Reflected Knowledge and Trust in Global Collaboration

References

• Ang S, Van Dyne L, Koh C, Ng KY, Templer KJ, Tay C, Chandrasekar NA. Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management Organ. Rev. (2007) 3(3):335–371Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1992) 63(4):596–612Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aron A, Aron EN, Tudor M, Nelson G. Close relationships as including other in the self. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1991) 60(2):241–253Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashford S. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Acad. Management J. (1986) 29(3):465–487Crossref, Google Scholar
• Batson C, Klein T, Highberger L, Shaw L. Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1995) 68(6):1042–1054Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becerra M, Gupta AK. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(1):32–44Link, Google Scholar
• Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ. A typology of virtual teams. Group Organ. Management (2002) 27(1):14–49Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennett JM, Bennett MJ, Landis D, Bennett JM, Bennett MJ. Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. Handbook of Intercultural Training (2004) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 147–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennett MJ. A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. Internat. J. Intercultural Relations (1986) 10(2):179–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psych. Bull. (1990) 107(2):238–246Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentler PM, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psych. Bull. (1980) 88(3):588–606Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollen KA. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods Res. (1989) 17(3):303–316Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson GM, Wright Z. Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Comput. Systems: Changing Our World, Changing Ourselves (2002) (ACM, New York) 135–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradbury H, Lichtenstein B. Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the space between. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(5):551–564Link, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psych. Bull. (1979) 86(2):307–324Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown R, Wade G. Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. (1987) 17(2):131–142Crossref, Google Scholar
• Browne M, Cudeck R, Bollen KA, Long JS. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models (1993) (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) 136–162Google Scholar
• Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos (2001) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) Google Scholar
• Chidambaram L. Relational development in computer-supported groups. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (1996) 20(2):143–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chidambaram L, Jones B. Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (1993) 17(4):465–491Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chua RYJ, Ingram P, Morris MW. From the head and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Acad. Management J. (2008) 51(3):436–452Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chua RYJ, Morris MW, Mor S. Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2012) 118(2):116–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psych. (2007) 92(4):909–927Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook J, Wall T. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. J. Occupational Psych. (1980) 53(1):39–52Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooley CH. Human Nature and the Social Order (1983) (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ) Google Scholar
• Cramton CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(3):346–371Link, Google Scholar
• Cramton CD, Hinds PJ, Kiesler S. Attribution in distributed work groups. Distributed Work: New Ways of Working Across Distance Using Technology (2002) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 191–212Google Scholar
• Cramton CD, Hinds PJ, Staw BM, Kramer RM. Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Behavior (2005) (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 231–263Google Scholar
• Cummings JN. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Sci. (2004) 50(3):352–364Link, Google Scholar
• Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK. Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quart. (1987) 11(3):354–366Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Cremer D. The closer we are, the more we are alike: The effect of self-other merging on depersonalized self-perception. Current Psych. (2003) 22(4):316–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dirks KT. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. J. Appl. Psych. (1999) 84(3):445–455Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(4):450–467Link, Google Scholar
• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Validzic A. Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998) 75(1):109–120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Earley PC, Ang S. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures (2003) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) Google Scholar
• Earley PC, Mosakowski E. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of international team functioning. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43(1):26–49Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ely RJ. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1994) 39(2):203–238Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Savitsky K, Gilovich T. Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2002) 83(2):300–312Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felson RB. Reflected appraisal and the development of self. Soc. Psych. Quart. (1985) 48(1):71–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Attention and encoding. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture (2008) (McGraw-Hill, New York) 51–74Google Scholar
• Frank RH. The strategic role of the emotions: Reconciling over-and undersocialized accounts of behavior. Rationality Soc. (1993) 5(2):160–184Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabarro JJ, Galegher J, Kraut RE, Egido C. The development of working relationships. Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work (1990) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) 79–110Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD. Perspective-Taking: Debiasing Social Thought (1999) (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2000) 78(4):708–724Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T. First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2001) 81(4):657–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Rev. Psych. (2007) 58:479–514Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick C, Bartunek J, Dutton J. Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43(6):1026–1044Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Manuel JA, Sons JW. Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. Virtual Teams That Work (2003) (Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco) 59–86Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Savitsky K. The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psych. Sci. (1999) 8(6):165–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Medvec VH, Savitsky K. The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2000) 78(2):211–222Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. (1985) 91(3):481–510Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gray PH, Meister DB. Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Sci. (2004) 50(6):821–834Link, Google Scholar
• Griffith TL, Sawyer JE, Neale MA. Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(2):265–287Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gudykunst W, Kim Y. Communicating With Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication (1984) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Hammer MR, Asante MK, Gudykunst WB, Newmark E. Intercultural communication competence. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (1989) (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA) 247–260Google Scholar
• Handy C. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1995) 73(3):40–50Google Scholar
• Hightower R, Sayeed L. Effects of communication mode and prediscussion information on distribution characteristics on information exchange in groups. Inform. Systems Res. (1996) 7(4):451–465Link, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Cramton CD. Deepening Relational Coordination: Why Site Visits Matter in Global Work (2010) (Stanford University, Stanford, CA) Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Kiesler S. Distributed Work (2002) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Mortensen M. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(3):290–307Link, Google Scholar
• Ho T-H, Weigelt K. Trust building among strangers. Management Sci. (2005) 51(4):519–530Link, Google Scholar
• Hodson R. Dignity at Work (2001) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoegl M, Gemuenden HG. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(4):435–449Link, Google Scholar
• Huang WW, Wei K-K, Watson RT, Tan BCY. Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems (2002) 34(4):359–367Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurlbert JS. Social networks, social circles, and job satisfaction. Work and Occupations (1991) 18(4):415–430Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(6):791–815Link, Google Scholar
• Jones GR, George JM. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):531–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Lazarova MB, Liao H. Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(1):240–252Link, Google Scholar
• Kahn W. Relational systems at work. Res. Organ. Behav. (1998) 20:39–76Google Scholar
• Kiesler S, Zubrow D, Moses AM, Geller V. Affect in computer-meditated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Comput. Interaction (1985) 1(1):77–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE. The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. J. Management (2005) 31(5):700–718Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad. Management J. (2004) 47(2):175–192Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruger J, Epley N, Parker J, Ng Z-W. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2005) 89(6):925–936Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leicht KT, Fennell ML. Professional Work: A Sociological Approach (2001) (Malden, Blackwell, MA) Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Neeley TB, Gerber EM. How managers use multiple media: Discrepant events, power, and timing in redundant communication. Organ. Sci. (2012) 23(1):98–117Link, Google Scholar
• Lewicki RJ, Tomlinson E, Gillespie N. Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. J. Management (2006) 32(6):991–1022Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis JD, Weigert A. Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces (1985) 63(4):967–985Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lurey JS, Raisinghani MS. An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Inform. Management (2001) 38(8):523–544Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Carman R, Lott V. Radical innovation without collocation: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (2001) 25(2):229–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organization trust. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20(3):709–734Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maznevski ML, Chudoba KM. Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(5):473–492Link, Google Scholar
• McAllister DJ. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Management J. (1995) 38(1):24–59Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mead GH. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (1934) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) Google Scholar
• Oertig M, Buergi T. The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams. Team Performance Management (2006) 12(1/2):23–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary MB, Cummings JN. The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in work teams. MIS Quart. (2007) 31(3):433–452Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary MB, Mortensen M. Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci. (2010) 21(1):115–131Link, Google Scholar
• Olson GM, Olson JS. Distance matters. Human-Comput. Interaction (2000) 15(2/3):139–178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13(3):249–273Link, Google Scholar
• Petronio S, Ellemers N, Giles H, Gallois C. (Mis)-communicating across boundaries. Comm. Res. (1998) 25(6):571–595Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew TF. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Rev. Psych. (1998) 49:65–85Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew T, Tropp L. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2006) 90(5):751–783Crossref, Google Scholar
• Philipson IJ. Married to the Job: Why We Live to Work and What We Can Do About It (2002) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Pillutla MM, Malhotra D, Murnighan JK. Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2003) 39(5):448–455Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polzer JT, Crisp CB, Jarvenpaa SL, Kim JW. Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49(4):679–692Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole MS, DeSanctis G, Fulk J. Organizational challenges for the new forms. Shaping Organization Form: Communication, Connection, and Community (1999) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 453–471Google Scholar
• Pratt M. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among amway distributors. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2000) 45(3):456–493Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pronin E, Fleming JJ, Steffel M. Value revelations: Disclosure is in the eye of the beholder. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2008) 95(4):795–809Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pronin E, Kruger J, Savtisky K, Ross L. You don’t know me, but i know you: The illusion of asymmetric insight. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2001) 81(4):639–656Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts L, Dutton J, Spreitzer G, Heaphy E, Quinn R. Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Acad. Management Rev. (2005) 30(4):712–736Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rockmann KW, Pratt MG, Northcraft GB. Divided loyalties—Determinants of identification in interorganizational teams. Small Group Res. (2007) 38(6):727–751Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross LD, Berkowitz L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1977) (Academic Press, New York) 173–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):393–404Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1978) 23(2):224–253Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salk JE, Brannen MY. National culture, networks, and individual influence in a multinational management team. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43(2):191–202Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savitsky K, Gilovich T. The illusion of transparency and the alleviation of speech anxiety. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2003) 39(6):618–625Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seashore SE. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group (1954) (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor) Google Scholar
• Sheppard BH, Sherman DM. The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):422–437Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith ER, Coats S, Walling D. Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1999) 25(7):873–882Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sole D, Edmondson A. Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British J. Management (2002) 13(3):17–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spears R, Lea M, Lea M. Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. Context of Computer Mediated Communication (1992) (Hemil-Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK) 30–65Google Scholar
• Steiger JH, Lind JC. Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Soc. (1980) Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
• Tice D, Wallace H, Leary MR, Tangney JP. The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you. Handbook of Self and Identity (2003) (Guilford Press, New York) 91–105Google Scholar
• Townsend AM, DeMarie SM, Hendrickson AR. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Acad. Management Executive (1998) 12(3):17–29Google Scholar
• Trevino LK, Daft RL, Lengel RH, Fulk J, Steinfield CW. Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Organizations and Communication Technology (1990) (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA) 71–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Triandis HC. Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group Organ. Management (2006) 31(1):20–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tropp LR, Wright SC. Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (2001) 27(5):585–600Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1996) 61(4):674–698Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Glinow MA, Shapiro DL, Brett JM. Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Acad. Management Rev. (2004) 29(4):578–592Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vorauer JD, Cameron JJ. So close, and yet so far: Does collectivism foster transparency overestimation? J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2002) 83(6):1344–1352Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther JB. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Comm. Res. (1992) 19(1):52–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther JB, Bazarova NN. Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Comm. Res. (2007) 33(1):1–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther JB, Burgoon JK. Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Comm. Res. (1992) 19:27–33Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster J, Wong WKP. Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally-ocurring project teams. Internat. J. Human Resource Management (2008) 19(1):41–62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE. Sensemaking in Organizations (1995) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Weick KE, Roberts KH. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1993) 38(3):357–381Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weisband S, Atwater L. Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. J. Appl. Psych. (1999) 84(4):632–639Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilder DA, Berkowitz L. Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1986) (Academic Press, Orlando, FL) 291–355Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams M. In whom we trust: Group membership as an effective context for trust development. Acad. Management Rev. (2001) 26(3):377–396Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilson JM, Straus SG, McEvily B. All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2006) 99(1):16–33Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong S-S. Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organ. Sci. (2004) 15(6):645–656Link, Google Scholar
• Yakovleva M, Reilly RR, Werko R. Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. J. Appl. Psych. (2010) 95(1):79–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zigurs I. Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organ. Dynam. (2003) 31(4):339–351Crossref, Google Scholar