Our trust conceptualizations have benefited from discussions with Ellen Berscheid and Larry Cummings of the University of Minnesota. The authors also thank three anonymous reviewers from the Organizational Behavior division of the 1996 meeting of the Academy of Management for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. THE MEANINGS OF TRUST What does the word ‘trust ’ mean? Scholars continue to express concern regarding their collective lack of consensus about trust’s meaning. Conceptual confusion on trust makes comparing one trust study to another problematic. To facilitate cumulative trust research, the authors propose two kinds of trust typologies: (a) a classification system for types of trust, and (b) definitions of six related trust types that form a model. Some of the model’s implications for management are also outlined. 2 THE MEANINGS OF TRUST “...trust is a term with many meanings. ” (Williamson, 1993: 453) “Trust is itself a term for a clustering of perceptions. ” (White, 1992: 174) Scholars and practitioners widely acknowledge trust's importance. Trust makes cooperative endeavors happen (e.g., Arrow, 1974; Deutsch, 1973; Gambetta, 1988). Trust is a key to positive interpersonal relationships in

Research in organizational learning has demonstrated processes and occasionally performance implications of acquisition of declarative (know-what) and procedural (know-how) knowledge. However, considerably less attention has been paid to learned characteristics of relationships that affect the decision to seek information from other people. Based on a review of the social network, information processing, and organizational learning literatures, along with the results of a previous qualitative study, we propose a formal model of information seeking in which the probability of seeking information from another person is a function of (1) knowing what that person knows; (2) valuing what that person knows; (3) being able to gain timely access to that person’s thinking; and (4) perceiving that seeking information from that person would not be too costly. We also hypothesize that the knowing, access, and cost variables mediate the relationship between physical proximity and information seeking. The model is tested using two separate research sites to provide replication. The results indicate strong support for the model and the mediation hypothesis (with the exception of the cost variable). Implications are drawn for the study of both transactive memory and organizational learning, as well as for management practice.

Abstract not found

Virtual teams are becoming apreferred mechanism for harnessing, integrating, and applying knowledge that is distributed across organizations and in pockets of collaborative networks. In this article we recognize that knowledge application, among the three phases of knowledgemanagement,hasreceivedlittleresearchattention. Paradoxically, this phase contributes most to value creation. Extending communication theory, we identify four challenges to knowledge integration in virtual team environments: constraints on transactive memory, insufficient mutual understanding, failure in sharing and retaining contextual knowledge, and inflexibilityoforganizationalties.Wethenproposeknowledge management system (KMS) approaches to meet these challenges. Finally, we identify promising avenues for future research in this area.

Many researchers have searched for evidence of organizational improvements from the huge sums invested in ICT. Unfortunately, evidence for such a pay back is spotty at best (e.g., Brynjolfsson, 1994; Meyer and Gupta, 1994; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1998). On the other hand, at the individual level, computing and communication technologies are increasingly merging into work in ways that make it impossible to separate the two (Gasser, 1986; Zuboff, 1988; Bridges, 1995).

informs ® doi 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 © 2005 INFORMS Sensemaking involves turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard into action. In this paper we take the position that the concept of sensemaking fills important gaps in organizational theory. The seemingly transient nature of sensemaking belies its central role in the determination of human behavior, whether people are acting in formal organizations or elsewhere. Sensemaking is central because it is the primary site where meanings materialize that inform and constrain identity and action. The purpose of this paper is to take stock of the concept of sensemaking. We do so by pinpointing central features of sensemaking, some of which have been explicated but neglected, some of which have been assumed but not made explicit, some of which have changed in significance over time, and some of which have been missing all along or have gone awry. We sense joint enthusiasm to restate sensemaking in ways that make it more future oriented, more action oriented, more macro, more closely tied to organizing, meshed more boldly with identity, more visible, more behaviorally defined, less sedentary and backward looking, more infused with emotion and with issues of sensegiving and persuasion. These key enhancements provide a foundation upon which to build future studies that can strengthen the sensemaking perspective.

Abstract not found

A nomadic information environment is a heterogeneous assemblage of interconnected technological and organizational elements, which enables physical and social mobility of computing and communication services between organizational actors both within and across organizational borders. We analyze such environments based on their prevalent features of mobility, digital convergence, and mass scale. We describe essential features of each in more detail and characterize their mutual interdependencies. We build a framework, which identifies research issues in nomadic information environments at the individual, the team, the organizational, and inter-organizational levels, comprising both service and infrastructure development. We assess the opportunities and challenges for research into each area at the level of design, use and adoption, and impacts. We conclude by discussing challenges posed by nomadic information environments for information systems field to our research skills and methods. These deal with the need to invent novel research methods and shift research focus, the necessity to question the divide between the technical and the social, and the need to better integrate developmental and behavioral (empirical) research modes.

We argue that organizations often fail to organize effectively because individuals have lay theories about organizing that lead to coordination neglect. We unpack the notion of coordination neglect and describe specific cognitive phenomena that underlie it. To solve the coordination problem, organizations must divide a task and then integrate the components. Individuals display shortcomings that may create problems at both stages. First, lay theories often focus more on division of labor than on integration. We discuss evidence that individuals display partition focus (i.e. they focus on partitioning the task more than on integration) and component focus (i.e. they tend to focus on single components of a tightly interrelated set of capabilities, particularly by investing to create highly specialized components). Second, when individuals attempt to reintegrate a task, they often fail to use a key mechanism for integration: ongoing communication. Individuals exhibit inadequate communication because the ‘curse of knowledge’ makes it difficult to take the perspective of another and communicate effectively. More importantly, because specialists find it especially difficult to communicate with each other, the

We review the literature on Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) development and on software development, distributed work and teams more generally to develop a theoretical model to explain the performance of FLOSS teams. The proposed model is based on Hackman’s [1] model of effectiveness of work teams, with coordination theory [2] and collective mind [3] to extend Hackman’s model by elaborating team practices relevant to effectiveness in software development. We propose a set of propositions to guide further research. 1.