Cited by 76Team Dynamics and PerformanceSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesKnowledge Management and Sharing

An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organizational setting

Open access
Newell, Sue, David, Gary, Chand, Donald·2007·Knowledge and Process Management

Abstract

Abstract Regardless of whether a project team is located in the same workplace or distributed around the world, trust remains an important element deemed necessary to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaborative work. At the same time, distribution across sites presents challenges to trust building that are not present among co‐located teams. A further complicating factor in trust building among distributed teams is national culture. As we demonstrate, the impact of nationality can be increased when organizations put the distributed sites in a competitive frame. Using the Newell and Swan threefold typology of trust, this paper analyzes trust among IT work teams whose members are located at sites that are distributed in the United States, Ireland, and India. Our case analysis confirms the problematic nature of trust building among globally distributed teams. Specifically, we found that due to situational factors and socio‐psychological dynamics an ‘Us versus Them’ attitude prevails among the distributed sites. This paper concludes that the traditional approaches used by organizations to address the challenges of global collaboration are insufficient and that trust building in an organizational setting requires project managers to actively work on relationship management to minimize the impact of an inter‐group perspective. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/kpm.284

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D.
Affiliations
Bentley University (US)
Corresponding author
Newell, Sue
Venue
Knowledge and Process Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
158-168
ISSN
  • 1092-4604 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1441
OpenAlex
W1992938213
Cited by
76
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Knowledge and Process Management (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
trust building, globally distributed teams, multicultural teams, national culture, IT project teams, relationship management, knowledge sharing, international cooperation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review