1. All in due time: The development of trust in distributed groups Jeanne Wilson The College of William & Mary School of Business Administration March 17. 2003

2. Trust in Distributed Groups Overall research program objective: Understand interpersonal relations (trust) at a distance Motivation Paradox of trust in distributed groups Competing theoretical explanations Inadequacy of existing theory

3. Distributed Groups Groups in which some or all of the members do not work in the same physical location 52% of large companies use geographically distributed teams (deLisser, 1999) Collaborative work in a virtual arrangement has been cited as a top workforce trend in the next 10 years (Kemske, 1998)

4. Trust Trust - willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of others (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer, 1998) Cognitive trust - beliefs about reliability and dependability (McAllister, 1995) Affective trust - beliefs about reciprocated care and concern (McAllister, 1995)

5. Overall program plan Study 1 - Lab experiment, test of existing theory ( Wilson, Straus & McEvily, 1999 ) Study 2 - Field study, focuses on distributed groups in context, develops a broader theory of interpersonal relations at a distance Common denominators: looking at trust over time in distributed groups

6. Study 1: Competing theoretical perspectives Cues Filtered Out - Computer-mediated communication reduces social context cues and leads to depersonalization (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984; Daft, Lengel & Trevino, 1987) Social-identity Deindividuation - Group identity is the most salient cue computer-mediated groups have; this leads to social self-categorization (Lea & Spears, 1992) Social Information Processing - All groups are motivated to develop social relationships. It takes longer in computer-mediated groups because there is less social information per message (Walther, 1992; 1995)

7. Study 1: Sample and Task 52, 3-person groups ( participants randomly assigned to group, groups randomly assigned to condition ) Each group met three times, with the following cycle of tasks: narrow down a list of stocks to 3 that members would research (together or separately) spend tokens on researched stocks (cooperating or defecting)

8. Four conditions FFF EEE EFF FEE

9. Cognitive Trust The interaction of Condition X Time was significant (F 6,98 = 3.69, p <.01).

10. Affective Trust The interaction of Condition X Time was significant (F 6,98 = 3.09, p <.01).

11. Time by condition interaction was significant using Generalized Estimating Equations - for categorical variables over time (B =.90, Z = 3.95, p <.0001). Cooperation

12. Condition effect was significant (B = 1.18, Z = 2.25, p <.05); Time by Condition interaction was marginally significant (B =.53, Z = 1.73, p <.10) Reliance

13. Conclusions Results support social information processing predictions (trust develops more slowly in computer mediated groups) Starting condition matters Prescriptions for practice depend on the nature of the group length of time malleability of the task

14. Limitations Student teams lack a “shadow of the future” or structural assurance (which are likely to affect the development of trust in organizational groups)

15. Inadequacy of existing theories All of the theories about development in distributed groups are about media effects Distributed groups differ from co-located groups on more dimensions than the technology they use to communicate  Distance  Familiarity  Face-to-face contact  Identity

16. What we know about distance The original law of propinquity (Newcomb, 1956) Physical proximity Frequency of interaction Similarity Liking

17. The Site Large bank in the midwest Corporate assets: $30 billion Provides trust, investment, and retirement services Corporate group transitioning to a new team structure: some teams co-located, some not

18. 78 Teams Investments Relationship Manager NTRC Account Manager Daily Valuation Treasury Consultant Global Accounts Info. Delivery Analyst RPS Consultant

19. Design Quantitative: X P O X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 O X 6 Qualitative: Three teams: varying on distance, familiarity, amount of face-to-face contact interviewing all members of the teams once a month regarding expectations, trust, violations, attributions, and other team processes that might be affecting trust. attending all (formal) team meetings

20. What predicts trust between team members at month 3? From HLM analyses:

21. Extras

22. Full 3-way longitudinal model Level 1 model - dyadic variables over time (trust and communication) Level 2 model - variation among dyads within a group (familiarity and distance) Level 3 model - variation between groups (group identity)

23. Results from Level 1 analysis trust between team members is increasing over time (t = 42.46, p <.001) the amount of communication between team members has an effect on the development of trust over time (t = 19.31, p <.01)

24. Level 2 & 3: Intercepts as outcomes familiar dyads do start with higher levels of trust (t = 4.49, p <.001) trust between individual team members is marginally higher in groups with higher levels of group identity (t = 2.12, p <.10).

25. Level 2 & 3: slopes as outcomes Group identity does not influence the rate of trust development between individual members of the teams (t = 0.67, ns). Dyads who are familiar with each other at the outset have a slower rate of growth in trust development than dyads who are not familiar with each other (t = -2.98, p <.01).

26. Descriptive Statistics

27. Means and standard deviations over time