The Role of Trust in Building Effective Virtual Teams: A Mixed Methods Study in a
Large Public Sector Organization
by
Timothy R. Meixner
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Business Administration
Andy Igonor, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
Eboni Hill, Ph.D., Committee Member
Timothy Reymann, Ph.D., Committee Member
Franklin University
December 20, 2018
Abstract
This study extended Gehrke Walter’s (2004) research to explore the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness, thus identifying factors that might support or damage the development of trust in virtual teams operating within the public sector. For the purposes of this study, the public sector is defined as the part of the economy concerned with providing basic government services. This study utilized a correlational mixed methodology based on a modified version of the virtual team trust instrument (Sarker,
Valacich, & Sarker, 2003) and an instrument developed by Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) to measure team effectiveness. To enhance the study, open-ended survey items developed by Walters (2004) were also used to gather much-needed qualitative data to ascertain which factors foster or damage virtual team trust. The results of this study will assist researchers, managers, and team members in understanding the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness in virtual teams operating within the public sector—an under- represented area in the study of virtual teams. The results of the study showed a strong relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness. However, unlike previous studies, one of the subscales of trust was not shown to have a stronger relationship to perceived team effectiveness compared with the others. Recommendations for increasing trust in virtual teams include a re-emphasis on open and honest communication, recurring face-to-face meetings, and demonstrated work performance from the participants. Finally, recommendations for future research related to trust and virtual team effectiveness are presented. Acknowledgments
I’d like to thank my mentor and committee chair, Dr. Andy Igonor, for his encouragement and steadfast support. I would also like to thank my committee members,
Dr. Timothy Reymann and Dr. Eboni Hill. They were supportive throughout the process and drove me to meet the high standards of the university. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Wendell Seaborne and Ms. Wendi Robinson. Their dedicated work on behalf of the university highlights that Franklin is more just than an institution of higher learning; it is a community of dedicated professionals and learners building a future together. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. Todd Burnworth. His friendship and intellect are always valued and respected.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and love to my family for their patience and understanding throughout this journey. To Madison and Cade, I am forever grateful that you are in my life and will always remember your encouragement in achieving this goal. Last but no least, I offer a special shout-out to my lovely bride, Toby. You are the best wife anyone could ever ask for. Your patience, dedication, support, and love are always appreciated and nearly deserved. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 5
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... 3
Acknowledgments...... 4
Table of Contents ...... 5
List of Tables ...... 9
List of Figures ...... 10
Chapter 1: Foundation of the Study ...... 11
Statement of the Problem ...... 13
Purpose of the Study ...... 14
Rationale ...... 15
Hypotheses and Research Questions ...... 15
Hypotheses...... 16
Research questions...... 16
Significance of the Study ...... 16
Definition of the Terms ...... 18
Virtual team...... 18
Trust...... 19
Perceived team effectiveness...... 20
Assumptions and Limitations ...... 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 23
Introduction ...... 23
Benefits of Virtual Teams ...... 24 Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 6
Applicability to the Public Sector ...... 25
Virtual Team Challenge: Effective Communication ...... 27
Virtual Team Challenge: Leadership Model ...... 30
Virtual Team Challenge: A Lack of Trust ...... 34
Successful Formation ...... 36
Effectiveness of Virtual Teams ...... 38
Trust in Virtual Teams ...... 39
Building and Ensuring Virtual Team Trust ...... 42
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 46
Introduction and Research Design ...... 46
Sample/Participant Selection ...... 47
Measures ...... 48
Data Collection ...... 50
Data Analysis ...... 52
Validity and Reliability ...... 52
Ethical Considerations ...... 53
Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis ...... 55
Preparation of the Data ...... 56
Participants ...... 60
Methodology and Design ...... 62
Data Collection Instruments ...... 65
Team Trust: The Virtual Team Trust Instrument ...... 65
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality for the VTT ...... 66 Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 7
Subscale Correlations and Internal Consistency Reliability of the VTT ...... 68
Perceived Team Effectiveness ...... 69
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality for Perceived Team Effectiveness ...... 70
Correlations & Internal Consistency Reliability for Perceived Team Effectiveness .... 72
Quantitative Data Analyses ...... 73
Relationship between team trust and team effectiveness...... 74
Factors influencing trust of virtual teams...... 82
Virtual working preference (teams in same vs. dispersed locations) and team trust. 84
Virtual team training (no training vs. some training) and team trust...... 85
Gender (females vs. males) and team trust...... 86
Virtual team type (cross-functional vs. functional) and team type...... 87
Virtual team role (team leader vs. team member) and team trust...... 88
Frequency of team meetings and team trust...... 89
Qualitative Analyses ...... 92
Factors That Contributed to the Development of Trust...... 92
Factors Perceived to Have Damaged Trust...... 93
Summary ...... 94
Chapter 5: Results, Conclusions, And Recommendations...... 97
Introduction and Discussion of Results and Findings ...... 97
Hypothesis 1: Trust and Perceived Team Effectiveness ...... 98
Hypothesis 2: Perceived Team Effectiveness and Cognitive-Based Trust ...... 98
Research Question 1: Factors Contributing to Development of Virtual Team Trust ... 99 Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 8
Research Question 2: Factors That Damaged Virtual Team Trust ...... 101
Limitations of Results and Findings ...... 103
Conclusion and Summation of Key Findings ...... 105
Recommendations for Further Research ...... 107
References ...... 111
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ...... 131
Appendix B: Organizational Consent ...... 135
Appendix C: Cover Letter And Informed Consent ...... 136
Appendix D: Comments – Factors Contributing To Trust Development ...... 137
Appendix E: Shadow Coder – Factors Contributing To Trust Development ...... 141
Appendix F: Comments – Factors Perceived To Have Damaged Trust ...... 145
Appendix G: Shadow Coder – Factors Perceived To Have Damaged Trust ...... 148
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Demographic and Professional Characteristics ...... 60
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Measures of Distribution Normality for VTT Subscales and Overall Scores ...... 67
Table 3: VTT Subscale and Overall Score Correlations, Tolerance Values, and Cronbach’s Alpha ...... 68
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Measures of Distribution Normality for Subscales and Overall Scores on Perceived Team Effectiveness ...... 71
Table 5: Perceived Team Effectiveness Subscale and Overall Correlations, Tolerance Values, and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients ...... 73
Table 6: Spearman Correlations Between Measures of Team Trust and Perceived Team Effectiveness ...... 75
Table 7: Model Summary for the Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness on Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive- Based Trust ...... 81
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Virtual Working Preference and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences ...... 85
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Virtual Team Training and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences ...... 86
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Virtual Team Training and Mann-Whitney U Tests of between-Group Differences ...... 87
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Team Type (Cross- Functional vs. Functional) and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences 88
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Team Role (Team Leader vs. Team Member) and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences ...... 89
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of the Frequency of Face-to- Face Meetings of the Virtual Team and Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs by Ranks to Test Between-Group Differences ...... 91
Table 14: Top Five Factors That Contributed to the Development of Trust ...... 93
Table 15: Top-Three Factors That Were Perceived to Have Damaged Trust ...... 94
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Frequency Histograms for VTT Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, Cognitive-Based Trust, and Overall Trust Scores ...... 67
Figure 2: Frequency Histograms for Perceived Team Performance, Perceived Team Satisfaction, and Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness ...... 71
Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Relationships Between Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness (the Criterion Variable) and Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive-Based Trust (the Predictor Variables) ...... 78
Figure 4: Plot of standardized residuals against standardize predicted values used to evaluate the assumption of homoscedasticity of residuals ...... 79
Figure 5: Frequency Histogram of the Residuals from the Regression of Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness on Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive-Based Trust ...... 80
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 11
Chapter 1: Foundation of the Study
Organizations with a national and global reach have used virtual teams since the early 1990s as a way to overcome geographical separation and improve integration. The use of virtual teams has crossed every sector of the economy. Although academic research has attempted to keep pace with virtual teams and their use, it has been concentrated primarily in the private sector and focused on issues such as trust, efficiency, and comparing and contrasting virtual teams and traditional face-to-face teams. This study expanded upon the existing research to explore how trust and perceived effectiveness can influence the participants in a virtual team within the public sector.
Virtual teams have been utilized—with varying levels of success—since the early
1990s (Handy, 1995; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Academic research on this topic quickly followed these innovations in work. Initially, virtual teams and the enabling management processes were researched from a theoretical perspective in an attempt to define and delineate the advantages/disadvantages of virtual teams (Mihhailova, 2007).
Research subsequently moved to comparing and contrasting this new team structure with more traditional approaches (Mihhailova, 2007). More recent research seems to have recognized virtual teams as a generally accepted structure for the group level (Lipnack &
Stamps, 2000), focusing on the critical success factors associated with such teams
(Karpiscak, 2007; Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss, & Massey, 2001; Walters, 2004; Warkentin
& Beranek, 1999). Consequently, many researchers have documented advantages for organizations that use virtual teams (Duarte & Snyder, 1999; Grenier & Metes, 1995;
Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 12
The stated benefits of virtual teams are alluring to both private and public sector organizations for the same reasons. As noted by Grenier and Metes (1995), the potential advantages of implementing virtual teams include
1. increased productivity through simultaneous project execution;
2. improved work products by ensuring the continual refreshing of information;
3. increased talent pool due to a limitless geographical pull;
4. decreased overhead costs resulting from avoiding travel costs and travel-
induced downtime;
5. persistent capturing of knowledge for efficient training and socialization of new
team members; and
6. increased organizational knowledge transfer through asynchronous knowledge
capture and retention.
Technological advances during the last decade have enabled all sectors of the economy to take advantage of virtual teams. The federal government cites “cost and logistical difficulties with relocating geographically dispersed programs and…contractors as the primary reason for [using virtual teams]” (GAO, 2001, p. 37).
However, despite such benefits, the use of virtual teams has met with mixed results. While researchers estimate that nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of companies have remote workers and some companies are entirely virtual (Upwork, 2018), between 40-
50% of the efforts undertaken by virtual teams fail to meet the stated objectives (Biggs,
2000; RW3, 2016). Furthermore, the agile organizational structure required for rapidly forming virtual teams necessitates an efficient transfer of knowledge and learning
(Schultze & Orlikowski, 2001). Several studies indicate that, although virtual teams can Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 13 remove space and time boundaries, their ability to remove organizational boundaries remains in question (Gilson et al., 2015). Indeed, Breu and Hemingway (2004) found that creating virtual teams increases the complexity of organizational boundaries. According to their findings, virtual teams multiply the number of relationships a team member is required to maintain, increase the complexity of these relationships, and require a higher degree of coordination in terms of time and effort (Breu & Hemingway, 2004). Thus, it is important to examine issues that influence the members of a virtual team.
Statement of the Problem
The public sector of the economy is concerned with providing basic government services such as the police, military, public roads, public transit, primary education, and healthcare for the poor. The public sector has traditionally maintained a predominantly hierarchical organizational structure (Osborne, 1993). However, over the last few decades, the public sector has engaged in enterprise initiatives to transform its business processes and systems (Osbone, 1993; Charette, 2013). These enterprise solutions require a program office that spans geography and require access to critical skills that are not resident in one place (Suchan & Hayzak, 2001). Consequently, virtual teams are likely to become increasingly popular (Geurts, 2005). However, with the use of virtual teams comes new considerations—particularly with regard to establishing trust among team members and managers who may never meet face to face. During the past decade, researchers recognized the importance of trust in interpersonal relationships within virtual teams, where opportunities for face-to-face communication are minimal or even nonexistent (Sarker, Valacich, & Sarker, 2003; Staples & Ratnasingham, 1998; Tapscott,
1996). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 14
A top-down management approach hinders the ability to engage in horizontal communication—a prerequisite for effective virtual teams. The ability to engage in horizontal communication in formal organizations allows a de-emphasis on vertical communication, which centers on instructions and reporting while improving horizontal communication, which improves coordination and allows problems to be resolved at the lowest level (Simpson, 1959). Horizontal communication requires a high level of trust within an organization, as traditional control methods are not always available (Handy,
1995). Trust is critical for virtual teams because it enables collaboration, which fosters the open sharing of information, knowledge, and opinions to improve organizational effectiveness (Dangmei, 2016).
According to a GAO (2001) report, one of the keys to successfully implementing virtual teams within the federal government is to allow for greater integration across similar programs, which provides the ability to integrate best practices and maximize program effectiveness. The failure to foster horizontal integration results in programs increasingly becoming aligned with a more traditional management approach. As Haas
(2003) highlights, programs such as these tend toward decision-making/task assignments aimed at improving effectiveness consolidated and centralized at the top.
Purpose of the Study
Previous research has demonstrated a strong correlation between trust and perceived team effectiveness within private-sector organizations (Lindeblad et al., 2016,
Walters, 2004; Zucker et al., 1995). The purpose of the current study is to determine if a relationship exists between trust and perceived team effectiveness within a public sector’s virtual team and identify factors that may support or damage the development of trust in Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 15 virtual teams. The results will have the potential to help researchers, managers, and virtual team members understand focus areas to build targeted approaches that improve trust within virtual teams (Morley et al., 2015).
Rationale
As previously noted, virtual team utilization is becoming routine in the private and public sectors. However, prior research has focused primarily on the private sector, despite similar public organizational pressures to reduce costs and improve performance—all within a compressed schedule. Research into the relationship of trust and perceived effectiveness in public-sector virtual teams will help determine the construct of future virtual organizations. Therefore, the current study seeks to expand the body of knowledge related to virtual teams beyond exploring the relationship between perceived team effectiveness and trust in the private sector. Walters (2004) suggested that studies of virtual teams encompassing participants from multiple organizations would be beneficial and extend current knowledge. Thus, the current study encompassed personnel from no fewer than three separate organizations and included government personnel and private contractors engaged in the same virtual team to determine if the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness changes within different organizations.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
The hypotheses and research questions were framed based, in part, on Walters’
(2004) study. They reflect the desire to identify and evaluate factors affecting virtual team performance in the public sector.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 16
Hypotheses.
Ho No correlation exists between trust and perceived team effectiveness within a
public-sector virtual team.
H1 Virtual team trust is positively correlated with perceived team effectiveness
within a public-sector virtual team.
Ho No difference exists in the correlation between perceived effectiveness within a
public sector virtual team and cognitive-based, institutional-based, or
personality-based trust.
H1 Perceived team effectiveness is more strongly correlated with cognitive-based
trust than with institution-based or personality-based trust.
Research questions.
1. What factors contribute to the development of trust within the virtual team?
2. What factors inhibit the development of trust within the virtual team?
Significance of the Study
The public sector uses virtual teams as routinely as the private sector to accomplish critical tasks—namely, developing strategies and campaigns, coordinating supply routes, assessing performance, and even developing new products (Sinha, 2004).
However, studies examining the effective use of virtual teams within the public sector are an under-represented area of research (Green & Roberts, 2010) despite the extensive list of past program failures and the ever-increasing need to collaborate quickly and efficiently within and across organizational boundaries to develop the next generation of support systems (GAO, 2001). Consequently, the findings of the current study are of interest to elected officials, government leaders, commercial partners, managers, and Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 17 virtual workers as well as researchers interested in enhancing the effectiveness of virtual teams. Moreover, the findings provide a better understanding of the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness within a virtual team operating in the public sector.
Finally, the study provides insight into how trust is enabled and damaged in virtual teams operating within the public sector.
The level of failures within the virtual team space can be astounding. This is especially true of information technology programs. As cited by Florentine (2017) in CIO
Magazine, the 2016 Innotas Annual Project and Portfolio Management Survey discovered that only 45% of respondents reported that they did not encounter failure on an information technology project within the last 12 months. Florentine (2017) goes on to indicate this trend is getting worse over time. With the high number of virtual team failures, organizations may become numb to the failures and absorb the numbers without much consideration. This study sheds new light on a chronic and growing problem.
It may be that trust is a factor in some of these virtual team failures
(Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). Trust is a good indicator of the potential for success in a virtual team, the lack of which can indicate a potential for setbacks or failure
(Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). According to Lepsinger (2011), there are clear signs that a virtual team is suffering from low trust; first, members of the virtual team do not respond with a collective “we”; also, the virtual team members do not have a personal connection with one another; additionally, the team members voice opposition to the project/they have not “bought in”; and, finally, they question the ability and credibility of the team members and their leaders. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 18
The public-sector virtual team is prone to the same pitfalls as the private sector
(Green & Roberts, 2010). The problem with public-sector teams is that they invest little in the success of their virtualization efforts, and it only decreases over time (Green &
Roberts, 2010). The trend of supporting the initial investments in virtualization, only to fail in monitoring performance over time, is a recipe for failing to meet expectations.
Further, the lack of monitoring and effective leadership can erode trust over time (Liao,
(2017). For these reasons, the ability to understand the relationship of trust and perceived effectiveness within public-sector virtual teams may contribute to the overall body of relevant knowledge and may reverse the trends toward persistent failures.
Definition of the Terms
Virtual team.
Henry and Hartzler (1997) offered one of the most concise descriptions of a virtual team, i.e., “groups of people who work closely together despite being geographically separated” (p. 108). In addition, these authors identified five of the most evident characteristics: (1) members should be held accountable for team results; (2) members need to be based in a geographically dispersed fashion; (3) members work apart more frequently than in the same location; (4) the team solves problems and makes decisions for the project based on the stratification of work; and (5) the team usually has fewer than 20 members. Similarly, Powell, Piccoli, and Ives advance the notion that a virtual team functions “as groups of geographically, organizationally and time dispersed workers brought together by information and telecommunication technologies to accomplish one or more organizational tasks” (2004, p. 7). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 19
Lipnack and Stamps (1997) further identified four types of virtual teams (two of which are in line with nonvirtual team constructs, with slight variations) that meet the intent of Henry and Hartzler’s (1997) definition: (1) collocated, i.e., teams of people in the same place and organization; (2) collocated cross-organizational, i.e., teams comprised of people from different organizations who work together in the same place;
(3) distributed, i.e., people in the same organization who work in different places either interdependently or separately; and (4) distributed cross-organizational, i.e., people from different organizations who work in different places.
According to Henry and Hartzler’s (1997) definition, virtual teams work together toward a common purpose from physically separate locations. Consequently, virtual teams face unique challenges due to the preponderance of one- or two-dimensional interactions. It is important to point out several distinct characteristics. The duration of the existence of the team can vary significantly; it can be brought together for short periods of time or indefinitely. Also, virtual teams can be made up of cross-functional members or members from the same functional area. As a result, the one salient difference between traditional teams and virtual teams is that virtual teams work “across space, time, and organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communication technologies” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997, p. 7).
Trust.
Trust is essential in interpersonal relationships and collaboration within virtual teams (Alsharo et al., 2017). A commonly used definition of trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 20 other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712).
The expectation that a positive outcome will result from someone else’s action has an element of risk for the trusting party. The ability to trust is, as Panteli (2005) stated, “a dynamic and emergent social relationship that develops as participants interact with each other over time and depending on the situation.”
The authors of the virtual team trust (VTT) instrument (Sarker et al., 2003) expanded upon these concepts of trust to include a multidimensional view of trust for application to virtual teams. Specifically, Sarker et al. (2003) defined virtual team trust as
“the degree of reliance individuals have on their remotely located team members taken collectively (i.e., as a group)” (p. 37). In their study, they expanded trust in three multidimensional components: (1) personality-based trust (that develops due to a person’s trusting nature); (2) institutional-based trust (that is a function of an individual’s belief in institutional norms/procedures); and (3) cognitive trust (that develops from social cues and impressions that an individual receives from the other) (p. 37).
To amalgamate all of these definitions and adhere to Walters’ study (2004), in this study, trust means the “willingness of an individual to be vulnerable to the actions of another individual based on the trustor’s nature, institutional norms, or social cues and impressions” (p. 5).
Perceived team effectiveness.
Similar to Walters’ study (2004), perceived team effectiveness in the current study is defined as the sum of satisfaction and perceived performance. Lurey and
Raisinghani (2001) noted that perceived performance is related to the virtual teams’ Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 21 abilities to perform their work assignments. Further, Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) measured satisfaction as the team members’ level of satisfaction while working with their virtual teammates.
As noted by Lurey and Raisinghani (2001), measuring perceived team effectiveness is useful in that it allows for the assessment of effectiveness at an interim point in the lifecycle of the team while the team is still engaged in work. Thus, team effectiveness differs from actual effectiveness, which can only be measured after the fact.
Furthermore, as in Walters’ study (2004), the virtual team in the current study is in the process of executing the program; therefore, perceived team effectiveness is viewed as a process measure instead of an outcome measure.
Assumptions and Limitations
This study made several assumptions and is anticipated to have a number of potential limitations. Based on the results of Walters’ (2004) study, the current study assumes that a measurable level of trust will exist among the virtual team participants.
This leads to an additional assumption that the respondents will accurately record their responses. Furthermore, despite the strong validity of the VTT, the instrument may measure personal and environmental factors that were not anticipated to influence the responses of the participants.
The data collected will be limited to respondents who are either contracted to or employed by the surveyed organization. The views of these organizational members may not accurately represent other public-sector agencies due to the nature of the organization’s mission orientation and leadership structure. Although the results of this Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 22 study contribute to the general body of knowledge, the data and conclusions may not be generalizable to the private sector or other agencies within the public sector.
As noted by Walters (2004), collecting the data during the execution of the program is another potential limitation. Zellars and Perrewe (2001) pointed out that the use of single-source, self-reported data can overstate the actual behavior of the team.
However, the impact of this issue greatly depends upon the research questions being investigated. In this study, perceptions are of theoretical interest; thus, single-source bias may not be a serious issue. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review
“When you meet your workmates by the water cooler or photocopier every day, you know instinctively who you can and cannot trust. In a geographically distributed team, trust is measured almost exclusively in terms of reliability.” – Erin Meyer (2017)
Introduction
This chapter reviews the relevant literature pertaining to virtual teams, trust in virtual teams, and virtual team effectiveness with specific emphasis on the public sector.
In the 1988 book, In The Age of the Smart Machine, Shoshana Zuboff discussed the advent of the modern informated workplace, which may not be a place at all. Not long after the book’s publication, virtualization began to spread far and wide. Primarily, the most common form of virtualization came to be known as the virtual team.
The virtualization of a team has been used to varying degrees of success for close to 30 years. Even more so today, the effectiveness of virtual teams in the private sector is critical to a company’s survival, and it is no less important for today’s public-sector organizations. A public-sector team needs to effectively collaborate across geographically separate organizations to take full advantage of the knowledge, skills, and ability that lie outside an organization’s commuting distance (Haas, 2003).
Although it could be argued that virtual teams have been used ever since two or more people could work together remotely, the term virtual team came into general use in the late 1990s (Becker et al., 2001). As Lipnack (1997) succinctly stated: “Until recently, when you said you worked with someone, you meant by implication that you worked in the same place for the same organization. Suddenly, though, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, people no longer must be co-located—or, in the same place—in order Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 24 to work together. Now, many people work in ‘virtual teams’ that transcend distance, time zones, and organizational boundaries” (p. 1).
In reviewing the literature associated with virtual teams, Schiller and
Mandviwalla (2007) concluded that there is no dominant theory in virtual team research.
Schiller and Mandviwalla (2007) compared the number of theories in use within virtual team research and found twenty-five theories cited, with the most frequently referenced theory being, adaptive structuration theory (AST). This theory appeared in only 16% of all the text examined (Schiller & Mandviwalla, 2007). Similarly, Schiller and
Mandviwalla (2007) found that media richness theory (MRT), social information processing (SIP) theory, and social presence theory (SPT) had fewer references each and that time, interaction, and performance (TIP) theory, contingency theory, social identity or deindividuation (SIDE) theory, and swift trust theory all had still fewer mentions in the literature. Schiller and Mandviwalla (2007) conclude that the low numbers of referenced theories used to form a theoretical framework for the study of virtual teams indicates that studies are more interested in identifying observations and conducting descriptive exploration of virtual teams.
Benefits of Virtual Teams
Virtual teams provide numerous benefits. For instance, team members are not hampered by geographic separation (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998); team members can be recruited for their skills regardless of physical location (Hagen, 1999); organizations will leverage shared knowledge to hopefully become a learning environment, which increases member productivity (Okkonen, 2001); virtual teams allow individuals to grow beyond their current skills by assuming tasks regardless of rank and Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 25 tenure (Horvath & Duarte, 1997); and team members can move on and off projects with little delay stemming from the need to relocate, thus enabling the correct sizing and equipping of teams (Henry & Hartzler, 1997). Kiesler and Sproul (1992) further found that virtual teams have more equal participation than teams that meet face-to-face, make riskier decisions, and tend to have more extreme communications to resolve complex issues, further validating Majchrzak, Malhotra, Stamps, and Lipnack’s (2004) findings.
Such findings are most likely a result of flattened organizational structures, the blurring of the ranks of team participants, and the ability for work to be accomplished by overcoming time and space disconnects among the operating locations of the various team members (Robbins, 2003).
Applicability to the Public Sector
Organizations from every sector of the economy with national or even global reach use virtual teams to overcome geographical separation. While academic research has attempted to keep pace with virtual teams and their use, it has been concentrated mainly in the private sector and focused on issues such as trust, efficiency, and comparing and contrasting virtual teams with traditional face-to-face teams.
Technological advances over the last several decades have enabled all sectors of the economy to take advantage of virtual teams. The federal government uses virtual teams to support cost-reduction activities from the vast array of organizations and offices spread around the world (GAO, 2001).
The federal government has consistently pursued broadening the use of virtualization since in the 2000s (O’Keeffe, 2009). This push came on the heels of industry reports about the increased job satisfaction and productivity of virtual teammates Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 26
(Warner, 1997). Despite the government’s emphasis and commercial industry’s rapid adoption, there is a systemic lack of successful implementation due to management resistance and lack of investment in effective training and enabling technologies (GAO,
2013).
With the use of virtual teams within the public sector comes new considerations, particularly about establishing effectiveness and trust among team members and leaders who may rarely meet face to face. During the past decade, business publications have increasingly recognized the importance of examining trust and effectiveness (Sarker et al., 2003). Studies indicate that, although virtual teams can remove space and time boundaries, their ability to remove organizational boundaries remains in question
(Pauleen & Yoong, 2001). Indeed, Breu and Hemingway (2004) found that creating virtual teams increases the complexity of organizational boundaries. Their findings indicate that virtual teams multiply the number of relationships a team member is required to maintain, increase their complexity, and require a higher degree of coordination both in terms of time and effort (Breu & Hemingway, 2004). These organizational complexities such as a lack of trust, ineffective leadership, and inadequate communication ultimately have an impact on virtual team effectiveness (Morely et al.,
2015; Reed & Knight, 2010). Thus, it appears important to examine issues that influence the members of a virtual team and their effectiveness.
This importance of studying virtual teams extends to the public sector. As public- sector organizations continue to face budget cuts and attempt to transform their business processes, virtual teams are likely to become increasingly popular as an important tool for structuring organizations (Geurts, 2005). However, with the use of virtual teams comes Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 27 new considerations and challenges. Research continues to focus on the formation of trust, the level of virtual team communication, and the acumen of leadership within virtual teams to ascertain their likelihood of success (Sarker et al., 2003; Staples &
Ratnasingham, 1998; Bauer et al., 2016).
The public sector uses virtual teams to perform a variety of tasks that are similarly executed in the private sector (Sinha, 2004; Burbach & Day, 2014). However, studies examining the effective use of virtual teams within the public sector is an under- represented area of research (Green, 2010), despite the extensive list of past program failures (RW, 2016) and the ever-increasing need to collaborate quickly and efficiently within and across organizational boundaries to develop the next generation of support systems (Karpiscak, 2007).
Virtual teams face unique challenges due to the preponderance of one- or two- dimensional interactions (Babits, 2015). While one could argue that virtual teams have been used ever since two or more people could work together remotely, the term “virtual team” came into general use in the late 1990s (Cissé & Wyrick, 2010). As Lipnack and
Stamps (1997) succinctly state, “Until recently, when you said you worked with someone, you meant by implication that you worked in the same place for the same organization. Suddenly, though, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, people no longer must be co-located—or in the same place to work together. Now, many people work in virtual teams” that transcend distance, time zones, and organizational boundaries (p. 1).
Virtual Team Challenge: Effective Communication
Organizations that successfully manage virtual teams and their members know that they are not built—nor can they be managed the same way as co-located teams Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 28
(McDonough et al., 2001). Organizations that invest the time and energy to understand exactly what they have with virtualization stand a much better chance of success than those who start their teams on their own without planning or proper monitoring (Piccoli
& Ives, 2000). By educating leaders and team members about the common risks of virtualization, organizations can create powerful and prosperous virtual teams.
This is not the current construct of the typical organization; with their structured pyramidal organization, it would make sense that many large organizations would have trouble incorporating virtual teams. Indeed, Warkentin, Sayeed, and Hightower (1997) found that much of the research of that time suggested that virtual teams communicated less effectively in many circumstances than groups meeting face-to-face.
However, since then, researchers have noted a steady improvement in the effectiveness of virtual teams. Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss, and Massey (2001) proclaimed that “virtual teams make the most effective decisions.” Warkentin and Beranek (1999) reinforce the point by adding that asynchronous communications enable participants to take more time to think through answers, thereby improving the quality of their work and leading to faster results.
Meanwhile, the social identification/deindividuation (SIDE) theory posits that people categorize themselves as either part of in-groups or out-groups based on the characteristics of others in the groups (Lea & Spears, 1991). This identification of either being part of the in-group or out-group also relates to the person’s willingness to cooperate and contribute to the group in virtual teams (Workman, 2005). Lea and Spears
(1991) further suggest that, without social identification cues from team members as is Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 29 common in communication within virtual teams, members will form their impressions of others based on stereotypical beliefs and norms.
The ability to have some degree of face-to-face contact within virtual teams is critical to building effectiveness and reversing the trend of virtual teams underperforming compared with that of traditional co-located teams (Corbitt et al., 2004). The critical shortcomings of virtual teams are that most people still prefer face-to-face interaction, as they believe it provides the best opportunity to determine if the people with which information is being shared both understand and are worthy of trust (Jarvenpaa et al.,
1998; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). This belief results in a hybrid approach for the virtual team, with some face-to-face interaction as a key component of success. As Griffith,
Mannix, and Neale (2003) discovered, successful leaders of virtual teams build stronger relationships through initial face-to-face contact.
According to Feng et al., (2004), shared experience and similarity between people helped build empathic accuracy; people who have the same gender, occupation, closeness in age, or similar expressions are more likely to detect each other’s feelings accurately.
Thus, face-to-face contact can facilitate accuracy in understanding team members’ intended information-sharing based on connections brought about due to shared characteristics (Feng et al., 2004).
Daft and Lengel (1984) developed information richness theories to describe how effective a communications medium was by describing its ability to reproduce the information sent over it. This theory has been used to question the ability to develop relationships in virtual teams (Håkonsson et al., 2016). The theory supports the assertion that virtual team interactions are improved as their communication portfolios increase Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 30 with media that supports the communication of trust, warmth, attentiveness, and other interpersonal affections (Daft & Lengel,1984; Håkonsson et al., 2016).
As a result of the growing fidelity of communications media, research on the topic of virtual teams points to a shift in the need for face-to-face interaction over the last 20 years. In the 1990s, Webster and Trevino (1995) and Warkentin et al. (1999) noted that people desire face-to-face interaction and that technology-mediated teams were less cohesive than co-located teams. Other studies point out that virtual teams initially have lower cohesion; however, over time, enough information is exchanged to develop a strong cohesion among the team members (Chidambaram, 1996; Chidambaram et al.,
1993).
Further, studies have shown that information-sharing from a relational context does exist in virtual teams (Walther, 1997). The difference, as noted in Walther’s social information processing theory, with communication in face-to-face teams is a slower rate of transfer (Walther, 1997). Bos et al. (2002) determined, through an examination of multiple communication formats, that video and audio conferencing were just as effective as face-to-face communication, albeit with slower progression toward full cooperation and a tendency toward opportunistic behavior.
Virtual Team Challenge: Leadership Model
Argyris (1964) advanced the theory that effective leaders create environments that are bastions of trust, respect, and satisfaction from work with authentic, open relationships. Argyris (1964) argues that, without these key tenets, employees would seek to break organizational rules with willful disregard. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 31
Similarly, the authentic leadership theory posits that a leader must strive to be inclusive and encourage contributions from the collective group (Avolio & Gardner,
2005). According to Ilies et al., (2005), authentic leadership further stresses the need for the leader to build acceptance and trust with followers through open and honest relationships. Only then can the followers see that the leader values their contribution and input (Ilies et al., 2005). Likewise, Bass (1985) advanced the idea that the transformational leader can align the values of the subordinates to the vision and goals of the organization based on a process of creating a trusting work environment where ideas can be shared, and risks taken.
That said, the impact of transformational leadership on virtual teams is subject to debate. Avolio et al. (2004) found that the distances inherent in virtual teams moderated the effectiveness of transformational leadership on organizational commitment. Similarly,
Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) noted that transformational leadership has less influence on team performance when teams are more virtual in nature; thus, teams tend to augment the leadership traits that are mitigated by distance.
Conversely, Hambley et al. (2007) studied virtual teams and found no significant difference between transformational or transactional leadership styles. Purvanova and
Bono (2009) concluded something altogether different. Based on their study, the transformational leadership style had a greater impact on the virtual team when compared to face-to-face teams (Purvanova & Bono, 2009).
That said, poor leadership is the most difficult challenge to overcome in any environment. According to RW3’s (2016) annual survey on virtual teams, almost all
(98%) of virtual team leaders were satisfied with their virtual team leadership skills, Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 32 while “only 19% of team members felt…their team leaders were well prepared for the challenge” (p. 4). As Hambley et al. (2007) noted, poor leadership skills can have debilitating consequences on virtual teams.
In 2006, Horwitz, Bravington, and Silvis cited inadequate leadership involvement, lack of communication, unclear roles and responsibilities, and an absence of trust in relationships as reasons for the failures of virtual teams. According to Lepsinger (2011), poor performance due to inadequate leadership can manifest itself in several ways. First, the virtual team will systemically not meet established timelines, or the work products will be of very low quality (Lepsinger, 2011). Second, there is a fundamental lack of trust amongst the leader and the virtual team members (Lepsinger, 2011). Third, the team leader lacks the ability to deliver clear and concise direction to the virtual team. The fourth and final manifestation is that of preference (Lepsinger, 2011). The team leader will destroy a team if he/she tends to rely on peers or co-located members at the detriment to other members of the group (Lepsinger, 2011). These same problems also permeate the public sector (Green & Roberts, 2010).
As the GAO (2001) report highlights, one of the keys to successfully implementing virtual teams within the federal government is to allow greater integration across similar programs and organizational boundaries. This requires a high level of trust within the organization, as traditional control methods are not always available (Handy,
1995). Without horizontal integration, virtual teams can deviate from the concept and be more aligned to a more traditional management approach Townsend et al. (1998).
Even if the virtual organization forms as a flatter, horizontally integrated team, experience has shown that this has a high likelihood to erode over time (Schmidt, 2014). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 33
As Haas (2003) states, “The stress of multiple personnel changes, aggressive timelines, software development difficulties, and frequent geographic dispersal causes the operation...to regress” and reflect a more traditional management approach, with decision-making/task assignments consolidated and centralized at the top (p 12). For capable workers who would thrive in the virtual environment, this is a huge disincentive from joining a government program (Haas, 2003; Green & Roberts, 2010).
The failure of the government to effectively implement virtual workplaces not only has an impact on morale, but it also drives costs. According to the GAO (2001), the ease at which virtualization technologies can be implemented directly is tied to reducing the “cost and logistical difficulties with relocating geographically dispersed programs and contractors.” The Virginia Telework Day study concluded that, if all white-collar workers in the United States teleworked just one day a week for a year, the savings would equal
$161.5 billion (O’Keeffe, 2009).
There are several studies on private-sector virtual teams that corroborate the findings of the GAO’s 2012 field report. A lack of trust and perceived effectiveness are common themes among several studies. Researchers identified the absence of trust in peers and leaders as a significant detriment to successfully executing virtualization in the workplace (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004).
Indeed, leaders should focus on building effective relationships from the very beginning. Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter (2001) theorized that educators engaged in video- based education are more successful when they can permeate the coldness of electronic media with inviting social communication via discussion conferences. As the class leader, the instructor’s early encouragement of social communication and explicit Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 34 statements of commitment, excitement, and optimism also serve to create a trusting environment (Coppola et al., 2001). Meanwhile, Sproull and Kiesler (1991) found that virtual relationships can evolve more quickly with the development of supportive interpersonal relationships. They put forth the idea that, in a virtual organization, the relationships formed between team leaders and peers through the virtual medium are more important than the interaction between a person and the technology (Sproull &
Kiesler, 1991).
Virtual Team Challenge: A Lack of Trust
A lack of trust within virtual teams breeds a lack of cooperation and buy-in amongst team members. As Erin Meyer (2017) stated in the introductory quote, without the ability to gather around the proverbial water cooler, the ability to build trust gradually in the virtual environment is moderated. Rather, virtual teams need to build trust swiftly.
The concept of swift trust (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996) applies to temporary teams consisting of members with diverse skills, limited previous contact, and minimal chance of continued working relationships after project completion. The catalyst behind swift trust is a clear division of roles among team members, aligned to their specialties; if roles are inconsistent and overlapping, trust will erode (Meyerson et al., 1996).
Incorporating a tight timeline for completion builds the necessary components to develop swift trust. Thus, Meyerson et al. (1996) recommended setting expectations at project inception.
After starting a project, action levels within the team are also associated with trust levels (Iacono & Weisband, 1997). High levels of action strengthen trust in a symbiotic relationship, thus reinforcing members’ levels of confidence related to project success Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 35 while requiring increased levels of communication. These findings highlight the benefits that actions during project execution can have on trust development. However, they also pose the dilemma that—because members import initial trust—trust might be at its highest at the beginning of the project (Meyerson et al., 1996; Coppola et al., 2001).
Thus, teams should focus on building trust from the very beginning.
The time, interaction, and performance (TIP) theory developed by McGrath
(1991) describes workgroups as time-based, multifunctional, and multimodal social systems. The effectiveness of the group depends on the simultaneous and continuous engagement of three efforts: (1) production (problem-solving and task performance); (2) member support (member inclusion, participation, loyalty, commitment); and (3) group well-being (interaction, member roles, power, politics) (McGrath, 1991). When the team is new to each other, or the task is complex, all three efforts need to be engaged to build trust effectively within a virtual team (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999).
Virtual teams face unique challenges in establishing bonds along the lines of the
TIP (Malhotra et al., 2007). For example, team members who are co-located have higher expectations that they will encounter each other again than will geographically separate members; co-location has been shown to increase shared social norms, common beliefs, and expectations and to hasten the ramifications of not meeting obligations (Kirkman et al., 2002; Malhotra et al., 2007). Also, the ability to have clearly defined roles for the team members relates to having cooperative goals and is critical to forming a unifying vision of what the goals of the group are and the best way to achieve them (Kirkman et al., 2002). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 36
For virtual projects to be successful, there need to be incentives for sharing intellectual capital with other team members (Ardichvili et al., 2008; Hsu et al., 2007).
The key to the success of virtual teams is having the correct organizational drivers in place that lead to the creation of productive virtual workers and teams. Townsend,
DeMarie, and Hendrickson (1998) suggest that virtual teams are most successful when they are used in an environment that has a horizontal (flat) organizational structure, an interconnectedness among agencies, and an organizational structure that emphasizes worker flexibility due to the shift to a knowledge-based service environment. These factors, according to Townsend et al. (1998), enable decision-making to be pushed to lower levels in the organization and improve the organization’s response times. With such factors in place, organizations could create organizational and program management structures that are “networked rather than hierarchical” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999, p. 14).
Successful Formation
Also, directly related to the cross-functional teams, DeSanctis and Poole (1997) maintained that the greater the diversity in a team, the more time team members will be required to form strong bonds. Forming strong bonds is an essential part of any team.
However, virtual teams face unique challenges in establishing bonds. Indeed, co-location has been shown to increase shared social norms, common beliefs, and expectations as well as to hasten the ramifications of not meeting obligations (Latane et al., 1995). In addition, the ability to have clearly defined roles for team members relates to having cooperative goals and is critical to sharing a unifying vision of what the group’s goals are and the best way to achieve them. Neilson (1994) notes that, for collaborative virtual projects to be successful, team members need to have incentives to share intellectual Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 37 capital with other team members. Neilson (1994) did not differentiate between individual or collective rewards; rather, he concisely stated that every team has to incorporate something for every member.
The key to the successful formation of virtual teams is having the right organizational drivers in place to lead to the creation of productive virtual workers and teams. Maznevski et al. (2000) suggested that virtual teams are most successful when they are used in an environment with a horizontal (flat) organizational structure, an interconnectedness among agencies, and an organizational structure that emphasizes worker flexibility due to a shift to a knowledge-based service environment. According to
Townsend et al. (1998) and Maznevski et al. (2000), these factors allow for decision- making to be pushed to lower levels in the organization as well as to improve organizational response times. With such factors in place, organizations can create organizational and program management structures that are “networked rather than hierarchical” thus nimble and ultimately more effective (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999, p. 14).
According to Corbitt, Gardner, and Wright (2004), the ability to have some degree of face-to-face contact within the virtual team is critical to building trust and reversing the trend of underperforming versus traditional co-located teams. In addition,
Gera et al. (2013) note a critical shortcoming of virtual teams—namely, that most people still prefer face-to-face interaction, as they believe that such interaction provides the best opportunity to determine if those with whom information is being shared both understand and are worthy of trust. Other researchers have used this theory to question the ability to develop relationships and corresponding trust among virtual teams (Trevino, Lengel, &
Daft 1987). The theory suggests that virtual teams are limited in their communications Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 38 portfolio and thus are less effective at communicating trust, warmth, attentiveness, and other interpersonal affections.
Effectiveness of Virtual Teams
A limited amount of information is available on the effectiveness of virtual teams
(Piccoli & Ives, 2000). Lurey and Raisinghani (2001), who sought to determine the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of virtual teams, conducted one of the most widely cited studies on effectiveness. The results of their study indicate that the processes used by the team and their relationships were most strongly related to team effectiveness, which may be assumed, as team performance and member satisfaction typically define effectiveness (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001).
Of more interest were the findings that selection procedures for team members and executive leadership styles were also associated with effectiveness. Furthermore— and just as interesting—Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) found that tools, technologies, and communication styles did not have any bearing on team effectiveness; however, technology and communication issues were of concern to the teams and were among the greatest challenges the teams faced. This is particularly noteworthy for the current study because government teams often have few choices in selecting team members; indeed, sometimes even executive leaders are assigned to the team (Haas, 2003).
Edwards and Sridhar (2003) and Breuer et al. (2013) confirm some of Lurey and
Raisinghani’s (2001) findings that a technology’s ease of use, trust among the team members, and well-defined task structures and processes were positively associated with the effectiveness and trust level of global virtual teams. From yet another angle, Costigan Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 39 and Berman (1998) indicate that trust was related to the perceived effectiveness of the reward practices of the organization.
When determining organizational effectiveness, no substitute exists for examining trust as a bellwether (Breuer et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2001; Costa, 2003). Cook and Wall
(1980) found that “trust between individuals and groups within organizations is a highly important ingredient in the long-term stability of the organization and the well-being of its members” (p. 39). Thus, the current study attempts to ascertain just how important trust is to the perceived effectiveness within a public-sector virtual team.
Trust in Virtual Teams
Trust in interpersonal relationships has been a topic broadly covered since the first half of the twentieth century. Indeed, Sabel (1993) described trust as one of the most significant topics of discussion in organizational sciences over the last 100 years.
Researchers have found that trust can grow as a result of several factors, including shared social norms, repeated interactions, shared experiences (Bradach & Eccles, 1988), and the likelihood of future contact (Powell et al., 2004). According to Cummings and
Bromiley (1996), an individual is more likely to trust a group when that person believes the group will make a good-faith effort to honor explicit or implicit commitments, be honest in negotiations preceding commitments, and not take unnecessary advantage of others even when the opportunity is available.
Researchers have consistently found that trust among virtual team members is a
“make or break” proposition (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Kristof, Brown, Sims, &
Smith, 1995; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). “Trust is a basic feature of social situations that require cooperation and interdependence” (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999, p. 286). Trust Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 40 among virtual team members is a critical success factor (Kostner, 1994; Nilles, 1998); it is the very foundation upon which successful virtual team relationships are created
(Handy, 1995; O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).
Follet (1924) used her research to advance the concept of situational leadership, thus allowing the situation to dictate the actions that may be undertaken while asserting that employees should be trusted to make decisions. Barnard (1938) followed up with a proposition that, in order to build a cooperative workplace in which employees take the initiative to accomplish organizational goals, management needs to trust employees rather than control their actions. Argyris (1964) argued that effective leaders create environments that are bastions of trust, respect, and satisfaction through authentic, open relationships; lacking these key tenets, employees would seek to break organizational rules with willful disregard.
Trust has also been widely studied in the context of virtual teams, particularly in light of the increased use of virtual teams in the private and public sectors. Sarker et al.
(2003) began researching trust in an aggregate form, thus creating a measurement instrument of trust from all of its components. Meanwhile, Jarvenpaa and Leidners
(2000) examined global virtual teams to ascertain if trust can exist. The authors defined a global virtual team along three dimensions: (1) no common past or future; (2) geographically dispersed and culturally diverse; and (3) communicating through electronic means. The researchers examined electronic mail archives (case studies) of 12 teams, comparing results with self-reported levels of trust. They confirmed that trust could be established in global virtual teams, suggesting that trust can be imported, Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 41 although it is more likely a manifestation of communication behavior established in the early stages of the team (Jarvenpaa & Leidners, 2000).
In a virtual environment, team members must deal with the lack of traditional cues; the slightest misrepresentation or miscommunication can destroy a team’s performance as well as members’ reputations (Duarte & Snyder, 1999). Improved trust drives better performance within the team (Snow, Snell, & Davidson, 1996). Social communication can help build trust, so long as it compliments instead of substitutes for project communication. The types of communication that have the project as the nucleus can maintain or enhance trust. Most importantly, communication response patterns must convey commitment, excitement, and optimism to be considered trustworthy (Jarvenpaa
& Leidners, 2000). Past research validated the proposition that virtual teams with higher levels of trust achieve higher levels of performance (Lawley, 2006).
Zucker et al. (1995) also noted that trust has an impact on the bottom line in an organization through increased productivity or reduced need for control mechanisms.
Paul and McDaniel (2004) concurred, concluding that trust was the most important factor in ascertaining the performance level of a virtual team. High levels of trust boost organizational commitment and increase job satisfaction among team members (Aryee,
Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). Their research findings suggest that trust is a bottom-up effort built upon honoring commitments and investing in the workplace relationships within the team.
The world of technology will continue to discover new ways to improve the work environment; these innovations will undoubtedly enhance the global nature of today’s workforce. To embrace the benefits of virtual teams, organizations must be prepared to Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 42 address the challenges, which includes quickly and effectively establishing trust among members. The ethical climate is an important predictor of trust and, when combined with trust, positively affects employees’ effectiveness (Aryee et al., 2002). Thus, in preparing for inevitable workforce evolutions, organizations can benefit today by creating opportunities for virtual teams that incorporate factors to enhance the team’s ability to establish trust, which depends heavily on the interplay between communications that are task-focused and social (Gignac, 2004). However, building trust requires a considerable time commitment; any notion of overnight changes is unrealistic (Gignac, 2004).
The public sector has gained a better understanding of the use of virtual teams over the last 30 years. However, this understanding only has grown through the use of virtualization and has not extended to a deeper understanding of the risks and rewards associated with using them (O’Keeffe, 2009). It may be because of this that the government’s reliance on virtualization has done little to improve the body of knowledge on the subject. As the GAO (2013) points out, despite widespread utilization, there is a systemic lack of success in public-sector virtualization efforts. This study seeks to shed light on this important topic to potentially improve the government’s ability to virtualize operations.
Building and Ensuring Virtual Team Trust
Swift trust theory suggests trust is given initially among members of a team that comes together for a defined purpose and that trust is verified and adjusted later, as interactions mature (Meyerson et al., 1996). Swift trust theory advances the notion that research should evolve from questions of whether trust is possible and how it might be developed in virtual teams to more substantive questions about the avenues for importing Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 43 as well as maintaining and improving trust in virtual teams (Meyerson et al., 1996).
Huxham and Vangen (2004) also found a link between trust and mutual gain. For example, the ability of team members to respect the citation and protection of information sent to them is a principle grounded in reasons that include the ability to stand behind team members (Huxham & Vangen, 2004).
In addition, several notable studies have examined the effects of trust on traditional teaming configurations, often noting a link between trust and effectiveness.
Sabel (1993) determined that a group’s trust and effectiveness are so strongly linked that, if trust is missing, no one will take risks, and all parties will sacrifice collaborative gains for self-preservation. More recently, Costa, Roe, and Tallieu (2001) contended that one of the essential concepts for management is the role that trust plays at the team level and how it contributes to overall performance. Likert and Likert (1976) advocated participatory management styles that established and maintained confidence and trust in subordinates. In particular, the authors found trust to be a critical element in the success or failure of small groups. Low-trust groups used energy and creativity to reduce risk exposure; meanwhile, in high-trust groups, energy and creativity were more focused on solving problems (Likert & Likert, 1976). To build high-trust teams, Likert and Likert
(1976) recommended forcing open lines of communication, thereby ensuring that a range of perspectives are considered when discussing issues.
Another key aspect for ensuring trust in virtual teams is acting in the team’s best interests, which enables team norms to become explicit (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997).
Moreover, each team member’s roles and responsibilities become evident to the whole community (Duarte & Snyder, 1999). Virtual team members’ strengths and weaknesses Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 44 are exposed, but contributions through cooperation become evident (Lipnack & Stamps,
1997). Ultimately, by acting in the best interest of the team, all virtual team members get fair treatment and full credit for their contributions (Ford et al., 2017).
Members’ ability to keep promises or tell others when they cannot keep them becomes the hallmark of consistent and reliable participation in the virtual community
(Duarte & Snyder, 1999). Indeed, interacting according to a shared ethical code and delivering on promises made to the community are absolute requirements for the fair treatment of all virtual team members (Ardichvili et al., 2008). These factors play into the idea of truthfulness Members who are not truthful impede the team’s ability to create an environment of trust (Duarte & Snyder, 1999; Handy, 1995).
To encourage the establishment of trust in a virtual team environment, leadership must understand the dynamic nature of trust (Ardichvili et al., 2008; Ford et al., 2017).
Trust—in the virtual team context—is a relationship among fellow team members that ensures that each member:
• demonstrates an interest in the other members and works on building good
personal relationships;
• demonstrates integrity in their work;
• is dependable and follows-through with commitment;
• proves to be competent in their roles and responsibilities; and
• shares information with teammates that is mutually beneficial (Holton, 2001;
Coppola et al., 2004; Watkins, 2013).
Of these five indicators of trust, the last one—shares mutually valuable information with others—is likely the most vital (Piccoli & Ives, 2000). Team members Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 45 who share mutually valuable information with others provide a key to the success of virtual teams (Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014). Team members are encouraged to help others while sharing what they know; they also expect the same behavior of other members.
Thus, members who promote this behavior by setting an example for others further enhance trust (Duarte & Snyder, 1999).
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 46
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction and Research Design
This study used a mixed-methodology approach that combines two methodologies. The study pursued quantitative and qualitative methods by incorporating short-answer questions along with quantitative questions tied to a Likert scale.
Furthermore, this study seeks to extend Walters’ (2004) study of virtual teams in two important ways. First, the study examined a large, multilocation public-sector organization in the United States. Second, the participants are from multiple organizations that support the virtual teams.
To assess the hypotheses and fully examine the research questions, an organization within the Department of Defense (DoD) was selected. The organization has deep ties to virtual teams and delivering information technology to various organizations within the United States Air Force. The organization has virtual teams in place across the continental United States. It blends the elements of a geographically dispersed organization with the core business of delivering information technology with interconnected teams from the functional requirements arena, to industry and government acquisition professionals.
The organization supports the acquisition, operation, and sustainment of information technology solutions for the entire Air Force. The organization provides the technology in support of combat and mission support areas (BES, 2017). The staffing for the organization is 1,827 people (military, civil servants, and contractors) managing an annual budget of more than $1B across 156 programs spread across five main operating locations in five states (BES, 2017). Of the 2,300 employees, over 100 are program Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 47 managers with a formal leadership role to manage the cost, schedule, and performance of one or more programs. The groups have formed cross-functional teams to collaborate on information technology transformational initiatives across a diverse set of problems. The primary structure of the teams is virtual in nature, with roles and responsibilities stratified to leverage the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the groups. Thus, this study included respondents from every group within the organization and stratified throughout the hierarchy.
Sample/Participant Selection
The sampling for this study was based on virtual team members who are supporting program management activities for a public-sector organization managing information technology. The virtual teams encompassed civilian and military employees of the public-sector organization as well as private-sector support contractors. Qualifying participants are only those who are currently working in a virtual team construct in that they do not meet face-to-face on a regular basis, and the team had members disbursed in different physical locations. Participants who were members of more than one virtual team were asked to rate only one team.
Because the specific goal of this research was to determine the relationship between trust and perceived team over time, the study used a nonrandom purposive sample. Senior leaders identified organizations whose members participated on a virtual team. All virtual team members identified were contacted via email. The study encompassed virtual teams whose members were engaged in the organization’s transformation, e.g., process owners, functional personnel, team managers, sponsors, and Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 48 infrastructure service providers. Given the diverse and geographic dispersion of the team members, extensive use of electronic communication was employed.
The total sample size was 130 participants from the targeted organization. No participants opted out after completing the survey. Participants who refused to acknowledge the informed consent form were excluded. The cover letter and informed consent form are presented in Appendix C. Franklin University’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) reviewed and approved this study. In addition, as this study was being conducted within the public sector, various levels of approval were obtained and presented in redacted form in Appendix B in order to proceed.
Measures
The measurement strategy (see Appendix A) measured two components—trust and perceived team effectiveness—longitudinally to determine the effects of these components over time. To accomplish this, this study uses the virtual team trust (VTT) instrument developed by Sarker et al. (2003). This instrument measures trust according to three dimensions: personality, institution, and cognition.
Personality-based trust relates to the trust that develops during infancy, when one seeks and receives help from caretakers (Bowlby, 1982). It is considered a part of an individual’s personality and propensity to trust others. Institutional-based trust stems from the norms and rules of institutions. This type of trust is said to guide behavior and trusting beliefs (Coutu, 1998). Because individuals conform to organizational norms, members of the organization trust each other based on that membership. Finally, cognitive-based trust examines how an individual’s trusting beliefs are set based on the information gathered through interactions with others (McAllister, 1995). Developing Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 49 cognitive trust occurs through the observation of task accomplishment and the corresponding knowledge gathered through this interaction (Sarker et al., 2003).
Cognitive trust also comes from the social interactions that occur but are unrelated to the task accomplishment. Social interactions can include personal anecdotes meant to connect to others in the group through humor or some other form (Sarker et al., 2003), such as references to weather at other participating locations, team members’ self- deprecating comments during telephone conferences, or the personalization of trip reports and meeting minutes. The cognitive dimension of trust is further broken down to include reputation categorization (i.e., individuals with good reputations are trusted) and stereotyping according to physical appearance/behavior of the remote members, message- related factors, and technology-related factors.
An additional measure proposed by Walters (2004)—based on the work of Lurey and Raisinghani (2001)—is perceived team effectiveness. Eight items, based on items measuring team performance and satisfaction, were measured for perceived team effectiveness. The related questions ask for information about the overall performance of the virtual team as well as the level of satisfaction with the team members.
Furthermore, the current study’s instrument carries over a qualitative portion from the original study consisting of two open-ended items (Walters, 2004). Specifically, respondents are asked: “Based on your experience, what contributed to the development of trust in your virtual team, if applicable” and “Based on your experience, what damaged trust in your virtual team, if applicable?” The narrative responses were captured electronically. The input data field was sufficient to fit the longest response for the
Walters study (2004) plus an additional 10%. As with Walters’ (2004) study, the content Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 50 of these responses were analyzed to glean themes in the data, which were then coded to promote generalization.
Because Walters’ (2004) study adapted qualitative questions to a summated rating scale, the current researcher had to allay concerns related to reliability by incorporating an additional measure—namely, Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha is used to assist the researcher in determining the reliability of the scale used. It is also used to learn how similar items in a survey are measuring similar things (Walters, 2004). In Walters’ (2004) study, the Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated that the data were highly reliable.
Data Collection
The data collection method for the current study included the virtual team trust instrument (Sarker et al., 2003), perceived team effectiveness items (Lurey &
Raisinghani, 2001), and two open-ended items (Walters, 2004) to determine the impact that trust has on perceived team effectiveness among virtual team members. As taken from previous studies (Walters, 2004; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Sarker et al., 2003), the data collection questionnaire utilized in the current study (see Appendix A) includes a total of 19 main questions with varying numbers of sub-questions. Questions 1 through 3 asked for information about the level of trust among virtual team members using a scale rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree; it also allows participants to indicate “not applicable.” Questions 4 and 5 provided participants with the opportunity to document— in free text form—information related to the contributing or inhibiting factors for building trust in virtual teams. Question 6 asked for information about the overall performance of the virtual team and the level of satisfaction with team members. Finally,
Questions 7 through 19 asked for general information about the participant, his or her Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 51 virtual team, and the organization. Approval to use the VTT and the perceived team effectiveness items was obtained from the original authors of the instruments.
In keeping with the established methodology (Walters, 2004), the data collection instrument was delivered via email. As prescribed in Walters’ study (2004), participants were blind-copied on an email containing the instructional information and a link to the online survey in order to protect confidentiality. In collecting the data, SoGoSurvey.com was utilized and contained sufficient functionality at the student license level. The added benefit of out-of-the-box integration with analytical tools like IBM’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) supported using the SoGoSurvey platform for this study
(Schindler, 2016).
Because the questionnaire was to be administered online, the questions have the highest risk of bias. To increase validity, short sentences were used for reading on the screen. Nielsen (2000) pointed out that most people scan through online content, looking for keywords and phrases. The instrument design addressed this tendency by providing clear, concise, and consistent questions. In addition, given that all of the people involved in the participating virtual teams have a solid understanding of technology and utilize personal computers daily to conduct their work, there was little to no risk in conducting the survey online.
Based on Walters’ (2004) study, the total time estimated for participants to complete the survey is 15 minutes. Completed surveys were submitted online to
Sogosurvey.com’s secure website and downloaded from there into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 52
Data Analysis
Two processes were used for coding. First, the researcher analyzed the data for both research questions, coding comments by assigning a code or theme to each comment. Multiple codes were assigned to comments addressing multiple themes. Once all comments have been coded, the researcher will count the number of times a code appears to determine the most prominent themes. To mitigate the risk of bias, an unaffiliated and unpaid master’s level assistant acted as shadow coder and independently coded the same data. No points of difference among the major themes needed to be reconciled.
Validity and Reliability
The variant of the VTT instrument used consists of 30 items with a 4-point Likert scale. By summing all of the items in the applicable portion of the survey, an overall trust score is obtained. The VTT obtained coefficient alphas ranging from .75 to .94—well within acceptable standards. Furthering the validity of the instruments, in the Walters
(2004) study, the VTT instrument, which was modified to fit an organizational setting instead of its original educational setting, and the perceived team effectiveness items showed high reliability, with coefficient alphas ranging from .80 to .94.
An additional measure pursued by Walters (2004) was perceived team effectiveness, which was achieved by leveraging the work of Lurey and Raisinghani
(2001). The eight items measuring perceived team effectiveness are based on items measuring team performance and satisfaction. During their study, Lurey and Raisinghani
(2001) reported coefficient alphas of .82 for both the performance and satisfaction scales. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 53
The coefficient alpha for the overall perceived team effectiveness measures in this study was .94.
Ethical Considerations
This study was undertaken to substantially improve the knowledge of virtual teams operating within the public sector. By studying trust and perceived effectiveness of virtual teams in a public-sector setting, this investigation provided a foundation for further research—drawn, in part, from studies of the private sector.
Despite the inherent benefits of the study, ethical considerations influenced its design. Most notably, because the specific target of this study was the relationship between trust and perceived effectiveness, a nonrandom purposive sample was to be used. This raised a concern about the fair selection of participants. While senior leaders in the organization selected the virtual teams, all of the members within the teams identified were contacted, resulting in a total sample size of 130 participants.
Within the context of this study, the design minimized risks and provided the highest potential benefits; indeed, the benefits to the organization and potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for the public sector outweighed even the slightest risks. Furthermore, to verify the results of the study and mitigate the risk of bias, an unaffiliated and unpaid master’s level assistant acted as a shadow coder to independently coded the same data.
To ensure that individuals were informed about the research and their voluntary consent, each potential participant was emailed the letter of introduction and informed consent (see Appendix B). Therefore, the informed-consent process culminated when the individual chose to participate in the study or not. Together, these overlapping strategies Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 54 provided a firm and appropriate basis for helping to ensure that the potential participants made an informed decision about their participation.
The participants’ data were anonymized to protect privacy and participation choice. Although this study is not collecting sensitive information, standard procedures for maintaining participants’ privacy, including the storage of all potentially sensitive data in a secure server with only access by the researcher. Furthermore, participants were afforded the opportunity to withdraw from the study and have their information purged at any point, as noted in the consent process.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 55
Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to determine if team trust is related to perceived team effectiveness in virtual teams that work within the public sector and to identify factors that might support or damage the development of trust in virtual teams.
Quantitative data (e.g., rating scales, numerically coded responses to multiple-choice questions) and qualitative data (e.g., open-ended questions) were collected using an online survey of civilian and military employees of an organization within the
Department of Defense, all of whom were members of virtual work teams at the time of the study. This organization runs 156 programs that provide IT solutions for the US Air
Force from five locations across the United States.
The survey included 30 rating scale items from the virtual team trust (VTT) instrument (Sarker et al., 2003), which measured three types of team trust: personality- based trust, institutional-based trust, and cognitive-based trust. Respondents next answered two open-ended questions to elicit their thoughts about factors that enhance and inhibit the development of team trust. A series of eight rating-scale items from Lurey and
Raisinghani (2001) collected data on participants’ perceptions of their virtual work team’s effectiveness in two domains: performance and satisfaction. The remainder of the survey consisted of questions designed to collect demographic and professional information. The bulk of the analysis was quantitative, using a correlational research design. A qualitative analysis of responses to the two open-ended questions included in the survey served to further elucidate and illustrate findings from the quantitative side.
This chapter begins by describing the processes through which the data were prepared for analysis. The characteristics of the study’s participants are described next, Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 56 followed by an explanation and justification of the study’s research methodology and research design. One chapter section is devoted to describing and evaluating the instruments used to collect quantitative data on trust and perceived effectiveness.
Following that are descriptions of the statistical procedures used in analyzing the quantitative data and justifications for the use of these procedures. The results of the statistical analyses are presented, and the chapter concludes with a summary of the findings.
Preparation of the Data
Online survey data collected using the SoGo survey platform were downloaded as an Excel file, which was then imported to IBM SPSS (Version 25.0), and all subsequent data manipulations and analyses were performed using that software. Data were obtained from a total of 53 participants. An inadvertent failure to include one intended question in the survey meant that no data were collected on one item used in assessing perceived team effectiveness (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001), specifically, one of five items used to evaluate perceived satisfaction: “I feel the members of the team value my input.” As will be reported later in the chapter, the omission of that item did not appear to have a strongly adverse impact on the reliability of the remaining four items used to measure perceived team satisfaction.
There were additional scattered missing data, and preliminary data processing started with an evaluation of these missing data. Allison (2002) quipped that “The only really good solution to the missing data problem is not to have any” (p. 2), but the reality is that, in any survey research that gives participants the option not to answer items, some items will go unanswered. This can happen by mistake when participants in an electronic Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 57 survey believe they have registered their response to an item but actually have not, or it can happen purposefully when respondents abandon the survey due to interruptions, fatigue, or simply do not wish to answer certain items (Patten, 2014; Toepoel, 2016).
In the present study, participants were given the option of responding N/A (not applicable) to the items forming both the VTT and perceived team effectiveness scale, and those responses also had to be treated as missing data; a response of N/A meant that the respondent had no experience upon which to base a judgment or the item was irrelevant to the participant’s virtual team experience. A decision had to be made with regard to how much missing data were too much missing data, that is, how much data were needed to calculate meaningful valid subscale and overall scores on the VTT and the perceived team effectiveness instrument.
As noted by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), “Unfortunately, there are as yet no firm guidelines for how much missing data can be tolerated for a sample of a given size”
(p. 63). Although statisticians routinely advise researchers to delete cases and variables that display excessive missing data, they do so without defining what they mean by
“excessive” (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2017; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013; Warner,
2013).
In this study, the researcher determined that subscale and overall measures of team trust and team effectiveness would not be calculated for participants who were missing more than 25% of the data needed to calculate those measures. This meant that participants could not miss more than one of four VTT items used to measure personality-based trust, no more than one of the five items used to measure institutional- Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 58 based trust, no more than five of 21 items used to measure cognitive-based trust, and no more than seven of the 30 items used to measure overall team trust.
For the measure of perceived team effectiveness, the 25% rule meant that participants could not miss more than one of the four items used to measure perceived performance, no more than one of the four items that were collected to measure perceived satisfaction, and no more than two of the eight items measuring overall perceived team effectiveness. The rule to eliminate data from participants who did not answer at least
75% of the items used in calculating any given subscale or overall measure led to the following actions. No scores on the personality-based trust subscale were lost, four scores on the institutional-based trust subscale could not be calculated (from Cases 3, 23, 25, and 45), and seven scores on overall team trust could not be calculated (from Cases 3, 8,
10, 12, 23, 25, and 45). On the measure of perceived team effectiveness, two scores on the perceived performance subscale (from Cases 23 and 25) could not be calculated, three scores on the perceived satisfaction subscale (from Cases 8, 22, and 23) could not be calculated, and four scores on overall perceived team effectiveness (from Cases 8, 22, 23, and 25) could not be calculated. Excessive missing data (i.e., over 25%) on the VTT and perceived team effectiveness instrument came from eight respondents out of the total of
53 who participated in the study.
Meade and Craig (2012) noted that the quality of data collected using anonymous surveys is sometimes questionable and recommended several data quality screens. Data quality screening in this study included evaluations of univariate and multivariate outliers. Univariate outliers are individuals whose scores on a variable are unusually high or low relative to other respondents. Multivariate outliers are individuals whose scores on Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 59 individual variables may be unremarkable but who show a pattern of scores across several variables that are strongly unlike the average profile displayed by other respondents.
It is generally recommended that outliers, whether univariate or multivariate, be deleted from the data file (Meade & Craig, 2012; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013, Meyers et al., 2017; Warner, 2013). Univariate and multivariate outliers can be indicative of careless or random responding, outliers are statistically aberrant and unrepresentative of the sample under investigation, and outliers contribute disproportionately to the outcomes of statistical analyses in which they are included.
In this study, univariate outliers were evaluated by standardizing scores on the study’s key variables (personality-based trust, institutional-based trust, cognitive-based trust, overall trust, perceived performance, perceived satisfaction, and overall perceived team effectiveness) and screening for z-scores exceeding +3.30 (p < .001 in a normal distribution). This was a conservative criterion (Meyers et al., 2017) that was intended to eliminate only the most severely aberrant scores. Only one score was deleted based on this screen for univariate outliers. That score was on the perceived performance subscale
(raw score value = 1, z-score equivalent = 3.305, from Case 32).
Multivariate outliers were evaluated by calculating the Mahalanobis distance statistic (D) for each participant. The D statistic provides a measure of the degree to which an individual’s pattern of scores across a series of variables deviates from the average pattern of scores displayed by the other cases. In this study, D was calculated using five variables—the three subscales of the VTT and the two subscales of the perceived team effectiveness measure. Values of D were evaluated for significance Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 60 against the chi-square distribution using df = 5 (the number of variables using in calculating D) and a stringent level of significance (p < .001; Meyers et al., 2017). No multivariate outliers were identified in this study.
Following the data cleaning described above, all 53 survey respondents provided valid scores on at least one of the study’s key variables (i.e., VTT subscales and overall scores, and perceived team effectiveness subscales and overall scores). The demographic and professional characteristics of these 53 participants are described next. Subsequent analyses of the data in this study used pairwise deletion of cases with missing data in order to maximize sample sizes in each analysis. In pairwise deletion, a case is included in an analysis involving multiple variables even if the case has missing data on some of the variables being analyzed. What data the case does bring to the analysis, however, are used. The alternative, listwise deletion of cases with missing data requires that a case be eliminated entirely from an analysis if the case has missing data on any of the variables in that analysis.
Participants
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics that characterize the sample’s demographic and professional characteristics. Scores on the study’s key variables will be described in a later section of this chapter.
Table 1 Sample Demographic and Professional Characteristics
______
Variables f % ______
Virtual Working Preference Prefer Teams at Same Location 35 66.0% Prefer Teams Dispersed 18 34.0% Total 53 100.0% Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 61
Length of Time With Current Team 0-1 Years 14 26.4% 2-3 Years 14 26.4% 4-5 Years 10 18.9% 6-7 Years 2 3.8% 8+ Years 13 24.5% Total 53 100.0%
How Often Teams Meet Never 15 28.3% Quarterly or Less 27 50.9% Monthly 2 3.8% Weekly 7 13.2% Missing 2 3.8% Total 53 100.0%
Number of Team Members 2-10 20 37.7% 11-15 16 30.2% 16-20 5 9.4% 21-25 3 5.7% 26+ 9 17.0% Total 53 100.0%
Respondent’s Affiliation Civil Service 39 73.6% Contractor 9 17.0% Military 3 5.7% Other 2 3.8% Total 53 100.0%
Respondent’s Role Team Sponsor 3 5.7% Team Leader 18 34.0% Team Member 30 56.6% Other 2 3.8% Total 53 100.0%
Type of Work Cross-Functional 39 73.6% Functional 12 22.6% Missing 2 3.8% Total 53 100.0%
Number of Teams at Same Location 0-1 27 50.9% 2-3 14 26.4% 4-5 5 9.4% 6+ 7 13.2% Total 53 100.0%
Number of Teams at Different Locations 0-1 11 20.8% 2-3 24 45.3% 4-5 5 9.4% Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 62
6+ 13 24.5% Total 53 100.0%
Virtual Team Training No Training 40 75.4% Training 11 20.8% Missing 2 3.8% Total 53 100.0%
Hours of Traininga 0-2 Hours 9 56.3% 3-5 Hours 3 18.8% 6-9 Hours 0 0.0% 10+ Hours 4 25.0% Total 16 100.0%
Age 18-30 3 5.7% 31-45 8 15.1% 46-55 21 39.6% 56+ 21 39.6% Total 53 100.0%
Gender Female 16 30.2% Male 36 67.9% Missing 1 1.9% Total 53 100.0% ______Note. aOnly the 11 respondents who reported that they received virtual team training were to then report the number of hours of training received. It is unclear why 16 respondents reported the number of hours they were trained. It is possible that five untrained respondents included themselves in the 0-2 hour category because they received 0 hours of training. Percentages reported for this variable are based on N = 16.
Methodology and Design
A mixed-methods approach was used in this study, which involved the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data (Yilmaz, 2013). This approach enabled the researcher to not only evaluate the statistical reliability of the findings in a sample that was large enough to provide reasonable statistical power but also gave the opportunity to use the richer qualitative data to reach a better understanding of the results
(Kopecky, 2016; Park & Park, 2016). The quantitative component was made possible by the availability of numerical data measuring the study’s key variables. Previously Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 63 validated instruments were available, which provided numerical data on team trust
(Sarker et al., 2013) and on perceived team effectiveness (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001).
The statistical analysis of numerical data within the quantitative component of a mixed-methodology design is useful in establishing that the findings observed in the sample at hand can be considered reliable and replicable within clear probabilistic boundaries. The statistical analysis of numerical data also enables measuring the size or strength of the findings (Dattalo, 2008). The researcher’s ability to work with data from large samples in a quantitative study also contributes to the external validity of the study’s findings; in addition, findings from a larger sample are more likely to represent the population from which the sample was drawn than are findings from a smaller sample
(Gravetter & Forzano, 2016). However, while the findings from quantitative studies can establish that an effect of measurable strength is reliable and can be generalized to the intended population, qualitative data can be more useful in understanding the why’s and how’s of the effect.
The research design selected for use within the quantitative portion of this mixed- methods study was correlational. A correlational research design is useful when (a) the researcher cannot manipulate the independent variable, whether for ethical or logistic reasons; (b) the data are provided by a single sample; and (c) the purpose of the research is to measure the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Johnson & Christensen, 2016). The present study met all of these criteria.
First, in a field study like this one, it was not logistically possible for the researcher to manipulate participants’ perceptions of team trust, for example, by assigning participants at random to teams where trust was high and others to teams where Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 64 trust was low. It is conceivable that the perceived trust of team members could be manipulated in a laboratory experiment, but the results of such a study might provide relatively low ecological validity (Heron & Smyth, 2013; Want, 2014). As Mook (1983) noted, “If our purpose in conducting an experiment is to predict real-life behavior in the real world, then issues of ecological validity confront us full force” (p. 381). Field research studies like this one also often must sacrifice experimental control for enhanced ecological validity (Gravetter & Forzano, 2016). Second, the data collected in this study were provided by a single sample of individuals who work in virtual teams. Third, the expressed purpose of the study was to measure the strength and evaluate the statistical significance of the relationship between team trust and perceived team effectiveness across the multiple dimensions of both of those constructs.
Because correlational research does not involve the experimental manipulation of an independent variable, correlational studies represent one type of nonexperimental research (Gravetter & Forzano, 2016). As with all nonexperimental research, correlational studies do not enable the researcher to draw the kinds of strong causal conclusions about the relationships between independent and dependent variables that are reasonable in experimental research. However, a causal relationship between two variables will manifest itself in a correlation between those variables (Meyers et al.,
2017). Consequently, in the present study, correlations observed between measures of team trust and measures of team effectiveness can be considered to be consistent with the conclusion that team trust influences team effectiveness, but correlations are insufficient in themselves to establish that causality (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Similarly, the discovery in this study that pre-existing subsamples (e.g., team leaders vs. team Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 65 members) differ in some aspect of team trust does not mean that one’s position causes the individual to experience more or less trust. It is equally likely that being more or less trusting influences one’s career advancement. In the absence of a manipulated independent variable, strong causal conclusions cannot be drawn.
Data Collection Instruments
In addition to questions about the participants’ demographic and professional characteristics (described previously), the study revolved around two key constructs: team trust and perceived team effectiveness, each of which constructs was subdivided into additional subtypes or dimensions. Instruments used to measure team trust and perceived team effectiveness in this study are discussed next, including the results of some psychometric evaluations of the instruments.
Team Trust: The Virtual Team Trust Instrument
Team trust was measured using the VTT instrument (Sarker et al., 2013). That instrument includes 30 items, of which four are designed to measure the subscale of personality-based trust, five items are designed to measure the subscale of institutional- based trust, and 21 items are designed to measure the subscale of cognitive-based trust.
Each item is accompanied by a 4-point Likert rating scale anchored in this study so that higher numerical rankings reflected greater agreement: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree. The instrument provides a fifth off-scale rating alternative: N/A (not applicable). In the VTT, the N/A rating is not a neutral point on the rating scale, located between 2 = disagree and 3 = agree. Rather, a rating of N/A indicates that the respondent was missing the relevant information upon which to base a judgment.
Consequently, ratings of N/A were treated as missing data. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 66
Subscale scores on personality-based trust, institution-based trust, and cognitive- based trust were calculated by averaging ratings to the items associated with each of these subscales. As described previously, VTT subscale scores were not calculated for individuals who did not answer at least 75% of the items associated with those subscales.
Overall, team trust was calculated by averaging all 30 items of the VTT. Overall scores were not calculated for individuals who did not answer at least 75% of the items forming the instrument. Scores on VTT subscales and overall VTT scores had a theoretical range of 1–4, with higher scores indicating higher levels of trust and lower scores indicating lower trust.
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality for the VTT
Table 2 provides sample descriptive statistics for the VTT subscales and overall scores. Included in that table are measures of skewness and kurtosis and the results of
Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality, used to evaluate the normality of the score distributions.
Normality can also be evaluated through visual inspection of the frequency histograms constructed for the VTT subscales and overall scores, as shown in Figure 1. All distributions showed some similarity to the normal curve, at least in that middle scores were generally more common than either low or high scores, and no measures of skewness or kurtosis exceeded the values +1.00 suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, and
Anderson (2010) for use in identifying non-normal distributions. However, Shapiro–Wilk tests for normality showed that all three subscales deviated significantly (p < .05) from the normal curve.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 67
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Measures of Distribution Normality for VTT Subscales and Overall Scores
______
Shapiro-Wilk Test Variable N Min Max M SD Skewness Kurtosis Statistic df p ______
Personality-Based Trust 53 2.00 4.00 3.13 0.51 0.08 0.30 0.84 53 <.001
Institution-Based Trust 49 1.60 4.00 2.93 0.60 0.07 -0.35 0.95 49 .048
Cognitive-Based Trust 46 2.00 4.00 3.08 0.57 0.06 -0.70 0.95 46 .037
Overall Trust 46 2.00 4.00 3.07 0.53 -0.11 -0.49 0.96 46 .095 ______
Figure 1 Frequency Histograms for VTT Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, Cognitive-Based Trust, and Overall Trust Scores
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 68
Subscale Correlations and Internal Consistency Reliability of the VTT
Table 3 shows Spearman correlations among the VTT subscales and overall scores, tolerance values for each measure, and Cronbach alpha coefficients. Spearman correlations were used in place of Pearson correlations because the subscale distributions were non-normal. While tests of the statistical significance of the Pearson correlation assume bivariate normality, the Spearman correlation relaxes this assumption (Hollander
& Wolfe, 1999).
As would be expected, all VTT subscales and overall scores were strongly and positively correlated. However, with the possible exception of the correlation between institution-based trust and cognitive-based trust (r = 0.78), the subscales correlations were not so strong as to suggest that the subscales failed to measure different aspects of trust (Miller & Lovler, 2016).
The tolerance statistic calculated for each subscale represents the proportion of variance in that subscale that is not explained by the other two subscales taken conjointly.
Meyers et al. (2017) have suggested that tolerance statistics less than 0.10 are problematic, indicating excessive redundancy among the variables. That redundancy was not found among the VTT subscales, as one-third or more of the variance in each VTT subscale was measured uniquely by that subscale, i.e., it was not measured by the two other subscales. Also, shown in Table 3 are variance inflation factors (VIF) statistics, which are calculated as the reciprocal of the tolerance statistic. VIF values of 10 or greater suggest excessive redundancy among variables (Meyers et al., 2017). None of the
VIF values observed in this study challenged the relative independence of the VTT measures, even though they are all measures of the same basic construct, team trust. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 69
Further, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all VTT subscales and overall scores exceeded the criterion α > .90 that defines a measure with excellent reliability (Miller & Lovler,
2016).
Table 3 VTT Subscale and Overall Score Correlations, Tolerance Values, VIF and Cronbach’s Alpha
______
Cronbach’s Variables 1 2 3 4 Tolerance VIF α ______
1. Personality-Based Trust -- 0.49 2.05 0.91
2. Institution-Based Trust 0.66 -- 0.33 3.03 0.92 N = 49
3. Cognitive-Based Trust 0.60 0.78 -- 0.33 3.03 0.98 N = 46 N = 46
4. Overall Trust 0.69 0.88 0.98 -- n/a n/a 0.98 N = 46 N = 46 N = 46 ______Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001 (two-tail). The tolerance value for overall trust was not calculated as total scores are arithmetically determined by scores on the three subscales.
Perceived Team Effectiveness
Perceived team effectiveness was measured using a rating scale instrument from
Lurey and Raisinghan (2001). This instrument includes nine items, of which four are designed to measure the subscale of perceived team performance, and five are designed to measure the subscale of perceived team satisfaction. However, one of the items in the perceived team satisfaction subscale was inadvertently omitted from the survey, leaving four items for that subscale.
Each item is accompanied by a 4-point Likert rating scale anchored in this study so that higher numerical rankings reflected greater perceived effectiveness: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree. As was true with the VTT Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 70 instrument, the measure of perceived team effectiveness provides a fifth, off-scale rating alternative for each item, i.e., N/A (not applicable). The N/A rating is not a neutral point on the rating scale, located between 2 = disagree and 3 = agree. Rather, a rating of N/A indicates that the respondent was missing relevant information upon which to base a judgment of team effectiveness. Consequently, ratings of N/A were treated as missing data.
Subscale scores on perceived team performance and perceived team satisfaction were calculated by averaging ratings to the items associated with each of these subscales.
As described previously, perceived team effectiveness subscale scores were not calculated for individuals who did not answer at least 75% of the items associated with those subscales. Overall perceived team effectiveness was calculated by averaging all eight items of the instrument. Overall scores were not calculated for individuals who did not answer at least 75% of the items forming the instrument. Scores on the perceived team effectiveness subscales and overall perceived team effectiveness scores had a theoretical range of 1–4, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived effectiveness and lower scores indicating lower perceived effectiveness.
Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality for Perceived Team Effectiveness
Table 4 provides sample descriptive statistics for the perceived team effectiveness subscales and overall scores. Included in that table are measures of skewness and kurtosis and the results of Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality, used to evaluate the normality of the score distributions. Normality can also be evaluated through visual inspection of the frequency histograms constructed for the perceived effectiveness subscales and overall team effectiveness scores, as shown in Figure 2. All distributions showed some similarity Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 71 to the normal curve, with generally more scores in the middle ranges than at either extreme, and no measures of skewness or kurtosis exceeded the values +1.00 suggested by Hair et al. (2010) for use in identifying non-normal distributions. However, Shapiro–
Wilk tests for normality showed that all three subscales deviated significantly (p < .05) from the normal curve.
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and Measures of Distribution Normality for Subscales and Overall Scores on Perceived Team Effectiveness
______
Shapiro-Wilk Test Variable N Min Max M SD Skewness Kurtosis Statistic df p ______
Perceived Performance 50 2.00 4.00 3.10 0.56 0.17 -0.37 0.91 50 .001
Perceived Satisfaction 50 2.00 4.00 3.16 0.59 -0.09 -0.84 0.93 49 .008
Overall Effectiveness 49 2.00 4.00 3.13 0.56 -0.06 -0.63 0.95 49 .040 ______
Figure 2: Frequency Histograms for Perceived Team Performance, Perceived Team Satisfaction, and Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 72
Correlations & Internal Consistency Reliability for Perceived Team Effectiveness
Table 5 shows Spearman correlations among the perceived team effectiveness subscales and overall team effectiveness scores, tolerance values, and VIF values for each measure, and Cronbach alpha coefficients. Spearman correlations were used in place of
Pearson correlations because the subscale distributions were non-normal. While tests of the statistical significance of the Pearson correlation assume bivariate normality, the
Spearman correlation relaxes this assumption (Hollander & Wolfe, 1999).
As would be expected, perceived effectiveness subscales and overall scores were strongly and positively correlated. One would expect the correlation between the subscale scores and overall scores to be high because those subscales and overall scores share items in common. Of some concern, however, is the strong correlation between the two subscales (r = .80), which suggests that those subscales may not do a particularly good job of measuring separate constructs but, rather, measure a single construct (Miller &
Lovler, 2016).
The tolerance statistic calculated for each subscale of perceived team effectiveness shows the proportion of variance in each subscale that is not explained by the other subscale: 36%. Using the criteria suggested by Meyers et al. (2017) these tolerance values indicate a good degree of independence between the performance and satisfaction subscales. That was confirmed by VIF values, none of which approached the value of 10 at which Meyers et al. (2017) suggest the variables are extremely redundant.
Although the relationship between the performance and satisfaction subscales of the perceived team effectiveness measure is quite strong, each of the subscales is modestly independent of the other. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 73
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the perceived performance subscale and for overall team effectiveness both exceeded the criterion α > .90, which defines a measure with excellent reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha for perceived team satisfaction met the criterion α > .80, which defines a measure with good reliability (Miller & Lovler, 2016).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is sensitive to the number of items that form the measure, particular as that number becomes small (Miller & Lovler, 2016). The fact that one item was inadvertently excluded from the perceived satisfaction subscale in the survey used in this study may have lowered Cronbach’s alpha somewhat for that subscale.
Table 5 Perceived Team Effectiveness Subscale and Overall Correlations, Tolerance Values, VIF and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients
______
Cronbach’s Variables 1 2 3 Tolerance VIF α ______
1. Perceived Performance -- 0.36 2.78 0.91
2. Perceived Satisfaction 0.80 -- 0.36 2.78 0.88 (N = 48)
3. Perceived Overall 0.93 0.95 -- n/a n/a 0.94 Effectiveness (N = 48) (N = 49)
______Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001 (two-tail). The tolerance value for overall team effectiveness was not calculated as the total was arithmetically determined by scores on the two subscales.
Quantitative Data Analyses
Several research questions were addressed through analyses of the quantitative data gathered in the study survey. Of primary focus to the stated purpose of this study were two groups of analyses. First, analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between team trust and team effectiveness. Second, analyses were performed to evaluate Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 74 the extent to which several professional and demographic characteristics were related to team trust.
Relationship between team trust and team effectiveness.
It was hypothesized that team trust is a factor that can enhance virtual team effectiveness and that team trust and team effectiveness would, therefore, be expected to be positively correlated. Table 6 shows Spearman correlations that tested this hypothesis.
As noted previously, Spearman correlations were used instead of Pearson correlations, as many of the variables were distributed non-normally, and this can result in distortions of the Pearson significance tests of statistical significance. The Spearman correlation, however, is robust to violations of the normality assumption. As was predicted, all correlations between measures of team trust and perceived team effectiveness were strongly positive (r > 0.50; Dattalo, 2008) and statistically significant (p < .001). The null hypothesis that team trust in virtual teams is unrelated to perceived team effectiveness in those virtual teams was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted; as team trust increased, so did perceptions of team effectiveness by all measures of both of those constructs.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 75
Table 6 Spearman Correlations Between Measures of Team Trust and Perceived Team Effectiveness
______
Perceived Team Effectiveness
Perceived Perceived Perceived Team Trust Performance Satisfaction Overall Effectiveness ______
Personality-Based Trust 0.52 0.56 0.60 N = 50 N = 50 N = 49
Institution-Based Trust 0.66 0.73 0.75 N = 48 N = 47 N = 47
Cognitive-Based Trust 0.71 0.81 0.80 N = 45 N = 45 N = 45
Overall Trust 0.72 0.83 0.82 N = 45 N = 45 N = 45 ______Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001 (one-tail).
The correlations reported in Table 6 show that all three VTT subscales measuring personality-based trust, institution-based trust, and cognitive-based trust were strongly and significantly related to perceived overall team effectiveness, but it was shown previously that the VTT subscales were quite strongly intercorrelated. Consequently, those VTT subscales can be considered to be quite redundant to each other and undoubtedly account for some of the same variance in perceived team effectiveness
(Meyers et al., 2017).
A least-squares stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed in order to better understand the VTT subscale redundancies and the relative importance of the subscales in predicting perceptions of overall team effectiveness. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) put it this way, "The stepwise procedure defines an a posteriori order based on the relative uniqueness of the variables in the sample at hand" (p.
161). Multiple regression analysis assumes that the dependent variable is normally Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 76 distributed (Meyers et al., 2017; Osborne & Waters, 2002), but it was shown previously that overall team effectiveness was significantly non-normal. This is acceptable, because the normality assumption of multiple regression only affects the significance tests associated with the multiple regression analysis, not the validity of the correlations (Edgell & Noon, 1984). Hill, Lewicki, and Lewicki (2006) noted that
“violations of the normality assumption are not fatal, and the resultant significance test are still reliable as long as non-normality is caused by skewness and not outliers” (p.
161). In further discussing the normality assumption in multiple regression analysis,
Statistics Solutions (2013) states, "There are few consequences associated with a violation of the normality assumption...It is only important for the calculation of p values for significance testing." Lumley, Diehr, Emerson, and Chen (2002) stated, "As with the t-test, least-squares linear regression is usually introduced by assuming that Y is normally distributed...This is not quite the same as saying that Y must be normal....Normality is not required to fit a linear regression [equation], but normality of the coefficient estimates [Beta] is needed to...perform [significance] tests" (p. 154).
Although the results of the significance tests are reported here, those significance tests were not the point of the analysis. The point of the stepwise multiple regression analysis was to gain insights into the amounts of variance in team effectiveness that were explained by the three VTT subscales—cognitive-based, personality-based, and institution-based. This was done by examining R2 changes at each step as each of the
VTT subscale predictor variables was entered, one at each step. Those R2 values are valid, even if tests of their significance and tests of changes in R2 from step to step are not (Edgell & Noon, 1984; Lumley et al., 2002; Statistics Solutions, 2003). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 77
In that multiple regression analysis, perceived overall team effectiveness served as the criterion (dependent) variable, and the three VTT subscales (personality-based trust, institution-based trust, and cognitive-based trust) served as predictor (independent) variables. The purpose of this multiple regression analysis was not to evaluate the statistical significance of the relationships between team trust and perceived team effectiveness; that was already accomplished using the Spearman correlations reported in
Table 6. Rather, the stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the relative importance of each of the three subscales of the VTT in predicting perceived overall team effectiveness and to determine how much variance in perceived overall team effectiveness was explained uniquely by each of the three subscales of the VTT.
In addition to several assumptions about research methodology, which is appropriate to the use of multiple regression analysis, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) have identified five statistical assumptions that affect the validity of the results of a multiple regression analysis: (a) linearity, i.e., the predictors should be linearly related to the criterion; (b) homoscedasticity of residuals, i.e., prediction errors should be approximately equally dispersed across the full range of predicted values; (c) multicollinearity, i.e., the predictors should not show excessively strong correlations; (d) outliers, i.e., there should not be any cases with prediction errors that usually large; (e) normally distributed residuals, i.e., the magnitude of prediction errors from one case to the next should be normally distributed.
The linearity of relationships between VTT subscales and perceived overall team effectiveness was tested by plotting scatterplots depicting those relationships with lines and quadratic curves of best fit placed in each scatterplot. Using R2 as the measure of Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 78 goodness-of-fit for the lines and curves, a relationship was determined to be nonlinear if
R2 for the curve was both strong and stronger than R2 for the line. Those scatterplots are shown in Figure 3. All relationships were strongly linear.
Figure 3: Scatterplots Showing Relationships Between Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness (the Criterion Variable) and Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive-Based Trust (the Predictor Variables) Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 79
Homoscedasticity of residuals was evaluated by plotting standardized residuals against standardized predicted values. That plot, shown in Figure 4, was examined for strong deviations from a rectangular shape, especially a strongly triangular plot. No such triangularity was noted, and the assumption of homoscedasticity of residuals was determined to be satisfied.
Figure 4: Plot of Standardized Residuals Against Standardize Predicted Values used to Evaluate the Assumption of Homoscedasticity of Residuals Excessive multicollinearity exists when the predictor variables are highly correlated. Multicollinearity makes it difficult to sort out the explanatory importance of the predictor variables by causing their regression weights to become unstable; the addition or deletion of even a few cases can cause the pattern of regression weights to shift dramatically. It was shown previously (Table 3) that none of the VTT subscales were correlated stronger than 0.78, and no tolerance values were lower than .33. It was concluded that, although the VTT subscales are strongly correlated, those correlations were not sufficient to create excessive multicollinearity. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 80
Outliers were evaluated both visually, by examining Figure 4 for cases that showed unusually large residuals (errors of prediction) and, statistically, using the casewise diagnostics output from a preliminary run of the multiple regression analysis.
That casewise diagnostics procedure screened for cases with residuals greater than +3.30
(p < .001 in a normal distribution). There were no such outliers.
Finally, the assumption that residuals should be normally distributed was evaluated by examining a plot of the residuals, as shown in Figure 5, and using the
Shaprio-Wilk test of normality. That test was nonsignificant, SW = 0.98; df = 45, p =
.592. It was concluded that the assumption of normally distributed residuals was met.
Figure 5: Frequency Histogram of the Residuals from the Regression of Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness on Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive-Based Trust Results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are summarized in Table 7.
Cognitive-based trust was selected at step 1 as the best single predictor of perceived overall team effectiveness. That one predictor accounted for 67% of the variance in perceived overall team effectiveness. Selected at step 2 was personality-based trust, which added a scant 1% additional explained variance in perceived overall effectiveness. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 81
Institution-based trust was added to the model at step 3 but added virtually no additional explained variance in perceived overall team effectiveness. In sum, although all three predictors were shown previously to be strongly correlated with perceived overall team effectiveness, the predictors were strongly redundant to each other, and all three explained virtually the same variance in that criterion variable.
Table 7 Model Summary for the Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived Overall Team Effectiveness on Personality-Based Trust, Institution-Based Trust, and Cognitive-Based Trust ______R2 F Step Predictor Entered R2 Change Change df1 df2 p ______
1 Cognitive-Based Trust 0.67 0.67 87.64 1 43 <.001
2 Personality-Based Trust 0.69 0.02 1.96 1 42 .169
3 Institution-Based Trust 0.69 0.00 0.24 1 41 .630 ______
All three subscales of team trust (personality-based, institution-based, cognitive- based) were previously shown to be statistically significant predictors of overall team effectiveness (Table 6). It was then established (Table 7) that all three trust subscales explained about the same variance in perceived overall effectiveness, with neither personality-based nor institution-based trust adding significant explained variance in overall team effectiveness beyond that provided by the strongest predictor, cognitive- based trust. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 82
This study also evaluated the relative predictive power provided by the three team trust subscales, that is, whether one team trust subscale was significantly more predictive of overall effectiveness than another team trust subscale. Correlations between the three team trust subscales and perceived overall effectiveness were shown previously in Table
6. Three z-tests for dependent correlations were used to compare all pairs of correlations with the following results: (a) personality-based trust and perceived overall effectiveness
(r = .60) vs. institution-based trust and perceived overall effectiveness (r = .75), z = 1.75, p = .040, indicating that institution-based trust was a better predictor than personality- based trust; (b) personality-based trust and perceived overall effectiveness (r = .60) vs. cognitive-based trust and perceived overall effectiveness (r = .80), z = 2.33, p = .010, indicating that cognitive-based trust was a better predictor than personality-based trust; and (c) institution-based trust and perceived overall effectiveness (r = .75) vs. cognitive- based trust and perceived overall effectiveness (r = .80), z = 0.85, p = .198, indicating that no difference in the predictive power of institution-based trust and cognitive-based trust. In sum, both cognitive-based and institution-based trust were significantly better predictors of perceived overall team effectiveness than was personality-based trust.
Consequently, the null hypothesis that no differences exist in the correlations between perceived effectiveness within a public sector virtual team and cognitive-based, institutional-based, or personality-based trust was rejected. Additionally, the alternative hypothesis was partially accepted because both cognitive-based and institution-based trust were significantly better predictors of perceived overall team effectiveness than was personality-based trust.
Factors influencing trust of virtual teams.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 83
The preceding section of this chapter showed that team trust was strongly and significantly predictive of perceived team effectiveness in virtual work teams. Nearly
70% of the variance in perceived overall team effectiveness was predicted by the three
VTT subscales considered conjointly, and most of that variance was about equally well predicted by any of the measures of team trust. Given the potentially important influence of team trust on perceptions of team effectiveness, it is important to understand better what factors in the virtual team workplace might affect team trust. Although no causal conclusions can be reached in a correlational study about which factors causally have an impact on team trust, it is at least possible to identify factors that are reliably related to team trust, and that might be causal determinants of team trust.
A series of Mann–Whitney (M-W) U tests and Kruskal–Wallis (K-W) one-way
ANOVAs by ranks was used in this study to evaluate the potential effects of the following demographic and virtual team workplace variables on team trust: (a) one’s virtual working preference (prefer teams at the same or different locations); (b) the role of the team worker (team sponsor, team leader, team member, or other); (c) virtual team training (none vs. some); (d) gender (female vs. male); (e) team type (cross-functional vs. functional); and (f) frequency of team meetings (never, quarterly or less, monthly, or weekly). These variables were treated as independent variables in the M-W and K-W procedures. Four dependent variables measuring team trust were evaluated in the statistical analyses: personality-based trust; institution-based trust; cognitive-based trust; and overall trust.
The M-W procedure was used in comparisons involving two groups; the K-W procedure was used with three or more groups. Both the M-W and K-W procedures are Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 84 nonparametric statistical procedures that are robust when the data are non-normal, contain outliers, and/or show heterogeneous variances (Hollander & Wolfe, 1999). In this study, it was shown previously that all three dependent variable measures of perceived team effectiveness were significantly non-normal. The null hypothesis tested by both the
M-W and K-W procedures is that the samples being compared come from the same population or from populations with identical medians. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that at least one pair of groups have different medians on the dependent variable.
Virtual working preference (teams in same vs. dispersed locations) and team trust.
Table 8 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for study participants who expressed a preference for either working in teams in the same location versus teams located in diverse locations. Also shown in that table are M-
W tests of between-group differences. Participants who expressed a preference for working in virtual teams that are dispersed displayed higher levels of team trust on all measures of that construct, with those differences reaching significance (p < .05; two-tail) on all measures except cognitive-based trust. The difference was largest on the measure of personality-based trust, with those who preferred geographically dispersed virtual teams expressing substantially higher personality-based trust (n = 18; M = 3.44; Mdn =
3.75; SD = 0.63) than those who preferred that work teams be located in the same place
(n = 35; M = 2.97; Mdn = 3.00; SD = 0.35).
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 85
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Virtual Working Preference and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences
Virtual team training (no training vs. some training) and team trust.
Table 9 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for study participants who indicated either that they had or had not received training for working in virtual teams. Also shown in the table are M-W tests of between- group differences. There were no significant differences between participants who had received training in virtual teams and those who had not been trained in any of the measures of team trust.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 86
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Virtual Team Training and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences
Gender (females vs. males) and team trust.
Table 10 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for females and males. Also shown in that table are M-W tests of between- group differences. There were no significant differences between females and males on any of the measures of team trust.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 87
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Gender (Female vs. Male and Mann-Whitney U Tests of between-Group Differences
Virtual team type (cross-functional vs. functional) and team type.
Table 11 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for study participants who indicated either that they worked on cross-functional virtual teams or functional virtual teams. Also shown in that table are M–W tests of between-group differences. There were no significant differences between participants who were members of a cross-functional or a functional type team on any of the measures of team trust.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 88
Table 11 Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Team Type (Cross-Functional vs. Functional) and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences
Virtual team role (team leader vs. team member) and team trust.
As indicated previously (Table 1), respondents were asked to indicate their role in the virtual team, e.g., team sponsor, team leader, team member, or other. Only three respondents reported that they were team sponsors and two identified as “other.” Neither of these groups provided a sufficiently large sample size to be included in inferential statistical analyses (Dattalo, 2008). Consequently, only two team roles were compared for their potential effect on team trust, i.e., team leaders and team members. Table 12 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for team leaders and team members. Also shown in that table are M-W tests of between-group differences. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 89
There were no significant differences on any of the measures of team trust as a function of team role, although one difference approached significance (p = .065): Team leaders reported somewhat higher levels of cognitive-based trust (n = 18; M = 3.30; Mdn = 3.40;
SD = 0.64) than did team members (n = 24; M = 2.96; Mdn = 2.98; SD = 0.51).
Table 12 Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of Team Role (Team Leader vs. Team Member) and Mann–Whitney U Tests of Between-Group Differences
Frequency of team meetings and team trust.
Study participants were asked how frequently their virtual teams met face-to-face.
Responses to that question are summarized in Table 1, which shows that the vast majority of participants selected one of two response categories: never or quarterly or less. Too few respondents selected responses of monthly or weekly to represent those categories adequately in an inferential statistical analysis (Dattalo, 2008). Rather than lose these cases entirely, however, the researcher collapsed the two categories to represent a new category: monthly or more often. However, that newly created category captured only nine participants, which constituted 17% of the sample and was deemed marginally suitable to define a third group in a K-W ANOVA by ranks used in evaluating Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 90 differences in levels of team trust as a function of the frequency of team meetings. Table
13 shows descriptive statistics on all measures of team trust examined in this study for participants who reported that their virtual teams met face-to-face never, quarterly or less, or monthly or more often. Also shown in that table are the results of K-W ANOVAs by ranks. All tests were nonsignificant, indicating that frequency of team meetings was unrelated to any of the measures of team trust examined in this study.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 91
Table 13 Descriptive Statistics on Team Trust as a Function of the Frequency of Face-to-Face Meetings of the Virtual Team and Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs by Ranks to Test Between-Group Differences
______
Frequency of Team Meetings
Never Quarterly or Less Monthly or More Often ______
Team Trust Measures n M Mdn SD n M Mdn SD n M Mdn SD H df p ______
Personality-Based Trust 15 3.25 3.00 0.61 27 3.16 3.00 0.51 9 2.89 3.00 0.33 2.35 2 .309
Institution-Based Trust 12 3.03 3.00 0.66 27 2.96 3.00 0.64 8 2.75 3.00 0.41 0.93 2 .629
Cognitive-Based Trust 11 3.09 3.00 0.52 25 3.17 3.00 0.59 8 2.93 2.95 0.62 0.96 2 .619
Overall Trust 11 3.12 3.00 0.54 25 3.14 3.00 0.55 8 2.89 2.97 0.51 1.19 2 .553 ______Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 92
Qualitative Analyses
Factors That Contributed to the Development of Trust.
In addition to the quantitative data analysis, qualitative data for both research questions were collected from the participants. Thirty-eight participants provided written comments on what contributed to the development of trust in their virtual teams and what factors were perceived to have damaged trust. The comments were analyzed by the researcher after reading through them several times then assigning a theme to each one. If the comments warranted it, multiple themes were assigned. Once all comments were reviewed, the researcher counted the number of times a code appeared to determine the most prominent themes. An independent assessment was then provided by a master’s level assistant who performed independent coding of the same data.
As highlighted in Appendices D and E, the analysis showed that open and sufficient communication, face-to-face meetings, and demonstrated work performance were the top-three factors that participants identified as contributing to the development of trust in their virtual teams. To a lesser extent, honesty and past experience with teammates also emerged as a consistent theme. A review of the coder's themes and those of the researcher exhibited considerable similarity. The shadow coder's themes can be found in Appendix E.
