The study of social capital has emerged as a key construct in work and organizational contexts. Trust is its relational dimension and it is relevant for teams working in virtual environments. The purpose of our study is to determine whether the relationship between virtuality level (based on the characteristics of the technology used by each group) and three team-effectiveness criteria (group performance, group process satisfaction and group cohesion) is moderated by group trust climate or relational capital (i.e. trust perceptions shared by team members). A laboratory experiment was carried out with groups randomly assigned to two virtuality levels (videoconference and computer-mediated communication) and a control condition (face-to-face communication). Sixty-six 4-member teams made up the sample. Results indicated that group trust climate moderates the relationship between the virtuality level and group process satisfaction and group cohesion when the virtuality level is high. These results provide further evidence that relational capital plays an important role in virtual teams' effectiveness.
L'étude du capital social s'est révélée un concept-clé dans des contextes de travail et d'organisation. La confiance en est la dimension relationnelle et est adéquate pour l'étude des équipes qui travaillent dans des environnements virtuels. Le but de notre étude est de déterminer si la relation entre le niveau de virtualité (sur la base des caractéristiques de la technologie utilisée par le groupe) et trois critères (performance pendant le travail du groupe, satisfaction du processus de groupe et cohésion du groupe) est influencée par le climat de confiance du groupe ou le capital relationnel (à savoir la perception de confiance partagée par les membres de l'équipe). Une expérience de laboratoire a été réalisée avec des groupes affectés au hasard à deux niveaux de virtualité (vidéoconférence et communication au travers d'ordinateurs) et une condition de contrôle (communication face à face). Soixante-six équipes de 4 personnes ont composé l'échantillon. Les résultats indiquent que le climat de confiance du groupe modère la relation entre le niveau de virtualité, la satisfaction du processus de groupe et la cohésion du groupe lorsque le niveau de virtualité est élevé. Ces résultats sont une preuve de plus que le capital relationnel a des effets importants sur l'efficacité des équipes virtuelles.
Alge, B.J., Wiethoff, C. & Klein, H.J. (2003) `When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams', Organization behavior and human decision process91: 26-37.
2.
Aubert, B.A. & Kelsey, B.L. (2003) `Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams', Small group research34(5): 575-618.
3.
Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002) `A typology of virtual teams' , Groups and organization management27: 14-49.
4.
Beranek, P.G. & Martz, B. (2006) `Making virtual teams more effective: improving relational links', Team performance management11(6): 200-13.
5.
Blau, P. (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
6.
Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K. & Fisher, J. (2002) `Testing the interactivity principle effects of mediation, propinquity and verbal and non-verbal modalities in interpersonal interaction', Journal of communication52(3): 657-77.
7.
Burke, M.J. & Dunlap, W.P. (2002) `Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: a user's guide', Organizational research methods5: 159-72.
8.
Caplan, R.D. & Jones, K.W. (1975) `Effects of workload, role ambiguity and type A personality and anxiety, depression and heart-rate', Journal of applied psychology60(4): 713-19.
9.
Carlson, J.R. & Zmud, R.W. (1999) `Channel expansion theory and the experimental nature of media richness perceptions', Academy of management journal42(2): 153-70.
10.
Champoux, J.E. & Peters, W.S. (1987) `Form, effect size and power in moderated regression' , Journal of occupational psychology60: 243-55.
11.
Chan, D. (1998) `Functional relationships among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models', Journal of applied psychology83: 234-46.
12.
Chidambaram, L. & Jones, B. (1993) `Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: a comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings', MIS quarterly17(4): 465-91.
13.
Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M. & Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005) `How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization' , Information system journal15: 279-306.
14.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . San Diego, CA: Academic Press .
15.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Cole, D. & Maxwel, S.E. (1985) `Multitrait-multimethod comparisons across populations: a confirmatory factor analysis approach', Multivariate behavioral research4: 389-418.
17.
Costa, A.C. (2003) `Work team trust effectiveness', Personnel review32(5): 605-22.
18.
Costa, A.C., Bijlsma-Frankema, K. & De Jong, B. (2006) `Developing trust in project teams: the role of prior links and rules of the game', Paper presented at the International Symposium on Social Capital and Trust in Organizations, organized by the BBVA Foundation and IVIE, December, Madrid.
19.
Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. & Tailleu, T. (2001) `Trust within teams: the relation with performance effectiveness', European journal of work and organizational psychology10(3): 225-44.
20.
Cronbach, L. (1987) `Statistical test for moderator variables: flaws in analysis recently proposed', Psychological bulletin102: 414-17.
21.
Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1984) `Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design', Research in organizational behaviour6: 191-233.
22.
Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Speier, Ch. & Morris, M. (1998) `Beyond media richness: an empirical test of Media Synchronicity Theory', Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1060-125.
23.
Dirks, K.T. (1999) `The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance', Journal of applied psychology84(3): 445-55.
24.
Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2001) `The role of trust in organizational settings' , Organization science12(4): 450-67.
25.
Driscoll, J. (1978) `Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction', Academy of management journal21: 44-56.
26.
Driskell, J.E., Salas, E. & Radtke, P.H. (2003) `Virtual teams: effects of technological mediation on team performance', Group dynamics: theory, research and practice7(4): 297-323.
27.
Edmonson, A.C. (2004) `Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: a group-level lens', in R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (eds) Trust and distrust in organizations: dilemmas and approaches, pp. 239-72. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
Furumo, K. & Pearson, J.M. (2006) `An empirical investigation of how trust, cohesion and performance vary in virtual teams and face to face teams', Proceeedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 1-10.
29.
Gattiker, U.E., Perlusz, S., Bohmann, K. & Sorensen, C.M. (2001) `The virtual community: building on social structure, relations and trust to achieve value', in L. Chidambaram & I. Zigurs (eds) Our virtual world: the transformation of work, play and life via technology, pp. 166-90. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
30.
Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S. (2003) Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Gittell, R. & Vidal, A. (1998) Community organizing: building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L. & Peiró, J.M. (in press) `Team climate, climate strength and team performance: a longitudinal study', Journal of occupational and organizational psychology.
33.
Green, S. & Taber, T. (1980) `The effect of three social decision schemes on decision group process', Organizational behavior and human decision processes25: 97-106.
34.
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. & Neale, M.A. (2003). `Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology' , MIS quarterly27(2): 265-87.
35.
Gulati, R. (1995) `Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances', Academy of management journal38: 85-112.
36.
Hackman, J.R. (1987) `The design of work teams', in J. Lorsch (ed.) Handbook of organizational behavior, pp. 315-42. New York: Prentice Hall.
37.
Hertel, G., Geister, S. & Konradt, U. (2005) `Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research', Human resource management review15: 69-95.
38.
Hogg, M.A. & Hains, S.C. (1998) `Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink', European journal of social psychology28(3): 323-41.
39.
Iacono, C.S. & Weisband, S. (1997) `Developing trust in virtual teams', Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 412-20.
40.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2005) `Teams in organizations: from input-process-outputs models to IMOI models', Annual Review of Psychology66: 517-43.
41.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. & Wan, C.K. (1990) Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. (1999) `Communication and trust in global virtual teams' , Organization science10: 791-815.
43.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R. & Staples, D.S. (2004) `Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams', Information systems research15(3): 250-67.
44.
Kanawattanachai, P. & Yoo, Y. (2002) `Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams', Journal of strategic information systems11: 187-213.
45.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Bell, B.S. (2003) `Work groups and teams in organizations', in W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (eds) Handbook of psychology: industrial and organizational psychology , vol. 12, pp. 333-75. London: Wiley.
46.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Ilgen, D.R. (2006) `Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams', Psychological science in the public Internet7(3): 77-124.
47.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Klein, K.J. (2000) `A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent process', in K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations, pp. 3-90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C. & Gillespie, N. (2006) `Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions', Journal of management32(6): 991-1022.
49.
Lindell, M.K. (2001) `Assessing and testing interrater agreement on a single target using multi-item rating scales', Applied psychological measurement25: 89-99.
50.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1999) `Virtual teams: the new way to work', Strategy and leadership27: 14-18.
51.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001) `A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team process', Academy of management review26(3): 356-76.
52.
Martins, L.L., Gibson, L.L. & Maynard, M.T. (2004) `Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here?', Journal of management30(6): 805-35.
53.
Maruping, L.M. & Agarwal, R. (2004) `Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective', Journal of applied psychology89(6): 975-90.
54.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995) `An integrative model of organizational trust', Academy of management review20(3): 709-34.
55.
Maznevski, M.L. & Chudoba, K.M. (2005) `Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness', Organization science11(5): 437-92.
56.
McAllister, D.J. (1995) `Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations', Academy of management journal38: 24-59.
57.
McClelland, G.H. & Judd, C.M. (1993) `Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects', Psychological bulletin114: 376-90.
58.
Mejias, R.J. (2007) `The interaction of process losses, process gains and meeting satisfaction within technology-supported environments', Small group research38: 156-94.
59.
Mullen, B. & Cooper, C. (1994) `The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an integration', Psychological bulletin115: 210-27.
60.
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998) `Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage', Academy of management review23: 242-66.
61.
Oh, H., Labianca, G. & Chung, M. (2006) `A multilevel model of group social capital', Academy of management review31(3): 569-82.
62.
Pearce, J.L., Sommer, S.M., Morris, A. & Frideger, M. (1992) `A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence', Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine.
63.
Rodríguez, I., Bravo, M.J., Peiró, J.M. & Schaufeli, W. (2001) `The demands-control-support model and locus of control, and its effect on job dissatisfaction: a longitudinal study', Work and stress15(2): 97-114.
64.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. (1998) `Not so different after all: a cross-disciplinary view of trust', Academy of management review23: 393-404.
65.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, R. & Liden, A. (2001) `A social capital theory of career success', Academy of management journal44(2): 219-37.
66.
Sherif, K., Hoffman, J. & Thomas, B. (2006) `Can technology build organizational social capital? The case of a global IT consulting firm', Information & management43: 795-804.
67.
Van der Kleij, R., Paashuis, R. & Schraagen, J.M. (2005) `On the passage of time: temporal differences in video-mediated and face-to-face interaction', International journal of human- computer studies62: 521-42.
68.
Walther, J.B. (1992) `Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective', Communication research19: 52-90.
69.
Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L. & Hightower, R. (1997) `Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system', Decision sciences28(4): 975-96.
70.
Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K. & Crowston, K. (2002) `Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work', Information, technology and people15: 191-209.
71.
Wilson, J.M., Strauss, S. & McEvily, B. (2006) `All in due time: the development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams', Organizational behavior and human decision processes99: 16-33.
72.
Yuan, Y.C. & Gay, G. (2006) `Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging social capital in computer mediated distributed teams', Journal of computer-mediated communication11: 1062-84.
73.
Zand, D. (1972) `Trust and managerial problem solving', Administrative science quarterly17: 229-39.
74.
Zohar, D. & Luria, G. (2005) `A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates', Journal of applied psychology90: 616-28.
