The Moderating Effects of Virtuality on the Antecedents and Outcome of NPD Team Trust

The fundamental dynamics of virtual and traditional face-to-face teams may be very different. The purpose of this study is to empirically examine and assess the moderating effects of virtuality on the antecedents and outcome of trust, where virtuality is measured along a continuum from face to face (no virtuality) to fully virtual rather than the more common approach of dichotomizing teams into two groups (i.e., face to face and virtual). The sample includes 116 different new product development teams from a variety of industries. The antecedents of trust that are studied are familiarity, goal clarity, training, relationship conflict, and process conflict. The outcome of trust is analyzed by determining how the impact of trust on cooperation changes as the level of virtuality changes. Primary findings are as follows: (1) Relationship conflict can be more detrimental to virtual teams than face-to-face teams because it is very difficult for team members of virtual teams to resolve their interpersonal disputes; (2) goal clarity is more important for face-to-face teams and less important for virtual teams in creating trust among team members; and (3) the impact of trust on cooperation is less for virtual teams than face-to-face teams. The primary implication for researchers and practice of these findings is that the role and importance of trust in virtual teams needs to be reevaluated. Managers using virtual teams need to realize that interpersonal relationships in virtual teams do not evolve in the same manner as face-to-face teams and may require different management techniques to be successful.

[1]  Flowing Past Organizational Walls , 1993 .

[2]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Michael Song,et al.  The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New Product Development , 2001 .

[4]  B. Aubert,et al.  Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams , 2003 .

[5]  Paul L. Schindler,et al.  The Structure of Interpersonal Trust in the Workplace , 1993 .

[6]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[7]  Lucy Gilson,et al.  Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? , 2004 .

[8]  Michelle LaBrosse,et al.  Managing virtual teams , 2008 .

[9]  M. Audrey Korsgaard,et al.  The Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Investigation of Newly Formed Work Groups , 2002 .

[10]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  C. Dreu,et al.  OPTIMIZING PERFORMANCE BY CONFLICT STIMULATION , 1994 .

[12]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications , 1998 .

[13]  Robert A. Baron,et al.  Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective , 1991 .

[14]  Andrew D. Pressey,et al.  Lighting up the “dark side” of international export/import relationships , 2004 .

[15]  Gareth R. Jones,et al.  The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork , 1998 .

[16]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[17]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[18]  T. Ambler,et al.  The Dark Side of Long-Term Relationships in Marketing Services , 1999 .

[19]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory , 1999 .

[20]  D. Ferrin,et al.  The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings , 2001 .

[21]  Ali Dastmalchian,et al.  Implications of trust and distrust for organizations: Role of customer orientation in a four‐nation study , 2006 .

[22]  Robert Lewis.  Membership and Management of a ‘Virtual’ Team: The Perspectives of a Research Manager , 1998 .

[23]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[24]  Christopher J. Hemingway,et al.  Making organisations virtual: the hidden cost of distributed teams , 2004, J. Inf. Technol..

[25]  GefenDavid,et al.  Trust and TAM in online shopping , 2003 .

[26]  Michele Williams.  In Whom we Trust: Group Membership as an Affective Context for Trust Development , 2001 .

[27]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[28]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[29]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[30]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[31]  Jonathan A. Rhoades,et al.  Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups , 1995, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[32]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[33]  Patrick J. Sweeney,et al.  Support and Commitment Factors of Project Teams , 1999 .

[34]  Hollenbeck,et al.  Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[35]  Gretchen M. Spreitzer,et al.  Transnational teams in the electronic age: are team identity and high performance at risk? , 2002 .

[36]  A. Chakrabarti,et al.  Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 1996 .

[37]  Walt Stevenson,et al.  Differences between on‐site and off‐site teams: manager perceptions , 2004 .

[38]  H. P. Sims,et al.  A Typology for Integrating Technology, Organization, and Job Design , 1980 .

[39]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[40]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust , 1993 .

[41]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. , 1995 .

[42]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  CONFLICT AND SHARED IDENTITY IN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED TEAMS , 2001 .

[43]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[44]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability and complexity of thought. , 1983 .

[45]  R. Lewicki,et al.  Trust And Distrust: New Relationships and Realities , 1998 .

[46]  Daniel J. McAllister.  Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations , 1995 .

[47]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  Managing a virtual workplace , 2000 .

[48]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[49]  C. Handy.  Trust and the virtual organization , 1999 .

[50]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[51]  E. McDonough,et al.  An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams , 2001 .

[52]  J. A. Wall,et al.  Conflict and Its Management , 1995 .

[53]  D. Sandy Staples,et al.  Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[54]  Anne Powell,et al.  Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness , 2004, Inf. Technol. People.

[55]  K. Jehn.  A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in , 1997 .

[56]  V. Herzog,et al.  2000 International Student Paper Award Winner: Trust Building on Corporate Collaborative Project Teams , 2001 .

[57]  K. Jehn.  A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict , 1995 .

[58]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? , 1996 .

[59]  Ned Kock,et al.  Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective , 2004 .

[60]  Charles Pavitt,et al.  THE “COMPETENT COMMUNICATOR” AS A COGNITIVE PROTOTYPE , 1985 .

[61]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model , 2003, MIS Q..

[62]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Building trust in virtual teams , 2004 .

[63]  Scott Gallagher,et al.  Explaining Alliance Partner Selection: Fit, Trust and Strategic Expediency , 2007 .

[64]  L GriffithTerri,et al.  Virtualness and knowledge in teams , 2003 .

[65]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology , 2003, MIS Q..

[66]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[67]  Timothy Shea,et al.  The Effect of Virtual Team Membership on Attitudes towards Technology Usage: A Study of Student Attitudes in the United States , 2005 .