Abstract
Trust is referred to as a key facilitator in team collaboration as it is an important condition for information sharing. In this paper, we investigate factors associated with the establishment of trust in hybrid teams that collaborate virtually as well as face-to-face. Furthermore, we deliver an instrument to understand trust development in teams. We describe exploratory results of the instrument by running experiments with teams of collaborating students in China and Netherlands. Quantitative and qualitative analysis has been used to analyze these data. Finally, in the analysis of the experiments we describe initial patterns of trust development in groups from both individual and group perspectives, in two different cultural contexts.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdul-Rahman A, Hailes S (2000) Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: Proceedings of the 33th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Hawaii, USA. IEEE Press, pp 4–7
Azadegan A, Kolfschoten GL (2014) An assessment framework for practicing facilitator. Group Decis Negotiat 23(5):1013–1045
Beise CM, Niederman F, Mattord H (2004) IT project managers’ perceptions and use of virtual team technologies. Inf Resour Manag J 17(4):73–88
Bente G, Rüggenberg S, Krämer NC (2004) Social presence and interpersonal trust in avatar-based, collaborative net-communications. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual international workshop on presence. Valencia, Spain, pp 54–61
Bøjrn P, Ngwenyama O (2009) Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Inf Syst J 19(3):227–253
Boss RW (1978) Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group Organ Stud 3(3):331–342
Briggs RO, Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede GJ, Dean DL (2006) Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th Americas conference on information systems AIS Electronic Library. Acapulco, Mexico, pp 121–128
Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ (2001) ThinkLets, building blocks for concerted collaboration. Delft University of Technology, Delft
Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ, Nunamaker JF (2003) Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):31–63
Butler JK, Cantrell RS (1984) A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superior and subordinates. Psychol Rep 55(1):19–28
Cascio WF (2000) Managing a virtual workplace. Acad Manag Exec 14(3):81–90
Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (1998) Principles of trust for multi-agent systems: cognitive anatomy, social importance and quantification. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on multi-agent systems. France, Paris, pp 72–79
Cheng X, Macaulay L, Zarifis A (2013a) Modeling individual trust in computer mediated teams: a comparison of approaches. Comput Hum Behav 29(4):1733–1741
Cheng X, Macaulay L (2014) Exploring individual trust factors in computer mediated group collaboration: a case study approach. Group Decis Negot 23(3):533–560
Cheng X, Nolan T, Macaulay L (2013b) Don’t give up the community—a viewpoint of trust development in online collaboration. Inf Technol People 26(3):298–318
Coetzee M, Eloff JHP (2005) Autonomous trust for web services. J Internet Res 15(5):498–507
Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Cummings LL, Bromily P (1996) The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and validation. In: Kramer R, Tyler T (eds) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 302–330
Dafoulas G, Macaulay LA (2002) Investigating cultural differences in virtual software teams. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Count 7(4):1–14
Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection and manager performance. MIS Q 11(3):335–368
Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2(4):265–279
Dimitrako T (2003) A service-oriented trust management framework. In: Trust reputation, and security: theories and practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–72
Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society, 2nd edn. W.W. Norton, New York, NY
Fairholm MR, Fairholm G (2000) Leadership amid the constraints of trust. Leadersh Organ Dev J 21(2): 102–109
Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2005) Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organ Sci 16(1):19–32
Friedman B, Kahn P, Howe D (2000) Trust online. Commun ACM 43(12):34–40
Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 7(4):1–70
Greenberg PS, Greenberg RH, Antonucci YL (2007) Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Bus Horiz 50(4):325–333
Griffith T, Sawyer J, Neale M (2003) Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Q 27(2):265–287
Hosmer LT (1995) Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):379–403
Hoy WK, Tschannen-Moran M (1999) Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. J Sch Leadersh 9(3):184–208
Hoy WK, Tschannen-Moran M (2003) The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools. In: Studies in leading and organising schools. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT
Jarvenpaa SL, Knoll K, Leidner DE (1998) Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst 14(4):29–64
Kee HW, Knox RE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 14(3):357–366
Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB (2004) The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad Manag J 47(2):175–192
Kolb DG, Collins PD, Lind EA (2008) Requisite connectivity: finding flow in a not-so-flat world. Organ Dyn 37(2):181–189
Kolfschoten GL, Brazier FM (2013) Cognitive load in collaboration: convergence. Group Decis Negot 22(5):975–996
Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Jacobs PH, Appelman JH (2006) A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(7):611–621
Kramer RM (1996) Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In: Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB (1996) Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 114–139
Lewis JD, Weigert AJ (1985) Trust as a social reality. Soc Forces 63(4):967–985
Luhmann N (1988) Wie ist bewußtsein an kommunikation beteiligt. Materialität der Kommunikation, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734
McKnight DH, Chervany NL (1996) The meanings of trust. Technical Report MISRC 96-04, Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, MN
Mishra AK (1996) Organization responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. In: Kramer R, Tyler T (eds) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 261–287
Nolan T, Brizland R, Macaulay L (2007) Individual trust and development of online business communities. Inf Technol People 20(1):53–71
Pinjani P, Palvia P (2013) Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inf Manag 50(4):144–153
Powell A, Galvin J, Piccoli G (2006) Antecedents to team member commitment from near and far: a comparison between collocated and virtual teams. Inf Technol People 19(4):299–322
Reid LC (2008) Faculty trust and its impact on voluntary teacher turnover intentions. College of William and Mary, Ann Arbor
Rose J, Schlichter BR (2013) Decoupling, re-engaging: managing trust relationships in implementation projects. Inf Syst J 23(1):5–33
Rotter JB (1967) A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J Personal Soc Psychol 35(4):651–665
Rotter JB (1980) Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am Psychol 35(1):1–7
Rousseau DM, Sitkin SM, Burr RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):393–404
Sarker S, Ahuja M, Sarker S, Kirkeby S (2011) The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 28(1):273–310
Shapiro C, Varian HR (1998) Information rules—a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Sharkie R (2005) Precariousness under the new psychological contract: the effect on trust and the willingness to converse and share knowledge. Knowl Manag Res Pract 3(1):37–44
Straub D, Boudreau MC, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(24):380–427
Tan YH, Thoen W (2003) Electronic contract drafting based on risk and trust assessment. Int J Electron Commer 7(4):55–71
Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy WK (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. J Educ Res 70(4):547–593
Tschannen-Moran M (2004) Trustworthy leadership: the heart of productive schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Von Krogh G, Kazuo I, Nonaka I (2000) Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Wang YD, Emurian HH (2005) An overview of online trust: concepts, elements and implications. Comput Hum Behav 21(1):105–125
Webber R (2002) Editor’s comments. MIS Q 26(1):3–8
Williamson OE (1993) Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J Law Econ 36(1):453–486
Wilson JM, Straus SG, McEvily B (2006) All in due time: the development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 99(1):16–33
Yusof SAM, Zakaria N (2012) Exploring the state of discipline on the formation of swift trust within global virtual teams. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Maui, Hawaii. IEEE Press, pp 475–482
Acknowledgments
This research thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71101029), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in UIBE (13YQ08, CXTD6-03) and UIBE (XK2014203) who have provided funding for part of this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Survey Questions
Please rank each item on a scale of 1–5; 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neutral, and 5 is strongly agree.
1 a) I didn’t let my group down this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1 b) My group could rely on me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1 c) My group could depend on me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 a) My group didn’t let me down this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 b) I could rely on my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 c) I could depend on my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3 a) I’m confident about my performance this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3 b) I’m sure I did what was expected of me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3 c) I know I performed well this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 a) I’m confident about the group’s performance this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 b) I’m sure the group did what was needed this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 c) I know the group performed well this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 a) I had good intentions for my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 b) I wanted the best for my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 c) I wanted my group to succeed this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6 a) The group had good intentions for me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6 b) The group wanted the best for me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6 c) The group wanted me to succeed this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7 a) I did what I promised to do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7 b) I did what I said I would do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7 c) I fulfilled all tasks as we agreed this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8 a) The group did what we promised to do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8 b) The group did what we said they would do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8 c) The group fulfilled all task we agreed to do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9 a) I was competent to perform my task this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9 b) I could do what I was supposed to do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9 c) I was well able to fulfill my tasks this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
10 a) The group was competent to perform our task this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
10 b) The group could do what we were supposed to do this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
10 c) The group was well able to fulfill our tasks this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
11 a) I was honest with my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
11 b) I handled with integrity towards my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
11 c) I was truthful with my group this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12 a) The group was honest with me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12 b) The group handled with integrity towards me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12 c) The group was truthful to me this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13 a) I was open to my group about my progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13 b) I kept my group fully informed about my progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13 c) I told the group everything about my progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
14 a) The group was open to me about the progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
14 b) The group kept me fully informed about our progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
14 c) The group told me everything about our progress this week | ||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Overall I think we have established less/more trust in our team this week:
Please explain why the trust in the team changed.
Appendix 2: Results of ANOVA Analyses
Factors | Significance (F test) | ||
---|---|---|---|
In total | Over time | Individual versus group | |
Results of ANOVA (Chinese sample) | |||
Risk | \(2.56^{**}\) | \(2.43^{*}\) | \(3.53^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Confidence | \(2.38^{*}\) | \(2.02^{*}\) | \(3.64^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Benevolence | \(3.04^{**}\) | \(2.60^{**}\) | \(6.57^{*}\) |
Competence | \(0.73^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(0.36^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(3.67^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Honesty | \(1.03^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(0.77^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(3.17^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Openness | \(1.96^{*}\) | \(2.08^{*}\) | \(0.92^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Results of ANOVA (The Netherland’s sample) | |||
Risk | \(2.36^{*}\) | \(2.66^{*}\) | \(0.55^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Confidence | \(2.57^{*}\) | \(2.95^{**}\) | \(0.25^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Benevolence | \(1.99^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(1.93^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(2.37^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Competence | \(2.07^{*}\) | \(2.33^{*}\) | \(0.46^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Honesty | \(3.20^{**}\) | \(3.38^{**}\) | \(2.09^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Openness | \(0.64^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(0.57^{\mathrm{ns}}\) | \(1.07^{\mathrm{ns}}\) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, X., Yin, G., Azadegan, A. et al. Trust Evolvement in Hybrid Team Collaboration: A Longitudinal Case Study. Group Decis Negot 25, 267–288 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9442-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9442-x