University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms

(USC Thesis Other)

Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Trust in the 100% Remote Workplace in High Growth Technology Consulting Firms
by
Timothy K. Currie
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024
Copyright 2024 Timothy K. Currie

© Copyright by Timothy K. Currie May 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Timothy K. Currie certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Alison Muraszewski
Ekaterina Moore
Kenneth Yates
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

4
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with advances in collaboration technologies, has made the
remote workplace a sustained reality. While this environment has the benefits of flexibility and
autonomy, some employees struggle to build interpersonal relationships and connectedness
within the workplace. This dynamic can lead to isolation, a lack of self-efficacy, poor
productivity, and a lack of well-being. This study sought to understand the nature of trust in the
100% remote workplace in high-growth technology consulting firms. Employing the conceptual
framework of Creed and Miles (1996), and the triadic reciprocity of the social cognitive
framework of Bandura (1995), participants were queried on their beliefs and perceptions of trust,
their observed trust behavior of peers and managers, and the conditions within their overall work
environment that reinforced or eroded organizational trust. The shared theme among participants
was the transactional nature of trust, known as swift trust, applied to the remote workplace, the
importance of digital collaboration and engagement platforms, connectedness, knowledge
sharing, collaboration, affinity, and a shared identity. The study also yielded insights into the role
of leadership in fostering a supportive and collaborative culture through availability,
accessibility, engagement, and behavioral reinforcement. Specifically in high-growth tech
consultancies, this collective environment can be used to attract and retain talent, build cohesive
project delivery teams, help ensure employee productivity and well-being, and potentially
differentiate the firm through an innovative culture.
Keywords: remote workplace, high-growth technology, consultant firms, trust, digital
collaboration, role of leadership, competence, reliability, character, connectedness, interpersonal
relationships, affinity, identity, belonging, engagement, availability, accessibility, authenticity

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 1
1
Dedication
To the participants in this research study who chose to be vulnerable and share their stories with
me. To my father, the first person in his family to graduate from college—he never stopped
teaching.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 2
Acknowledgements
The inspiration and grace to pursue this degree and this research would not have been
possible without the support of my wife, Courtney, and my daughters, Abby and Maggie. Thank
you for your understanding, your patience, and for being constant companions with me through
this process.
To my amazing Cohort 21 OCL colleagues, who I shared and learned so much from over
the past four years, and to all my esteemed professors. To my dissertation committee, my
amazing chair, Dr. Alison Muraszewski, Dr. Ekaterina Moore, and my mentor from my first
semester in the program, Dr. Kenneth Yates, for all your great suggestions and feedback that
helped me develop this study into what it is today. Finally, to the best editing team east of
Honolulu: Robert and Tanya Spencer.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 3
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................4
Dedication............................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................2
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................3
List of Tables................................................................................................................................... 7
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................8
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study......................................................................................... 9
Context and Background of the Problem...........................................................................11
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 13
Importance of the Study 15
Definitions 16
Organization of the Dissertation 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Approach to the Literature Review 19
Stakeholder Characteristics and Environment 21
Trust Research 23
Historical Context 26
Trust in the Workplace 26
Trust in the Remote Workplace 31
Trust in the 100% Remote Workplace 36
Theoretical Framework 40

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 4
Social Cognitive Theory 40
Observational Learning 40
Reciprocal Determinism 41
Self-Efficacy 42
Outcome Expectations 43
Self-Regulation 43
Operational Definition and Model of Trust 44
Challenges and Barriers in Context 50
Summary 51
Research Questions 52
Methodology 53
Design of the Instrument 54
Recruiting and Engagement Procedures 57
Interview Participants 58
Interview Protocol 59
Research Methods and Data Treatment 60
Data Saturation 62
Trustworthiness 62
Positionality of the Researcher 63
Limitations and Challenges to the Research 64
Ethical Concerns 66
Summary 66
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 67

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 5
Purpose of the Research 67
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks 67
Participants 68
Findings for Research Question 1: Beliefs and Perceptions 71
Past Work Experiences and Relationships 72
Early Engagement and Reputation 74
Swift Trust 76
Summary 80
Findings for Research Question Two: Observed Behavior 80
Navigating Swift Trust and Trust Repair 81
Intentional Connection Building and Connectedness 85
Establishing Authentic Connections 85
Building Intentional Engagement 86
Intentional Client Engagement 87
Intentional In-Person Connectedness 88
Trust Cadres 90
Connectedness Through Digital Channels 92
Digital Personas 96
Summary 97
Discussion Research Question Three: Environment 98
Availability, Accessibility, and Authentic Communication 99
Fostering Supportive, Collaboration, and Knowledge 102
Cultural Reflection through Digital Platforms 107

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 6
Summary 112
Findings Summary 113
Chapter 5: Recommendations 115
Discussion of Findings 115
Research Question 1: What are the beliefs and perceptions of the employees of trust in
the 100% remote workplace? 116
Research Question 2: Based upon observed behavior, what are the perceptions of trust
amongst peers and managers in the 100% remote workplace? 118
Research Question 3: What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain
trust based on leadership, culture, and observed behavior? 120
Recommendations for Practice 122
Recommendation 1: Engineer for Employee Positionality 122
Recommendation 2: Build Connectedness through Digital Platforms 124
Recommendation 3: Leadership Digital Presence and Engagement 127
Limitations and Delimitations of Research 129
Recommendations for Future Research 130
Conclusions 130
References 133
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 150
Appendix B: Onboarding Questionnaire 151
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form 152
Appendix D: Detailed Coding Practices 155
Comparative Analysis 161

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Trust Attributes Derived from the Literature..…………………………………………38
Table 2: Trust Attributes Derived from the Literature, Mapped to the Social Cognitive
Framework………………………………………………………………………………………48
Table 3: Interview Protocol…………………………………………………………………….55
Table 4: Concentration of A Priori Codes from Participant Interviews………………………..64
Table 5: Participants’ Range of Experience with Current Employer…………………………...73
Table 6: Participants’ Demographics on Connectedness………………………………………74
Table 7: Participants’ Demographic Information and Roles……………..…………………….75
Table 8: Progression of Code Counts in A Priori, Emergent, and Axial Coding……………..167
Table 9: Themes and Research Questions Alignment …………………………………..……170
Table 10: Comparative Analysis of Trust Cadres …………………………………………….172

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Individual Trust Attributes and Propensity to Trust………………………………….25
Figure 2: Trust Dynamics in Remote Teams……………………………………………………33
Figure 3: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory ………………………………………………….41
Figure 4: Progression From Calculus To Knowledge To Affect and Identification-Based Trust
Relationships: The Stages of Trust Development ………………………………………………45
Figure 5: Operational Model of Trust in Organizations with Social Cognitive Theory………..47
Figure 1A: Participant Interview Protocol……………………………………………………155

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
This dissertation explores the nature of trust, and the potential challenges of establishing,
maintaining, and building trust among high-growth technology consulting firms in a 100%
remote workplace. Organizational trust is defined as the willingness to be vulnerable, and reliant
on the abilities or good intent of others when the outcomes are uncertain (Bandura, 1995). Trust
is a crucial factor in developing effective workplace relationships (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996;
Mayer et al., 1995), which are essential for teamwork, collaboration, and innovation (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002). Trust in the workplace is also a contributing factor to employee self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997), identity (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Zhu & Chen, 2021), and well-being
(Greenberg & Maymin, 2020; Roblek et al., 2021).
In recent years, remote work has become increasingly popular, and the COVID-19
pandemic accelerated the shift toward a 100% remote workplace (Bick et al., 2020). Global
Workplace Analytics (2021) reported that by the end of 2021, approximately 25%-30% of the
workforce will work multiple days each week from home and that 98% of remote workers would
like to continue working remotely—at least some of the time—for the rest of their careers. This
research establishes a baseline understanding that employers and employees are adopting a shift
in work location from office to home—in a remote work environment. Similarly, high-growth
technology firms have adopted 100% remote work environments (Pellegrino, 2021).
High-growth technology consulting firms create value for their clients by embracing and
building expertise in emerging and disruptive technologies. As a result, there is constant pressure
to drive revenue growth and acquire and retain top-end talent (Burt, 2009). Traditionally, these
firms have relied heavily on inspirational and transformational leadership styles from their
executives to attract investors, clients, and talent, and simultaneously, build engaging, dynamic,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 10
and attractive corporate identities and cultures to help retain high-end talent in competitive
markets (Brougham & Haar, 2018).
The shift to 100% remote operations has created challenges for high-growth technology
consulting firms to maintain productivity, motivation, and swift execution (DeGroot & Gooty,
2009; Gajendran & Joshi, 2012). High-growth technology consulting firms also faced difficulty
building and maintaining strong client relationships (Gajendran & Joshi, 2012), as they could not
meet face-to-face with clients. Trust can be a significant challenge in a remote work environment
due to the lack of face-to-face interaction, lack of regular proximity between employees, lack of
social and non-verbal cues (Anderson & Guerrero, 1998; Chiu et al., 2006), and reliance on
technology for communication (Purvanova & Bono, 2009).
McKinsey and Company (2020) reported that remote interactions lacked informal
bonding and relationship building that took place in person—making it harder to build trust and
camaraderie. Remote work has also made it challenging for technology consulting companies to
communicate and collaborate effectively with their teams and clients. Gartner Group (2020)
reported pressures in the transition to remote work in communication and collaboration tools,
processes, and organizational cultures. This can lead to delays in project delivery,
misunderstandings, and a lack of alignment between teams. Remote work generated challenges
for technology consulting companies to maintain productivity and motivation among their
employees (Golden & Veiga, 2008). Deloitte (2020) indicated that remote work, in some cases,
created feelings of isolation and detachment that caused lower levels of engagement and
productivity. This can lead to missed deadlines, lower-quality work, and decreased client
satisfaction.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 11
As technology firms make the remote workplace 100% permanent, many of the
traditional frameworks have been tested and evaluated for leadership, management, and
employee interaction, with uneven or uncertain results (Greenberg & Maymin, 2020). This study
provided context for the trust relationship in the 100% remote workplace environment. Further,
such insights may be applied for potential workplace adjustments or new practices to help ensure
employee motivation, self-efficacy, productivity, well-being, and a sense of belonging.
Context and Background of the Problem
Remote work, also known as telecommuting or teleworking, is an arrangement where
employees work outside the traditional office, often from their homes or other remote locations.
A meta-analysis of 46 studies indicated that adopting remote work arrangements had increased
since the 1980s, driven by technological advances and changes in work attitudes and values
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Additionally, remote work was embraced as a strategy for
reducing organizational costs and increasing productivity in the early to mid-2000s (Allen et al.,
2015). From 2005 to 2017, remote work increased by 159% in the United States (U.S.) alone
(Brie, 2019). As of 2020, 42% of the U.S. workforce worked remotely at least occasionally
(Global Workplace Analytics, 2021). A Pew Research Center survey reported that approximately
one-third (35%) of workers with jobs that can be done remotely are working from home all of
the time and that 41% of those with jobs that can be done remotely are working a hybrid
schedule—working from home some days and from the office, workplace, or job site other days
(Parker, 2023).
Three years after the COVID-19 pandemic upended U.S. workplaces, the evolution of the
remote workplace—forcing many organizations to adopt remote work—on a large scale are now
either working 100% remotely or in a hybrid work environment. During the pandemic, the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 12
Gartner Group (2020) survey showed that 88% of organizations worldwide encouraged or
required their employees to work from home. This sudden shift to remote work resulted in
various challenges and opportunities, including better communication and collaboration tools,
the importance of work-life balance, and the potential for greater autonomy and flexibility (Yang
et al., 2022).
Some researchers have suggested that the pandemic has also highlighted the potential
benefits of remote work, such as reducing traffic congestion, lowering carbon emissions, and
improving access to job opportunities for people in rural or remote areas (Bick et al., 2020). In
contrast, other scholars have raised concerns about the potential long-term effects of remote
work on employee well-being, social interaction, and career development (Bick et al., 2020). A
distinct difference exists between working remotely for a company with a physical in-person
office, culture, and identity versus working in a 100% remote workplace (Elsbach & Cable,
2012).
Given a 100% remote work environment, this research focuses on the challenges of
establishing trust in work relationships to promote employee relational factors (e.g., identity,
motivation, collaboration, self-efficacy, and well-being) and productivity while meeting key
stakeholder expectations and corporate goals. The trust dynamic plays a formative and normative
role in these essential aspects of the 100% remote workplace (Brie, 2019).
High-growth technology consulting firms—boutique start-ups to global systems
integrators (GSI)—are adopting 100% remote workplaces. Given the relatively new challenges
faced by high-growth consulting companies, this places an inordinate burden on employees and
managers who rely on trusted formal and informal networks for effective communication,
execution, productivity, and well-being (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Purvanova & Bono, 2009). High-

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 13
growth consulting companies also burden leadership, talent recruiters, human resource managers,
and employees to create and sustain cohesive and engaging cultures within these organizations
(Greenberg & Maymin, 2020).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of trust in the organizational context,
within technology consulting firms that are 100% remote. Understanding how trust is perceived
based on individual beliefs, observed behaviors, and environmental characteristics, within the
100% remote work environment is important because trust plays a critical role in employee
motivation, productivity, self-efficacy, and well-being (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Mayer et
al., 1995; Zak, 2017). Trust is also essential in building formal and informal networks essential
for employee success within an organization (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Zhu & Chen, 2021), and
provides the bedrock for organizations to withstand, adapt, and innovate in the face of disruptive
change (Bess, 2015; Bick, 2020a; Bick, 2020b; Eisenbeiss, 2008; Jensen, 2018; Roblek, 2021).
This research study employed the social cognitive theory (SCT), which focuses on the
interplay of beliefs and perceptions of individuals, the behaviors in the environment, and the
reinforcement of behavior and beliefs in the environment (Bandura, 2012). Applied to the nature
of trust, this research explored how trust is perceived based on individual beliefs, how trust is
reinforced or constrained based on the observed behaviors of peers and leadership, and how trust
manifests in the 100% remote work environment. This research leveraged the key definition of
trust: the willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on positive expectations of their
intentions or behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). Adapted to the conceptual framework of Creed and
Miles (1996), this study focused on the concept of organizational trust, which assumes trust

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 14
actions are taken based on some baseline propensity, which is reinforced positively or negatively
by behavior and outcomes within the environment.
The research questions in this study, and the interview questions and prompts that
underpin them, elicited responses that reflect the observations of the participant regarding
espoused and practiced norms within the organization, the perspective of the participant relative
to the behavior, motives, and capabilities of managers and peers, and the personal feelings
around motivation, self-efficacy, identity and belonging, based upon trusted relationships. The
participants were individual contributors and first-time managers within high-growth technical
consulting firms that have adopted a 100% remote workplace.
The research questions guiding this study are:
1. What are the beliefs and perceptions of employees relative to trust in the 100%
remote workplace?
2. Based upon the observed behavior of peers and managers, what actions and attributes
define trust in the 100% remote workplace?
3. What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain trust based on the
actions and interaction of leadership, culture, and observed behavior?
The SCT is appropriate for this study because the reciprocal interactions of person,
environment, and behavior provide a useful construct to evaluate the underpinning constructs of
trust in the 100% remote workplace. By examining the interactions between resident knowledge,
beliefs, and behavior, and the contextual factors that influence trust, this study seeks to
understand and make sense of the employee experience as high-growth technology consulting
firms navigate the 100% remote workplace. Understanding the impact of the elimination or
reduction of social queues available from the in-person workplace (behavior, environment,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 15
reinforcement), how those are replaced in part or in whole through remote interactions, and how
this impacts the building of trusted relationships, will be a key focus of the research. The
concepts underlying the SCT will provide a framework to explore how trust manifests in
employees’ self-efficacy, social support, goal setting, motivation, productivity, and well-being
within the 100% remote workplace.
A series of open-ended interview questions were asked about trust in varied
organizational contexts but also probed for observable dynamics and the underlying attributes of
trust, including a willingness to be vulnerable and the expectation of positive outcomes,
observable integrity, competence, and character (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). By engaging
participants on these topics and coding for the underlying attributes of trust, this study built a
baseline understanding of the meaning of trust in the 100% remote workplace, how it manifests
itself in formal and informal networks, leadership and organizational culture, and employee
belonging and self-efficacy.
Importance of the Study
In a traditional office setting, trust can be built through face-to-face interactions, regular
communication, and socializing outside of work (Huang et al., 2017; Huang & Liu, 2020).
However, in a remote work environment, trust can be more challenging to establish and maintain
(Mishra & Mishra, 2014). Due to the lack of physical interaction, employees may feel isolated
and disconnected (Chudoba et al., 2005), leading to a lack of trust among colleagues and the
organization (Liao et al., 2020). Additionally, communication through technology, such as
emails and instant messaging apps, can be more prone to misinterpretation, leading to
misunderstandings and further eroding trust (Bick et al., 2020; Bonanomi et al., 2020; Purvanova

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 16
& Bono, 2009). This disruptive change could have long-lasting and negative impacts on
employee productivity (Yang et al., 2022) and well-being (Jensen et al., 2018).
Understanding the contributing and limiting factors of establishing, maintaining, and
building upon trusted relationships is essential for the workplace and workforce in the 100%
remote, post-pandemic work environment. Completion of this study could lead to improvements
for 100% remote high-growth technology consulting firms to quickly build trustful relationships
with new and ongoing clients. The employees and leadership of the organization also benefit
from attaining trustful relationships with consulting firms, given a 100% remote environment.
Definitions
This study will consistently use several terms. These terms are either defined throughout
the dissertation where first used or in the list below. The definitions are as follows:
Boutique Consulting Firms
Highly specialized firms focused on high-value niche markets and build close
relationships with their customers through high-impact, high-value engagement.
Global Systems Integrator (GSI)
Generally, large, global, private, or publicly traded companies that engage with larger
organizations and are aligned at the highest executive levels.
McKinsey and Company
A U.S.-based worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of
Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that has offered professional services to over 3,000
clients in over 65 countries—corporations, governments, and other organizations—committed to
accelerating sustainable and inclusive growth.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 17
Gartner Group
Gartner, Inc., is an American technological research and consulting firm that serves
clients—large corporations, government agencies, technology companies, and investment
firms—in conducting technology research and shares their research through private consulting,
executive programs, and conferences.
Organization of the Dissertation
This research study consists of five chapters, following the five-chapter dissertation
model. Chapter One establishes the problem of practice, the significance of the problem, and the
purpose of the study. This first chapter provides the reader with the key concepts associated with
trust in the remote workplace and within technology consulting firms. Chapter Two provides a
review of the literature and outlines the foundational qualitative studies that have been performed
on this topic. The second chapter establishes (a) a working definition of trust and common
attributes and (b) trust attributes and common themes for the on-site workplace, hybrid remote
workplace, and 100% remote workplace. Chapter Three outlines the exploratory research
strategy, collection methods, coding, and context to establish a baseline understanding of trust in
the 100% remote workplace, as applied to the problem of practice. Chapter Four provides an
analysis of the data, trends, and observations presented in a framework to enable the continuation
of research long after the end of this study. Lastly, Chapter Five provides a summary of the
dissertation, conclusions, implications, and research-based recommendations.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The rapid and continued virtualization of the workforce, enabled by advancements in
communication technology (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and accelerated by the COVID-19
pandemic (Bick et al., 2020), has disrupted many of the traditional interpersonal dynamics of
communication (Kirkman et al., 2002), learning, and trust-building that underpin workplace
relationships (McAllister, 1995). In high-growth technology consulting firms, this can impede
the building of essential formal and informal networks within an organization (Burt, 2009;
Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Grant & Cross, 2019; Gulati & Sytch, 2007; Ibarra, 1993) and
destabilize traditional productivity measures (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). Understanding the impact
of this disruptive change is significant because it impacts the well-being of employees relative to
their managers, expectations of success, job security, and career advancement (Barnes et al.,
2021, Bick et al., 2020; DeWitt & Osborne, 2020; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
In a remote work environment, trust can be more challenging to establish and maintain
(Mishra & Mishra, 2014), than in the traditional in-person office environment. Due to the lack of
physical interaction, employees may feel isolated and disconnected (Chudoba et al., 2005),
leading to a lack of trust in their colleagues and the organization (Liao et al., 2020). Additionally,
communication through technology can be more prone to misinterpretation, leading to
misunderstandings and further erosion of trust (Purvanova & Bono, 2009). This disruptive
change could have long-lasting and negative impacts on employee productivity (Yang et al.,
2022) and well-being (Jensen et al., 2018).
This literature review justifies the stated problem of practice of establishing and
maintaining trust in a 100% remote workplace—specifically within high-growth tech consulting

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 19
firms. This review also supports the proposed research in conducting an exploratory study
through qualitative open-ended interviews to understand the contributing and limiting factors of
establishing, maintaining, and building upon trusted relationships essential for the workplace and
workforce in the 100% remote (post-pandemic) work environment.
Approach to the Literature Review
This study leveraged the University of Southern California’s library searches, augmented
by Google Scholar searches, to find articles and literature reviews that intersected with the
problem of practice. Given the specific and niche focus of the problem of practice, more detailed
searches for articles and literature reviews proved more productive than Boolean searches.
Secondary searches were then conducted on the contributing original sources to build a baseline
of available peer-reviewed research on the intersecting topics underlying the problem of practice
(Ridley, 2012). Given the recent emergence of the 100% remote workplace, additional
contemporary sources, such as industry blogs, articles, and postings, were reviewed to provide a
more contemporary context where peer-reviewed original sources were unavailable.
The research focused on several overlapping and intersecting dynamics that underlie the
problem of practice of trust in the 100% remote workplace:
1. Trust in the workplace: Validating and applying the conceptual definitions of trust
across the selected body of research over the last 100 years (Mayer et al., 1995)
provides a baseline of understanding of attributes that enable or constrain trust in the
traditional in-office work environment.
2. Trust in the remote workplace: The remote workplace poses a specific set of
challenges (Allen et al., 2015) due to spatial and interpersonal limitations. Driving
more specific research into trust in the remote workplace provided an additional layer

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 20
of context into the dynamics, challenges, and common mitigation strategies within
these environments—in the office, remote location, or home.
3. Trust in the 100% remote workplace: Due to the novel and recent nature of the 100%
remote workplace adoption, the research approach was augmented through a
combination of contemporary industry publications and available peer-reviewed
research. The research was further refined to focus on the unique enabling and
challenging role of trust in the 100% remote workplace.
4. Leadership theories: The role of leadership in institutional trust, both as a rational
choice and as an emotional response, aligns with prevailing leadership theories (Bass
& Riggio, 2006; Gardiner, 2020; Hartog, 1997; Jung & Avolio, 2000). Leadership’s
role in enabling or constraining trust within the work environment is central to
prevailing leadership theories (e.g., transactional, transformational, and authentic).
5. Theoretical frameworks: Bandura’s SCT provides a framework that positions triadic
reciprocity across cognition, environment, and behavior as determinants and
indicators of trust (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2012).
6. Trust research: Competing and complementary research that explores the individual,
interpersonal, and institutional contextual definitions of trust were leveraged to help
build a historical context of trust. Definitions of trust at the individual level include
rational cognitive evaluations and affective aspects of trust, such as the propensity to
trust based on emotions, mood, and automatic responses that are subconscious
(Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995). Conceptual
frameworks, such as trust in organizations (Creed & Miles, 1996), learning and

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 21
motivation (Seli, 2015), and trust and rationality (Rompf, 2014), were essential to
forming an operating model of trust founded on a corpus of peer-reviewed research.
7. Conceptual definition of trust: Trust is multidimensional (Kramer & Tyler, 1996) and
highly contextual (Rousseau et al., 1998), so establishing a conceptual definition and
framework for trust—with a set of core trust attributes that correlate to contemporary
research—is critical.
Stakeholder Characteristics and Environment
Technology consulting companies provide expert advice, solutions, and guidance to
clients across various industries (Rouse, 2018). Employees of technology consulting companies
are bifurcated between internal culture and external client engagement (Cope, 2016). Technology
consulting companies recognize the importance of continuous learning and professional
development and institutionalize comprehensive educational programs to equip their consultants
with the necessary skills and knowledge (Armstrong & Taylor, 2017). The development of junior
or entry-level consultants is a crucial aspect of technology consulting companies through
nurturing the talent of their junior consultants to enhance their skills, knowledge, and
professional growth (Armstrong & Taylor, 2017; Santrock, 2020). Professional development is
enabled though programs such as technical training, industry-specific certifications, leadership
development initiatives (Lucas et al., 2019; Rouse, 2018), formal mentorship, exposure to
diverse projects, clients, and a variety of engagements (Cope, 2016). Technology consulting
companies typically foster a dynamic and innovative culture that values collaboration, teamwork,
and diversity, as these factors contribute to a creative and inclusive work environment
(Armstrong & Taylor, 2017).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 22
The pursuit of excellence, client satisfaction, and meeting project deadlines can create an
environment where employees feel a strong dedication to their work, which can manifest in long
working hours, high levels of commitment, and a sense of personal fulfillment derived from
professional accomplishments (White, 2020). Technology consulting firms promote a culture of
adaptability and agility and prioritize building strong relationships with their clients based on
trust, transparency, and effective communication (Lucas et al., 2019; Rouse, 2018). Effective
customer interactions involve active listening, clearly articulating technical concepts, and
providing tailored solutions. Consultants strive to bridge the gap between technology and
business requirements, aligning technology strategies with clients’ overall goals (Fenton, 2019;
Kotter, 2012). These fast-paced and demanding environments can contribute to a work-centric
culture.
Trust within technology consulting companies is crucial for effective collaboration,
knowledge sharing, and teamwork, as it fosters a positive work environment and enhances
overall productivity (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Trust within this environment promotes open
communication, encourages the sharing of diverse perspectives, and enables efficient problemsolving (George, 2010). Trust in the client relationship is cultivated through competence by
reliably and consistently delivering high-quality work, meeting client expectations, and
providing innovative solutions (Cope, 2016; Wheelen et al., 2017). Consultants must engage in
active listening, effectively communicate progress and challenges, and maintain honesty and
integrity in all interactions. Trust is further reinforced by demonstrating a genuine understanding
of the client’s needs, acting in their best interests, and maintaining confidentiality (Beamish et
al., 2003; Rouse, 2018; Wheelen et al., 2017).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 23
Trust Research
The concept of trust is highly contextualized across institutional, environmental, social,
and cognitive disciplines (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). The research paradigms vary accordingly,
from trust based on the individual, group, or institution to the societal lens (McAllister, 1995),
cognitive knowledge versus affect, and identity-based trust (Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Lewicki &
Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995), and history, reputation, and role-rule-based trust (Kramer &
Tyler, 1996). Lewis and Weigert (1985) stated, “Social science research on trust has produced a
good deal of conspiratorial confusion regarding the meaning of trust and its place in social life”
(p. 975). Without a unifying theoretical framework, research on trust has been highly
contextualized to provide meaning and structure (Rompf, 2014).
The breadth of competing and complementary research frames “trust” as a
multidimensional concept that only develops at the individual, interpersonal, and institutional
levels under certain structural conditions (Rompf, 2014). Further, trust is dependent upon both
the cognitive (rational), affective (emotional), and behavioral (intrinsic and interpersonal)
dimensions to produce a singular experience (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995). This
multidimensionality is reflected in the broader body of research. For example, a study of
empirical research by McKnight and Chervany (2000) revealed that 50% of scientific definitions
include cognitive elements, such as expectations, beliefs, and intentions, while 37% included
affective elements, such as feelings of confidence and security.
Rompf (2014) stated that while trust has clear structural antecedents, its subjective
experience is a source of disagreement among trust researchers because different
experiential phenomena come into focus. As a result, the acknowledged phenomenology

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 24
of trust and its resulting definition differ remarkably between research traditions and
disciplines. (p. 31)
The subjective experience of trust—the internal mental state associated with trust—
appears as a primary reason for the “confusing potpourri” (Shapiro, 1987, p. 625) of trust
definitions in the literature. Although there appears to be a substantial consensus on defining
trust primarily as a mental state, there is disagreement about its definitive characteristics (Bigley
& Pearce, 1998). Additional approaches focus on more esoteric aspects of trust, such as the
propensity to trust based on emotions, mood, and automatic responses that are subconscious
(Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995).
Figure 1
Individual Trust Attributes and Propensity to Trust
Note. From “Trust and Rationality: An Integrative Framework For Trust Research,” by S. A. Rompf, 2014, Spring
VS Wiesbaden (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07327-5). Copyright 2015 by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Kramer and Tyler (1996) stated that any conceptual approach to trust research must
accommodate the varied influences of social and situational impacts on the cognitive and
affective determination of trust. This dichotomy is reflected in the ancient Greek philosopher’s

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 25
moral and ethical framework, which provides our earliest conceptual definition of trust (Irwin,
2012). While Plato focused on the rational aspects of trust (Cooper, 2002), emphasizing rational
judgments based on knowledge and wisdom (Aggarwal, 2014), Aristotle recognized the
importance of emotions and personal relationships in building trust (Broadie, 2006). Modern
studies on trust echo these attributes through the rational evaluation of ability, benevolence (good
faith effort between people), integrity (Mayer et al., 1995), competence, and consistency
(Kramer & Tyler, 1996), and the affective or emotional aspects of trust—such as a patterned
identity and a willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al., 1995), transparent to others (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002), and take risks (Colquitt et al., 2007). Rompf (2014) indicated that trust must
involve a risk that stems from the trusting parties’ uncertainty about the preferences of the
trusted party. Secondly, the situation must be marked by social interdependence, meaning that
the interests of one party cannot be achieved without reliance on another party. As a corollary,
the trusting party has to transfer control over certain resources or events to the trusted party
(Coleman, 1990), thereby becoming objectively vulnerable (Meyer, 1995). Lastly, trust has to be
future-oriented, in the sense that the outcome of trust cannot readily be observed but will be
determined at a more or less specified point of time in the future (Luhmann, 2000).
Another frame of reference by Sitkin and Roth (1993) employed four definitions of trust
that differentiate trust as an individual attribute, trust as a behavior, situational trust, and trust in
institutional models. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) differentiated individual personality
differences, which lead to “psychological” affinity to trust, from the self-interest determinants of
economists and sociologists and the interpersonal transactions between individuals that generate
“socio-psychological” affirmation or disruption of trust. Research into the neuroscience behind
automatic responses engendered by both the cognitive and the affective processes

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 26
details the activation of specific areas in the brain and can be substantially modulated by
neuropeptides, such as the hormone oxytocin (Zak, 2017).
Historical Context
Trust in the Workplace
The study of workplace trust has evolved significantly since the early 1900s (Wrege,
1993). While trust has consistently been recognized as important in organizational settings, early
research, inspired by the scientific management movement, focused on improving workplace
efficiency and productivity (Nelson, 1992). In this school of thought, trust was a functional
component to ensure competence, reliability, and compliance, emphasizing hierarchical control
and monitoring (Wren & Bedeian, 2008).
Frederick Taylor’s research on scientific management had a significant impact on
industrial practices (Nelson, 1992; Taylor, 1911; Wren & Bedeian, 2008). It led to the
widespread adoption of time and motion studies, the standardization of work methods, and the
introduction of performance-based incentives (Nelson, 1992; Taylor, 1911; Wren & Bedeian,
2008). While Taylor’s ideas did not consider workers’ well-being, autonomy, and job
satisfaction, these early studies leveraged a cognitive approach to evaluating the competence and
ability of employees to execute designed tasks—leveraging the trust attributes of competence
and consistency (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Taylor’s research laid the foundation for subsequent
management theory and practice developments.
The human relations movement in the 1930s and 1940s challenged the mechanistic view
of organizations (Mayo, 1933). Researchers like Elton Mayo conducted influential studies
highlighting the significance of social factors, including trust, in employee motivation and
satisfaction (Mayo, 1949; Pichère & Cadiat, 2015; Seli, 2015). This period had a marked shift

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 27
toward recognizing the importance of trust in fostering positive relationships within the
workplace (Mayo, 1933).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 28
Trust in Organization
A significant study that influenced the human relations movement was the Hawthorne
Studies, conducted by Mayo at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago (Mayo, 1933).
These studies, conducted between 1924 and 1932, sought to understand the relationship between
lighting conditions and worker productivity (Pichère & Cadiat, 2015; Mayo, 1949). However, the
findings revealed unexpected results that went beyond lighting. Mayo and his colleagues
discovered that workers’ productivity increased regardless of lighting changes and that social
factors such as attention, group dynamics, and participation in decision-making played a
significant role (Mayo, 1949). This era of research revealed the psycho-social aspects of
patterned identity and reliance (Mayer et al., 1995) and interpersonal equity (Likert, 1961; Mayo,
1949) while positioning employee well-being and collaboration as benefits to productivity
(Likert, 1961).
In the 1950s through the 1970s, researchers such as Eric Trist and Fred Emery (1973)
pioneered the concept of socio-technical systems, which emphasized the interplay between
technical and social aspects of work. Trist and Emery (1973) posited that the technical system
(tools, technology, and processes) and the social system (people, relationships, and
organizational culture) needed to be aligned and designed in a complementary manner to achieve
optimal organizational performance. This movement also highlighted the importance of job
design in influencing employee satisfaction and well-being (Trist et al., 1993). It also
emphasized that jobs should be designed to provide autonomy, meaningful tasks, and
opportunities for skill development, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and overall work
performance (Emery & Trist, 1965).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 29
Socio-technical systems research coincided with the emergence of social science
theoretical frameworks to make sense of human psycho-social behavior in the workplace (Blau,
1964; Zoller & Muldoon, 2019). An American sociologist, laid the foundation for social
exchange theory in his book “The Human Group” (Homans, 1950). Homans argued that human
behavior is driven by the pursuit of rewards and avoidance of punishments, forming the basis for
social exchange. He emphasized that individuals assess the value of rewards and costs based on
their subjective preferences and perceptions. Blau (1964) further developed social exchange
theory in his book, “Exchange and Power in Social Life.” Blau expanded on Homans’ ideas by
introducing the concept of social power, which refers to the ability of individuals to influence
others and shape social exchanges. Blau emphasized that power imbalances within relationships
can impact the distribution of rewards and costs—leading to unequal exchanges.
Emerson’s work in the 1970s contributed to understanding social exchange by
highlighting the importance of network structures and social norms. In his influential paper
“Social Exchange Theory,” Emerson proposed the concept of “relational exchange” and
emphasized the role of social networks in facilitating and constraining exchanges (Kelley, 1978).
Thibaut and Kelley (1959), in their book, “The Social Psychology of Groups,” introduced the
concept of “interdependence theory,” which incorporates elements of social exchange theory.
Thibaut and Kelley argued that individuals’ behavior in relationships is influenced by their
perception of the outcomes they can achieve individually and jointly, considering both individual
and joint rewards.
In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers began viewing trust as a valuable organizational asset
promoting organizational commitment, enhanced information sharing, and reduced transaction
costs (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Trust became recognized as a critical component of

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 30
organizational effectiveness and competitive advantage (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Kramer
& Tyler, 1996). Cummings and Bromiley (1996) developed the organizational trust inventory,
which included three distinct instruments designed to measure the dimensions of trust within
organizations. The three distinct instruments captured individual disposition to trust, perceptions
of organizational trustworthiness, and the actual behaviors exhibited by individuals to
demonstrate trust.
Trust in Leadership
From the late 1990s, the research pivoted to the role of leadership in fostering trust in
teams, organizations, and institutions (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Researchers explored the impact of
leader trustworthiness on employee satisfaction (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Joshi et al., 2009; Sinek,
2014), commitment (Walumbwa et al., 2012), and performance (Mayer et al., 1995; Walumbwa
et al., 2012). Studies probed the behaviors, communication, and actions leaders can adopt to
build and maintain trust with their subordinates (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). When employees
perceive their leaders as trustworthy, they are more likely to have confidence in their decisions,
follow their guidance, and engage in cooperative behaviors that contribute to organizational
success (Mayer et al., 1995; Walumbwa et al., 2012).
In an influential study published in the Academy of Management Review called “An
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust,” Mayer et al. (1995) proposed an integrative model of
organizational trust and emphasized the importance of vulnerability related to risk-taking and
dependence on others despite potential negative consequences. These concepts further evolved in
studies such as Edmondson’s (1999) study that highlighted the significance of psychological
safety in promoting learning behavior within work teams. These advancements in the effect of
determinants of trust contributed to emerging concepts of leadership’s role in promoting cultural

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 31
and organizational authenticity and safe spaces (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa et al.,
2012; Wang et al., 2021).
Trust in leadership is a key determinant of employee job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo,
2004). When employees trust their leaders, they experience higher levels of job satisfaction, as
they feel secure, supported, and valued by their leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Sinek, 2014).
Trust in leadership fosters a positive work environment and enhances employee well-being
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Trust in leaders has been linked to higher levels of organizational
citizenship behavior (Breevaart & Zacher, 2019). When employees trust their leaders, they are
more likely to engage in discretionary behaviors that benefit the organization, such as going
beyond their formal job requirements, helping colleagues, and supporting organizational goals
(Meyer, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2012). Trust can be damaged in leader-follower relationships,
but research has highlighted the possibility of trust repair (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Effective
communication, transparent actions, and consistent behavioral changes by leaders can contribute
to trust repair efforts (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Lewicki et al., 2016; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
The study of trust in the workplace has evolved from focusing on control and compliance
to recognizing the multidimensional nature of trust and its essential impact on various aspects of
organizational dynamics. Trust is now understood as a fundamental aspect of effective
leadership, teamwork, and organizational performance.
Trust in the Remote Workplace
Research on virtual team dynamics and trust in remote teams emerged in the late 1990s,
with the rise of the available technology and adoption of geographically disparate virtual
teams—groups of geographical, organizational, and time-dispersed workers—brought together
by information and telecommunication technologies to accomplish one or more organizational

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 32
tasks (Jarvenpaa et al., 1999). Research on trust in the remote workplace incorporates common
tenants of trust research within traditional workplaces (Powell et al., 2004). However, it focuses
on the unique characteristics and challenges of virtual teams and remote engagement (Gajendran
& Harrison, 2007).
The emergence and propagation of remote teams required a re-evaluation of traditional
means of instilling intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Hertel et al., 2005; Seli, 2015), acquiring
and retaining requisite knowledge to perform duties and socialize knowledge for instructional
and sharing scenarios (Bick, et al., 2020; Costa, 2003), and measurement of self-efficacy among
remote workers and teams (Allen et al., 2015). Inspiring and sustaining collaboration within and
across remote teams and team members became essential for knowledge sharing (Costa, 2003),
productivity, and effective execution (Walumbwa et al., 2012). The absence of a regular physical
or co-located work environment required a higher focus on communication and collaboration
essential for building interpersonal relationships within formal and informal support networks
within an organization (Burt, 2009; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Grant & Cross, 2019; Gulati &
Sytch, 2007; Ibarra, 1993).
In a study titled “Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Literature and Directions for
Future Research,” Powell et al. (2004) identified relationship building, cohesion, and trust as
fundamental processes as both key challenges and determinants of team effectiveness. In their
work, “Managing Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Empirical Research,” Hertel et al. (2005)
devised a virtual team competency inventory as a rubric for measuring virtual team effectiveness
based on taskwork-related attributes (e.g., conscientiousness and integrity), teamwork-related
attributes (e.g., cooperativity and communication skills), and attributes relevant for telecooperative work (e.g., self-management skills, interpersonal trust, and intercultural skills).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 33
Figure 2 displays these three groups of attributes that were considered determinants of the
performance potential of virtual team members independent of their professional knowledge,
skills, abilities, and expertise.
Figure 2
Trust Dynamics in Remote Teams
Note. From “Managing Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Empirical Research,” by G. Hertel, S. Geister, and U.
Konradt, 2005, Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), p. 74 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002).
Copyright 2005 by Elsevier Inc.
The challenges and critical determinants of virtual team success of communication,
relationship-building, and trust become more pivotal when viewed through the sustained remote
workplace versus merely the ephemeral team construct (Hertel et al., 2005; Powell et al., 2004).
Communication exclusively through virtual mediums and technology lacks visual and auditory
cues that can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings, eroding trust among team
members (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Further, the lack of face-to-face interactions and limited
socialization opportunities in remote work environments can hinder the development of personal
relationships and social bonds, which are crucial for trust formation (Hertel et al., 2005). Huang

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 34
and Liu (2020), in “The Influence of Trust on Virtual Team Effectiveness: A Moderated
Mediation Model” in Computers in Human Behavior, found that trust had a positive effect on
team effectiveness, mediated by task commitment and knowledge sharing. The relationship
between trust and team effectiveness was further moderated by team communication quality,
suggesting the importance of effective communication in translating trust into improved team
outcomes.
The socio-emotional processes, such as knowledge sharing, open and authentic
communication, and collaboration in pursuit of shared objectives, lead to connectedness with
corporate culture and community and social embeddedness within interpersonal networks
(Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Grant & Cross, 2019; Powell et al., 2004) have been proven to be key
determinants in establishing and developing trust over time (Bick et al., 2020). In the absence of
face-to-face interaction within a traditional physical workplace, the burden falls on executive and
team leadership to ensure frequent and transparent communication (Bonanomi et al., 2020; Chiu
et al., 2006) and a sense of shared goals and objectives (Costa, 2003; Kirkman et al., 2002).
Powell (2004) quotes Hulnick, “If technology is the foundation of the virtual business
relationship, communication is the cement” (p. 33).
Leadership plays a critical role in fostering trust within remote teams, as they must
actively demonstrate trustworthiness by displaying competence, integrity, and empathy (Breevart
& Zacher, 2019). Clear and consistent communication from leaders, as well as providing support
and guidance, helps establish a trusting environment. Allen et al. (2015) emphasized the
importance of leader-member exchange in remote work settings. Building high-quality
relationships between leaders and remote team members cultivates trust and enhances
collaboration and performance (Hansen et al., 2019; Kurtzberg & Levin, 2020).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 35
Creating a virtual community is essential for trust-building in remote work environments
and creates alternative channels for connectedness and social embeddedness necessary to
establish and build trust (Hertel et al., 2005). Bonanomi et al. (2020) established electronic
platforms or forums where employees could interact informally and share knowledge that
promoted social connections and trust. Virtual communities have played a critical role in
building a trusted culture of knowledge sharing, collaboration, and collective intelligence (Zhu &
Chen, 2021). Encouraging remote team members to participate in virtual communities, as Huang
and Liu (2020) discussed, strengthens trust by promoting engagement, information exchange,
and the development of shared norms and values.
Given the heavy reliance on trust as both an indicator and an outcome of the “socioemotional processes” (Powell et al., 2004, p. X) of shared goals, connectedness, and social
embeddedness within interpersonal networks (Bick et al., 2020; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Grant &
Cross, 2019), intentional and appropriate technology tools for communication and collaboration
are essential (Bick et al., 2020; Bonanomi et al., 2020). Remote teams heavily rely on
communication and collaboration tools to bridge the physical distance and facilitate effective
collaboration (Fake & Dabbagh, 2020). Further, the emergence of cloud computing has
revolutionized remote work by providing a flexible and scalable infrastructure for remote team
collaboration that has positively impacted worker productivity, collaboration, and remote work
flexibility (Edwards, 2020).
Through the intentional and embedded adoption of tools, such as video conferencing
platforms (e.g., Zoom and Microsoft Teams), instant messaging platforms (e.g., Slack and
Microsoft Teams), and project management tools (e.g., Trello and Asana), critical challenges of
communication, collaboration and knowledge sharing can be facilitated (Bick et al., 2020;

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 36
Bonanomi et al., 2020). Organizationally, the remote workplace poses unique challenges to
cybersecurity and data privacy, requiring robust security measures to protect remote team
communication, sensitive data, and intellectual property. Encryption, multi-factor authentication,
and secure virtual private network connections are essential best practices to ensure remote work
security (KPMG, 2021).
Trust in the 100% Remote Workplace
Societal shifts in remote work have driven a large migration of highly compensated
technology and business professionals away from traditional urban and corporate settings
(Hughes, 2020; Johnson, 2021). Companies like Twitter, Dropbox, and Shopify have publicly
declared their intentions to offer remote work options beyond the pandemic (Bullock, 2023). Due
to the uncertainty of corporate policy toward in-person office obligations, the extent of indefinite
remote workplace arrangements, and the lingering burden of corporate leased office space
(Deloitte, 2020), policy and practitioner adjustments to remote work remain hybrid, temporary or
transitional, and have yet to address—in theory or practice—the permanent 100% remote
workplace (Bullock, 2023; Zhang et al., 2021).
Technology Consulting Industry
Operationally, the technology consulting industry has embraced remote work, resulting in
increased agility and flexibility in their delivery methods (Deloitte, 2020). Additionally, the
industry has made significant investments in technology, internet connectivity, and training to
enable effective remote productivity and performance (Wang et al., 2021). Since many of the end
customers of the consulting services are adopting some form of remote or hybrid remote
technology (Johnson, 2021), the remote workplace includes, by extension, the customer
environment where the consulting services are delivered. This adjustment is easier and less

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 37
disruptive for experienced and specialized technical and consulting professionals (Hansen et al.,
2019) but poses challenges for younger entry-level professionals seeking experience and
mentorship through a 100% remote employee experience (Santrock, 2021; Wang et al., 2021).
While remote work can offer flexibility and autonomy that enhance productivity for some
individuals, it also requires effective self-management skills and the ability to combat
distractions to maintain performance levels (Galanti et al., 2021). Remote work can also foster
feelings of isolation and loneliness, difficulty maintaining work boundaries, and separating work
from personal life (Golden & Veiga, 2008). These challenges underscore the need for clear
expectations, trust-building measures, and supportive managerial practices to foster employee
engagement, motivation, and productivity (Golden & Veiga, 2008). Social support, such as
feedback, recognition, and mentorship, can influence employees’ motivation and satisfaction
(Seli, 2015; Wang & Yang, 2020). Finally, goal setting and feedback can help employees align
their work with company goals and track their progress and performance (Latham & Locke,
2002).
At an individual level, research has demonstrated the potential of AI and automation in
enhancing the remote employee experience through personalization, increased productivity, and
reduced human error in remote work settings (Lauby et al., 2021). At the group and
organizational level, tactics like gamification can enhance engagement and motivation among
remote workers by introducing collaborative challenges, team-based competitions, and shared
goals (Rashid & Asghar, 2016). Also, remote workers can feel a sense of connection,
camaraderie, and fostering a collaborative work culture (Sinek, 2014).
Virtual and augmented reality technologies show potential to enhance the remote work
experience through immersive virtual meetings and simulations (virtual reality) and real-time

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 38
overlays of digital information onto real-world environments (augmented reality), which can
increase presence, engagement, and productivity in remote team interactions (Lu et al., 2021).
Investment in virtual team-building activities, virtual social events, and communication channels
all foster engagement that maintains a positive remote work culture. Companies are exploring
ways to recreate the sense of connection, collaboration, and community that traditional office
environments foster (Wang & Yang, 2020).
The literature on trust dating back to the Greek philosophers, combined with the literature
on trust within the organizational, workplace, and remote workplace, yields common and
pervasive attributes that reflect or signify trust in the organizational context. Table 1 lists those
attributes of trust mapped to the theoretical and conceptual constructs.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 39
Table 1
Trust Attributes, Common, and Persistent Throughout the Literature
Attributes of Trust Trust Research Context
Ability, Competence Observed or reputational ability, and competence positively influences the
cognitive calculus to trust in a desired outcome (Mayer, 1986).
Character,
Benevolence
Observed or reputational high character or benevolence positively influences
the cognitive calculus to trust in a desired outcome (Mayer, 1986).
Authentic and Open
Communication
Observed and experienced authentic, consistent and open communication
within the work environment builds and reinforces cognitive calculus to trust
in a desired outcome (Chudona, 2005; Gajendran, 2012; Gardner, 2020; Grant
2019).
Knowledge Sharing Observed and experienced knowledge sharing at both the team and peer level
builds and reinforces cognitive calculus to trust (Bick, 2020a, Chiu, 2006,
Edwards, 2020; Gajendran, 2012; Grant, 2019).
Connectedness,
Formal
Relationships
When employees have strong interpersonal relationships within the formal
reporting structure, it reinforces perceptions of security (Kurtzberg & Levin,
2020), builds feelings of identity and affinity within the formal organizational
environment (Huang, 2017). These elements build and reinforce both the
cognitive and affective calculus to trust (Liao, 2020).
Connectedness,
Informal Networks
When employees have strong interpersonal relationships within informal
networks outside of the formal reporting structure, it promotes and reinforces
feelings of self-efficacy (Huang, 2017), access to resources, builds feelings of
identity and affinity within the intra-organizational environment (Ibarra,
1993). These elements build and reinforce both the cognitive and affective
calculus to trust (Gulatti & Sytch 2007; Liao 2020)
Security/Safety Employees whose observed and experienced behavior make them feel safe
and supported, have a higher propensity to trust (Edmondson, 1999; Sinek,
2014; Wang & Yang, 2020).
Perceptions of safety build and reinforce both the cognitive and affective
calculus to trust (Edmondson, 1999; Sinek, 2014; Wang & Yang, 2020).
Decentralization /
Autonomy
Trusted work cultures have decentralized and matrixed organizational design.
This places trust in management and creates perceived control to make
decisions over resources. At the individual level, employees are given
autonomy over work priorities and execution, reflecting trust in their ability
and intentions. This reinforces the perception of a trusted work environment,
and promotes risk taking and innovation. These attributes build and reinforce
both the cognitive and affective calculus to trust in a desired outcome
(Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Mishra & Mishra, 2014; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 40
Theoretical Framework
This dissertation is an exploratory study to understand the nature of trust and trust
dynamics within a 100% remote workplace. This study focuses on the perceptions, experiences,
value judgments, decisions, and actions of individual employees as they navigate strictly virtual
interactions with managers and peers within the team setting and the larger organizational
context. Since trust is highly contextual and reciprocal (Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995),
the triadic reciprocity offered by the SCT framework (Bandura, 1986, 1997) is an effective
instrument to frame this research.
Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura (1977) proposed the SCT, which focuses on how individuals learn from
observing and imitating others within a social context. Bandura (1986, 1997) later built upon this
theory and introduced his SCT as a comprehensive framework that emphasized the role of
cognitive processes in human behavior and the reciprocal interactions between individuals and
their environment. This study acknowledges key leverage points of the SCT: observational
learning, reciprocal determinism, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-regulation.
Observational Learning
Bandura (1977) proposed that people learn not only through direct experience but also by
observing others. Observational learning involves acquiring new behaviors, attitudes, and
emotional reactions by observing and imitating others (Bandura, 1977). This process is
influenced by the perceived similarity, competence, and status of the observed model (e.g.,
person or object). Trust can be influenced through modeling, where individuals observe and
imitate the behavior of trustworthy role models. When individuals observe trustworthy actions
and positive outcomes resulting from those actions, they are more likely to develop trust in

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 41
others and display trustworthy behavior themselves. In this manner, individuals can learn about
trustworthy behaviors through observations of norms, actions, and outcomes and develop trust in
others based on the positive outcomes they witness (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
Reciprocal Determinism
Bandura emphasized the dynamic interplay between personal factors, behavior, and the
environment, as shown in Figure 3. Reciprocal determinism suggests that individuals and their
environment mutually influence each other. First, personal factors, such as thoughts and beliefs
interact with environmental factors, which include social norms, physical surroundings, and
social support to shape behavior (Bandura, 1986). Next, trust develops through continuous
interaction between individuals, their behavior, and their environment which instills selfefficacy, and the expectations of outcomes. Finally, trustworthy behavior can be reinforced or
undermined based on the responses and behaviors of others, influencing the level of trust in a
social context (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 42
Figure 3
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
Note. From “Social Cognitive Theory,” by A. Bandura, 2012, In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), 2012, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Sage Publications Ltd., pp. 349-373
(https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n18). Copyright 2023 by Sage Publications.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their capabilities to successfully execute a
specific behavior or task. Bandura argued that self-efficacy strongly influences motivation,
effort, and persistence in achieving goals (Bandura, 1986, 1997, Seli, 2015). Mastery
experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and managing emotional and physiological
states are key factors that contribute to the development of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
High self-efficacy promotes a sense of control, resilience, and willingness to take on challenging
tasks (Schunk & Usher, 2012).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 43
Outcome Expectations
Bandura highlighted the importance of outcome expectations, which are an individual’s
beliefs about the likely outcomes or consequences of their behavior. These expectations can
shape motivation and behavior by influencing the perceived value and desirability of certain
outcomes (Bandura, 1986, 1997, Seli, 2015). Positive outcome expectations increase the
likelihood of engaging in a behavior. Conversely, negative expectations may deter individuals
from engaging in a particular behavior.
Self-Regulation
Bandura emphasized the role of self-regulation in guiding behavior. Self-regulation
involves setting goals, monitoring progress, and employing strategies to achieve desired
outcomes (Shunk & Usher, 2019). Self-regulation encompasses processes such as selfobservation, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and self-reinforcement (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Selfregulated individuals are more likely to persist in the face of challenges and make adaptive
behavioral adjustments. Bandura emphasized the importance of personal agency—the belief that
individuals have control over their actions and can influence their environment through choices,
setting goals, and taking proactive steps to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
Applied to the problem of practice, the SCT provides a framework to analyze the
cognitive and affective aspects of trust decisions. Through observational learning and interaction,
employees build and reinforce a trust model with their peers and managers through relational
calculus (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; McAllister, 1995), reputation and consistency evaluation
(Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998), and rational risk and reward, and self-interest
calculus (Colquitt et al., 2007; Edmondson, 1999; Mayer et al., 1995). The propensity to trust
that employees bring to the workplace factors into reciprocal determinism as those values,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 44
beliefs, and behaviors are reflected in workplace behavior (Bandura, 2012; Colquitt et al., 2007;
Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995).
This study leveraged the triadic reciprocity of the SCT as a foundational construct upon
which to overlay the conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996). In this manner, the study
captured reciprocal interactions between people, environment, and behavior to provide a frame
of reference for employee perceptions, behaviors, and contributions to corporate culture and the
workplace. The term reciprocal means that each factor affects the others and vice versa. These
constructs provide a framework to overlay the conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996)
and derive an operational model for organizational trust.
Operational Definition and Model of Trust
Trust is a concept that is highly personal and contextual (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). In order
to conduct research on the nature of trust, the study must establish an operational definition and
model of trust. This study grounds the operational definition on the work of Mayer (2007) who
posits that trust in the organizational context is “the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to
the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” (p 347)
This study adopted the conceptual framework provided by Creed and Miles (1996) in
their work, “Trust in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework.” This framework structured the
concept of trust around three aspects of trust, which are cognitive, affective, and behavioral
dimensions. The cognitive aspect involves the beliefs and perceptions of the individuals with
respect to others in the organization. The affective aspect reflects emotional attributes of trust,
such as feelings of security, confidence, and goodwill. The third aspect of trust is behavioral,
referring to the actions taken by individuals based on their perception or absence of trust.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 45
This conceptual framework is useful and appropriate in conjunction with the social
cognitive instrument as it addresses the propensity to trust and trust-based interpersonal
relationships (Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rompf, 2014), the impact of observed and experienced
environmental norms on the individual (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Edmondson, 1999; Lewicki &
Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995), and concepts of leadership and culture on psychological
safety and the environmental antecedents that engender trust (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Liao
et al., 2020; Rousseau et al., 1998).
This conceptual model of trust requires the outcome of a trust act must be uncertain;
beliefs, perceptions, and observed behavior form the foundational propensity to trust; and the
trustor must cede control and be vulnerable in order to achieve a desired outcome (Creed &
Miles, 1996; Rompf, 2014; Rousseau, 1998). Within the organizational context, the attributes
that promote trust and a willingness to be vulnerable are connectedness and interdependence
(Liao, 2020), psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), knowledge sharing (Bick, 2020a; Chiu,
2006; Edwards, 2020; Gajendran, 2012; Grant, 2019), transparent communication (Chudona,
2005; Gajendran, 2012; Gardner, 2020; Grant 2019), observed competence and self-efficacy
(Mayer, 1995). These are some of the attributes that create the environmental conditions for
employees to evaluate actions, allow themselves to be vulnerable, and take risks through trust
acts (Creed & Miles, 1996).
Within this operational model, the beliefs and perceptions of the individual inform their
initial propensity to trust (P1). The individual employee makes a cognitive evaluation (Te) via
both rational/cognitive and affective influences, and the observed behavior of others (peers and
managers) that allows them to evaluate (Te) potential trust acts (T) whose outcome (To) is
uncertain and that puts resources of the truster at risk. The outcomes of a trust act (T) then either

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 46
reinforce or erode the propensity to trust (Tx) and create a new baseline (P2) upon which future
trust acts (T) will be based. Figure 4 illustrates the stages of trust development.
Cognitive calculus that drives trust acts on the part of the trustor can be reinforced over
time through repeated and consistent behavior on the part of the trusted party (Lewicki &
Bunker, 1996; McAllister, 1995). Through this process, the trust act becomes automatic and no
longer a cognitive act until trust is failed, as shown in Figure 5. Reciprocal determinism also
influences the emotional and affective aspects of trust, such as affinity and social identity to a
culture or an experience (Fowler & Kam, 2007).
Figure 4
Progression from Calculus to Knowledge to Affect and Identification-Based Trust Relationships:
The Stages of Trust Development
Note. CBT = calculus-based trust; KBT = knowledge-based trust; IBT = identification-based trust; J1 = some
calculus-based trust relationships become knowledge-based trust relationships at this juncture; J2 = a few
knowledge-based trust relationships where positive affect is present go on to become identification-based trust
relationships at this junction. From “Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships,” by R. J. Lewicki
and B. B. Bunker, 1996, Sage Publications, Inc., p. 125 (https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610). Copyright 1996
by Sage Publications.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 47
As individuals operate within a culture and a workplace, reinforcement of social norms
and risk and reward systems become galvanized for the employee (Bick et al., 2020; Bounami,
2020), and the propensity to trust in the organization or leadership becomes automatic (Gardner
et al., 2020). When applied to the trust attributes of competency and consistency, self-efficacy
provides stability and confidence to be assertive, supportive, and take risks. High self-efficacy
leads to a higher propensity to trust either through rational calculus or reliance and vulnerability
when taking the risk of being dependent on a peer or manager with the required resources to
drive an outcome (Burt, 2009).
Self-regulation can occur as a conscious or unconscious set of actions in response to
observation, evaluation, reaction, and adjustment to the actions and reactions of peers, managers,
and the organization to desired outcomes. Self-regulation is informed by observational learning
and reciprocity within the workplace environment. In this manner, trust decisions and actions are
either reinforced or disproved, and the risk and reward calculus may change in the future
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 48
Figure 5
Conceptual Model of Trust in Organizations
Note. P1 = The initial propensity to trust, informed by the individual’s foundational beliefs and perceptions of trust;
Te = the cognitive evaluation and/or affectual influences by the individual preceding a potential trust act; T = the
trust act, defined as a vulnerability that includes risk, where the outcome is uncertain and reliant on the actions of
others; To = the outcome of the trust act, which can result in either be positive or negative experience Tx; P2 =
represents the new propensity to trust of the individual, based on the observed behavior and the experience (Tx) of
the trust act (T). From “Trust in Organizations: A conceptual framework,” by X. Creed and X. Miles, 1996.. (pp. 16-
38). Sage Publications.
Trust Attributes
Bandura’s (2012) SCT framework recognized the importance of cognitive processes,
such as beliefs, expectations, and values, in shaping behavior. These cognitive factors can
influence how individuals perceive and interpret their environment, which in turn affects their
actions. Table 1 shows the common trust attributes derived from the literature on trust, correlated
to the constructs from the social cognitive framework (Bandura, 1996). Table 2 reflects trust
attributes of the work environment and the potential observed behavior of leadership,
management, and peers that underscore trust within the 100% remote work environment. These
attributes, applied to the conceptual framework adapted from Creed & Miles (1996), reinforced
the research questions and framed the interview questions and a priori coding (Creswell, 2013)
outlined in Chapter Three.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 49
Table 2
Trust Attributes Obtained from the Literature in Relation to Bandura’s Social Cognitive
Framework
Attributes of Trust Conceptual Mapping Bandura Construct
Ability
Competence
Benevolence
Observed or reputational ability,
competence, and benevolence
positively influences the cognitive
calculus to trust in a desired outcome
(Mayer, 1986).
Bandura (1986) emphasized the significance of
observational learning, where individuals learn by
observing the behaviors of others, particularly role
models or peers. Observing that ability, competence
and benevolent behavior is rewarded within the
environment increases the propensity to trust.
Authentic
and Open
Communication
Observed and experienced authentic,
consistent and open communication
within the work environment builds
and reinforces cognitive calculus to
trust in a desired outcome (Chudona,
2005; Gajendran, 2012; Gardner,
2020; Grant 2019).
Bandura’s (1997) concept of self-efficacy is highly
relevant to trust in the workplace. An employee's
belief in their ability to fulfill their responsibilities
with competence and integrity can influence their
trustworthiness. If employees have high selfefficacy in their roles, they are more likely to be
dependable and reliable, as well as open to taking
risks and being vulnerable.
Knowledge
Sharing
Observed and experienced knowledge
sharing at both the team and peer level
builds and reinforces cognitive
calculus to trust (Bick, 2020a, Chiu,
2006, Edwards, 2020; Gajendran,
2012; Grant, 2019).
Bandura’s (2012)concept of vicarious reinforcement
can be applied to knowledge sharing. When
employees witness their peers being recognized or
rewarded for sharing valuable knowledge or ideas,
they are more likely to engage in similar
knowledge-sharing behaviors. Conversely, if they
observe negative consequences, such as criticism or
rejection, it may discourage them from sharing their
knowledge.
Connectedness1
Formal
Relationships1
When employees have strong
interpersonal relationships within the
formal reporting structure, it reinforces
perceptions of security (Kurtzberg &
Levin, 2020), builds feelings of
identity and affinity within the formal
organizational environment (Huang,
2017). These elements build and
reinforce both the cognitive and
affective calculus to trust (Liao, 2020).
Bandura (date) presented Formal hierarchies can
influence employees’ self-efficacy. Employees learn
from their managers and peers about how
information flows within the organization.
Observational learning here can involve
understanding the chain of command, reporting
structures, and official communication channels.
Those who feel confident in their ability to navigate
and communicate within formal structures are more
likely to share information with their superiors or
colleagues.
Connectedness
Informal
Networks22
When employees have strong
interpersonal relationships within
informal networks outside of the
formal reporting structure, it promotes
and reinforces feelings of self-efficacy
(Huang, 2017), access to resources,
builds feelings of identity and affinity
Informal networks, often represented by social
connections and relationships, are important for
observational learning. Employees observe how
information and knowledge flow through these
informal channels. Observing who communicates
with whom and who is seen as a trusted information
source can influence employees’ own

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 50
Attributes of Trust Conceptual Mapping Bandura Construct
within the intra - organizational
environment (Ibarra, 1993). These
elements build and reinforce both the
cognitive and affective calculus to
trust (Gulatti & Sytch 2007; Liao
2020)
communication and knowledge-sharing behaviors.
Security/Safety Employees whose observed and
experienced behavior make them feel
safe and supported, have a higher
propensity to trust (Edmondson, 1999;
Sinek, 2014; Wang & Yang, 2020).
Perceptions of safety build and
reinforce both the cognitive and
affective calculus to trust
(Edmondson, 1999; Sinek, 2014;
Wang & Yang, 2020).
When employees observe their colleagues or
superiors engaging in open and respectful
communication, expressing concerns without fear of
reprisal, and actively listening to others, they are
more likely to model these behaviors. Positive role
models can set the tone for a psychologically safe
work environment.
The overall workplace climate, which is influenced
by the collective behaviors and interactions of
employees and leaders, can shape feelings of
psychological safety. Positive interactions and
supportive responses create a reinforcing cycle that
promotes psychological safety.
Decentralization/
Autonomy
Trusted work cultures have
decentralized and matrixed
organizational design. This places trust
in management and creates perceived
control to make decisions over
resources. At the individual level,
employees are given autonomy over
work priorities and execution,
reflecting trust in their ability and
intentions. This reinforces the
perception of a trusted work
environment, and promotes risk taking
and innovation. These attributes build
and reinforce both the cognitive and
affective calculus to trust in a desired
outcome (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010;
Mishra & Mishra, 2014; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986).
Decentralized structures often grant employees
more autonomy and responsibility in decisionmaking and problem-solving. This increased
autonomy signals trust within the environment and
the employees, and can contribute to higher selfefficacy as employees gain confidence in their
ability to make independent choices and handle
challenging situations.
Challenges and Barriers in Context
The literature review of high trust in a 100% remote workplace is limited and faces
several barriers related to recency and context. Given the recency of the COVID-19 pandemic,
very little direct research has been conducted on 100% remote workforce and trust in the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 51
workplace. What research has been done has centered on productivity and well-being as a result
of the disruption of the previous status quo (Barnes et al., 2021; Bick et al., 2020; DeWitt &
Osborne, 2020). Contextually, the research is mainly measured under a temporary or transitive
context (Dillet, 2020) with the assumption that the 100% remote workforce change may not be
permanent.
A confounding aspect of this research is the fluid and transitive nature of the 100%
remote workforce versus the “return to work” movement. Many technology companies have
stated that the 100% remote workforce will be permanent, some have labeled it “indefinite,” and
some have already begun implementing a hybrid workplace inclusive of at least a partial return
to the office (Dillet, 2020; Johnson, 2021). In light of these uncertainties, the research that has
been done may need to be able to ask and answer research questions involving the certainty of a
continued 100% remote workplace.
Summary
The literature review frames trust as situational and contextual across individual, group,
and institutional environments. The trust attribute consists of both cognitive rational acts and
affectual emotional acts (Creed & Miles, 1996). Trust must be enabled, measured, and
maintained in a 100% remote work environment to ensure employee and team motivation,
collaboration, performance, and well-being. As the 100% remote work environment evolves as a
sustained standard—as opposed to a perceived or assumed transitional state—organizational
leadership within high-growth technology consulting firms must address the realities of the new
operating model and engage employees, teams, and corporate cultures to engender trust.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology for this qualitative
exploratory study on the challenges of establishing trust in the 100% remote workplace in highgrowth technology consulting firms. This approach provided context and understanding around
the interdependent factors of environment, behavior, and individual actions that contribute to and
define the concept of trust. The applicability of the SCT and a constructionist approach to the
research is described in depth in this chapter. The research plan, including the methodology,
study participants, procedures, analysis method, and ethical concerns, are also the primary focus
areas of this chapter.
Research Questions
In an effort to understand the nature of trust in the remote workplace for high-growth
technology consultancies, this study employed qualitative exploratory research. The participants
were individual contributors and first-time managers within high-growth technical consulting
firms that have adopted a 100% remote workplace. This study leveraged the following research
questions:
1. What are the beliefs and perceptions of employees relative to trust in the 100%
remote workplace?
2. Based upon the observed behavior of peers and managers, what actions and
attributes define trust in the 100% remote workplace?
3. What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain trust based on the
actions and interaction of leadership, culture, and observed behavior?

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 53
Methodology
Merriam (2009) described the objective of using qualitative research as a method to learn
and gain an understanding of the participant’s experienced perceptions within their given
environment. This study examined employees within a high-growth technology consulting firm
and their personal experience of trust within their 100% remote workplace. A qualitative study
seeks to understand the human experience and that which cannot be revealed in whole or in part
through quantitative research (Polit & Beck, 2016).
This study was conducted using a constructivist approach. Constructivist inquiry asserts
that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals based on their experiences, beliefs, and
interactions with the world. It acknowledges the role of the researcher’s subjectivity and social
context in shaping the research process and understanding (Creswell, 2013). The research
questions for this study were founded in the SCT (Bandura, 2012), and the operational definition
of trust was constructed from Creed and Miles (1996). The SCT focuses on the reciprocal
interactions between people, environment, and behavior and was appropriate for this study
because it allowed examination of the interactions between resident knowledge, beliefs, and
behavior, and the contextual factors that influence the experience of the workforce as they
navigate the 100% remote workplace. The operational definition of trust examined the influence
of observed behavior of peers, managers, and leadership within the environment that reinforced
or constrained trust. A key aspect of qualitative research is to identify the perceptions of
participants in the study (Yin, 2013). Through open-ended interviews and coding for elements of
trust, this study sought to capture the contextual experience and understand the concept of trust
across each of the participants from within a single environment.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 54
Design of the Instrument
The interview protocol was designed by aligning the common organizational trust
attributes derived from the literature, with the SCT constructs of individual beliefs and
perceptions, observed behaviors of peers and managers, and the lived experience within the
100% remote work environment (Bandura, 2012). These questions were then aligned with the
appropriate research questions to endure a thorough exploration of the concepts of organizational
trust. In this manner, the first set of questions explores the individuals’ beliefs and perceptions of
organizational trust, which informs their initial propensity to trust within the remote workplace
(Creed & Miles, 1996). The subsequent set of questions explored the observed behaviors of peers
and managers that either promote or constrain trust, inform the cognitive or affective drivers of
trust (Creed & Miles, 1996), and reinforce the original propensity of the individual to trust in the
future (Creed & Miles, 1996; Bandura, 2012). Finally, the last set of questions probed about the
work environment, and the observed behaviors and attributes of managers, leadership, and peers
that collectively contribute to feelings and perceptions of organizational trust (Creed & Miles,
1996; Bandura, 2012). In this manner, the instrument explored the nature and reciprocal impact
of trust at the individual, group, and organizational level (Creed & Miles, 1996; Bandura, 2012).
Table 3 illustrates the interview instrument used in this study.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 55
Table 3
Interview Instrument
Question Conceptual Mapping Bandura Construct Attributes of Trust RQ
1. Can you tell me about
your role in the company,
how long you have been
here, and the different
roles you have had?
ConnectednessFormal Relationships
Ability
Competence
Autonomy
Self-efficacy
Security
RQ1,
RQ2,
RQ3
2. How would you define
trust in the work
environment?
RQ1
3. What are the
characteristics of trust
that you see in your
work environment?
4. Tell me how you
perceive the ability of
your coworkers. Your
leadership?
5. Tell me what you think
about your coworker’s
competence.
Leadership competence.
6. Tell me how your
coworkers and leadership
act benevolently or
positively toward others.
7. How do these ideas
affect your work?
8. How do they affect the
achievement of the
organization’s goals?
Observed or reputational
ability, competence, and
benevolence positively
influences the cognitive
calculus to trust in a
desired outcome
(Mayer, 1986).
Bandura (1986) emphasized
the significance of
observational learning, where
individuals learn by observing
the behaviors of others,
particularly role models or
peers. Observing that ability,
competence, and benevolent
behavior is rewarded within the
environment increases the
propensity to trust.
Ability
Competence
Benevolence
RQ1,
RQ2,
RQ3
9. How confident are you
in your ability to fulfill
your responsibilities at
work?
10. How would you
describe yourself at work?
Do you go the extra mile
with attention to detail, or
cut corners just to get the
job done.
11. Describe your
impressions of workplace
communication among
your peers. To/from
leadership?
Observed and
experienced authentic,
consistent, and open
communication within
the work environment
builds and reinforces
cognitive calculus to
trust in a desired
outcome (Chudona,
2005; Gajendran, 2012;
Gardner, 2020; Grant
2019).
Bandura’s (1997) concept of
self-efficacy is highly relevant
to trust in the workplace. An
employee’s belief in their
ability to fulfill their
responsibilities with
competence and integrity can
influence their trustworthiness.
If employees have high
self-efficacy in their roles, they
are more likely to be
dependable and reliable, as
well as open to taking risks and
being vulnerable.
Authentic
and Open
Communication
RQ1,
RQ2

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 56
Question Conceptual Mapping Bandura Construct Attributes of Trust RQ
12. Tell me how
knowledge is shared
throughout the
organization?
Observed and
experienced knowledge
sharing at both the team
and peer level builds
and reinforces cognitive
calculus to trust (Bick,
2020a; Chiu, 2006;
Edwards, 2020;
Gajendran, 2012;
Grant, 2019).
Bandura’s concept of vicarious
reinforcement can be applied to
knowledge sharing. When
employees witness their peers
being recognized or rewarded
for sharing valuable knowledge
or ideas, they are more likely to
engage in similar knowledgesharing behaviors. Conversely,
if they observe negative
consequences, such as criticism
or rejection, it may discourage
them from sharing their
knowledge.
Knowledge Sharing
RQ1,
RQ2
13 How would you
describe the relationships
in the organization?
Among your coworkers?
With management?
Formal or informal?
14. How would you
describe the structure of
the organization? Does it
work toward or against
achieving corporate goals?
When employees have
strong interpersonal
relationships within the
formal reporting
structure, it reinforces
perceptions of security
(Kurtzberg & Levin,
2020), and builds
feelings of identity and
affinity within the
formal organizational
environment (Huang,
2017). These elements
build and reinforce both
the cognitive and
affective calculus to
trust (Liao, 2020).
Formal hierarchies can
influence employees’ selfefficacy. They learn from their
managers and peers about how
information flows within the
organization. Observational
learning here can involve
understanding the chain of
command, reporting structures,
and official communication
channels. Those who feel
confident in their ability to
navigate and communicate
within formal structures are
more likely to share
information with their
superiors or colleagues.
ConnectednessFormal Relationships
RQ1,
RQ2
Repeat Question 13 When employees have
strong interpersonal
relationships within
informal networks
outside of the formal
reporting structure, it
promotes and reinforces
feelings of self-efficacy
(Huang, 2017), access to
resources, builds
feelings of identity and
affinity within the intra -
organizational
environment (Ibarra,
1993). These elements
build and reinforce both
the cognitive and
affective calculus to
trust (Gulatti & Sytch
2007; Liao 2020)
Informal networks, often
represented by social
connections and relationships,
are important for observational
learning. Employees observe
how information and
knowledge flow through these
Informal channels. Observing
who communicates with whom
and who is seen as a trusted
information source can
influence employees' own
communication and
knowledge-sharing behaviors.
ConnectednessInformal Networks
RQ1,
RQ2

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 57
Question Conceptual Mapping Bandura Construct Attributes of Trust RQ
15. Describe your feelings
of intellectual and
emotional safety in the
organization. How does it
affect your daily
performance?
16. Describe your freedom
to express yourself. How
can you express
disagreements with others
and with management?
Employees whose
observed and
experienced behavior
make them feel safe and
supported, have a higher
propensity to trust
(Edmondson, 1999;
Sinek, 2014; Wang &
Yang, 2020).
Perceptions of safety
build and reinforce both
the cognitive and
affective calculus to
trust (Edmondson, 1999;
Sinek, 2014; Wang &
Yang, 2020).
When employees observe their
colleagues or superiors
engaging in open and
respectful communication,
expressing concerns without
fear of reprisal, and actively
listening to others, they are
more likely to model these
behaviors. Positive role models
can set the tone for a
psychologically safe work
environment.
The overall workplace climate,
which is influenced by the
collective behaviors and
interactions of employees and
leaders, can shape feelings of
psychological safety. Positive
interactions and supportive
responses create a reinforcing
cycle that promotes
psychological safety.
Security/Safety
RQ1,
RQ2
Note. RQ = research question.
Recruiting and Engagement Procedures
Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained from the
University of Southern California. Once approval was received, the researcher engaged
with high-growth technology firms and began the recruitment process. The participating
firms were required to endorse this research project and assist in the recruitment of the
participants through internal email and social engagement. An opt-in registration page was
offered to provide information about the study, provide access to informed consent, and
facilitate the recruitment of participants. The firms targeted for this research study were
operating in a 100% remote work environment. The sampling targeted 5-6 candidates per
firm. Once a minimum number of participants were signed up, interviews commenced, and
the study was conducted over approximately three months, until data saturation was
reached.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 58
Interview Participants
The researcher employed purposeful sampling to construct a cohort of employees
that reflected the targeted population of front-line employees and first-tier managers with
0-8 years of experience. This study included 13 participants, who represented varying roles
within the context of organizational trust across four different organizations. The
participants held positions in engineering, engineering management, and business
functions, with varying levels of experience ranging from 0 to 8 years. The researcher
employed this method to ensure insights on the nature of trust between employees, peers,
and managers, as individual contributors and as some enter initial management ranks
(Santrock, 2019). The data with corresponding confidential profiles of the participants was
stored in a Google drive under password protection and were destroyed after the study was
completed.
The interview process was conducted with participants from high-growth
technology consulting firms that have adopted a 100% remote workplace. Participants
were full-time employees with 0-8 years of experience. These demographics reflected
employees in their formative years of building trusted interpersonal relationships with both
peers and customers (Gulati & Sytch, 2007), and were individual contributors or first-time
managers. This sampling also ensured employees that were building peer-to-peer
relationships (Costa, 2003) as well as first-level management roles within the organization
(Grant & Cross, 2019; Santrock 2021). Aside from the 0-8 years of experience
requirement, participants had no age limitation or gender bias. All participants were fluent
in English, but English did not have to be their native language. There were no educational
prerequisites, as gainful employment in a high-growth tech consulting firm ensured that all

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 59
participants had the required experience and context to contribute to the study effectively.
The justification for the 0-8 years of experience is that employees with more than eight
years of experience tend to have already established trusted relationships before the move
to remote work (Zhu & Chen, 2021) and were likely approaching a specialization that
allows for autonomy in their career (Santrock, 2019).
Interview Protocol
Trust is a very contextual term and is likely to have varied meanings to the participants
who are highly specialized individuals in their work responsibilities (Roblek et al., 2021). This
exploratory study employed semi-structured and open-ended interview questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015) that focused on emotional and behavioral triggers around workplace experiences
(Patton, 2002a), as shown in Table 3. Open-ended interviews provided the best instrument to
capture the context and nuances of participants’ experiences and perspectives. The qualitative
research design utilized an interview protocol consisting of 16 questions aligned across the three
research questions. Because trust is personal and nuanced, participants approached the topic with
enthusiasm and responded expansively to some question items. Open-ended interviews allowed
participants to express themselves freely, providing detailed and in-depth responses. The subject
of trust may trigger a guarded posture of employees in the high-growth technology consulting
firm, so the protocol applied interpretive questions to address each topic sequentially (Patton,
2002b) to put the participant at ease. To elicit meaningful and authentic responses, the researcher
gave participants the latitude to guide the interview and conversation to where they felt most
comfortable or enthusiastic, leveraging prompts and probes to ensure each question topic could
be explicitly addressed. The researcher adapted his questions based on participant responses,
allowing for a deeper exploration of emerging themes and novel approaches to inquiry

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 60
(Charmaz, 2014). Instruments used for this qualitative exploratory study were virtual interview
sessions that employed open-ended questions. This richness in data allowed the researcher to
gain a comprehensive understanding of participants’ experiences, perspectives, and emotions
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Research Methods and Data Treatment
In qualitative research, employing rigorous and systematic coding techniques is essential
for extracting meaningful insights from your data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The initial method
employed to analyze the interview data was a priori coding, based upon the prevailing trust
attributes derived from the literature, which established a set of predefined codes based on
existing research and theoretical frameworks (Gibbs, 2018). The researcher utilized the interview
protocol, employing a priori coding with the web-based Atlas.ai coding tool, across the 13
participants. Table 4 exhibits how this coding method drew upon trust attributes distilled from
the literature review applied to the participant interviews.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 61
Table 4
Concentration of A Priori Codes from Participant Interviews
Code Manager Quotations
Authenticity/Transparency 57
Ability/Competence Experience 40
Reliance/Reliability 32
Connectedness 64
Self-Efficacy 14
Knowledge Sharing 34
Transactional Trusta 20
Character-SafeSpaceb 37
Communication 34
Note. Exp = experience. a Merged from transactional and autonomy. b Merged from benevolence and security.
Once the initial interviewing a priori coding was completed, the researcher applied
additional coding methods such as emergent coding. Emergent coding systems are codes that are
derived from the data itself without relying on any prior assumptions or expectations (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). After emergent coding, the researcher applied axial coding and reflexive reviews.
Axial coding involves a more in-depth exploration of the data, seeking to identify relationships
and connections between codes, and allows the researcher to organize codes into broader
categories or themes, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying patterns
and concepts within the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Upon re-coding the interview data with
more granular and nuanced codes, the researcher actively applied thematic coding to delve
deeper into the data, revealing recurring themes, patterns, and overarching concepts. Thematic
coding helps distill the data and helps the researcher construct a compelling narrative supported

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 62
by data (Gibbs, 2018). Through these reflective and progressive methods of analysis, the
researcher was able to identify and distill patterns and themes that contributed to the findings in
Chapter 4. A more detailed description of the data treatment and analysis described above is
included in Appendix D.
Data Saturation
The data obtained from the 13 interviews indicates data saturation, signifying that
sufficient data has been collected for drawing necessary conclusions. In the research process,
data saturation occurs when the researcher collects adequate data, beyond which further
collection does not yield additional insights (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). After two re-coding
cycles, the underlying coding achieved consistency and stability. No new codes emerged,
affirming support for thematic analysis.
Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability
are essential to establishing trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). One method to
ensure credibility and transferability was validating that participants have the appropriate
experience to provide context to the problem of practice (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Both
demographic data about the participants, collected during the onboarding process (as
shown in Appendix B), and specific contextual narratives from participant interviews were
used to establish patterns and themes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).
One way to establish confirmability was to recognize researcher bias and document
the actions taken to mitigate perceived bias. Following the same collection procedures
consistently for all participants ensured data integrity and trustworthiness. Further,
retaining both the recording and transcriptions through an independent process

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 63
demonstrated data veracity and credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Memoranda writing and constant comparative analysis helped minimize bias
because both activities were reflective, which promoted objectivity throughout the study
(Birks & Mills, 2011). Memoranda were implemented to capture key thoughts while
conducting the interviews, and comparative analysis was used to foster consistent
interpretation and representation across interviews and time (Birks & Mills, 2011). Openended interview questions and assurance of confidentiality were intended to elicit authentic
responses and help mitigate researcher bias and ambiguity, reinforcing credibility
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Interview recordings were reviewed and transcribed individually. A priori coding
was applied based on the trust attributes provided by the conceptual framework on trust, as
introduced in Chapter Two (Seidel & Urquhart, 2013). Transcripts and coding were
revisited in reflective reviews, that allowed for potential new themes to emerge through
emergent coding.
Positionality of the Researcher
As the researcher, my positionality was of a senior leader who has led change within
high-growth technology consulting companies for over a decade. Due to my tenure across
multiple technology consulting companies, I have seen employees of all ages and levels of
experience respond individually and in teams to the demands of high growth and constant
change. While remote work and remote consulting delivery were pioneered across these “born in
the cloud” firms, there was almost always a regional headquarters to serve as the foundational
source of the culture and identity of the firm. Additionally, the customer’s place of business was
where the consulting services were delivered and served as a transitional home base for the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 64
individuals and teams delivering the services. This successful hybrid model was enabled by
technology, cultural agility, and transformational leadership.
Most recently, I led a global team of sales, pre-sales, and partnership alliance
professionals entirely by Zoom for almost a year on the back end of the COVID-19 pandemic
and shutdown. This experience led directly to my interest in this study, as I had to develop new
ways of establishing trust or mitigating the lack of it through this experience. My relationship
with the participants in this study was as an industry leader, perhaps recognized but several times
removed from the participants through their professional network. This distant positionality may
have helped put them at ease, and I understood their market and work environment. It may also
have created some anxiety if our associations were too proximal, which could have impeded
honest discourse without the ability to increase trust in communication. Therefore, none of the
participants in this study were known to me, which helped mitigate biased responses.
As a researcher, I brought some bias to this study. My personal experience and
observations have led me to believe there are unrecognized and unaddressed challenges to the
100% remote work operating model related to trust and quality interpersonal relationships. I also
recognized the advantages many workers enjoy in this model and was open to the idea that those
advantages may ultimately outweigh the challenges. I mitigated these biases by ensuring the
interviews were open-ended and encouraged open participant responses (Applebaum et al.,
2011). I allowed for alternate outcomes from the research when conducting the interviews and
coding the transcripts.
Limitations and Challenges to the Research
Since time and logistics were not conducive to in-person interviews, these interviews
were conducted remotely through Zoom. Given the highly personal and contextual nature of

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 65
trust, this was not ideal. Increased attention to verbal communication and context during the
interview was essential to overcoming the impact of missing non-verbal cues (Andersen et al.,
2006).
The novel and perceived transitory nature of the 100% remote work environment
introduced a confounding variable in the research. Employees who enjoyed the novel concepts of
their autonomy and work-life balance may not yet have felt the effects of diminished trust or
interpersonal relationships in the workplace. These dynamics may not yet have impacted their
productivity, well-being, or performance because they are relying on trusted relationships created
before the shift to 100% remote work.
The researcher’s potential association with firm executives may have caused some
participants to limit the depth of their answers. This limitation was addressed in part through
assurances of confidentiality. Further, this limitation was avoided by onboarding protocols to
build rapport that led to engaging in honest exchanges throughout the interview.
Open-ended interviews were well-suited for investigating sensitive and personal topics.
Participants disclosed sensitive information at their own pace, fostering a comfortable and
respectful environment (Fontana & Frey, 2005). Participants varied in age and experience within
the 0-8 year framework. While this is typical for a high-growth tech consulting environment, it
revealed differing patterns and themes. Consistency using Zoom video conference and Otter.ai
transcriptions to capture the interviews helped prevent the researcher from adding to or
excluding any data from the participants’ interviews. Coding the interviews using a thematic
structure and using memoranda and reflection ensured an objective interpretation of the data by
the researcher (Birks & Mills, 2011).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 66
Ethical Concerns
This study had a commitment to ethical conduct. The informed consent form, as shown in
Appendix C, was reviewed with each participant to ensure complete disclosure and
understanding. The risks to human subjects associated with this study were minimal. All
participants were over 18 years of age and were not expected to present any impaired mental
capacity, as determined by their ability to perform the positions they held in the 100% remote
workplace. Meeting these criteria qualified them as participants in this study. Additionally, all
recorded materials were destroyed once the study was completed and final approval was
obtained by the research committee—to minimize any future risks related to confidentiality.
Summary
This chapter outlined the research method used to answer the research questions that
addressed the problem of practice. A discussion of the procedure, study participants, data
collection, and interview questions outlined how the study was conducted and who participated.
A constructivist qualitative study grounded in the SCT was used to develop an open-ended
interview approach on trust in the 100% remote workplace among high-growth technology
consulting companies. The goal of Chapter Four will be to provide the study results and
demonstrate that the methodology described in Chapter Three was followed.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 67
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of trust in the 100% remote work
environment within high-growth technology consulting firms. Understanding the contributing
and limiting factors of establishing, maintaining, and building upon trusted relationships is
essential for the workplace and workforce in the 100% remote, post-pandemic work
environment. Trust is critical in employee motivation, productivity, self-efficacy, and well-being
(Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995; Zak, 2017). Trust is also essential in building
formal and informal networks, critical to employee success within an organization (Brougham &
Haar, 2018; Zhu & Chen, 2021). Organizational trust also provides the bedrock for organizations
to withstand, adapt, and innovate in the face of disruptive change (Bess, 2015; Bick, 2020a;
Bick, 2020b; Eisenbeiss, 2008; Jensen, 2018; Roblek, 2021).
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
The interview structure was aligned with the social cognitive theoretical framework,
which focuses on the interplay of beliefs and perceptions of individuals, the behaviors in the
environment, and the reinforcement of behavior and beliefs in the environment (Bandura, 2012).
Applied to the nature of trust, this research explored how trust is perceived based on individual
beliefs, how trust is reinforced or constrained based on the observed behaviors of peers and
leadership, and how trust manifests in the 100% remote work environment. This research
leveraged the key definition of trust: the willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on
positive expectations of their intentions or behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). Adapted to the
conceptual framework of Creed and Miles (1996), this study focused on the concept of
organizational trust, which assumes trust actions are taken based on some baseline propensity,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 68
which is reinforced positively or negatively by behavior and outcomes within the environment.
Organizational trust reinforces or constrains the propensity for subsequent trust acts (see Figure
1).
Participant interviews addressed the following three research questions:
1. What are the beliefs and perceptions of employees relative to trust in the 100%
remote workplace?
2. Based upon the observed behavior of peers and managers, what actions and attributes
define trust in the 100% remote workplace?
3. What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain trust based on the
actions and interaction of leadership, culture, and observed behavior?
Insights from this research could lead to developing methods and resources aimed at
instilling, ensuring, and reinforcing trust within high-growth technology consulting firms. These
efforts would focus on fostering trustful relationships internally within the organization and
externally with new and ongoing clients. Such initiatives become particularly relevant within the
context of a 100% remote work environment.
Participants
The interview process was conducted with participants from high-growth technology
consulting firms that have adopted a 100% remote workplace. The participants represented firms
that varied in size, from smaller firms of 25 employees to global firms of over 250,000
employees. Revenues of the firms ranged from $3.8 million to over $11 billion in annual revenue
in 2023. The firms shared common attributes: they positioned themselves as high-growth
technology consulting firms, provided technology-related professional services, operated within
the cloud technology market and ecosystem, specifically Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 69
Microsoft Azure Cloud, or ServiceNow, and embraced a 100% remote workplace environment.
The participants varied in experience, with some having between 0 and 4 years of
experience in the industry, or specifically in their current respective roles. This purposeful
sampling ensured participants who were in the process of building peer-to-peer relationships
(Costa, 2003) as well as first-level management roles within their respective organizations (Grant
& Cross, 2019; Santrock, 2021). Of the 13 participants, five were female, and eight were male.
Of the 13 participants, nine participants had two years of experience or less in the role, and four
participants had between two and four years of experience in the role. None of the participants
had more than four years of experience in their role. Table 5 illustrates the experience categories.
Table 5
Participants’ Range of Experience with Current Employer
Count
2 years or less 9
Between 2 and 4
years
4
Between 5 and 8
years
0
Total 13
Participants’ demographics varied in pre-existing interpersonal connections to their coworkers. Of the 13 participants, five had no prior relationships with employees of the firm, three
of the participants knew one person at the firm, and five participants knew multiple employees at
the firm prior to interviewing. During the interview process to join the prospective firm, only one
participant had a face-to-face meeting, while the other 12 participants participated in remote
interviews. During the onboarding process, only one participant met anyone face-to-face, and the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 70
other 12 participants completed their respective onboarding remotely. Table 6 illustrates the
three aspects of connectedness in pre-existing interpersonal connections to their co-workers or
prior relationships with employees of the firm. One noteworthy outlier met face-to-face during
the firm’s interview and onboarding process. This participant requested the meeting and venue
due to the perceived value of face-to-face engagement.
Table 6
Participants’ Demographics on Connectedness
Question Item Response Count
Did you know anyone
at the company before
joining?
No 5
Yes, I knew one person 3
Yes, I knew multiple people 5
Total 13
Did you meet anyone
face-to-face during the
interview process?
Yes 1
No 12
Total 13
Did you meet anyone
face-to-face through the
on-boarding process?
Yes 1
No 12
Total 13
Of the 13 participants, five identified as female, and eight identified as male. Four were
individual contributing engineers, two were engineering managers, and seven operated a
business function, such as sales, human resources, and project management. Table 7 illustrates
the overall demographics of participants, with pseudonyms given for the purposes of this study.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 71
Table 7
Participants’ Demographic Information and Coding Analysis
Participant
(pseudonym)
Organization
Type Gender Role
Ashton CND F Business Function
Judson CND F Business Function
Rick CND M Engineer
Julian CND M Engineer
Camile CND F Business Function
Rod CND M Engineer
Gibson CND M Business Function
Summer CND F Business Function
Michael CND M Engineer Manager
Scott CND M Engineer
Nolan GSI M Business Function
Linda GSI F Business Function
Davis GSI M Engineer Manager
Note. CDN = content distribution network. GSI = global system integrator.
Findings for Research Question 1: Beliefs and Perceptions
The first research question provided an opportunity for exploration into different facets of
the participants’ beliefs and perceptions of trust in the 100% remote workplace. In response to
research question one, participants communicated three major contributors to their propensity to
trust: past work experiences and relationships, early experiences with the firm, and transactional
approach to functional trust. First, participants referenced past work experiences and
relationships as foundational contributors to their initial propensity to trust. Participants

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 72
discussed early experiences with and impressions of the firm through interviewing and
onboarding as early indicators of trust in the 100% remote workplace. Second, participants
collectively discussed a transactional approach to functional trust, also referred to as swift trust,
within the context of their work environment. Third, participants embraced trust in the
competence of their peers and management, without the need for evidence or knowledge of
reputation, until a compelling reason emerged to do otherwise. These three themes are presented
to outline the interconnectedness in participants’ beliefs and perceptions of trust in the 100%
remote workplace and the propensity to trust in leadership and the organization.
Past Work Experiences and Relationships
Participants actively considered enabling and cautionary examples from past experiences
when evaluating the firm before joining, during their interview, onboarding process, and through
initial workplace engagement. This reflection encompassed the consideration of trust attributes.
Further, past experience with co-workers and established trusted relationships was reported as
one of the foundational contributors to trust in the 100% remote workplace.
Gibson, a manager of a business function at a CND firm, indicated that past co-worker
relationships contributed to his decision to join the firm, stating, “Our [vice president] and I
actually worked very closely together on a customer account in our early [consulting] days. …
That had a lot to do with my … being … considered for the position, and for my coming on
board.” Rick, an engineering manager at a CND firm, stated that he had previous relationships
with the founders as a client, through other interactions in the same partner ecosystem, and those
past associations contributed to his decision to join the firm. Similarly, Julian, an engineer at a
CND firm, related how a friend’s family connection with the firm’s founder-led to his initial

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 73
introduction and decision to join the firm. Janice, a manager of a business function at a CND
firm, discussed an indirect relationship with the founder of the firm. Janice said:
My husband and [the founder] actually knew each other and worked together ... they
stayed friends over Facebook. … [The founder] reached out to my husband and was just
like, “Hey, you know, started my own business, and we are looking for just some admin
help.” We hadn’t seen each other, like, for ten years. … I was like, yeah, I can do it!
These past associations occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic and included, at the very least,
partial in-person work environments. These sentiments underscore the importance of strong
interpersonal relationships and the impact of connectedness on trust propensity.
Where participants could not leverage previously established trusted relationships, past
work experiences grounded the situational propensity to trust in the remote workplace. Nolan, a
manager of a business function at a GSI firm, described past positive experiences with inclusive
decision-making and how he looks for that as an early indicator of trust in the workplace. Nolan
stated: “[Former employees] still write back and say that was one of the things they appreciated
the most about me [inclusive decision-making], [so] those types of leadership traits are ones that
I seek out.” Camile, the manager of a business function at a CND firm, discussed the lack of
collaboration and innovation at her past job and how that led her to pursue a role with a company
with an open knowledge-sharing culture as an indicator of competence and trust. Camile stated:
“To make a decision that could’ve been solved in a 15-minute call … it takes 2 to 3 weeks!”
Rick discussed how negative experiences with social networks could have impacted reluctance to
share past knowledge through that medium in the workplace, “maybe our brains, when we look
at it, … this looks like Facebook or Twitter. [Employees] have to think about what your
perception…what you’re putting out there.” These past experiences span trust attributes, such as

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 74
authentic and inclusive communication, knowledge sharing, and competence, and set employee
expectations for trusting behaviors and ground the initial propensity to trust within the 100%
remote work environment.
Participants also shared past experiences with poor management or decision-making as
foundational to their perceptions of trust in the remote workplace. Summer, a manager of a
business function at a CND firm, described past experiences with authenticity and transparency
that grounded her expectations for trust in the 100% remote work environment, stating, “I’ve
seen two extremes, no transparency at all, and … bordering on too much transparency. … Just be
[authentic].” Gibson also related a past work experience where leadership repeatedly asked for
sacrifices from employees, while repeatedly failing to address systemic issues with company
performance, as being “a master class in bad management.” Scott, an engineering manager at a
CND firm, also discussed past experiences regarding autonomy and how that is an early
indicator of trust, “it’s been my experience that … [when management] micromanages, it
signifies a drop in trust [and they] likely do not have a lot of trust in your ability.” These past
experiences exhibit trust attributes, such as authentic communication, job autonomy, and the
character and competence of leadership, that set employee expectations for trusting behaviors
and ground the initial propensity to trust within the 100% remote work environment.
Early Engagement and Reputation
Participants indicated that the initial propensity to trust can also be informed and
influenced by early impressions of the organization through reputation, and the interview and
onboarding processes. Since these are the preliminary and initial engagement points for the
employee, they provide early indicators for the 100% remote work environment. Further,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 75
participants underscored the pivotal role of early experiences during the interview and
onboarding processes as early indicators of competence trust formation.
In this study, 90% of the participants were interviewed entirely remotely by their
respective firms, and none of the participants reported any issues with this process. Participants
indicated that reputation was an important point of reference during the interview process.
Summer described how digital reference points (social media) and reputation were essential to
building trust during the recruiting and interview process. She stated: “[When] they contacted me
via LinkedIn. … I initially thought it was a scam … so the first thing I did was look at key
people in the company’s LinkedIn work histories.” Summer also related that “one of the most
influential things was seeing that there was 100% CEO approval on Glassdoor, and … the [other]
high Glassdoor ratings.” Likewise, Rod, an engineering manager at a CND firm, had a family
member who knew of the firm’s reputation, which contributed to his willingness to trust in the
organization and accept the job offer. Davis, an engineering manager at a GSI firm, expressed
the reputation of the hiring team as change agents as a contributing factor in his decision to join
the company. He said, “I likely wouldn’t have joined the organization, but the reputation of the
[executive] team in driving change was a factor [in accepting the job].” Trust attributes such as
reputation, competence, and connectedness through indirect relationships contributed to the early
propensity to trust.
Participants’ experiences with the onboarding process were less favorable. Julian
described a challenging onboarding process. She stated, “My training process, honestly, wasn’t
good at all. It was really tedious.” Linda, a manager of a business function at a GSI firm,
described the onboarding process as abysmal. She stated, “Let’s just say onboarding was … even
worse for me than what I [previously] heard, [and worse than] what a few other people had given

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 76
feedback about.” Nolan expressed frustration at how hard it was to get connected to essential
personnel and processes during his onboarding process. He stated, “We have a bunch of
individual high performers that have all been brought into a team and being told to mesh, with
very little guidance and direction.” Most participants expressed expectations that the
organization would provide effective training and resources during onboarding to help ensure
success. Julian related how the poor onboarding impacted his self-efficacy early on, “for a long
time ... I would say that I just wasn’t confident in the work I was doing.” The onboarding process
is an early indicator of competence and the level of training and support that employees might
expect throughout their employment. Transactional or swift trust is centered on competence, so
these failures of competence during these early experiences negatively impacted self-efficacy
and early impressions of competence, which constrained the propensity to trust within a remote
work environment.
Swift Trust
The most prevalent and significant indicator of the nature of trust in the 100% remote
workplace was the emergence of swift trust. Notably, 100% of participants gave responses that
reflected transactional or swift trust. Swift trust is defined as the rapid formation of trust among
individuals with limited prior interaction (Meyerson et al., 1996). The concept of swift trust
becomes particularly relevant in remote work contexts, where face-to-face interactions are
limited.
In their responses, 100% of participants described decisions to trust in the character and
competence of their peers and management without the customary cognitive or affective inputs
that typically inform a trust act. Janice described this tendency as follows:

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 77
Especially when you’re remote, you don’t have those hallway conversations. … There’s a
lot of communication that takes place that ensures things stay on track. … You really
need to trust … that people are doing the action that they said they were going to.
This reliance on peers to be competent and conscientious was echoed by Camile, a manager of a
business function at a CND firm, stating, “When you work remotely, people [have to] trust that
… you do what you say you’re going to do.” Julian articulated the initial swift trust as follows: “I
think trust in my [peers] is how to get the work done. So initially, I do … put a lot of trust in
people. … I’ll trust that you’ll be someone [I can] rely on.” Ashton characterized transactional
swift trust as “believing that people are going to do what they say they’re going to do … and
then secondarily, there aren’t any … nefarious schemes [playing] out.” Through swift trust,
participants choose to trust in the competence, reliability, and character of their peers, and
management in order to operate in the 100% remote work environment.
Participants communicated that transactional or swift trust is a key attribute of delivering
client projects in a 100% remote environment. Camile explained that delivering consulting
projects or solutions in a 100% remote work environment is inherently transactional, stating,
“The only [reassurance] for them [is] that it’s okay to trust me to handle their project … [and]
I’m consistent in the way I behave and present my team’s work.” Summer highlights, “I don’t
have the opportunity to take them to lunch or have a coffee with them, [and try] to build them a
personal relationship.” Michael noted that clients operating in 100% remote workplaces may
lack the inclination or capacity to engage more deeply beyond the transactional demands of the
project delivery. He remarked, “[In the past] we’d travel to the client to kick off the project …
work through building the relationship type stuff as we’re designing [the solution].” Michael
further explains, “[Now] they’re staring at kind of an invisible face on the other end and they

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 78
may not always see those cues and those things that see how the message is received.” Gibson
described the challenges inherent in the 100% remote project delivery model, highlighting the
inability of clients to observe the additional effort, creativity, and occasional grit (perseverance)
required to successfully execute demanding projects. He stated, “When we were in the office,
they [could] see all the late nights trying to scramble [to] meet the crazy requirements … [now]
we’re more like a machine.” While swift trust is extended by the client, so too are the heightened
expectations that everyone will validate that trust via demonstrated competence, reliability, and
communication. The lack of traditional venues to build interpersonal relationships leaves more
reliance on the transactional competence of the firm’s project teams.
In this study, participants’ autonomy emerged as a highly valued characteristic of remote
work, and an example of swift trust granted by managers and leadership. Employees perceive
autonomy and freedom to improvise as a vote of confidence by management, which promotes
reciprocal trust in the employee and informs the propensity to trust in the 100% remote work
environment. Scott conceptualized autonomy as a form of trust, stating, “Trust means [having
confidence] that I’ll do what I’m employed to do … the duties that are up to me to perform. [I’ll
be] trusted to do without supervision.” Camile described the reciprocal trust embedded in the
unlimited paid time off policy, explaining, “You need time, …it’s fine. [As] long as your
projects, assignments, and clients are taken care of, it’s fine to organize your work and do
whatever you need to do.” Michael articulated that managers who grant swift trust and autonomy
also trust employees to reach out for help when needed, emphasizing, “You know what, we
haven’t had this happen yet … it’s happened, so we’re going to figure it out.” When autonomy
is granted, as a component of swift trust, employees interpret it as a vote of confidence that can
drive self-efficacy, reliability, and reciprocal trust.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 79
Participants communicated that fostering swift trust in the employee’s core competency
and reliability, along with granting autonomy, can facilitate desired outcomes, such as innovation
and creativity. Scott emphasized the importance of empowering employees to find more efficient
ways of working, stating, “We employ a lot of smart people. And if they find smarter ways to do
things, [that] breeds a good company culture and efficiencies, have at it!” Scott highlighted the
material (tangible) benefits and reciprocal trust extended to employees who utilize their
autonomy to contribute to the firm, stating how that creates a safe space to take risks on behalf of
the company, stating, “If they earned themselves some extra time, family, or side project, they
can absolutely take it.” Michael discussed how swift trust and autonomy can set expectations for
innovation, noting, “We don’t necessarily look for exact experience, [but] we know their drive
… and think they’re a good fit to grow. … It was a good risk worth taking.” Gibson underscored
the importance of pairing swift trust with authenticity to drive successful outcomes, expressing,
“Being open, like hey, we’re figuring out a lot of this as we go, and we’re [possibly] asking you
guys to do some things that you might not be familiar with.” Michael emphasized that in addition
to driving creativity, this approach also “goes a long way towards building [trust in] this
environment.” Finally, Davis shared that a combination of swift trust and creative challenges can
be difficult, but it can drive outcomes through collaboration. He states:
Not everyone can do it, say to a new team member ... I brought you here because you’re
smart … part of that competence is not just knowing answers or having capabilities, it’s
also [collaboratively] bringing [your] tools, [your] workbench, [and you] know how to set
[yourself and the team] up … to do the job right.
Granting swift trust and autonomy to team members, while also inspiring creativity and
collaboration, can lead to desired outcomes but also reciprocal trust and a sense of ownership.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 80
Summary
In the conceptual framework derived from Creed & Miles (1996), underpinned by the
SCT’s focus on the cognitive processes of the individual, the beliefs and perceptions of the
individual inform their initial propensity to trust. Participants described their propensity to trust
based on beliefs and perceptions of trust shaped by the connectedness of past relationships, firm
and leader reputation, and experiences with the interview and onboarding processes. These
experiences either affirmed or challenged trust attributes, such as competence, reliability,
character, and self-efficacy, laying the foundation for the propensity to trust. The most
significant theme to emerge from the research was the prevalence of swift trust as a substitute for
traditional interpersonal trust-building. Initially applied to geographically dispersed, virtual,
remote, and temporary or cyclical teams (Meyerson, 1996), swift trust was redefined by
participants in this study as a permanent contractual relationship or an interim coping
mechanism. For some, it served as a strategy to mitigate the risk and reward calculus associated
with trusting unfamiliar entities, while others embraced it as a means to foster autonomy and
thrive in a decentralized, dynamic, and collaborative work culture.
Findings for Research Question Two: Observed Behavior
The second research question explored the observed behaviors and interactions with
peers and management that encourage or inhibit trust in the 100% remote workplace. Findings
from the second research question resulted in themes of affirming or challenging swift trust,
intentional connection building (connectedness), and engagement through digital channels. First,
participants observed the behavior of others, through interactions with peers and management,
which either affirmed or challenged swift trust and reinforced their propensity to trust within an
organization. Participants also recounted incidents of failed trust and the methods required for

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 81
trust repair as validating or invalidating trust. Participants described intentional connection
building as a significant indicator of trust between peers and management, and connectedness
that reinforces trust in the organizational context. Participants articulated engagement through
digital channels as a necessary means to establish and fortify trust. For instance, community
building through interest groups, sharing personal topics and personas, and engaging in affinity
groups create interpersonal relationships. Participants presented these observed behaviors and
interactions as the methods by which trust is built, fortified, and in some cases invalidated, in the
100% remote workplace.
Navigating Swift Trust and Trust Repair
In a swift trust construct, participants affirm or challenge trust granted to peers and
management by observing competence, reliability, and character. Gibson stressed the importance
of demonstrating trustworthiness through actions, stating, “We’re in the state of ‘Missouri, the
show me state.’ You’ve got to demonstrate it. … Actions speak louder than words.” Gibson
emphasized consistency in words and actions for building trust, adding, “So when it comes to
building trust and rapport, [consistently] say what you mean, do what you say, and if we commit
to things or if you commit to something, I want to see those outcomes.” Rick highlighted the
expectation that peer behavior reflects technical competence and reliable communication in
project delivery. Camile underscored the significance of reliably delivering on commitments,
noting, “You have to trust based on what you see from people’s work. What have they done? …
Are they meeting their commitments? … I have nothing else to go by.”
The progression from swift trust to affirmed trust centers on peers and management
consistently demonstrating competence in the environment. Michael outlined the trust-building
process where an employee progressively earns more trust and autonomy, stating, “[If an

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 82
engineer] is new and I don’t know them very well, we have daily stand-ups to make sure that we
are in sync.” Starting with closely managed oversight, the goal is to transition to affirmed trust
and autonomy, as Gibson noted, “When I can witness the way someone works … I’m checking
certain boxes [so] that I can trust, but verify.” Gibson stated that this process allows him to relax
his oversight, adding,“[Then] I don’t need to go too deep with it, but … I can have confidence in
them.” Camile emphasized that this process of swift trust and validation applies to both
contractors and employees, stating, “It doesn’t matter [if] you’re a contractor or W-2 employee,
as long as you deliver and do what you say you’re going to do … everybody is [treated] the
same.” Julian described the iterative validating of swift trust, explaining, “I put a lot of trust in
[peers] … but … [it’s] like a three-strike system.” He highlighted the sentiments of several
participants that validated trust is conditional, stating, “As long as you continue to do your good
work … I’ll trust I can rely on [you] if we’re on a project together.” Participants applied a
gradual and conditional affirmation of trust, leading to a transition to automatic trust among
peers and managers.
In a swift trust construct, trust is granted or assumed until proven otherwise. In remote
work settings, participants detailed instances where trust repair focuses on restoring trust through
transactional competence. Rod shared an incident where trust failed due to competence issues,
noting, “I had a developer, [and] there was always something wrong with [his work], and I
always had to fix it.” Camile described a case of failed trust due to an engineer’s lack of
reliability, stating, “[Their] work wasn’t completed [on time] and I had to [do damage control],
which wasn’t … good for the [rest of the] team.” Similarly, Camile discussed the remediation
required, asserting, “We tr[ied] to address [the work] by having a conversation [coaching], …
that didn’t work. Commitments were … never met.” Davis remarked how trust repair entails

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 83
establishing expectations, followed by close monitoring of the employee’s performance and
conduct by peers and managers. Managers provide guidance where necessary until the employee
has demonstrated and rectified past trust failures. Participants communicated that trust repair
requires intervention by peers and managers to communicate expectations and action plans.
Failure of the employee to meet the required communication, competency, effort, or intention
may lead to irreversible erosion of trust.
Participants reported the challenges of trust repair when client relationships are
compromised. Delivery of technology solutions and consulting in a 100% remote delivery model
defaults to a transactional nature. Trust repair typically demands more diligent efforts and
includes a risk management aspect. Julian shared his feelings of dread and anxiety upon realizing
his mistake, stating, “I just felt, just this wave of … dread and anxiety [when I realized] that [it]
was my fault.” He described seeking help from a more experienced project manager, who
effectively redirected the client conversation towards solutions rather than blame or punitive
actions. The client emphasized the importance of avoiding future mistakes, prompting Julian to
double and triple-check code updates during deployment. Similarly, Camile stated that
demonstrating competence and reliable communication can mitigate trust repair, stating, “As
long as you manage the expectations and communicate properly with a client, even if it’s bad
news, it will be easier to handle.” She added, “They’re not going to like it, but it will be easier to
come up with an agreement on how to address it.” Rod highlighted the evolution of trust repair
with clients, noting that changing their perception overnight is unrealistic. He emphasized the
gradual validation of swift trust over time, sharing, “[If] they validate you once or twice, they’ve
[consistently received] the right answers … we should be able to trust them going forward.”
Participants discussed trust repair as an iterative process focusing on solutions rather than the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 84
offense. However, severe damage (risk) to client relationships may necessitate extreme
assurances of future competency, reliability, communication, or diligence from the offending
peer. In the 100% remote delivery model, participants actively addressed challenges in trust
repair when client relationships were compromised. Participants outlined initial trust repair
activities focusing on competence, and longer term trust repair through consistent and reliable
communication and project delivery.
Participants described scenarios where trust could not be repaired. Ashton communicated
the challenge of maintaining trust when individuals repeatedly fail to fulfill their promises and
commitments, stating, “[Peers and management] have a hard time believing someone’s
competent if they’re [repeatedly] not following through.” Julian shared an example of an
engineer whose repeated breaches (eroded trust) in his competency and remedial trust repair
actions failed, leading to termination, recalling, “[It got to the point where] we actually had to let
[him] go because [he was] on two or three different projects where this was a very constant
thing.”
Gibson related a similar scenario where trust repair efforts were unsuccessful due to an
engineer’s persistent lack of technical knowledge, diligence, and communication, which
compromised the success of client projects and business relationships. Gibson stated, “He
ignored [the partner’s technical] instructions … [then] didn’t even own that he dropped the ball,
no [accountability] for the fact that they’ve been trying to fix it for weeks.” Gibson further
emphasized the importance of skepticism when dealing with the engineer, stating, “Anytime his
name gets brought up, I’m like, double check it, whatever he says.” Likewise, Davis explained
that repeated trust failures often result in demotion or removal of offending employees, noting,
“The more things I have to worry about in the workplace, the less I can trust.” He stated the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 85
elevated risk associated with client-facing transgressions, noting, “As someone who doesn’t like
to be a micromanager, being forced into a micromanagement scenario [client-facing], that
probably doesn’t bode well for [the offending employee].” In cases where trust cannot be
repaired, the offending employee may lose their standing, even if they demonstrate repeated
competence, reliability, communication, and character, as compromising a client relationship is a
severe breach.
Intentional Connection Building and Connectedness
Connectedness through the building of interpersonal relationships is a foundational
element of organizational trust. This was prevalent in the face-to-face interactions of the
traditional in-person office environment (Andersen & Guerrero, 2006) but is difficult to replicate
in the 100% remote workplace. Participants discussed creating opportunities for interpersonal
relationships through video and digital collaboration. The following sections detail the various
tactics for authentic and intentional engagement
Establishing Authentic Connections
In the 100% remote workplace, participants described the challenges of establishing
authentic connections and highlighted the intentional efforts required to overcome this obstacle.
Julian expressed difficulty in interacting with colleagues he has not worked with before, stating,
“The bigger challenge I’ve had is talking to people who I haven’t worked with and haven’t been
on projects with, and so I’ve like never talked to them.” Camile noted that interactions tend to be
transactional in a remote setting compared to the opportunities for informal bonding in an office
environment, such as having coffee or lunch together. Linda emphasized the lack of face-to-face
communication and informal interactions, such as water cooler talk and going out to lunch,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 86
which limits opportunities to build rapport and understand colleagues on a personal and
professional level.
Rod echoed the same challenge posed by colleagues who do not actively participate in
online meetings or turn on their cameras, leading to a lack of engagement and information
sharing. He stated, “The people that don’t talk in meetings, and don’t have their [camera on], you
don’t get anything from them.” Summer reflected on the difference in building connections
between remote and in-person work settings, suggesting that in-office environments offer more
opportunities for spontaneous interactions and meaningful connections. Overall, participants
acknowledged the obstacles that the remote work environment created for interpersonal
communication, and the desire for engagement and connectedness, both internally and with
clients.
Building Intentional Engagement
In response to the challenges of remote work, participants emphasized the necessity of
actively engaging with colleagues beyond task-oriented interactions. Participants highlighted the
importance of intentional interaction, suggesting the importance of investing time in building
relationships deliberately. Linda stated, “I think for me [it’s] taking the time to actually … get
the opportunity to build interactions in an intentional manner.” Camile echoed this sentiment,
describing her approach to intentional connection building: “Sometimes I tried to set up a time to
get to know people, like I organized team building activities.” Michael underscored the need for
a balanced approach to personal connection, recognizing the diverse preferences among
individuals. He emphasized the individualized nature of remote outreach, noting, “Everybody’s
different, … but for the most part, I think people need that good healthy balance [of personal
connection].” Michael further explained the importance of tailoring engagement strategies to

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 87
each person’s unique preferences and needs, saying, “Each person individually … each one is
kind of a different puzzle. So you got to figure out … what makes them tick.” Linda reiterated
the importance of intentionality in building relationships, stating, “You have to be intentional
about it … really conscious of [it], and make sure you keep that structure, [it] helps build the
relationship and trust outside of the actual [tasks-related] work.” Overall, participants
emphasized the importance of intentional and varied approaches to interpersonal tailored
engagement strategies to overcome the limitations of remote work environments and foster
meaningful relationships.
Intentional Client Engagement
Participants discussed the importance (added value) of creating connections when
delivering consulting projects or solutions in a 100% remote work environment. Nolan
emphasized the need for intentional efforts to connect with clients on an authentic level,
recognizing the transactional nature of remote consulting delivery. Michael emphasized the
importance of side conversations linked to delivery, asserting that they are crucial for enhancing
client engagement and retention, and for achieving “stickiness.” He explained that, given a
choice, client stakeholders will prefer to work with established partners that they know, and with
whom they may have developed friendships. Michael encouraged team members to seek
opportunities to build these friendships and integrate fun into their work. He said, “If their
friends can do a halfway decent job, they’d rather work with them,” and relayed, “[I] encourage
all of our people [to seek] opportunities to build those friendships, … bring the fun into the work
that we do.” Nolan stated that there is a greater significance on those interpersonal relationships
because there are fewer opportunities for business and engineering stakeholders to form those,
now that most customers either are themselves remote or prefer 100% remote project delivery.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 88
Michael highlighted that client engagement also reveals talent differentiation and team
dynamics, aspects often shielded in remote delivery. He emphasized the irreplaceable value not
only of the technical deliverables but also of the team’s approach and collaboration demonstrated
in delivering technical solutions. He said, “The technical things you delivered were great, but
how you did it, and how [the team] worked to get [us] there, there’s no way [to] replicate that.”
Participants agreed on the strategic and interpersonal benefits of intentionally engaging clients
beyond transactional tasks, noting that such connections solidify commercial relationships and
create a more overall rewarding experience for the firm’s employees and the customer
stakeholders.
Intentional In-Person Connectedness
Participants emphasized the significance of face-to-face interactions facilitated by
corporate events like annual sales kick-offs, planning workshops, and industry conferences,
despite the predominantly remote nature of their workplace. Nolan stated, “I think it’s fair to
admit, remote work is capable of delivering … results, [but] there’s nothing that replaces inperson connections.” Janice shared a memorable experience of meeting the broader team in
person for the first time, noting that it fostered an immediate sense of familiarity, affirming, “It
was almost like we had known each other forever.” Michael highlighted the importance of
intentional efforts to prioritize in-person gatherings, acknowledging the unique energy and
revitalization they bring to the team. He expressed:
Client events and things that force us to get together, there’s just a certain amount of
energy that comes. We were all dog tired from [it] but we came away just completely reenergized. It fueled me for the next two months.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 89
Participants emphasized the value of both internal and client-facing interactions in allowing
employees to interact with and observe peers and management in different professional and
personal contexts. Summer highlighted the camaraderie and inside jokes that develop during inperson events, noting their cultural significance within the team. Michael reflected on the initial
allure of remote work, followed by a growing desire for in-person connectedness to combat
isolation and boost morale. He stated, “The first few months of working remote, I thought man,
this is the greatest thing ever.” Michael communicated that after the novelty and the freedom of
work-life balance wore off, “I was just begging for the next trip just to see people in person again
and just get kind of that energy boost.”
Some participants shared anecdotes of going out of their way to travel (the extra mile)
and meet specific colleagues with whom they had developed deep interpersonal relationships
through months or years of working together remotely. Janice recounted traveling six hours to
meet her manager’s friend, while Julian described a coworker making a special trip to meet his
newborn son, illustrating the depth of their connections. Summer underscored her firm’s
commitment to intentional connection building and connectedness with an annual retreat in
Mexico, stating, “[The firm is] willing to fly us in person purely to form bonds between people.
You can tell it’s been successful because everybody is so excited about it.” The participants
collectively conveyed the positive and rejuvenating effects of face-to-face engagement in
building connectedness through interpersonal relationships and shared experiences. These
interactions ultimately pay dividends in enhancing future remote interaction and collaboration
within the digital work environment.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 90
Trust Cadres
Participants described the development of trust cadres among peers who share past
trusted relationships and are drawn to affinity or interest groups. These groups express intense
trust, sometimes disproportionate to the broader community. Davis highlighted the effectiveness
of smaller high-performance teams, emphasizing their agility and ability to collaborate and share
knowledge efficiently. Linda pointed out that certain personalities within the team, accustomed
to the Google ecosystem, foster a culture of collaboration, open dialogue and conversations, and
instant sharing. She noted how past working relationships contribute to the intense trust and
collaboration within their team, how it differs from the overall culture of the firm, and the
influences of the broader Google culture. Linda states, “I think it [Google] is influencing our
culture, and we have some folks who not only trust each other but want to show up [for] the
group.” Ashton recounted how the infusion of people from a merger greatly enhanced team
productivity, attributing it to the pre-existing trust among the incoming members. She reports,
“The folks came in and [brought their ideas] to our brand refresh. They knew each other and
trusted each other, and knew [their ideas] were going to play well.”
Participants observed that trust cadres can also form among client delivery teams,
rallying around a shared objective over time. These teams excel within and across digital
communities, highly optimized for remote work. Camile emphasized that dedicated client teams
prioritize team-building activities, facilitated by their focused dedication and reduced need to
attend calls across multiple clients. She noted, “Dedicated client teams find more time [for] team
building activities [because they are not] … jumping on [other] calls [across clients].” Camile
explains that their dedication creates the bandwidth and opportunity for more organic
interpersonal communication.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 91
While such structures can be highly optimized for client success, they can also create
feelings of “otherness” through an insider/outsider dynamic. Ashton expressed that while the
cadre’s hyper-productivity was super beneficial from a company standpoint, personally, it made
him feel like an outsider. He elaborated that because the group was so synchronized, they
operated on autopilot without the need for documentation, which further exacerbated the sense of
exclusion. Ashton recalls, “Because that group was lather, rinse, repeat. They didn’t need to
document it. They were just going to do what they’ve done in the past.”
Trust cadres can inhibit knowledge-sharing. Linda communicates about the trust cadre
impact, stating, “I do think 75% of is cultural. … The majority of our financial decisions happen
[overseas], the folks who are informed and consulted [are overseas]. There’s a few who are in the
know, and others are clueless.” Nolan mentioned that in response to feeling like an outsider due
to cultural and geographic disparities, they initiated internal open dialogue sessions to foster
inclusivity and allow team members to ask questions openly. He explains, “In response to being
an outsider due to cultural and geographic disconnects, we’ve been creating our own internal
open dialogue session, where the rest of the team members can all get together and ask open
questions.”
Participants who expressed the most frustration from the negative effects of trust cadres
were also those most likely to express a lack of situational psychological safety. Nolan
emphasized the absence of a safe space for admitting mistakes and learning from them, stating,
“There’s no safe space to go in and say, ‘Man, I really screwed up, but boy that I learned a
lesson.’” Nolan went on to say he is likely leaving the firm because of his frustration and this
dynamic, sharing, “I was struggling, which is why I’m leaving the organization. I’ve been
struggling mentally with you know, even just coming to work every single day.” Trust cadres,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 92
consisting of tightly knit hyper-focused agile teams that have deep trusted relationships, can be
highly efficient in the 100% remote workplace but may also create insular groups (e.g., isolate
themselves) from other peer groups. These isolating tendencies can hinder knowledge sharing,
undermine self-efficacy, and diminish psychological safety.
Connectedness Through Digital Channels
Participants communicated that digital platforms and communication channels serve as a
proxy for the in-person office environment in the 100% remote workplace. Participants described
engagement through digital channels as a means to establish and fortify one-to-one engagement
and build relationships. Community-building activities, including interest groups, sharing
personal anecdotes, and participating in affinity groups, were identified as avenues for nurturing
relationships beyond task-oriented interactions. Camile highlighted the utilization of digital
collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams and Slack to encourage relationship building,
stating, “[Firm’s name] encourages people to build these relationships. … I had a couple of
team-building activities and open office hours.” She noted the challenge of working remotely in
knowing very little about some team members, sharing, “I have team members. I don’t know if
they’re married, have kids, or what city they’re in.” Summer discussed the importance of digital
platforms in supplementing the remote work environment and its impact on building or blocking
the culture. She states, “We’re trying to figure it out … we’re missing this key piece of
community … when we don’t have that community aspect, you’re missing a key building
block.” Nolan emphasized the significance of digital platforms as the primary means for
maintaining and establishing connections in the remote workplace. He said, “The digital
platform, whatever it is, is where you gotta continually reinforce your connections and build new
ones. It’s the new water cooler.” Overall, the chosen digital collaboration platform plays a

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 93
crucial role as the primary engagement method in facilitating both professional and interpersonal
interactions among stakeholders in a 100% remote environment.
Participants adapt their communication styles in digital online interactions, recognizing
the distinction from face-to-face communication, thereby revealing and presenting themselves
through varied digital personas. Scott noted the variability in individuals’ preferences for
interaction, stating, “People want different things [from] relationships, interactions. I’m perfectly
happy to hang out on Discord and play some video games as I am to have a beer with them in
person.” He emphasized the importance of employing diverse platforms to accommodate various
interaction styles, citing the use of GIFs and emojis as examples of nuanced communication in
digital environments. Scott relates, “The memes and emojis are pretty prevalent in our internal
Slack and [there are a] whole bunch of custom emojis in our Slack channels.”
Similarly, Summer pointed out the nuances of engagement through digital channels,
stating, “Every Slack team has their own emoji language and I think that that builds a feeling of
identity.” Gibson shared the same sentiment and discussed ingrained cultural aspects of the
digital platform that emphasize the necessity of using emojis to convey tone and context
effectively in digital messages. Also, Gibson acknowledged the possibility of messages being
misunderstood or interpreted incorrectly in digital communication if emojis are not used to
provide additional context or emotional tone. Gibson states, “I absolutely have to augment my
own [messaging] behavior to make sure that I’m not misrepresenting.” Digital channels create an
opportunity for co-workers to express themselves through channel norms and nuances, and use
emojis and GIFs to express meaning and context, contributing to a rich and dynamic online
communication environment.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 94
Participants discussed the creation and curation of non-work or lifestyle channels within
digital platforms, providing a forum for employees to share aspects of their lives, identities, or
personalities that may not be readily apparent in a work setting. Rod exemplified this practice,
highlighting a Slack channel dedicated to personal updates and anecdotes. He said, “We have a
Slack channel … where people post what’s going on in their lives.” He elaborated on the
interactions within the channel, stating, “People send pictures of their families during the
holidays like, ...you see people’s personalities and you see that kind of what their life is like,
and I think that goes a long way.”
Janice likewise related how channels create an opportunity for people to share aspects of
their personal lives, illuminating, “If you feel comfortable, post pictures of your family in their
Halloween costumes, your kids, your dogs, your like everything.” Janice commented on the
positive impact of these social channels and engagement, stating, “I think [it] has helped a lot
with the trust-building on a personal level. ... I feel like we know each other even though we’ve
never met.” Digital channels allow employees in the 100% remote workplace to engage in
socio-emotional connection to their peers and superiors by authentically sharing personal lives,
interests, achievements, and milestones.
Participants shared how the creation of interest groups that target or attract affinity
groups has the potential to facilitate meaningful interpersonal connectedness. These digital
communication styles serve as a platform for employees to reveal aspects of their personalities,
ensuring clarity of context and intent. Nolan related how he strives to engage peers in ways that
create connections by seeking out common ground, emphasizing the importance of investing
time in getting to know others for successful collaboration. He states, “I’ve really tried to find

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 95
one thing with everybody that I have something in common with … [if you] don’t take the time
to get to know … somebody, it’s going to be very challenging to have … success.”
Similarly, Summer recounted the evolution of an interest channel dedicated to the team
from a specific city, providing a space for local community engagement. She states, “There’s
actually a whole channel … created [named for the city]. There’s a whole group of people in
[city] that connects on … local things in the community.” Janice discussed special interest
channels focused on video games, like Warhammer, where colleagues share photos and
discussions related to their interests. For instance, Janice relates, “[Co-worker name] is one of
the top war people here. She’s super nerdy and loves Warhammer. So she’ll [post] pictures of …
her armies.”
These specialized channels promote deep interaction and foster strong bonds. Summer
illustrated with the example of creating an affinity group channel specifically dedicated to
enthusiasts centered around a well-known music artist. She describes it like this: “The first thing
I did when I got here was create the Taylor Swift social channel. … I had to create the social
Swifty channel … and upload all my Taylor Swift emojis.” The development of affinity groups
centered around shared interests, identities, or experiences, can foster connectedness through a
sense of belonging and trust. Participants in this study highlighted the role of affinity groups in
providing opportunities for forging connections and a sense of community within the
organization.
Participants stated the value of establishing digital channels with clients during project
delivery can create a sense of community and collaboration among the extended team. Michael
highlighted efforts to provide clients with greater visibility into the team’s work and culture
through creative means, stating, “We’re trying to find creative ways to give more visibility into

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 96
how we work in our culture.” Rick communicated that creating channels with clients facilitates
real-time and highly collaborative interactions. Janice emphasized the importance of being
digitally accessible and responsive to clients, noting, “[It] has helped a lot with the trust building
… to gain the trust, [I] always make sure that they know like I’m listening, I hear them, and I
will do my best to address it … it’s being taken care of.” Participants expressed these sentiments
as a way to enhance trust, demonstrating attentiveness and commitment to promptly addressing
clients’ needs. By extending the digital community to include the client, digital collaboration and
engagement can potentially build deeper relationships that benefit both the client and the
employee.
Participants also discussed the thoughts behind how they present and represent
themselves when engaging in the digital collaboration platform(s). Participants discussed the
image they chose to present, how they perceived peers and managers based on their choices, and
how they may choose to reveal different aspects of themselves over time
Digital Personas
Within the digital community, employees have the opportunity to cultivate their digital
personas, revealing different aspects of their personality depending on the meeting, audience, or
context. Participants in this study accentuated the importance of balancing professionalism with
authenticity and actively managing their digital identities to enhance trust and credibility in
virtual interactions. Summer highlighted the flexibility of virtual engagement, acknowledging
that while the default expectation may be to have the camera on, there are times when employees
may prefer not to be on camera. Linda emphasized the significance of nonverbal cues conveyed
through online video engagement, noting, “It’s just being human, people see you. They see how
you react, … [they see] smiling … or … frowning, they get some of the nonverbal [cues].” Linda

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 97
continued by discussing how individuals manage their digital identity, stating, “I think there are
aspects of my personality that I would never bring into the workplace, unless, you know, it was
kind of part of your inner circle.”
Nolan discussed the strategic cultivation of his personal brand through platforms like
LinkedIn, emphasizing the value of networking and mutually beneficial interactions. Summer
envisioned the future potential for virtual interactions to transcend physical limitations, enabling
employees to virtually share the same space and curate their digital presence accordingly. She
states, “I can imagine my team members like, virtually sitting on my couch. We [are] no longer
limited by physical [location].” Expanding on her thoughts, Summer remarked, “Behavior has
changed based on Zoom, like you find yourself just nodding, and smile, just to indicate that I
liked that idea.” Through digital persona management, employees can share as much or as little
as they like, and engineer their persona to meet the context of the engagement. This can result in
authentic shared experiences, fostering engagement, and creating psychologically safe
environments for communication.
Summary
In the conceptual framework derived from Creed & Miles (1996), underpinned by the
SCT’s focus on observational learning, the observed behaviors of peers and managers play a
pivotal role in either reinforcing or eroding trust within remote work environments. Trust within
teams typically evolves from provisional swift trust to automatic trust (Lewicki & Bunker,
1996). Participants highlighted the importance of transactional and functional competence in
building trust, emphasizing reliable communication, online availability, responsiveness, and
consistent task execution to achieve business and client objectives (Hertel, 2005). Furthermore,
intentional connection-building and fostering connectedness are vital components of establishing

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 98
organizational trust (Huang & Liu, 2020). Participants described authentic connection-building
efforts, including team participation and intentional outreach, as significant contributors to trust
within the organization.
Virtual communities serve as essential platforms and play a critical role in cultivating a
trusted culture characterized by knowledge sharing, collaboration, and collective intelligence
(Zhu & Chen, 2021). Encouraging remote team members to engage in these virtual communities
strengthens trust by promoting engagement, information exchange, and the development of
shared norms and values (Huang & Liu, 2020). When combined with connectedness built
through remote digital relationship building, multiple participants talked about how face-to-face
interaction had a compounding impact on trust and connectedness. Moreover, participants
emphasized the role of trust cadres—groups that form around shared objectives—in fostering
trust and collaboration, particularly within client delivery teams. These teams operate effectively
within digital communities and are optimized for remote work environments.
Lastly, participants discussed the nuanced nature of digital channels in building
connectedness. They highlighted the interaction between platform styles and alignment with
culture, knowledge sharing, and collaboration preferences. In summary, trust within remote work
settings is influenced by observed behaviors, intentional connection-building, and the cultivation
of connectedness through digital channels and virtual communities. Understanding and
navigating swift trust dynamics and leveraging trust repair mechanisms are essential for fostering
a culture of trust and collaboration in remote work environments.
Discussion Research Question Three: Environment
The third research question explores the factors observed and experienced in the work
environment that either encourage or constrain trust in the 100% remote workplace. The findings

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 99
from the third research question revealed several themes, including accessible, available, and
responsive leadership, fostering open collaboration, and the cultural nuances of digital platforms.
First, participants expressed the importance of leadership being accessible, available, and
responsive to inquiries, both within and outside the chain of command. Participants interpreted
this accessibility as a sign of genuine engagement, which, when combined with consistently
authentic communication, builds confidence and loyalty. Second, participants highlighted the
role of leaders in setting the tone for fostering open collaboration, knowledge sharing,
acceptance, and inclusion within the work environment. Participants noted the authentic
messaging and intentional, consistent engagement by leadership through digital channels to
instill connectedness and esprit de corps among the teams. Leaders who actively engage on a
one-to-one level to invest in interpersonal relationships, as well as engage more broadly in nontask-related digital channels, such as affinity groups and informal channels about personal lives,
are seen as contributing to an inclusive and nurturing work experience. Third, participants
discussed the cultural nuances of digital platforms and the challenges they pose to true digital
collaboration. Participants pointed out the remnants of in-person communication styles overlaid
onto modern collaboration platforms, and the impact on productivity, compared to the more fluid
and capable social collaboration methods.
Availability, Accessibility, and Authentic Communication
Participants discussed how the digital platform has replaced the conventional in-person
office environment, thereby altering the way employees traditionally experienced and interacted
with management and leadership. Participants expressed a desire to see management and
leadership readily available and responsive online, as the digital platform serves as a proxy for
the in-person office. Summer emphasized the importance of accessibility in building trust and

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 100
noted that this aspect was executed well within the firm, stating, “Accessibility to management
… having that level of interaction … that’s something I noticed.” Rod described how leadership
has consistently found the time to be responsive and accessible to him, always feeling like their
door is open, stating, “We can go in there [virtually] at any time and talk to them. They will also
do the same with us.” He further emphasized how this accessibility “goes a long way [towards]
being able to have hard discussions ... because you know who they are, and we can have those
conversations.” Janice discussed the confidence level that leadership will be responsive, even
with high-priority activities, stating, “I know that, [and] my expectation is [that] they’re busy.
[But] I know they’ll get through when they can ... because I trust [past] experience.” Leadership
can foster trust within the work environment by being digitally available, accessible, and
responsive to employees. Employees interpret this behavior as authentic across digital mediums
and perceive it as contributing to trust in the 100% remote work environment.
Participants emphasized that authentic and transparent communication, whether through
video meetings or digital channels, fosters positive feelings and reinforces trust. Julian related
how leadership can convey authenticity and care during meetings, citing examples where the
founder praised employees as if addressing a family gathering. He stated, “[Founder] is giving
praise whenever he talks about what’s happening at [the firm]. … He’s talking to all of us as if
… we’re having like a family meeting.” Summer communicated how messages can be framed to
show consideration and inclusion, particularly by sharing the thought process behind decisions.
Summer expressed, “Communication is critical and transparency is a big part of that … here’s
the thought process that went into [our decision]. … I think [it] is really important.” Gibson
noted the effectiveness of leadership’s transparency during all-hands meetings, even when
delivering difficult messages, stating, “Our leadership has been good about [in] all-hands

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 101
meetings. … Any conversations that I’ve seen, [they are] always very, very transparent.” Gibson
further elaborated on the authenticity of leadership’s communication, even in the face of
adversity and with difficult messages. He articulated, “We don’t know how this is going to affect
things, … but here’s what we’re doing [because] things are slow this year … but because of the
way we built the company, … we’re good, like you’re good.”
Nolan discussed how leadership can establish and fortify trust amongst employees by
consistently engaging in an honest, empathetic, and transparent manner. Michael discussed how
leaders who show an honest and humble character while delivering challenging messages can
reinforce authenticity and transparency. He stated, “As leaders, not taking ourselves too seriously
when we do our all hands calls and [other venues] we are really overly transparent on certain
things, [when appropriate] we’re able to admit fault.” Michael went on to describe how
transparency inspires reciprocal trust, stating, “[Employees] start to feel confident in being able
to open up themselves and be transparent back.” Ashton described how leadership took risks to
be open, authentic, and vulnerable in a public forum. Ashton stated:
The really brave thing, … they used a [digital] platform. People could [submit]
anonymous questions, and … the rest of the [company audience] could up-vote them. …
The answer goes live. [It] really gave a chance for people to … bring up some pretty
uncomfortable things.
Leaders who exhibit authenticity, humility, and vulnerability contribute to building trust and
connectedness in the remote workplace. Leaders who openly engage on digital platforms create
and reinforce a sense of authenticity in their messaging and their intent. Authenticity and
consistency foster connectedness across the 100% remote workplace and reinforce trust amongst
employees.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 102
Fostering Supportive, Collaboration, and Knowledge
Participants emphasized the importance of supportive, empowering leadership in
fostering trust and engagement among remote employees. Camile communicated that leadership
could foster a supportive environment by prioritizing communication and collaboration, such as
organizing team-building activities and open office hours. She expressed, “[Leadership]
encourages people, you know … to build these relationships … [through] team building
activities, and [open] office hours.” Rick explained how a knowledge-sharing culture can help
break knowledge-hoarding tendencies that may have developed in other work environments,
particularly in technical fields. Rick said:
The way I always put it, I’m not trying to take away your perception of power in terms of
your ability to do these things. I want you to be able to…I want your personality to come
out, and our focus on building relationships with our clients.
Rick elaborated on how leadership has actively promoted a knowledge-sharing culture, starting
from the highest levels and throughout the organization. He stated, “We’re all about creating and
sharing knowledge enablement. … All the way [founder name] down, we promote [it]. … So I
think that’s very effective.” Scott described the organization’s and his own approach to
leadership, emphasizing transparency and openness in seeking input and feedback from team
members. Scott said:
It’s an extremely open and collaborative organization. It’s … something that … started at
the top, … by example. [The founder] he’s one of those people that … [is] a very positive
example that others can model from. From a leadership perspective, I tend to take a pretty
open approach. … If I have a problem, … I’m happy to post … a diagram or … question
… in Slack… and have people weigh in and comment.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 103
Rick communicated how leadership’s consistent example sets the tone and reinforces the
organization’s culture, encouraging alignment and commitment among all stakeholders. He
explained, “If you’re coming into [firm name], … you have to make a decision to self-select, …
[and] get on board … because everyone, all the leadership’s on the same page.”
Participants emphasized the crucial role of leadership in fostering a collaborative and
knowledge-sharing culture, which in turn promotes trust and engagement among remote
employees. Leadership achieves this by setting clear messaging, leading by example, and
reinforcing desired behaviors through action. These attributes contribute to building trust within
the environment and among stakeholders.
Participants stated that leadership and management who consistently engage in digital
channels promote the online community and foster the open exchange of information. Rick
illustrated how leadership’s enthusiasm and engagement build community and trust through
digital channels, stating, “[The founder] is definitely the voice, face, and cheerleader … It’s just
always been that way.” Rick further elaborated on how leadership prioritizes engagement, never
too busy or consumed by the task-related objectives, stating, “He’ll jump on the channel and say,
‘Hey, guys, what’s everybody doing this weekend?’ … He is very good about that.” Similarly,
Janice highlighted the importance of leadership’s involvement in nurturing the organizational
culture and leading meetings while actively participating in channels. Janice underscored how
leadership’s acknowledgment and celebration of achievements in channels builds community.
Janice stated, “Whenever … we have … kudos, [or] we have … a good feedback from a client,
… [leadership is] posting on it.”
Participants emphasized the significance of leadership and managerial presence in digital
collaboration channels for fostering team cohesion and trust. Consistent engagement from

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 104
leaders and managers cultivates a sense of community and teamwork within the organization.
Moreover, participants highlighted the importance of leaders who actively recognize
achievements, share personal and business challenges, celebrate accomplishments, and
contribute to fostering an engaging and inclusive culture that reinforces trust among employees.
Participants highlighted a positive knowledge-sharing culture, either across the broader
culture or within their teams, as a key indicator of trust in their respective 100% remote
environment. Julian emphasized the value of asking questions and receiving support from senior
developers, stating, “I definitely … pride myself [on] asking questions. It helped that my
managers put me on projects with … other senior developers who can always help. … I [got]
help from people … when I needed it.” He also mentioned the ongoing effort within the
company to build a knowledge base, noting, “As a company, build that knowledge base. And I’m
actually writing a knowledge article right now.”
Michael discussed how systemic and individualized knowledge sharing can be an
effective and positive tactic in building trust. He stated, “I think we’re actually really, really good
about knowledge sharing from a cultural perspective about just putting it all out there.” Scott
described the explicit collaboration within teams and active real-time problem-solving
engagement across forums, explaining, “Everything’s pretty explicitly collaborative. … [When]
we have a particularly hard problem … it gets posted on Slack. Everyone gets involved, from
any team to leadership, to executive, and all of the above.” Julian emphasized the criticality of
team-level knowledge sharing for technology and solution development that also reinforces
learning. Julian stated, “[If] I need help on some development or I have a question, I always
reach out in our engineer channel and ask my question.” Camile highlighted the culture of
welcoming and encouraging knowledge sharing at the business function level, with peers

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 105
collaborating on issues that are not in the knowledge base of a channel and developing a solution
that can be shared. Finally, Julian reflected on how knowledge sharing and the collaborative
culture have contributed to his growth and self-efficacy. Julian explained:
I am the youngest person [at the firm], and I am one of the people who’s worked there the
longest. … I really feel like I [can] represent, and … people [can see] through my words
and through my tone, that I’m someone you can reach out to and you can talk to really
about anything.
Participants underscored the vital role of leaders and managers who prioritize consistent
knowledge-sharing in fostering an environment conducive to growth, innovation, and selfefficacy. Additionally, participants highlighted how leaders and managers who reinforce the
importance of consistent knowledge-sharing in the remote work environment create a safe space
for growth, innovation, and self-efficacy among employees. Driving open collaboration and
knowledge-sharing ensures better results for teams and the firm.
Participants discussed how extending a knowledge-sharing culture with clients leads to
improved outcomes. Camile explained how she relies on her team’s knowledge-sharing
commitment to deliver effectively for clients. Camile said:
Even though I have the clinical skills, I … need information from my team to feel
confident enough to prepare a proper report. I try to connect with [team members’ name]
at least daily, and prior to a milestone we usually meet and prepare together.
Michael highlighted how collaboration and real-time sharing empower him to deliver valuable
insights to clients. Michael explained that as an engineer on the team, all members can freely
communicate, ensuring everyone can get on the “same page,” and armed with this knowledge, he
can be the calm, confident voice in the room that can deliver guidance effectively. Julian

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 106
emphasized the importance of extending digital collaboration and communication channels to
clients to build multiple points of engagement and knowledge-sharing. Julian explained,
“Leveraging a diverse set of channels, including stories in the shared software development
platform, agile control processes in the project tracking platform, or messaging and social
communication via Slack, helps ensure better outcomes for the client.”
Participants explained how extending an open and collaborative environment to clients
facilitates better project delivery, serves as a potential differentiator, particularly for clients
navigating remote work environments, and provides a competitive advantage. Additionally,
participants described how this approach enables employees to advance their experience,
technical skills, and self-efficacy while effectively delivering on behalf of the client.
Among the 13 participants in this study, approximately 30% highlighted challenges with
communication, such as poor knowledge-sharing, which negatively affected their self-efficacy
and connectedness. Julian expressed difficulty in engaging with colleagues on projects he has not
worked on, stating, “One of the bigger challenges I’ve had is talking to people who I haven’t
worked with … on projects … I just haven’t … taken the time.” Michael articulated that
customer obsession can concentrate knowledge-sharing and collaboration within the clientfacing team, which is positive for the client, but can come at the expense of the internal
knowledge-sharing channels. Moreover, Michael explained the focus on clients may diminish the
internal knowledge-sharing culture since the knowledge exchange occurs within client Slack
channels as opposed to internal ones.
Nolan discussed the reluctance to collaborate on lessons learned and corrective measures,
emphasizing the need to reframe challenges as opportunities for improvement. He reflected,
“When things go bad, … you need to reframe it. It’s an opportunity to learn, it’s an opportunity

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 107
to do better. … That’s usually how… I try to frame it, but it’s hard in this culture.” Linda
described how the volume and the focus on tactical meetings did not always leave time for
dedicated knowledge sharing, stating, “I feel like there [are] those meetings, … where you have
somebody showcase what it is they’re doing [for their client], but we don’t do that remotely
today.”
Participants accentuated that in a high-growth culture, employees must prioritize
knowledge sharing despite the challenges of maintaining pace. Participants acknowledged that
systematically organizing and refreshing knowledge is challenging in a fast-paced environment.
However, participants understood that client collaboration can foster trust cadres that may not
always prioritize sharing knowledge with broader teams.
Cultural Reflection through Digital Platforms
The participants in this study discussed how the digital collaboration platform has
replaced the traditional in-person office environment in a 100% remote workplace.
Consequently, participants emphasized that the choice, implementation style, and usage norms
of digital collaboration platforms are both a reflection and a determinant of the work
environment. Participants noted how digital collaboration channels platforms either enable or
constrain essential trust attributes such as engagement, connectedness, knowledge sharing, and
self-efficacy. Nolan described that digital collaboration in his firm is lacking in the areas of realtime collaboration. He explained that they use Microsoft Teams for video, but although there are
channels for collaboration, stakeholders rarely engage in conversational posts or social
engagement, limiting the opportunities for authentic connection building. Davis related that
while their Microsoft Teams platform has modern collaboration capabilities available, the
cultural usage of the platform is antiquated. Davis noted, “The user experience is like Sharepoint

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 108
from 2012. Everyone still emails and only uses messaging when something is urgent.” Davis also
expressed that there was “no network effect” achieved in the digital collaboration. Similarly,
Linda discussed how despite the availability of Microsoft Teams, most communication still
happened in meetings or via email. Linda mentioned, “If you want to engage someone, you can
try to message, but you are likely to have to call them. Unless you are in tight-knit teams, there is
very little digital presence.” Participants described scenarios that reflect a remote work
environment reliant on asynchronous communication, which limits connectedness and reinforces
a transactional workplace.
Nolan described systemic communication and collaboration challenges stemming from a cultural
reliance on video meetings and other traditional means. He illustrated the issues that inhibit
collaboration and connectedness, and instill a lack of competence, in the following example:
You ask for the slide deck [from the call], and they don’t send it. When they do send it,
they don’t share access. These same people all go home and jump on social platforms
where they exchange messages, photos, videos, and stream music real-time, but when
they come to work it’s phone and email [instead of real-time social posting].”
Following Nolan’s description of communication challenges, he highlighted observations made
regarding the transition to a digitally integrated engagement model in remote work
environments. Nolan said, “Some 100% remote work environments have not fully transitioned to
a digitally integrated engagement model.” Nolan expressed surprise at the lack of digital
engagement among employees, particularly coming from a cloud-native organization. He
exclaimed, “It was a shock to me, coming from a cloud-native organization, [the GSIs] lack of
digital engagement through the platforms.” He further communicated that collaboration channels
often resembled Sharepoint sites and lacked meaningful exchanges, indicating a reliance on

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 109
traditional communication methods like phone calls. Nolan emphasized, “Outside of small
teams, the channels had no posts and exchanges and were basically a glorified Sharepoint site. If
you wanted to communicate, you had to call someone.” These observations indicate
environmental impediments to building connectedness and organizational trust.
Participants observed that the prevailing practices are not a limitation of the Microsoft
Teams or Microsoft Exchange platform but are a reflection of larger organizations that have
transitioned from more traditional in-person work environments. Linda remarked that
organizations that have operated so long with existing relationships and operational methods find
it challenging to fully embrace digital collaboration, often prioritizing email as their primary
mode of communication. Linda affirmed, “It’s hard for them to fully collaborate digitally. They
are still an email-first culture.” Davis highlighted that many GSIs manage teams spanning
various business units and regions, including highly regulated sectors like government or
healthcare, fostering a reliance on document chains of custody and traditional communication
methods, rather than collaboration and communication through digital media platforms. Davis
said:
You have to remember, many of these GSIs have teams that cross business units, some of
them are country-specific, some of them in highly regulated government or healthcare
work. So they are used to having a chain of custody around a document and
communications. So even though the communication and collaboration platforms are
there, they’ve never used them for work like they might in their personal life.
Linda further emphasized that in some cases, the deactivation of collaboration channels in
Microsoft Teams would likely go unnoticed, stating, “You could turn off the collaboration
channels in [Microsoft] Teams and I’m not sure anyone would notice. If they did … they would

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 110
send an email about it.” Participants reflected that these conditions inhibit collaboration and
further isolate trust cadres within the remote environment.
Participants in the study emphasized the necessity of real-time communication and
collaboration in 100% remote work settings to foster collaboration and build connectedness.
Traditional asynchronous methods, such as asynchronous meeting notes, document sharing, and
email confirmations often fail to meet the needs of real-time synchronous collaboration required
by rapidly growing companies. The demand of a high-growth organization mandates that
information flow more freely and in real-time, where the need for swift and seamless
communication flow is heightened, resembling the dynamics of social digital channels benefiting
from the network effect.
Participants from CND organizations described remote work environments that operate
through seamlessly cloud-native digital platforms. Rod emphasized, “We set up [Slack] channels
for all of our projects. We have a bunch of internal channels. … Channels are kind of the new
[way], right?” Rod further explained how Slack channels serve as the primary communication
method instead of traditional methods, such as email, stating, “When it comes to my programs,
my projects, anything important that has to be visible within the channel, … it [becomes]
natural.” This behavioral example by Rod reinforces digital engagement, and promotes
synchronous communication and collaboration, which build organizational trust.
Participants from CND firms described 100% remote operating environments that
leverage GSuite (Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs) and Slack to inherently drive organic
real-time collaboration. Nolan noted that collaboration channels in digital platforms like Slack
are the replacement for the traditional office and have replaced email as the primary electronic
communication mechanism. Participants described digital platforms, such as Zoom, Google

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 111
GSuite, and Slack, as enabling synchronous tasks, like meetings and stand-ups to happen via
video (Zoom), and documents to the collaborated real-time (through G Docs), and digital
channels in Slack to be the real-time and frequent communication across various channels.
Participants offered insightful concluding perspectives, noting that communication,
collaboration, conversation, and socialization happen in the digital platform channels, each with
its unique social dynamics and characteristics. Environments are social in nature, and channels
take on their own cadence and character. Moreover, within such digital environments, distinct
characteristics emerge, with each channel developing its unique identity, which promotes
connectedness and organizational trust.
Julian, from a CND firm, discussed how teams still have too many meetings, but so much
happens synchronously in the Slack channel, and documentation can happen simultaneously.
Participants shared how organic digital communities can form and reflect the character,
personality, and mood of the organization. For example, Summer highlighted the organic
connections within Slack channels, stating, “Connection is the key, … a certain level of
connection that you can build … every Slack [channel] has their own emoji language … that
builds a feeling of identity. … I’m a part of something.” Davis recounted his experience in a
previous 100% remote workplace where they built a digital engagement platform around Slack
and GSuite, fostering organic and social communication. He noted how on Friday afternoons, the
company’s mood could be gauged by the nature of posts, indicating happiness through
discussions of weekend plans or silence during difficult times. David stated:
[On] Friday afternoon, I could take a pulse [of] the company, where the happiness of the
company was … by the posts between say 2:00 pm and 5:00 pm. [If] we were going
good, and people are happy … there is a barbecue and this is what I’m doing this

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 112
weekend. And it was pretty consistent when things were going well. That was your
Friday afternoon. … And when things weren’t going well, you know, dead silence, you
know, and that was that … you’re not going to read that page in any management book,
right?
Participants emphasized that a more open and collaborative culture fosters inclusive and diverse
exchanges, shaping the overall culture and creating safer spaces. Michael noted, “I think we try
to find like the passion in what they do. If we can tell that they are really passionate, they really
just enjoy what they do.” Janice highlighted the significance of sharing timely company
information, congratulations, and kudos in digital channels, fostering interest, knowledge
sharing, gratification, and a sense of belonging. Janice expressed, “Everyone is very good about
showing appreciation, giving compliments. And of course, this was all done in Slack channels.”
Participants understand that cloud-native organizations are built on digital platforms that
operate much like social network platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. According to
participants’ experiences, these platforms create a more synchronous or real-time communication
medium for remote employees, enabling them to operate in a more connected fashion.
Participants illuminated that this connectedness contributes to efficiencies in client project
delivery and the creation and sustainability of digital communities that enhance trust in the 100%
remote work environment.
Summary
In the conceptual framework derived from Creed & Miles (1996), underpinned by the
SCT’s focus on environmental reinforcement, the third research questions focused on attributes
of the work environment that promote or constrain trust in the 100% remote work environment.
Participants outlined two distinct patterns of digital platform utilization that shaped the work

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 113
environment and impacted authentic connections, interpersonal relationships, and organizational
trust. Participants from GSI organizations predominantly utilized Microsoft Teams and
Productivity Suite for collaboration but within a culture driven by frequent meetings and heavy
reliance on email communication. In contrast, participants from CND organizations relied on
Slack and Google GSuite, fostering a culture of social collaboration within Slack channels and
real-time synchronous collaboration. These findings highlight the significance of leaderships’
role in selecting, implementing, and reinforcing norms that cultivate open collaboration, facilitate
knowledge sharing, and promote continuous learning, contribute to collective efficacy, and
reinforce trust among team members. These distinct patterns of digital platform utilization offer
valuable insights for organizations aiming to foster trust and collaboration in remote work
settings, indicating potential areas for further research and practical implications for optimizing
remote work practices.
Findings Summary
Chapter four provided an overview of the findings from participant interviews for the
study’s research questions. Employing the triadic reciprocity of the SCT, as applied to the
conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996), the interview protocol elicited beliefs and
perceptions of trust, validation of those beliefs and perceptions based upon the observed behavior
of peers and managers, and their reinforcement through the attributes of the work environment.
The first research questions discussions established that past experiences, firm reputation, and
initial impressions framed the propensity for organizational trust. The first research question also
revealed the emergence of swift trust—rapid formation of trust among individuals with limited
prior interaction—in the competence and character of managers and peers until proven
otherwise. The second research question focused on observed behaviors and participants’

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 114
perceptions of trust among peers and managers in the 100% remote workplace. The second
research focused on the observational learning aspects of the SCT, and the outcome of the trust
act as a reinforcement or disrupter of the individual’s initial propensity to trust (Creed & Miles,
1996). The second research question found that consistency, reliability, and displayed
competence led to the replacement of swift trust with confirmed or validated trust. The research
also indicated that intentional connection-building, engagement through digital channels, and the
building of virtual communities (connectedness) were the essential building blocks of
organizational trust between peers and managers. The third research question focused again on
the observational learning aspects of the SCT, and the experienced and observed attributes of the
work environment that participants found to either encouraged or constrained trust based on
leadership, culture, and observed behavior (Creed & Miles, 1996). The third research question
found that leaders’ availability, accessibility, and authenticity were key contributors to trustbuilding. The third research question also found that leadership’s presence and engagement in
digital channels fostered an inclusive, collaborative, and supportive work environment necessary
for organizational trust. Research on the remote work environment also indicated that the choice,
implementation, and usage style of digital collaboration platforms were an indicator and
determinant of organizational trust within the 100% remote work environment. The above
findings indicate challenges to trust formation in the 100% remote work environment. The
attributes of competence, reliability, and character have always been foundational to
interpersonal trust, but the overwhelming preeminence of swift trust is indicative of a reduced
engagement landscape for the development interpersonal relationships and informal networks
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 115
Chapter 5: Recommendations
This chapter provides recommendations for the establishment, growth, and maintenance
of organizational trust in the 100% remote workplace. The recommendations outlined in this
chapter are based on the exploratory study on the nature of trust in the 100% remote workplace,
specifically in high-growth technology consulting firms. These recommendations are a product
of the study’s literature review and the research findings through individual interviews. The
chapter concludes with the research study’s limitations and delimitations and recommendations
for further research.
Discussion of Findings
Semi-structured interviews where constructed leveraging the triadic reciprocity of the
SCT, as applied to the conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996), to elicited beliefs and
perceptions of trust, validation of those beliefs and perceptions based upon the observed behavior
of peers and managers, and their reinforcement through the attributes of the work environment.
Participants discussed trust from personal, interpersonal, and environmental standpoints based on
their experiences in their respective organizations. The shared theme among participants was the
transactional nature of trust (swift trust) applied to the remote workplace and the determinants of
transitioning from swift trust to validated or automatic trust. Participants also shared the
importance of digital collaboration and engagement platforms that serve as a proxy for the inoffice environment to build connectedness, knowledge sharing, collaboration, affinity, and a
shared identity. The study also yielded insights into the role of leadership in fostering a
supportive and collaborative culture through availability, accessibility, engagement, and
behavioral reinforcement through digital channels. Below are recommended interventions that
correlate to the findings from the dissertation research.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 116
Research Question 1: What are the beliefs and perceptions of the employees of trust in the
100% remote workplace?
In the conceptual framework adopted from Creed and Miles (1996) and supported by the
SCT framework (Bandura, 2012), the beliefs and perceptions of the individual form their
propensity to trust within the 100% remote workplace. This conceptual framework suggests that
trust propensity is shaped by both cognitive and rational evaluations of the workplace, as well as
affective or socio-emotional connections derived from prior relationships. The first research
question focused on the propensity to trust within the 100% remote workplace. The research
from this study suggests that participants relied on past work experiences, previous relationships,
firm reputation, and early engagement to form their propensity to trust within the remote
workplace. Nine of the 13 participants specifically mentioned positive and cautionary
experiences from past work experiences as reference points for evaluating their current firms.
Eight of the 13 participants listed previous relationships as the primary factor in the decision to
join the respective firms and informed the initial propensity to trust. The remaining five
participants, who had no previous relationships to reference, cited the respective firms’
reputation and their initial impressions from the interview and onboarding experiences as
influencing both positively and negatively their propensity to trust. Twelve participants were
interviewed and onboarded to their respective firms remotely. One participant met firm members
face-to-face during both the interview and onboarding processes. Participants used these initial
engagements to compare and contrast past experiences against the espoused operating model,

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 117
management and leadership styles, and organizational norms and culture of the prospective firms
to inform their initial propensity for organizational trust.
A pervasive theme from the research was the adoption of transactional or “swift trust.”
Swift trust is defined as the rapid formation of trust among individuals with limited prior
interaction (Meyerson et al., 1996). In the absence of face-to-face interaction to inform trust
relationships, employees in the 100% remote workplace focus on the transactional nature of the
work. All of the participants described some form of swift trust, choosing to trust in the
competence, reliability, and intent of their peers and managers until and unless given a reason to
believe otherwise. Prior experience and expectations formed the basis of applying swift trust as a
permanent functional construct or a baseline construct to build more meaningful interpersonal
relationships.
Within the construct of the client relationship, projects are delivered 100% remotely, and
the clients themselves may be working remotely or in a hybrid workplace. Some clients seek
only transactional engagement within the construct of the consulting project and its deliverables.
Still, participants reported that client relationships and client outcomes (e.g., the success of the
project delivery) are improved when deeper relationships can be developed with the customer.
Participants reported there is no substitute for competence, reliability, consistency, and effective
communication. Still, deeper relationships and connectedness between the client and the
consulting firm provide trust equity that can benefit both parties. This equity becomes
particularly valuable when challenges arise in the project, creating visibility and context into the
client environment that benefits the firm’s project team to deliver and enhances business
outcomes.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 118
Swift trust has been historically applied to remote teams formed for temporary or cyclical
intervals (Meyerson, 1996). This study revealed participants’ use of swift trust as a permanent
contractual relationship or an interim coping mechanism for the lack or absence of traditional inperson interpersonal trust development. Swift trust serves as a risk mitigation strategy for
reliance on unfamiliar peers and managers or as a helping construct to foster autonomy and
decentralized agency.
Research Question 2: Based upon observed behavior, what are the perceptions of trust
amongst peers and managers in the 100% remote workplace?
The second research question addressed the nature of trust based on observed and
engaged behavior among peers and managers. In the conceptual framework adopted from Creed
and Miles (1996) and supported by the SCT framwork (Bandura, 2012), the observed behavior of
peers and managers within the 100% remote workplace reinforces or challenges initial trust
propensity and informs future trust action decisions. Participants discussed how provisional swift
trust can become more affirmed trust based on consistently demonstrated competence, reliability,
and conscientiousness of peers and managers. In this fashion, swift trust can be augmented
through evidentiary validated trust and potentially be replaced entirely with automatic trust
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; McAllister, 1995). When trust failed, participants described methods
for trust repair that involved high-touch oversight of duties and the requirement for offending
stakeholders to demonstrate sustained competence and reliability.
Participants discussed how client relationships are inherently transactional, especially
where the clients themselves are dealing with an organizational shift to remote work. Participants
reported the need to demonstrate competence in every aspect of the client-facing delivery project
and to over-communicate favorable and challenging feedback early and often. Despite these

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 119
efforts, the client relationship may not progress past transactional or swift trust, making clientfacing trust repair more difficult than internal trust repair. Additionally, participants noted that
failed trust sometimes cannot be repaired, which can compromise client relationships and result
in the off-boarding of an underperforming employee. In this hyper-transactional remote project
delivery environment, constant communication and perception management are required to
ensure a favorable client evaluation.
In the 100% remote workplace, participants highlighted a lack of opportunities for
building interpersonal connections and informal bonding. Participants observed the lack of
incidental engagement that comes from occupying the same physical office and shared culture.
Furthermore, participants noted the challenges of building rapport and understanding colleagues
on a personal and professional level. These interpersonal connections (connectedness) are
necessary to create safe spaces conducive to risk-taking and innovation (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Participants discussed the need for intentional connection-building to establish deeper
interpersonal relationships with peers and managers. This intentional connection-building can
take the form of scheduled or unscheduled individual or group meetings focusing on non-work or
task-related topics. Participants also stressed the importance of opportunistic face-to-face
meetings, such as industry events, corporate team building, and sales kick-off meetings to
supplement the connectedness developed through digital channels.
One of the most significant themes from the research was the emergence of the digital
collaboration platform as a proxy for the traditional in-person office. Participants described how
digital collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams, Google G-Suite, Slack, and video meetings
(Zoom), served as the method of synchronous collaboration, interaction, and engagement
between peers and managers. Where properly implemented and adopted, participants described

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 120
real-time social engagement that provides visibility across subscribed digital channels. Digital
engagement can be customized to reflect an individual or a group’s personality through the use
of custom memes, emojis, and GIFs. This dynamic has a network effect within the organization
that can capture and reflect activity, tenor, mood, and events, while simultaneously aiding in the
framing and building of a corporate community, culture, and identity (Brougham & Haar, 2018;
Zhu & Chen, 2021). Participants described establishing affinity channels within these digital
communities, fostering opportunities for bonding and rapport development. Also, participants
customized their digital persona, either to signal competence or as a form of personal expression.
In this manner, participants revealed aspects of their personality, interests, and affinity to their
peers and managers, aiming to build connectedness.
Participants reported that observed behaviors of peers and managers influence trust
within remote work settings and can either affirm or erode the provisional swift trust.
Organizational trust can evolve beyond transactional competence through the intentional
building of interpersonal relationships. Intentional connection-building and cultivating
connectedness through digital channels and virtual communities can develop the type of
organizational trust necessary for high-growth technology consulting companies in the 100%
remote workplace.
Research Question 3: What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain
trust based on leadership, culture, and observed behavior?
The third research question explored the environmental factors of organizational trust in
the 100% remote workplace. In the conceptual framework adopted by Creed and Miles (1996)
and supported by the SCT framework (Bandura, 2012), the environment reinforces or constrains

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 121
trust by promoting and reinforcing trust attributes and behaviors, while also establishing
corporate identity and culture.
The most prevailing theme revealed by the third research was the positive influence of
leadership through availability, accessibility, and engagement in digital channels. Participants
mentioned that seeing managers and leadership online—within the digital platform—inspired
feelings of competence and reliability. The responsiveness of leadership fostered these
sentiments among participants, creating impressions of authenticity and benevolence. Regular
and meaningful engagement in digital channels, for both task-related and interpersonal goals,
created feelings of authenticity, transparency, and a sense of community and belonging.
Participants addressed the role of leadership in fostering a supporting, inclusive, and
collaborative environment. High-growth technology consulting firms rely heavily on knowledge
sharing, experiential learning, and collaboration. Participants discussed how leaders fostering
knowledge sharing, discouraging the withholding of knowledge, and publicly celebrating
collaboration and individual “wins” through digital channels helped to build a trusted
environment and corporate culture. Participants added how the accessibility and engagement of
leadership, combined with consistently authentic engagement and communication in digital
channels, reinforces a supportive and collaborative environment conducive to organizational
trust.
The third theme related to the work environment was the enablement or constraint of
connectedness based on the digital collaboration platform. Participants shared insights on the
challenges of the 100% remote workplace, noting its tendency towards meeting intensive and
reliance on high volumes of asynchronous communication and collaboration. This intensity
becomes particularly challenging when remnants of in-person and in-office communication are

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 122
superimposed onto modern collaboration platforms. Participants characterized these
environments as heavily task-oriented and transactional, making it simultaneously difficult to
cultivate connectedness and community. In contrast, organizations that adopted real-time digital
platforms, including social networking and digital channels, achieved more real-time and
synchronous collaboration. Additionally, these remote work environments were conducive to
community building through the digital platform.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: Engineer for Employee Positionality
According to Bandura’s (2012) SCT, individuals have beliefs and expectations that
influence their actions and behavior. Applied to the conceptual framework of Creed & Miles
(1996) these beliefs will inform the initial propensity to trust, how much to risk in interpersonal
relationships, and frame the expectations of the 100% remote work environment. Based on the
stated beliefs and perceptions of the participants, swift trust serves as the operational model until
validated over time or proven invalid, meeting the needs and expectations of some employees.
Among the 13 participants, two reported a heavy reliance on transactional competence and
autonomy as the basis for organizational trust. These employees, driven by personality type or
geographic disparity, seek only transactional work relationships from their workplace, relying on
other aspects for interpersonal connections. While acknowledging the importance of
connectedness within their respective teams, these participants personally prioritize autonomy
from management. Participants value the opportunity to competently, reliably, and consistently
deliver internal business functions or engineering solutions to clients based on their skills and
prior experience.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 123
Out of the 13 participants, 11 emphasized the significance of interpersonal relationships,
reminiscent of a traditional in-office environment, both for themselves and their teams.
Employees seeking greater connectedness prioritize building and engaging in interpersonal
relationships with peers and managers to establish validated trust, foster a sense of identity and
belonging, and promote team cohesion. Conversely, some employee personas may gravitate
towards internal or client-side engagement, potentially feeling isolated and disconnected in the
absence of these conduits (channels) for connectedness in the remote workplace (Deloitte, 2020).
The implications for leadership, management, and human resources are that employees
may bring a diverse set of expectations and desires to their workplace that span from purely
transactional to deeply interpersonal in nature. Transactional competence is paramount for clientfacing project delivery, but participants also discussed how building connectedness outside of the
transactional relationship paid dividends to the firm in the areas of trust, trust repair, and
commercial “stickiness” of the client relationship.
Given the diverse expectations among employees, management within in high-growth
consulting firms must consider the positionality of each employee or employee type. This
consideration is relevant to job design, recruiting and interviewing, onboarding, and ongoing
training and career development plans, and success metrics. More broadly, leaders need to
determine what attributes and to what extent they desire a corporate culture and identity they aim
to cultivate within the entirely remote workforce. Past research confirms that trust and
connectedness are essential for employees to develop the type of organizational trust that enables
self-efficacy, well-being, and productivity (Colquitt et al., 2007; Edmondson, 1999; Mayer et al.,
1995). However, some employees may interpret autonomy, flexibility, and focus on transactional
competence as the most important reflection of organizational trust. Firms operating in a 100%

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 124
remote environment must calibrate (adjust) their engagement strategies to accommodate the
diverse needs of their remote employee base, which will require analysis and consideration of
both transactional aspects, such as task-oriented interactions, and interpersonal positionality
dynamics. Human Resource departments within High-Growth Tech Consulting firms are often
responsible for recruiting and retaining talent and are integral to the fostering of corporate culture
and well-being (Armstrong & Taylor, 2017). Evaluations during the interview process, and
through periodic employee engagement, can provide opportunities to elicit employee preferences
around team engagement, corporate culture, and the type of work environment that most can
meet their engagement model in the remote workplace. Soliciting and calibrating this
positionality may help improve role design, team composition, and ultimately employee
productivity and well-being through optimized remote work engagement methods. By
understanding the positionality and expectations of the individual employee in the work
environment, organizations can better communicate success criteria, meet employee
expectations, and promote behaviors that enable organizational trust and promote trusting
behavior within the 100% remote workplace. The more individuals feel comfortable and
psychologically safe enough to be vulnerable, the more this behavior will be observed by peers
and managers, contributing to an environment characterized by organizational trust.
Recommendation 2: Build Connectedness through Digital Platforms
According to Bandura’s (2012) SCT, the observed behavior of peers and managers
informs beliefs and perceptions of organizational trust. Applied to the conceptual framework of
Creed & Miles (1996) these observations will inform the initial cognitive or affective calculus to
be vulnerable and reliant on others in the 100% remote work environment. Based on the stated
beliefs and perceptions of the participants engineering for organic engagement is a challenge that

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 125
high-growth consulting firms need to address in the 100% remote workplace. Digital platforms
and communication channels serve as a proxy for the informal office environment in an entirely
remote work environment (DeGroot, 2009). Twelve of the 13 participants highlighted the
difficulties associated with creating and fostering a sense of connectedness in the fully remote
workplace, as well as the positive impact of creating connectedness through the digital platform.
Participants discussed how, in the absence of verbal inflection, body language, and other nonverbal cues, conventions such as emojis and GIFs are used to convey context and intent around
statements. This practice fosters affinity by revealing a shared sense of humor or familiar context
around a shared experience or background (Andersen, 2006). Participants discussed the
importance of digital channels and how non-business channels provide a forum for employees to
reveal facets of their lives, identities, or personalities that would otherwise be unavailable in the
transactional exchange of the workday. This informal connectedness builds a sense of
community and identity that can galvanize a team or a corporate culture in the 100% remote
context (Edwards, 2020).
Meeting the challenge of digital engagement is more than turning on Microsoft Teams or
enabling Google G-Suite. The implementation of the platform requires forethought and
engineering to reflect the existing or aspirational corporate culture of the firm. Engagement
needs to be both structured and organically flexible, structured and reliable when communicating
firm information and firm events (e.g., all-hands meetings), and organically flexible when
fostering team or affinity channels that assume their own personality and communication
nuances (e.g., custom emojis and GIFs). These channels should incorporate knowledge sharing
and collaboration towards common goals (Kurtzberg, 2020), as well as non-work and taskrelated exchanges to form deeper socio-emotional connections (Colquitt, 2007). Like

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 126
independent digital communities (e.g., Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter), the digital platform needs
moderators. Moderators can be owners of team channels that reflect their direct reports or span
of control, or community moderators that build and maintain channels, and moderate for proper
usage and online behavior. Interpersonal exchanges through these channels should operate with
informal guidelines to encourage authentic and organic engagement (Fake, 2020). Two of the
participants referred to themselves as the “culture queen” of their respective firms, being the
person entrusted with the fostering, promotion, and engagement of the non-work related channels
within the digital platform and building connectedness. Leadership should seek out these
“connector” personality types to help moderate and build the digital community. Where possible,
extending this digital community, or building specific channels for the client-facing engagement,
can build connectedness with the client.
Firms need to employ intentional engineering and discipline to resist overlaying
asynchronous communication on top of the digital platform. Participants described larger, more
traditional firms that make little use of the social collaboration capabilities of their respective
platforms. As a result, the traditional firms achieved little to no network effect, and knowledge
remained mired in trust cadres that operate independently of the digital platform, via email and
side conversations. When properly implemented and engaged, participants described the digital
platform as a synchronous collaboration platform that most reflects real-time collaboration and
engagement. By promoting and enabling connectedness through digital platforms, in the 100%
remote work environment, organizations can foster the type of connectedness essential to deeper
interpersonal relationships. Through the effective and intentional implementation of and
engagement through digital platforms, high-growth tech consulting firms can enable the type of
community, connectedness, and organizational trust that drives collaboration, innovation, and

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 127
employee productivity and well-being characterized by organizational trust (Greenberg &
Maymin, 2020; Zak, 2017).
Recommendation 3: Leadership Digital Presence and Engagement
According to Bandura’s (2012) SCT, the lived and observed experiences in the work
environment validate or challenge beliefs and perceptions of organizational trust. Applied to the
conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996) these experiences and observations of managers,
leadership, and corporate culture, will promote or constrain the decision to be vulnerable and
reliant on others in the 100% remote work environment. In smaller firms, the presence and
responsiveness of executive leadership, and in larger organizations, team leads and managers,
play a crucial role in building organizational trust within the remote work environment.
Participants reported how the availability and accessibility of leadership through electronic or
direct one-to-one engagement is seen as an essential component of being authentic and ethically
responsible in the 100% remote workplace. Among the 13 participants, 11 specifically
highlighted the importance of leadership and management’s availability, accessibility, and
responsiveness as indicators of authenticity, character, benevolence, and competence.
Participants also discussed how the digital collaboration platform serves as the virtual office
equivalent, where the presence and responsiveness of leadership are interpreted as authentic
communication and intent, contributing to the development of organizational trust.
The 100% remote workplace is a potential challenge to transformational, authentic,
followership, or inspirational leadership styles, as it limits the number of interactions available
between leadership and individual employees (Avolio, 2005; Bass, 2006). Since these
interactions primarily occur on digital collaboration platforms, leaders need to develop a digital
persona to augment or replace in-person engagement. Leaders should aim to inspire, cultivate

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 128
followership, and foster a growth mindset (e.g., drive transformation) through a digital persona.
Additionally, leaders should establish diverse and multi-level engagement channels to
communicate their vision, demonstrate execution, and forge authentic connections with remote
employees and internal networks. Through these efforts, transformational leaders can evolve into
influential figures or “influencers” within their firms’ digital collaboration platforms and
communities.
Participants emphasized the profound impact of leadership engaging in community and
non-business channels, fostering an atmosphere of authenticity, character, and benevolence. By
sharing stories, interests, and anecdotes that contribute to the community fabric, and by
demonstrating a willingness to be vulnerable, leaders build a sense of authenticity, community,
affinity, and corporate identity. Engaging in this fashion helps foster connectedness that is
otherwise unavailable in the 100% remote workplace.
Leadership must cultivate internal and external digital personas, with clear engagement
strategies, pivotal in reinforcing not only their desired identity but shaping organizational culture
and trust. Leadership must also build a structured engagement plan that leverages both formal
and informal collaboration channels to reinforce vision, strategy, personal commitment, personal
connection, and information sharing. Additionally, leadership must authentically invest in
consistent daily, weekly, and ad hoc digital touchpoints that build followership among the
remote workforce and foster affinity and organizational trust (Bonanomi, 2020). Through these
leadership engagement methods, high-growth tech consulting firms can reinforce reputation,
positive perception of character, and affinity amongst the remote employees that builds
psychological safety, willingness to take risks, and establishes organizational trust (Greenberg &
Maymin, 2020; Zak, 2017). An environment that reflects and promotes organizational trust will

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 129
influence the propensity of individuals to be vulnerable and engage in trust acts. Individual trust
acts, observed by peers and managers, reinforce the collective environmental attributes of
organizational trust.
Limitations and Delimitations of Research
Limitations and delimitations identify potential issues encountered by the researcher or
inherent weaknesses in the research design. Recognizing limitations in the current research study
is an essential transparency component that can inform future research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The research study had recognized limitations in the research design and sample
population. The research design of the study utilized interviews as the method of data collection,
and participants could have responded to questions prompts, and probes with conscious or
unconscious bias, impacting the accuracy or the internet of the information. A notable limitation
of the study was the sample population, as intentional sampling targeted employees with less
than 8 years of total experience or less than 8 years of experience in their current role within their
respective firms. This intentional demographic may have responses regarding organizational
trust in the remote workplace that vary from the responses and sentiments of broader
demographic samples.
Delimitations are the boundaries set for the research study by the researcher (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This study targeted employees of high-growth technology consulting firms that
have adopted a 100% remote work environment. The delimitation of the inclusion criteria
narrowed the range of participants to a sample population that is highly skilled and compensated
and operates in disruptive technology markets that attract ambitious individuals with a growth
mindset. This demographic might have homogeneous tendencies due to the niche nature of the
organization type.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 130
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future research should include expanding the inclusion criteria to
obtain a larger dataset, inclusive of employees with longer tenures, and experience in both the
industry and their respective roles. The limited inclusion criteria were appropriate for this study
to understand the nature of trust in the novel 100% remote workplace. Future research should
explore the impact of previous work relationships, the related depth of connectedness, and the
related resilience of trust repair. This research could yield insights that would help high-growth
technology consulting firms with staff construction, organizational culture, and operational
design for the 100% remote workplace. Future research should also explore the effectiveness of
digital collaboration platform implementation and usage relative to demonstrated organizational
trust. This research could assist high-growth technology consulting firms in optimizing their
digital collaboration platforms to serve as effective replacements for traditional office
environments, thereby maximizing productivity, employee well-being, and self-efficacy in the
100% remote work environment.
Conclusions
This study leveraged the triadic reciprocity of Bandura’s (2012) SCT, applied to the
conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996), to elicit from participants their beliefs and
perceptions of organizational trust within their respective 100% remote work environments.
Through semi-structured interviews, participants were queried based on their beliefs and
perceptions of trust (research question one), their observations of peer and manager trust
behavior (research question two), and their impressions of trust in their respective 100% remote
work environment (research question three). The study confirmed that while the flexibility and
autonomy of the remote workplace can mitigate the inherent challenges, employees desire a

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 131
deeper connection with their peers and their work environment. The ancient Greek philosophers
highlighted attributes of competence, reliability, and character, as foundational to trust (Irwin,
2012). While these attributes still form the basis for transactional trust, this research confirms
that organizational trust also requires shared experiences, affinity, and a sense of identity that
emerges from authentic, transparent, and reliable engagement, in the modern remote workplace,
Through intentional connection-building and digital collaboration platforms, firms can
build both work and non-work engagement, and foster community, culture, subcultures, and a
sense of belonging. Specifically in high-growth tech consultancies, this environment can be used
to attract and retain talent, build cohesive project delivery teams, help ensure employee
productivity and well-being, and potentially differentiate the firm through an innovative culture
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). A firm that instantiates organizational trust in this manner may also
benefit from client-side differentiation by extending its respective digital platform and
communication channels to the client stakeholders. Through these enabling behaviors and
enabling platforms, high-growth consulting firms can create conduits for building interpersonal
connectedness that extends beyond the default transactional project delivery relationships.
The Covid-19 pandemic, coupled with advances in collaboration technology, have
ushered in a novel construct of high-growth tech consulting firms operating 100% remotely. This
unprecedented disruption of the traditional workplace requires executive leadership, human
capital executives, and functional leaders to understand the expectations and needs of each
employee relative to their remote work experience. This research provided insights into how trust
is initiated, confirmed or invalidated, cultivated, and becomes automatic through observed
behavior and environmental reinforcement. These insights, and potential future research, can be
utilized by high-growth tech consulting firms to better engineer their virtual workplace for

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 132
success and foster effective workplace relationships (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Mayer et al.,
1995), which are essential for teamwork, collaboration, and innovation (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002),
and the type of safe spaces necessary for risk-taking an innovation.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 133
References
Aggarwal, R. (2014). Plato’s knowledge seeking journey: The role of love and trust. Journal of
Business Ethics, 123(3), 439-448.
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Jones, S. M. (2006). Nonverbal behavior in intimate
interactions and intimate relationships. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The
Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication (pp. 219-238). Sage Publications.
Anderson, L., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). The relationship between nonverbal behaviors,
interaction, and perceptions of rapport in dyadic interactions. Communication Research
Reports, 15(2), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976152.n14
Applebaum, K. M., Malloy, E. J., & Eisen, E. A. (2011, July). Left truncation, susceptibility, and
bias in occupational cohort studies. Epidemiology, 22(4), 599-606.
https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821d0879
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2017). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management
practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of
imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589-595.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 134
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 349-373). Sage
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n18
Barnes, B. J., Carpenter, K., & Cohen, R. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on student
motivation and engagement in K-12 remote learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
113(2), 313-335.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Beamish, P. W., Anand, N., & Nath, I. (2003). Multinationality and firm performance: The
moderating role of technology and advertising intensity. Journal of International
Business Studies, 34(1), 79-92.
Bess, K. D. (2015). The impact of everyday experiences on planned organizational change:
Applying schematic change theory to the study of narratives in community-based
organizations. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(6), 739-759.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21757
Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Mertens, K. (2020a). Trust formation in global virtual teams: A
dynamic perspective. Journal of World Business, 55(2), 1-15.
Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Mertens, K. (2020b). Work from home after the COVID-19 outbreak.
Economics Working Paper, Series 2360, University of Zurich, Department of Economics.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 135
Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science:
Problems of trust and distrust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 405-421.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259286
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
Bonanomi, M .M., Hall, D. M., Staub-French, S., Tucker, A., & Talamo, C. M. L. (2020). The
impact of digital transformation on formal and informal organizational structures of large
architecture and engineering firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 27(4), 872-892. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2019-0119
Breevaart, K., & Zacher, H. (2019). Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and
laissez-faire leadership on followers’ trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 384-409.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12253
Brie, M. (2019). Remote work statistics: Shifting norms and expectations. FlexJobs.
https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/remote-work-statistics-shifting-norms-expectations/
Broadie, S. (2006). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford University Press.
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. M. (2018). The unicorn obsession: Understanding the allure of billiondollar startups. Business Horizons, 61(3), 413-421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.003
Bullock, N. (2023, June 13). Work shift: Why we go to the office now. Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-13/the-real-reason-you-reexcited-to-return-to-work-irl

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 136
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University
Press.
Caron, J., Asselin, H., Beaudoin, J. M., & Muresanu, D. (2019). Promoting perceived insider
status of indigenous employees: A review within the psychological contract framework.
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 26(4), 609-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM02-2019-0031
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M. T., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we?
Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information
Systems Journal, 15(4), 279-306. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.
Cooper, J. M. (2002, October 1). Plato: Five dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno,
Phaedo (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
Cope, M. (2016). The seven Cs of consulting: The definitive guide to the consulting process. FT
Press.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 137
Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605-622.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360
, W., & Miles, R. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework. In R. Kramer
& T. Tyler, Trust in organizations (pp. 16-38). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Cummings, J. N., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development
and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers
of theory and research (pp. 302-330). Sage Publications.
DeGroot, T., & Gooty, J. (2009). Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful personality
attributions in employment interviews? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 179-
192.
Deloitte. (2020). Leading in a post-COVID-19 world: The virtual workforce.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/AboutDeloitte/COVID-19/gx-deloitte-virtual-workforce.pdf
DeStefano, V. (2015). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowd work
and labour protection in the ‘gig-economy’. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal,
Forthcoming, Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2682602.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602
DeWitt, P., & Osborne, J. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on primary school children’s digital
inequality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2298-2300.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 138
Dillet, R. (2020). Twitter tells employees they can work from home permanently. TechCrunch.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/12/twitter-tells-employees-they-can-work-from-homepermanently/
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12(4), 450-467.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edwards, S. (2020). How to encourage collaboration and break down silos in remote teams?
Strategic HR Review, 19(4), 157-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-05-2020-0043
Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and
team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6), 1438-1446.
Elsbach, K. D., & Cable, D. M. (2012). Why showing your face at work matters. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53(3), 53-58.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human
Relations, 18(1), 21-32.
Fake, H., & Dabbagh, N. (2020). Personalized learning within online workforce learning
environments: Exploring implementations, obstacles, opportunities, and perspectives of
workforce leaders. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 25, 789-809.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09441-x

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 139
Fenton, A. L. (2019). Modern management and leadership transformations: Trends, cases, and
opportunities. Springer.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed., pp. 695-727). Sage Publications.
Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political
participation. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 811-825. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1008023
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541.
Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions
for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 22(1), 55-62.
Galanti T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during
the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity,
engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7),
e426-e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2020). Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101316.
Gartner Group. (2020). How to lead your business through the coronavirus crisis.
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/how-to-lead-your-business-through-thecoronavirus-crisis/
George, J. M. (2010). More engagement is not necessarily better: The benefits of fluctuating
levels of engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement:

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 140
Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 253-263). Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited. (Chapter 21)
Global Workplace Analytics. (2021). Telecommuting trend data.
https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job
performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-toface, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412-1421.
Grant, A. M., & Cross, R. (2019). Building collaborative communities for innovation. Harvard
Business Review, 97(6), 92-99.
Greenberg, M., & Maymin, S. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on employee well-being and
company culture. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/06/the-impact-of-covid19-on-employee-well-being-and-company-culture
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Ties, ties, and more ties: How informal networks contribute to
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 451-465.
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. (2019). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple
networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1596-1623.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69-95.
Homans, G. (1950), The Human Group, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, pp 52-87.
Huang, K., Starbird, S., Orvis, K., Panneton, R., & Joseph, M. (2017). Examining the effects of
team cognition, team affect, and team efficacy on virtual team performance. Military
Psychology, 29(5), 418-431.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 141
Huang, L., & Liu, D. (2020). The influence of trust on virtual team effectiveness: A moderated
mediation model. Information & Management, 57(1), 103168.
Hughes, O. (2020, December 22). Future of work: Five new features of your remote workplace
in 2021. ZDNET. https://www.zdnet.com/article/future-of-work-five-new-features-ofyour-remote-workplace-in-2021/
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.
Irwin, T. (2012). The development of ethics: A historical and critical study. Oxford University
Press.
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
Jensen, J. H., Flachs, E. M., Skakon, J., Rod, N. H., & Bonde, J. P. (2018). Dual impact of
organizational change on subsequent exit from work unit and sickness absence: A
longitudinal study among public healthcare employees. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 75(7), 479-485. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104865
Johnson, B. (2021). Hybrid work models may be the future of the tech industry. Inc.
https://www.inc.com/ben-johnson/hybrid-work-models-may-be-future-of-techindustry.html
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of
inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20(1),
240-252.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 142
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.
Wiley.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five
challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management
Executive, 16(3), 67-79.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
KPMG. (2021). The future of work in tech consulting: A post-pandemic outlook.
https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/future-work-techconsulting.pdf
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing
organizational trust deficits. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 245-277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.487403
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust and organizational processes. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 41-98). JAI Press.
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Levin, D. Z. (2020). Sustaining employee networks in the virtual workplace.
MIT Sloan Management Review.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 143
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. DOI
Lauby, S. C., Fleming, A. S., & McGowan, P. O. (2021). Beyond maternal care: The effects of
extra-maternal influences within the maternal environment on offspring
neurodevelopment and later-life behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127,
492-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.04.021
Lee, T. H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C. O. (2015). Understanding voluntary turnover:
Path-specific job satisfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1216-1238.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). The nature and tools of research. Practical Research:
Planning and Design, 1(7), 1-26.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 114-139.
Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount, R. B. (2016). An exploration of trust repair in the aftermath of
a trust violation. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1547-1572. DOI
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2020). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: The
effects of reciprocity and social support on remote workers’ job satisfaction and
emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(4), 332-347. DOI
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 144
Lu, A., Wong, C. S., Cheung, R. Y., & Im, T. S. (2021). Supporting flipped and gamified
learning with augmented reality in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 6, 623745.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.623745
Lucas, H. C., Gnanasambandam, T. L., & Katz, R. P. (2019). Technology consulting: Realizing
value from IT investments. John Wiley & Sons.
Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. Trust: Making
and breaking cooperative relations, 108.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Familiarity%2C-Confidence%2C-Trust%3AProblems-and-Luhmann/a5ae78f779284090b9cadb9c5b05501c223f9c23
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Harvard University Press.
Mayo, E. (1949). The social problems of an industrial civilization. Routledge.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Adapting service delivery models in response to COVID-19.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/adapting-servicedelivery-models-in-response-to-covid-19
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2000). What is trust? A conceptual analysis and an
interdisciplinary model. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings, 382.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000/382
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 145
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (pp. 237-250). Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, J., & Mishra, A. (2014). The role of trust in virtual teams: A literature review. Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, 17(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/21515581.2013.771507
Nelson, D. (1992). Frederick W. Taylor and the rise of scientific management. Business &
Economic History, 21(1), 175-183.
Parker, K. (2023). About a third of U.S. workers who can work from home now do so all the
time. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/30/abouta-third-of-us-workers-who-can-work-from-home-do-so-all-the-time/
Patton, M. Q. (2002a). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Patton, M. Q. (2002b). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Chapter 7: Qualitative
interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Pellegrino, J. (2021). Technology and remote work: How tech is changing the way we work
remotely. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnpellegrino/2021/03/10/technologyand-remote-work-how-tech-is-changing-the-way-we-work-remotely/
Pichère, P., & Cadiat, A. C. (2015). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Lemaitre.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2016). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for
nursing practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and
directions for future research. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1),
6-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/968464.968467

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 146
Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face
and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343-357.
Rashid, R., & Asghar, H. J. (2016). Trust and knowledge sharing in virtual learning
communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 62,
45-56.
Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Sage Publications.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
Roblek, V., Meško, M., Pušavec, F., & Likar, B. (2021). The role and meaning of the digital
transformation as a disruptive innovation on small and medium manufacturing
enterprises. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 592528-592528.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.592528
Rompf, S. A. (2014). Trust and rationality: An integrative framework for trust research.
Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07327-5
Rouse, G. N. (2018). Digital transformation consulting: Guiding principles for executives.
Apress.
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.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Santrock, J. W. (2019). A topical approach to life-span development (10th Ed.). McGraw Hill.
Santrock, J. W. (2021). Essentials of life-span development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 147
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. The Oxford
handbook of human motivation, 2, 11-26.
Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013) On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded
theory studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology,
28(3), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.17
Seli, H. (2015). Learning designer toolkit. Unpublished manuscript.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology,
93(3), 623-658. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780293
Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders eat last: Why some teams pull together and others don’t.
Portfolio/Penguin.
Sitkin, S., & Roth, N. (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for
trust/distrust. Organization Science 4(3), 367-392.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relation (pp. 7-24). Hall
Publishers.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. In History of economic thought
books, from McMaster University archive for the history of economic thought.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley.
Trist, E., & Emery, F. (1973). Towards a social ecology: Contextual appreciation of the future in
the present. Plenum Press.
Trist, E., Higgin, G. W., & Murray, H. (1993). Organizational choice: Capabilities of groups at
the coal-face under changing technologies. In E. Trist & H. Murray (Eds.), The social

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 148
engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology (Vol. 2, pp. 9-34). University Press
of America.
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrison, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. (2012). Ethical leadership and group
in-role performance. The mediating roles of group conscientiousness and group voice.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 953-964.
Wang, H., & Yang, Y. (2020). The impact of social support on employee work engagement in
the digital age: The moderating role of self-efficacy. Sustainability, 12(9), 3589.
Wang, J., Li, W., & Lu, W. (2021). Investigating college students’ online learning experiences
during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Asia Pacific Education Review,
22(4), 561-571.
Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. D., Hoffman, A. H., & Bamford, C. E. (2017). Strategic management
and business policy: Globalization, innovation, and sustainability. Pearson.
White, S. (2020). Workism: A new American religion? The Hedgehog Review, 22(1), 5-16.
Wrege, C. D., & Stimpert, J. L. (1993). The origins of modern management consulting. Business
History Review, 67(4), 768-805.
Wren, D. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (2008). The evolution of management thought (6th ed.). Wiley.
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N., Sherman, K.,
Hecht, B., & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among
information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 43-54.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Zak, P. J. (2017). Trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies. Amacom.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 149
Zhang, C., Yu, M. C., & Marin, S. (2021). Exploring public sentiment on enforced remote work
during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 797-810.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000933
Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2021). Social identity and social identification in the virtual work context:
A conceptual model and research agenda. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-17.
Zoller, Y. J., & Muldoon, J. (2019). Illuminating the principles of social exchange theory with
Hawthorne studies. Journal of Management History, 25(1), 47-66.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 150
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Research questions guiding this study are:
1. What are the beliefs and perceptions of the employees of trust in the 100% remote
workplace?
2. Based upon observed behavior, what are the perceptions of trust amongst peers and
managers, in the 100% remote workplace?
3. What attributes of the work environment encourage or constrain trust based upon
leadership, culture, and observed behavior?
Respondent Type: Employees in the high-growth technology consulting industry
Introduction to the Interview:
Hello (Participant_name), and thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study. My
name is Tim Currie, and I will be conducting the interview. A little bit about me, I've spent over
a decade in organizations just like yours, and I am keenly interested in your employee
experience, especially with the concept of trust in a 100% remote workplace. Before we get
started, have you reviewed and signed the informed consent form? Are there any questions I can
answer for you before we start? Also, do I have your permission to record our session? If, at any
time, you need to take a break or have a clarifying question for me, just let me know.
Conduct the interview (for questions, see Table 3)
Conclusion to the Interview:
That concludes our interview. I want to thank you for your time (Participant_name) and
your insights. I hope this was a pleasant experience for you. I have stopped the recording, and I
hope you have a great day.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 151
Appendix B: Onboarding Questionnaire
The information below will help provide context for the interview.
Note: All research results will be confidential.
Tenure at the company: < 2 years | between 2 and 4 years | between 4 and 8 years
Did you know anyone at the company before joining: No | Yes - one person | Yes - multiple
If yes, were you ever a co-worker of these people in the past? Yes / No
Did you interview remotely? Yes / No
Did you meet anyone face-to-face through the interview process? Yes / No
Did you meet anyone face-to-face through the onboarding process? Yes / No

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 152
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form
Building Trust in the Remote Workplace
Informed Consent
Hello. My name is Tim Currie, and I'm inviting you to take part in a research study titled "Trust
in the 100% Remote Workplace in High Growth Technology Consulting Firms.” I am a doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California in the Rossier School of Education. My area
of study is in Organizational Change, and I am seeking to gain insights into how trust and
interpersonal relationships develop in the remote workplace.
What Am I Being Asked To Do?
If you choose to participate in this research, you will be asked to participate in a 60-90 minute
interview. Prior to the interview, you will be asked to fill out a five-minute survey (max). The
interview will take place via Zoom and will be recorded for analysis purposes. All data will be
confidential, and all research findings will be confidential.
Taking Part in this Study is Your Choice
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You may stop participating at any
time. If you stop participating, there will be no penalty or loss to you. Your choice to participate
or not participate will not be recorded or reported. This is a fully discretionary and voluntary
exercise.
Why is this Study Being Done?
The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of trust in the organizational context,
within technology consulting firms that are 100% remote. Understanding how trust is perceived
based on individual beliefs, observed behaviors, and environmental characteristics, within the
100% remote work environment is important because trust plays a critical role in employee

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 153
motivation, productivity, self-efficacy, and well-being (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Mayer et
al., 1995; Zak, 2017). Trust is also essential in building formal and informal networks essential
for employee success within an organization (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Zhu & Chen, 2021).
Organizational trust also provides the bedrock for organizations to withstand, adapt and innovate
in the face of disruptive change (Bess, 2015; Bick, 2020a; Bick, 2020b; Eisenbeiss 2008; Jensen,
2018; Roblek, 2021).
What Will Happen if I Decide to Take Part in this Study?
If you decide to take part in the study, you will receive a link to the onboarding survey (5
minutes), and then schedule a time to have a 45-60 minute interview with me. The interviews are
intended to be casual and conversational and proceed at a pace you feel comfortable with.
What are the Risks and Benefits of Taking Part in this Study?
I believe there is little risk to you for participating in this study. If there are any questions you
feel uncomfortable answering, you can skip any questions at your discretion. We can also always
pause the interview if needed if you need to take a break. You can also stop the interview or
withdraw from the study altogether at your discretion.
There will be no direct benefit to you for participating in this study. However, the results of this
study may help improve how organizations provide the best remote work environment for their
remote employees.
Confidentially And Privacy
I will not ask you for any identifiable personal information, such as your name or address. Please
do not include such information in your survey responses. I will keep all study data secure on an
encrypted, password protected computer or server. I am the only person who will have access to
this information. Other agencies that have legal permission have the right to review the study's

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 154
research records. For example, the University of Southern California has the right to review
research records for this study.
Compensation
There is no compensation for participating in this study.
Future Research Studies
Your identifiable private information will not be collected as part of this study. In addition, the
data collected for this study will not be used or distributed for future research studies.
Questions
If you have any questions about this study, please call me at 312-543-0249, or email me at
timcurri@usc.edu. You may also contact my faculty supervisor, Dr. Alison Muraszewsk, at
alkeller@usc.edu to discuss problems, concerns and questions, obtain information, or offer input
with an informed individual who is unaffiliated with this specific study. Please visit (link to USC
research participant resources) for more information on your rights as a research participant.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 155
Appendix D: Detailed Coding Practices
Data derived from the interviews employing a priori codes yielded a depth of sentiment
relative to trust in the 100% work environment that spanned personal beliefs and perceptions
(research question one), observed behavior of peers and management (research question two),
and overall trust attributes participants perceive and observe in the work environment (research
question three). After the 13 initial interviews were coded using a priori coding, emergent coding
was applied to capture organically prevalent sentiment across the interviews. Emergent coding
systems are codes that are derived from the data itself without relying on any prior assumptions
or expectations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Emergent coding systems are also called inductive,
grounded, or data-driven codes. This concept of open or emergent coding supports the layering
of dimensions of data and the emergence of meaning (Gibbs, 2018).
Organically emerging codes include communication, digital engagement (through digital
collaboration mediums), and transactional trust.
The researcher applied additional layers of coding through axial coding and reflexive
reviews. Axial coding involves a more in-depth exploration of the data, seeking to identify
relationships and connections between codes, and allows the researcher to organize codes into
broader categories or themes, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying
patterns and concepts within the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Axial coding often leads to
developing a coding framework that captures the interplay between different elements in the
researcher’s dataset (Gibbs, 2018). In this study, axial coding yielded additional, more granular
codes, reflecting more detailed and nuanced attributes. This process yielded diversification of the
connectedness coding across three emergent codes: communication, digital engagement, and
transactional trust. Communication diversified into more contextual codes based on what was

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 156
being communicated, who was communicating, and by what methods. Axial coding of digital
engagement yielded some overlap with communication and contextual references to
accessibility, availability, and responsiveness, and intentional connection building.
Axial coding of transactional trust yielded diversification of the concepts of trust repair
and trust cadres, representing the concentration of peers who had previously established trusted
relationships (typically more in-person relationships) and operated at an exclusive level of
collaboration and knowledge sharing. The progression of the initial coding processes effectively
captured the main threads of sentiment among the participants with trust in the 100% remote
workplace, and along with reflexive reviews, enabled the re-coding of the 13 interviews with the
full complement of codes. The sequence of coding and re-coding illustrates the progression from
A Priori coding, emergent coding, and axial coding. Table 8 summarizes the code count for the
final code structure after multiple re-coding cycles.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 157
Table D1
Progression of Code Counts in A Priori, Emergent, and Axial Coding
A Priori Coding
(Trust Attributes)
Emergent
Coding Axial Coding Code
Count Description
Self-Efficacy Communicatio
n
Auth Comm 32 Authentic Communication
Knowledge
Sharing Swift Trust Auth Con-X 33 Authentic & Intentional
Connection Building
Connectedness Digital Channel
Engagement DX-ENG 30 Digital Engagement
Ability,
Competence Trust Cadres X-Trust 19 Transactional Trust
Reliability Face-to-Face
Novelty Rel-Comm 9 Reliable/Consistent
Communication
Benevolence,
Character K-Share + 24 Knowledge Sharing &
Collaboration
Psychological
Safety DX-Chall 23 Challenges of Digital
Engagement
Char/Safety + 15 Positive Psychological Safety
F2F 15 Novelty of Face-to-Face
Engagement
Rep-Comp 22 Reputational Trust
Self-E + 14 Self-Efficacy
DX-Affinity 11 Digital Affinity
K-Whold - 12 Withholding of Knowledge
T-Cadre + 5 Trust Cadres (positive impact)
T-Repair 13 Trust Repair
AXS 12 Leadership Access &
Availability

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 158
A Priori Coding
(Trust Attributes)
Emergent
Coding Axial Coding Code
Count Description
DX-ID 11 Digital Persona Management
Char/Safety - 9 Lack of Psychological Safety
T-Cadre - 5 Trust Cadres (negative impact)
Self-E - 10 Self-Efficacy
Past-X 16 Past Experience
Growth M 18 Growth Mindset
Auto-Trust 25 Evolution to Validated Trust
Upon re-coding the interview data with more granular and nuanced codes, the researcher
actively applied thematic coding to delve deeper into the data, revealing recurring themes,
patterns, and overarching concepts. Thematic coding helps distill the data and helps the
researcher construct a compelling narrative supported by data (Gibbs, 2018). To accomplish
thematic coding, this study applied a modified Agile/Scrum method to iteratively group and
associate the coding and thematic data (see Table D2). Although commonly used in product and
software development, this study loosely applied agile/scrum to plot the high-count codes, map
connected concepts, and draw adjacency and groupings to derive themes.
After thematic analysis, past experience and early impressions, growth mindset, and swift
trust themes emerged that aligned with research question one. Validation of swift trust (including
trust repair), authentic connection building, and digital community building themes emerged that
aligned with research question two. Digital accessibility and responsiveness, fostering
collaboration and knowledge exchange, and cultural reflection through digital platforms themes
emerged that aligned with research question three. These themes encapsulated all of the

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 159
underlying codes and effectively captured the broad patterns of sentiment expressed in the
interviews.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 160
Table D2
Themes and Research Questions Alignment Using a Modified Agile/Scrum Method

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 161
Comparative Analysis
Finally, the researcher applied comparative analysis techniques to the data to derive
different themes or categories and enable them to draw meaningful conclusions. This iterative
and structured approach to coding and analysis ensured that the qualitative research and analysis
were both rigorous and comprehensive (Gibbs, 2018). The study utilized constant comparative
analysis (reflection), cross-case analysis, and visual tools for comparative analysis. The
researcher applied cross-case analysis, involving comparing and contrasting data from different
cases or participants within the study to the 13 interviews.
Merriam and Tisdale (2015) emphasize that cross-case analysis can reveal patterns that
might not be apparent when examining individual cases in isolation. Cross-case analysis revealed
additional prevailing concepts of trust cadres as pivotal indicators of collaborative environments
through alignment of collaboration, knowledge sharing, self-efficacy, and psychological safety.
Only participants who made references to negative psychological safety (excluding those related
to past experiences) also mentioned negative trust cadre exclusion experiences. This exclusion
negatively impacted knowledge sharing, self-efficacy, and psychological safety. While the trust
cadres were highly productive units, excluded outsiders experienced negative effects, such as
knowledge withholding, compromised self-efficacy, and negative impacts on psychological
safety. Table D3 illustrates this cross-case analysis.

TRUST IN THE REMOTE WORKPLACE 162
Table D3
Comparative Analysis of Trust Cadres
Participant
Character /
Psychological
Safety
Trust Cadre Knowledge
Sharing
SelfEfficacy
Negative Negative Negative Negative
Ashton X X X X
Linda X X X X
Nolan X X X X

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The COVID 19 pandemic, coupled with advances in collaboration technologies, have made the remote workplace a sustained reality. While this environment has the benefits of flexibility and autonomy, some employees struggle to build interpersonal relationships and connectedness within the workplace. This dynamic can lead to isolation, a lack of self-efficacy, poor productivity, a lack of well being. This study sought to understand the nature of trust in the 100% remote workplace in high-growth tech consulting firms. Employing the conceptual framework of Creed & Miles (1996), and the triadic reciprocity of the social cognitive framework Bandura (1995), participants were queried on their beliefs and perceptions of trust, their observed trust behavior of peers and managers, and the conditions within their overall work environment that reinforced or eroded organizational trust. The shared theme among participants was the transactional nature of trust (swift trust) applied to the remote workplace, the importance of digital collaboration and engagement platforms, connectedness, knowledge sharing, collaboration, affinity, and a shared identity. The study also yielded insights into the role of leadership in fostering a supportive and collaborative culture through availability, accessibility, engagement, and behavioral reinforcement. Specifically in high-growth tech consultancies, this environment can be used to attract and retain talent, build cohesive project delivery teams, help ensure employee productivity and well-being, and potentially differentiate the firm through an innovative culture.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

PDF

Increasing organizational trust within financial services during times of change: an improvement study

PDF

Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

Executive realness: examining the identity construction of black gay male educators and its influence on authentic identity expression in the K-12 workplace

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

Disclosure of abuse to empowerment: exploring psychological safety as a leadership tool to support women struggling with workplace performance

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Labor versus management perspectives on remote, in-person, and hybrid work: an examination of incongruences, challenges, and strategies for optimal workplace collaboration, motivation, and performance

PDF

Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?

PDF

Building a framework for guiding fundraiser learning and practice in higher education advancement

PDF

Queer consciousness: one kindergarten teacher’s action research to support colleagues in creating safer schools for queer people

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Nonnative English speakers negotiating small talk in high technology workplaces

PDF

Reimagining the pathway to career success: navigating Identity and the white-collar workplace as first-generation immigrant professionals

PDF

A research study of employee perceptions on identifying phishing attacks in financial organizations

PDF

Sustaining employee engagement and resilience through continuous transformation in digital organizations

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

Asset Metadata

Creator Currie, Timothy (author)

Core Title Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 06/14/2024

Defense Date 04/29/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accessibility,affinity,authenticity,availability,belonging,Character,competence,connectedness,engagement,growth mindset,identity,Interpersonal relationships,psychological safety,reliability,remote work,safety,technology consulting,telecommute,trust

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Muraszewski, Alison (committee chair), Moore, Ekaterina (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email timcurri@usc.edu,timcurrie117@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113996WQ2

Unique identifier UC113996WQ2

Identifier etd-CurrieTimo-13091.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CurrieTimo-13091

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Currie, Timothy

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240619-usctheses-batch-1170 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu