Since this class also requires students to engage in synchronous and asynchronous communication and work in teams using online collaboration, this report will be useful in helping inform you about the dynamics of such work, which is becoming more and more critical  in the work world today.

The results of this study show that although teams experience what they call "swift" trust, the trust is temporary and "fragile."  The study also discusses communication behaviors that can help establish trust in online team work.

The characteristics of an online team,  say the authors, include 

• permeable interfaces and boundaries
• teams that rapidly form, reorganize and dissolve according to marketplace needs
• individuals, located in different cultures, time zones and spaces, with different competencies

• flexibility
• responsiveness
• lower costs
• better utilization of resources

• low commitment by team members
• role overload
• unclear roles
• lack of participation

Jarvenpaa and Leidner's recommendations to minimize disadvantages include

• limited use of virtual settings in global teams
• initial face-to-face gatherings (with "same-time and same-place encounters)

The authors examined  the "trust" factor in teams of information systems graduate students (350 total), with 4-6 members each,  that only interacted in a virtual environment, without any face-to-face.  The teams worked together for 6 weeks and the team members all came from different countries and communicated via computer using e-mail, chat rooms and other electronic mediums.  The project/exercise was worth 20% of the final grade.  Though the teams had a variety of assignments, the final project was to design a Web site providing a new service to information systems practitioners in the various countries in which the team members resided.  The highest performing team was awarded $600.00.

The research questions for the study of how the teams interacted are:
 

1. Can trust exist if the team members do not share past team experiences or expect to meet again in the future?

2. How can virtual teams build trust?

3. What behaviors can build trust in a virtual communication environment?

Low Initial Trust, Low Final Trust (LoLo)

Team 1
In Team 1, a team member sent a message saying, "H! Anybody there?."  A response came 6 days later.  The fifth team member did not respond until after the due date of the first team project.  One member sent another a message saying in effect, "Are you still on the team?"
Only 3 of 5 members contributed to the final project.  None of the members of the team sent final greetings to each other.

Team 2
In Team 2, the first electronic communications were not received for a week after sent because of technology problems.  One very active member sent 47 out of a total of 109 messages, which included a schedule of tasks and deadline dates.  Much of the correspondence was short and to-the-point, with little social commentary.  The team had a 5 day period with no correspondence.  One member announced she would be leaving town for 8 days and would have to submit her contribution before then.  Another member submitted 10 articles she found during research, but neglected to say how the information should be situated in the final project.  One exasperated team member said, "What is going on!!! First, we had decided on a schedule, nobody follows it.  Second, we decided on who would do what, nobody cares.... Is this a team project or what?"

Team 3
This team exchanged a significant number of messages.  One student expressed the fear that he didn't know how to proceed and then wrote over a 5 page message on his ideas.  Everyone agreed to go along with this student's ideas.  Team members sent him a large number of links without any discussion of what  the sites were about or how they fit in with the project.  The team did not sent each other closing messages when the team project was complete.  One student commented that, "although some things didn't work out well it was a good experience to see IF it is possible to work in such a virtual environment."  She added that it is harder to work together without meeting in person.

Low Initial Trust, High Final Trust (LoHi)

Team 1
Team 1 initiated a set of rules triggered by a discussion about everyone voting      on roles and a suggestion that "silence indicates consent."  The rules included respecting each other's ideas, regularly reading e-mail, and not flaming other members.  As the project got underway and ideas were bounced back and forth, no mention was made of the rules and non participating members were not given any responsibilities.  One member, absent, he said, because of illness, resurfaced and was surprised the deadline was in 2 days but then gave significant feedback on the draft.  The active members said they were satisfied with the team effort.

Team 2
This team exchanged the least number of messages and did engage in very little social introduction.  They did, however, express their ideas about working in a virtual environment. One said that the "virtual environment can either allow a person to be more honest than they may be face-to-face or the exact opposite, they can hide behind a facade so you may not be getting truth."  All members were happy with the final product and were complimentary toward one another saying they enjoyed working with each other and liked building on each other's ideas.  One member, who had only sent one message, was not included in the final project by name and was not included as an author of the Web site.

Team 3
This team a minimal number of messages.  One member, who was unfamiliar with the technology, sent four messages saying the same thing, because he was unsure of whether or not it would be received.  This student also expressed the fear of being left out of the "conversations." Another member, concerned about losing the message in a flood of emails, requested the subject header identify the project.  One member said he would be unavailable until May 6,  even though the project was due on April 31.  The group, in general, exchanged final emails and some maintained friendly attitudes in saying their good byes. 

Jarvenpaa and Leidner observed that the LoHi teams managed to have more "trust" in their group because they had more predictable communication and more equal participation and focus on the tasks at hand.  Neither group made much effort to get to know each other other.  The LoHi teams became more trusting because the either overcame or ignored their initial uncertainties about the task and overcame distractions not relevant to accomplishing their goals

High Initial Trust, Low Final Trust (HiLo)

Team 1
Over half of the 99 messages exchanged by this group occurred in the initial 2 weeks.  Unlike the teams in the first two categories, the began the project by exchanging social messages. The messages began cordially, such as "Well done, buddy," and "I think we'll have a great time working together," and "Hey guys, I think we've done it."  Then there were complaints of technical problems.  One member went over a week without corresponding and when he reappeared, only sent two messages. One member was left to finish the project.  No greeting were exchanged at the end. 

Team 2
All members contributed to the first two assignments in a timely fashion.  After that, members could not agree on a  topic and only Thomas appeared to be making suggestions.  One member complained to the project administrator that none of the other members were contributing, followed by the complaint that telling on one another "does nothing for the spirit of the team."  Two members were left to complete the project.  The final project had several components that ended with "need help here."

Team 3
One member of this team, elected to be the leader, contributed almost half of all messages.  The leader assured members that it was common to have glitches in receiving email and he proposed procedures, agreed upon by all group members.  All contributed to the 1st and 2nd assignments.  One member withdrew without warning towards the end of the project.  the messages became heated - for example, "if 'anyone is in for a free ride, get out,' and, in all claps (shouting) ' UNLESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS START CONTRIBUTING SERIOUSLY NOW, WE WILL NOT GET A SATISFYING RESULT.' "  The conclusion of  one member was that although he expected  the project to be truly collaborative, it was not.

Jarvenpaa and Leidner observed that though these teams expressed enthusiasm at the beginning, their was a lack of "serious reflection on the challenges of working in a virtual environment."  In some groups leaders did not emerge; in others the leaders abandoned their roles.  They also observed that identifying a leader might lessen the need of other members to contribute and that "since the members had betrayed their leaders, it was no surprise that the leaders betrayed their teams."

High Initial Trust, High Final Trust (HiHi)

Team 1
This team had a significant number of messages - 222.  During the last 5 days of the project 142 of the total number were sent.  The initial messages showed excitement and enthusiasm and a social interaction, describing weekend activities.  There were no team rules or formal procedures.  One member proposed a schedule for the final project, including intermediate and final deadlines and the other members agreed, with minor adjustments.  At times, the members established almost real time communications and they edited several versions of their project.  At the end, they complimented each other for their contributions, for example," Super much thanks to everyone!!! I loved working with you" and "You are great."  They also exchanged personal email addresses.

Team 2
In this group one member, described by the authors as a 50 year old nurse, in the first two weeks dominated the communications and said she wanted to keep in touch with all group members.  One member did not send any messages.  When the group experienced frustrations, and misinterpretations of the project, two members sent "calming e-mails" of encouragement.  Three members did the majority of the work, two others sent positive feedback.

Team 3
The members of this group did not share social messages, but did show enthusiasm over the project.  They completed the first assignment on time with all members participating.  One member was nominated the "leader."  The group arranged for numerous chat sessions  and when one member could not participate in chat because of technical problems or time constraints, the group summarized the session for that member.  the leader developed a list of 15 tips on how to chat effectively.  The group spent a week discussing the project asynchronously and synchronously before focusing on the content.  After some conflict about who would contribute what, the work went smoothly and the leader continued to sent out encouraging messages to the team.  The group even wrote out large portions of the paper using synchronous chat.  This group finished the project early, congratulated each other and swapped personal email addresses.

Jarvenpaa and Leidner observed that the social introductions helped the team members to become acquainted.  They also state that the "intense online communications further strengthened the group identity."  When some teams in this group did not complete the first projects on time, the kept after the members to complete them after the deadline because they were interested in the members contributions.  Almost all of the team members assumed responsibility and assumed roles.  They gave significant feedback on each other's work and let each other know when they could not be available.

Communication Behaviors Which Facilitate Trust
Based on their observations,  Jarvenpaa and Leidner came up with behaviors which facilitate trust, early on and later on, in group dynamics:

Early On

• Social Communication
• Communication Conveying Enthusiasm
• Coping with Technical and Task Uncertainty
• Individual Initiative

• Predictable Communication
• Substantive and Timely Response
• Leadership
• Transition from Procedural to Task Focus

1. Can trust exist if the team members do not share past team experiences or expect to meet again in the future?

The authors observed, however, that the communications did not show significant evidence of socialization, courtship and social identification normally associated with interpersonal trust.

2. How can virtual teams build trust?

3. What behaviors can build trust in a virtual communication environment?

The authors point out the insignificant attention paid to culture and the lack of information exchange among individuals might be attributed to similar ages, backgrounds, language skills and educational levels.  Also, the electronic nature of the communications obscures vocal accents and the physical displays of dress, gesture and greetings.

Jarvenpaa and Leidner discuss the limitations of their study on  trust in groups. The context, they say, could be considered "inordinately contrived" because the teams were limited to electronic communication.  Also, when one speaks of "trust," there is the assumption that there is risk involved.  The risk was grade driven;  however, not all groups were graded the same - there were discrepancies in course credits and "reputational effects."  The response rate to the surveys is another methodological weakness, based on a number of factors such as lack of an objective measure of effectiveness and a failure of some team members to submit responses.