CHAPTER 4

The Rocky Road to Trust

Ben wasn’t happy. He had just experienced his first major disappointment after only four months on the job. He was tasked with developing a measurable marketing plan that would drive revenue and increase market share for the company’s main product by 6 percent over the next year. Most of the data he required were already in his hands, but he still needed year-to-date information from Thomas, one of his employees in the EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) offices. Thomas rarely responded to e-mails, or group chats, and this frustrated Ben. Furthermore, Thomas had now missed two deadlines. When Ben first had a face-to-face meeting with Thomas in the Netherlands, he appeared to be pleasant and easy to work with. Thomas seemed to understand his business, and his team spoke highly of his abilities. Ben came away from his first meeting feeling that Thomas would be a solid and trustworthy employee. However, over time, this image of Thomas diminished, and his lack of responsiveness made things difficult for Ben.

The Oxford Dictionary says that trust is a “firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something,” and the “acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation” (Oxforddictionaries.com 2018). However, in virtual teams (VTs), trust is often underappreciated, though it may have an even greater importance in this environment (Harrel and Daim 2010). When asked what the most challenging aspect of their role is, virtual leaders often say it is building trust (Settle-Murphy 2006).

As a part of this trust issue, multiple task challenges and socioemotional functions can significantly impact VT effectiveness. More specifically, task-related factors such as communication can be directly influenced by socioemotional factors like trust and cohesion (Powell, Piccoli, and Ives 2004). In fact, research has clearly shown that trust is essential if a virtual leader is to achieve success and permanence within his or her team (Ngo-Mai and Raybaut 2007). When trust is removed from a situation where the team already faces challenges related to geographical and temporal distances, a psychological separation can begin, which can be truly devastating (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999). Trust can be impacted by many unforeseen factors in any business team, virtual or otherwise, and this was an issue that greatly concerned Ben. In his experience, trust was one of the most important elements of teamwork. He had worked on many collaborative projects through the years, and he knew the value of trusting other team members to do their part of the work. In his experience, only the teams where members could fully trust each other, and their work, were successful.

Ben was correct in his assumption that trust is an integral part of a successful team. Trust is among the three core foundations of rational choice theory and how people act. Additionally, these include reciprocity and reputation of keeping promises. Within this theory, a rational individual’s trust can be enhanced or diluted by the actions and responses of other individuals, such as a manager or colleague. Based on the observed actions, the individual will choose whether to make collaborative actions and decisions. Therefore, based partially on individuals’ level of trust in their teammates, their decisions to collaborate or not will be impacted by reciprocal behavior, as trust cannot be built and maintained without solid credibility (Meirhoefer 2008).

The prevailing thought among leaders is that trust is far more difficult to achieve in a virtual setting, because of lack of direct interaction with team members. However, the reality is that this may not be the case. Trust can be developed through different mechanisms in a globally dispersed team. Even within the constraints of temporal and geographic separation, exploratory research has shown that while trust can be squandered and can rapidly dissipate, it can also be effectively created and nurtured within a virtual environment (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999). Empirical research has also demonstrated that team reliability is a fundamental factor for building trust in a VT. When team members feel they can count on each other or their managers to consistently deliver on necessary task or role assignments, it can be an important catalyst for building greater trust. Contrarily, unreliability can result in diminished trust (Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer 1996). When people experience a face-to-face interaction, it is easier to develop a visual assessment of other members of their team. In this case, people often pick up on trust indicators such as body language, facial expressions, and daily interactions to help them formulate cognitive decisions about whether they trust others.

Nonetheless, despite its importance in a VT, really building trust through reliability takes time. The upside is that through continued successful task completions, dispersed VT members build positive reliability and credibility among their peers and employees and thus can develop solid, trustworthy working relationships (Styer 2010). Ben had already seen this in his team. Most of his groups had already been collaborating for some time and had established a firm trust in each other. They had already worked through many projects and had demonstrated their ability to accomplish individual tasks with the aim of successfully executing a larger team task. Nonetheless, Ben did notice that some groups still struggled in this area and had a more difficult time cooperating with each other.

Swift trust is one of the earliest models used to define trust in a VT. Swift trust puts the focus on the initial component of collaboration in the team, in which preexisting stereotypes and observation of initial behaviors and actions influence trust at the beginning (Ferrazzi 2012a). In simpler terms, a geographically diverse team may have no previous interaction, and thus cannot possibly rely on traditional methods of building trust using methods such as bilateral communication through interpersonal action, for example. Instead, swift trust theory explains that a virtual trust is more likely to be built on categorical social structures and immediate responses and actions of a team community (Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer 1996). It is a trust that is created immediately out of necessity, but yet lacks strength. Swift trust is a survival method that exists because in a virtual environment, certain tasks must be completed and goals must be met, despite the fact that it is entirely possible that many of the team members have never met and communicate only through electronic means. As a result, team members have an instinctual and immediate trust in their colleagues that exists only if commitments are met. It could even be classified as a necessary honeymoon period, where trust must initially be assumed to accomplish team tasks (Ferrazzi 2012b). Swift trust is most applicable in temporary teams, or teams who are working toward a goal that must be completed within a specific time period.

In Ben’s case, Thomas made a good first impression in their brief meeting, so Ben had no reason to believe he wouldn’t be trustworthy in accomplishing his tasks and a solid employee. Ben had high expectations of Thomas after his initial experience. When Thomas failed to meet his objectives, trust was quickly lost. However, as Ben contemplated this problem, he realized that it would be equally important for him to achieve a high level of trust from his team. He knew he wanted to earn their trust, but how to do it from a distant office was still perplexing.

Indeed, like Ben’s issue, for remote team business leaders, the challenge remains of not only developing trust among the team peers, but gaining it from his or her own group. As mentioned earlier, many virtual leaders name trust as the most difficult factor to manage in the working environment. This is further complicated by the fact that when working in an environment with limited face-to-face time, small misunderstandings can quickly grow to be much larger problems (Settle-Murphy 2006). To further confound the problem, each person interprets salient communication cues within the context of his or her own cultural diversity and language without the context of visual cues (Nemiro n.d.). As an example, Ben received the following e-mail from his boss, who was also located in another city:

Ben,

I really need the APAC Q2 market growth report for both products right away! We absolutely need to get this data on time, no excuses. Get it to me before I meet with Larry tomorrow morning.

Lisa.

Ben read the e-mail and his mind started racing. The brevity and forcefulness of the message told Ben that Lisa was clearly rushed, and it even created a trace of doubt that perhaps he had missed a deadline and she might be unhappy. He made her request a priority, found the data, and sent it to her right away. It wasn’t until she called him later that day that Ben realized his boss wasn’t angry, she was just incredibly busy. Because Ben didn’t know his boss well, it was difficult to interpret her personality through a series of brief e-mails. However, this made Ben reflect on his own style of communication with his employees and how he might change his writing style in e-mails.

Quality over quantity is another important rule to consider when thinking about communication in a VT. Research has even shown that teams with higher levels of trust often communicate with predictability. Thus, teams with more predictable communication schedules demonstrated a higher level of team trust than those that didn’t (Ferrazzi 2012a). Ben tried to fit weekly meeting schedules with each regional team, along with follow-ups on project reports for each executable task. Managers can also use the strategy of decentralization of power in order to garner trust from his or her team members. Each member of a team can have diverse skill sets that can set them apart from everyone else at varying stages. A leader who appreciates this fact and allows team members who may be experts or have more experience in certain areas to lead could greatly benefit the team and goal attainment.

Ben recognized the value of instrumental embeddedness to team success. Instrumental embeddedness refers to the level of social interactions occurring through the use of relationships utilizing standard protocols of exchange that are connected to specific task goals (Chang 2008). Greater cohesiveness and social responsibility for collaboration can occur in situations where there exist stronger instrumental assistance bonds between individuals on a team. Ben often had open, two-way communication with members of his team. He truly valued their opinions and he knew his limitations in some tasks were surpassed by the ability of others. This was an area where Ben had long ago discovered the benefit of team diversity and collaboration.

A good manager will also use the skills of his or her team to make them leaders among the group in certain areas, while different team members can lead in other areas. The challenge of managing disparities in power, or when one member has greater power or authority over another, is an important one for VT leaders. Effectively managing this disparity across the group can foster greater collaboration behaviors between team members. The utilization of power decentralization minimizes hierarchal authority and thus affords VT managers more flexibility during time constraints. This is especially important given the difficulties that can arise through technological, asynchronous communication methods such as e-mail (Panteli and Tucker 2009).

Another benefit to shared leadership is the potential for management to model best practices and behavior within the team. Allowing team members to lead in this way also affords the manager the opportunity to coach them and increase behaviors that could be more effective and profitable in the long run (Kahai 2011). Ben had experienced this early on in his career, when he had allowed a lower band manager to take over responsibility for a specific, but major part of a branding project. This manager had gained significant experience working closely with the sales group over the years and thus understood the nuances of how their brand could best be communicated to B2B customers. Ben was relatively new to this area, so he allowed his manager to lead the team, which resulted in not only significantly higher numbers for his brand, but also a better relationship with the sales team as well as respect from both the individual manager and the entire marketing group. Using this experience for his current role, Ben started to assess each team member’s ability and decided to choose several members in different regions to become local leaders who could lead in specific tasks and responsibilities and voice the concerns and ideas of other team members within their group. By doing this, he empowered his employees to speak their mind freely and also to suggest new ideas that could benefit the entire team.

Of course, none of this shared leadership would be possible without the reliability and accountability of each team member. Like cells in a biological organism, each employee has an important function. When one fails in his or her role, it can impact the entire team. Like what was happening with Thomas, Ben knew that if he didn’t get the data soon, he and his team would also miss their deadline, and that was unacceptable. Ben looked at his clock and realized it was already late in Europe, but he decided to pick up the phone and call Thomas. Thomas wasn’t too happy about receiving a call during dinner, but he acknowledged that he had fallen behind on delivering his numbers and promised he would send his data by the end of the evening. Ben was satisfied for the moment, but he wouldn’t be fully content until he saw the e-mail from Thomas in his mailbox.

While it is important for each team member to provide value initially, what can really be important is how employees follow through with actions to build upon their value and communicate with each other. This is an area where Thomas had failed Ben. It is important because studies have shown that when urgency exists, and it prompts necessary action within the team, trust can actually be developed more quickly (Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer 1996). In one study, separated teams with the highest levels of trust were those that had frequent interaction among the members, either via e-mail or another electronic source (Iaconna and Weisband n.d). Trust cannot be forced and is therefore more complicated to develop as it requires time to grow. It must be reinforced with each individual interaction over the course of a project. Ben learned this early on, and he had always been a people person. He contacted his team members frequently and allowed them the freedom to touch base with him whenever they felt it important, even if this meant after-hours for him. His irritation that related to the inability to communicate with Thomas was a poignant example of how much communication meant to him. He realized that he would need to set up an action item and communicate this point in his next general meeting with the group.

Ben also wondered how else he could develop a quick and strong trust bond with his team. Through research, he came up with four key points that would be useful to him and to other VT managers:

Ben pasted these four points on the wall next to his desk. He vowed to read them each day and focus on the importance of each. Ben knew that if he could establish himself as a trustworthy leader to his group, it would greatly increase their chances of being an overall successful team. He was about to grab a quick lunch at the cafeteria, when his phone beeped. He breathed a long sigh of relief when he saw Thomas’s e-mail in his inbox. Lunch would have to wait, as he now had the information he needed to get to work and finish the report for his team.

This challenge was certainly an important one, but Ben felt that every day he was learning new ways to build trust in his team. After he sent the report, he grabbed a quick sandwich and his thoughts drifted for a moment to an upcoming direct-to-consumer product campaign they were going to run in Europe. As he went to pick up his phone and call his director in their Berlin office, it occurred to Ben that it was almost 1:00 a.m. there. Ben was frustrated that his request would have to wait until tomorrow. The positive thing was that he knew that if he e-mailed his employee now, the answer would be in his inbox when he woke up the following morning. Ben started typing, wishing he could figure out a way to manage the time difference. Ben was not alone in his disappointment. Managing across geographic boundaries is certainly difficult, but when time zone differences are thrown in, working with a team can become a nightmare. This was a lesson that Ben was about to learn first-hand.