Swift Trust and Sensemaking in Fast Response Virtual Teams

References

• Paraskevas A. Crisis management or crisis response system? A complexity science approach to organizational crises. Manage Decis. 2006;44(7):892–907. doi:10.1108/00251740610680587.
   Google Scholar
• Lim WM. History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Qual Innov. 2021;5:101–08.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll N, Conboy K. Normalising the “new normal”: changing tech-driven work practices under pandemic time pressure. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102186. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks C, Market Impact Consultant. Risk in a real-time world. Cambridge (MA): Department of Consulting, Forrester Research; 2021. Report No: E-49505. [accessed 2021 Mar 1]. https://www.dataminr.com/resources/forrester-study-risk-in-a-real-time-world.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsson M, Hallgren M. Impromptu teams in a temporary organization: on their nature and role. Int J Proj Manage. 2016;34(4):584–96. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altschuller S, Benbunan-Fich R. Trust, performance, and the communication process in ad hoc decision-making virtual teams. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2010;16(1):27–47. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01529.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang X, Tong Y, Teo HH. Fostering fast-response spontaneous virtual team: effects of member skill awareness and shared governance on team cohesion and outcomes. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2015;16:919–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munkvold BE, Zigurs I. Process and technology challenges in swift-starting virtual teams. Inf Manage. 2007;44(3):287–99. doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maitlis S, Christianson M. Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Acad Manag Ann. 2014;8(1):57–125. doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donthu N, Kumar S, Pandey N, Lim WM. Research constituents, intellectual structure, and collaboration patterns in journal of international marketing: an analytical retrospective. J Int Marketing. 2021;29(2):1–21. doi:10.1177/1069031X211004234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwivedi YK, Hughes DL, Coombs C, Constantiou I, Duan Y, Edwards JS, Gupta B, Lal B, Misra S, Prashant P, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: transforming education, work and life. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102211. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinjani P, Palvia P. Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inf Manage. 2013;50(4):144–53. doi:10.1016/j.im.2012.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL, Hollingshead AB. Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organ Sci. 2007;18(1):147–61. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafaeli A, Ravid S, Cheshin A. Sensemaking in virtual teams: the impact of emotions and support tools on team mental models and team performance. In Hodgkinson GP, Ford JK editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 24. Cornwall (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 151–81.
   Google Scholar
• Ratzmann M, Pesch R, Bouncken R, Martinez Climent C. The price of team spirit for sensemaking through task discourse in innovation teams. Group Decis Negot. 2018;27(3):321–41. doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9561-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalkman JP. Sensemaking questions in crisis response teams. Disaster Prev Manag. 2019;28(5):649–60. doi:10.1108/DPM-08-2018-0282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ Sci. 2005;16(4):409–21. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick KE. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications, Inc; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Klein G, Wiggins S, Dominguez CO. Team sensemaking. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2010;11(4):304–20. doi:10.1080/14639221003729177.
   Google Scholar
• Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons; 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Zakaria N, Mohd Yusof SA. Crossing cultural boundaries using the internet: toward building a model of swift trust formation in global virtual teams. J Int Manage. 2020;26(1):100654. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2018.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao L-F. Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: a social power and social exchange theory perspective. Int J Hum Resour Manage. 2008;19(10):1881–95. doi:10.1080/09585190802324072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schildt H, Mantere S, Cornelissen J. Power in sensemaking processes. Organ Stud. 2020;41(2):241–65. doi:10.1177/0170840619847718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu K, Palazzo G. Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):122–36. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.27745504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akgun AE, Keskin H, Lynn G, Dogan D. Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects. R & D Manage. 2012;42(5):473–93. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00696.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AD, Colville I, Pye A. Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organ Stud. 2015;36(2):265–77. doi:10.1177/0170840614559259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005;31:874–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seers A. Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research. Organ Behav Hum. 1989 Dec;43(1):118–35. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsay CHH, Lin TC, Yoon J, Huang CC. Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: the roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition. Decis Support Syst. 2014;67:53–65. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernyak-Hai L, Rabenu E. The new era workplace relationships: is social exchange theory still relevant? Ind Organ Psychol. 2018;11(3):456–81. doi:10.1017/iop.2018.5.
   Google Scholar
• Porter CM. Long live social exchange theory. Ind Organ Psychol. 2018;11(3):498–504. doi:10.1017/iop.2018.102.
   Google Scholar
• Frieder RE. The rules of social exchange: unchanged but more important than ever. Ind Organ Psychol. 2018;11(3):535–41. doi:10.1017/iop.2018.108.
   Google Scholar
• Penarroja V, Orengo V, Zornoza A, Sanchez J, Ripoll P. How team feedback and team trust influence information processing and learning in virtual teams: a moderated mediation model. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;48:9–16. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staples DS, Webster J. Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Inf Syst J. 2008;18(6):617–40. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00244.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709–34. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert LP, Denis AR, Hung Y-TC. Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. J Manage Inf Syst. 2009;26(2):241–79. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR, editors. Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1996. p. 166–95.
   Google Scholar
• Germain M-L. Developing trust in virtual teams. Perform Improv Q. 2011;24(3):29–54. doi:10.1002/piq.20119.
   Google Scholar
• Henttonen K, Blomqvist K. Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strateg Change. 2005;14(2):107–19. doi:10.1002/jsc.714.
   Google Scholar
• Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y. Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2002;11(3):187–213. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00019-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyllengren P, Larsson G, Fors M, Sjöberg M, Eid J, Olsen OK. Swift trust in leaders in temporary military groups. Team Perform Manage. 2011;17(7/8):354–68. doi:10.1108/13527591111182625.
   Google Scholar
• Tapanes MA, Smith GG, White JA. Cultural diversity in online learning: a study of the perceived effects of dissonance in levels of individualism/collectivism and tolerance of ambiguity. Internet High Educ. 2009;12(1):26–34. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breuer C, Huffmeier J, Hertel G. Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(8):1151–77. doi:10.1037/apl0000113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEvily B, Perrone V, Zaheer A. Trust as an organizing principle. Organ Sci. 2003;14(1):91–103. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris SG. Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: a schema-based perspective. Organ Sci. 1994;5(3):309–21. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.3.309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas JB, Clark SM, Gioia DA. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Acad Manag J. 1993;36:239–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namvar M, Cybulski JL, Phang CSC, Ee YS, Tan KTL. Simplifying sensemaking: concept, process, strengths, shortcomings, and ways forward for information systems in contemporary business environments. Australas J Inf Syst. 2018;22:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick KE. Enacting sensemaking in crisis situations. J Manage Stud. 1988;25:305–17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackman S. Cultural knowledge in organizations: exploring the collective mind. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Ante G. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J Manage. 2019;45:1057–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hultin L, Mähring M. How practice makes sense in healthcare operations: studying sensemaking as performative, material-discursive practice. Hum Relat. 2017;70(5):566–93. doi:10.1177/0018726716661618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito K, Inohara T. A model of sense-making process for adapting new organizational settings: based on case study of executive leaders in work transitions. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;172:142–49. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.347.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang P, Soergel D. Towards a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2014;65(9):1733–56. doi:10.1002/asi.23125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad Manage Rev. 2014;39(4):463–87. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rico R, Sánchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge–based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):163–84. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.27751276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazel D, Kang J. The contributions of perceived CSR information substantiality toward consumers’ cognitive, affective, and conative responses: the hierarchy of effects model approach. Cloth Text Res J. 2018;36(2):62–77. doi:10.1177/0887302X17750747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brower HH, Lester SW, Korsgaard MA, Dineen BR. A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. J Manage. 2009;35:327–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins G, Freedman J. Improving decision making in crisis. J Bus Contin Emer Plan. 2013;7:65–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carroll JS. Making sense of ambiguity through dialogue and collaborative action. J Contingencies Crisis Manage. 2015;23(2):59–65. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS. Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q. 2008;32(3):575–600. doi:10.2307/25148857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erez M, Lisak A, Harush R, Glikson E, Nouri R, Shokef E. Going global: developing management students’ cultural intelligence and global identity in culturally diverse virtual teams. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2013;12(3):16–41. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeDoux JA, Gorman CA, Woehr DJ. The impact of interpersonal perceptions on team processes: a social relations analysis. Small Group Res. 2012;43(3):356–82. doi:10.1177/1046496411425190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, Nan N, Carmel E. Temporal distance, communication patterns, and task performance in teams. J Manage Inf Syst. 2015;32(1):151–91. doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1029390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim WM. Conditional recipes for predicting impacts and prescribing solutions for externalities: the case of COVID-19 and tourism. Tour Recreat Res. 2021;46:314–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Nemiroff PM, Passmore WA. Lost at sea: a consensus seeking task. In: Pfeiffer JW, Jones JE, editors. The 1975 annual handbook for group facilitators. La Jolla (CA): University Associates; 1975. p. 28–34.
   Google Scholar
• Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey. J Appl Behav Sci. 2005;41(4):373–98. doi:10.1177/0021886305281984.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539–69. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman HH. Modern factor analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Hosen M, Ogbeibu S, Giridharan B, Cham T, Lim W, Paul J. Individual motivation and social media influence on student knowledge sharing and learning performance: evidence from an emerging economy. Comput Educ. 2021;172:104262. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang L, Jiang Q, Peng C, Sia C, Liang T. Managing change with the support of smart technology: a field investigation of ride-hailing services. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2020;21:1594–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo X, Li H, Hu Q, Xu H. Why individual employees commit malicious computer abuse: a routine activity theory perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2020;21:1552–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisp CB, Jarvenpaa SL. Swift trust in global virtual teams trusting beliefs and normative actions. J Pers Psychol. 2013;12:45–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E. Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons. J Organ Behav. 2005;26(1):37–56. doi:10.1002/job.296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(2):273–83. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmann A, Mulder RH. The effect of team learning behaviours and team mental models on teacher team performance. Instr Sci. 2020;48:1–21. doi:10.1007/s11251-019-09500-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim WM. Enriching information science research through chronic disposition and situational priming: a short note for future research. J Inf Sci. 2015;41(3):399–402. doi:10.1177/0165551515577913.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim WM, Ahmed PK, Ali MY. Data and resource maximization in business-to-business marketing experiments: methodological insights from data partitioning. Ind Marketing Manage. 2019;76:136–43. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Salas E. Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Hum Resour Manage Rev. 2017;27:575–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel JM. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J. 1995;38:24–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaksen SG, Lauer KJ. The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creat Innov Manage. 2002;11(1):74–86. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00238.
   Google Scholar
• Macmillan J, Paley M, Entin E, Entin E. Questionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness. In: 75. Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW editors. Handbook of human factors and ergonomic methods. 1st ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2004. p. 435–43.
   Google Scholar
• Chuang CH, Jackson SE, Jiang Y. Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of hrm systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. J Manage. 2016;42:524–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behfar KJ, Mannix EA, Peterson RS, Trochim WM. Conflict in small groups: the meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Res. 2011;42(2):127–76. doi:10.1177/1046496410389194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gevers JMP, Rutte CG, Eerde WV. Meeting deadlines in work groups: implicit and explicit mechanisms. Appl Psychol. 2006;55(1):52–72. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00228.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar