Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams

Aubert, Benoît A.; Kelsey, Barbara L.

doi:10.1177/1046496403256011

Cited by 217 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have found a positive relationship between the two (e.g., (Altschuller and Beneunan-Fich 2010)), while others have found no relationship (e.g., (Aubert and Kelsey 2003)). …”

Section: Trust and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Trust and Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Latent Growth Curve and Latent Change Score Models

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust plays a central role in the effectiveness of work groups and teams. This is the case for both face-to-face and virtual teams. Yet little is known about the development of trust in virtual teams. We examined cognitive and affective trust and their relationship to team effectiveness as reflected through satisfaction with one's team and task performance. Latent growth curve analysis reveals both trust types start at a significant level with individual differences in that initial level. Cognitive trust follows a linear growth pattern while affective trust is overall non-linear, but becomes linear once established. Latent change score models are utilized to examine change in trust and also its relationship with satisfaction with the team and team performance. In examining only change in trust and its relationship to satisfaction there appears to be a straightforward influence of trust on satisfaction and satisfaction on trust. However, when incorporated into a bivariate coupling latent change model the dynamics of the relationship are revealed. A similar pattern holds for trust and task performance; however, in the bivariate coupling change model a more parsimonious representation is preferred.

show abstract

“…Some studies have found a positive relationship between the two (e.g., (Altschuller and Beneunan-Fich 2010)), while others have found no relationship (e.g., (Aubert and Kelsey 2003)). …”

Section: Trust and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Trust and Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Latent Growth Curve and Latent Change Score Models

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trust will be a critical enabler of future military operations as individuals are forced to interact, communicate, and base life-threatening decisions on the inputs of distributed personnel. Past research has shown that trust facilitates information sharing (Kimmerle, et al, 2007), promotes team-oriented goals and perspectives (Dirks, 1999), and it reduces the costs associated with monitoring other team members (Aubert, & Kelsey, 2003). These characteristics are relevant for the current and future military operations.…”

Section: Trust and Military Team Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and Decision Making: An Empirical Platform

Lyons¹,

Aguado²,

Adams³

et al. 2008

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Interpersonal trust represents the willingness of individuals to accept vulnerabilities from the actions of others (Mayer, et al., 1995). Vulnerability is critical aspect of trust research, yet few studies have manipulated vulnerability. Non-verbal cues may have an influence on the trust process (Wicks, et al., 1999), suggesting that features of collaborative tools may influence how individuals build trust. The present study will implement a 3x4 mixed design. Participants will select a convoy route based on: 1) graphical displays of enemy zones and historical Improvised Explosive Device (IED) occurrences; 2) route parameters (e.g., fuel required); and 3) information from a local expert. Vulnerability will be manipulated by altering the frequency of IEDs and the location of 'red forces' to create low, moderate, and high vulnerability conditions (within subjects factor). Information from local experts will be presented via one of four conditions: 1) audio/video with low emotion; 2) audio/video with high emotion; and 3) audio only; and 4) chat (between subjects factor). Findings from this research will support the development of new collaborative tools for the C2 domain.

show abstract

“…For example, considerable evidence points to the critical role subteam dynamics play in the performance outcomes of intact teams (e.g., Aubert & Kelsey, 2003;Carton & Cummings, 2012;Lau & Murnighan, 2005;Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997;Nirmala & Vemuri, 2009). Subteams tend to possess characteristics that differ from the intact team, which can have both positive and negative effects on the overall functioning and performance of the intact team.…”

Section: Teams and Family Businessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subteams tend to possess characteristics that differ from the intact team, which can have both positive and negative effects on the overall functioning and performance of the intact team. Family business leadership teams are likely to possess multiple subteams (e.g., family vs. nonfamily members, members of different generations, members from different linages within the family, or in-groups vs. out-groups), which can significantly influence team functioning and either promote or impede team performance (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003;Lau & Murnighan, 1998;Nirmala & Vemuri, 2009;Roussin, MacLean, & Rudolph, 2016;Tajfel, 1970). Other conditions, such as psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; i.e., the shared belief within members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking), team reflexivity (Schippers, West, & Dawson, 2013; i.e., the extent to which teams collectively reflect on and adapt their working methods and functioning), team collaborative and competitive climates (Zhu, Gardner, & Chen, 2016), critical team member dispositional assertiveness (Pearsall & Ellis, 2006), and leader humility (Rego et al, 2017), to name just a few, can have important implications for exchange information, learning, creativity, and innovation within teams.…”

Section: Teams and Family Businessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Business Research: Roads Travelled and the Search for Unworn Paths

Neubaum

2018

Family Business Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams

Cited by 217 publications

References 25 publications

Assessing Trust and Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Latent Growth Curve and Latent Change Score Models

Assessing Trust and Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Latent Growth Curve and Latent Change Score Models

Trust and Decision Making: An Empirical Platform

Family Business Research: Roads Travelled and the Search for Unworn Paths

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About