Is Anybody out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams
Open accessAbstract
:A global virtual team is an example of a boundaryless network organization form where a temporary team is assembled on an as-needed basis for the duration of a task and staffed by members from different countries. In such teams, coordination is accomplished via trust and shared communication systems. The focus of the reported study was to explore the antecedents of trust in a global virtual-team setting. Seventy-five teams, consisting of four to six members residing in different countries, interacted and worked together for eight weeks. The two-week trust-building exercises did have a significant effect on the team members’ perceptions of the other members’ ability, integrity, and benevolence. In the early phases of teamwork, team trust was predicted strongest by perceptions of other team members’ integrity, and weakest by perceptions of their benevolence. The effect of other members’ perceived ability on trust decreased over time. The members’ own propensity to trust had a significant, though unchanging, effect on trust. A qualitative analysis of six teams’ electronic mail messages explored strategies that were used by the three highest trust teams, but were used infrequently or not at all by the three lowest trust teams. The strategies suggest the presence of “swift” trust. The paper advances a research model for explaining trust in global virtual teams.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
To build and sustain trust, managers need to create situations for both formal and informal communication among team members.
“To build and sustain trust, managers need to create situations for both formal and informal communication among team members (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998).”
From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 38 · Cited by 1,906
- Authors
- Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- ORCID
- Leidner, Dorothy E.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 29-64
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1961867604
- Cited by
- 1,906
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 127
- FWCI
- 40.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- trust, global virtual teams, antecedents of trust, boundaryless organization, multicultural teams, perceived integrity, perceived benevolence, perceived competence, trust propensity, swift trust, temporary teams
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