an easy task". Said another, "Everyone makes an introduction, but the impression you get is like via a letter". A third member echoed the potential paradox of virtual work: the "virtual environment can either allow a person to be more honest than they may be face-to-face or the exact opposite, they can hide behind a facade so you may not be getting truth."
Even before completion of the second assignment, Shelli asked the other members to think about the final project and proposed an idea to which the others responded and gave optional ideas. The team agreed to go with Shelli’s initial idea. Andreas developed a home page listing the days and hours he would be available to work on the project and upon his request, the other members sent their schedules for posting on the page. Moti proposed a framework to discuss ideas--he set up a web page with initial ideas and asked others to respond; he continually updated the page according to submitted ideas. The members did not hesitate to commit, evident in such statements as "I promise to do a paragraph or two as Moti suggested." Each member also followed through with the work they promised to do. At one point, Moti wrote, "Dear Virtual Teammembers: now you are almost becoming real to me." Shelli stated that she "was worried after assignment 2 but this was quickly alleviated by everyone’s enthusiasms." Each member expressed satisfaction with the final outcome as well as with the teamwork achieved. Wrote one, "I think it is great the way we could build upon each others ideas." And another, "I enjoyed very much working with you. You all did what you promised to do. In a teamwork, it’s the most important thing." The name of the fifth team member who had only sent two messages was not included on the final project or the web site.
Team LoHi3
Like Team LoHi2, Team LoHi3 sent relatively few messages - 60 in total. The first member to send a message, Huan, wrote that he had never used "this technology" before and that he hoped "my mail could reach you." He sent a second message three hours later saying the same thing. Javier responded, but did not introduce himself. Huan sent a third and fourth message with the earlier message content. A third member, Franz, wrote that he received a "terrible lot of mail day after day" and requested them to identify the project in the subject of each message. A fourth member, Dan, gave a long introduction and compared working in a virtual environment to "playing chess with one move made every 24 hours." Dan initiated the first two team assignments. Huan expressed his gratefulness for Dan’s initiatives but also wrote that he was "a bit jealous with other group" who had "a lot of conversation." He suggested that Dan or Franz serve as the team leaders. Franz announced that he would be unavailable until May 6 (the project was due on April 31).
The concept of a leader was never mentioned again although Dan remained the initiator; he did not assign tasks to others, but reminded others of what needed to be done and by when. Franz reemerged on April 5 and offered to "take care of coordinating and giving a final touch to the website." Franz set up a background for a web site before the team actually chose a topic and a day later commented that "If I am not mistaken--at least that’s what I learn from the log files, then Huan is the only one who has found the time to at least look at what is going at the yet to be filled GVT51 web page." The other members visited the site and one wrote, "I finally visited our home page. I got really happy with this....Friends, I am very happy today (as I see our home this evening)." Huan checked the page regularly and commented on Pete’s changes. On April 28, Dan sent a lengthy (6 page) document describing the page, its design, its contents and the justification. Wrote Franz in response, "I believe, you will understand, that I would have been much happier I only you had managed to confront me with any new/summarising material by Friday as indicated a week ago. Nonetheless, it is nice to see that you did invest more time to bring our project to an end before long." Dan politely explained how his changes implied only minor coding changes. Huan and Dan both maintained an upbeat and friendly tone in the final messages and sent goodbyes as well.
Summary of LoHi Teams. The LoHi trust teams appeared to differ from the LoLo trust teams in that they had predictable, though infrequent, communication, more equal participation across members, and a focus on the task after the initial assignments. Like LoLo teams, LoHi team members did not exert an effort to get to know each other and hence the members’ relationships were purely professional or task focused. These teams seemed to be initially preoccupied with the establishment of rules to manage the uncertainty they felt. The teams appeared to have increased their trust by successfully overcoming (or simply learning to ignore) the initial uncertainties they felt, by focusing on the task, and by resisting distractions that did not contribute to the task.
Category 3: High Initial Trust and Low Final Trust (HiLo)
Team HiLo1
Team HiLo1 exchanged a total of 99 messages, a little under half of which were exchanged during the first two weeks. The group began by exchanging many social messages. One wrote, "How hard is it to carry out an entire project without having those boring professional meetings." Rune volunteered to compile the first assignment but did not follow through because he did not receive confirmation of the role. Another member, Henrik, submitted the assignment and received praise from the others "well done buddy". After the first assignment, the members were exuberant: "I had very good impressions of you and I think we’ll have a great time working together. Success for Team60!!!’ Another wrote, "Hey guys, I think we’ve done it." And another, "I think we’ve started this collaboration in a good way. It’s nice working with you guys." And the fourth, "Congratulations everybody! We did complete our first assignment on time!" When one of the members failed to complete the second assignment on time, the coordinating member added one of his own ideas under the absent member’s name before turning in the assignment.
After the second assignment, Michael announced that he "would love to just do it and get it over." Carlos complained of technical problems at his university, stating that "it seems every time I go to school to surf on the net, the only room with direct internet access is closed." Rune failed to communicate for over a week and others sent messages, "where is Rune?". He reemerged after two weeks but contributed only 2 messages thereafter. With three weeks remaining before the final project deadline, one member suggested the need for rules although he did not suggest any particular rules. The others agreed on the need for rules but did not propose any. Likewise, the members were aware of the need to provide ideas for the final project -- "I think it would be nice for us to brainstorm a little before we decide the subject"-- but only one member, Jun, actually proposed any ideas. Jun sent a long task oriented message with ideas for the project. The message was received enthusiastically -- "Great Hurray for the Jun, Excellent initiative my friend, I applaud your idea" -- but there was no discussion over the content of the proposal. Michael stated that he had no experience in the proposed area but made no other suggestion. Another wrote, : "If you send me a topic that I can research, I’ll be happy to do so." Wrote a third, "But plz plz plz mail me in what way I can contribute. ... I still am a little confused. Just tell me what I need to contribute." Jun then suggested that the final project be a compilation of one topic per member, and asked each member to send their topics to him. Two members contributed brief paragraphs of content for the project. Jun was left to finalize the project. No greetings were exchanged at the end.
Team HiLo2
Team HiLo2 had 73 messages in total. Thomas was the first to communicate, "To move things along, I’m starting the ball rolling with a personal description." One member subsequently suggested that Thomas take on "the role of a team coordinatorr" because of his "technical experience and ambitions to go into management." Thomas did not acknowledge the role in writing, but did take initiative in moving the second assignment and final project along. All members contributed to the first two assignments on time, except for one member, Andre, who sent his part for the first assignment late with the excuse that he was having technical problems.
A long lapse in communication occurred after the second assignment. Between April 3 and April 15, only Thomas sent messages, one on April 11 and the following on April 14. On April 14, Thomas wrote, "I’ve just spent a very dull few hours looking through the ISWorld site in preparation for Part III. The next and final assignment is due on April 29 and, as is the custom of most students, we’re leaving it rather late." He offered an idea for the project. He received no immediate response and sent a second message asking if his message was received. The following day, Howe wrote that he had been having technical difficulties and would respond shortly. A day later, Stephen gave no idea of his own for the project but asked "can we agree on a topic...? Also, I would like to hear from someone apart from Thomas."
One member, assumed by the others to be Thomas, sent a message to the project administrator complaining that none of the other members were contributing. The message was forwarded to the professors of each member on the team. One of the members responded, "that sort of behavior does nothing for the spirit of the team." Another member agreed that "In my humble opinion, things are somewhat out of order in this exercise." Thomas sent just three more messages in a 10 day period, one with his contribution to the project, one thanking a member for coding the page, and a third stating that he was unavailable to do any more work on the project.
Stephen and Howe were left to complete the project. Stephen sent a series of links and suggested someone else should "take on the job of organising them." The only response was from Howe who wrote that he was working on the proposal and "would have expected more from Andre and Samal." On April 25 Stephen sent another message to the members to "just have a look at our page and try to give me your feedback as to how to make it look better." The following day, he sent a message stating that he had "just checked my mail...and I was disappointed to see that there have been no replies about the project." Howe submitted a proposal draft for review containing several sections where he had inserted "need help here" but the only feedback received was that it "looked fine" and was actually "more than I expected." The team submitted a final project with several sections containing asterisks next to the words "need help here."
Team HiLo3
Team HiLo3 exchanged a total of 107 messages of which almost half, 46, were from a single member, Vern, who was elected to be team leader. Team HiLo3’s communication began with lengthy personal introductions and claims, "I am looking forward to working with you all." A few members experienced problems in receiving mail, but Vern reassured them that this was common so not to worry. Vern proposed procedures for the group to follow and the group agreed upon them. All members contributed to the first and second assignments and on time except for one individual, Flemming. Vern wrote, "it would have been nice to get his opinion on the numerous points raised."
After the second assignment, Paivi summarized the ideas expressed for the final project to that point and proposed additional team rules. On April 10, Vern wrote, "judging from the pace we have demonstrated so far, we should be done by Christmas" and that he did not want "to sound Cranky." Even though the team had exchanged 53 messages at this point, many more than some other teams, he stated that "they need to start interacting more often as a team." Paivi thanked Vern for stimulating the group and again summarized the ideas submitted to that point and which idea she preferred.
Without any prior warning, Paivi withdrew herself from the project on April 15 and stated that "the actual teamwork could have anyhow been more intensive." The members reacted strongly. Jenny explained that she had "no ability to work without their help" and begged them to "Please do our work together!!!" Vern asked the remaining members to identify a role for themselves. Ten hours later, Vern sent another message, "this will continue to be a frustrating experience for many unless everyone participates fully..." and that if "anyone is in for a free ride, get out." He counted the number of task related messages in the past week and described the situation as "extremely frustrating". Jenny thanked Vern for "trying to wake them up" and defined her role. Vern then listed tasks to be done and "appoints" volunteers. He requested confirmation of the message containing negative remarks "The situation is not very encouraging. UNLESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS START CONTRIBUTING SERIOUSLY NOW, WE WILL NOT GET A SATISFYING RESULT". Vern continued to work on his own tasks and prodded for feedback. Leike and Jasmine offered excuses rela