The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

Research on virtual groups reflects concerns about the development of trust and liking and about the performance of partners who do not see each other or workproximally. Previous studies have explored behaviors leading to subjectively experienced trust and/or liking, or trusting behaviors associated with group output, but have not linked behaviors, subjective affect, and output quality. Deriving principles from the social information processing theory of computer-mediated communication, this research identified and tested six communication rules for virtual groups. Employing a quasi-experimental procedure to maximize the variance in rule-following behavior, some distributed groups in a cross-university course were assigned to follow rules as part of their grades on group assignments conducted using computer-mediated communication from which messages were collected and later coded. Through self-reported measures of rule following and affect, results reveal correlations between each rule with trust and liking. Less consistent are the relationships between rule following, specific observed behaviors, and actual performance quality. Interpretations suggest that a powerful set of collaboration rules has been identified or that the mere following of any rules and norms reduces uncertainty and enhances trust in distributed work teams.A surge of research and increasing adoption of distributed groups in various settings indicate the growing reach of virtual teams. Understanding the promise and problems of these entities can inform contemporary theory in the areas of new technology and group communication and improve the management of distributed groups, learning communities, and virtual organizations.

The antecedents of renegotiations in practice—an exploratory analysis

“…The way in which B2B negotiators compensate for the deficiencies of electronic mail and embed it into their everyday negotiation processes and social interaction is open to future research. Both processes are known to influence media impacts (Walther 1992;Walther and Bunz 2005;Fulk et al 1990) and might help to explain the present finding.…”

“…Rules are a constituting property for electronic negotiations in the strict sense (Strö bel and Weinhardt 2003). Walther and Bunz (2005) suggest that the mere following of any rules and norms may reduce uncertainty and enhances trust in communication of distributed work teams. This would translate to a high communication quality during a negotiation process and thus to a reduced likelihood of renegotiations.…”

Persuasion and management support for IT projects

“…This encourages management to consciously or unconsciously favor the project and the team because the team will be perceived as particularly honest and well informed. The group communication literature demonstrates that people like explicit communication that is characterized by voluntary disclosure of information (Cramton, 2001;Walther and Bunz, 2005). Being explicit about work plans and objectives can also increase one's perceived control of the situation and alleviate negative feelings during organizational change, such as downsizing (Sadri, 1996).…”

Teaching to trust: How a virtual archives and preservation curriculum laboratory creates a global education community?

“…Finding the right combination of elements is essential for successful learning, but the first barrier to online learning may be that so much of this mix revolves around personal interaction and reaction. Traditionally, the trust among face-to-face groups has been considered to be ''based on personal relationships and past or future memberships in common social networks that define the shared norms of obligation and responsibility'' (Walther and Bunz 2005). Clearly, this traditional approach is challenging to achieve in an online environment where the group is often geographically dispersed and is unlikely to share any social network or to have had prior contact.…”

“…While it may seem paradoxical for students to lie to students in a trust-building introduction, this icebreaker is surprisingly subtle, permitting the students to lie in a game, but not in learning, and giving the group practice in recognizing lies. Other suggestions for constructing a trusted online educational environment include the importance of establishing rules for its use and parameters for working within it where rules become ''a substitute for implicit trust, and rule adherence as a test by which trustworthiness can be explicitly assessed'' (Walther and Bunz 2005).…”