Advertisement

Effect of Social Media on Trust in Virtual Project Teams of Construction Sector in Middle East

  • Sukhwant KaurEmail author
  • Mohammed Arif
  • Vishwesh Akre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9844)

Abstract

Social media has greatly affected the way the virtual teams in construction sector of UAE collaborate and share information among each other. The social media is needed to support synchronicity, a shared pattern of coordinated behavior among individuals as they work together. Research shows that, although computer-supported collaborative work has increased, many distributed virtual teams are facing a number of issues in managing and controlling the teams which leads to distrust among the team members. Trust among virtual team members is considered to be one of the primary concerns that affect the performance of virtual teams in Construction Sector. This paper is a result of literature review of around 150 papers which dealt with positive and negative effect of social media interactions on trust among virtual team members. Through Literature review, it was found that conflict and cohesion within the team members greatly affects the role of communication on trust among virtual project team members.

Keywords

Collaborative tools Middle East Construction sector Virtual teams Trust Performance Social media 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Mohammed Arif for the continuous support in my Doctoral research. I sincerely appreciate his patience, his motivational skills, and immense knowledge and experience that he has seamlessly shared with me. I would take this opportunity to acknowledge my local advisor, Dr. Vishwesh Akre, for his constant guidance at every phase of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., Wei, K.-K.: Technology, culture, and conflict in virtual teams: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australian Conference on Information Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amah, E., Nwuche, C.A., Chukuigwe, N.: Result oriented target setting and leading high performance teams. Ind. Eng. Lett. 3(9), 47–60 (2013). www.iiste.org Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, A.H., Mcewan, R., Baland, J., Carletta, J.: Virtual team meetings: an analysis of communication and context. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 2558–2580 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aniekwu, A., Nwachukwu, J.C.: Understanding the Nigerian Construction Industry. Mindex Publishing Co. Ltd., Benin City (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, C., Akintoye, A., et al.: An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. Int. J. Project Manag. 18, 423–434 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carvalho, M.M.: Communication issues in projects management. In: PICMET 2008, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, pp. 1280–1284. IEEE (2008). doi: 10.1109/PICMET.2008.4599739
  7. 7.
    Cascio, W.F., Shurygailo, S.: E-leadership and virtual teams. Org. Dyn. 31, 362–376 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, C., Messner, J.: A recommended practices system for a global virtual engineering team. Architectural Eng. Des. Manag. 6, 207–221 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chinowsky, P.S., Rojas, E.M.: Virtual teams: guide to successful implementation. J. Manag. Eng. 19(3), 98–106 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Couch, L.L., Jones, W.H.: Measuring levels of trust. J. Res. Pers. 31, 319–336 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cramton, C.D.: The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12, 356–371 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cummings, J.N.: Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manag. Sci. 50, 352–364 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., et al.: Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 601–620 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duarte, D.L., Snyder, N.T.: Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques That Succeed. Jossey Bass, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebrahim, N.A., Ahmed, S., Taha, Z.: Virtual teams: a literature review. Aust. J. Basic Soc. Sci. 3(3), 2653–2669 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gassmann, O., Vonzedtwitz, M.: Innovation Processes in Transnational Corporations. Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haywood, M.: Managing Virtual Teams: Practical Techniques for High-Technology Project Managers. Artech House, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hosseini, M.R., Chileshe, N.: Global Virtual Engineering Teams (GVETs): a fertile ground for research in Australian construction projects context. Int. J. Project Manag. 31(8), 1101–1117 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hulnick, G.: Doing business virtually. Commun. World 17(3), 33–36 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K., Leidner, D.E.: Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 14, 29–64 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karlsson, E.: Building effective virtual project collaboration. A study of the benefits and challenges of geographically distributed virtual project work (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kayworth, T.R., Leidner, D.E.: Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18, 7–40 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kimble, C.: Building effective virtual teams: how to overcome the problems of trust and identity in virtual teams. Global Bus. Organ. Excellence 30(2), 6–15 (2011). doi: 10.1002/joe.20364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramer, R.M.: Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 50, 569–598 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leenders, R.T.A.J., Engelen, J.M.L.V., Kratzer, J.: Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. J. Eng. Tech. Manag. 20, 69–92 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., Bies, R.J.: Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 438–458 (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liz, L.K., Tim, S.: Global virtual teams for value creation and project success. Int. J. Project Manag. 25, 51–62 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maura, K.: Social media and interpersonal communication. Social Work Today 13(3), 10 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E., Kramer, R.M.: Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 166–195. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Milliken, F., Martins, L.: Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21, 402–433 (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McDermott, P., Khalfan, M., Swan, W.: Trust in construction projects. J. Financ. Manag. Property Constr. 10(1), 19–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mcdonough, E.F., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, G.: An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 18, 110–120 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McMahon, P.E.: Virtual Project Management: Software Solutions for Today and the Future. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mukherjee, D., Renn, R.W., Kedia, B.L., Mukherjee, D.: Development of interorganizational trust in virtual organizations: an integrative framework. Eur. Bus. Rev. 24(3), 255–271 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nathaniel, A., Anthony, C.I.: Barriers to the uptake of concurrent engineering in the Nigerian construction industry. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 4, 1–8 (2012). doi: 10.5772/51607 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Hara-Devereaux, M., Johansen, B.: Global Work: Bridging Distance, Culture, and Time. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oskamp, S.: Introduction: studying interpersonal processes. In: Oskamp, S., Spacapan, S. (eds.) Interpersonal Processes, pp. 7–24. Sage, Newbury Park (1987)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., Mykytyn, P.P.: Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Inf. Manag. 41, 303–321 (2004). doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00076-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B.: Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future. Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 6–36 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Precup, L., O’sullivan, D., Cormican, K., Dooley, L.: Virtual team environment for collaborative research projects. Int. J. Innovation Learn. 3, 77–94 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reina, D., Reina, M.: Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace. Berre-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robey, D., Koo, H., Powers, C.: Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Tech. Commun. 47(1), 51–66 (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rolf Trautsch, B.: Managing Virtual Project Teams (2003). doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  45. 45.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., et al.: Not so different after all: a cross disciplinary view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sarker, S., Lee, A.S.: Using a positivist case research methodology to test three competing practitioner theories-in-use of business process redesign. J. Assoc. Infor. Syst. 2(7), 1–72 (2002)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students, 5th edn. FT/Prentice Hall, Harlow (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saxena, A., Burmann, J.: Factors affecting team performance in globally distributed setting. In: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Conference on Computers and People Research – SIGSIM-CPR 2014, pp. 25–33 (2014). doi: 10.1145/2599990.2599995
  49. 49.
    Sproull, L., Kiesler, S.: Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manag. Sci. 32(11), 1492–1512 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tschannen-Moran, M.: Collaboration and the need for trust. J. Educ. Adm. 39(4), 308–331 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vakola, M., Wilson, I.: The challenge of virtual organisation: critical success factors in dealing with constant change. Team Perform. Manag. 10(5/6), 112–120 (2004). doi: 10.1108/13527590410556836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vinaja, R.: Major challenges in multi-cultural virtual teams. In: 33rd Annual Conference of the Decision Sciences Institute Southwest Region, Houston, TX, vol. 78541(956), pp. 341–346 (2003)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., Hightower, R.: Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis. Sci. 28(4), 975–996 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Williams, B., Brown, T.: Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas. J. Paramedicine 8(3), 1–13 (2010)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Woodward, D., Widward, T.: The efficacy of action at a distance as a control mechanism in the construction industry when a trust relationship beaks down: an illustrative case study. Br. J. Manag. 12, 355–384 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wong, W., Cheung, S., Yiu, T., Pang, H.: A framework for trust in construction contracting. Int. J. Project Manag. 26, 821–829 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., Perrone, V.: Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of inter-organizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 9(2), 141–159 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Built EnvironmentUniversity of SalfordGreater ManchesterUK
  2. 2.Higher College of TechnologyDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations