Building and Maintaining Trust in Virtual Teams

Building and Maintaining Trust in Virtual Teams Colin Hughes Technological University Dublin, Ireland Mark NK Saunders Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK This is a pre-publication copy of: Hughes, C. and Saunders M.N.K. (2021) Building and maintaining trust in virtual teams. In D. Wheatley, I. Hardill and S. Buglass (eds) Handbook of Research on Remote Work and Well-Being in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. pp. 264-285. ABSTRACT The Covid-19 pandemic led to widespread adoption of Virtual Teams (VTs), the prevalence of which had already been increasing steadily. However, studies show that VTs often fail to meet their potential, highlighting the centrality of trust to enable success. While trust is important at the team member level and the focus of much of the extant research; it also underpins effective virtual leadership. Following a review of the VT and trust literatures, research conducted within three global technology companies across Europe, Middle East and Africa is used to provide insights into trust development in virtual leader-member dyads. Along with highlighting the challenges of building trust remotely, the research findings highlight leaders’ behaviours that can both demonstrate their own trustworthiness to VT members and their trust of VT members. These behaviours are integrated into a framework for enabling high trust VT leadership emphasising member-centricity. KEYWORDS Trust, Virtual Teams, Leadership, Member-Centricity, Leader-Member Dyad, Trust Development, Leader Behaviours, Trust Building, Trust Maintenance. INTRODUCTION The advent of Covid-19 forced organizations and employees to adopt remote working and, for many, to work in virtual teams (VTs). This transition was facilitated by the experience of VTs developed over several decades and a large volume of research on their effectiveness. Within this research, scholars identified trust as an essential ingredient of VT success (Breuer et al., 2016; Romeike et al., 2016), research being focused predominantly at the team member level (Breuer et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2016; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). While trust between team members is important, VT leaders having an important role in creating, reinforcing, and maintaining such trust. As such, there is also a need to build trust between leaders and individual team members (Hacker et al., 2019). The importance of this has been highlighted in the trust literature (Ferris et al., 2009; Jawahar et al., 2019; Knoll & Gill, 2011; Sue-Chan et al., 2012). However, studies have generally treated leader-member trust as unidirectional, focusing on Page 1 of 22 members’ trust in leaders, rather than treating trust as mutual or reciprocal (Jawahar et al., 2019; Nienaber et al., 2015). This is problematic as research suggests that trust levels between dyad members are not always mutual (Korsgaard et al., 2015) and the benefits of trust are only realized when the leader and member trust each other (De Jong & Dirks, 2012). In particular, there is limited research regarding how VT leaders effectively develop and maintain relationships with individual members (Liao, 2017); and consequentially we know little of the antecedents to trust development in virtual leader-member dyads. Such knowledge is important as trust may form differently in a virtual environment (Coppola et al., 2004), and by utilizing theories developed for the face-to-face context researchers risk ignoring variables that are particular to the virtual context (Breuer et al., 2020). This chapter therefore considers how leaders demonstrate both their own trustworthiness to members and their trust of members within virtual leader-member dyads, presenting findings from empirical field research conducted by the first author within three global technology companies. The chapter commences with a consideration of the defining features of VTs and their growth within organizations. It then discusses both the benefits and challenges associated with VTs. Given its centrality to VT leadership effectiveness, trust is then defined, along with the factors which influence trust development and the various levels of trust possible within a dyadic relationship. Next the chapter focuses on the specific role of trust in VT leader-member dyads before introducing the empirical research study which reveals those behaviours which signal a leader’s own trustworthiness to VT members and their trust of these members. Drawing on this, a framework for enabling high trust VT leadership is outlined and discussed highlighting the practical implications for organizations in a post-Covid world. BACKGROUND Virtual Teams: Form, Growth and Functioning VTs have many forms. They can be fully virtual, where members never meet (Kimble, 2011), or semi-virtual/hybrid in nature, encompassing both virtual and co-located members (Webster & Wong, 2008). VTs may be established on a temporary basis, to accomplish a specific task or project, or on a more permanent basis, focussing on routine tasks (Alsharo et al., 2017). VT members may be remote workers, working from home or away from the office either some or all of the time, or they may work from offices in different locations. As such, members of virtual teams can be separated geographically, temporally and culturally (DeRosa et al., 2004; Hertel et al., 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Piccoli & Ives, 2003). The one element common to most definitions is that VT members communicate primarily via technology, rather than in person (Breuer et al., 2020). However, given the increased use of technology by co-located teams, almost all teams can be considered at least partially virtual (Liao, 2017). Consequently, researchers have begun to consider all forms of team along a continuum of virtuality rather than contrasting virtual with co-located teams (Martins et al., 2004; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017; Zigurs, 2003). VTs therefore encompass a wide variety of team types with labels such as transnational teams (Shapiro et al., 2002), global virtual teams (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000), computer-mediated teams (Wilson et al., 2006) and e-teams (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Given this, VTs are defined in this chapter as: teams whose members might be culturally, temporarily and/or geographically dispersed and who collaborate primarily via information and communication technologies in order to accomplish specific goals. Page 2 of 22 The growth of VTs prior to Covid-19 has been well documented. Initially adopted in the 1990s for short-term projects, they quickly became more mainstream. In 2009, 78% of European executives reported using VTs in their organization (Witchalls, 2009) and by 2014 90% of executives worldwide confirmed the use of VTs in their organizations, prompting the claim that VTs were the new normal and the team framework of the digital age (Dennis et al., 2014). Although it is difficult to determine the exact prevalence of VTs across specific organizations and in different countries prior to Covid-19, it is clear that usage rates were already high and that VTs were already considered commonplace (Hacker et al., 2019; Maes & Weldy, 2018; RW3 Culture Wizard, 2018). Such growth is unsurprising given the range of benefits cited in the literature. Use of VTs allows organizations to recruit talented employees (Mysirlaki & Paraskeva, 2019) and to bring together teams with greater levels of diversity and experience (Greenberg et al., 2007; Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008 Kirkman et al., 2002) to work on problems and identify opportunities (Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). VTs can be rapidly formed and disbanded (DeRosa et al., 2004), allowing organizations the flexibility to respond quickly to competition (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). They also enable organizations to maintain a global presence (Monalisa et al., 2008) and provide enhanced levels of customer service and a closer connection to suppliers and customers (Hertel et al., 2005). Furthermore, the use of VTs can help reduce office expenses (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000), travel time and related costs (DeRosa et al., 2004; Mysirlaki & Paraskeva, 2019). From an employee perspective virtual working can reduce commuting time, allow for greater focus (EY, 2020) and better work-life balance (Ruiller et al., 2019); these benefits can in turn translate into greater job satisfaction, lower absenteeism and higher employee retention (Pattnaik & Jena, in press). However, not all VTs live up to such expectations (Greenberg et al., 2007; Savolainen, 2014). Many face challenges associated with differences in geography, time zones, organizational and national cultures, language, work practices and technology (Dube & Robey, 2008; Ross, 2006). As a team becomes more virtual, greater geographical and temporal dispersion increases complexity, making effective functioning more difficult (Zigurs, 2003) with potential for isolation and disconnection from peers and supervisors (Ruiller et al., 2019). Workload and commitment issues associated with social loafing and absenteeism can be amplified (Hertel et al., 2005) and, where members are part of multiple teams, this can lead to role overload, misunderstanding and conflict (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; O’Hara et al., 1994). Technology-mediated interaction can exacerbate communication issues (Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017) hindering group cohesion, satisfaction (Warkentin et al., 1997) and knowledge sharing (Dube & Robey, 2008). Moreover, members may feel obligated to be connected always, negatively impacting work-life balance and damaging trust (Hacker et al., 2019). While such issues have potential to reduce the advantages of VTs (Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017), researchers have identified trust as a possible solution. Regarded as an essential ingredient of VT success (Daim et al., 2012; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Paul & McDaniel, 2004; Zaccaro & Bader, 2003), trust has become one of the most studied aspects in the VT literature (Gilson et al., 2015). It has been found to positively impact upon knowledge sharing and collaboration (Alsharo et al., 2017; Paul & McDaniel, 2004), team dynamics, proactiveness, optimism, frequency of communication and feedback, and task output (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). A meta-analysis conducted Page 3 of 22 by Breuer et al. (2016) found team trust to be positively related to team effectiveness, team satisfaction, team cohesion and team commitment. In other words, trust is the glue bonding physically isolated individuals together (Wilson et al. 2006), creating an emotional link which connects team members (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997) and helps prevent physical distance from creating a psychological distance (O’Hara et al., 1994). Exploring Trust Trust is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon (Lewis & Weigert, 1985), with multiple meanings (McKnight & Chervany, 2001), having been studied within a range of disciplinary lenses and filters such as psychology (e.g. Rotter, 1967), economics (e.g. Williamson, 1993), philosophy (e.g. Hosmer, 1995), sociology (e.g. Luhmann, 1979) and political science (e.g. Barber, 1983). Despite these differences, common characteristics can be identified. These comprise the willingness of one person (the trustor) to be vulnerable to another whom they rely on (the trustee) based on positive expectations of them, where a risk is present (Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). Such trust decisions are shaped by a range of latent and overt influences (Dietz et al., 2010), being generated on the basis of good reasons and previous experiences, a trustor’s decision being strongly influenced by their own propensity to trust along with their perception of the trustee’s trustworthiness (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Propensity to trust is therefore a characteristic of the trustor, and trustworthiness a quality of the trustee (Dietz & den Hartog, 2006). Mayer et al. (1995) summarise these trustee qualities in their integrative model of trust development in organizational settings as the components: ability, benevolence and integrity. Ability refers to the skills, competencies, and characteristics that have influence in the domain of interest (Knoll & Gill, 2011). For example, a potential trustee who has excellent communication skills is likely to be trusted to deliver an important sales presentation, even if their analytical skills are more limited. Benevolence refers to benign motives, kindness towards the trustee and a genuine concern for their welfare, often suggesting some form of attachment (Dietz & den Hartog, 2006). In contrast, integrity is a multifaceted factor which relates to a trustee’s adherence to a set of principles which the trustor deems acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995) along with their behaviours and actions matching their words, referred to as their behavioural integrity (Whitener et al., 1998). All three components may be potentially significant as a trustor may decide not to trust if she or he considers any of the qualities both important and lacking in the trustee (Dietz & den Hartog, 2006). Alternatively, the trustor may overlook one component, if the trustee excels in another that is more important to the trustor; trustworthiness being context specific (Nooteboom, 2002). Research suggests that different components of trustworthiness may be more or less important in different relationships. In their meta-analysis of trust studies Colquitt et al. (2007) found integrity to be the most important basis of leader trustworthiness, while other studies suggest that an employee’s perceptions of a leader’s trustworthiness may be based mainly on perceptions of benevolence (Meyerson et al., 1996; Knoll & Gill, 2011). In the majority of contexts, trust develops over time (Mayer et al., 1995; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Following Lewicki and Bunker’s (1996) evolutionary model, a trusting relationship commences with the trustor weighing up costs and benefits rationally, focusing upon the cognitive components of competence and integrity. Within such calculus-based trust assessments, there is risk due to the information being incomplete and the need to focus upon proxies (Kramer 1999) and information from others (Burt & Knez, 1996). Page 4 of 22 By suspending this uncertainty and being willing to make themselves vulnerable, the trustor makes an initial leap of faith to trust the trustee (Möllering, 2006). Lewicki and Bunker (1996) argue that, as the trustor gains more insights about the trustee and their actions, a deeper level of knowledgebased trust may develop. Where this relationship develops further, trust is based on a shared social orientation as well as knowledge, the affective component of benevolence gaining importance in what Lewicki and Bunker (1996) term identification-based trust. As a willingness to be vulnerable, trust is regarded as an attitude (Robinson, 1996) or psychological state (Rousseau et al., 1998). Such trust is demonstrated usually through either reliance- or disclosure-related behaviours (Gillespie, 2003) whereby the trustor takes a ‘leap of faith’ (Möllering, 2001) and accepts risk (Dietz et al., 2010) in the expectation of a positive outcome. Such trusting behaviours can influence felt trustworthiness (Lester & Brower, 2003) on the part of the trustee, impacting upon their behaviour and their trust in the trustor (Gillespie, 2003). Each member of the dyad is both a trustor and a trustee, and each party’s trust will be influenced by the other’s trust in them (Ferrin et al., 2003). Therefore, when considering trust in VT leader-member relationships it is important to focus on both leader and member perspectives regarding trustworthy and trusting behaviours. Leadership, Trust and Virtual Teams Research has highlighted the role of leadership style in influencing followers’ trust in their leaders (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012), certain leadership styles having been linked clearly to trust building. Within this research has included work on leader behaviours and theories outlining transactional, transformational- and authentic-leadership. Transactional leadership takes place through a series of exchanges between leaders and followers. Leaders provide structure, establish rules and norms and specify the rewards or recognition the follower will receive for a specific level of performance – this being referred to as Contingent Reward. Using management by exception, either active or passive, leaders focus on mistakes, intervening when standards have not been met (Bass et al, 2003). Research suggests such leaders can be seen as trustworthy due to their perceived fairness, dependability and integrity (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; MacKenzie et al., 2001). While transactional leaders focus on employee rewards, transformational leaders seek to shift followers’ attention from self-interest to a collective higher purpose, mission or vision (Kindarto et al., 2020). Such leaders set out a clear and compelling vision and arouse a strong individual and team spirit (inspirational motivation). Putting followers’ needs before their own they maintain consistency in relation to ethics and values (idealised influence). They encourage followers to question traditional ways of doing things, encouraging innovation and creativity (intellectual stimulation) whilst treating followers individually but equitably, showing concern and supporting their development through coaching or mentoring (individualised consideration) (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Bass et al., 2003). Such transformational leaders espouse trustworthy characteristics such as honesty, integrity and truthfulness (Bauman, 2013; Kouzes & Posner, 1987). They have been found to focus on ensuring care and concern are present and developing strong relationships with employees. A key feature of transformational leaders is their high moral and ethical standards (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and their focus on developing strong relationships with employees, gaining their trust, respect and admiration. Research suggests that a transformational style is more closely Page 5 of 22 related to trust than a transactional leadership style (Dirks & Ferrin; 2002; Gillespie & Mann, 2004; Holtz & Harold, 2008). Authentic leaders are “those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” (Avolio, Luthans and Walumbwa, 2004, p.4). Such leadership involves demonstrating authentic behaviour despite external pressures (Gardner et al., 2005), it having attracted increased attention due to growing interest in leader morality and declining trust levels (Lyubovnikova et al., 2017). Wong and Cummings (2009) argue that authentic leadership is essential for building trust because of its focus on honesty, integrity and high ethical standards, while Avolio and Gardner (2005) posit that all transformational leaders are in fact authentic. A second strand of leadership theory focuses on leader-follower relationships, Leader-MemberExchange (LMX) being one of the best-known theories. Proposed as an alternative to traditional theories focusing on leadership characteristics, situational features, or an interplay between the two (Gerstner and Day, 1995), LMX focuses on dyadic leader-follower relationships. Some authors make a link between LMX and both transactional and transformational leadership, arguing that low-quality LMX relationships are similar to transactional leadership, while high quality LMX relationships are analogous to transformational leadership (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). There is general agreement amongst researchers that LMX is intertwined with mutual trust (Bauer and Green, 1996; Sue-Chan et al., 2012). While studies of trust in traditional co-located environments have identified links between various leadership styles and trust, such traditional leadership styles and skills may not be suitable for virtual leadership (Pauleen, 2003). Research argues that VT leaders may need to place a greater emphasis on people and their interactions (Savolainen, 2014) and specifically on developing high trust relationships (Pauleen, 2003; Hacker et al., 2019), trust acting as a mediator between leadership style and VT performance (Sedrine et al. in press). However, despite research linking trust to the effectiveness of leader-member relationships (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Ferris et al., 2009; Hope-Hailey et al., 2012; Jawahar et al., 2019) VT trust scholars remain focused largely on trust at the team member level; with comparatively little focus on trust between individual VT leaders and members and limited guidance for VT leaders seeking to build high trust relationships with followers. EXPLORING VT LEADER-MEMBER TRUST To better understand VT leader-member trust development, research was conducted by the first author within three global technology companies. These organizations were chosen due to the growth of virtual teams in the technology sector (Daim et al., 2012), such multinational organizations being almost twice as likely to use virtual teams compared to organizations with domestic operations (SHRM, 2012). The study, conducted between 2017-2020, involved leaders and members in 20 dyads, based in various locations across Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA). Seeking perspectives of both leaders and members, the research addressed the question as to how leaders demonstrate both their own trustworthiness to members and their trust of members? A mono-method qualitative methodology was employed, involving some 40 separate Page 6 of 22 in-depth interviews of approximately one hour’s duration with leaders and members in VT dyads, 25 via videoconference and the rest in person. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the transcripts revealed the importance of leaders’ own trustworthiness (as trustees) and their trust (as trustors) of team members. It is these behaviours that provide the focus for the next section, being presented subsequently in the discussion as a framework for enabling high trust virtual leadership. LEADERS’ TRUST DEMONSTRATING BEHAVIOURS Within VTs, leaders were, with very few exceptions, viewed by their members as being highly trustworthy, trust being knowledge- or identification-based. Within dyad trust was driven by two categories of leader behaviours: (1) the leader’s demonstration of their own trustworthiness to members through their behaviours; and (2) the leader’s demonstration of their trust of their team members; members’ ‘felt trustworthiness’ in turn impacting positively on trust in the relationship. Leader Behaviours Demonstrating their Trustworthiness to Members Mayer et al.’s (1995) ABI bases of trustworthiness have been well supported in a range of studies (Breuer, et al., 2020; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Robert et al., 2009). This study, like others, found that benevolence and integrity were dominant influences on members’ perceptions of leader trustworthiness. Members rarely mentioned the ability basis of trustworthiness, but their leaders were, for the most part, very experienced having significant responsibility in very large organizations. Members took for granted their leader’s ability due to their experience and seniority within the organization. Reputation and third parties played a role in influencing these perceptions, with members referring to LinkedIn profiles and seeking insights from third parties. While leader benevolence was found to influence members’ perceptions of their trustworthiness, unlike in previous quantitative studies (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2007; Knoll & Gill, 2011) specific benevolent leader behaviours were identified. VT members wanted ‘member-centric’ leaders who supported them both personally and professionally. They trusted leaders who cared for them as people and were not solely focused on work tasks or targets, or on their own agenda. Members argued that leaders’ care and concern for them and other team members was more important in virtual environments and that such benevolence had to be genuine, this also being recognised by VT leaders. Supporting, Protecting and Being Fair When asked about trusting their leader, members most frequently cited behaviours related to supporting, protecting and adding value; highlighting how trust was based on knowledge of the other. These comprised providing support in both personal and professional contexts, the latter of which helped members achieve their goals and thus was seen as adding value. Highly trusted leaders demonstrated general humanity towards others, with team members commenting on their benevolent behaviours towards the wider team noting: “I trust him … he cares about people…”. Leaders emphasised the importance of offering personal support, their need to be aware of members’ personal contexts and to be empathetic. Members mentioned the impact of specific incidences of personal support on their trust in the leader, for example: “…but also on a personal level… I lost my parents a couple of years ago, they had cancer … sometimes you just need some advice right… he gave me really good advice … I really trust him…”. Page 7 of 22 Instances of protecting included leaders’ support of members’ work-life balance. Such balance was particularly challenging where VT members had colleagues or customers in different countries and/or time zones, necessitating frequent travel and longer working days. Leaders respected members’ personal time such as evenings and weekends by encouraging members to take a more balanced approach to their work commitments. This was appreciated considerably by members who recognised their leader’s genuine concerns for their own and their families’ welfare: …when we (are) travelling a lot he says ‘ye know guys I feel the same, I just want you to think about yourself … so make sure you balance work and family’... that’s the difference, some people expect regardless, even if they know that it’s really tough but … he always says ‘if it’s not possible just say so guys’… he definitely thinks about the welfare of everybody… Within their professional context, members cited numerous instances in which leaders had supported them, showing benevolence in addressing issues or overcoming barriers to their career progress. They also mentioned how such support impacted positively on their trust of their leader, one noting: “… I think the trust is, you know when you feel like your boss is going to back you up.” As in previous research, workload was potentially problematic for those members belonging to multiple virtual teams (O’Hara et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). In these instances, members particularly valued the support of their leaders when seeking to manage their workload. Leaders emphasised the need to be seen as fair in such situations, ensuring a balanced and manageable workload for the member, demonstrating their support and protection for their members. Career Development and Coaching The majority of leaders provided support through coaching and career development, such membercentric benevolent actions demonstrating their trustworthiness. Members spoke in general terms about how leaders’ actions to develop them in their career engendered trust, one member typically commenting: “…you trust your manager you know that he will guide you … will let you grow in your career…this is what defines trust to me.” Both leaders and members frequently emphasized the importance of coaching, leaders stressing that, as virtual leaders, they had to be coaches to members who were not physically co-located. This was particularly important for members who were new to virtual working. Coaching was viewed positively by team members, being seen as a clear example of leader benevolence, both in enabling their current role and in terms of their career progression. Typically, a team member noted: “…it (coaching) made me feel that … this person not only wants a success for his team, but he wants a success for the person in front of him …so that made me feel more relaxed and comfortable to trust his opinion.” Their leader commented: “… the more we went with the coaching the more it (the relationship) improved… it’s really about … showing … that you care about the people …” A common focus of coaching conversations was member visibility. Leaders emphasised the need for members to be visible and be seen to contribute beyond their role description, in order to increase their chances of career progression but understood the challenges involved for virtual workers. To this end, leaders provided opportunities for members within their own networks, emphasising their members’ abilities to other senior colleagues; their behaviours demonstrating their trust of members and impacting positively on reciprocal trust. Members and leaders cited Page 8 of 22 instances whereby a leader actively helped a member to find a new role, despite not wanting to lose a highly performing employee. Such actions were deemed by members to be strongly member-centric demonstrating both integrity and benevolence, leaders placing their members’ needs before their own. Discussion thus far has focused on member-centric benevolent behaviours that demonstrate leader trustworthiness to members. However, a minority of leaders were viewed by members as focused on the tasks at hand and their own career, with little regard for member development or career advancement, demonstrating no real benevolence and often little integrity. The impact of such behaviours was noted by one member: “It's not really a relationship I would say it's more based on ‘so what is your target. When are you going to bring the numbers in … and can it not be higher?’ nothing to do with eh personal …’What are your goals in life or what do you want to achieve? Where do you see yourself next’, it has nothing to do with that.” In such situations, assessments of leaders’ trustworthiness appeared to be more calculus-based. Communicating Beyond the Agenda VT leaders emphasized that a lack of face-to-face interaction could impede coaching and career development discussions. Both leaders and members bemoaned the agenda focused nature of virtual communication, and discussed the need to move “beyond the agenda” to support members, one leader highlighting the challenge by contrasting face-to-face and virtual teams: …I think what is missing…it’s on my leadership or maybe his own development plan…he can feel a bit alone for that …(member) deserves to grow in ORG C but I’m not giving him the time to do that…you know for example today I spend three hours with one of my guys in Barcelona in a room working on that. I haven’t done that with him because you know it’s by phone, so everything’s been quicker you know with just a call…you’re not sitting face-toface talking about life or talking about the development plan... It’s much more agenda focused. There was ample evidence of leaders and members in trusting relationships making the effort to go ‘beyond the agenda’ when communicating virtually, resisting the urge to stick rigidly to business and ensure a level of personal connection. This involved learning more about members, their personal lives and their challenges, which in turn helped enable higher levels of support. Leaders also spoke of their efforts to still physically meet members, several highlighting the importance of face-to-face contact when coaching. Acknowledging the greater effort needed for virtual compared to co-located team leadership, all leaders emphasised the importance of demonstrating benevolence, their views being summarised by one: “…when you’re onsite, people can trust you because they see you care because of your body language, because eh you are smiling etcetera. That does not happen virtually. You need to be intentional in showing that you care.” Ensuring Availability and Perceived Proximity In demonstrating benevolence and integrity to members, leaders recognised the importance of leveraging multiple forms of communication to help ensure their availability and perceived virtual proximity to members. One explained: Page 9 of 22 It’s not about physical presence, it’s about me managing you and you have all my support so if an employee knows that his manager has his back whether he is in an office or the virtual world that will be a huge benefit so it’s about the openness, it’s about the availability, the trust … how you make sure that your employee sees you as if you are sitting next to them. Support required by members varied, based on their experience levels and tenure in their current role. Many emphasised the benefit of face-to-face meetings for strategic conversations and brainstorming, the majority noting the need for timely access to the leader as required either “many times of day, like 1 minute - five minutes” or for “very short 2-3 minute questions 2-3 times per day”. The importance of such leader availability was mentioned by the majority of participants, including quite senior members with leadership responsibilities who spoke about needing to know their leader was available: “…what’s important is not that I spend an hour with him every week…for me what’s important is when I send him a message or I call him that he calls me back within a few hours…just a minute, I need your brain on this thing [clicks fingers].” Being Open The final leader behaviour demonstrating leader trustworthiness was being open to members. Identified in a variety of previous studies as a form of integrity (Gabarro, 1978; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Alsharo et al., 2017), this was highlighted by the majority of members in this study. Team members’ open conversations with their leaders meant they felt the leader had all of their “cards on the table”. Some stated they trusted leaders who were honest and did not lie to them; others spoke about leaders being open about the members’ strengths and weaknesses; these being seen as benevolent actions, helping members improve their performance and career prospects. Still others referred to leaders being open in letting the member know what they were thinking and being honest when discussing member ideas, whether they viewed them positively or negatively, one noting that this was important for knowledge-based trust: “I relate trust a lot with two things. Right. That is with openness and integrity right… There's an aspect of his character let’s say that attracted me as well that he was direct. Meaning he says what is on his mind, whether that would be positive or negative... In a small sense of we're not hiding stuff for each other.” Leader openness from the outset of the relationship played a key role in ensuring alignment of expectations and goals. Leaders stressed the importance of this in virtual settings and its role in influencing their willingness to grant autonomy. In a number of dyads, open conversations helped ensure the development of knowledge- or identification-based trust, members’ responses revealing these conversations as the key reason for a high trust relationship with their leaders. One compared this relationship with a manager where the alignment was not as strong: “I think that is probably the big difference why there is a bigger or a big trust relationship between me and ([leader’s name] and that’s probably because my goals are much more aligned to the goals of [leader’s name] than to the goals of my manager.” However, while openness was clearly linked to demonstrating their leader’s trustworthiness, the majority of members also mentioned ‘being open’ when asked about leader behaviours demonstrating their trust of members. It is these behaviours that are considered next. Leader Behaviours Demonstrating their Trust of Members The vast majority of leaders highlighted the importance of their demonstrating trust of team members, emphasising the positive impact of doing so. Both leaders and members commented that Page 10 of 22 the act of trusting could lead the other to be more trustworthy and result in reciprocal trust, one member noting: “It immediately made me think well I need to succeed for him. He’s trusting me to do this…I need to make sure I’m successful for him because he’s putting his faith in me.” Three forms of leader behaviour demonstrating their trust of members were identified: being open, granting autonomy, and demonstrating value and respect. Being Open As well as demonstrating their own trustworthiness to members, being open also demonstrated leaders’ trust of their VT members. Such openness was viewed as central to trust between leaders and members, being considered a form of disclosure-related trust (Gillespie, 2003). Members and leaders argued openness was more important in VTs due to the lack of face-to-face communication. Being open helped to bridge the virtual divide, building trust to levels which were sometimes considered higher than those with co-located leaders. Most members cited their leader’s openness as being critical in the positive development of their relationship. In particular, where leaders spoke openly about their objectives and their thoughts on certain confidential topics, including the sharing of privileged or confidential information, this helped to build trust: “He told us our team, our group, what he wouldn’t tell everyone else publicly so again that built the trust.” In divulging such information, leaders were taking risks and making themselves vulnerable, their actions offering a visible demonstration of trust. This was typified by one leader’s explanation to a new team member outlining why he was unable to attend a meeting: the member commenting: “I know a lot of managers who would never have told me that it was actually because of [personal issue]… But like I said, [leader’s name] was very open …so those are like little anecdotes that say okay I mean that confirmed let's say his openness and transparency.” Granting Autonomy Leaders cited their willingness to grant members autonomy and refrain from micromanagement as evidence of their trust in members, typically: “So even if I believe that’s not the best decision, I let him go for it. That’s a way to demonstrate trust…so I’m not micromanaging him”. Members clearly linked the granting of autonomy to trust, noting that they felt trusted when the leader didn’t look to know all the detail of deals, when they were trusted to deliver to deadlines without being asked for progress updates, and when they were allowed to manage tricky situations by themselves. In the vast majority of dyads, some form of autonomy was granted from the very outset; the positive impact on trust being commented upon by members. One team member who was also a leader noted: “From day one he gave me full autonomy and trust and allowed me to really do what I felt I had to do managing my team.” Despite a strong dislike of micromanagement voiced by both members and leaders, it was recognised as necessary where, for example, competency gaps were evident, or a member was struggling in a certain area. In such instances, the lack of autonomy did not damage trust, providing an explanation was offered and the member believed it was a temporary measure. Where relationships began with micromanagement, being initially calculus based, and autonomy was granted over time, members felt an increased level of trust from the leader as their leaders’ trust in them became more knowledge-based. Page 11 of 22 While autonomy was considered preferable to micromanagement, both members and leaders highlighted the responsibility of members to respect that autonomy. This highlighted the dyadic nature of trust; leaders bring willing to trust (take a risk) based on positive expectations but this was contingent on knowledge gained from their members demonstrating their trustworthiness on an ongoing basis. Demonstrating Value and Respect Alongside granting autonomy, leaders demonstrated their trust by respecting the advice and expertise members provided. A member commented: “He won’t question me at all, he won’t ask me to go into it or show him evidence of what’s happening as in why we’re accepting this…he trusts what you’re telling him.” Previous research suggests that leaders can enhance trust levels by involving members in decision making (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gillespie & Mann, 2004) and those leaders active in seeking such member input, noted its importance in a virtual context given the lack of face-to-face visibility. One commented on the reciprocal nature of this: “The thing is if I don’t have [member’s name] who tell(s) me that the policy I put in place or the direction I’m pushing on is wrong, I cannot be in Cairo every week… So, I need [member’s name] to tell me I’m wrong, I need [member’s name] to feel ok if I tell him that he needs to change something.” Members commented positively about leaders who refrained from making decisions without firstly listening and consulting with members. Such behaviour was viewed by members as a sign that the leader trusted them, for example: “I think, yes he trusts me; he listens to me, that's important, he takes into consideration my opinion. So, if I say: ‘look for this and that reason I think this and that’ he will consider that... and most of the time he will not move forward because we are not in agreement.” Overcoming Difficulties to Trust Building in a Virtual Context The findings presented above highlight some of the challenges of trust building in virtual relationships. It was evident that VT leaders needed to make a more conscious effort to build trust with team members. Leaders spoke about the difficulties in having coaching conversations and, in virtual communications, moving beyond an agenda focus to build connections. Furthermore, trust sometimes simply took longer to develop virtually due, in part, to the personalities involved and the type of communication platforms adopted by the organizations. These impacted upon the quality of support, perceptions of integrity (work ethic) and connection, and the building of trust. For some dyads, face-to-face communication had a transformational impact on trust, immediately benefitting relationships which had been slow to develop. Virtual working arrangements allowed for greater use of virtual reporting lines and for some these caused friction raising concerns about loyalty and trust. Team members’ work experience also influenced trust development, some less experienced members simply needed more support and more regular communication; this not always being possible given the leader’s other commitments. In some Occasionally, this led to members feeling that the leader lacked benevolence, this being most pronounced in those hybrid teams where a number of team members were co-located with the leader with others at other locations: “… if I can imagine he’s just sitting in the hub in Barcelona so everyone there can just run to him anytime. But for me I’m always like waiting for the reply or trying to send over a WhatsApp or call in his mobile and stuff like this to get replies…” Page 12 of 22 Notwithstanding these challenges, most leaders were successful in building high trust relationships with members. Discussion now turns to the leadership style most effective for building trust virtually. DISCUSSION Leadership Style Suited to Building VT Trust Highly trusted VT leaders interviewed revealed many of the characteristics of transformational leaders. Drawing upon Bass et al.’s (2003) factors of transformational leadership, trusted leaders demonstrated idealised influence by considering members’ needs above their own needs, supporting them personally and professionally and generally adding value. Specific examples of this include: leaders helping high performing members to find new roles despite the negative impact on team performance; protecting members from others in the organization, fighting their corner where required; encouraging members towards a greater work-life balance by allowing members to cancel travel plans or to push out deadlines where required; and negatively influencing their own work-life balance by travelling as often as possible to spend time with members in order to provide maximum support. Members noted how highly trusted VT leaders demonstrated inspirational motivation (Bass et al., 2003) by outlining their vision for their team and setting clear expectations, often going to great efforts to ensure that member communication was open and beyond the agenda. Having leveraged openness to achieve alignment of expectations, virtual working was considered to be effective. Through seeking feedback from VT members, consulting before making decisions or taking actions, and encouraging members to question operational tactics or strategies or the way in which they worked, leaders demonstrated value and respect. Leaders also granted members autonomy, allowing them the space to make mistakes and to learn from experience. Invariably this required members to engage in problem solving and identify potential improvements, intellectual stimulation signifying further parallels with Bass et al.’s (2003) factors. Treating all followers equally and as individuals (Bass et al., 2003) was particularly challenging where some members were co-located with the leader and others were virtual. However, leaders were conscious of this issue working to ensure perceived proximity and availability for support when members needed. Furthermore, their efforts in coaching and developing members emphasised individual consideration. Towards a framework for enabling High Trust VT Leadership The specific leader behaviours identified in the research as enabling trust are summarised in figure 1 as a high trust VT leadership framework. This framework answers the two questions posed at the start of this chapter within the context of leader-member relationships in virtual teams. Within the framework leaders’ behaviours demonstrating their trustworthiness (as trustees) include supporting, protecting and adding value to virtual team members as trustors, developing individual career and coaching, communicating beyond the agenda, ensuring their own availability and perceived (albeit virtual) proximity and being open, especially in their communications. These behaviours affect members’ perceptions of leader trustworthiness and, where positive, support the development of members’ trust of their leader from calculus- to knowledge-based trust. Members’ trust in their leader is demonstrated through a variety of their own trusting behaviours, providing Page 13 of 22 an opportunity for leaders to further influence perceptions of their own trustworthiness, their behaviours potentially being influenced by felt trustworthiness and the need to reciprocate by rewarding the trust placed in them by the member. Leaders’ behaviours (as trustors) demonstrating their trust of members (as trustees) comprise being open, granting their members autonomy and demonstrating the value and respect they hold for them. Members’ behaviours subsequent to leaders’ trusting behaviours further influence leaders’ perceptions of members’ trustworthiness, their trust in members and the trusting behaviours towards members; member trustworthy behaviours potentially being influenced by felt trustworthiness and the need to reward their leader’s trust in them. Figure 1. Framework for enabling high trust VT leadership CONCLUSION This chapter has presented the findings of empirical research into trust development in virtual leader-member dyads. This focus is important as despite existing research recognising the importance of trust in leader-member relationships, research on trust in VTs has been largely focused at the team member level, offering limited guidance for VT leaders seeking to build trust with members. While the virtual context can present unique challenges to trust building, the findings of this study offer some comfort to those challenged by virtual leadership, revealing that trust is not only possible in virtual leader-member dyads but that it can in fact be stronger than in co-located relationships. These insights come at an important time as Covid-19 led to exponential growth in VT usage and high levels of virtual working are forecasted to continue post Covid-19 (EY, 2020). Page 14 of 22 Given the centrality of trust to effective working relationships, and the likelihood that people managers will increasingly have to practice remote people management, the issue of how to build trust virtually should now be of primary concern for managers and organizations alike to leverage the well-established benefits of dyadic trust. The framework offered presents VT leaders with a series of behaviours to help build high trust relationships with their members. It emphasises that virtual leaders could usefully consider adopting a member-centric leadership style, providing support for members in a personal context and supporting and protecting them to achieve their work goals. VT leaders might well also consider focussing upon coaching and developing members to enable their career development. In order to provide such high levels of support in a virtual context, leaders will need good communication skills, to be available to members when needed and take time to move ‘beyond the agenda’ when communicating. VT leaders could usefully seek to demonstrate openness, autonomy and respect from the outset of relationships, these helping members feel trusted and supporting trust reciprocation and a stronger relationship. In order to achieve high levels of trust with members, VT leaders are likely to need to spend more time reflecting on the needs of members and, where available, take advantage of opportunities for face-to-face coaching. Such behaviours, which align closely to the tenets of transformational leadership, are likely to help build and maintain high-trust, effective virtual working relationships. REFERENCES Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490. Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory building for veritable sustained performance [Working paper]: Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. Bauman, D.C. (2013). The three faces of integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 414-426. Bell, B.S., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Page 15 of 22 Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A metaanalysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151-1177. Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., Hibben, F., & Hertel, G. (2020). Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviours in face-to-face and virtual teams. Human Relations, 73(1), 3–34. Burt, R.S. & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third party gossip. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 68-89). Sage. Cheng, X., Yin, G., Azadegan, A. & Kolfschoten, G. (2016). Trust evolvement in hybrid team collaboration: A longitudinal case study. Group Decis Negot, 25, 267–288. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R. & Rotter, N.G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95-104. Daim, T.U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W. & Bhatla, A. (2012). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 199-212. De Jong, B. and Dirks, K. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391-406. DeRosa, D.M., Hantula, D.A., Kock, N. & D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43(2&3), 219-232. Dennis, D., Overholt, M. & Vickers, M. (2014). The new dominance of virtual teams and leaders. MWorld, 13(2), 18–21. Dietz, G. & Den Hartog, D.N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35 (5), 557-588. Dietz, G., Gillespie, N. & Chao, G.T. (2010). Unravelling the complexities of trust and culture. In M.N.K. Saunders, D. Skinner, G. Dietz, N. Gillespie & R.J. Lewicki (Eds.), Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective (pp. 3-41). Cambridge University Press. Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. Dube, L. & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information Systems Journal, 19, 3-30. Page 16 of 22 EY (2020). Why remote working will be the new normal, even after COVID-19. https://www.ey.com/en_be/covid-19/why-remote-working-will-be-the-new-normal-even-aftercovid-19 Ferrin. D.L., Dirks, K.T. & Shah, P.P. (2003). Many routes toward trust: A social network analysis of the determinants of interpersonal trust. Academy of Management Proceedings. (pp. C1-C6). Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of Business. Ferris, G.R., Liden, R.C., Munyon, T.P., Summers, J.K., Basik , K.J. & Buckley, M.R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1379-1403. Fulmer, A. and Gelfand, M.J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167-1230. Gabarro, J.J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A.G. Athos & J.J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal Behaviour: Communication and understanding in relationships (pp. 290-303). Prentice-Hall. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R. & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly. 16(3), 343–372. Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1995). Putting leadership back into leader-member exchange: A meta-analytic review and extension. [Paper presentation]. Tenth Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL, United States. Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioural trust inventory [Paper presentation] . Academy of Management Conference, Seattle, WA, United States. Gillespie, N. & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607. 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. Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Greenberg, P.S., Greenberg, R.H. & Antonucci, Y.L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50(4), 325-333. Hacker, J., Johnson, M., Saunders, C. & Thayer, A.L. (2019). Trust in virtual teams: A multidisciplinary review and integration. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23, 1-35. Page 17 of 22 Hertel, G., Geister, S. & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95. Holtz, B.C. & Harold, C.M. (2008). When your boss says no! The effects of leadership style and trust on employee reactions to managerial explanations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 777-802. Hope-Hailey, V., Searle, R. & Dietz, G. (2012). Where has all the trust gone? https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/where-has-all-the-trust-gone_2012-sop_tcm18-9644.pdf Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403. Hunsaker, P.L. & Hunsaker, J.S. (2008). Virtual teams: A leader’s guide. Team Performance Management, 14(1), 86-101. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K. & Leidner, D.E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64. Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815. Jawahar, I.M., Stone, T.H. & Kluemper, D. (2019). When and why leaders trust followers LMX as a mediator and empowerment as a moderator of the trustworthiness-trust relationship. Career Development International, 24(7), 702-716. Kanawattanachai, P. & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187-213. Kayworth, T.R. & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194. Kimble, C. (2011). Building effective virtual teams: How to overcome the problems of trust and identity in virtual teams. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, January/February, 615. Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P.E. & Pherson, S.O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79. Knoll, D.L. & Gill, H. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 313–30. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It. Why People Demand It. Jossey-Bass. Page 18 of 22 Korsgaard, M.A., Brower, H.H. & Lester, S.W. (2015). It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41(1), 47-70. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569-98. Lester, S.W., & Brower, H.H. (2003). In the eyes of the beholder: The relationship between subordinates' felt trustworthiness and their work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 10(2), 17-33. Lewicki, R.L. & Bunker, B.B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114-139). Sage. Lewis, J.D. & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985. Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 648-659. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organization with Technology. Wiley. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Wiley. Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N. & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: The mediating role of team reflexivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 59–70. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. & Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(spring), 115-134. Maes, J.D. & Weldy, T.G. (2018). Building effective virtual teams: Expanding OD research and practice. Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 83-90. Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. & Maynard, M.T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805-835. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, D.F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. McKnight D.H. & Chervany N.L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In R. Falcone, M. Singh & Y.H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in Cyber-societies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (pp. 22-46). Springer. Page 19 of 22 Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. & Kramer, R.M. (1996). Swift trust in temporary groups. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 166195). Sage. Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 403-420. Möllering, G. (2006). Trust, institutions, agency: towards a neo-institutional theory of trust. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer (Eds.), A Handbook of Trust Research (pp. 355-376). Edward Elgar. Monalisa, M., Daim, T., Mirani, F., Dash, P., Khamis, R. & Bhusari, V. (2008). Managing Global design teams. Research – Technology Management, 51(4), 48-59. Mysirlaki, S. & Paraskeva, F. (2019). Virtual team effectiveness: Insights from the virtual word teams of massively multiplayer online games. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(1), 36-55. Nienaber, A-M., Romeike, P.D., Searle, R. & Schewe, G. (2015). A qualitative meta-analysis of trust in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(5), 507 – 534. Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures, Edward Elgar. Nordback, E.S. & Espinosa, J.A. (2019). Effective coordination of shared leadership in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(1), 321–350. Oakley, J.G. (1998). Leadership processes in virtual teams and organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 3-18. O’Hara-Devereaux, M. & Johansen, R. (1994). Global Work: Bridging Distance, Culture, and Time, Jossey-Bass. Pattnaik, L. and Jena, L.K. (in press). Mindfulness, remote engagement and employee morale: conceptual analysis to address the “new normal”. International Journal or Organizational Analysis. Paul, D.L., & McDaniel, R.R. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28, 183-227. Pauleen, D.J. (2003). An inductively derived model of leader-initiated relationship building with virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(3), 227-256. Piccoli, G. & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behaviour control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365-395. Page 20 of 22 Robert Jr, L.P., Dennis, A.R. & Hung, Y.C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26 (2), 241-279. Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-99. Romeike, P.D., Nienaber, A.M., & Schewe, G. (2016). How differences in perceptions of own and team performance impact trust and job satisfaction in virtual teams. Human Performance, 29(4), 291-309. Ross, J.A. (2006). Trust makes the team go ‘round. Harvard Management Update, June, 3-6. Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–65. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different at all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Ruiller, C., van der Heijden, B., Chedotel, F. & Dumas, M. (2018). You have got a friend: The value of perceived proximity for teleworking success in dispersed teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(1/2), 1352-7592. RW3 Culture Wizard (2018) Virtual Teams Survey 2018. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/466336/Virtual%20Teams%20Survey-Executive%20Summary-Final%20(2018).pdf Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders’ challenges and skills in technology-mediated interaction. The Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45-56. Schaubroeck, J.M. & Yu, A. (2017). When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team characteristics as contingency factors. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 635–647. Sedrine, S.B., Bouderbala, A. & Nasraoui, H. (in press). Leadership style effect on virtual team efficiency: Trust, operational cohesion and media richness roles. Journal of Management Development. Shapiro, D.L., Furst, S.A., Spreitzer, G.M. & Von Glinow, M.A. (2002). Transnational teams in the electronic age: Are team identity and high performance at risk. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 455-467. SHRM (2012) SHRM survey findings: Virtual teams. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-andforecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/virtualteams.aspx Page 21 of 22 Sue-Chan, C., Au, A. & Hackett, R. (2012). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality, Journal of World Business, 47(3), 459-468. Walther, J.B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186-203. Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L. & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study or a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975-996. Webster, J. & Wong, W.K.P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41-62. Whitener, E.M, Brodt, S.E, Korsgaard, M.A. & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530. Williamson, O.E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 453-86. Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G. & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16-33. Witchalls, C. (2009). Managing virtual teams: Taking a more strategic approach. The Economist Intelligence Unit. Wong, C.A. & Cummings, G.G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 6-23. Zaccaro, S.J. & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading E-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximising the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 377-387. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity, Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351. Zuofa, T. & Ochieng, E.G. (2017). ‘Working separately but together: appraising virtual project team challenges. Team Performance Management, 23(5/6), 227-242. Page 22 of 22