 |
| Modified from Sarker, et. al (2011) |
Business enhancement requires a
level of thinking beyond the concrete efficiencies we have enhanced through
statistical turnip twisting over the past few decades. Some have argued that
future gains from efficiency will be much harder to realize. The next era may
possibly be based on the use of virtual networks that enhance the fuzzy nature
of human performance to new levels that not only create new layers of
efficiency but also higher levels of output. Research conducted by Sarker, et.
al (2011) indicates that trust within communication networks can increase team
performance.
Trust is an important aspect of
business success and social development. People are longing for more trust as a
result of an extra emphasis on collaboration and changes in interconnectivity
of technology (McEvily, et. al., 2003). As exchanges occur in a virtual world
people are seeking higher levels of trust in their cultural exchanges. They
want to be sure that people they are communicating with have some level of
concern over their needs.
This trust is needed even more
so when people do not have a shared history, are geographically separated, do not
share a previous social context, and interact primarily through electronic
media (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). As such communication becomes more
common across the world and through multinational corporations the development
of the trust factor may lead to higher levels of performance.
The
ability of trust to impact communication and performance is not well defined.
Some believe that trust interacts with communication to enhance performance
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Other researchers have put forward the argument
that it is more of an additive role alongside communication (Jarvenpaa &
Leidner, 1999). Whether trust enhances or simply adds to performance is a significant debate of performance.
If
trust enhances performance, it takes on a more useful role and can be
considered a beneficial trait that further develops performance. If trust is
more additive, it means that it is a supplemental additive to a communication
strategy but is not necessarily a performance enhancer. It is something to use
in addition to other activities but doesn’t change, influence, or enhance those
factors.
Performance
is a level of motivation and effectiveness that relies in part on other group
members. People do not act in isolation but do so in the context of other
individuals within their social networks (Wellman, et. al., 2003). They seek to
understand the implications of their behavior in relation to others. These implications
are based upon cues and the meaning of the performance in relation patterns to
others within their networks (Galaskiewicz & Wasserman, 1994). Trust is
earned by the leader but also given by others.
The
concept of trust in leadership and communication is an important one in order
to create influence. Trust can be defined as the “willingness of a party to be
vulnerable to the actions of another party, based upon the expectation that the
other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer & Davis, 1995).
The parties should feel that their
leader will be consistent in his/her patterns and promises regardless of
whether or not that leader is being watched.
A
trust that they will do what they say they will do as well as what they have
done in the past. It is a trust of the future. For example, if a leader has a
particular pattern of behavior and people follow that leader based upon their
actions they would expect that the leader will continue to do what they say
they will do. When the leader professes something different than what they are
doing the trust disappears and is slowly replaced by doubt. This doubt can lead
to lower performance of team members who may no longer believe their efforts
will be fruitful because of hijacked intentions.
Furthermore,
such team trust is influenced by the perception that members will not be
injured or be taken advantage of. Collective trust is based upon the belief
that leaders will continue with commitments, be honest during discussions, and
will avoid taking undue advantage of their members (Cummings & Bromiley,
1996). When such elements of trust are together they can influence a higher
level of team performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Such team members do not
have a problem putting forward effort if they are relatively sure of the
results of such efforts.
The
researchers Sarker et. al. (2011) sought to understand the effect of
communication and trust on performance within globally distributed teams. They used data from globally distributed teams
working on systems analysis and development projects. The teams included U.S.
with Norway and U.S. with Denmark to capture conceptual linkages between
communication, trust, and individual performance.
Results:
-There
were regional differences in performance. Scandinavians had higher performance
than U.S. members. U.S. and Norway teams had higher performance than U.S. and
Denmark teams.
-Gender
had an influence on the success of teams with males performing at a higher
level.
-Trust
had a significant impact on performance outcomes.
-Communication
centrality (importance in network) had an impact on trust centrality.
-Communication
centrality (importance in communication network) had a significant effect on performance.
-Trust
centrality (center of trust) had an impact on overall performance.
Business Analysis:
Trust
is a practical aspect of communication. It is difficult to encourage others to
complete tasks and raise themselves to higher levels of performance unless
there is a level of trust in relationships with leadership. The gaining of a
leadership position rests in the ability to put oneself in the center of
importance and information networks. Those leaders who achieve a level of power
can either enhance team performance or lower its ability based upon the level
of integrity and congruence between words and action. When people believe that
these actions and words match together they will be more motivated to complete
their work tasks with the knowledge that they are not being taken advantage of
and their work is moving in the right direction. The study did not indicate
this concept but the cultural factors that allow people to share a level of
similarity in perception may influence performance. If the leaders and
followers are unable to understand each others perspective that trust will be
more difficult to gain and would require more communication, blending of
networks, and congruence between action and words. To change patterns means to
change perception.
Cummings, L. & Bromiley, P.
(1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In
R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Dirks,
K. & Ferrin, D. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organizational Science, 12 (4).
Galaskiewicz, J., &
Wasserman, S. (1994). Introduction
advances in the social and behavioral
sciences from social network
analysis. In S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz (eds.), Advances in
Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jarvenpass,
S. & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organizational Science, 10 (6).
Mayer, R., Davis, J., and Schoorman, D. (1995) An
integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 2, (3)
McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A.
(2003). Introduction to special issue on trust in an organizational context, Organizational Science, 14 (1).
Wellman, B, et. al. (2003). The
social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 8 ( 3).
Sarker,
S., Ahuja, M. Sarker, S. & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The Role of Communication
and Trust in Global
Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 28 (1).
