Trust and Time

Many of Dibben's types and situations involve longitudinal interaction. The transitive trust that is a feature of situations 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 implies track record, empathy and experience accumulated over time. In the case study that is described below, this condition does not apply. The world of the case study is one where small firms must configure rapidly into partnerships and teams to take advantage of commercial opportunities. Their pattern of work is typical of the network society (Castells, 2001). This type of case has been analysed under the rubric of "swift trust" by Meyerson, Weick and Kramer (1996) to account for the emergence of trust relations in situations where the individuals have a limited history of working together. These authors apply this term to temporary teams "whose existence…is formed around a common task, with a finite life span" (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). The concept has proven to be a powerful one, and a number of subsequent analysts have attempted to explain how swift trust may work.

Child (2001), for example, argues that where trust exists in relationships that are new, and not based on any prior connection, the trust is based solely on calculation. Child defines this form of trust as being "a commitment to enter into a business relationship based on a calculation of the likely outcomes relative to the costs and risks of maintaining (or later severing) it" (p. 279). The first action from both parties is the information gathering process carried out on each potential player in a potential team. This process will involve an assessment of the strategic gap, and potential strategic fit of the partner. The information provided at this stage is often limited, however, and information such as culture and company values is not always obvious. Where initial swift trust exists in a temporary team, the development of the initial trusting relationship into a relationship based on 'learned' trust, or trust based on experience (Dibben, 2000), is not always a linear progression. Research carried out by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) presents us with a matrix for understanding how trust develops in temporary teams. The four dimensions in this matrix represent low and high trust levels in the early and later stages of a project.

Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) offer a number of reasons to explain how swift trust can be developed and maintained, and why it can diminish very quickly. They emphasize that swift trust may be created very early in the interactions between members of a virtual team, especially where there is a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, clarity in order to avoid confusion and disincentive, effective handling of conflict, and a "thoughtful" exchange of messages at the beginning of the team's existence (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). The authors argue that there are certain behaviors on the part of the virtual team members that distinguish virtual teams with high trust from virtual teams with low trust at the start and end of a given time period. For example, those teams in the low/low category of their study lacked social introduction and had a general lack of enthusiasm. Those teams in the high/high category experienced the inverse of this, with extensive social introduction and continued enthusiasm. Swift trust involves, inevitably, "first impression" judgements, and a number of research studies have explored the validity and reliability of first impressions, specifically in the context of trust at levels of "zero acquaintance" (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992). We suggest that "first impression" data may contribute to initial trust assessments in the early stages of online interaction, if only on the dimension of "conscientiousness," or responsiveness, a point that is discussed more fully in a later section of the chapter.