Cooperation, Coordination, and Trust in Virtual Teams: Insights from Virtual Games

  • M. Audrey Korsgaard
  • Arnold Picot
  • Rolf T. Wigand
  • Isabelle M. Welpe
  • Jakob J. Assmann
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This chapter considers fundamental concepts of effective virtual teams, illustrated by research on Travian, a massively multiplayer online strategy game wherein players seek to build empires. Team inputs are the resources that enable individuals to work interdependently toward a common goal, including individual and collective capabilities, shared knowledge structures, and leadership style. Team processes, notably coordination and cooperation, transform team inputs to desired collective outcomes. Because the members of virtual teams are geographically dispersed, relying on information and communication technology, three theories are especially relevant for understanding how they can function effectively: social presence theory, media richness theory, and media synchronicity theory. Research in settings like Travian can inform our understanding of structures, processes, and performance of virtual teams. Such research could provide valuable insight into the emergence and persistence of trust and cooperation, as well as the impact of different communication media for coordination and information management in virtual organizations.


Team Member Social Presence Online Game Virtual Team Team Effectiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Assmann, J., Gallenkamp, J., Korsgaard, M. A., Picot, A., & Welpe, I. (2009). Trust in virtual entrepreneurs. Paper presented at 28th Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC), Babson College, Wellesley, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Assmann, J., Korsgaard, M. A., & Welpe, I. (2008). Antecedents of trustworthiness in a virtual team environment. Presentation at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317, 472-476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltes, B., Dickson, M., Sherman, M., Bauer, C., & Laganke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296-316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn, R., Furst, S. A., & Rosen, B. (2003). Building a winning virtual team: KSA’s, selections, training, and evaluation. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95-120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Buchan, N., Johnson, E., & Croson, R. (2006). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 373-398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castronova, E., & Falk, M. (2009). Virtual worlds: Petri dishes, rat mazes, supercolliders. Games and Culture, 4, 396-407. Google Scholar
  10. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information support systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deluca, D. C., Gasson, S., & Kock, N. (2006). Adaptations that virtual teams make so that complex tasks can be performed using simple e-collaboration technologies. International Journal of E-Collaboration. 23, 64-85.Google Scholar
  13. Deluca, D. C., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Situational synchronicity or decision support. In F. Adam & P. Humphreys (Eds.), Encyclopedia of decision making and decision support technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 790-797). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how Massively Multiple Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 253-273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duarte, D. L., & Synder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Gist, M., Locke, E., & Taylor, S. (1987). Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness.Journal of Management. 13, 237-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hossain, L., & Wigand, R. T. (2003). Understanding virtual collaboration through structuration. In F. McGrath & D. Remenyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on knowledge management(pp. 475-484). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  21. Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31, 783-808.Google Scholar
  24. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Wei, K.-K. (2007). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 237-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management. 31, 700-718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., Gibson, C. B., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre. Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67-79.Google Scholar
  27. Klapwijk, A., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2009). Promoting cooperation and trust in “Noisy” situations: The power of generosity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 83-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. Y. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 98, 216-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, A. S. (1994). Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 143-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. LePine, J., Piccolo, R., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J., & Saul, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lester, S., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 103, 159-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: Wiley, 261.Google Scholar
  35. Lo, S.-K., Wang, C.-C., & Fang, W. (2005). Physical interpersonal relationships and social anxiety among online game players. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8, 15-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18, 147-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marks, M., Zaccaro, S., & Mathieu, J. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971-986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martins, L., Gilson, L., & Maynard, T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.Google Scholar
  40. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Communications of the ACM, 409, 30-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Leary, M., & Cummings, J. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452.Google Scholar
  43. Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 27, 365-395.Google Scholar
  44. Picot, A., Assmann, J., Korsgaard, A., Welpe, I., Gallenkamp, J., & Wigand, R. (2009). A multi-level view of the antecedents and consequences of trust in virtual leaders. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Picot, A., Reichwald, R., & Wigand, R. (2008). Information, organization and management. Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raghuram, S., Gamd, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27, 383-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reeves, B., Malone, T., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review, 5, 58-66.Google Scholar
  48. Rockmann, K., & Northcraft, G. (2008). To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 106-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 389-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tangirala, S., & Alge, B. (2006). Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 100, 1-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Te’eni, D., Sagie, A., Schwartz, D., Zaidman, N., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2001). The process of organizational communication: A model and field study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 5-20.Google Scholar
  53. Welbourne, T., & Ferrante, C. (2008). To monitor or not to monitor. Group & Organization Management, 33, 139-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhangm, Y., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree house to barracks: The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture, 1, 338-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 993-1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yee, N. (2006). The labor of fun: How video games blur the boundaries of work and play. Games and Culture, 1, 68-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang, Z.-X., Hempel, P., Han, Y.-L., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722-1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Audrey Korsgaard
    • 1
  • Arnold Picot
    • 2
  • Rolf T. Wigand
    • 2
  • Isabelle M. Welpe
    • 1
  • Jakob J. Assmann
    • 2
  1. 1.University of South CarolinaCarolinaUSA
  2. 2.Munich School of Management at the Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations