Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Developing Trust in Virtual Teams
Marie-Line Germain, PhD
T
he latter part of the 20th century has provided Rapid globalization, advances
a dramatic change in work team structures by in technology, flatter organizational
moving from centralized, co-located teams to structures, synergistic cooperation
among firms, and a shift to knowledge
decentralized, dispersed, or virtual teams, which elim- work environments have led to the
inate the need for physical proximity among team increasing use of virtual teams in orga-
members (Beranek, 2000, as cited in Webster & Wong, nizations. Selecting, training, and so-
2008; Haywood, 1998; Henry & Hartzler, 1997; Powell, cializing employees in virtual team-
work has therefore become an impor-
Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hen- tant human resource function. This
drickson, 1998). This increase arises from forces such article provides an overview of the re-
as interorganizational alliances, globalization, out- search on trust in virtual teams, its
sourcing, and alternative work arrangements, such as importance, and how to overcome
some challenges of trust development
job sharing and telecommuting (Saunders, 2000). Vir- in virtual teams. Recommendations for
tual teams are often constructed because organizations virtual team developers and human
require skills, local knowledge, experience, resources, resources professionals are presented.
or expertise from employees who are distributed.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have contributed
greatly to shifting the arrangement of team membership beyond the physical
and geographical boundaries of the workplace (Ahuja & Carley, 1999).
Today, teams are popular forms of work design in the United States
(D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010). Approximately 50–80% of U.S. organizations
use teams of some sort (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999;
D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010; Gordon, 1992). Although statistics on the exact
number of virtual teams currently in existence are unavailable (Cascio &
Shurygailo, 2003; Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010), a study commissioned by
WorldCom in 2001 reports that 61% of employees in large companies have
worked on virtual teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). In the United
States only, 8.4 million employees were estimated to work in virtual teams or
groups (Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004). Already, more than 50% of
companies employing more than 5,000 workers make use of virtual teams.
For instance, Nortel Networks Corp., with employees located in 150
countries around the world, and Price Waterhouse, with 45,000 employees
in 120 different countries around the world, make extensive use of
virtual teams (Gerber, 1995; Solomon, 2001). In 1999, Hewlett-Packard’s
29
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY, 24(3) PP. 29–54

& 2011 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.20119
(HP) first virtual team saved $800,000 per year in compliance cost and
$200,000 per year in avoided costs and faster cycle times in Korea. In 2002,
HP adopted the virtual team structure and business model (Snyder, 2003). In
those organizations, virtual teams are used in a variety of applications,
including problem-solving, product development, quality control, project
management, decision making, planning, and negotiation (Sundstrom, De
Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). These numbers can only be expected to increase
with corporate globalization, partnerships, and joint ventures and techno-
logical complexity requiring specialization (Cascio, 1999; Henry & Hartzler,
1997; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Timmerman & Scott, 2006). Thus,
selecting, training, and socializing employees in virtual teamwork has
become an important human resource function (Shin, 2004; Webster &
Wong, 2008).
Yet because of their dispersed nature, virtual teams face particular
challenges. Indeed, to work effectively, team members ought to trust each
other (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003). That is, members of a team should be willing
to be vulnerable to the actions of their teammates (Mayer, Davis, & Schoor-
man, 1995; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Zand, 1972). The challenge
lies in the fact that trust is known to best develop when people can physically
meet (Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).
The purpose of this paper is to review the research literature on trust in
virtual teams within the past decade and to offer coping strategies human
resources (HR) practitioners or managers can use to overcome some of the
challenges of trust development based on best practices.
Review of the Literature

This section presents definitions of trust in virtual teams while providing
characteristics of high-trusting teams.
Defining Virtual Teams

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

Although virtual teams have taken on more importance in recent years,
dispersed collaboration has existed in most periods. As early as the middle
30 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

ages, trade relied on coalitions of dispersed collaborators (Aubert & Kelsey,
2003; Greif, 1989). At a time when information could take months to travel
from one partner to another, trust in these commercial partners and their
fulfillment of promises relied on the reputation of the partner and promises
of future trading. Similarly, for more modern collaborators, most researchers
contend that trust is a determining factor in the effectiveness in any complex
system requiring coordinated action (Granovetter, 1985; McAllister, 1995;
Seabright, Levinthal, & Fichman, 1992).
Interpersonal trust has an important history in the psychology, sociol-
ogy, negotiation, strategy, and organizational behavior disciplines (Cook &
Wall, 1980; Currall & Judge, 1995; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Lewis &
Weingert, 1985; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006; Ring & Van de
Ven, 1992; Webber, 2008; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Group trust is
one increasingly salient marker of virtual team success and performance
(Dirks, 1999; Handy, 1995; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa &
Leidner, 1999; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluck, & Gibson, 2006; Krebs, Hobman, &
Bordia, 2006; Peters & Karren, 2009; Polzer et al., 2006). In fact, many
researchers believe that building trust is the greatest challenge faced by
organizations operating in this environment (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarven-
paa & Leidner, 1999; O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994; Piccoli & Ives,
2003). Trust, a key psychosocial trait, is likely to be more critical in virtual
teams because of the lack of traditional social control (Cascio, 2000) yet more
difficult to develop because of little or no personal contact among the team
members (Handy, 1995). Visual isolation inhibits the development of trust.
Being able to detect and interpret behavioral clues that reveal intentions,
referred to as translucence, plays an important role in developing trust and
cooperation (Orbell & Dawes, 1991). Similarly, ‘‘telltale signs’’ such as facial
expressions and voice tone reveal intentions and make cooperation possible
(Frank, 1993, p. 165). When individuals are spatially dispersed, the social
information upon which interpersonal trust is based is less readily available
(Zucker, 1986). Face-to-face encounters are considered irreplaceable for
both building trust and repairing shattered trust (Nohria & Eccles, 1992), yet
trust is critical in virtual teams for reducing the high levels of uncertainty
endemic to the global and technologically based environment (Jarvenpaa &
Leidner, 1999). ‘‘Trust is the glue of the global workspace—and technology
doesn’t do much to create relationships’’ (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen,
1994, p. 243).
Advantages of Virtual Team Trust on Organizational Variables. Kirkman,

Jones, and Shapiro’s (2000) (as cited in Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003)
content analysis of the comments of employees in two Fortune 500
companies in the process of implementing self-managing work teams
found that 23% of all comments centered on the issue of trust.
Trust has been acknowledged to be even more critical in virtual teams
where face-to-face communication is less prevalent (Gibson & Manuel,
2003; Piccoli & Ives, 2003; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004; Jarvenpaa &
Leidner, 1999; Peters & Karren, 2009; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006;
Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 31

