An Examination of Deception in Virtual Teams: Effects of Deception on Task Performance, Mutuality, and Trust

Christie M. Fuller Louisiana Tech University ; Kent Marett Mississippi State University ; Douglas P. Twitchell Illinois State University

Abstract

Research Problem: This study investigates the impact of deception on the performance of tasks in virtual teams. While the advantages of virtual teams in organizations have been well-studied, as the use of these teams expands, organizations must acknowledge the potential for negative consequences of team member actions. Research Questions: (1) How does deceptive communication influence the outcomes of virtual group collaboration? and (2) How does perceived deception impact the individual perceptions, such as perceived trustworthiness and mutuality, of the virtual team itself? Literature Review: Based on (1), the conclusion from the literature on virtual teams that trust and mutuality are vital toward team development, (2) the propositions put forth by Interpersonal Deception Theory that deception will be perceived by team members, and (3) from the conclusion from the literature on interpersonal deception and trust that deception will impact outcomes of an interaction, including trust, mutuality, and ultimately team performance, we developed a model of the impact of deception on outcomes in virtual teams. This model suggests that deceptive communication negatively impacts task performance. Deceptive communication is also expected to impact perceived deception both within and between groups. The model further proposes that perceived deception will negatively impact both perceived trustworthiness and mutuality. Methodology: Through an experiment, virtual teams of three members participated in a group decision-making task in which team members must cooperate to search a grid for enemy camps and then collaborate on a strike plan, with half the teams populated by a deceptive team member. Two-hundred seventeen subjects were recruited from courses at three universities. Five experimental sessions were conducted across two semesters in computer labs at the three universities. Following the virtual team experiment, subjects completed surveys related to key constructs. Analysis of variance and linear regression were used to test the hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Deception has a negative impact on task performance by virtual teams. Participants perceived deception when it was present. Perceived deception led to decreased mutuality and trust among team members. These findings suggest that organizations that utilize virtual teams must be aware of and prepared to deal with negative behaviors, such as deception. The generalizability of these findings is potentially limited by the use of student subjects in a laboratory setting. Future research may extend these findings by incorporating additional variables that have been found to be important to virtual team outcomes or studying the current model in a longitudinal design.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2012-03-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2011.2172731
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (6)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (7)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Show all 7 →
  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 54 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000021841.01346.35
  2. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00315.x
  3. 10.2307/258340
  4. 10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002
  5. 10.1046/j.1365-2575.1999.00064.x
  6. 10.1145/968464.968467
  7. 10.2307/2393771
  8. 10.1007/s10979-007-9110-z
  9. 10.1109/3468.852434
  10. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.617
  11. 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011943.73672.9b
  12. 10.1080/10510970209388575
  13. 10.1108/13527590710759865
  14. 10.1080/03637759909376464
  15. 10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00027-1
  16. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
  17. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.002
  18. 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772722
  19. 10.1016/j.dss.2007.03.012
  20. 10.1080/03637750600873736
  21. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
  22. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.577
  23. 10.1080/03637750128059
  24. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00321.x
  25. 10.1080/01463379509369989
  26. 10.1145/1592401.1592407
  27. 10.2307/259290
  28. 10.1002/asi.10107
  29. 10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200
  30. 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
  31. 10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00090-3
  32. Testing the interactivity model: Communication processes, partner assessments, and the qu…
    J Manage Inf Syst  
  33. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00329.x
  34. 10.1287/isre.1040.0028
  35. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
  36. 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011944.62889.6f
  37. 10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173792
  38. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.578
  39. 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011942.31158.d8
  40. 10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.1
  41. 10.4018/jec.2008070102
  42. 10.2307/4132323
  43. 10.4018/jec.2005100102
  44. 10.1177/1046496405285125
  45. 10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.002
  46. 10.1080/01449290310001659240
  47. 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00074-X
  48. 10.1007/s10726-009-9168-8
  49. 10.1177/1046496403256011
  50. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.918
  51. 10.1287/isre.1060.0102
  52. 10.1093/hcr/27.4.503
  53. 10.1037/1089-2699.7.4.297
  54. 10.1177/009365096023006005