The effects of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors: The mediating role of team trust

Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The effects of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors: The mediating role of team trust Vicente Peñarroja a,⇑, Virginia Orengo a, Ana Zornoza a, Ana Hernández b a Department of Social Psychology, University Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Working Life (IDOCAL), University of Valencia, Avenida Blasco Ibáñez 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain b Department of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, University Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Working Life (IDOCAL), University of Valencia, Avenida Blasco Ibáñez 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 27 January 2013 Keywords: Virtuality level Team trust Task-related collaborative behavior

a b s t r a c t This study aims to analyze the mediating role of team trust in the relationship between virtuality level and task-related collaborative behaviors. Three types of task-related collaborative behaviors were studied, namely team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange. Drawing upon theory and research on virtual teams and trust, we hypothesized that team trust partially mediated the effects of virtuality level on team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange. A laboratory experiment was carried out with 65 four-person teams randomly assigned to three communication media with different virtuality levels (face-to-face, video conference and computer-mediated communication). The results showed that team trust partially mediated the relationship between virtuality level and team coordination, and fully mediated this relationship with team cooperation and team information exchange. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Virtual teams are becoming increasingly common in current organizations (Axtell, Fleck, & Turner, 2004). They have several advantages for organizations, such as connecting competent employees on a job regardless of their location, providing flexibility to individuals, and cutting out the cost of traveling (Geister, Konradt, & Hertel, 2006). Virtual teams can be defined as groups of people who are generally geographically dispersed and work interdependently toward common goals using technology to communicate and collaborate across time and space (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Lipnack & Stamps, 1999). Past research on virtual teams has been based on the input-process–output (I-P–O) model (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). IP–O model has suggested that processes mediate the relationship between inputs and outcomes in teams (McGrath, 1964). Further developments in this field of study have distinguished between team processes and emergent states as a set of factors that mediates between inputs and outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). According to Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001), emergent states describe dynamic qualities resulting from team experiences such as shared beliefs about team members, whereas team processes describe interdependent team activities that have to be combined in order to achieve collective goals. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96 398 36 09; fax: +34 96 386 46 68. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Peñarroja), [email protected] (V. Orengo), [email protected] (A. Zornoza), [email protected] (A. Hernández). 0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.020

Ilgen et al. (2005) raised the question of studying the relationship between emergent states and team processes, arguing that emergent states, which result from the interaction among team members, can affect team processes. In a similar way, Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) have also argued that team processes consisting of repeated interactions among individuals tend to regularize, so that shared structures and emergent states crystallize and then serve to guide subsequent process interactions. A study by Jehn, Greed, Levine, and Szulanski (2008) provided empirical evidence to the link between emergent states and team processes. They found that an emergent state such as team trust mediated the negative relationship between team processes (e.g., team conflict) and performance and viability, indicating that the experience of conflict during the interaction negatively affected team trust. The relationship between emergent states and team processes is examined in the current study. We have related team trust to team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange. Rousseau, Aubé, and Savoie (2006) defined these team processes as task-related collaborative behaviors, since they are involved in the execution phase of a team to achieve its goals. As team work involves interdependence between team members, who need to rely on each other to accomplish team goals, team trust becomes important for effectiveness (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). It is argued that team trust reduces ambiguity and uncertainty in social perceptions, so cooperative or productive activity can take place in teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).

968

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

In addition, and according to I-P–O model, the type of technology used by a team is a relevant input for team trust. The reduction of non-verbal and social cues, which is characteristic of electronic communication, can have negative effects on team trust (Rusman, van Bruggen, Sloep, & Koper, 2010). Some researchers have argued that face-to-face encounters are irreplaceable for building trust (Handy, 1995). So far, past studies have explored the consequences of team trust in virtual teams on the one hand, and the effects of collaboration technologies on team trust on the other hand (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Staples & Webster, 2008; Wilson et al., 2006). Nevertheless, more research is needed to fully develop this relationship. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to examine the mediating role of team trust in the relationship between virtuality level (the capability of technology to carry rich information) and different task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange). More specifically, we propose a partial mediation, since there is empirical evidence that suggest that virtuality level negatively influences task-related collaborative behaviors (Bicchieri & Lev-On, 2007; Hightower & Sayeed, 1996; Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005). 1.1. The effects of virtuality level on team trust Recent definitions of virtual teams focus on highlighting the concept of virtuality as a potential team characteristic, instead of classifying a team as either face-to-face or virtual (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003; Griffith, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003). The virtuality level is a continuum that describes any team in terms of multiple dimensions such as the extent of reliance on virtual tools, informational value, or synchronicity (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). Gibson and Gibbs (2006) pointed out the importance of analyzing these dimensions separately to identify their effects. In the present study, we focus on the dimension of informational value, which refers to the capability of a medium to carry rich information (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). According to this dimension, the richer a medium is in communication, the lower the level of virtuality. Rich information (e.g., non-verbal, immediate feedback and social-status cues) reduces ambiguity and uncertainty in communication. Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft & Lengel, 1986) proposes that the objective characteristics of communication media determine their capacity to carry rich information. In the present study, we use three communication media that differ in terms of the information richness transmitted: faceto-face, videoconference, and computer-mediated communication. Firstly, face-to-face is the richest media because non-verbal cues and information regarding the social context are available during the process of communication. Secondly, videoconference is not as rich as face-to-face due to technological constraints, such as lack of synchronization between vision and sound, difficulty in making eye contact, fewer non-verbal cues than face-to-face, and the requirements for structuring the meeting (Andriessen, 2002). Finally, computer-mediated communication is less rich than factto-face and videoconference, since visual and auditory cues are missing (Axtell et al., 2004). Taking into account the definition of virtuality level mentioned above, the level of virtuality varies according to the richness of these communication media. The closer the communication medium reproduces the features of face-to-face, the lower the virtuality level. So, in the present study, videoconference is coded as low virtuality, whereas computermediated communication is coded as high virtuality. Differences in the extent of media richness have important consequences for team trust. Trust has been defined at different levels. At the individual level, trust is defined as a psychological state characterized by an acceptance of vulnerability based on

expectations of others’ intentions or behaviors (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). At the team level, some authors have used the term intra-team trust to denote shared generalized perceptions of trust that team members have in their team colleagues (De Jong & Elfring, 2010). According to Costa, Bijlsma-Frankema, and De Jong (2009) trust within a team reflects a climate that emerge from the process of interaction among team members in the team. In this study, we will use the term team trust to refer shared and generalized perceptions of trust among teammates within a team. Research has shown that having personal knowledge about others plays an important role in the emergence of interpersonal trust (Kramer, 1999). The availability of personal information positively influences the level of interpersonal trust in teams (Rusman et al., 2010). By interacting with other team members, individuals have the opportunity to share interpersonal information which is used to form team trust. However, the absence of physical contact and the use of technology can make more difficult the process of team trust formation than in face-to-face teams. Previous studies have found that reduced information richness may impede appropriate assessment of other members’ behaviors, increasing the occurrence of misinterpretations, which have implications for team trust (Cramton, 2001; Cramton & Webber, 2005). Straus (1997) also found that computer-mediated communication leads teams to be more focused on task-related communication, and therefore there are fewer opportunities for personal communication which serves to strengthen the bonds between people. Following this rationale, we expect that: Hypothesis 1. Virtuality level will negatively influence team trust.

1.2. Team trust and task-related collaborative behaviors Working in a team entails collaborative behaviors among team members that are directed towards task achievement (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998). Team members’ behaviors can be divided into task-work behaviors and team-work behaviors. Whereas taskwork behaviors involve the operations performed by team members and technical aspects required to accomplish the task, teamwork behaviors reflect the actions and verbal statements displayed by team members during the team interaction (Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). Rousseau et al. (2006) distinguished different dimensions of teamwork behaviors arranged within a hierarchical conceptual structure such as preparation of work accomplishment, task-related collaborative behaviors or work assessment behaviors. In this study, we focus on the dimension of task-related collaborative behaviors because it plays an important role in the regulation of team performance. Task-related collaborative behaviors reflect the execution phase of a team in which plans are put into action in order to achieve team goals. Three task-related collaborative behaviors can be differentiated: team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange (Rousseau et al., 2006). Team coordination is a team process through which team members combine their interdependent activities harmoniously to achieve a common goal (Dirks, 1999). Team cooperation can be defined as ‘the willful contributions of personal efforts to the completion of interdependent jobs’ (Wagner, 1995, p. 152). It is often viewed as the opposite of conflict (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Team information exchange, in general, is defined as the extent to which team members share task-related information from different sources among themselves (Rousseau et al., 2006). Previous research has shown that team trust has positive effects on task-knowledge coordination in virtual teams (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). Team coordination is likely to be contingent on the extent to which team members can depend on their teammates and

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

predict their teammates’ behaviors (Dirks, 1999). Regarding team cooperation, Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos (1998) indicate that team members are more likely to work together cooperatively in teams with high team trust. When team members have positive expectations about their teammates’ behaviors, they often engage in cooperative behaviors (Costa, Roe, & Tailleu, 2001). Finally, in relation to information exchange, Zand (1972) argued that team members exchange ideas, information and resources more openly when they experience high levels of team trust. Staples and Webster (2008) found a positive relationship between team trust and knowledge sharing in teams with different virtuality levels. These authors explained this result in terms of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Team trust will be positively associated with the amount of sharing, since situations of social exchanges (contrary to economic exchanges) entail unspecified obligations that cannot be enforced and, thus, depend heavily on trust (Staples & Webster, 2008). According to social exchange theory, social exchanges require trust as an important antecedent for knowledge sharing in virtual teams (Wu, Lin, & Lin, 2006). Hypothesis 2. Team trust will be positively related to task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination – H2a, team cooperation – H2b, and team information exchange – H2c).

1.3. The mediating role of team trust in the relationship between virtuality level and task-related collaborative behaviors As it was mentioned earlier, the effects of virtuality level on team trust on the one hand, and the consequences of team trust on the other hand, have been studied separately (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Wilson et al., 2006). So, the present study aims to complete the relationship between virtuality level, team trust, and task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange). Past research has pointed out the study of emergent states and processes in teams (Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). In this way, Jehn et al. (2008) empirically tested the relationship between emergent states and team processes, showing that team trust mediated the negative influence of team conflict on performance and viability. In the previous section, we have argued that team trust had a positive influence on task-related collaborative behaviors (Costa et al., 2001; Huemer et al., 1998; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Staples & Webster, 2008; Wu et al., 2006). Moreover, taking into account the negative effects of virtuality level on team trust discussed previously (Cramton, 2001; Cramton & Webber, 2005; Straus, 1997); team trust is expected to play a mediating role in the relationship between virtuality level and task-related collaborative behaviors. However, based on Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft & Lengel, 1986) and empirical evidence showing negative and direct effects of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors, we propose a partial mediation hypothesis. According to Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft & Lengel, 1986), communication technologies limit the transmission of rich information (e.g., verbal, non-verbal and social-status cues). Rich information is better at reducing uncertainty and ambiguity in communication. Empirical evidence has shown that verbal and non-verbal cues help to regulate the flow of conversation, facilitate turn taking, provide immediate feedback, and convey subtle meanings, which are important for team coordination (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Fiore, Salas, Cuevas, and Bowers (2003) argue that the experience of increased ambiguity caused by the reduction in social cues leads to a coordination decrement. Like face-to-face, videoconference facilitates transferring information, and requires less effort to ground communication and reach common understanding (Driskell et al., 2003). However,

969

in less rich communication media such as computer-mediated communication, the lack of non-verbal communication makes it difficult to structure the communication process and temporally coordinate dispersed activities (Im et al., 2005). In the same line, research has also shown that cooperation is more difficult to establish and maintain in computer-mediated communication (Bicchieri & Lev-On, 2007). In mixed motive contexts, Naquin, Kurtzberg, and Belkin (2008) found that teams tended to be less cooperative in e-mail than in face-to-face. Drolet and Morris (2000) also found that non-verbal communication and visual cues help team members to build rapport face-to-face, thus fostering higher levels of cooperation than in communication via telephone. Finally, Hightower and Sayeed (1996) found that information exchange was less efficient in synchronous text-based technology than in face-to-face. Communication is slower and less information is exchanged in synchronous text-based technology than in faceto-face (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). As a result, the distribution of different information within a team may be more biased towards commonly held information. Moreover, in less rich communication media, diversity of information may not be perceptible, and, thus, team members may assume that they have the same information (Axtell et al., 2004). Taking into account this empirical evidence, we therefore expect that: Hypothesis 3. Team trust will partially mediate the effect of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination – H3a, team cooperation – H3b, and team information exchange – H3c).

2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample was made of 260 undergraduate students from a university in Spain participated in this study. The participants were students enrolled in an organizational psychology course, and their participation helped them to fulfill a course requirement and obtain course credits. The average age of participants was 22.98 years (SD = 4.42). More than 90% were between the ages of 19 and 25. The percentages of men (18%) and women (82%) were similar to those observed among the students in the School of Psychology. All the participants were randomly assigned to form 65 four-person teams. These teams were stable for the experimental period. 2.2. Experimental design and general procedure We designed an experimental study in a laboratory that used different virtuality level contexts – face-to-face (FtF), which was the control condition, videoconference (VC) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) – in short-term project teams. Team members met a total of 4 sessions (once a week) in the laboratory. Before starting the experiment the participants received general instructions about the experiment and were trained in the use of the software. The participants read and signed a contract indicating that they agreed to the days and times of the experimental sessions, and that they were committed to participating weekly in the experiment over a one-month period. Moreover, this agreement also included a norm stating that the participants were not allowed to meet their teammates outside the laboratory while the experiment was going on. At the beginning of each experimental session, participants received a description of the objectives and the specific rules for the session on paper. Every session called for a period of individual work and a period of teamwork. Specifically, the participants worked individually at their workstations for 20 min prior to the

970

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

teamwork. Second, the participants worked in teams on the task for one hour. All the teams were able to complete the task in the stipulated time. After completing it, they filled out several questionnaires using a computer. Regarding the task, every team had to develop a project that required planning the creation of a human resources company during the four sessions. Teams were required to accomplish a specific objective in each session. In the first session, each team had to generate a maximum number of 12 products or services for a human resources company portfolio. In the second session, each team was required to perform a strategic analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in creating a human resources company, using the S.W.O.T. technique (Porter, 1991). In the third session, each team had to make decisions about the four products to which their company would give priority. In the last session, the team members had to reach a consensus on several issues regarding the design and resources of the company (for instance, physical location, technical resources, personnel, and distribution of benefits). In the present study, we analyzed the relationship between team trust at session 3 and team task-related collaborative behaviors at session 4. The reason for selecting these particular sessions was that knowledge-based trust emerges as a result of repeated social interactions (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Research on trust has shown that perceptions of trustworthiness and the willingness to engage in trusting behaviors between two or more actors depend on their cumulative interaction (Kramer, 1999). As individuals interact, they obtain information that is used to assess others’ trustworthiness; this interaction also provides a basis for drawing inferences about others’ future behaviors. In the field of virtual teams’ research, it is argued that team members are in the process of establishing trust in the initial stage of team interaction (Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004). According to this, we studied the relationship of team trust and task-related behaviors after teams had experienced working together and had had the opportunity of exchanging interpersonal information to base trust. 2.3. Setting

ADM(J) for team trust was .41 (SD = .17). This value was appropriate for aggregation at the team level, since it did not exceed the aggregation criteria of 0.83 for a Likert-type response scale with five options (Burke et al., 1999). We also calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient or ICC (1) suggested by Shrout and Fleiss (1979). ICC (1) was .18. Finally, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to assure whether there was statistically significant between-units differentiation in team trust (F(64, 195) = 1.87; p < .01). So, taking into account all these values, we conclude that the aggregation at the team level was justified. Cronbach’s a of aggregated scores at session 3 was .82. 2.4.2. Team coordination This variable focuses on coordination among team members. It was assessed by means of Weingart’s (1992) scale, which consisted of 8 items (e.g., ‘‘Individual outputs have been integrated into the task output’’). The items were responded by using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from ‘‘I completely disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘I completely agree’’ (5). Data were aggregated at the team level. Aggregation was justified considering that, for session 4, we obtained the following results: the mean of the ADM(J) was .51 (SD = .13); ICC (1) was .38; and the ANOVA was statistically significant (F(64, 195) = 3.48; p < .01). Cronbach’s a of aggregated scores at session 4 was .92. 2.4.3. Team cooperation Team cooperation was measured by four items taken from Johnson and Norem-Hebeisen’s scale (1979). Items were modified to reflect the team rather than the individual (e.g., ‘‘Members of my team are cooperating to do the task’’). The items were responded by using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘I completely disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘I completely agree’’ (5). Data were aggregated at the team level. Aggregation was justified considering that, for session 4, we obtained the following results: the mean of the ADM(J) was .44 (SD = .12); ICC (1) was .30; and the ANOVA was statistically significant (F(64, 195) = 2.70; p < .01). Cronbach’s a of aggregated scores at session 4 was .85.

The experiment was conducted in a laboratory that consisted of several rooms that had different purposes. Four rooms (workstations) were equipped with video conference technology and computer terminals connected to the Internet. These rooms were designed for the VC and CMC conditions. Each team member was placed alone in each of these four rooms. Thus, they were physically isolated from each other. In the FtF conditions, all the team members were seated in the same room around a round table for teamwork. In the CMC condition, the software used to support the team discussion was NetMeetingÒ for XP WindowsÒ. Moreover, the laboratory also had a technical control room from where all the sessions were controlled and video-recorded with different cameras.

2.4.4. Team information exchange Team information exchange was assessed using four items adapted from Van Offenbeek’s (2001) measure of distributing information. Items were formulated to reflect members’ own team, instead of other teams (e.g., ‘‘The information has been distributed among all the team members’’). The items were responded by using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘I completely disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘I completely agree’’ (5). Data were aggregated at the team level. Aggregation was justified considering that, for session 4, we obtained the following results: the mean of the ADM(J) was .45 (SD = .19); ICC (1) was .08; and the ANOVA was statistically significant (F(64,195)=1.34; p < .05). Cronbach’s a of aggregated scores at session 4 was .73.

2.4. Measures

2.5. Statistical analysis

2.4.1. Team trust This variable was assessed using four items derived from Pearce, Sommer, Morris, and Frideger (1992). Items were modified to reflect the team, rather than the original dyad, as the unit of analysis (e.g., ‘‘Overall, the people on your team are very trustworthy’’). The items were responded by using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from ‘‘not at all’’ (1) to ‘‘a lot’’ (5). Since the unit of analysis was the team, data were aggregated at the team level. In order to check for the adequacy of aggregating the team members’ scores, the Average Deviation Index – ADM(J) (Burke, Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999) was computed for each team at session 3. The mean of

The hypotheses were tested by means of regression analysis. Considering the criticisms of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure for testing mediation (i.e. it does not provide an estimation of the mediation effect and requires a significant overall relationship between the independent variable ant the dependent variable) (LeBreton, Wu, & Bing, 2009; MacKinnon & Fairchild, 2009; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), we tested mediation using the product of coefficients method proposed by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002). This method has been shown to be superior to Baron and Kenny in terms of statistical power and Type I error rates.

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

Having in mind that a mediating variable (M) transmits the effect of an independent variable (X) onto a dependent variable (Y), the product of coefficients from X to M and from M to Y is used to calculate the mediated effect (MacKinnon & Fairchild, 2009). It can be said that a relationship is mediated if (a) X is significantly related to M, (b) M is significantly related to Y after controlling for X, and (c) the product of coefficients (e.g., the mediated effect) is statistically significant (MacKinnon, 2008). We calculated the statistical significance of the mediated effect using the bootstrapping method. Bootstrapping was used to test for the mediated effect, since it has advantages over the Sobel test (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Unlike the Sobel test, this method does not assume that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is normal and has higher statistical power. More specifically, a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples was generated. According to this statistical technique, mediation can be inferred when zero is not included between the lower and upper bound of the confidence interval generated for the product of coefficients from X to M and from M to Y. As we expected a partial mediation effect of team trust, we analyzed whether the coefficient of the independent variable on Y controlling for M was statistically significant. According to MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz (2007), when this coefficient is statistically significant and there is significant mediation, then there is evidence for partial mediation. In addition, as the virtuality level was a categorical variable with three levels, two dummy variables were created to enter virtuality level in the regression equations. For the first dummy variable, teams in the VC condition were assigned a score of 1, and the teams in the other conditions (CMC and FtF) were assigned scores of 0. For the second dummy variable, teams in the CMC condition were assigned a score of 1, and teams in the other conditions were assigned scores of 0. Teams with scores of 0 across the two dummy variables were the reference group (Aiken & West, 1991). Consequently the FtF condition served as the control group.

3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations for the aggregated scores of the variables included in our study. Team trust correlated positively with the three criteria of taskrelated collaborative behaviors. The dependent variables showed high inter-correlations (see Table 1). So, and given the multilevel nature of our data, we conducted two multilevel confirmatory factor analyses to ascertain whether the items from the three constructs measured three correlated but distinguishable factors. Specifically, we compared the fit of the three-factor model (items load in three different correlated factors: team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange) with the fit of an alternative one-factor model (all items load in a single factor).

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. **

Team Team Team Team

p < .01.

trust coordination cooperation information exchange

M

SD

1

2

3

4

3.71 3.41 4.11 3.73

.36 .47 .41 .33

– .36** .41** .38**

– .73** .52**

– .48**

–

971

We assessed the normality of all items. Skewness and kurtosis values ranged from 1.05 to .264 and from .75 to 1.87, respectively. Considering that the items were approximately normally distributed, the Maximum Likelihood method of estimation was used, as this method is robust for small departures of normality (Chou & Bentler, 1995). As indicated by the following tests and indices, the hypothesized three-factor model showed a better fit to data than the one-factor model. The results obtained for the three-factor model were: v2 = 729.11, df = 201, p < .01, NNFI = .908, CFI = .923, and SRMR = .074. Fit indexes for the alternative onefactor model were slightly worse than those obtained for the three-factor model (v2 = 788.706, df = 206, p < .01, NNFI = .900, CFI = .914, and SRMR = .084). Moreover, the difference between the chi-squared statistics of the two models was statistically significant (Dv2 = 59.596, df = 5, and p < .01). All factor loadings were significantly different from zero (p < .01). The standardized factor loadings of the items for team coordination ranged from .48 to .76, from .40 to .79 for team cooperation, and from .35 to .76 for team information exchange. The correlations between the factors were positive and significantly different from zero (p < .01). The correlation between team coordination and team cooperation was .80, between team coordination and team information exchange was .67, and between team cooperation and team information exchange was .68. These results provide support for the three-factor model even if some of the factors are highly correlated. 3.2. Hypotheses testing Hypothesis 1 predicted that virtuality level would negatively influence team trust. Overall, virtuality level significantly predicted team trust (F2,62 = 3.14, p < .05). Specifically, dummy 2 (CMC vs. FtF) affected team trust negatively (b = .35, p < .05), but the effect of dummy 1 (VC vs. FtF) was not statistically significant (b = .19, ns). As shown by this result, high virtual team showed lower levels of team trust than FtF teams, whereas low virtual teams did not. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that team trust would be positively related to task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination – H2a, team cooperation – H2b, and team information exchange – H2c). A regression equation was calculated for each of the task-related collaborative behaviors. The results showed that team trust was positively related to team coordination (b = .36, p < .01), team cooperation (b = .41, p < .01), and team information exchange (b = .38, p < .01). Therefore, our findings provided support for hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. Hypothesis 3 predicted that team trust would partially mediate the relationship between virtuality level and task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination – H3a, team cooperation – H3b, and team information exchange – H3c). According to MacKinnon (2008), we fulfilled the following requirements for mediation: (a) virtuality level negatively affected team trust (Hypothesis 1); (b) team trust was positively related to team coordination (b = .30; p < .05), team cooperation (b = .41; p < .01), and team information exchange (b = .36; p < .01), after controlling for virtuality level; and (c) the mediation effects of team trust were not zero by a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples. More specifically, the confidence interval for team coordination was from .25 to .02, with a point estimate of .11; for team cooperation was from .26 to .03, with a point estimate of .12; and for team information exchange was from .20 to .02, with a point estimate of .09. In addition, to ascertain whether this relationship was partially mediated, we examined the statistical significance of the coefficient of virtuality level on every dependent variable controlling for team trust (MacKinnon et al., 2007). This coefficient was

972

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

statistically significant for team coordination (b = .24; p < .05), but not for team cooperation (b = .01; ns) and team information exchange (b = .09; ns). Therefore, our findings showed that team trust partially mediated the relationship between virtuality level and team coordination; whereas it fully mediated this relationship for team cooperation and team information exchange. These results supported hypothesis 3a, but not hypotheses 3b and 3c.

4. Discussion Past research has indicated that team trust contributes to team effectiveness by facilitating teamwork (Axtell et al., 2004; Dirks, 1999; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Staples & Webster, 2008). In this study, we have analyzed the mediating role of team trust in the relationship between virtuality level and three types of task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange). Our first hypothesis expected that virtuality level would have negative effects on team trust. The results showed that only high virtuality levels negatively affected team trust, partially supporting this hypothesis. Teams that communicated via CMC showed lower levels of team trust than FtF teams, but there were no differences in the level of team trust between VC and FtF teams. These results are in line with the predictions of Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft & Lengel, 1986). According to this theory, the richer a medium is, the more efficient it is in transmitting important social information to develop team trust in teams. The lack of differences between VC and FtF may be due to the fact that videoconference also transmits both verbal and non-verbal cues (Martins et al., 2004; Van der Kleij, Paashuis, & Schraagen, 2005). Regarding CMC, Wilson et al. (2006) found that teams working in this communication medium required more time to reach similar levels of team trust than FtF teams over time. It is likely that virtuality level had a negative effect on team trust because of the fact that CMC is less efficient in transmitting rich information, requiring a longer period of time to reach the same degree of information richness as FtF. Due to the information that is available in face-to-face meetings is limited in mediated settings, people have less visual and verbal cues to form an impression of others, which affects the formation of interpersonal trust (Rusman et al., 2010). Therefore, the type of technology can be considered as an important input for team research (Martins et al., 2004). Consistent with hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c, team trust was positively related to the three task-related collaborative behaviors studied. In line with previous research, team coordination is contingent on the extent to which team members can trust other team members’ expertise, depend on their teammates, and predict their teammates’ behaviors (Dirks, 1999; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). Team cooperation also depends on team members’ positive expectations about their teammates’ behaviors (Costa et al., 2001). Furthermore, these positive expectations about others’ behaviors can lead team members to exchange information and share resources in the team (Staples & Webster, 2008; Zand, 1972). Mediation analysis also showed that team trust was a mediator of the effects of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors. Overall, the mediation effect of team trust indicates that virtuality level decreases team trust, which, in turn, decreases team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange. However, according to the hypothesized partial mediation, support was found for team coordination (hypothesis 3a) but not for team cooperation and team information exchange (hypotheses 3b and 3c). In relation to team coordination, the result of partial mediation implies a significant direct effect of virtuality level. This direct and negative effect of virtuality level is in line with previous research, so that the lack of non-verbal communication in less rich communication media

(CMC) makes it difficult to structure the communication process in terms of regulating the flow of conversation, facilitating turn taking, providing immediate feedback and conveying subtle meanings (Im et al., 2005; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001). The lack of direct effects of virtuality level on team cooperation and team information exchange may be empirically related to the reduced variability between teams in comparison to team coordination. In the method section, results on data aggregation showed higher team variability in team coordination than in team cooperation and team information exchange. Theoretically, this result could be explained by an increase in the experience of team members with the communication medium, which may have occurred through the four experimental sessions. According to the Channel Expansion Theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), as teams acquire experience with the medium, they may develop new strategies for communicating and carrying out the task, and reduced information richness due to technological limitations of the communication medium (e.g., CMC versus FtF) may be compensated for. As a result, differences between media would decrease or disappear after the group has been working with CMC for a certain period of time (Van der Kleij et al., 2005). Perhaps, this effect did not occur in coordination because it is a more complex process than cooperation and information exchange, and teams require a longer period of time to fit technology and teamwork coordination requirements. For instance, coordination not only involves information flow, but also an integration or management of this information necessary for resolving task demands (Fiore et al., 2003). Cooperation can denote the more volitional component of team coordination or the willingness to engage in coordinative behavior (Fiore et al., 2003), although coordination entails temporal entrainment and action synchronization (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). However, more research is needed to clarify this issue. The present study also extends the stream of research dedicated to analyzing the role of team trust in virtual teams. This paper provides five important contributions. First, this research contributes to the consolidation of the studies on trust at the team level of analysis (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 1996). Second, we extend the study of team trust’s consequences on task-related collaborative behaviors. More specifically, our findings show that team trust is positive for team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange, which are related to the regulation of team performance (Rousseau et al., 2006). Third, we related separated studies on the effects of technology on team trust and its consequences for virtual teams. Our findings provide a mediating mechanism to explain the negative effects of virtuality level on team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange. Fourth, we took into account different virtuality levels, following the suggestions made in previous research (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998). Finally, our findings provided further empirical evidence to the relationship between emergent states and team processes (Jehn et al., 2008). As suggested by Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006), emergent states resulting from repeated interactions among team members over time crystalize, and then serve to guide subsequent process interactions. Therefore, this study contributes to recent research that aims to identify potential mediators by conceiving emergent states as separate from group processes (Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001). 4.1. Limitations and future research Despite the potential contributions of this study, it presents several limitations. First, the external validity of the results might be questioned because the participants in the study were students, which implies that care should be taken in generalizing the results obtained to teams in organizational contexts. However, the students were familiar with the task domain and would be working

