Stage 2 - Trust Building
Who are You?
During the orientation phase and throughout the entire team engagement, trust building is an essential component to effectively accomplishing the team’s mission. Mutual trust is accomplished through reciprocal regard, forthrightness, and reliability; while a lack of trust can result in apprehension or cautiousness (Sibbet, 2011). The key question for all team members to answer about their team mates in this stage is: who are you?
During the orientation phase and throughout the entire team engagement, trust building is an essential component to effectively accomplishing the team’s mission. Mutual trust is accomplished through reciprocal regard, forthrightness, and reliability; while a lack of trust can result in apprehension or cautiousness (Sibbet, 2011). The key question for all team members to answer about their team mates in this stage is: who are you?
Trust Defined
Trust has been defined as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Trust, as well as social identity, reciprocity, and loyalty result in relational cohesiveness (Bruhn, 2009, p. 146).
Trust in the Virtual Team
High levels of relational cohesiveness are essential to virtual teams to compensate for members’ physical segregation and isolation. To that end, McEvily, Perrone, and Zaheer contend that virtual team members “become more dependent on, and more vulnerable to, the decisions and actions of others- both preconditions and concomitants of trust” (2003, p. 1); suggesting that virtual team members must exert more effort than their face to face counterparts to maintain a trusting environment.
Trust has been defined as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Trust, as well as social identity, reciprocity, and loyalty result in relational cohesiveness (Bruhn, 2009, p. 146).
Trust in the Virtual Team
High levels of relational cohesiveness are essential to virtual teams to compensate for members’ physical segregation and isolation. To that end, McEvily, Perrone, and Zaheer contend that virtual team members “become more dependent on, and more vulnerable to, the decisions and actions of others- both preconditions and concomitants of trust” (2003, p. 1); suggesting that virtual team members must exert more effort than their face to face counterparts to maintain a trusting environment.
In addition to virtual teams exerting more effort than their face to face counterparts when building trust, there are two schools of thought in the process of trust-building in virtual teams (Kuo & Yu, 2009). Swift trust is based on the attribution process of using previously known perceptions as the basis of trust building (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998). Category trust is the second school of thought of how virtual teams grow their trust in which members are continuously assessing each other' competencies; ultimately resulting in the willingness to represent each other (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998).
Regardless of how the team develops trust, it is agreed that in the absence of sufficient trust building, individual members as well as the collective group, can suffer due to biased information sharing and unresolved conflicts (Cramton, 2001).
Building trust virtually. Researchers of both trust-building processes also agree that it is through computer mediated communication and interpersonal behaviors demonstrated during virtual group interactions that virtual team members build and then maintain a liking and trust of each other (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Yilmaz, & Pena, 2014). Due to the proclivity of computer mediated communication as opposed to face to face interactions in virtual teams, advocates of the social information processing theory (SIPT) contend that interpersonal behaviors bear a higher significance than social categories during the trust building process (Wang, Walther, & Hancock, 2009) and more frequent text-based messages have been linked to increased interpersonal liking (Walther, & Bazarova, 2007) and trust (Jarvenpaa, & Ives, 1994; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994).
Virtual Trust is as good as Face to Face Trust-Building. It is also encouraging to know that studies indicate that interpersonal relationships built through computer aided communication are as interpersonally rewarding and fulfilling as face to face interactions (Walther, 1992). Since relational connectedness is a precursor to mutual trust (Bruhn, 2009), the Westerman and Tamborini (2008) findings confirm that virtual team members can maintain similarly trusting relations as compared with their face to face counterparts; thereby strengthening the Drexler-Sibbet trust building stage as not only equally important to the team building process but also correspondingly feasible in the virtual team environment.
If Stage 2, Trust Building, is unresolved...Regardless of how the team develops trust, it is agreed that in the absence of sufficient trust building, individual members as well as the collective group, can suffer due to biased information sharing and unresolved conflicts (Cramton, 2001).
Building trust virtually. Researchers of both trust-building processes also agree that it is through computer mediated communication and interpersonal behaviors demonstrated during virtual group interactions that virtual team members build and then maintain a liking and trust of each other (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Yilmaz, & Pena, 2014). Due to the proclivity of computer mediated communication as opposed to face to face interactions in virtual teams, advocates of the social information processing theory (SIPT) contend that interpersonal behaviors bear a higher significance than social categories during the trust building process (Wang, Walther, & Hancock, 2009) and more frequent text-based messages have been linked to increased interpersonal liking (Walther, & Bazarova, 2007) and trust (Jarvenpaa, & Ives, 1994; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994).
Virtual Trust is as good as Face to Face Trust-Building. It is also encouraging to know that studies indicate that interpersonal relationships built through computer aided communication are as interpersonally rewarding and fulfilling as face to face interactions (Walther, 1992). Since relational connectedness is a precursor to mutual trust (Bruhn, 2009), the Westerman and Tamborini (2008) findings confirm that virtual team members can maintain similarly trusting relations as compared with their face to face counterparts; thereby strengthening the Drexler-Sibbet trust building stage as not only equally important to the team building process but also correspondingly feasible in the virtual team environment.
Assuming that trust is adequately established between the team members, the group can move to Stage 3. If trust is not adequately established and maintained, the following negative ramifications could occur:
- Members could proceed with caution and potentially not contribute or exhibit their full potential.
- Members can begin to mistrust other members which could result in sub-teams being created which could distract from the overall mission of the entire group.
- Mistrust can lead to individuals putting up a façade to mask their true feelings. This could create inauthenticity.
CLICK HERE for a list of ideas to help you to build trust in your virtual team.
CLICK HERE for guidance on team assessment and what to do when a stage's core question is unresolved.
_________________________________________________
CLICK HERE for references
