Trust in Remote Teams: Building Connection Across Distance
When Sarah joined a fully remote startup, she diligently completed her work, delivered on deadlines, and participated in team meetings. But after three months, she felt disconnected and uncertain whether her contributions were valued. Her manager rarely checked in beyond brief Slack messages, teammates seemed to work in silos, and she had no visibility into whether people trusted her competence or even noticed her work. The isolation was wearing—she felt like she was working near her team rather than with them.
Meanwhile, Marcus joined a different remote company where his manager scheduled weekly one-on-ones to discuss not just progress but challenges and context, teammates regularly shared both wins and struggles in team channels, and people proactively acknowledged each other's contributions. Within weeks, Marcus felt integrated into the team. He trusted his colleagues had his back, and he sensed they trusted him. The work was remote, but the relationships felt real.
The difference wasn't company size, industry, or luck—it was intentional trust-building practices. Trust is the foundation of effective collaboration, and it's significantly harder to build remotely because the ambient signals that create trust through physical proximity—visible reliability, observed competence, spontaneous connection—require explicit effort and communication in distributed environments.
Without trust, remote teams devolve into transactional interactions and protective silos. With trust, they become resilient networks where people collaborate effectively, support each other through challenges, and maintain connection across distance. The good news is that trust can be built remotely, but it requires understanding what makes it harder in distributed settings and implementing specific practices to compensate.
This guide explores trust in remote teams as both challenge and practice. We'll examine why trust is harder to establish remotely and how it differs from in-person trust, specific practices that build distributed team trust, strategies for maintaining trust without work visibility, approaches to recovering trust after it's broken, and how leaders create and sustain trust across distance. Whether you're building new remote team or strengthening existing distributed relationships, understanding these dynamics transforms remote work from isolated tasks into genuine collaboration.
Why Trust Is Harder to Build Remotely
The Loss of Ambient Trust Signals
Trust in co-located teams builds through constant micro-signals that become invisible in remote environments:
Visible reliability: In offices, you see people working hard, meeting deadlines, solving problems in real-time. This creates reliability perception without explicit reporting. Someone who consistently shows up early, helps teammates when they're stuck, and delivers quality work accumulates trust through hundreds of small observations.
Remotely, work happens invisibly. You only see outputs—completed tasks, submitted reports, shipped features—not the effort, problem-solving, or dedication that produced them. This absence of visible process means trust must develop differently, relying more on explicit outcomes and less on accumulated behavioral observation.
A 2021 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examining trust formation across 300+ remote and co-located teams found that trust developed 40% more slowly in remote teams during the first six months of collaboration, primarily due to reduced "behavioral transparency"—the visibility of how people work, not just what they produce.
Observed competence: Competence assessment happens naturally in-person: you overhear someone's thoughtful analysis in meetings, see them handle a difficult client situation gracefully, or observe their technical expertise when helping a colleague. These observations build confidence in someone's capabilities.
Remotely, you have fewer touchpoints to assess competence. You might see someone's work output and hear them in scheduled meetings, but you miss the informal demonstrations of expertise that happen constantly in offices. This means competence trust develops more slowly and relies more heavily on explicit deliverables and reputation.
Spontaneous social connection: Social connection that builds affinity-based trust happens organically in offices—coffee chats, lunch, hallway conversations, lingering after meetings for small talk. These low-stakes interactions let you learn about people beyond their work roles and build personal connections that deepen professional trust.
Remotely, every interaction must be scheduled. Coffee chats become calendar events rather than spontaneous encounters. This makes social connection feel effortful rather than natural, and some people struggle to build relationships through video screens. The professional polish of video calls can prevent the casual, human moments that build connection.
Research by Microsoft's Human Factors Lab analyzing communication patterns across 60,000+ employees found that remote work reduced "weak tie" social connections (colleagues you interact with occasionally) by 36%, while strong ties (close colleagues) remained stable. The loss of weak ties reduced serendipitous knowledge sharing and made organizations feel more fragmented.
Vulnerability and humanity: Trust deepens when people show vulnerability—admitting mistakes, asking for help, sharing struggles, or revealing personality beyond work competence. These moments of authenticity create psychological safety and connection.
Remotely, vulnerability feels riskier. Interactions feel more formal and recorded. Admitting you don't understand something in a Zoom call with six people watching feels more exposing than asking quietly after an in-person meeting. The result is people maintain more professional polish, preventing the human moments that deepen trust.
Context and Understanding Gaps
Missing ambient context: In offices, you understand teammates' situations through osmosis: you notice someone's stressed by upcoming deadline, learn about personal challenges through casual mention, or pick up on interpersonal dynamics through observation. This context makes you more empathetic and understanding.
Remote work lacks ambient context. You don't know if someone's short response is because they're busy, having a bad day, or upset with you. You don't see the juggling of multiple urgent requests or the personal challenges affecting someone's energy. This absence of context makes it easier to misinterpret and harder to extend empathy.
Ambiguity breeds suspicion: In offices, delayed response has clear context—you see someone's in meetings, dealing with urgent issue, or focused on deadline. Remotely, delayed response is ambiguous. Is someone ignoring you? Deprioritizing your request? Just busy? The ambiguity creates space for negative interpretation that erodes trust.
Physical distance creates psychological distance: "Out of sight, out of mind" affects remote workers who feel less connected to teammates and organization. This baseline detachment makes trust harder to maintain—you're building relationship with people you rarely or never see in person, working for organization that exists primarily on screens.
The Trust Paradox of Remote Work
Interestingly, remote environments can enable different kinds of trust:
Forced explicitness reduces assumptions: When everything must be communicated clearly because you can't rely on proximity, there's less room for assumptions that create misunderstanding. Well-functioning remote teams develop clarity that unclear co-located teams lack.
Written communication suits some personalities: For people who think better in writing than speaking, or who are introverted and find constant in-person interaction draining, remote async communication can enable trust-building that might not happen otherwise. Not everyone builds relationships best face-to-face.
Focus on outcomes over activity: Remote work's inability to monitor activity forces focus on actual results. This can build trust for capable people who work differently—night owls, people who need flexible schedules, or those who simply don't perform well under observation.
The key insight is that trust in remote teams isn't impossible—it's different. Understanding what makes it harder lets you implement practices that compensate.
Practices That Build Trust in Distributed Teams
Building trust remotely requires intentional practices that replace spontaneous in-office trust-building:
1. Demonstrate Reliability Consistently
In absence of visible work, following through on commitments is the primary trust builder.
Meet deadlines or communicate early: If you commit to something by Friday, deliver by Friday. If you realize midweek you won't make it, communicate immediately rather than waiting until Friday to announce delay. The pattern of reliability (or the pattern of proactive communication when reliability isn't possible) builds trust that compensates for lack of visibility.
Be specific about commitments: Vague commitments create ambiguity. "I'll try to get to that" communicates nothing. "I'll have initial draft by Wednesday and final version by Friday" creates clear expectations you can meet or flag early if you can't.
Follow through on small things: Reliability isn't just about major deliverables. If you say "I'll send you that link," send it. If you commit to reviewing something, review it. Small follow-throughs accumulate into trust patterns.
A 2022 study in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice examining remote team effectiveness found that consistency in meeting commitments was the strongest predictor of peer-rated trustworthiness, more than competence, communication frequency, or social connection. The researchers concluded that "behavioral predictability creates psychological safety in high-uncertainty remote environments."
2. Be Transparent About Work and Challenges
Transparency creates visibility that replaces physical presence:
Share progress proactively: Don't wait until asked—regular updates on what you're working on, what's complete, and what's coming next create visibility. This doesn't mean minute-by-minute activity reporting but periodic "here's my status" sharing appropriate to your role (daily for fast-moving projects, weekly for steady work).
Surface blockers early: When you encounter problems, share them quickly rather than struggling silently until they become crises. "I'm stuck on X and need help" or "Y is taking longer than expected—I'll still make Friday deadline but wanted to flag" demonstrates trustworthiness through transparency rather than trying to hide difficulties.
Document reasoning: When making decisions, don't just announce them—explain your thinking, alternatives considered, and tradeoffs accepted. This builds trust that decisions are thoughtful rather than arbitrary, especially for people who weren't involved in the process.
Admit mistakes quickly: When you mess up, acknowledge it promptly and clearly. "I miscalculated that estimate—the actual timeline is X" or "I missed that requirement entirely—here's how I'll fix it" demonstrates trustworthiness through accountability rather than defensiveness.
3. Over-Communicate Initially, Then Calibrate
When first working with someone remotely, err toward more communication rather than less:
Provide more context than seems necessary: Explain background, reasoning, and constraints that co-located colleagues might pick up through proximity. What seems obvious to you might not be to someone working remotely in different timezone.
Confirm understanding explicitly: "Does this make sense?" or "What questions do you have?" ensures alignment rather than assuming silence means agreement.
As trust builds, adjust to sustainable levels: Over-communication can't be permanent, but early investment establishes reliability baseline. Once mutual trust exists, you can communicate at normal frequency confident that trust will sustain through gaps.
4. Respond Predictably
Predictability builds more trust than constant availability:
Set expectations about response time: If you check messages twice daily (10am and 3pm), make this known. If you're offline weekends, communicate that. Predictability lets people plan around your availability rather than wondering why you're not responding.
Acknowledge messages even when full response will come later: "Got this—will respond with details by Wednesday" prevents ambiguity between "they're ignoring me" and "they're busy but will respond."
Be consistent: If you've established you respond to Slack within 2 hours during work time, maintain that pattern. Inconsistency (sometimes responding in minutes, sometimes taking days) creates uncertainty and erodes trust.
5. Invest in Relationship Beyond Work
Trust isn't just professional—it's personal:
Schedule social time: Virtual coffee chats, casual check-ins, or team social events where you connect as humans not just colleagues. These feel artificial initially but create space for connection that won't happen otherwise remotely.
Share appropriately personal information: Hobbies, weekend plans, family updates (to comfortable degree), or life context that helps teammates understand you beyond work deliverables. When someone knows you're dealing with sick parent or excited about new hobby, they understand you more fully.
Remember what people share: If teammate mentions their kid's soccer game or upcoming vacation, remember and ask about it later. This demonstrates you see them as people not just productive units.
Use non-work channels: Participate in hobby channels, share photos or music recommendations, engage with people's personal shares. Not everyone wants this, but for those who do, it builds affinity.
6. Show Vulnerability Appropriately
Vulnerability signals trust in others and creates safety for reciprocal vulnerability:
Admit when you don't know: "I'm not sure about that—let me find out" demonstrates confidence in your competence by acknowledging limitations rather than pretending expertise you lack.
Ask for help: "I'm struggling with X—anyone have suggestions?" shows you trust teammates to support you and models that asking for help is acceptable.
Acknowledge mistakes: We covered this under transparency, but it's worth emphasizing: quick honest acknowledgment of errors builds trust, while deflection or hiding destroys it.
Model this from leadership: If leaders only show competence and polish, others won't risk vulnerability. Leader vulnerability creates permission for team vulnerability.
7. Give Credit Generously
Recognition builds trust by showing you notice and value others' work:
Acknowledge contributions publicly: When someone's work helped you or the team, say so in public channels where others can see. This is especially important remotely where much work is invisible.
Be specific: "Thanks for the help" is nice; "Your debugging session saved me hours and helped me understand the caching layer better—really appreciate it" demonstrates you actually noticed their contribution.
Give credit up the chain: When reporting to leadership, acknowledge team members' contributions rather than taking solo credit. People notice whether you share credit or hoard it.
8. Assume Good Intent
Trust begets trust—if you assume the worst, others sense it:
Start from assumption of good reasons: When communication creates confusion or someone misses deadline, begin from assumption they had good reason rather than assuming incompetence or malice. "I noticed the report didn't arrive—everything okay?" rather than "Why didn't you deliver?"
Ask curious questions: "Help me understand what happened" invites explanation rather than accusation.
Give benefit of doubt: Not every mistake or delay signals unreliability. Context you're missing often explains concerning behavior.
9. Honor Boundaries
Respecting boundaries demonstrates you see teammates as people:
Don't expect instant response outside working hours: If someone's in different timezone or working different hours, don't expect immediate response to your 8pm message.
Avoid scheduling at their 2am: When coordinating across zones, rotate meeting times so burden of inconvenient hours is shared, or keep most coordination async.
Respect vacation and offline time: When someone's out, let them be out. Don't pile up urgent requests or create expectation they need to monitor messages.
Maintaining Trust Without Work Visibility
One of remote work's biggest trust challenges is inability to observe teammates working. Maintaining trust without this visibility requires specific approaches:
Shift from Activity to Outcomes
Judge by results, not presence: Focus on what people deliver, not when they're online or how busy they appear. Define clear deliverables and timelines; assess whether those are met.
This requires clarity upfront about expectations. Vague goals make it impossible to assess outcomes fairly, creating temptation to fall back on activity monitoring.
Trust the hiring: If you hired competent people, default assumption should be they're working competently unless evidence suggests otherwise. The alternative—assuming people aren't working unless you verify—creates surveillance culture that destroys trust.
Create Visibility Through Updates
Regular status sharing replaces physical observation:
Establish update cadence: Daily standups (async or sync), weekly progress reports, or sprint reviews depending on work type. The key is regularity and consistency.
Share work-in-progress: Don't just report completed work—show drafts, rough designs, early code, or thinking in progress. This creates visibility into process not just final output, similar to seeing someone working at nearby desk.
Make blockers visible: When you're stuck, say so. Teams can't help if they don't know you're struggling, and visibility of challenges demonstrates transparency.
Document Work and Reasoning
Documentation makes invisible work visible:
Write things down: Decisions, design rationale, code comments, process notes provide evidence of thoughtful work even when the thinking happened invisibly.
Document not just what but why: "Changed caching strategy" is output; "Changed caching strategy because initial approach didn't handle edge case X, considered alternatives Y and Z but chose W for reasons A and B" shows thinking process.
Maintain decision logs: Searchable record of decisions, context, and reasoning creates institutional memory and demonstrates careful decision-making.
Establish Clear Working Agreements
Explicit expectations prevent mismatched assumptions:
Response time norms: What's expected turnaround for different communication types (urgent Slack, normal email, document reviews)?
Availability windows: When can people expect synchronous response? When is focused offline time acceptable?
Meeting attendance expectations: What meetings are mandatory versus optional? What happens if you can't attend?
Status update protocols: How often, in what format, to whom?
When everyone knows what to expect, absence of constant visibility doesn't create suspicion.
Have Regular One-on-Ones
Synchronous check-ins build relationship:
Create space for discussion beyond status: Talk about challenges, context, career development, feedback, or concerns that don't emerge through written updates alone.
Build human connection: These shouldn't be just status meetings but genuine conversations that sustain relationship over time.
Address issues early: Regular touch-points let you notice if someone seems disengaged, stressed, or struggling and address it directly rather than letting problems fester.
Avoid Surveillance Tools
Time tracking, activity monitoring, or screenshot tools communicate distrust:
They optimize for wrong things: Surveillance makes people optimize for appearing busy rather than doing good work. You get activity theater not productivity.
They destroy psychological safety: Surveillance signals you don't trust people, which becomes self-fulfilling—they stop trusting you or the organization.
If you feel you need surveillance: Either you've hired wrong people, haven't established clear enough expectations, or your own trust issues are the problem. Address those root causes rather than implementing monitoring.
A 2023 study in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes examining 100 remote teams found that teams using employee monitoring software had 27% lower self-reported trust, 34% higher turnover intention, and paradoxically 18% lower manager-rated productivity compared to teams without monitoring, even when controlling for performance.
Recognize Output Isn't Always Immediately Visible
Creative work, strategic thinking, learning have delayed visibility: Not everything produces immediate observable output. Someone thinking deeply about system architecture might not commit code for days. Trust includes giving space for this necessary work.
Trust includes patience: Judge patterns over time, not day-to-day visibility.
Recovering Trust After It's Been Broken
Trust broken remotely requires intentional repair, and it's slower than in-person recovery because there's less ambient visibility of changed behavior:
1. Acknowledge the Breach Explicitly
Be specific: Whoever broke trust must recognize what happened and its impact. Vague apologies ("sorry if anyone was upset") don't rebuild trust.
Effective acknowledgment: "I committed to deliver the feature by Friday and didn't, which blocked your work and required you to miss your deadline. I understand that damaged your trust in my reliability, and I take full responsibility."
Understand the impact: Show you grasp how the breach affected others, not just that you violated a rule.
2. Take Responsibility Without Excuses
Explain if relevant, but don't excuse: "I missed the deadline because I underestimated complexity" is accountability. "I missed the deadline because you didn't give me enough information" is deflection that prevents rebuilding.
Own the failure: Even if contributing factors existed, if you committed to something, you own delivering it or flagging problems early.
3. Commit to Specific Changes
Trust rebuilds through action: What will you do differently? How will you prevent recurrence?
Concrete commitments work: "I'll send progress updates midweek so you know if I'm off-track" or "I'll flag capacity concerns early rather than overcommitting."
Vague commitments don't: "I'll try harder" or "It won't happen again" lack credibility.
4. Follow Through Consistently
Pattern of new behavior gradually replaces broken-trust memory: This takes time. One instance of improved behavior doesn't rebuild trust—sustained pattern does.
Remotely, pattern must be especially consistent: Because there's less ambient observation to accelerate repair, remote trust rebuilding requires more time and more visible consistency.
Expect 3-6 months: Trust broken quickly takes months to repair. Accept this reality rather than expecting immediate forgiveness.
5. Over-Communicate During Rebuilding
Provide more updates, transparency, and proactive communication than might normally be needed: This creates visibility that replaces damaged trust until it rebuilds naturally.
Document reliability: When you deliver on commitments during rebuilding phase, make it visible so others notice pattern change.
6. Accept Gradual Rebuilding
People may verify your work more initially: Or give you less autonomy, or check in more frequently. This is reasonable response to broken trust.
Earn trust back through consistency: Rather than demanding immediate forgiveness or resenting heightened oversight, demonstrate through sustained reliability that you've changed.
7. Have Direct Conversation
Video call for emotional repair: Written apology helps, but synchronous conversation allows for nuance, questions, and emotional repair that's harder async.
Listen to impact: Let the person(s) affected express how the breach affected them without defensiveness.
8. Address Underlying Issues
Fix systemic problems: If trust broke because of workload, unclear expectations, or broken processes, fix those. Personal commitment to change isn't enough if environment sets people up to fail.
Seek support if needed: If trust broke because you're overwhelmed, lack skills, or have personal challenges affecting work, address those through manager support, training, or resource adjustment.
9. Recognize Some Breaches May Be Unrecoverable
Repeated violations, severe betrayals, or fundamental values misalignment: Might mean trust can't be fully rebuilt. In those cases, parting ways might be better than forcing continued dysfunction.
Respect if someone can't rebuild trust: Some people need longer to trust again, and some may decide they can't. Respect their decision rather than pressuring for forgiveness.
How Leaders Build and Maintain Trust Remotely
Leadership trust requires extra intentionality to compensate for physical distance:
Be Visibly Present in Team Communication
Actively participate in channels: Respond to questions, share context and thinking, engage with team discussions. Absent leaders create vacuum filled by speculation and anxiety.
Presence doesn't mean controlling: You don't need to comment on everything or dominate discussions. Thoughtful engagement that adds value builds trust; performative visibility exhausts everyone.
Communicate Strategy and Context Repeatedly
Remote teams miss ambient context: Leaders naturally share in offices through casual conversation or by-the-way comments. Remotely, everything must be explicit.
Over-communicate direction: What are priorities? Why? What's changed? How does team work fit into bigger picture?
Assume nothing is obvious: What leaders think everyone understands often isn't reaching distributed team.
Have Regular One-on-Ones
Scheduled individual time builds relationship: Creates space for concerns, feedback, coaching, and human connection beyond group interactions.
Don't make them just status updates: Save status for async communication. Use one-on-ones for real conversation about challenges, development, and relationship.
Be Predictable and Reliable
Leader reliability sets tone: If you commit to decision by Wednesday, decide by Wednesday. If you schedule meeting, show up prepared.
Flakiness from leadership is worse: Than from individual contributors—it destroys trust faster and signals that reliability doesn't matter.
Share Decision-Making Reasoning
Explain why, not just what: When you make decisions, share reasoning, alternatives considered, and tradeoffs accepted.
This demonstrates thoughtfulness: And helps team understand your judgment even when they disagree with specific decision.
Reasoning transparency builds trust in your leadership: Even when team would have chosen differently.
Admit Mistakes and Uncertainty
Leaders who only show confidence don't create safety: For others to be vulnerable.
"I don't know" or "I was wrong about this": Humanizes you and models healthy fallibility.
This is especially important remotely: Where professional polish can make leaders seem unreachably perfect.
Distribute Credit, Absorb Blame
Publicly recognize team members' contributions: Make sure others see you crediting team's work.
When things go wrong, take leadership responsibility: Rather than throwing team under bus. This builds trust that you'll protect them.
Be Accessible Without Requiring Constant Access
Make clear how to reach you for urgent issues: But don't create expectation of instant response to everything.
Model healthy boundaries: Set boundaries around work hours and response time that demonstrate sustainable work patterns.
Invest in Social Connection
Show personality and learn about teammates as humans: This can't be manufactured but can be facilitated through intentional casual time.
Participate in social channels and events: Leaders who only appear in formal work contexts feel distant.
Follow Through on Commitments
If you say you'll look into something or get back to someone, do it: Nothing erodes trust faster than leaders who make commitments then forget them.
Keep a system for tracking commitments: So nothing falls through cracks.
Be Consistent Across Team
Don't play favorites: Or create perception of inner circle with more access and information.
Fairness and consistency build trust: Perceived inequity destroys it quickly.
Address Problems Directly
When there are issues: Interpersonal conflict, performance problems, strategic challenges—address them rather than hoping they resolve themselves.
Avoidance from leadership creates anxiety: And signals that difficult situations won't be handled.
Provide Air Cover
Protect team from organizational chaos: Unreasonable demands, or political issues.
Trust includes believing leadership advocates: For team's interests and shields them when necessary.
Recognize This Is Ongoing Work
Building trust remotely isn't one-time establishment: It's continuous intentional effort. Remote distance requires sustained attention to maintain trust over time.
Conclusion: Trust as Intentional Practice
The difference between Sarah's isolating remote experience and Marcus's connected one wasn't luck—it was teams with different levels of intentionality about trust-building.
Trust is harder to build remotely because the ambient signals that create trust through proximity—visible reliability, observed competence, spontaneous connection—require explicit communication and intention in distributed environments. Remote work lacks the constant micro-signals that build trust organically in offices: you can't see people working, observe their competence in action, or build relationships through casual hallway encounters.
But trust in remote teams isn't impossible—it's different. It requires shifting from relying on proximity-based trust signals to creating trust through explicit practices: demonstrating reliability by consistently following through on commitments, building transparency by sharing work and challenges proactively, investing in relationships through intentional social connection, showing appropriate vulnerability, giving generous credit, assuming good intent, and honoring boundaries.
Maintaining trust without work visibility requires focusing on outcomes rather than activity, creating visibility through regular updates and documentation, establishing clear working agreements, and avoiding surveillance tools that communicate distrust. The shift from monitoring activity to assessing outcomes forces clarity about expectations and respects autonomy.
Recovering broken trust remotely demands explicit acknowledgment, taking responsibility without excuses, committing to specific behavioral changes, and following through consistently over months. Remote trust repair is slower than in-person because there's less ambient visibility of changed behavior, requiring especially consistent pattern demonstration.
Leadership trust remotely requires extra intentionality: visible presence in communication, repeated sharing of strategic context, regular one-on-ones, predictable reliability, transparent decision-making reasoning, modeling vulnerability, distributing credit while absorbing blame, accessibility balanced with boundaries, investment in social connection, follow-through on commitments, consistency across team, direct problem addressing, and providing air cover.
The fundamental insight is that remote trust is intentional practice, not passive development. In offices, trust can build somewhat automatically through proximity and observation. Remotely, it requires deliberate effort—but that effort yields trust that's often more explicit, better communicated, and ultimately more sustainable than the assumption-heavy trust of co-located environments.
For individuals, building remote trust means over-communicating initially, demonstrating reliability consistently, sharing appropriate vulnerability, investing in relationships beyond work, and being transparent about both progress and challenges. For teams, it means establishing explicit norms about communication, visibility, and coordination that replace implicit office-based understanding. For organizations, it means creating cultures that value outcomes over activity, transparency over control, and human connection alongside professional productivity.
Done well, remote teams don't just compensate for lost proximity-based trust—they build different kind of trust based on explicit communication, demonstrated reliability, and genuine relationship. This trust may develop more slowly initially but often proves more resilient because it's built on conscious practice rather than ambient proximity.
References and Further Reading
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). "Does Trust Matter More in Virtual Teams? A Meta-Analysis of Trust and Team Effectiveness Considering Virtuality and Documentation as Moderators." Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151-1177. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000113
Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). "Swift Trust in Global Virtual Teams." Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000075
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.
Ford, R. C., Piccolo, R. F., & Ford, L. R. (2017). "Strategies for Building Effective Virtual Teams: Trust is Key." Business Horizons, 60(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.009
Fried, J., & Hansson, D. H. (2013). Remote: Office Not Required. Crown Business.
Germain, M. L., & McGuire, D. (2014). "The Role of Swift Trust in Virtual Teams and Implications for Human Resource Development." Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(3), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314532097
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). "Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams." Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). "Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships." Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926622
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). "Challenges and Barriers in Virtual Teams: A Literature Review." SN Applied Sciences, 2, 1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
Neeley, T. (2021). Remote Work Revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere. Harper Business.
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). "Distance Matters." Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4
Pangil, F., & Chan, J. M. (2014). "The Mediating Effect of Knowledge Sharing on the Relationship Between Trust and Virtual Team Effectiveness." Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2013-0341
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y. T. C. (2009). "Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members." Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 241-279. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210
Rock, D. (2009). Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long. HarperBusiness.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). "Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust." Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future." Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
Wilson, J. M., Boyer O'Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). "Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close." Organization Studies, 29(7), 979-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083105
Yang, H. L., & Tang, J. H. (2023). "Effects of Employee Monitoring on Trust and Performance in Remote Work Environments." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 176, 104217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104217