A field study of the effect of interpersoal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance(Paul, 2004, MISQ)

Introduction

1. Trust effectively and efficiently reduces complexity by enabling parties with different knowledge bases and experiences to collaborate (Gefen 2000; Luhmann 1979; Lewis and Weigert 1985)

2. Trust in an organizational setting is an effective enabler of complexity reduction - especially when important decisions and new technology are concerned (Gefen 2000; Lewis and Weigert 1985; Ring and Van de Ven 1994). Trust plays a key role as a foundation for effective collaboration (Kramer 1999; Mayer et al. 1995; Rousseau et al. 1998; Whitener 1998) and is the salient factor in determining the effectiveness of many relationships (Gefen 2000; George and Jones 1998; Newell and Swan 2000; Sako 1998; Zand 1972).

3. While trust may reduce transactions costs (Williamson 1981, 1985, 1993), its main impact on collaborative relationship performance is facilitating the learning and innovation (Goshal and Moran 1996; Newall and Swan 2000; Sako 1998)
needed to address the ambiguity and unstructured nature of wicked decision problems (Mason and Mitroff 1973).

4. Trust is particularly important in newer organizational forms such as virtual collaborative relationships (McKnight et al. 1998; Meyerson et al. 1996; Newall and Swan 2000; Ring 1996).

5. The replacement of technology for collocation undermines the emotional relationship aspects of trust. Collocation reinforces social similarity, shared values, and expectations, and increases the immediacy of threats from failing to meet commitments (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Latane et al. 1995; Sako 1998).

6. Identifying types of interpersonal trust is a contentious and confusing issue. Researchers identify different types of interpersonal trust, use different terminology for similar types of trust, or use similar terms for different types of trust, and subcategorize the same type of trust in different ways. These various subcategories introduce complexity into the study of trust (Bigley and Pearce 1998).

Calcuative Trust

7.calculative trust is an ongoing, market-oriented, economic calculation where each party assesses the benefits and costs to be derived from creating and sustaining a relationship (Child 1998; Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Calculative trust is a form of contractual agreement where parties can be relied on to deliver according to the details of the contract (Newell and Swan 2000; Sako 1991, 1992).

8. Trust is needed only when conditions of information uncertainty exist; however, calculative trust is effective only when there is little or no need to trust because there are only limited, identifiable conditions of information uncertainty (Child 1998; Lane 1998) Trust includes motivational components (Kramer 1999; Shepard and Tuchinsky 1996), and some of these motivational components may be calculative.

Cometence Trust

9. Competence trust is whether the other party is capable of doing what it says it will do (Butler 1991; Butler and Cantrell 1984; Mayer et al. 1995; Mishra 1996; Sako 1991, 1992, 1998). There appears to be a definitional consensus about competence trust in the research community.

10. Competence trust is required in complexity reducing collaborative efforts when the skills needed to perform a task are not found within one person (Newall and Swan 2000).

Relational Trust

11. The third type of trust in our model, relational or benevolence trust, is the extent one feels a personal attachment to the other party and wants to do good by the other party, regardless of egocentric profit motives (Jarvenpaa et al. 1998;
Mayer et al. 1995). Variations of relational trust include normative trust (Child 1998), goodwill trust (Sako 1991, 1992, 1998), affect-based trust (McAllister 1995), identification trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996), companion trust (Newall and Swan 2000), and fairness (Zaheer et al. 1998). A motivation to do good by the other party is key to these definitions. These definitions all include one party empathizing with the other party, and specifically excludes the notion of calculative trust.

12. Some definitions may or may not include friendship (Lewicki and Bunker 1996; Newell and Swan 2000), affect (Kramer 1999; McAllister 1995; Zaheer et al. 1998), shared identity (Lewicki and Bunker 1996), goodwill (Newell
and Swan 2000), common values (Child 1998; Lane 1998), mutual understanding (Lewicki and Bunker 1996) and dependability (Zaheer et al. 1998).

13. Some researchers also include cognitive and motivational underpinnings of relational trust (Kramer 1999).

Integrative Trust

14. The integrated perspective of interpersonal trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996; Mayer et al. 1995; Zaheer et al. 1998) combines the different types of trust.

15. The different types of trust are related to each other, even though they may be separable and vary independently of each other (Mayer et al. 1995). Trust can take different forms in different relationships, and different forms of trust may mix together and interact in some situations. Trust may have a bandwidth that can vary in both scope and degree (Rousseau et al. 1998).