Webber, 2008). Trust is cited as affecting a variety of team processes and
outcomes such as group participation and contribution, cycle times, product
quality, and even team member retention (Bandow, 2001; Salas, Sims, &
Burke, 2005). Jones and George (1998) found that, in addition to mediating
cooperation and teamwork, trust also fosters a willingness to disseminate
information more freely among team members. If team
members do not feel that their input is valued or that
Trust [is] a significant
the information they provide will be used appropri-
predictor of satisfaction
ately, they may be less willing to share that information
and intention to quit, (Bandow, 2001). Inherently, trust is needed in teams
acceptance of influence, because when team members work interdependently,
openness in they must be willing to accept a certain amount of risk
communication, team to rely on each other to meet deadlines, contribute to
commitment, and the team task, and cooperate without subversive inten-
cooperation. tions (Salas et al., 2005).
Trust has also been identified as a key, yet challen-
ging, ingredient for the effectiveness of virtual teams (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003;
Beranek, 2000; Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004; David & McDaniel, 2004;
Iacono & Weisband, 1997; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004;
Remidez, Stam, & Laffey, 2007). This is partially explained by the absence of
traditional control mechanisms, such as the organization’s hierarchy (Costa
& Bijlsma-Frankema, 2007; Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2001; Peters &
Karren, 2009; Sengun & Wasti, 2007; Weibel, 2007). Several studies have
found a significant effect for trust on individual performance (Dirks, 1999;
Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Peters & Karren,
2009; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Powell, Galvin, &
Piccoli, 2006). In addition to effective performance, Cunningham and
MacGregor (2000) identified trust as a significant predictor of satisfaction
and intention to quit, acceptance of influence, openness in communication,
team commitment, and cooperation (Bijlsma-Frankema, de Jong, & van de
Bunt, 2008). According to the study by Jarvenpaa and Leider (1999), a high
level of trust in the team’s early life allows the team effectively to solve
problems, resolve conflicts, and have positive communications when they
are faced with technical or task uncertainty. Table 1 presents some char-
acteristics of high-trusting teams based on the research of Jarvenpaa and
colleagues (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999).
With heightened trust, one is more likely to see a spirit of cooperation and
information sharing among these diverse members, even with low levels of
shared expertise (Curs-eu & Schruijer, 2010; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005;
Krackhardt & Stern, 1988; Mayer et al., 1995; Remidez, Stam, & Laffey, 2007);
a more productive free flow of information (Hart & Saunders, 1997; Nelson &
Cooprider, 1996); communication (Dore, 1983); collaborative relationship
performance (David & McDaniel, 2004); leadership (Atwater, 1988); self-
managed work teams (Lawler, 1992); the improvement of organizations’
abilities to adapt to complexity and change (Korsgaard, Schweiger, &
Sapienza, 1995; McAllister, 1995); collective learning; knowledge sharing;
creative problem solving (Argyris, 1999; Reina & Reina, 1999; Senge, 1990);

TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-TRUSTING TEAMS
EARLY IN THE FORMATION OF THE TEAM THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE TEAM
Positive initial interactions Time- and goal-oriented
Early starters Task-oriented
Discuss communication plans Address and manage conflict
Provided with robust feedback
Source. From Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999.
and an increased level of interdependence (Wageman, 1999), where team

members are naturally vulnerable to the actions of others in carrying out
their work. Interdependence is a key characteristic of teams, since members
are dependent on each other to accomplish both the organization’s and their
own goals (Mayer et al., 1995). The only pathway to effective task perfor-
mance and goal attainment is through cooperation, and trust is considered a
key antecedent of cooperation. Trust has a variety of other constructive
effects, including employees contributing time and attention to collective
goals, sharing useful information, helping others, and performing extra-role
behaviors (Kramer, 1999; Webster & Wong, 2008). For instance, virtual team
members who believe in the trustworthiness of their fellow team members
cooperate more than those who are less sure of their colleagues (Galvin,
McKnight, & Ahuja, 2001).
Conversely, teams that experienced low levels of trust among their
members are less likely to share information and ideas, which leads to lower
performance (Driscoll, 1978; Zand, 1972). Those teams with low initial trust
are characterized by irregular and unpredictable communication and ex-
change little information. In this instance, it is difficult for the group to have a
cohesive culture that bonds it together (Bolman & Deal, 1992; Das & Teng,
2001; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2007; Peters & Karren, 2009; Vlaar, Van den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2007). Low-trust team members are also likely to be less
open and more defensive in their relationships with other members (Gibb,
1964), resulting in ineffective problem solving (Zand, 1972) and reduced
creativity (Klimoski & Karol, 1976). Mutual learning will also be influenced
by low trust through reduced opportunities to learn and use new skills and
reduced sharing of information and knowledge of the work process (Zucker,
Darby, Brewer, & Peng, 1996). Low trust may also be manifested in resistance
behaviors, such as the deliberate withholding of information (Zand, 1972),
refusal to cooperate, frequent monitoring of coworkers (Strickland, 1958)
and the absence of group citizenship behaviors, such as helping, civic virtue,
and team sportsmanship (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). When
members of a team do not trust each other, they are likely to expend
additional time and effort monitoring one another, backing up or duplicating
each other’s work, and documenting problems (Ashforth & Lee, 1990). Team
members engaging in monitoring and defensive behavior have fewer re-
sources to devote to the primary team task, which can result in productivity

losses (McAllister, 1995). Lack of trust can also adversely affect members’
satisfaction with the team and their willingness to continue working with the
team (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006).
Defining Trust in Virtual Teams. Trust is defined as a group member’s

willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of his or her teammates on the
basis of the expectation that the other members will perform actions that are
important to the trustor (Polzer et al., 2006). The willingness to be
‘‘vulnerable,’’ from Mayer et al. (1995), is one of the most cited definitions
of trust and has played a central role in many conceptualizations. For
instance, McKnight et al. (1998) refer to trust as the belief and the
willingness to depend on another party. Jones and George (1998) associate
the willingness to become vulnerable to a set of behavioral expectations that
allows individuals to manage the uncertainty or risk associated with their
actions. Risk appears central in many definitions of trust and consists of the
perceived probability of loss as perceived by the trusting person(s) (Costa,
Roe, & Taillieu, 2001; Curs- eu & Schruijer, 2010; Mayer et al., 1995). For
Luhmann (1979), risk is a prerequisite in the choice to trust. Table 2 shows
various definitions and associated keywords from the business and
psychology fields within the past 20 years.
‘‘When we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we
implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is
beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider
engaging in some form of cooperation with him’’ (Gambetta, 1988, p. 217, as
cited in Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2008). Trust implies suspension of doubt
about the possibility that another’s action will be based on self-interest (i.e.,
me-rationality), assuming that the other will reciprocate the us-rationality
that is signaled by trust. Underlying the ‘‘decision to trust’’ is also the
expectation or belief that others will act in a way that is beneficial or at least
not detrimental for the relationship (Gambetta, 1988).
Trust is defined as a multicomponent variable (Costa, 2003). As Rous-
seau and colleagues (1998) note, from micropsychological theories (for
example, Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Zand, 1972) to social/
economics approaches (for example, Cummings & Bromiley, 1996), positive
expectations toward the behavior of others and the willingness to become
vulnerable to others are critical elements to define trust.
Consistent with Mayer et al.’s (1995) integrated model of trust, we
distinguish between: propensity to trust, or the general willingness to trust
others (Rotter, 1980) grounded in the individual’s personality, life experi-
ences, cultural background, education and several other socioeconomic
factors; perceived trustworthiness, referring to the expectations and con-
siderations about other people’s motives and intentions underlying their
actions; and trust behaviors (in Mayer et al., 1995), referred to as risk taking,
which refer to the actions that reflect the willingness to be vulnerable to
others whose actions one does not control.
Inherent in Mayer et al.’s (1995) definition of trust is the idea of
reciprocity (Kirkman et al., 2000). According to social exchange theory

TABLE 2 DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL TEAMS
DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN
YEAR AUTHORS VIRTUAL TEAMS KEYWORDS
2006 Polzer, Crisp, A group member’s willingness to be Vulnerability
Jarvenpaa, & Kim vulnerable to the actions of his or her
teammates on the basis of the
expectation that the other members will
perform actions that are important to the
trustor
2008 Bijlsma- Trust is taken to represent a coordinating Cooperation
Frankema, mechanism supporting cooperation
de Jong, & between actors
van de Bunt
2003 Costa Positive expectations towards the Positive expectations of
behavior of others and the willingness to others
become vulnerable to others are critical Vulnerability
elements to define trust
1995 Mayer, Davis, & The willingness to be vulnerable Vulnerability
Schoorman Risk taking
Ability
Benevolence
Integrity
Interdependence/
reciprocity
1998 McKnight, The belief and the willingness to depend Dependence on others
Cummings, & on another party Disposition to trust (faith)
Chervany Interpersonal-intergroup
trust
Institution-based trust
1979 Luhmann Risk is a prerequisite in the choice to trust Risk taking
1972 Zand The individual willingness to become Vulnerability
vulnerable
1988 Gambetta Belief that others will act in a way that is Positive action from
beneficial or at least not detrimental for others
the relationship
1996 Lewicki & Trust involves not only expectations Expectations of others
Bunker about other people’s motives and Risk taking
intentions, but also considerations about
the situation and the risks associated with
acting on such expectations
1996 Cummings & A belief (held by an individual or a group) Good-faith efforts

Bromiley that another individual or group (1) makes Honesty
good-faith efforts to behave in Does not take advantage
accordance with any commitments made Vulnerability
both explicitly or implicitly, (2) is honest in Expectations of others
whatever interactions preceded such
commitments, and (3) would not take
excessive advantage of another, even if
the opportunity became available

TABLE 2 DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL TEAMS (CONTINUED)
DEFINITIONS OF TRUST IN
YEAR AUTHORS VIRTUAL TEAMS KEYWORDS
1997 Lipnack & Confidence in a person’s or organization’s Integrity
Stamps integrity, fairness, and reliability Fairness
Reliability
1998 Rousseau, Sitkin, Intention to accept vulnerability based on Vulnerability
Burt, & Camerer positive expectations of the intentions or Expectations of others
behaviors of another Interdependence
1985 Lewis & Wiegert Two forms of interpersonal trust: Reliability
cognition-based trust (reliability and Dependability
dependability) and affect-based trust Integrity
(emotional bond between two parties) Past records of others
2000 Jeffries & Reed Trust is a combination of two definitions: Expectations of others
‘‘a state involving confident positive Risk taking
expectations about another’s motives Willingness of others
with respect to one’s self in situations
entailing risk’’ and the extent to which a
person is ‘‘willing to act on the basis of the
words, actions, and decisions of another’’
1996 Porter & Lilly The confidence in group members’ Confidence in others
dependability and expertise Dependability
Expertise
2001 Costa, Roe, & Trust describes the extent to which team Vulnerability
Taillieu members allow themselves to be
vulnerable to each other’s actions
2002 Webber ‘‘The shared perception ... that individuals Positive expectations of
in the team will perform particular actions others
important to its members and ... will
recognize and protect the rights and
interests of all the team members
engaged in their joint endeavor’’ (p. 205)
(Blau, 1964), people will support a social exchange partner in proportion to

the perceived benefits provided by the partner (that is, a manager or an
organization). Reciprocity norms underscore the dynamic of trust. Trust
must be earned, and trust can be lost. Once trust is violated, however, there
are significant barriers to re-earning it (Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Rotter,
1980; Zand, 1972).
According to some researchers, ability, benevolence, and integrity can
parsimoniously encompass the concept of trustworthiness, the immediate
precursor to trust (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). This particular framework
has been used by numerous researchers studying the antecedents of trust.
Previous research, for instance, has indicated that trust in another is
influenced by perceptions of the other party’s ability to accomplish a task
important to the trustor, where ability is the set of skills or attributes that

enable the trustee to have influence. This exhibited ability can be expected to
positively influence trust because the trustee will be perceived to have more
capacity to help the trustor. In turn, benevolence is the degree to which the
trustor believes that the trustee has goodwill or positive intentions toward
the trustor. Similar to ability, the more a trustee exhibits behaviors that show
they value the trustor’s needs and seek to protect the trustor, the greater the
resulting trust on the part of the trustor should be. Finally, integrity is a
trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to acceptable values, which
could include issues such as consistency, honesty, and fairness. A trustee who
shows that he/she follows values that the trustor likes should be more trusted.
An integrated perspective is presented by Cummings and Bromiley
(1996), who state that trust is essentially a belief (held by an individual or a
group) that another individual or group (1) makes good-faith efforts to
behave in accordance with any commitments made both explicitly or
implicitly, (2) is honest in whatever interactions preceded such commit-
ments, and (3) would not take excessive advantage of another, even when the
opportunity became available (Naquin & Kurtzberg, 2009). This definition of
trust is compatible with other definitions used in the psychology literature
(for a review of the psychological approach versus the economic approach,
see Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) that, generally speaking, tend to comprise a
willingness to accept vulnerability and positive expectations about the other
party’s intentions, motivations, and behavior.
Interpersonal trust ‘‘increases confidence and security in the relation-
ship, reduces transaction costs between parties, and promotes open, sub-
stantive, and influential information exchange’’ (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 30,
as cited in Krebs, Hobman, & Bordia, 2006). Interpersonal trust is thus
invaluable to organizations that depend on cross-functional teams, tempor-
ary work groups, and other cooperative structures to coordinate work.
Dimensions of Trust. There are two forms of interpersonal trust: cognition-

based trust and affect-based trust (Lewis & Wiegert, 1985, as cited in Webster
& Wong, 2008; Wang, Tomlinson, & Noe, 2010). Affect-based trust refers to
a trust formed between two parties as a result of close emotional bonds and
feelings of identification (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995).
Affect-based trust develops from a close emotional connection with the
trustee (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995). Affect-based trust
consists of emotional bonds between two parties who express genuine care
and concern for each other’s welfare (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; McAllister,
1995; Webster & Wong, 2008). McAllister (1995) found that some level of
cognition-based trust is necessary for affect-based trust to develop, and
empirical research has demonstrated strong relationships between these two
dimensions of trust (McAllister, 1995; Staples, 1999). In layperson’s terms,
affect-based trust can be summarized by the following statements: ‘‘We have
a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas and feelings. If I
shared my problems with this person, I know (s)he would respond con-
structively and caringly’’ (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). Achieving
affective trust allows for short-term behavioral problems to occur and be

forgiven (Jones & George, 1998; McAllister, 1995). In addition, affective trust
is driven by behaviors that extend beyond task-related competency to
include extra role behaviors delivered during the life of the team.
Cognition-based trust occurs due to perceptions of competence, relia-
bility, and dependability (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995;
McAllister, 1995). It is based on reasoning about others’ reliability and
dependability. The competence, integrity, ability, and past record of the
person being trusted form the rational basis for withholding trust (Luhmann,
1979; Webster & Wong, 2008). In layperson’s terms, cognitive-based trust
can be summarized by the following statements: ‘‘I can rely on this person not
to make my job more difficult by careless work. Given this person’s track
record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence for the job’’ (Wilson et
al., 2006).
Theoretically, cognitive trust has been argued to be more challenging to
sustain once it is developed, compared with affective trust (McAllister, 1995,
as cited in Webber, 2008). Specifically, a team could have high levels of
cognitive trust, then experience a problem completing a task on time,
resulting in a decrease in cognitive trust. On the other hand, affective trust
is thought to persist even under these types of situations (McAllister, 1995).
The performance of a work team should be positively affected by both
cognitive and affective trust; however, affective trust, because of its deep-
rooted nature, should have a more positive relationship with team perfor-
mance.
Swift Trust. Many studies on virtual teamwork draw on swift trust to

understand the trust development in short-term teamwork in context,
such as academic institutions (Nandhakumar & Baskerville, 2006). Swift
trust is formed on the basis of three types of categorization: unit grouping,
reputation categorization, and stereotyping (Kuo & Yu, 2009; McKnight
et al., 1998). Team members may not have the opportunity to acquire
firsthand information about other team members and may therefore
import trust from another context with which they are familiar, using
stereotypical impressions of others (Rasters, 2001). Viewing trust
development as an attribution process, researchers theorize that people
may employ preexisting dispositions, institutional expectations, and social
categorization to make attributions about the other person’s initial
trustworthiness. For temporary work-oriented virtual teams, because there
is insufficient time to build trust on firsthand information, categories
governing some previously experienced settings are imported quickly to
serve this purpose. It serves as a proxy for members of the work-oriented
virtual team to assess others’ reliability and competence in completing their
work (Kuo & Yu, 2009). Swift trust, therefore, may lead members to work as a
team and facilitate members continually to cooperate and share information.
It also helps to create a swift identity so that team members may believe that
their virtual team is ’’us.’’ Members swiftly import their prior experience to
assess the outcomes and costs of maintaining a team relationship. Group
members act as if trust is present from the start (Krebs et al., 2006; Meyerson,

Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Thus, in the absence of prior relationships, swift
trust enables group members to take action based on the behaviors of
another. This aids the group in maintaining trust and dealing with the
uncertainty and vulnerability of a situation of high time pressure. Manifestly,
swift trust is very fragile, temporal, and dependent upon the initial
communication behavior of team members (Panteli & Duncan, 2004).
Human Challenges in Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

People trust people, not technology.
(Friedman, Kahn, & Howe, 2000, p. 36)
Despite the potential benefits of virtual teams, current literature suggests

that virtual teamwork is rife with complex challenges (Dubé & Robey, 2009).
For example, several empirical studies show that building trust across
distance is difficult for distributed team members with no prior relationships
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Zolin, Hinds, Fruchter,
& Levitt, 2004) and that team members are likely to base attributions about
teammates on scant evidence (Cramton, 2001).
Communication and Frequency of Interaction. The lack of face-to-face

interaction and nonverbal cues can pose big challenges to both managers
and team members. These challenges result not only from searching for new
ways to facilitate communication with remote team members, but also from
building relationships to shorten the psychological distance between team
members. The lack of proximity impersonalizes trust. Trust is pivotal to
preventing geographical distance from leading to psychological distance in
global teams (Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).
Also, the reliance on computer-mediated communication technologies
may hamper cues that transfer ‘‘trust, warmth, attentiveness, and other
interpersonal affections’’ (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 793; Henttonen &
Blomqvist, 2005).
Other barriers to trust include failure to communicate, failure to retain
contextual information, failure to provide information evenly, difficulties in
interpreting the meaning of silence, and critical behavioral incidents (that is,
unfair behavioral actions [Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005]). For example, a
member with high-trusting disposition may interpret the silence of others as
due to a technical problem and not to others’ unreliability. A member with a
negative trusting disposition may interpret the same silence to others’
intentional nonparticipation.
Moreover, there is no time to engage in the usual forms of confidence-
building activities that contribute to the development and maintenance of
trust in more traditional, enduring teams.
Inevitably, generational differences play a role in how virtual team
members behave and what they expect from a virtual team. For instance,
employees born between 1978 and 1988 are known as Generation Y. Gen
Yers are techno-savvy. For them, technology is as transparent as the air. They
usually communicate very effectively via online media. They also need

regular feedback to stay on track (Martin, 2005). Technology has shaped the
way this digital generation learns and the way they process information.
Although the technology they grew up with has become increasingly more
complex, it’s also much easier to use. They’re continually customizing how
they gather and share information (Martin, 2005). Inevitably, generational
differences and the subsequent familiarity with the use of technology adds
complexity for a leader, manager, or HR practitioner tasked with developing
and managing a virtual team.
Principles of Work Habits. Trust perception is seen as a key difference

between virtual and co-located teams.
Visibility of work activity is constantly available in co-located teams
(Powell et al., 2006). Thus, team members can more readily evaluate the
effort being exerted by their other team members. Virtual teams, however, do
not have similar information available, due to the lack of everyday interaction
(Platt, 1999), so other factors become more important in the development of
trust.
Moreover, in the virtual team environment, the quantity and quality of
knowledge sharing is influenced by the levels of trust among team members.
Asking for information from and sharing information with teammates can be
risky. Without the ability to observe the reactions of virtual teammates to
requests for information, virtual team members may fear that such requests
might be seen as indicators of incompetence (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn,
2007). Similarly, sharing unsolicited information or knowledge with virtual
teammates may be perceived as grandstanding or overloading teammates
with unwanted information. In newly formed virtual teams, the least risky
option for knowledge sharing may be ’’ask not; offer not’’ (Rosen et al., 2007).
However, this minimalist approach to communications reduces opportu-
nities for virtual team members to have useful conversations, identify
common interests, and engage in self-disclosure—all important elements
in building trust. Virtual teams risk creating destructive cycles in which
limited communication slows the development of trust, creating a major
barrier to knowledge sharing.
It is not a surprise that virtual teams are particularly vulnerable to
mistrust, communication breakdowns, conflicts, and power struggles (Ro-
sen et al., 2007).
Without sufficient trust, team members tend to expend time and energy
protecting, checking, and inspecting each other as opposed to collaborating
to provide value-added ideas (Cooper & Sawaf, 1996; Salas, Sims, & Burke,
2005).
Strategies to Overcome the Challenges of Trust Development

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

frequent communication allows team members to better understand a new
environment and evaluate their options, thereby enabling successful
adaptation to various communication technologies.
Regular communication is the best way of maintaining trust (Henttonen
& Blomqvist, 2005). Members’ frequent communication in the virtual team
provides reassurance that others are attending to the task and increases a
member’s early trust in the team and feelings of cohesiveness. In a low-trust
situation, frequent communication is necessary to provide constant con-
firmation that teammates are still there and still on task (Jarvenpaa et al.,
2004). Communication is not a distraction to the low trustor, but instead
provides important information that will lead him or her to think the team is
committed and will produce a high-quality report.
Teams that have little face-to-face interaction may develop trust differ-
ently than teams that interact frequently (Peters & Karren, 2009). Face-to-
face teams are more likely to develop trust via social and emotional
attachments, whereas virtual teams are more likely to develop trust when
there is timely information sharing and when there are appropriate and
sound responses to electronic communication (Henttonen & Blomqvist,
2005; Kirkman et al., 2000). If a team member’s response is not timely and
lacks initial quality, it may take a considerable amount of time for trust to
develop. Teams that initially exchanged social communications in addition
to task communications are able to develop trust quickly. In other words, in a
virtual context, trust is developed through task-based relationships where
responsiveness and follow-through are essential components (Henttonen &
Blomqvist, 2005; Kirkman et al., 2000). During the formation of a virtual
team, HR practitioners and team leaders may be able to minimize the
temporary depersonalization in distributed teams by encouraging team
members to share individuating information (Wilson et al., 2006). Indeed,
there is some evidence that encouraging early disclosure of personal
information (Moore, Kurtzberg, Fox, & Bazerman, 1999) or even pictures
(Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001) helps establish affect-based rapport in
computer-mediated environments.
By substituting the social bonds in the face-to-face environment for the
task relationship components in the virtual environment, trust can be
effectively established. In sum, communication behavior such as timely
response, in-depth feedback, and open communication enhance the evolu-
tion of trust (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005).
Computer-mediated communication does not limit interaction, and
computer-mediated teams can share relational information; it is just a
question of social relationships taking a longer time to develop in compu-
ter-mediated groups, where the transfer rate is slower than in face-to-face
teams (Wilson et al., 2006). Walther and Tidwell (1995) also identified cases
in which computer-mediated groups demonstrated more social discussion,
depth, and intimacy than face-to-face groups, even when there is less social
information per message in computer-mediated communication because of
the absence of nonverbal cues (Krebs et al., 2006). From this evidence, it
appears that the lack of social cues does not necessarily mean that there are

no relational elements, and identities can be built via technology-mediated
communication.
Organizational trainers, HR practitioners, and team leaders could
accelerate the development of affective trust through online team-building
activities.
As mentioned earlier, Generation Y employees present unique chal-
lenges for a virtual team leader or manager. Because they were born in an era
in which technology is part of their daily life, trust in technology and
confidence in communicating via the use of technology is a given. Trusting
others through technology is easier for them compared with the Baby
Boomer generation, who solely relied on human interactions to commu-
nicate throughout their personal and work lives. Because Gen Yers have high
expectations of technology, they can get impatient when it does not measure
up (Martin, 2005). They also have a sense of immediacy. Managers and
leaders of virtual teams can cater to Gen Yers by customizing tasks so that
they can stay focused and motivated. For them, customization is key.
Managers and leaders can also create an incentive program based on their
team performance and offer increasing responsibility within the team. They
will also need realistic estimates of how long they can expect tasks to take and
immediate, constructive feedback while congratulating them for a job well
done.
To address every virtual team member’s comfort with technology,
leaders and managers of virtual teams ought to assess the users’ level of
comfort with online communication. This may give an idea of the demo-
graphics of the virtual team members, which in turn can provide useful
information about comfort with media, possible trust development chal-
lenges, and how to best address them.
Principles of Work Habits. If individuals believe their team members’ effort

toward the team goal(s) are sufficient and predictable, then trust can emerge
within the team (McAllister, 1995; Powell, Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006; Scully &
Preuss, 1996). Based on equity theory (Adams, 1965), the individual
perceives that the team member’s activities will fulfill that member’s
commitment toward the team goals and that the relationship among all
members is equitable (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). Thus, if an individual’s
experience with other team members has been one of reciprocal effort (that
is, all members putting forth approximately equal effort), trust can develop,
since perceptions of another team member’s characteristics (for example,
adherence to a set of principles such as work habits) has been found to have a
positive relationship with trust (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998).
In addition, organizations that promote transparency in a virtual en-
vironment may be able to accelerate the development of trust among team
members. If we use our knowledge of e-commerce as an example, we can see
that it is the critical nature of transparency in web designs that promotes
consumer trust (Wang & Emurian, 2005).
Citizenship behaviors can also help with virtual team success.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined as behavior that is

not directly related to the main task activity but that is important because it
supports the organizational, social, and psychological context of work
(Borman, 2004; Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995). It is well known that
OCB has a positive influence on organizational performance (Podsakoff,
Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Typically,
citizenship behaviors are considered extra role behaviors and are not
specifically part of an individual’s tasks in a team environment. However,
performing extra role behaviors, such as helping other team members or
working longer hours to ensure a successful project, facilitate a stronger
relationship and emotional bond among the members of the team (Webber,
2008). Organizational citizenship behavior is similar to benevolence, which
has been linked to trust in organizations (Mayer et al., 1995). This type of
relationship should result in greater affective trust or trust based on care and
concern for the team and its members.
One key component in a successful virtual team is the ability of
the team members to deliver the promised work (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003).
It is generally assumed that a critical factor in the successful completion
of a project is trust in fellow team members to deliver their share of
the work on time and with sufficient quality (for example, Jarvenpaa
et al., 1998).
Managers and team members should establish behavioral norms
early in the team’s life, including responsiveness, reliability, and
consistent follow-through, to develop team trust based on task relationships
(Peters & Karren, 2009). This is especially important when cross-functional
teams are utilized remotely, because conflict resolution becomes more
complicated.
Second, a strong collective identity among team members should be
fostered by aligning goals, incentives, and situations through training, team
rewards, and so on (Polzer et al., 2006). Through the encouragement of
‘‘team’’ behavior and commitment, the impact on the ultimate goal of
performance should be positive.
Finally, virtual team leaders must create a culture in which members are
willing to and even encouraged to admit their mistakes. Acknowledgment of
novel ideas, encouragement to ask for help when necessary, and stressing the
importance of candid but constructive criticisms of member contributions
are all mechanisms for building a psychologically safe culture (Rosen et al.,
2007).
Other Strategies. Taking a different approach to understanding trust, a group

of researchers examined the impact of behaviors or actions that operate as
substitutes for trust (that is, formal mechanisms) (Sitkin & Roth, 1993;
Webber, 2008; Zucker, 1986). Research in this area has suggested that formal
mechanisms such as contracts can actually reduce trust, rather than serve to
effectively remedy trust. In fact, in some cases, such behavior/actions can
result in greater formality or rigid procedures and policies along
with increasing the distance and coldness between the individuals (Zucker,
1986).

Also, favorable team-leader action, especially letting the
employees participate in decision making, is considered a trust-building
attribute.
In sum, to build effective virtual teams, HR practitioners should make
sure that employees allow themselves to learn from each other; that they
build on each other’s work; that a safe, secure team environment is created;
and that easy collaboration is encouraged (Zakaria, Amelinckx, & Wilemon,
2004).
Best Practice Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Trust Building in

Virtual Teams
A comprehensive study by Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) found several
characteristics of high-trusting teams: getting started early, early
positive interactions, high levels of activity, communication about
communication strategies, expressions of time orientation, robust
feedback, and confrontation of slackers or other areas of conflict. This
section explains how Jarvenpaa et al.’s (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner’s
(1999) work provided the empirical basis for the contents of a set
of message templates that can be used by virtual team leaders,
members, organizational trainers, and instructors. In Jarvenpaa et al.
(1998), the interactions of 75 teams with four to six members were
consistent with other studies (Beranek, 2000; Chidambaram, 1996;
Clear & Daniels, 2001; Huff, Cooper, & Jones, 2002; Iacono & Weisband,
1997; Meyerson et al., 1996).
As an example of how Jarvenpaa et al.’s (1998) concepts can be
implemented, we outline in Table 3 the templates used in Remidez,
Stam, and Laffey’s (2007) study with the activities identified by Jarvenpaa
et al. (1998) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999). We next give descriptions
of each of the seven templates. Included in the template descriptions
are ‘‘Strategy’’ sections with statements explaining the purpose of the
template. The example statements were taken from the statements
Jarvenpaa and his colleagues (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa &
Leidner, 1999) selected as representative of communications that
promoted trust. For example, ‘‘Looking forward very much to working with
you all’’ was identified as an expression of excitement about the forthcoming
collaboration. Other examples include ‘‘Great job’’ and ‘‘I shall keep in
touch soon to congratulate us all on winning.’’ Many of the challenges in
developing trust in virtual teams are addressed in the templates. Commu-
nication and frequency of interaction, for instance, are covered in the
‘‘introduction template’’ and in the ‘‘communication issues template,’’ which
suggest expressing positive emotions throughout the team life or discussing
how members would like to communicate with each other. For some
principles of work habits, templates dealing with time management, feed-
back, and task completion are offered. Those can be particularly useful to the
virtual team leader or manager who deals with various generations of
workers who have varying working styles and levels of comfort with
technology.

TABLE 3 TEMPLATES FOR SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL TEAMS
1. Introduction Template
Introduce yourself. Members of a strong team will get to know each other a little before beginning work. A good
introduction includes: (1) information about yourself and your background, (2) your past job experiences, (3) your
current focus of study, (4) why you chose to study this subject, and (5) what are your aspirations. In addition, you
should address any skills you have that might help your team solve this problem. Also, you should raise any concerns
you have about the successful completion of the project.
Strategy: Expressing positive emotions throughout the project will help your team succeed. For example, ‘‘I am
looking forward to working with you all’’ would be a good comment to include.
The ‘‘Introduction’’ message template includes several individual prompts: ‘‘Provide a little information about
yourself and your background,’’ ‘‘How often you plan to check the system for new messages (early and often is
better),’’ ‘‘Times you will not be available to communicate during the course of this project,’’ and ‘‘Address any skills
you have that might help your team solve this problem. Also, you should raise any concerns you have about the
successful completion of the project.’’ Each of these prompts is followed by fields for users to enter their answer.
2. Getting Started Template
Begin the problem-solving process by sharing your understanding of the goals. Adopt a role that will help your team
reach its goal and begin acting the part of that role.
Strategy: It is a good practice to state positive feelings about the project or the work of team members. For example,
‘‘Well done’’ or ‘‘I like this group’’ are good comments to include. In addition, it is best to do what you can to get the
project started early and to keep it moving through regular communication with your teammates.
3. Communication Issues Template
Discuss how often you would like to communicate with your teammates and any other communication practices
you would like to see everyone use.
Strategy: Expressions of enthusiasm are always a good thing to include in your messages. For example, ‘‘I think we are
going to win,’’ or related statements help your teammates feel good about their work.
4. Time Management/Milestones Template
Suggest deadlines and milestones for completing the task (e.g., ‘‘I think we can get this done by Tuesday.’’).
5. Feedback Template
You can use this option to reply to any message that your teammates have posted. Good feedback goes beyond
simple statements such as ‘‘okay’’ and ‘‘looks good.’’ It includes thoughtful compliments, critiques, edits, and
additions.
Strategy: Expressions of social greeting and positive statements are good items to include in your feedback
statements (e.g., ‘‘Hi everyone, I think we can win this.’’).
6. Issue/Conflict Template
Use this option to address any concerns about the process being followed or the participation of others. If a team
member is not participating and you feel that is hurting the team, it is important to address it in front of the entire
team.
Strategy: It is better to address concerns in the open, even if they lead to conflict. For example, if you do not hear from
someone, it is good to address it in front of the entire team (e.g., ‘‘Where is Joe?’’).
7. Task Completion/Questions Template
If you have completed a task or have questions about something, select this option. For example, if you wish to post
individual or final team rankings of the items in the problem, this is the option you should choose. You also can take
advantage of the ability to compile your results in Microsoft Word or Excel and attach these files to messages.
Strategy: Social greetings included in messages are a good way to keep team members feeling close to each other
and to keep your team functioning well (e.g., ‘‘I like working in this team’’). In addition, expressions of enthusiasm are
always a good thing to include in your messages, and they help keep your team working well.
Source. Adapted from Remidez et al., 2007.

Conclusion and Implications for Practice
High-trusting virtual teams are those that exhibit high performance
(Ashleigh & Nandhakumar, 2007). They achieve this through displaying
consistent proactive behaviors, giving consistent and timely feedback, and
constantly negotiating with each other. Even when
members have difficulty carrying out a particular task,
Training virtual teams communicating the reasons why is considered a posi-
resulted in higher levels of tive act and reinforces trust. It seems that individual
cohesiveness, improved tolerance and experiences, social similarity, forms of
perceptions of the process, socializing, caring talk, personal conversations, story-
and satisfaction, which telling, humor, ritual, and ceremony are highlighted in
ultimately had a positive virtual teams. Shared values, keeping commitments
effect on team and promises, concern for the well-being of others,
performance. goal-setting, condensed communication, and spread-
ing critical information were also found to be critical
factors in building trust.
HR educators or managers in charge of training employees to work in
virtual teams should not assume that virtual teams develop the same way
face-to-face teams do. As highlighted in this article, the communication
differences, among others, are flagrant. Training is an essential part of
effectively creating productive teams. In fact, Beranek and Martz (2005)
found that training virtual teams resulted in higher levels of cohesiveness,
improved perceptions of the process, and satisfaction, which ultimately had a
positive effect on team performance. Research by Prichard and Ashleigh
(2007) also found that team training resulted in greater trust compared with
teams with no training.
Also, where virtual teams are used in organizations or in online courses,
HR professionals should carefully select team members. Team-level trust
can be fostered through considered selection of team members. Specifically,
HR professionals and managers should consider propensity to trust when
selecting members for high-priority teams, especially for teams working
virtually, because propensity to trust has more influence on trust in virtual
dyads than in co-located dyads (Yakovleva, Reilly, & Werko, 2010). Agree-
able team members tend to build trusting relationships, and these relation-
ships have consequences for attitudes, behavior, and team performance (for
example, Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Selecting individuals with a high propensity
to trust is likely to facilitate trusting relationships in the workplace. This
underscores the importance of considering this individual difference in
virtual team formation. One way to select members who have a high
propensity to trust consists in soliciting employees who have prior, success-
ful experience with virtual teamwork.
Also, the fact that trust explains a large percent of variance in team
commitment indicates that HR practitioners or managers should do more to
build trust relations in virtual teams. Since studies have shown that greater
commitment leads to better performance and satisfaction and lower turn-
over rates, managers of virtual teams and organizational trainers should

