Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of cognitive trust in distributed software development teams: a punctuated equilibrium model

  • Special Theme
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A significant body of literature has addressed trust in distributed teams. However, several important issues such as 1) trust in distributed software development teams, 2) the evolution of cognitive trust, and 3) the role of communication media in trust development have not been adequately addressed. The objective of this paper is to address the void discussed above by conducting a longitudinal study to examine the evolution of cognitive trust among distributed software development teams from USA and Norway or Switzerland. The results suggest that cognitive trust develops in accordance with the tenets of the Punctuated Equilibrium Model (PEM). Additionally, our study also suggests that different factors are important for trust building during the different stages of a software development project. The findings contribute to the body of trust research and to practice by identifying stages in a software development project during which managerial intervention can help elevate trust levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We would like to note that prior research acknowledges that distributed teams evolve through several stages, with each stage likely to be very different from the other in terms of its goals, nature of activities undertaken, and the level of relational ties between the members (e.g., Sarker and Sahay 2003). Similarly, Oshri et al. (2008) argue that distributed teams evolve through a “Life-Cycle of Social Ties,’ where they transcend through three stages of social ties, with each stage involving different types of activities. Given this stage-wise development of social ties, it may be expected that trust (a construct close to social ties) may also follow an evolutionary pattern. Therefore, RQ1 seeks to examine this pattern of development.

  2. Please see hypotheses development for further discussion on these categorizations.

  3. The paper is a conceptual piece that specifically investigates the change that information systems go through via the lens of PEM. In particular, the authors explain the event sequences and their properties that take place during IS change at multiple levels; the work system level, the building system level, and the organizational environment.

  4. Data collection occurred after the add/drop period for the course ended to assure stable team membership.

References

  • Aubert, B., & Kelsey, B. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34, 575–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beranek, P. G. (2005). A Comparison of relational & trust training techniques for virtual team communication: How much training is enough? In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry & the social sciences (pp. 345–359). New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & Deturck, M. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., & Agarwal, R. (2001). Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development. IEEE Software, 22–29.

  • Carmel, E., &Tjia, P. (2005). Offshoring information technology: Sourcing and outsourcing to a global workforce. Cambridge Univ. Press.

  • Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couch, C. J. (1989). Social processes and relationships: A formal approach. Dix Hills: General Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutu, D. L. (1998). Organization: trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76, 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2000). Trust over time in global virtual teams. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto.

  • Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L., & Flanagan, M. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? American Psychologist, 32, 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust & participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fracaro, K. (2007). The consequences of micromanagement. Contract Management, July 1–8.

  • Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: an experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5, 110–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The ’science of sophomore’ revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (1995). How do you manage people whom you do not see? Virtual teams and organizations. Harvard Business Review, 70, 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, R. (1992). Report of Workshop on Statistics Education. In L. Steen (Ed.), Heeding in call for change. MAA Notes No 22 (pp. 34–43). Washington: Mathematical Association of American.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997). Developing trust in virtual teams. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 412–420.

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58, 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81–100). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design & evaluation. CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory & research (pp. 357–389). Sage: Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field setting: Research findings from industrial organization, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Lexington: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 589–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruping, L., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, E. F., Kahn, K. B., & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory & research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationship between providers and users of marketing research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Business Research, 29, 314–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, B., & Sahay, S. (2001). Some political and cultural issues in the globalization of software development: case experience from Britain and India. Information and Organization, 11, 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oshri, I., Kotlarsky, J., & Willcocks, L. (2008). Missing links: building critical social ties for global collaborative teamwork. Communications of the ACM, 51, 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust & temporary virtual teams: alternative explanations & dramaturgical relationships. Information Technology & People, 17, 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of unintended behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 27, 365–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 6–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prikladnicki, R., & Audy, J. L. N. (2009). Comparing offshore outsourcing and the internal offshoring of software development: A qualitative study. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems. Paper 680.

  • Prikladnicki, R., Audy, J. L. N., & Evaristo, R. (2003). Global software development in practice lessons learned. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 8, 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, L., Dennis, A., & Hung, Y. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 241–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12, 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2003). Understanding virtual team development: an interpretive study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., Valacich, J. S., & Sarker, S. (2003). Virtual team trust: instrument development & validation in an IS educational environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 16, 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 174–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warkentin, M., & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication. Information Systems Journal, 9, 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Niagara University, PO Box 2201, Lewiston, NY, 14109-2201, USA

    Anna L. McNab

  2. Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, University of Delaware, 207B Purnell Hall, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    K. Asli Basoglu

  3. College of Business, Washington State University, PO Box 644743, Pullman, WA, 99164-4743, USA

    Saonee Sarker

  4. College of Business and Public Administration, Southern University at New Orleans, 6801 Press Drive, New Orleans, LA, 70126, USA

    Yanjun Yu

Authors
  1. Anna L. McNab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Asli Basoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saonee Sarker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanjun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna L. McNab.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Nicholas C. Romano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McNab, A.L., Basoglu, K.A., Sarker, S. et al. Evolution of cognitive trust in distributed software development teams: a punctuated equilibrium model. Electron Markets 22, 21–36 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0081-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0081-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation