Skip to main content
Log in

Trust Evolvement in Hybrid Team Collaboration: A Longitudinal Case Study

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boss RW (1978) Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group Organ Stud 3(3):331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler JK, Cantrell RS (1984) A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superior and subordinates. Psychol Rep 55(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascio WF (2000) Managing a virtual workplace. Acad Manag Exec 14(3):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee M, Eloff JHP (2005) Autonomous trust for web services. J Internet Res 15(5):498–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafoulas G, Macaulay LA (2002) Investigating cultural differences in virtual software teams. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Count 7(4):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection and manager performance. MIS Q 11(3):335–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2(4):265–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairholm MR, Fairholm G (2000) Leadership amid the constraints of trust. Leadersh Organ Dev J 21(2): 102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Kahn P, Howe D (2000) Trust online. Commun ACM 43(12):34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 7(4):1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg PS, Greenberg RH, Antonucci YL (2007) Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Bus Horiz 50(4):325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer LT (1995) Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):379–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy WK, Tschannen-Moran M (1999) Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. J Sch Leadersh 9(3):184–208

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kee HW, Knox RE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 14(3):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb DG, Collins PD, Lind EA (2008) Requisite connectivity: finding flow in a not-so-flat world. Organ Dyn 37(2):181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Brazier FM (2013) Cognitive load in collaboration: convergence. Group Decis Negot 22(5):975–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis JD, Weigert AJ (1985) Trust as a social reality. Soc Forces 63(4):967–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1988) Wie ist bewußtsein an kommunikation beteiligt. Materialität der Kommunikation, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan T, Brizland R, Macaulay L (2007) Individual trust and development of online business communities. Inf Technol People 20(1):53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid LC (2008) Faculty trust and its impact on voluntary teacher turnover intentions. College of William and Mary, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose J, Schlichter BR (2013) Decoupling, re-engaging: managing trust relationships in implementation projects. Inf Syst J 23(1):5–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C, Varian HR (1998) Information rules—a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub D, Boudreau MC, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(24):380–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan YH, Thoen W (2003) Electronic contract drafting based on risk and trust assessment. Int J Electron Commer 7(4):55–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy WK (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. J Educ Res 70(4):547–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran M (2004) Trustworthy leadership: the heart of productive schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh G, Kazuo I, Nonaka I (2000) Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YD, Emurian HH (2005) An overview of online trust: concepts, elements and implications. Comput Hum Behav 21(1):105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber R (2002) Editor’s comments. MIS Q 26(1):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1993) Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J Law Econ 36(1):453–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xusen Cheng.

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

\(0.64^{\mathrm{ns}}\)

\(0.57^{\mathrm{ns}}\)

\(1.07^{\mathrm{ns}}\)

  1. \(^{**}\,\hbox {Sig.}<0.01;\,^{*}\,\hbox {Sig}.<0.05;\,^{\mathrm{ns}}\,\hbox {Sig}.>0.05\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9442-x

Keywords

Navigation