emphasize activities that encourage trust and introduce ways to enhance it to
keep team commitment high (Powell, Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006). HR practi-
tioners should also encourage and foster repeated social interactions in
virtual teams. This will aid in building trust in group members.
Above all, the importance of adequate support is vital. It is particularly
important for the educational setting (Curs-eu & Schruijer, 2010). Groups are
used in educational settings to create a learning environment in which
students may learn from each other and have the chance of developing
teamwork skills essential for their future careers. It is critical to ensure that
students are trained to reap the benefits of trust.
We often assume that we need to ‘‘touch and feel’’ in order to trust people
and build social relationships with them. However, this assumption may not
be valid in the future. The new generation of workers may have different
preferences and new conventions for developing relationships. At a very
young age, tomorrow’s workers may have already played online games and
formed relationships with pen pals and best friends across the world (Dubé &
Robey, 2009). The combination of new ways of establishing relationships,
developing trust, and communicating along with communication technol-
ogy innovations may eventually lead them to base their working relationships
on new grounds. HR professionals and managers ought to prepare them-
selves and organizational members for this unremitting change.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental psychology (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ahuja, M., & Carley, K. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization
Science, 10(6), 741–757.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ashforth, B., & Lee, R. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model.
Human Relations, 43, 621–648.
Ashleigh, M. J., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Trust and technologies: Implications for
organizational work practices. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 607–617.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.018
Atwater, L. E. (1988). The relative importance of situational and individual variables in
predicting leader behavior: The surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group &
Organization Studies, 13, 290–310.
Aubert, B., & Kelsey, B. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual
teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. doi:10.1177/1046496403256011
Bandow, D. (2001). Time to create sound teamwork. Journal for Quality and Participation,
24(2), 41.
Beranek, P. M. (2000). The impacts of relational and trust development training on virtual
teams: An exploratory investigation. Proceedings of 33rd Hawai’i International
Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
Beranek, P. M., & Martz, B. (2005). Making virtual teams more effective: Improving relational
links. Team Performance Management, 11, 5–6.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., de Jong, B., & van de Bunt, G. (2008). Heed, a missing link between
trust, monitoring, and performance in knowledge intensive teams. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 19–40. doi:10.1080/09585190701763800
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture and
gender. Education Administration Quarterly, 28, 314–329.
Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13, 238–241.
Cascio, W. F. (1999). Costing human resources (4th ed.). Dallas, TX: Southwestern College
Publishing.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,
14(3), 81–90.
Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational
Dynamics, 31, 362–376.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS
Quarterly, 20(2), 143–163.
Clear, T., & Daniels, M. (2001). A cyber-icebreaker for an effective virtual group? ACM
Conference on Innovations and Technology in Computer Science Education,
Canterbury, UK.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commit-
ment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53,
39–52.
Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1996). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group.
Coppola, N., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.
Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605–622.
doi:10.1108/00483480310488360
Costa, A. C., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007). Trust and control interrelations: New
perspectives on the trust-control nexus. Group & Organization Management, 32(4),
392–406.
Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with
performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 10(30), 225–244.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Develop-
ment and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers
of theory and research (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary
constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53, 1575–1591.
Currall, S., & Judge, T. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary
role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64,
151–170.
Curs-eu, P., & Schruijer, S. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict?
Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79. doi:10.1037/a0017104
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated
framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.
David, P. L., & McDaniel, R. R. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on
virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183–227.
Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing
the corporation for the 21st century. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in
organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research,
30, 678–711.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.
Dirks K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12(4), 450–467. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
611–628.
Dore, R. (1983). Goodwill and the spirit of market capitalism. British Journal of Sociology, 34,
459–482.
Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as
predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44–56.
D’Souza, G. C., & Colarelli, S. M. (2010). Team member selection decisions for virtual versus
face-to-face teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 630–635. doi:10.1016
/j.chb.2009.12.016
Dubé, L., & Robey, D. (2009). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information
Systems Journal, 19, 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2575.2008.00313.x
Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. The Academy of
Management Review, 23, 547–566.
Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust,
monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group
Organization Management, 32(4), 465–499. doi: 10.1177/1059601106293960
Frank, R. (1993). The strategic role of emotions: Reconciling over- and undersocialized
accounts of behaviors. Rationality and Society, 5, 160–184.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM,
43(12), 34–40.
Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual
teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20.
Galvin, J. E., McKnight, D. H., & Ahuja, M. K. (2001). Innocent until proven guilty: A study of
antecedents to project team members’ trust and cooperation. In Trust in an
Organizational Context, Organization Science—SDA Bocconi conference proceedings,
Moltrasio, Como, Italy, III (pp. 2–34).
Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Gerber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32(4), 36–41.
Gibb, J. R. (1964). Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. Benne (Eds.),
T-group theory and laboratory method (pp. 279–308). New York: Wiley.
Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. (2003). Building trust: Effective multi-cultural communication
processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that
work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group
processes. In G. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131–185). London,
UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training (October), 59–65.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embedded-
ness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Greif, A. (1989). Reputation and coalition in medieval trade: Evidence on the Maghribi
traders. Journal of Economic History, 49, 857–882.
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40–50.
Hart, P., & Saunders, C. (1997). Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of
electronic data interchange. Organization Science, 8(1), 23–42.
Haywood, M. (1998). Managing virtual teams: Practical techniques for high-technology
managers. Boston, MA: Artech House.
Henry, J. E., & Hartzler, M. (1997). Virtual teams: Today’s reality, today’s challenge. Quality
Progress, 30(5), 108–109.
Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The
evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strate-
gic Change, 14(2), 107–119. doi:10.1002/jsc.714
Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in
student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24–35.

Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information
management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10, 25–57.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents
of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14,
29–64.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10(6), 791–851. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust:
The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267.
doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0028
Jeffries, F. L., & Reed, R. (2000). Trust and adaptation in relational contracting. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 873–882.
Jones, R., & George, J. (1998). The evolution of trust and cooperation: Implication for
teamwork and tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 531–546.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.
Kasper-Fuehrer, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and
building trust in inter-organizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management,
27, 235–254.
Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., & Cordery, J. L. (2003). Trust, individualism, and job characteristics as
predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14, 93–116.
Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams?
Examining the ‘‘resistance barrier’’ to work team effectiveness. The International
Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 74–92.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluck, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancing the transfer of
computer assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 706–716.
Klimoski, R. J., & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 630–633.
Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D., & Sapienza, H. (1995). Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy
of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.
Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crisis: An
experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123–140.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Krebs, S., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual teams and group member dissimilarity:
Consequences for the development of trust. Small Group Research, 37(6), 721–741.
doi:10.1177/1046496406294886
Kuo, F., & Yu, C. (2009). An exploratory study of trust dynamics in work-oriented virtual
teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 823–854. doi:10.1111
/j.1083–6101.2009.01472.x
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization.
San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development
and decline. In B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: A
tribute volume to Morton Deutsch (pp. 133–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relation-
ships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis, J., & Wiegert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organiza-
tions with technology. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with
technology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. What managers need to
know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39–44.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and
where do we go from here. Journal of Management, 30, 805. doi:10.1016
/j.jm.2004.05.002
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M., (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M.
Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.
166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Fox, C. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Positive illusions and
forecasting errors in mutual fund investment decisions. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 95–114.
Nandhakumar, J., & Baskerville, R. (2006). Durability of online teamworking: Patterns of trust.
Information Technology & People, 19(4), 371–389. doi:10.1108/09593840610718045
Naquin, C., & Kurtzberg, T. (2009). Team negotiation and perceptions of trustworthiness:
The whole versus the sum of the parts. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 13(2), 133–150. doi:10.1037/a0013879
Nelson, K., & Cooprider, J. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group
performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–429.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In N.
Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 288–308). Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture and
time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. (1991). A ‘cognitive miser’ theory of cooperators’ advantage.
American Political Science Review, 85, 515–528.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4),
775–802.
Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust and temporary virtual teams: Alternative explana-
tions and dramaturgical relationships. Information Technology & People, 17(4),
423–441. doi:10.1108/09593840410570276
Paul, D. L., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on
virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183–227.
Peters, L., & Karren, R. J. (2009). An examination of the roles of trust and functional diversity
on virtual team performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34(4),
479–504. doi: 10.1177/1059601107312170
Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual
teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365–395.
Platt, L. (1999). Virtual teaming: Where is everyone? The Journal for Quality and Participa-
tion, 22(5), 41–43.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales
unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to
geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.
Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on
project team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4),
361–376. doi: 10.1108/eb022787
Powell, A., Galvin, J., & Piccoli, G. (2006). Antecedents to team member commitment from
near and far: A comparison between collocated and virtual teams. Information
Technology & People, 19(4), 299–322. doi:10.1108/09593840610718018
Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive
memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6), 696–726.
Rasters, G. (2001). Trust at text value: Dividing 1 million euro and how it influenced
trust between members in a virtual research team. Paper presented at the
EIASM Workshop. Trust Within and Between Organisation. Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam (NL).
Reina, D., & Reina, M. (1999). Trust and betrayal in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Remidez, H., Stam, A., & Laffey, J. M. (2007). Web-based template-driven communication
support systems: Using shadow networkspace to support trust development in
virtual teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3, 65–83.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between
organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.
Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing
in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn
.2007.04.007
Rotter, J. (1980, October). Trust and gullibility. Psychology Today, 14(5), 35–42, 102.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘‘big five’’ in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36(5), 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134
Saunders, C. S. (2000). Virtual teams: Piecing together the puzzle. In R.W. Zmud (Ed.),
Framing the domain of IT management: Projecting the future through the past.
Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex.
Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality
of teams. Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 267–295. doi:10.1111/j.1365
–2575.2009.00326.x
Scully, M., & Preuss, G. (1996). Two faces of trust: The roles of calculative and relational trust in
work transformation (Working paper No. 3923–96). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. (1992). Role of individuals’ attachments in
the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management
Journal, 35(1), 122–161.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art of practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday Currency.
Sengun, A. E., & Wasti, S. N. (2007). Trust, control, and risk: A test of Das and Teng’s
conceptual framework. Group and Organization Management, 32(4), 430–464.
Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal
study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 625–648.
doi:10.1002/job.331
Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of
Management, 30(5), 725–743. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.002

Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘remedies’
for trust/distrust. Organizational Science, 4, 367–392.
Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your
company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.
Snyder, B. (2003, May). Teams that span time zones face new work rules. Stanford Business
Magazine. Retrieved from www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0305/feature_-
virtual_teams.shtml
Solomon, C. M. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 80(6), 60–65.
Staples, D. S. (1999, August). A comparison of the impact of employee–manager trust on
employees in a remote-management and local-management environment. Pre-
sented as part of the symposium Journeys into Virtual Worlds: Trust in Distributed
Teams. Academy of Management Conference, Chicago.
Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200–215.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural
predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication
Monographs, 73(1), 108–136.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1996). Are you ready for virtual
teams? HR Magazine, 41, 122–126.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology
and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3),
17–29.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). On the evolution of trust,
distrust, and formal coordination and control in inter-organizational relationships:
Towards an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32(4),
407–428.
Wageman, R. (1999). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices
vs. hands-on coaching. Unpublished manuscript. Graduate School of Business,
Columbia University.
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., & Tidwell, L. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words?
Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated commu-
nication. Communication Research, 28, 105–134.
Walther, J. B., & Tidwell, L. C. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communica-
tion, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organiza-
tional Computing, 5(4), 355–378.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé internal
locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
95(2), 358–367. doi:10.1037/a0017663
Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and
implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105–125.
Webber, S. S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success.
Journal of Management Development, 21, 201–214.
Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams. Small Group
Research, 39(6), 746–769. doi: 10.1177/1046496408323569
Webster, J., & Wong, W.K.P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms:
Identity, communication, and trust in naturally occurring project teams. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 41–62. doi:10.1080
/09585190701763883
Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet? Group &
Organization Management, 32(4), 500–517.
Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in
computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99, 16–33. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.001
Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to
dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 79–91. doi:10.1037/a0017102

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,
9(2), 141–159.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart? Building a
knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity & Innovation Manage-
ment, 13, 15–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2004.00290.x
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17(2), 229–239.
Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-
functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Information and
Organization, 14(1), 1–24.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-
1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8
(pp. 53–111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B., & Peng, Y. (1996). Collaboration structures and
information dilemmas in biotechnology: Organization boundaries as trust produc-
tion. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
research (pp. 90–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MARIE-LINE GERMAIN
Marie-Line Germain, PhD, is an assistant professor of human resources
and leadership at Western Carolina University (a University of North
Carolina campus). Her PhD concentration area is in human resource
development. She has been the recipient of the Malcolm S. Knowles
Dissertation of the Year award from the Academy of Human Resource
Development (AHRD), a Cutting Edge Research Award, and a research grant
funded by AHRD. She is the author of numerous conference papers and book
chapters, and her research has been published in several peer-reviewed
journals. She has received four teaching awards and several best reviewer
awards. Her current research interest focuses on human expertise and
leadership. Mailing address: Department of Human Services, Western
Carolina University (University of North Carolina), One University Drive,
Killian Building, Office 226C, Cullowhee, NC 28723.
E-mail: mgermain@wcu.edu

Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Marie-Line Germain, PhD

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY, 24(3) PP. 29–54

Review of the Literature

Defining Virtual Teams

Trust in Virtual Teams

30 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Advantages of Virtual Team Trust on Organizational Variables. Kirkman,

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

32 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

and an increased level of interdependence (Wageman, 1999), where team

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 33

Deﬁning Trust in Virtual Teams. Trust is deﬁned as a group member’s

34 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

1996 Cummings & A belief (held by an individual or a group) Good-faith efforts

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 35

(Blau, 1964), people will support a social exchange partner in proportion to

36 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Dimensions of Trust. There are two forms of interpersonal trust: cognition-

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 37

Swift Trust. Many studies on virtual teamwork draw on swift trust to

38 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Human Challenges in Developing Trust in Virtual Teams

Despite the potential beneﬁts of virtual teams, current literature suggests

Communication and Frequency of Interaction. The lack of face-to-face

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 39

Principles of Work Habits. Trust perception is seen as a key difference

Strategies to Overcome the Challenges of Trust Development

40 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 41

Principles of Work Habits. If individuals believe their team members’ effort

42 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Other Strategies. Taking a different approach to understanding trust, a group

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 43

Best Practice Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Trust Building in

44 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

2. Getting Started Template

3. Communication Issues Template

4. Time Management/Milestones Template

7. Task Completion/Questions Template

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 45

46 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 47

48 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 49

50 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 51

52 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 / 2011 DOI: 10.1002/piq 53

54 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

You might also like