The most common factors that contributed to the development of trust, as coded by the assistant are listed below in Table 14. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 93
Table 14 Top Five Factors That Contributed to the Development of Trust
Theme Number of Comments Open and Sufficient Communication 15
Demonstrated Work Performance 13 Face-to-Face Meetings 9 Honesty/Integrity 7 Past Experience with Teammates 5
The actual comments of participants appear in Appendix D. One participant stated, "Results. When others see that remote team members will fulfill their responsibilities on time and with excellence, trust is built. Also, when the team sees that remote team members are invested in the project – working overtime, taking on complex issues, etc. – it helps build trust because it demonstrates their willingness to contribute to the success of the project." Another participant suggested that trust was developed via a
"frequent, open, and honest communication - ability to meet in person at least once."
Factors Perceived to Have Damaged Trust.
Additional qualitative data were obtained to identify factors that damaged trust in a virtual team, as highlighted in Appendices F and G. As previously mentioned, 38 participants provided written comments on what contributed to the development of trust in their virtual teams and also to what factors were perceived to have damaged trust. As before, the researcher analyzed the comments after reading through them several times then assigning a theme to each one. If the comments warranted it, multiple themes were assigned. Once all comments were reviewed, the researcher counted the number of times a code appeared to determine the most prominent themes. An independent assessment Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 94 was then provided by a master’s level assistant who performed an independent coding of the same data, and the top three are listed in Table 15. A comparison of the shadow coder's themes and those of the researcher identified themes again showed great similarity. The shadow coder's themes can be found in Appendix G.
Table 15:
Top-Three Factors That Were Perceived to Have Damaged Trust
Theme Number of Comments Poor/Inadequate Communication 10
Not Delivering to Task/Schedule 9 Lack of Buy-in to Project 8
The verbatim written comments of participants are documented in Appendix F.
Participants described poor or inadequate communication as "misperceptions due to a lack of communication" and the "not providing feedback on program activities.” Damage to trust also occurred if team members did not deliver to task or schedule. According to one participant, “word service followed by inaction” damaged trust. While another stated that, the “only thing that damaged trust was missed deadlines by one participant.” The lack of buy-in to the project was documented from one participant as “covert disagreement and marginal support for team goals.” While another stated that buy-in suffers when there is a ‘lack of ‘hand-raising’ for help with tricky situations.”
Summary
In this study, the data collected from participants in a public-sector virtual team supported the rejection of the null hypotheses and acceptance of the alternatives. Team trust was strongly and significantly predictive of perceived team effectiveness in virtual Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 95 work teams. The null hypothesis that team trust in virtual teams is unrelated to perceived team effectiveness in those virtual teams was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted: as team trust increased, so did perceptions of team effectiveness by all measures of both of those constructs.
Additionally, this study also evaluated the relative predictive power provided by the three VTT subscales, that is, whether one VTT subscale was significantly more predictive of overall effectiveness than another team trust subscale. From the results, both cognitive-based and institution-based trust were significantly better predictors of perceived overall team effectiveness than was personality-based trust. Consequently, the null hypothesis that no differences exist in the correlations between perceived effectiveness within a public sector virtual team and cognitive-based, institutional-based, or personality-based trust was rejected. Additionally, with the inclusion of two subscales of the VTT, the alternative hypothesis is partially accepted.
Results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that cognitive-based trust was the best single predictor of perceived overall team effectiveness. That one predictor accounted for 67% of the variance in perceived overall team effectiveness. That said, personality-based trust, which added a scant 1% additional explained variance in perceived overall effectiveness and institution-based trust, which added virtually no additional explained variance. This may indicate that all three predictors were shown as being strongly redundant to each other and that all three explained virtually the same variance.
Participants’ comments suggested that effective communication and demonstrated ability to meet deadlines as promised were key factors in the development of trust in Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 96 virtual teams. The inverse of the same factors were significant contributors to the damaging of trust in these teams.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 97
Chapter 5: Results, Conclusions, And Recommendations
Introduction and Discussion of Results and Findings
The final chapter of the dissertation is a detailed discussion of the study results and an interpretation of the results and corresponding findings. The conclusions will be grounded in past research and presented to establish relevance based on the existing body of research. The chapter includes a detailed discussion on recommendations for further research.
The VTT instrument and a measure of perceived team effectiveness were used to study the relationship between virtual team trust and perceived team effectiveness.
Research questions were developed and tested to ascertain what factors contributed to the development of trust and what factors were perceived to damage virtual team trust. One- hundred-thirty people from organizations engaged in information technology program management were asked to participate in the study. Fifty-three participants responded to the survey for a response rate of slightly over 40%. More than 30% of the respondents were female. This is slightly higher than the 28% of the civilian population that is female
(AFPC, 2018). Thirty-four percent of the respondents were classified as team leaders, and
57% classified themselves as team members. Only three classified themselves as team sponsors, and two respondents classified themselves as other. The vast majority of respondents were civil servants (74%).
Additionally, contractors and military personnel contributed 18% and 6%, respectively. Eight-one percent of the respondents were on more than one virtual team during the previous year and were instructed to only evaluate one of them consistently for the purposes of this research. The majority (75%) of the participants have not received Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 98 training specifically related to participating in a virtual team. Of the participants who have received training, less than 8% have received 10 or more training hours.
Hypothesis 1: Trust and Perceived Team Effectiveness
The first null hypothesis states that no correlation exists between trust and perceived team effectiveness within a public sector virtual team. This hypothesis was established to discover if a relationship exists and, if so, the directionality of that relationship between virtual team trust and perceived team effectiveness. The results of the study indicate a strong positive relationship between virtual team trust and perceived team effectiveness. This allows the researcher to reject the null hypothesis and accept that, as trust increased, perceived team effectiveness also increased. While the study established a positive relationship between virtual team trust and perceived team effectiveness, there is no implication that causation exists nor was it determined if other extenuating circumstances served to moderate this relationship.
Given the focus of this study on the public sector, the results of this study juxtapose to other studies indicate that trust is a critical success factor for virtual teams
(Ford et al., 2017; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Kostner, 1994;
Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). This study reiterated the body of knowledge on virtual teams by providing a strong positive relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness in this public-sector study.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived Team Effectiveness and Cognitive-Based Trust
The second hypothesis seeks to understand if a difference exists in the correlation between perceived effectiveness within a public sector virtual team and cognitive-based, institutional-based, and personality-based trust. In particular, the researcher sought to Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 99 understand if any subscale of the VTT has a different strength in its relationship with perceived team effectiveness. The public sector is often cited as having a service component that is embodied in the institution norms (Myers, 1997). For that reason, understanding the nature of institutional-based trust compared with cognitive-based trust and personality-based trust may provide implications for training and workforce development.
In contrast with other studies that show a stronger relationship between perceived team effectiveness and one of the subscales of trust, cognitive-based trust (Walters, 2004) or a strong direct or indirect relationship to all three subscales (Pangil & Moi Chan,
2014), this study indicates that both cognitive-based and institution-based trust were significantly better predictors of perceived overall team effectiveness than was personality-based trust. Consequently, the null hypothesis that no differences exist in the correlations between perceived effectiveness within a public sector virtual team and cognitive-based, institutional-based, or personality-based trust was rejected. In essence, there is no difference in the predictive power of institution-based trust and cognitive- based trust. However, this also means the alternative hypothesis is partially supported because no differences exist in the correlations between perceived effectiveness and institution-based trust and cognitive-based trust.
Research Question 1: Factors Contributing to Development of Virtual Team Trust
In keeping with Walters’ study (2004) definition, trust is defined as the willingness of an individual to be vulnerable to the actions of another individual based on the trustor’s nature, institutional norms, or social cues and impressions. The comments participants provided to the qualitative analysis showed that open and sufficient Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 100 communication, initial and recurring face-to-face meetings, and demonstrated work performance were the top-three factors that participants identified as contributing to the development of trust in their virtual teams. These three factors are identified in the foundational literature from the 1990s as well (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Duarte &
Snyder, 1990). The idea that, decades later, these same factors influence trust within virtual teams and express that virtualization is still fundamentally a human endeavor.
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) noted that trust within a virtual team appears to be fragile and situational. Their findings highlight the need for leaders to focus on building and maintaining trust to improve the effectivity of the virtual team. Aubert and Kelsey (2003) confirmed that the equal exchange of information and good quality communication differentiate high-performance teams from low-performance teams.
Aubert and Kelsey (2003) also confirmed that ability (demonstrated work performance) and integrity are essential to forming trusting relationships in virtual teams.
Duarte and Snyder (1990) identified performance and competence, along with integrity, as the top trust behaviors in their checklist for a virtual team. The authors further emphasize the ability of a team to assess these attributes and improve upon them if needed. This has renewed emphasis as a result of this study. The lack of training administered across the participants combined with the proven relationship between trust and perceived effectiveness highlights the ability to improve upon the enduring factors that promote and inhibit trust within virtual teams.
Based on these results, team training is a fertile ground for potential improvement in the operations of virtual teams. Warkentin and Beranek (1999) found that virtual team members receive little or no training in operational techniques. Rather, they found that Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 101 the training focused on the use of the technology associated with administering a meeting or the software rather than the required interpersonal communication skills within the virtual environment (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999). Warkentin and Beranek (1999) found that the impact of interpersonal communication training for the virtual team, particularly when it emphasized fostering relational links and information exchange, improved perceived effectiveness, trust, honesty, and commitment. Taken together with the findings from this study, a critical success factor for virtual team effectiveness is a focus on a training program that emphasizes the establishment, maintenance, and support of virtual teams (Kirkman et al., 2002).
Research Question 2: Factors That Damaged Virtual Team Trust
The main factors that damaged trust in the virtual groups in this study were poor communication, missed deadlines, or not delivering as promised and that members were inaccessible. The most commonly identified factor, i.e., poor communication, seems all too pervasive. The slowness or lack of response from team members was also a significant finding. Finally, a general lack of buy-in from the participants was also noted.
Based on this finding, virtual teams would benefit from the members learning specific techniques to build trust. As Meyers (2010) pointed out, trust takes a whole new meaning inside virtual teams. As opposed to meeting daily in the office, in a virtual team, trust is earned or destroyed almost exclusively by reliability. By that, it is meant that virtual team members need to feel they are working toward the same goal, and everyone is pulling his/her weight.
Delivering as promised and meeting deadlines were both important factors identified as contributing to the development of trust in their virtual teams. Abudi (2014) Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 102 identified best practices for ensuring accountability in a virtual team, e.g., that roles and responsibilities are defined and clearly articulated. Further, the clarity of roles and responsibilities within the virtual team is critical given the lack of face-to-face interaction and the reliance on asynchronous communication. The roles and responsibilities within a virtual team must be agreed upon at the beginning of the initiative, and each member of the virtual team must understand the roles and responsibilities of the other team members and the way they interact to support successful execution. Duarte and Snyder (1999) discussed the need to merge accountability with autonomy by developing processes and measurements to support streamlined decision-making and collaborative problem- solving.
It is evident from the research that technology did not contribute to or damage trust in the virtual teams referenced. The contribution of technology is widely understood as a key enabler to virtualization. However, it is widely recognized that technology inhibitors can be overcome with effort should the need arise.
Perhaps most surprising was the finding that, while face-to-face contact supports the development of trust, the inverse did not seem to be of concern. Few responses noted a lack of face-to-face meetings damaged trust. However, studies have shown that participants found face-to-face teams to be more creative than virtual teams because information is shared more freely with fewer obstructions (Narain, 2014).
While there were no significant differences in any of the measures of team trust noted between participants who had received training in virtual teams and those who had not been trained, a systemic lack of training may influence the factors that damage trust within virtual teams. Recent surveys discovered that as much as 75% of the virtual Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 103 workforce does not receive any specialized training for their members (Zappe, 2014)
(RW3, 2016). Ford et al. (2017) along with Pauleen and Yoong (2001) noted that a formalized requirement to obtain training in managing virtual teams appears to be an important component to the effectivity of the virtual team and its members.
Limitations of Results and Findings
This research is a step forward in determining the role of trust in public sector virtual teams through correlation and narrative data. While this study has identified a link between trust and perceived team effectiveness, caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from this study alone.
As in many studies, this study does not support complete generalizability of the results. Because the study focused on a single public-sector organization, the results may not apply to private-sector organizations. While participants came from different organizations, the program or functions were similarly aligned. The main limitation of this study is that all participants came from a single mission focus of delivering information technology in the public sector. This limits the inclusion of these results to other industries and organizations.
There is also a limitation related to the characteristics of the participants themselves. Many participants have been members of several virtual teams over the past year. Although participants are invited to evaluate only one virtual team (if they are members of the same team), their perception of the trust and effectiveness of the other teams, who may be at different stages team development, can be reflected in the assessments provided in this study. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 104
As with many studies, caution should be taken in interpreting these results.
Despite the proven nature of the data collection tools (Sarker et al., 2003; Walters, 2004;
Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014) as the data were collected at one point in time and do not account for changes that can occur in trust or perceived team effectiveness over time. The purposeful sampling may also lead to potential threats to internal validity. Nonetheless, purposeful sampling was necessary given the specific nature of the subject matter.
Additionally, VTT subscales measuring personality-based trust, institution-based trust, and cognitive-based trust were strongly and significantly related to perceived overall team effectiveness, but it was shown previously that the VTT subscales were quite strongly intercorrelated. Consequently, those VTT subscales can be considered quite redundant to each other and undoubtedly account for some of the same variance in perceived team effectiveness (Meyers et al., 2017). This finding is reinforced with the results from Pangil and Moi Chan (2014) that showed the three types of trust explained
50% of the variance in virtual team effectiveness.
All the correlations between measures of team trust and perceived team effectiveness proved strongly positive (Dattalo, 2008) and statistically significant. In effect, as team trust increased, so did perceptions of team effectiveness. However, this study indicates that, within the public sector, cognitive-based trust and institutional-based trust were more strongly related to perceived team effectiveness. The strength of the correlation between institution-based trust and cognitive-based trust (r = 0.78) may be so strong as to suggest that the subscales failed to measure different aspects of trust (Miller
& Lovler, 2016). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 105
Additionally, the observed relationships between team trust and team effectiveness might be mediated by other variables that were not examined in this study.
Further, the relationship between team trust and team effectiveness might also have been moderated by some unknown factors that were not explored in the course of this study. In either case, a larger sample size would be required to explore these potential mediators and moderators. Nonetheless, all three predictors were shown previously to be strongly correlated with perceived overall team effectiveness; moreover, the predictors were strongly redundant to each other, and all three explained virtually the same variance in that criterion variable.
There are a few other limitations that need to be addressed and relate to the nature of the data collection methodology. All the data collected were self-reported, reflecting participants’ feelings and opinions at a point in time rather than a process of objective measurement. Additionally, rather than measuring actual effectiveness in a longitudinal study, this study measured the perceived effectiveness of the team at a point in time.
Conclusion and Summation of Key Findings
The use of virtual teams is an established method of managing teams in an organization. The use of which has allowed organizations to decrease start-up time and decrease costs while improving the availability of talent outside the traditional geographic boundaries of the office. Despite the benefits, it is vital to the success of the virtual team to understand what supports and what degrades the effectiveness of the virtual team. This study adds to the understanding of virtual teams within the public sector. Like the private sector study found (Walters, 2004), there is a strong positive correlation between trust and perceived effectiveness. All three VTT subscales measuring Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 106 personality-based trust, institution-based trust, and cognitive-based trust were strongly and significantly related to overall perceived team effectiveness, but it was shown previously that the VTT subscales were quite strongly intercorrelated.
This research attempts to build on the literature of virtual teams and trust. The results of this study, combined with other relevant research (Sarker et al., 2003; Walters,
2004; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014), demonstrate a close relationship between the trust within virtual teams and the perceived effectiveness. Team members and leaders would benefit from further translating contributing factors into effective ways to build trust in virtual teams. A gap found in the study was the lack of training specific to virtual teams, despite the prolific use of virtual teams within the subject organization. Based on this, it is valuable to develop an approach to facilitate improvements in these types of trust. It is important for the virtual team to consider investing in training to continuously build trust within the virtual team at the start and to continuously sustain the trust relationship between the team members to enhance knowledge sharing (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014).
The study’s findings will be important to elected officials, government leaders, commercial partners, government managers, and virtual workers as well as researchers interested in enhancing the effectiveness of virtual teams. Moreover, the findings provide a better understanding of the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness within a virtual team operating in the public sector. The study provides insight into how trust is enabled and damaged in virtual teams operating within the public sector. In virtual teams needing to improve their effectiveness, it is advisable to consider building trust among team members, especially trust based on institutional or cognitive trust. Perhaps Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 107 training can be administered to improve member cohesiveness, perceptions of the team, and over-performance. As Beranek and Martz (2005) and Pangil and Moi Chan, (2014) point out, improving these factors has been shown to increase a team’s ability to share information and to improve team effectiveness.
Recommendations for Further Research
There are ten recommendations for future research that can be made from this study. First, this study examined perceived effectiveness at a point in time. The ability to assess effectiveness based on actual outcomes rather than examining the relationship between perceived team effectiveness and trust at one point in time would determine if the correlation strengthens, weakens, or remains the same over time.
Second, while it is noted that trust and communication can be improved with training of virtual team members (Beranek, 2000), it is less understood how the implementation of virtual team training can have an impact on team effectiveness. The results of this study indicate that over 75% did not receive any formal training in virtual teams. The ability to understand the impacts of training on perceived or actual effectiveness of virtual teams would be of interest to researchers and practitioners of virtual teams.
Third, based on this study, there was not a statistically significant difference in the perceptions between leaders and members of a virtual team. Although one difference approached significance because team leaders reported somewhat higher levels of cognitive-based trust than team members. Hence, a role-based study that examines the different perceptions of trust and effectiveness among the participants would be beneficial in parsing out other differences that can impact virtual team effectiveness. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 108
Fourth, along those same lines, an assessment of the knowledge, skills, and abilities believed to be required to successfully lead and manage a virtual team within the public sector would improve hiring practices and accession planning for members and leaders alike. This will support a more complete understanding of the nature of leadership in the virtual workplace. Based on the findings from this study, a more in-depth understanding of the role of the leader within the virtual team and their knowledge, skills, and abilities relative to their perception of the team’s performance needs to be more fully explored.
Fifth, another area of potential study could be the impact on degrees of virtualness of the team. Often, teleworking and geographically separated team participants take on a sense of virtualness within a traditional organizational structure. Further research in the degree of virtualness and its impact on trust and effectiveness would benefit the virtual team area of study. In particular, a study on how team leaders and team members interact and participate while teleworking may be beneficial.
Sixth, more in-depth qualitative research is needed to explore the aspects of virtual team training. As previously mentioned, more than 75% of the respondents received no formal training in virtual teams. The overall goal of such a study would be to define curricula necessary to develop virtual team members who will be able to use a variety of technological tools to communicate effectively with each other with necessary cooperative and trust-building skills to achieve their common purpose. In-depth interviews with virtual team members may uncover insights to support needed areas of training. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 109
Seventh, this study was conducted with participants from a limited number of public sector organizations. Studying multiple public sector organizations will assist in determining if the results are similar across populations. The population for this study crossed multiple participants groups, but they were aligned to the same task structure. A more broad approach to studying virtual teams working with hardware procurement, service management, or contract oversight may make the results more generalizable.
Eighth, in this study, the VTT subscales measuring different aspects of trust were somewhat more strongly correlated than reasonable. It could be that the instrument is adequate in measuring three separate aspects of trust, but that when it comes to predicting team effectiveness, the type of trust does not matter that much. The three different types of trust might be more important in predicting some other outcome variable. A further psychometric study related to the VTT and using a larger sample than this study may be helpful.
Ninth, as this study highlighted, the virtual nature of work will be a persistent theme for the foreseeable future with organizational members having affiliations with both collocated and virtual forms of work teams. As such, virtual teams will remain an important aspect of how work in accomplished in many organizations. A study that examines the culture of the virtual team vis-à-vis the culture of a collocated organization would provide insights into the changes in behavior, language, group dynamics, and communication between team members working in a virtual organization compared to established organizational norms in a collocated one.
Finally, future research should be done to evaluate the role played by variables other than team trust in determining team effectiveness. For instance, it is likely that the Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 110 longer one had worked in a virtual team, the better they get at building virtual relationships, and hence, team effectiveness. Adding statistical controls to the research questions beyond the purpose of determining if team trust is related to team effectiveness would expand the body of research on virtual teams.
In conclusion, this research concluded that a strong positive correlation exists between virtual team trust and perceived team effectiveness. The results also highlighted that institutional-based trust and cognitive-based trust have a stronger relationship to perceived team effectiveness than personal-based trust. Notably, this is different in that private-sector studies found cognitive-based trust more influential on perceived effectiveness (Walters, 2004). From the qualitative portion of the research, respondents indicated that virtual teams would increase overall trust with an emphasis on open and honest communication, recurring face-to-face meetings to bring the team members together and demonstrated work performance from the participants.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 111
References
Abudi, G. (2014) Best Practices for Enabling Accountability on a Virtual Team. Retrieved from
https://www.ginaabudi.com/best-practices-enabling-accountability-virtual-team/
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). (2018) Air Force Demographics. Retrieved from
https://www.afpc.af.mil/About/Air-Force-Demographics/
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of
knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479-490.
Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice:
Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4),
541-554.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of an exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285.
Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual
teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 112
Babits, M. (2015), The 3 Dimensions of Communication, Psychology Today, Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-middle-ground/201509/the-3-dimensions-
communication
Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. C. (2011). Understanding institutional-based trust building
processes in inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies, 32(2), 281–301.
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive (Vol. 11). Harvard University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Becker, J., Ballantine, R., Tedford, C., Townsley, C., & Lee, A. (2001). Best practices for
managing collaborative technology tools and virtual teams. Proceedings of the Seventh
Americas Conference on Information Systems, U.S.
Beranek, P. M. (2000, January). The impacts of relational and trust development training on
virtual teams: An exploratory investigation. In System Sciences, 2000. Proceedings of the
33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10). IEEE.
Beranek, P. M., & Martz, B. (2005). Making virtual teams more effective: improving relational
links. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 11(5/6), 200–213.
Biggs, M. (2000). Assessing risks today will leave corporate leaders well-prepared for the future
of work. InfoWorld, 22(39), 100. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 113
Bos, N., Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., Wright, Z., & Gergle, D. (2002). Rich media helps trust
development, Proceedings of CHI 2002, ACM Press 135–140
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
Breu, K., & Hemingway, C. (2004). Making organisations virtual: The hidden cost of distributed
teams. Journal of Information Technology, 19(3), 191–202.
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-
analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as
moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151.
Burbach, M. E., & Day, F. C. (2014). Does organization sector matter in leading teleworker
teams? A comparative case study. International Journal of Business, 3(4), 8–21.
Business and Enterprise Systems (2017). Business and Enterprise Systems Annual Report for
2017. Retrieved from
http://www.airforcebes.af.mil/Portals/23/documents/BES%20Vendor%20Communicatio
n/BES%20Reference%20Guide_28%20Mar%2017_FINAL.pdf?ver=2017-09-26-
142445-197.
Charette, R. N. (2013). The US Air Force explains its $1 billion ECSS bonfire. IEEE Spectrum,
6.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly,
20(2), 143–163. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 114
Chidambaram, L. & Bostrom, R. (1993). Evolution of group performance over time: A repeated
measures study of GDSS effects,” Journal of Organizational Computing, 3(4), 443–469.
Cissé, A., & Wyrick, D. A. (2010). Toward understanding costs and benefits of virtual teams in
virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (Vol. 3, pp. 2234–
2239).
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2001). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2): 95–104.
Corbitt, G., Gardiner, L.R. and Wright, L.K., 2004, January. A comparison of team
developmental stages, trust and performance for virtual versus face-to-face teams. In
System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on (8 pp). IEEE.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
Costa, A. C. (2003). Understanding the nature and the antecedents of trust within work
teams. The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the
process of trust development, 105-124. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 115
Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with
performance effectiveness. European journal of work and organizational
psychology, 10(3), 225-244.
Costigan, R., & Berman, J. (1988). A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 303–317.
Coutu, D. L. (1998). Organization: Trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76, 20–21.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and
manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, pp.355–366.
Dangmei, J. (2016). Building Trust in a Virtual Team: A Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310832741_BUILDING_TRUST_IN_A_VIRT
UAL_TEAM_A_CONCEPTUAL_FRAMEWORK
Duarte, D., & Snyder, N. (1999). Mastering Virtual Teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Edwards, K., & Sridhar, V. (2003). Analysis of the effectiveness of global virtual teams in
software engineering projects. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Monoa, HI. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3189/9790b973799b4173af9c8defa318dc7d0810.pdf
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 116
Edgell, S. E., & Noon, S. M. (1984). Effect of violation of normality on the t test of the
correlation coefficient. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 576-583.
Feng, J., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile
relationship. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), pp. 97–106.
Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. Retrieved from http://pqm-
online.com/assets/files/lib/books/follett.pdf
Ford, R. C., Piccolo, R. F., & Ford, L. R. (2017). Strategies for building effective virtual teams:
Trust is key. Business Horizons, 60(1), 25–34.
Florentine, S. (2017). IT project success rates finally improving. CIO Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.cio.com/article/3174516/project-management/it-project-success-rates-finally-
improving.html
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2001 (April). Best practices: DOD teaming practices
not achieving potential results. (Publication No. GAO-01-510). Retrieved from General
Accounting Office Reports Online via GPA Access:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01510.pdf.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2013 (April). Federal Telework: Office of Personnel
Management’s 2012 Telework Report Shows Opportunities for Improvement. Retrieved Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 117
from General Accounting Office Reports Online via GPA Access:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655635.pdf.
Gera, S., Aneeshkumar, G. S., Fernandez, S. P., Gireeshkumar, G., Nze, I., & Eze, U. (2013).
Virtual teams versus face to face teams: A review of literature. IOSR Journal of Business
and Management, 11(2), 1–4.
Geurts, J. (2005). The special challenges of leading geographically dispersed teams. Defense
AT&L, (May–June), 50–52, 66.
Gignac, F. (2004). Building successful virtual teams. Norwood, MA: Artech House,
Incorporated.
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015).
Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of
Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.
Green, D. D., & Roberts, G. E. (2010). Personnel implications of public sector virtual
organizations. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), 47–57.
Grenier, R., & Metes, G. (1995). Going virtual: Moving your organization into the 21st century.
Prentice Hall PTR.
Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. Virtual teams
that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness, 335-352. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 118
Gupta, Y., Karimi, J., & Somers, T. M. (1995, November). Telecommuting: problems associated
with communications technologies and their capabilities. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 42(4), 305–318.
Haas, D. (2003). Government-wide information technology (IT) acquisitions. Program Manager,
32(3), 12-23.
Hagen, M. R. (1999). Teams expand into cyberspace. Quality Progress, 32, 90–93.
Håkonsson, D. D., Obel, B., Eskildsen, J. K., & Burton, R. M. (2016). On cooperative behavior
in distributed teams: the influence of organizational design, media richness, social
interaction, and interaction adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 692.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of
leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and
outcomes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 103(1), 1-20.
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73, 40–50.
Henry, J., & Hartzler, M. (1997). Virtual teams: Today’s reality, today’s challenge. Quality
Progress, 30(5), 108–109.
Heron, K. E., & Smyth, J. M. (2013). Body image discrepancy and negative affect in women’s
everyday lives: An ecological momentary assessment evaluation of self-discrepancy
theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 276–295. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 119
Hill, T., Lewicki, P., & Lewicki, P. (2006). Statistics: methods and applications: a
comprehensive reference for science, industry, and data mining. StatSoft, Inc..
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,
structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3),
390.
Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Holton, J. A. (2001). Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 7(3/4), 36–47
Horwitz, F., Bravington, D., & Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: Identifying key
factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(6), p.
472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590610688843
Horvath, L., & Duarte, D. (1997). Rethinking boundaryless organizations: A framework for the
implementation and management of virtual teams in the global high-performance
organization. Academy of Human Resource Development, 12, 245–252.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectations. International journal of human-computer studies, 65(2), 153-169.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or
succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190–201. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 120
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-
being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-
394.
Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in
global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 29–64.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust:
The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2016). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.
Karpiscak, J. (2007). The effects of new technologies on the performance of virtual teams
Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2007. UMI Number: 3266273
Kiesler, S., & Sproul, L. (1992). Group decision-making and communication technology.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.
Killingsworth, B., Xue, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among
global virtual teams. Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 284–300. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 121
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five
challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management
Executive, 16(3).
Kopecky, K. (2016). Cyberbullying in a population of Slovak teenagers (quantitative
research). Human Affairs, 26(2), 117–127.
Kostner, J. (1994). Virtual leadership: Secrets from the round table for the multi-site manager.
New York, NY: Warner Books.
Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., & Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study
and inductive model. Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 2, 229–253.
Laerd Statistics (2015). Multiple regression using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and
software guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/
Latane, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters:
Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8):795–
805.
Lea, M. & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group
decision making. Special Issue: Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware.
International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 34, 283–301
Lengel, R. H. & Daft, R. L. (1984). An exploratory analysis of the relationship between media
richness and managerial information processing (No. TR-DG-08-ONR). Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 122
Lepsinger, R. (2011) Virtual team failure: Six common reasons why virtual teams do not
succeed. Retrieved from http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/virtualteam.htm
Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 27(4), 648-659.
Lindeblad, P. A., Voytenko, Y., Mont, O., & Arnfalk, P. (2016). Organisational effects of virtual
meetings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 113–123.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations
with technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership,
27, 14–19.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: Working across boundaries with technology.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality
assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 151-169.
Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams.
Information & Management, 38, 523–544.
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004). Can absence make a team grow
stronger? Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 131–137. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 123
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of
Management perspectives, 21(1), 60-70.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5).
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1).
McDonough III, E. F., Kahn, K. B., & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global,
virtual, and colocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 18(2), 110–120.
McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP) a theory of groups. Small
Group Research 22(2) 147–174.
Meyer, E. Quotable Quotes: Virtual Teams Retrieved from
https://leaderonomics.com/personal/virtual-teams
Meyer, E. (2010). The four keys to success with virtual teams. Forbes.
Myers, C. R. (1997). The core values: Framing and resolving ethical issues for the air force. AIR
UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and
Interpretation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 124
Mihhailova, G. (2007). Virtual teams: Just a theoretical concept or a widely used practice? The
Business Review, 7(1), 186–192.
Miller, L. A., & Lovler, R. L. (2016). Foundations of psychological testing (5th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.
Morley, S., Cormican, K., & Folan, P. (2015). An analysis of virtual team characteristics: A
model for virtual project managers. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation,
10(1), 188–203.
Narain, A. (2014). Are Face-to-Face Teams More Creative than Virtual Teams? Retrieved from
https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/masters-learning-and-organizational-
change/knowledge-lens/stories/2014/are-face-to-face-teams-more-creative-than-virtual-
teams.html
Nilles, J. M. (1998). Managing telework: Strategies for managing the virtual workforce. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Globalwork: Bridging distance, culture, and
time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Keeffe, S. W. T. (2009). Telework tango: Take two, from the top. Public Manager, 38(4), 19
Okkonen, J. (2001). Performance of Virtual Organizations. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jussi_Okkonen/publication/228527101_Performanc Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 125
e_in_virtual_organisations/links/00b4953915f7c11918000000/Performance-in-virtual-
organisations.pdf
Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing government. Public Productivity & Management Review, 349-
356.
Osborne, J. & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should
always test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8. Retrieved February 13,
2019 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=2.
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: Discovery or
justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1–7.
Patten, M. L. (2014). Questionnaire research (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Pangil, F., & Moi Chan, J. (2014). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship
between trust and virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1),
92–106.
Panteli, N. (2005). Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Ariadne, 43. Retrieved from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue43/panteli/intro.html
Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-
crossing virtual teams: A facilitator’s perspective. Journal of Information
Technology, 16(4), 205–220. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 126
Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2000). Virtual teams: Managerial behavior control’s impact on team
effectiveness. Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Information
Systems, 575–580. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=icis2000
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and
directions for future research. ACM Sigmis Database, 35(1), 6–36
Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face
and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.
Reed, A. H., & Knight, L. V. (2010). Effect of a virtual project team environment on
communication-related project risk. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5),
422–427.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Rogers, P. L. (Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of distance learning. IGI Global.
RW3 LLC (2016). Trends in Global Virtual Teams: Virtual Teams Survey Report – 2016.
Retrieved from http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/Trends_in_VT_Report_4-17-2016.pdf
Sarker, S., Valacich, J. S., & Sarker, S. (2003). Virtual team trust: Instrument development and
validation in an is educational environment. Information Resources Management
Journal, 16, 35–55. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 127
Schiller, S. Z., & Mandviwalla, M. (2007). Virtual team research: An analysis of theory use and
a framework for theory appropriation. Small group research, 38(1), 12-59.
Schindler, E. (2016). SoGoSurvey Review. PCMag.com. Retrieved from
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2494735,00.asp
Schmidt, G. B. (2014). Virtual leadership: An important leadership context. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 182-187.
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development
decision‐making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face‐to‐face teams, and
virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 575–600.
Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2001). Metaphors of virtuality: Shaping an emergent reality.
Information and Organization, 11(1), 45–77.
Sinha, R. (2004). Virtual teams—Efficient and cost effective. Defense Contract Management
Agency Communicator (Spring/Summer)
Simpson, R. (1959). Vertical and Horizontal Communication in Formal Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(2), 188–196.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks and work. Scientific American,
September: 116–123. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 128
Staples, S. D., & Ratnassingham, P. (1998). Trust: The panacea of virtual management?
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 128–144. ACM
Press 135–140
Statistics Solutions. (2013). Normality. Retrieved February 13,
2019 from https://www.statisticssolutions.com/normality/.
Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case
study. IEEE transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 174-186
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Tapscott, D. (1996). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked
intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Toepoel, V. (2016). Doing surveys online. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Townsend, A., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the
workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.
Upwork (2018). Future Workforce Report. Retrieved from https://www.upwork.com/i/future-
workforce/fw/2018/
Walters, K. G. (2004). A study of the relationship between trust and perceived effectiveness in
virtual teams. Published doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated
collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 129
Want, S. C. (2014). Three questions regarding the ecological validity of experimental research
on the impact of viewing thin-ideal media images. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
36, 27–34.
Warner, M. (1997, March 3). Working at home—the right way to be a star in your bunny
slippers. Fortune, pp. 165, 166.
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Warkentin, M., & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication.
Information Systems Journal, 9, 271–289.
Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. 1997. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams:
An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28: 975–996
Watkins, M. (2013). Making virtual teams work: Ten basic principles. Harvard Business
Review.
Webster, J., & Trevino, L. K., 1995. Rational and social theories as complementary explanations
of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(6), pp.1544–1572.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:
epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2), 311–325.
Zappe, J. (2014). Why Aren’t We Training More Managers To Manage Virtual Teams? Talent
Management and HR. Retrieved from https://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/why-arent-we-
training-more-managers-to-manage-virtual-teams/ Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 130
Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-
functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Information and
Organization, 14(1), 1–26. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 131
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
As taken from previous studies (Walters, 2004; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001;
Sarker et al., 2003), this data collection questionnaire includes a total of 19 questions.
Questions 1 through 5 ask for information about the level of trust between virtual team
members (scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and not applicable).
1. (Personality-based Trust) a. I believe that remote team members tell the truth about the limits of their knowledge. b. I believe that remote team members can be counted on to do what they say they will do. c. I believe that remote team members are honest in describing their experience and abilities. d. I believe that remote team members have high skills and ability. 2. (Institutional-based Trust) a. My remote team members all do their share of the work because, in a group project, members divide and share the work among each other. b. My remote team members submit deliverables on time because it is known that a delay in completion will have a negative effect on their evaluation. c. My remote team members all do their best because their managers expect that they will always give their best effort. d. I can depend on my remote team members because they are my co-workers, and co- workers in a business environment are always dependable. e. I can depend on my remote team members because they will do their best to uphold the reputation of this organization. 3. (Cognitive-based Trust) a. From the contents of emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are excited about the project. b. From the contents of emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are serious about the project. c. From the tone of emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are excited about the project. d. From the tone of emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are serious about the project. e. From the frequency of emails and database postings, I believe that my remote team members are excited about the project. f. From the frequency of emails and database postings, I believe that my remote team members are serious about the project. g. From the speed of response to emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are excited about the project. h. From the speed of response to emails, database postings, or conference calls, I believe that my remote team members are serious about the project. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 132
i. The emails and database postings from my remote team members are mature and professional. j. I believe that I can depend on remote team members, who are familiar with different communications technologies. k. I believe that I can depend on my remote team members, who are eager to learn about new technology. l. My remote team members seem excited about the project. m. My remote team members are humorous and enthusiastic and seem excited about working together. n. My remote team members seem to take the project in a serious light. o. My remote team members are dependable because, soon after the initial meeting, our communication focused on how we will tackle the project. p. I can depend on my remote team members because I have heard that they are always committed to their work. q. I can depend on my remote team members because I have heard of their excellent performance in previous projects. r. My remote team members seem organized and hence can be depended on. s. My remote team members’ goal is to do a good job on the project. t. My remote team members’ goal is to get a good performance evaluation on the project. u. My remote team members’ goal is to gain valuable experience on the project. Questions 4 and 5 are short answer questions. 4. Based on your experience, what factors contribute to the development of trust within your virtual team, if applicable? 5. Based on your experience, what factors inhibit the development of trust within your virtual team, if applicable? Questions 6a through 6h ask for information about the overall performance of your virtual team and the level of satisfaction with the team members (scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and not applicable). 6. (Performance) a. In the past, the team has been effective in reaching its goals. b. The team is currently meeting its business objectives. c. When the team completes its work, it is generally on time. d. When the team completes its work, it is generally within the budget. e. There is respect for individuals in the team. f. Team member morale is high in the team. g. I enjoy being a member of this team. h. In the future, I would be interested in participating in another virtual team. Questions 7 through 19 ask for general information about you, your virtual team, and your organization. Please respond to each question as indicated. 7. Do you generally prefer to work with a virtual team or a co-located team? Please select only one choice. o Virtual team (members are dispersed across different locations) o Co-located team (members are at the same location) 8. How long have you been a member of this virtual team? o 0–1 Years o 2–3 years Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 133
o 4–5 years o 6–7 years o Over 8 years 9. How often does the entire team meet in person? o Never o Quarterly or less often o Monthly o Weekly o Daily 10. Estimated number of team members on the virtual team. o 2–10 o 11–15 o 16–20 o 21–25 o Over 25 11. What is your affiliation with this project? Please select only one choice. o Civil Service o Military o Contractor o Other ______12. What is your role on the virtual team? Please select only one choice. o Team Member o Team Leader o Team Sponsor o Other ______13. How would you describe the type of work this team performs? o Cross-functional (e.g., Product Development, Process Integration) o Functional (e.g., Procurement, Quality Assurance, Training, Research) 14. In the past year, on how many teams have you participated where all team members were based in the SAME location? o 0–1 o 2–3 o 4–5 o 6 or more 15. In the past year, on how many teams have you participated where some of the team members were dispersed across DIFFERENT locations? o 0–1 o 2–3 o 4–5 o 6 or more 16. Have you received training specifically related to participating in a virtual team? o Yes o No 17. If you answered YES to questions 17, how many hours of training specifics to virtual teams have you received? o 0–2 hours Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 134
o 3–5 hours o 5–9 hours o 10 hours or more 18. What age range best describes you? o 18–30 years o 31–45 years o 46–55 years o Over 55 years 19. Gender o Male o Female Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 135
Appendix B: Organizational Consent
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 136
Appendix C: Cover Letter And Informed Consent
Franklin University 201 S Grant Ave. Columbus, OH 43215 614.797.4700
As a member of one of the virtual teams within PEO-BES, you are being invited to participate in a research study to explore the relationship between trust and perceived team effectiveness as well as identify factors that might support or damage the development of trust in virtual teams operating within the Department of Defense (DoD). The goal of the study is to gain insight into how trust affects virtual teams. A virtual team is one that accomplishes its work primarily via electronic and voice communication and with limited face-to-face contact with some or all the other team members. This survey asks for your perceptions on issues related to trust and perceived team effectiveness in a virtual environment. A small number of individuals were selected from the larger group of virtual team members at your organization.
Your participation involves answering questions regarding your experience on a virtual team. The survey should take less than 20 minutes to complete. There are no known or anticipated risks to participation in this study. You will be contributing to the scientific research of virtual team building. Participation is voluntary and confidential. No one at the DoD—other than the researcher—will have access to the data. The data will be summarized, and no individual responses will be identified for reporting purposes. The data collected will be maintained on a password-protected computer database for two years. Declining to answer or withdrawing from participation will have no impact on you or your job in any way.
This study is being conducted by Tim Meixner, a doctoral student, for completion of a dissertation, under the supervision of Andy Igonor, Ph.D., of the Ross College of Business at Franklin University. If you have any questions about this study or would like additional information to assist you in deciding on participation, please feel free to contact Tim Meixner at (937) 212-9220 or Dr. Igonor at (614) 797-4700. This study has been reviewed by and received clearance from Franklin University. If you have any comments or concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please contact the Franklin University Institutional Review Board at (877) 341-6300.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely,
Timothy Meixner Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 137
Appendix D: Comments – Factors Contributing To Trust Development
The following table contains the verbatim participant responses and the
corresponding code identified by the researcher. Participants were responding to the
question, based on your experience, what contributed to the development of trust in your
virtual team?
4.Based on your experience, what contributed to the Codes development of trust in your virtual team, if applicable?
Relationships. I have visited WP and San Antonio a couple of Relationship-building times and been able to build a face-to-face relationship, so it is Face-to-face contact easier to trust team members in general once you have met them and worked face to face. Great people at both locations help with development of trust. Everyone was prepared for the discussions, willing to do their part Prepared for work and contribute to getting positive results. Willingness to contribute Honesty Honesty Reciprocity... Believe one has to demonstrate trust in order to gain Reciprocity trust of the team. Results. When others see that remote team members will fulfill Demonstrated success their responsibilities on time and with excellence, trust is built. Also, Prepared for work when the team sees that remote team members are invested in the Willingness to contribute project – working overtime, taking on complex issues, etc. – it helps build trust because it demonstrates their willingness to contribute to the success of the project. Constant communication and feedback on performance is not Open/honest/continuous always effective, but it has increased my trust. communication Communication Interpersonal skill and experience with individual team members Past history with teammates Trust stemmed from initial meetings, including face-to-face Face-to-face contact meetings and the understanding that we are all on the same team. Shared vision Clear expectations Clear expectations/project requirements Defined roles and Clear deliverables and timelines responsibilities This creates vision and purpose for the group, i.e., something clear Demonstrated success to achieve Past history with For the trust aspect, you earn trust. You enlist your virtual team teammates members based on who has performed in the past.
The way they communicate with the other team members Communication skills Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 138
All airmen have a degree of integrity Honesty Honesty Honest regular two-way communication and giving recognition to Communication the remote team members when they earn it Recognition of work Virtual team members do apply to my career experience, and I Relationship building have worked with numerous virtual teams for years in multiple locations. Working with users from the three Air Logistic Centers (Ogden, OC, WR), DISA OPRs, and other bases, etc., my virtual teams have never suffered any program goals by being virtual or miles away. Built business relationships across the world without ever meeting or seeing the person on the other side of the phone/screen. Mission succeeds with virtual teams. There are only a few members of my virtual team, and all are in Honesty senior leader positions. My experience is that those in senior Face-to-face contact leader positions are typically trustworthy (not always, though). Relationship-building Furthermore, meeting my team members face to face soon after I became a team member helped develop trust in knowledge, abilities, and dedication to the mission. Honesty in all things Honesty Honesty Honesty with performance in carrying out tasks that are timely and Face-to-face contact complete contributed to the development of trust. Having an Demonstrated success opportunity to physically meet teammates on occasion helps in eroding the virtual separation that can be experienced through lack of person-to-person contact.
Frequent, open, and honest communication. Honesty Communication Ability to meet in person at least once. Face-to-face contact They are professionals Professionalism Working with great people who contributed to the mission by Contributor delivering as promised. Frequent communications. Meeting occasionally face to face Honesty seems critical for bonding. Trust and collaboration are enhanced Communication by meeting in person from time to time. Face-to-face contact Careful listening and validation of different points of view to Communication demonstrate understanding. Additionally, being sure to call out Recognition of work good work or accomplishments of virtual team members when it is deserved. Consistent behavior over time to support the project. Consistency Collaboration Collaboration and communication on a regular basis. Carrying Communication through and delivering what was promised. Contributor Team trust is a result of committed members. Difficult to establish Commitment that trust when there is no awareness of personalities, motives, Demonstrated success attitudes, and “volunteerism.” The team’s I was associated with Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 139 were half-hearted in their commitment. For example, when assigned a task w/a deadline, numerous reminders needed to be sent and often, the deadline would be extended or the product would be of inferior quality. Communication Flowing communication. Easy to reach and upbeat tone. Available Positive attitude Relationship through daily interactions and the end result of a great Consistent product/outcome. Communication Clear expectations Having a common objective supported by key collaboration Defined roles and techniques and tools such as SharePoint, messaging, screen responsibilities sharing and hit target dates and quality Access to technology Demonstrated success Past history with teammates Work history is invaluable. Common focus/prioritization is Clear expectations essential. Defined roles and responsibilities
Actions that build trust. Exhibited investment via face-to-face, Face to face contact conference calls, and other communications. Communication Results – and reputation – if I personally don’t see good Demonstrated success work/results, they don’t get another chance, as there are plenty of great partners available. Consistent Frequent morning meetings to make sure we are all on same page. Communication Initial few weeks working physically together so everyone knew Face-to-face contact each other prior to starting to work remotely. Past history with Working together over a series of projects, learning how to teammates communicate and trust them. Communication
Knowledge The overall knowledge and commitment to the project has instilled Commitment trust in my virtual teammates
Enthusiasm of the project as well as to interact and support the Available others on the team. Delivery of successful solutions ahead of Positive attitude deadline also have helped to build trust. Availability of the remote Support for teammates team member(s) goes toward knowing I can depend on them to Demonstrated success collaborate, or at least hold a virtual “water-cooler” session together at a moment’s notice.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 140
Continued interaction with team members, including their providing Consistent worthwhile results. Past experience on other projects or with others Communication is an indication of starting working relationships. Results are what Demonstrated success matter to me. Past history with teammates Note some questions I rated as disagree based on the entire question, i.e., Q 2b. The reason the remote team members submit responses on time is not due to negative effect on their evaluation. I just disagree with the reason, not their actions (i.e., on-time delivery Treating all team members, contractor, govt, geographically Respect separated or not, as equal partners in the outcome of the project, and treating all as consultants who have skills/experience to contribute. Successful team meetings via conference calls supported varied Communication experience with depot maintenance processes, legacy systems, Face-to-face contact and Oracle database experience; face to face meetings via Professionalism temporary duty as required confirm professionalism and experience of team members
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 141
Appendix E: Shadow Coder – Factors Contributing To Trust Development
The following table contains the verbatim participant responses and the
corresponding code identified by the shadow coder. Participants were responding to the
question, based on your experience, what contributed to the development of trust in your
virtual team?
Factors That Contributed to the Development of Trust
Theme Number of occurrences 1) Face-to-Face Meetings 9 2) Open and Sufficient Communication 15 3) Honesty/Integrity 7 4) Past Experience with Team Members 5 5) Common Vision 3 6) Clear Roles 2 7) Demonstrated Work Performance 13 8) Accountability 2 9) Preparation 1 10) Contributor 2 11) Recognition 2 12) Commitment to the Team 2 13) Enabling Technology 1 14) Availability 2 15) Respect for Others 1 16) Reciprocity 1 17) Enthusiasm 2 18) Relationship 3
4.Based on your experience, what contributed to the development of Codes trust in your virtual team, if applicable?
Relationships. I have visited WP and San Antonio a couple of times and 1, 18 been able to build a face-to-face relationship, so it is easier to trust team members in general once you have met them and worked face to face. Great people at both locations help with development of trust. Everyone was prepared for the discussions, willing to do their part and 9, 10 contribute to getting a positive result. Honesty 3 Reciprocity ... Believe one has to demonstrate trust in order to gain trust 16 of the team. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 142
Results. When others see the remote team members willing to fulfill their 7, 10 responsibilities on time and with excellence, trust is built. Also, when the team sees that remote team members are invested in the project – working overtime, taking on complex issues, etc. – it helps build trust because it demonstrates their willingness to contribute to the success of the project. Constant communication and feedback on performance; not always 2 effective, but it has increased my trust. Interpersonal skill and experience with individual team members. 2, 4 Trust stemmed from initial meetings, including face-to-face meetings; and 1, 5 the understanding that we are all on the same team. Clear expectations / project requirements 6, 7, 8 Clear deliverables and timelines This creates vision and purpose for the group – something clear to achieve For the trust aspect, you earn trust. You enlist your virtual team members based on who has performed in the past. The way they communicate with other team members. 2 All airmen have a degree of integrity. 3 Honest regular two-way communication and giving recognition to the 2, 3, 11 remote team members when they earn it. Virtual team members do apply to my career experience, and I have 18 worked with numerous virtual teams for years in multiple locations. Working with users from the three Air Logistic Centers (Ogden, OC, WR), DISA OPRs, and other bases, etc., my virtual teams have never suffered any program goals by being virtual or miles away. Built business relationships across the world without ever meeting or seeing the person on the other side of the phone/screen. Mission succeeds with virtual teams. There are only a few members of my virtual team, and all are in senior 1, 3 leader positions. My experience is those in senior leader positions are typically trustworthy (not always, though). Furthermore, meeting my team members face to face soon after I became a team member helped develop trust in knowledge, abilities, and dedication to the mission. Honesty in all things. 3 Honesty with performance in carrying out tasks that are timely and 1, 3, 7 complete contributed to the development of trust. Having an opportunity to physically meet teammates on occasion helps in eroding the virtual separation that can be experienced through lack of person-to-person contact. Frequent, open, and honest communication. 1, 2, 3
Ability to meet in person at least once. They are professionals, Working with great people who contributed to the mission by delivering 7, 8 as promised. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 143
Frequent communications. Meeting occasionally face to face seems 1, 2 critical for bonding. Trust and collaboration are enhanced by meeting in person from time to time. Careful listening and validation of different points of view to demonstrate 2, 11 understanding. Additionally, being sure to call out good work or accomplishments of virtual team members when it is deserved. Consistent behavior over time to support the project. 7 Collaboration and communication on a regular basis. Carrying through 2, 7 and delivering what was promised. Team trust is a result of committed members. Difficult to establish that 7, 12. 17 trust when there is no awareness of personalities, motives, attitudes, and “volunteerism.” The team’s I was associated with were half-hearted in their commitment. For example, when assigned a task w/a deadline, numerous reminders needed to be sent, and often the deadline would be extended or the product would be of inferior quality. Flowing communication. Easy to reach and upbeat tone. 2, 14 Relationship through daily interactions and the end result of a great 2, 7 product/outcome. Having a common objective supported by key collaboration techniques 5, 6, 13 and tools such as SharePoint, messaging, screen sharing and hit target dates and quality. Work history is invaluable. Common focus/prioritization is essential. 4, 5 Actions that build trust. Exhibited investment via face-to-face, conference 1, 2 calls, and other communications. Results – and reputation – if I personally don’t see good work/results, 4, 7 they don’t get another chance, as there are plenty of great partners out there Frequent morning meetings to make sure we are all on same page. 2 Initial few weeks working physically together, so everyone knew each 1 other prior to starting to work remotely. Working together over a series of projects, learning how to communicate 2, 4 and trust them. The overall knowledge and commitment to the project has instilled trust 7, 12 in my virtual teammates. Enthusiasm of the project as well as to interact and support the others on 7, 14, 17 the team. Delivery of successful solutions ahead of deadline also have helped to build trust. Availability of the remote team member(s) goes toward knowing I can depend on them to collaborate, or at least hold a virtual “water-cooler” session together at a moment’s notice.
Continued interaction with team members, including their providing 2, 4, 7, 18 worthwhile results. Past experience on other projects or with others is an indication of starting working relationships. Results are what matter to me.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 144
Note some questions I rated as disagree based on the entire question, i.e., Q 2b. The reason the remote team members submit responses on time is not due to negative effect on their evaluation. I just disagree with the reason, not their actions (i.e., on-time delivery). Treating all team members, contractor, govt, geographically separated or 15 not, as equal partners in the outcome of the project, and treating all as consultants who have skills/experience to contribute. Successful team meetings via conference calls supported varied 1, 2, 7 experience with depot maintenance processes, legacy systems, and Oracle database experience; face to face meetings via temporary duty as required confirm professionalism and experience of team members.
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 145
Appendix F: Comments – Factors Perceived To Have Damaged Trust
The following table contains the verbatim participant responses and the
corresponding code identified by the researcher. Participants were responding to the
question, based on your experience, what damaged trust in your virtual team?
5. Based on your experience, what damaged the development of trust Codes in your virtual team, if applicable? Lack of communication. Virtual team is new, so there hasn’t been any Lack of or poor major issues. Normally, though, communication is a major cause of communication issues. N/A Inaccessible Sometimes slow to respond – we discussed the concern – more Not delivering as transparency among team members restored trust in those cases. promised Distrust Covert disagreement Covert disagreement and marginal support for team goals. Lack of support for established goals Not being able to get in touch with remote team members, tardy Lack of or poor responses, excuses, and a general lack of commitment. communication Failure to perform; most team members actively engage and complete Not delivering as tasks as assigned; others are not always motivated, and it’s difficult to promised know their level of buy-in for remote teams. Lack of face to face email, text, and dishonesty. Picking up the phone or meeting in person can communication resolve two of those issues. Lack of honesty On rare occasion, the lack of follow-up on their part to answer question or Lack of follow-up provide an input. Lack of or poor 1. Failure to do what you said you would do communication
Poor technology 2. Consistent failure to engage. Technology failures/limitations can create Not delivering as circumstance where we don’t depend on (trust) an individual. promised Lack of or poor communication Not communicating with your team members, not meeting deadlines. Not delivering as promised Not delivering as Lack of concern and responsiveness. promised Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 146
Misperceptions due to lack of communication and any team member who Lack of or poor starts talking/thinking us versus them mentality or we do it better/this way communication here. Fortunately, none. The virtual teams I work with today are solid teams. Never experienced lack of expertise and all stakeholders come to the table with a common goal. I have not experienced damaged trust with my team; however, I have only been on the team for a few months. Lack of honesty Lying or going around me for decisions/advice they didn’t like
Not delivering as When communication becomes inconsistent, commitments are not upheld, promised and, where leadership doesn’t support the virtual team or hold Lack of or poor accountable, trust can be questioned. With having geographically communication separated units, there can be a mentality of “us vs. them,” i.e., office Perceived lack of cultural differences, lack of getting to know another person on a deeper leadership support level. Lack of accountability Communication delays – requests for information/input were not Lack of or poor responded to (typically due to network issues that weren’t known at the communication time) Technology issues None Lacking face time with virtual members forces all communications to rely Lack of face-to-face on emails and other communication methods. This can lead to a message meetings being perceived in a manner than it may have been intended. Lack of responsiveness from any one member of the remote team. Slow or unresponsive Lack of or poor communication Late deliverables without explanation. Not delivering as promised Not really a fault of the team, but repeated contract protests, which had a Lack of timely resources negative impact on project but stemming needed contractor support at the other site. Lack of or poor Schedule slips, undisclosed risks, and problems. Not delivering to the communication requirement or original expectation. Not delivering as promised Lack of commitment, focus, and priorities. Lack of commitment Lack of or poor Lack of communication. Lack of “hand-raising” for help or tricky communication situations. Lack of initiative Not damaged. People repeating missing date or quality goals. People being Not delivering as unresponsive. promised Not delivering as Failure to respond in a timely manner. promised Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 147
Lack of communication Lack of productivity from certain members of the team, and no support Lack of productivity from management to rectify the situation. Lack of accountability Not delivering as Only thing that damaged trust was missed deadlines by one participant. promised Management. Management entities selfishly wanted remote team Covert disagreement members to do their (local) bidding rather than contribute to a larger Lack of support for team/organization initiative. established goals Lack of results and the need to constantly remind them for their inputs – Lack of productivity again, there are plenty of partners available how do timely, responsive Lack of accountability work Nothing People taking advantage of the geographically separated workforce to Covert disagreement ignore typical chain of command. Basically going around my organization to save time or because they didn’t feel like they needed to work through us. Don’t have any. Not delivering as Failure to do tasks assigned. Failure of leadership to support and ensure promised tasks are done. Lack of forward progress on previously agreed to work Perceived lack of tasks. leadership support N/A Not delivering as Word service followed by inaction, including feedback from others. promised Not providing feedback on program activities for all on a regular basis. Lack of or poor Need to allow everyone to at least be kept up to date on highlights of all communication activities whether or not certain folks are working with them directly. Trust has not been damaged – all team members work together as a team to ensure success of the program
Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 148
Appendix G: Shadow Coder – Factors Perceived To Have Damaged Trust
The following table contains the verbatim participant responses and the
corresponding code identified by the shadow coder. Participants were responding to the
question, based on your experience, what damaged trust in your virtual team?
Factors That Damaged Trust to the Development of Trust
Theme Number of occurrences 1) Poor/Inadequate Communication 10 2) Not Available to Others 3 3) Not Delivering to Task/Schedule 9 4) Lack of Face-to-face Meetings 2 5) Wasting Time/Not Productive 1 6) Not Aligned to Virtual Team Mgmt 4 7) Late Responses 3 8) Lack of Buy-In to Project 8 9) Lack of Follow-Through 4 10) Dishonesty/Lack of integrity 2 11) Lack of Accountability 2 12) Technology Issues 2 13) Leadership Support 2
5. Based on your experience, what damaged the development of trust Codes in your virtual team, if applicable? Lack of communication. Virtual team is new, so there hasn’t been any 1 major issues. Normally, though, communication is a major cause of issues. N/A Sometimes slow to respond – we discussed the concern – more 1 transparency among team members restored trust in those cases. Distrust 10 Covert disagreement and marginal support for team goals. 6, 8, Not being able to get in touch with remote team members, tardy 2, 3, 8 responses, excuses, and a general lack of commitment. Failure to perform; most team members actively engage and complete 3, 8 tasks as assigned; others are not always motivated, and it’s difficult to know their level of buy-in for remote teams. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 149 email, text, and dishonesty. Picking up the phone or meeting in person can 1, 4 resolve two of those issues On rare occasion, the lack of follow-up on their part to answer question or 9 provide an input. 1. Failure to do what you said you would do. 2, 9, 12
2. Consistent failure to engage. Technology failures/limitations can create circumstance where we don’t depend on (trust) an individual. Not communicating with your team members; not meeting deadlines. 1, 7 Lack of concern and responsiveness. 8, 9 Misperceptions due to lack of communication and any team member who 1, 8 starts talking/thinking us versus them mentality or we do it better/this way here. Fortunately, none. The virtual teams I work with are solid teams. Never experienced lack of expertise, and all stakeholders come to the table with a common goal. I have not experienced damaged trust with my team; however, I have only been on the team for a few months. Lying or going around me for decisions/advice they didn’t like. 6, 10 When communication becomes inconsistent, commitments are not upheld, 1, 8, 11, 13 and where leadership doesn’t support the virtual team or hold accountable, trust can be questioned. With having geographically separated units, there can be a mentality of “us vs. them,” i.e., office cultural differences, lack of getting to know another person on a deeper level. Communication delays – requests for information/input were not 1,12 responded to (typically due to network issues that weren’t known at the time). None Lacking face time with virtual members forces all communications to rely 1, 4 on emails and other communication methods. This can lead to a message being perceived in a manner than it may have been intended. Lack of responsiveness from any one member of the remote team. 2 Late deliverables without explanation. 3 Not really a fault of the team, but repeated contract protests, which have a 3 negative impact on a project but stemming needed contractor support at the other site. Schedule slips, undisclosed risks, and problems. Not delivering to the 3 requirement or original expectation. Lack of commitment, focus, and priorities. 8 Lack of communication. Lack of “hand-raising” for help or tricky 1, 8 situations. Not damaged. Public Sector Virtual Team Trust and Effectiveness 150
People repeating missing date or quality goals. People being 3, 7 unresponsive. Failure to respond in a timely manner. 1, 7 Lack of productivity from certain members of the team and no support 3 from management to rectify the situation. Only thing that damaged trust was missed deadlines by one participant. 3 Management. Management entities selfishly wanted remote team 6 members to do their (local) bidding rather than contribute to a larger team/organization initiative. Lack of results and the need to constantly remind them for their inputs – 3, 9 again, there are plenty of partners out there that do timely, responsive work. Nothing. People taking advantage of the geographically-separated workforce to 6, ignore typical chain of command. Basically going around my organization to save time or because they didn’t feel like they needed to work through us. Don’t have any. Failure to do tasks assigned. Failure of leadership to support and ensure 3, 5, 11, 13 tasks are done. Lack of forward progress on previously agreed to work tasks. N/A Word service followed by inaction, including feedback from others. 3 Not providing feedback on program activities for all on a regular basis. 1 Need to allow everyone to at least be kept up to date on highlights of all activities whether or not certain folks are working them directly. Trust has not been damaged – all team members work together as a team to ensure success of the program.