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

in this type of environment in the near future. They also had meaningful performance results directly related to their project performance. In this respect, literature has pointed out that student teams in an experimental situation and real teams in an organizational context can be comparable (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). Second, although our finding could be affected by the common method bias since the mediating and dependent variables were collected by means of self-report data, establishing a temporal sequence between these variables might help to reduce the effects of the common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, different moments of measurement provide support to the effects of the independent variable on the mediating and dependent variables. Future research should take into account the following suggestions in order to avoid the limitations described above. First, it is necessary to replicate these results in organizations. Second, it is important to use methods of measurement other than solely individual perceptions that allow analyzing in depth the process of team interaction. For example, in a study that examined the influence of organizational context and face-to-face interaction on trust and collaborative behaviors in dyads, Hill, Bartol, Tesluk, and Langa (2009) measured several interpersonal processes by means of coding transcripts containing the communications between participants of the study. 4.2. Conclusions and practical implications This study shows that virtuality level has a negative effect on task-related collaborative behaviors (team coordination, team cooperation, and team information exchange), which are involved in the execution phase of a team to achieve its goals. Team trust is beneficial because when team members have positive expectations about their teammates’ behaviors, they engage in collaboration. However, our findings indicate that the absence of physical contact and the use of technology can reduce trust perceptions, which in turn negatively affects task-related collaborative behaviors. Moreover, virtuality level also has a direct effect on team coordination in addition to the mediated effect of team trust. Finally, the findings of this study suggest some practical implications for team managers. As the use of computer-mediated communication is common in current organizations, strategies to increase team trust are necessary due to its beneficial effects on task-related collaborative behaviors. Teamwork training in mediated settings could be an appropriate strategy to overcome the drawbacks of high virtuality levels on team trust. Acknowledgement The participation of Vicente Peñarroja was supported by a Research Grant (AP2005-1876) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education. The authors are also grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education (Research Project: SEC 2001/3509; CONSOLIDER Project SEJ2006-14086. It has also been sponsored by the Generalidad Valenciana, Spain (I + D + I groups, 03/195). References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Andriessen, J. H. E. (2002). Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. New York: Springer. Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. Axtell, C. M., Fleck, S. J., & Turner, N. (2004). Virtual teams: Collaborating across distance. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 205–248). Chichester: Wiley.

973

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: An experimental analysis. Politics Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139–168. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Burke, N. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experimental nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153–170. Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism–collectivism. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304. Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Costa, A. C., Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & De Jong, B. (2009). The role of social capital on trust development and dynamics: Implications for cooperation, monitoring and performance. Social Science Information, 48, 199–228. Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Tailleu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371. Cramton, C. D., & Webber, S. S. (2005). Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 758–765. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549. DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 693–703. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455. Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(4), 297–323. Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50. Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., Cuevas, H. M., & Bowers, C. A. (2003). Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(3–4), 340–364. Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37, 459–489. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451– 495. 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 Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287. Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40–49. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Hightower, R., & Sayeed, L. (1996). Effects of communication mode and prediscussion information distribution characteristics on information exchange in groups. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 451–465. Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 187–201. Huemer, L., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Knowledge and the concept of trust. In G. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge (pp. 123–145). London: Sage. 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 Psychology, 56, 517–543. Im, H., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2005). Temporal coordination through communication: Using genres in a virtual start-up organization. Information Technology & People, 18(2), 89–119. 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, 29–64. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.

974

V. Peñarroja et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 967–974

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 Research, 15(3), 250–267. Jehn, K. A., Greed, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision & Negotiation, 17, 465–495. Johnson, D. W., & Norem-Hebeisen, A. A. (1979). A measure of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 253–261. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718. 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. 333–375). London: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. LeBreton, J. M., Wu, J., & Bing, M. N. (2009). The truth(s) on testing for mediation in the social and organizational sciences. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 109–144). New York: Routledge. Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27, 14–19. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. MacKinnon, D. P., & Fairchild, A. J. (2009). Current directions in mediation analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 16–20. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team process. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. 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. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251–1262. Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277–291. Naquin, C. E., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Belkin, L. Y. (2008). E-Mail communication and group cooperation in mixed motive contexts. Social Justice Research, 21, 470–489. 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. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategy Management Journal, 12, 95–117. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540–570. 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 Review, 23, 393–404. Rusman, E., van Bruggen, J., Sloep, P., & Koper, R. (2010). Fostering trust in project virtual teams: Towards a design framework grounded in a TrustWorthiness Antecedents (TWAN) schema. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 834–850. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996). Organizational trust: Philosophical perspectives and conceptual definitions. Academy of Management Review, 21, 337–340. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group process in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 37, 157–187. Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18, 617–640. Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266. Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organizational Management, 34(2), 170–205. 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 Studies, 62, 521–542. Van Offenbeek, M. (2001). Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 303–317. Wagner, J. A. III, (1995). Studies of individualism–collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172. Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693. 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, 16–33. Wu, S., Lin, C. S., & Lin, T. (2006). Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual teams: A social exchange theory perspective. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197– 206.