Structural decisions about configuration, assignments, and geographical distribution in teams: Influences on team communications and trust

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

Structural decisions about configuration, assignments, and geographical distribution in teams: Influences on team communications and trust ⁎

Julia Eisenberga, , Nancy DiTomasob a b

Pace University, Lubin School of Business, 861 Bedford Road, Pleasantville, NY 10570, United States of America Rutgers University, Rutgers Business School, 143 South Martine Avenue, Fanwood, NJ 07023-1621, United States of America

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Psychological distance Psychological safety Team communication Team trust

Managers structure teams in a variety of ways, which are likely to influence the ability of team members to interact and collaborate. We explore the effects of managerial decisions about the structure of teams by configuration, assignment, and geography. In our conceptualization, we consider a team member's psychological distance as a mediator and the richness of social cues and psychological safety as moderators of the effects of the type of team structure on individual perceptions of the team process of communication and the emergent state of trust in other team members. We contribute to the literature by exploring the different underlying mechanisms through which the type of team structure affects a team member's psychological responses and interactions among team members. Noting that physical distance is difficult to change, we focus instead on perceived psychological distance, which offers a framework that facilitates both better understanding and a means to address collaborative challenges.

1. Introduction Advances in technology have led to an ever increasing variety of team structures. Many types of team structure now have the kinds of communication and collaboration-related challenges that have been associated in the past only with teams considered to be virtual (Dixon & Panteli, 2010). Organizations require flexibility, which results in many fewer teams where team members collaborate face-to-face at all times and where team members allocate their time to just one team (Cummings & Haas, 2012). Increases in collaborative work, across many types of team structures, including but not limited to virtual team structures, are transforming the nature of teamwork (Cummings & Kiesler, 2014). What are called virtual teams have usually been characterized by geographically dispersed team members who collaborate on interdependent tasks and rely on technology for interactions (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). However, most modern teams use some form of communication technology to collaborate such that team members experience ‘distance’ in a variety of ways. The need for collaboration without face-to-face interaction in teams is growing explosively (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017), because most teams adopt characteristics that used to be associated more narrowly with what were thought of as virtual teams. In other words, team collaboration is a constant challenge for a majority of teams across different types of team structures. In this paper, team structure represents the different ways teams are organized and come together to collaborate, recognizing that how the team is structured can affect team outcomes (Piccoli, Powell, & Ives, 2004; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Because all teams face

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Eisenberg), [email protected] (N. DiTomaso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100739 Received 10 October 2017; Received in revised form 21 November 2019; Accepted 22 November 2019 1053-4822/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Julia Eisenberg and Nancy DiTomaso, Human Resource Management Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100739

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

collaborative challenges and increasingly so, researchers have called for a broader approach to examining various forms of team structures (Dixon & Panteli, 2010; Panteli & Chiasson, 2008; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). We explore how different types of team structures influence the psychological perceptions and responses of individual team members. Managerial decisions about how to configure a team, how to allocate workloads across multiple teams, and where to locate members can contribute to different microclimates that affect how team members relate to each other and their ability to collaborate, which both affect how team members evaluate team processes and emergent states. In our model, we extend earlier conceptualizations of team structure (Tong, Yang, & Teo, 2013) by outlining different mechanisms through which different types of team structure affect perceptions of psychological distance among team members. The types of team structures included in our model are not intended to be an exhaustive list as that would be impossible to include in a single paper. Rather, having thoroughly reviewed the teams literature, we want to highlight areas for future empirical research by exploring how different types of team structures are associated with distinct mechanisms with regard to their effects on psychological distance and how each may exacerbate the collaborative challenges for team members. Based on our review of extant research, we outline three categories of team structures: configuration, assignment and geographic structures. Configuration-based team structures reflect the extent to which team members are clustered into groups or work away from other team members; assignment reflects the extent of multiple team commitments; and geographical structures reflect spatial, temporal, and global distribution. These types of team structures may overlap, and when they do, we would expect that the challenges for team member collaboration may be exacerbated. Further, we argue that the different types of team structure appear to affect the psychological responses of team members through different mechanisms (e.g., Cordery & Soo, 2008; Edmondson, 2003; Ortega, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Rico, 2010). The mechanisms associated with each type of team structure shapes the consideration and attentiveness that team members can give to others on the team and their degree of connection to each other. Although we do not directly conceptualize how connected or attentive team members are to each other, we discuss how different types of team structures affect the psychological responses of team members which then affects team processes and emergent states (Chae, 2016; O'Leary, Wilson, & Metiu, 2014; Wilson et al., 2008). Importantly, there may be ways to influence psychological distance even when physical distance cannot be altered. Team processes, such as communication, and emergent states, such as trust, are thought to be especially important in order for team members to work successfully together (Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015; Powell et al., 2004). In this regard, we consider how different types of team structure influence a team member's evaluation of the team communication process and the emergent state of trust through the effects the type of team structure has on the psychological distance from other team members, a key mediator in our model. We also consider the moderating influence of the richness of available social cues. Richer social cues can facilitate the interactions among individual team members and improve the overall tone of social behavior on the team (Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995). Further, we consider the moderating influence of psychological safety. Team members who feel more psychologically safe have more confidence to take interpersonal risks (Edmondson, 1999), and hence, may affect how team structure type affects psychological distance. Despite increasing recognition of the need to consider psychological distance more than physical distance (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010; O'Leary et al., 2014), the study of the perceived psychological effects of the types of team structures on team processes and emergent states is still in nascent stages. Our aim in this paper is to broaden the discussion of the effects of different types of team structure on team member collaboration by highlighting the mechanisms through which different types of team structures affect the psychological responses of team members, and in turn, their perceptions of team communication and trust. In doing so, we give priority to the effects of psychological distance among team members who will be affected differently by different types of team structures. Fig. 1 presents our theoretical model.

Fig. 1. Theoretical model. 2

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

2. The disconnection between physical and psychological distance in teams Because of the growing complexity of team structures, teams are increasingly dealing with issues related to electronically mediated or virtual interactions among team members (Dixon & Panteli, 2010). While a number of scholars have endeavored to define what makes collaboration in virtual teams more challenging than in face-to-face teams (Gilson et al., 2015), there is a lack of consensus about how to study teams where some of the members may not regularly engage in face-to-face interactions with other team members (Gibbs, Sivunen, & Boyraz, 2017; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Liao, 2017; Marlow, Lacerenza, & Salas, 2017). There is even a general lack of consensus about what to call these teams (virtual, geographically distributed, geographically dispersed, among other terms) and a similar lack of clarity about how to define the differences among them. For example, Gibson and Gibbs (2006) define teams in terms of their differences in geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, and dynamic structure. Other researchers have focused on the extent and synchronicity of team member interactions (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005), the number of geographically distributed teams, and the number of team members at each location (O'Leary & Cummings, 2007; O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). O'Leary and Cummings (2007) outline the spatial, temporal, and configurational dimensions of teams (which they define in terms of location, isolation, and imbalance), while O'Leary and Mortensen (2010) use a slightly different definition of team configurational differences in terms of subgroups, imbalance, and isolation. Although this research has contributed insights about the difficulties of collaboration, the fact is that increasingly almost all teams include members who collaborate across distance at least some of the time, e.g., when telecommuting, on business trips, or perhaps even while sitting mere feet away from each other, sending messages through their computers (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Gilson et al., 2015). In most teams, there are times when members must be away from the office, some on any given day who work at home, some who need to meet with clients at other locations, or perhaps some who simply work in different buildings. In other words, even if such teams are not thought of as “virtual,” there are still likely to be problems with collaboration among team members that need to be understood and addressed. We intend to contribute to this literature by focusing on the effects of psychological distance rather than physical distance. We believe that psychological distance can have as much or more effect on how team members reach out and collaborate with each other as physical distance is expected to have. Since a team member's perceptions of distance from other team members influence the quality of their collaboration more than their physical distance (Wilson et al., 2008), it is important to examine factors that might affect the formation of such psychological perceptions. According to Trope and Liberman (2010, p. 440), psychological distance is defined as “the different ways in which an object might be removed from [a reference point] – in time, in space, in social distance.. .. [Psychological distance] is a subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now…[affecting] preference and action.” Increasing physical distance does not necessarily correspond to a linear increase in psychological distance. Trope and Liberman (2010), for example, argue that psychological distance may increase logarithmically with increasing physical distance. Thus, understanding the mechanisms by which different types of team structures affect psychological distance may contribute to the literature on effective team collaboration (Lepine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015). There has been increasing interest in the research community in studying subjective perceptions of distance rather than physical distance. Godar and Ferris introduced the concept of distance as presence, which invokes a social connotation of distance because it is based on the sense of a location and perceived closeness to a place (Godar & Ferris, 2004). Håkanson and colleagues contrasted geographic distance with so-called psychic distance, which is associated with factors that inhibit or disrupt exchange of information based on psychological and perceptual components (Håkanson, Ambos, Schuster, & Leicht-Deobald, 2016). That is, what is now called the presence literature highlights the importance of evaluating subjective experiences in terms of a sense of compresence (or presence with) in the experience of individuals (Zhao, 2003). Thus, while physical distance may potentially exacerbate psychological distance, colleagues who work in different physical locations do not necessarily feel more distant from each other. Conversely, team members working at the same office may feel quite distant from their collocated teammates. Further, perceptions of distance are “not a purely conscious or rational assessment; it is subject to emotions and feelings” (Wilson et al., 2008, p. 983). Gibson, Gibbs, Stanko, Tesluk, and Cohen (2011) focused on the subjective perception of distance in terms of whether colleagues were accessible and available to each other (Gibson et al., 2011). Similarly, Lee (2004, p. 27) examined the states “experienced as actual objects in either sensory or nonsensory ways,” stressing that it is not the fact of physical closeness, but the perception of it that is most important in terms of how people respond to a given situation. O'Leary et al. (2014) argue that how close team members feel to each other in dispersed teams, which suggests a symbolic view of work relationships, will influence their interactions. Psychological distance from other team members may be affected by whether team members share a core set of values and common ground, whether they share goals, and whether they identify with others in the group (Wilson et al., 2008). More generally, any experience among team members that fosters a sense of closeness with other members of their team can reduce psychological distance, while experiences that cause them to feel disconnected or disengaged can increase psychological distance (Wilson et al., 2008). For example, in their study, Wilson et al. (2008) suggested that when thousands of software developers collaborate on a common goal, such as creating a freely available operating system, they perceive each other as close even if physically located all over the world due to a strong shared identity, shared values, and a commitment to collaboration for the greater good. Thus, the concept of psychological distance represents an important approach to improve our understanding of how team members will respond to different team structures (Lee, 2004). Such psychological factors may overlay the mechanisms that would otherwise affect a team members' response within a particular team structure because different types of team structures can affect the interactions of team members and therefore affect the way members perceive distance from others on the team. Examining the mediating and moderating effects that shape how the different types of team structures affect communication and 3

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

trust through the psychological responses of members may help clarify conflicting findings regarding what happens in teams when members rely on technology and cannot consistently interact face-to-face to make collaboration possible (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). It is important to analyze how different team structures may affect team member responses to and relationships with other team members, particularly as collaborative team environments continue to be redefined (Ambos, Ambos, Eich, & Puck, 2016; Carton & Cummings, 2013). 3. Types of team structures Teams of all types may face challenges stemming from an ever increasing reliance on technology for collaboration (Gilson et al., 2015; Powell et al., 2004). In this regard, we follow the research literature in differentiating team structures based on differences in configurations, assignments, and the geographical distributions of team members (Cummings & Haas, 2012; O'Leary & Cummings, 2007; O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). These different types of team structures may affect teams members (Cummings & Haas, 2012), because they affect how the attention of team members is directed (March & Simon, 1958). That is, how the team is organized will affect how team members are likely to allocate their time when dealing with various demands, particularly, but not only, in distributed environments (Cummings & Haas, 2012). The effects of team structures on how attention is allocated, of course, is just one possible effect. Other effects may include the time or intensity of interaction, the size of the team, the type of task assigned, and many others. Although we want to recognize these likely influences, our focus is on how the structural arrangements affect psychological outcomes that then affect team dynamics. We suggest that the way individuals perceive psychological distance will vary across team structures through different mechanisms as each team structure affects the social connections among team members. In our model, we highlight those aspects of the mechanisms associated with each team structure in terms of their likely negative effects on psychological distance perceived by individual team members to others on the team. 3.1. Configuration based structures We consider two team structures based on how the team is configured (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010), including teams with isolates where there is no other team member in the same location (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2011) and teams with subgroups, where two or more groups of members are recognized as distinct (Cramton & Hinds, 2005). While teams may be configured without either isolates or subgroups, we focus on these two types of configurational structures because of each one's distinctive challenges to collaboration (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). 3.1.1. Isolates Isolates are defined as team members with no other teammates at their location (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). The isolation of a team member often arises from an organizational need to gather expertise wherever it is available. There are multiple variations of teams with isolates. In some cases, isolated team members are the only ones from their team, but they may be surrounded by other employees from their organization. In other cases, isolates are truly alone, perhaps working from home, a client office location, or another office, where they are the only ones from their organization. While by definition, a team member who is an isolate is separated in some way physically from other team members, it does not necessarily mean that they are psychologically perceived as distant. Even so, one of the central problems with isolated team members is the possibility of being out of sight, out of mind, which could potentially add social isolation, perceived professional isolation, and organizational identity issues to physical isolation or separation (Bartel et al., 2011; Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Being isolated may influence how much thought a team member devotes to other members and reciprocally how much consideration their perceive from others. Given the structural configuration of the team, those in isolation may perceive that they are not receiving adequate attention from other team members. If so, such perceptions may lead to feelings of separation and psychological distance from the team. 3.1.2. Subgroups and faultlines Teams can develop subgroups either by original design or because of the patterns of interaction that develop in the team. Teams with subgroups constitute another configuration-based structure that may affect team interactions. The degree to which one subgroup believes that other groups are similar or different can contribute to the formation of faultlines that may cause a sense of separation among team members (Thatcher & Patel, 2011, p. 969). While isolates in teams may withdraw because of a sense of separation, teams with subgroups that have developed faultlines may experience conflict between or among the subgroups in the team. Faultlines can challenge the ability of team members to collaborate (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Further, the existence of faultlines implies that distinctions are psychologically activated among team members based on beliefs that one subgroup is differentiated from another (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Among other consequences, teams with subgroups that have developed faultlines may feel that they are receiving less time and attention from other team members than is warranted, and as such, these perceptions may change their own way of engaging with other team members. That is, subgroups within teams may adversely affect the development of relationships among team members, as well as create noticeable conflict. As such, a member of one subgroup may feel closer to the members of the subgroup of which he or she is a member, while feeling distant from members of other subgroups in their team (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). When subgroups that develop into faultlines emerge within a team, they can exacerbate relationships among team members by creating a potential “us versus them” climate, which could lead to competitiveness, animosity, and conflict across subgroups in the team (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017; Meyer, Glenz, Antino, & Rico, 2014; Newell, David, & Chand, 2007; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & 4

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

Kim, 2006). Under such circumstances, subgroups can lead to coordination problems (O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010). Although faultlines may be more likely to emerge in teams when subgroups are in different geographical locations (Cramton & Hinds, 2005), they can also develop within teams that are collocated, such as when team members are working on different tasks or are clustered in ways that increase the identification with the subgroup rather than with the team as a whole (Meyer et al., 2014). Whether faultlines among subgroups are dormant or active may be influenced by the specific pattern of team interactions, by whether subgroups differ in terms of size, access to resources, and status within the group, as well as by the strength of a potential superordinate team identity. All may contribute to explaining why members of the same team may be separated into subgroups (Thatcher & Patel, 2011). In addition, subgroups based at different office locations may develop their own office-specific cultures, especially when some offices are considered to be of higher status than others, e.g., headquarters versus subsidiary locations (Gibbs, Rozaidi, & Eisenberg, 2013). Even when opportunities to interact physically exist, team members in groups divided by faultlines may not utilize such opportunities (Thatcher & Patel, 2011), thereby increasing a perceived sense of separateness (Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009). Teams with subgroups divided by faultlines can magnify perceptions of psychological distance among team members across subgroups, whether physically distant or close. In sum, teams with different types of structural configurations are likely to affect a team member's perceptions of psychological distance although through different mechanisms. We posit that: Proposition 1. The configuration of team structures will increase the psychological distance of team members to the extent that the way team members are arranged reduces the interactions of team members. Specifically, Proposition 1A. Team members who are isolates will experience greater psychological distance from other team members compared to those working in clusters with other team members.. Proposition 1B. Team members who are part of distinct subgroups will experience greater psychological distance from other team members across subgroup boundaries. 3.2. Assignment based structure: Multiple Team Membership (MTM) Team members are frequently assigned to more than one team to better utilize the time and expertise of team members and to provide organizations with flexibility (Cummings & Haas, 2012). Teams with MTM, i.e., a pattern of assignments where each team member may be assigned simultaneously to multiple teams, exists in many organizations (Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012). For example, about 65–95% of knowledge workers are members of more than one project team simultaneously (O'Leary et al., 2006). Organizations rely on MTM structures both to better utilize their human resources and to foster communication across functions, departments, or areas of expertise (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). While there are numerous benefits to an organization in relying on the MTM structure, there are also a number of negative implications for teams that include members whose commitment spans beyond the interest of a single team. First, MTM may result in spreading the focus and time of a given team member too thinly, leading to divided loyalties and unevenness in terms of the member's contribution to each team (Cummings & Haas, 2012). Second, time allocation is “a structural feature of team design” that influences how team members with multiple team memberships distribute their time across their teams (Cummings & Haas, 2012, p. 317). Thus, the less focus a team member can devote to or receive from a team, the less likely the team member is to feel a connection to fellow members of a given team. Specifically, MTM may affect the psychological distance of a team member with multiple assignments because each additional team assignment may divide the likely commitment of the team member to each team of which he or she is a part (O'Leary et al., 2011). MTM may lead to having both conflicting demands and too many demands, which in turn may reduce the levels of engagement the team member can commit to any one team. In addition, having simultaneous responsibilities to multiple teams may influence how other team members perceive the team member with MTM. A team member with MTM will necessarily have to divide consideration across the teams to which he or she has assignments, and that divided loyalty is likely to reduce the interactions the team member has with the members of a given team. Thus, we posit: Proposition 2. Team members with multiple team memberships will feel greater psychological distance from members of any given team than will those with responsibilities to only one team. 3.3. Geographical structure of a team Team structures based on geographical distribution include teams with members distributed across spatially distant offices (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006), and also includes the special cases of geographical distribution that is temporal, meaning in different time zones (O'Leary & Cummings, 2007), or global, meaning in different countries (Klitmøller, Schneider, & Jonsen, 2015). Each of these types of structures may affect how members relate to one another, how they contribute to their teams, and how much consideration they allocate and receive from other team members. Geographically structured teams are different from those based on configuration or assignment structures because the primary factor that makes the interactions of team members in geographically structured teams more complex is rooted in the extent of physical distance among team members. However, the challenges of physical distance to team collaboration may be exacerbated by multiple other factors depending on the type of geographical structure. Both the global and temporal distribution of team members may be viewed as subsets of geographical distribution. More 5

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

generally, we separate these out to highlight the differences between the generic effects of geographical, i.e., spatial, distribution (which does not necessarily include temporal or global distribution) from the unique issues that arise when team members are distributed across different time zones or different countries. Our approach extends the recent examination of teams that highlights the importance of spatial dispersion (Gibson, Huang, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2014) by examining the effects of psychological distance across teams that are geographically dispersed. 3.3.1. Spatial distribution of a team The spatial dispersion of team members across geographically distant office locations can be beneficial for companies because it expands access to expertise and provides flexibility to employees as well as to companies. Spatial dispersion, however, is also associated with a number of problems (Gilson et al., 2015; Johns & Gratton, 2013), and these may, in turn, cause greater perceptions of psychological distance. First, geographical dispersion may diminish informal exchanges among team members and reduce collaborative interactions (Kraut, Fish, Root, & Chalfonte, 1990). For example, there may be power struggles across locations that might negatively influence team interactions. Second, collaborating across multiple offices may reduce the knowledge team members in one location have about the locationspecific constraints, such as scheduling or travel limitations, of those in other offices (Cummings & Haas, 2012). Not understanding the location-specific constraints may affect both the availability and readiness of team members to engage with those in other locations. Third, team members may have a harder time allocating time to teammates who are remote (Cummings & Haas, 2012). As such, team members may focus more on those in their own locations rather than on those who are geographically distant. That is, not understanding the constraints that drive the behavior of team members from other locations may make those who are spatially distant reluctant to help or perhaps unwilling to collaborate with remote team members. In addition to location-specific constraints, the inability of spatially distributed team members to fully comprehend the norms of team members in different offices may adversely affect their ability to interact successfully. In sum, the spatial distribution or separation of team members across distant offices, even in the same time zones or cultures, may increase the psychological distance among team members (Schulze & Krumm, 2017). 3.3.2. Temporally distributed teams Teams that are temporally distributed are geographically distributed teams that span multiple time zones, leading to additional potential challenges that are likely to increase a sense of psychological distance. First, temporally distributed members may not have sufficient opportunity to interact in real time, which can lead to misunderstandings because of more limited interactions (Zakaria, Yusof, Affendi, Muton, & Ab, 2015). Second, team members may also find it harder when making requests or inquiries to get responses from team members who are in different time zones (Cummings & Haas, 2012), since work schedules differ. Third, dispersion of team members across multiple time zones may require those in other locations to extend their work days in order to collaborate with team members across temporal locations (Saunders, Van Slyke, & Vogel, 2004). Coordination, meaning the orchestration and timing of interdependent tasks, may be affected by the temporal rhythm of taskrelated work on temporally distributed teams and may adversely influence team interactions (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). When team members in one time zone feel a need to solve problems more immediately, they may simply search for other solutions rather than waiting for a response from and allowing contributions from temporally distant team members. Under such circumstances, the overall interactions among team members may be reduced. Further, the complexity of trying to coordinate across time zones may stifle future interactions among temporally distributed team members. Thus, the interactions of team members who do not work at the same time of day are likely to be adversely affected. 3.3.3. Globally distributed teams Another special kind of geographically dispersed team is one that has team members in different countries. Global teams have members working together from across the world (Caligiuri, Lepak, & Bonache, 2010), which can create challenges for human resource practices, for leaders, and for team members. Global teams can have some of the same issues as other geographically dispersed teams, but they are likely to have added complexity associated with cultural differences specific to the local context, disagreements about work pace, and whether there is fluency in a common language (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Whether the cultures across locations differ or not, team members on global teams are likely to face coordination issues associated with working across national boundaries (Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2002; Caligiuri and Tarique, 2009). Teams with people in different cultures or countries may also have to deal with people being away from work because of different national holidays, opposite timing of summer vacations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Saunders et al., 2004), or dealing with cultural norms such as “siesta time,” which may be accepted in some cultures but perceived as a nuisance in others. Global location-specific practices, such as customs, holidays, demands on time, and travel constraints, among many other things, may be misunderstood by team members from different offices. For example, Saunders et al. (2004) suggest that the so-called time visions, which have to do with variations in such things as deadlines, rhythms (not the same as clock time), and performance management, may play an important role in influencing employee interactions in global settings. Variations in understanding how, when and at what pace work should be done has long been an integration-related challenge in organizations (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), and these are likely to be more extreme across cultures or countries. In some cases, norm differences across cultures may lead to greater complexity in team member interactions (Holmstrom, Conchúir, Ågerfalk, & Fitzgerald, 2006), which can also negatively affect team dynamics. In most cases, global boundaries are likely to create sub-environments with their own set of values, priorities and understandings of organizational goals that team members in other locations need to comprehend (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Saunders et al., 2004). For example, information may be overlooked because team members do not understand what information is 6

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

relevant (Gibson & Cohen, 2003). The increasing complexity and likelihood of misunderstandings across cultures or countries may increase the perceptions of psychological distance among team members in globally dispersed teams (Cummings & Haas, 2012). Proposition 3. The structural arrangement of team members in geographically dispersed teams will increase the psychological distance among team members to the extent that the geographical distribution interferes with their interactions. Specifically, Proposition 3A. The more team members are spatially distributed, the more a team member will experience psychological distance from others on the team. Proposition 3B. The more team members are temporally distributed across time zones, the more a team member will experience psychological distance from others on the team. Proposition 3C. The more team members are distributed globally across different countries or cultures, the more a team member will experience psychological distance from others on the team.

3.4. Team structure summary While different types of team structures may affect the ability of team members to be attentive to and to connect with other team members, a combination of these structural characteristics would likely have even greater effects. In sum, the greater the complexity created by a combination of these structures, the more difficult it will be for a team member to foster relationship bonds and to engage in effective interactions with others on the team. When problems arise on teams because of some combination of the configuration, the assignment, or the geographical dispersion, team members may disengage and feel they are less a part of the team or may experience conflict or misunderstandings within the team, all of which will influence their perceptions of psychological distance from other team members. Proposition 4. The greater the number of overlapping mechanisms stemming from more complex team structures, the more a team member will experience psychological distance.

4. Richness of social cues As outlined in the model in Fig. 1, we argue that the richness of social cues will moderate the relationship between the type of team structure and psychological distance. Communication media may be ranked in terms of whether it provides the necessary communication capabilities to match a particular context depending on such characteristics as the immediacy of feedback, whether it transmits multiple cues, and whether it fits the context (e.g. the social norms) (Lam, 2016). More advanced media may offer a greater number of cues that help facilitate social bonds (Ishii, Lyons, & Carr, 2019). Media richness theory addresses the effects of the communication medium on an individual's comprehension of information within a certain time period and suggests that the opportunity to foster relationships among team members will vary with the richness of the medium used for interaction (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Yoo & Alavi, 2001). Greater media richness may help team members get to know each other better and improve the quality of their interactions (Kirkman, Cordery, Mathieu, Rosen, & Kukenberger, 2013). However, communication channels that are not sufficiently rich may diminish interpersonal impressions (Walther, 1993). The effects of media type, however, may be mixed. On the one hand, “richer” technologies may provide greater access to social cues that can facilitate the speed and quality of interactions (Yoo & Alavi, 2001). Richer social cues help employees form stronger relationships by improving the exchange of work and non-work related information (Gibbs, Eisenberg, Rozaidi, & Gryaznova, 2015) and by enabling greater understanding and better coordination (Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010). On the other hand, some “richer” types of collaborative technologies may be cost prohibitive, unreliable, or not intuitive enough for all employees to use effectively. All of these factors can greatly reduce their utility despite their potential advantages. Some technology may also offer employees a way to disengage (Gibbs et al., 2013) or to be more socially anonymous and impersonal (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Further, interactional processes that are less rich in social cues can “often lead to feelings of isolation” (Connaughton & Daly, 2004, p. vii). Efforts to collaborate using electronically mediated communication has been found in some cases to weaken adherence to social norms of interaction (Gressgård, 2011; Montoya, Massey, Hung, & Crisp, 2009). Computer-mediated exchanges may also suffer from reduced access to social cues, thus diminishing the interpersonal appeal and resulting in feelings of greater psychological distance among team members (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). These findings are consistent with earlier research, which stipulated that some media are unable to transfer socially relevant cues (Kirkman et al., 2013). When relevant social cues are less available, the communication may adversely affect team members' perceptions of psychological distance (Eisenberg, Glikson, & Lisak, 2019). Media richness theory suggests that technologies that do not provide a rich enough medium may diminish the overall quality of collaborative efforts and negatively affect team interactions (Daft & Lengel, 1986). However, when such technologies enable the necessary social cues, they facilitate interactions, help team members develop social relationships, and positively influence the way that different types of team structure affects the psychological distance from fellow team members. Thus we posit: Proposition 5. Greater availability of rich social cues will negatively moderate the relationship between complex team structural arrangements and a team member's psychological distance from the rest of the team, i.e., with richer social cues, the effects complex team structural arrangements have on psychological distance will be decreased. 7

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

5. Team psychological safety Team psychological safety is defined as a “shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking… [leading to]…a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354). Psychological safety reduces some of the challenges associated with the lack of face-to-face interactions in teams because team members feel more secure in vocalizing their thoughts (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Psychological safety is rooted in respect among team members for each other. In psychologically safe team environments, members can vocalize their thoughts and share their ideas without fear of negative feedback. The concept of psychological safety has received a lot of attention in the literature because a psychologically safe environment is presumed to have positive effects on team interactions (e.g., Edmondson, 1999, 2003; Post, 2012). Psychological safety specifies the components of a supportive environment, i.e., one characterized by participation that is open, respectful, appreciative, forgiving, and that includes team members who express mutual interest in each other's contributions (Cordery & Soo, 2008; Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007). Psychological safety is associated with positive effects on helping and feedback seeking behaviors (Edmondson, 2003). It fosters greater engagement among team members by minimizing risks to one's image and facilitating information exchange and transmission of unique perspectives under conditions of ambiguity or uncertainty (Edmondson, 2002; Post, 2012). As highlighted in our model, greater psychological safety in teams has been found to reduce perceptions of psychological distance among team members (Ortega et al., 2010). This is because when team members feel safe in sharing what is on their minds, they are more likely to perceive that other team members are closer to them, which is likely to reduce a sense of psychological distance. For example, while face-to-face interaction may enable team members to get to know each other and to develop closer relationships, team members who are not able to interact face-to-face may have more difficulty developing a similar closeness. In such situations, a shared sense of psychological safety may substitute for the lack of in-person exchanges. That is, psychological safety may diminish the positive effects of complex team structures on psychological distance, i.e., with greater psychological safety, the effects complex team structural arrangements have on psychological distance will be decreased because even if interactions are less frequent or more constrained, they also are less risky for team members. There are a number of reasons why psychological safety may help overcome some of the challenges associated with different types of team structures. First, psychological safety facilitates such team dynamics as discussion of key issues, seeking feedback, experimentation, and reflection on results, including an examination of errors (Ortega et al., 2010). Second, it can help foster personal relationships in both formal and informal interactions among team members (Cordery & Soo, 2008). Informal interactions seem to be particularly important for improving spontaneous conversations and for successful collaboration (Kraut et al., 1990). Third, psychological safety enhances a safe communications climate, thus reducing the process losses that are often associated with complex team structures (Cordery & Soo, 2008; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Psychologically safe communication climates are “characterized by support, openness, trust, mutual respect, and risk taking,…spontaneous and informal communication, …bridging differences by suspending judgment… [and] help[ing] strengthen social ties among team members” (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006, p. 462). In turn, an environment associated with psychological safety may facilitate the exchange of diverse and new ideas among team members (Bradley, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012) and help team members overcome some of the barriers that team structures like isolates, subgroups, multiple team memberships, or geographical dispersion may introduce (Gibson et al., 2014). As we have suggested, some team structures make team interactions more difficult (Ebrahim, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009; Martins et al., 2004) and these can increase the psychological distance among team members. However, if employees are able to interact in a climate of psychological safety without fear and uncertainty about how other team members may react, psychological distance among team members is likely to be reduced. That is, psychological safety may diminish the positive effects of complex team structures on psychological distance by helping to bring team members closer together (O'Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994), facilitating greater risk taking by team members (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), enhancing self-expression, and fostering respect (Huang et al., 2010). In sum, we theorize that if team members feel comfortable and safe when collaborating with their teammates, that is, if they are in a psychologically safe environment, they are more likely to perceive a closer connection to team members and thus perceive less psychological distance across different types of team structures. Thus, we posit: Proposition 6. The increase that complex team structures cause on a team member's psychological distance will be moderated by their perception of psychological safety, such that the greater the perception of psychological safety, the less the perception of psychological distance. 6. The team process of communication and the emergent state of trust. In general, team processes have been defined as collaborative exchanges among group members (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In our definition of team interactions, however, we follow the recommendations of Marks et al. (2001) by distinguishing emergent states, which represent team qualities at a given point in time, from team processes, which describe team dynamics over time (Marks et al., 2001). A number of processes and emergent states have been examined for their influence on team performance. To illustrate the expected relationships of our model, we focus on communication and trust because these have been prominent in the teams literature, particularly for teams that require virtual collaboration (Gilson et al., 2015; Martins et al., 2004). Many management scholars agree that team communication has a crucial influence on other team processes and outcomes, particularly when discussing virtual collaboration (Powell et al., 2004). The quality of communication within a team, defined as “frequency, formalization, structure, and openness of the information exchange” (Hoegl et al., 2001, p. 437) is fundamentally 8

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

important to team collaboration (Marlow et al., 2017; Pinto & Pinto, 1990). Communication among team members includes the type and scope of communication (Markulis, Jassowalia, & Sashittal, 2006) as well as information exchange (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002). Communication processes are often multifaceted and involve complex exchanges of information (Zakaria, Amelinckx, & Wilemon, 2004). Trust is based on the potential exposure to vulnerability and risk, defined as an expectation that the actions of others will not be detrimental to an individual, will be honest, and will maintain commitments (Robinson, 1996). Trust in teams positively influences collaboration in computer-mediated groups (Hill, Bartol, Tesluk, & Langa, 2009), and it can aid those who work in global teams (O'Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Our aim is to explain how different types of team structures affect the communication and trust an individual member has with others on the team through his or her perceptions of psychological distance. 6.1. The mediational role of psychological distance in the team structures and team communication relationship Communication among team members across different types of team structures varies significantly (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Marlow et al., 2017). In general, diminished frequency of interactions is associated with a reduced quality of communication (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Although both formal and informal interactions determine the effectiveness of communication (Hsu, Shih, Chiang, & Liu, 2012), informal interactions are especially crucial for coordination and learning, providing “a critical mechanism that collaborators rely on to start joint work, maintain it, and drive it to conclusion” (Kraut et al., 1990, p. 32). Informal interactions among team members can contribute to one's feeling of comfort and therefore may reduce feelings of psychological distance. For example, because informal interactions suggest greater familiarity among colleagues, factors that constrain informal interactions among team members are likely to negatively influence communication (Kraut et al., 1990). Communication is also of lower quality when team members do not interact frequently, spontaneously, and synchronously or if members withhold information (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). While expectations of reciprocity are associated with higher levels of engagement and exchange of information resources among team members (Gruman & Saks, 2011), when there is ambiguity about the relationships, team members may be reluctant to communicate and share knowledge. The effect of the type of team structure on how an individual member interprets team communication processes will depend on the perceptions the team member has of others on his or her team. That is, when the type of team structure affects how team members interact, individual team member perceptions of the team communication will likely be affected because of the effects on the psychological distance an individual team members perceives toward other team members. Thus, we posit: Proposition 7. The effects of the type of team structure on a team member's perceptions of team communication process will be mediated by a team member's psychological distance from the rest of the team.

6.2. The mediational role of psychological distance in the team structure and team trust relationship Trust is the product of good social relationships among team members (Powell et al., 2004). Trust is facilitated by a sense of closeness and a connection with other team members, as well as by attraction to the team (Cramton, Orvis, & Wilson, 2007; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Wang, Walther, & Hancock, 2009). The challenges to developing trust will vary across different types of team structures. Perceptions of closeness among team members are more likely if team members value and prioritize the same things (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Saunders et al., 2004). Closer relationships can reduce perceptions of psychological distance, which can increase trust. At the same time, reducing psychological distance may reduce distrust, for example, in online contexts (Darke, Brady, Benedicktus, & Wilson, 2016), although team members who lack a shared history have a harder time developing openness and trust when their interactions are restricted to computer-mediated means (Alge, Wiethoff, & Klein, 2003). Further, mutual understanding, and in turn trust, may be more likely when team members share similar propensities to take risks or when they have similar beliefs. Also, having common past experiences and similar interpretations of the surrounding environment make it more likely that team members will understand and trust each other (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). In teams that do not meet face-to-face, trust can be enhanced through perceptions of the integrity and interpersonal care among team members (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). But, when team members are separated, it makes it harder for them to form close bonds and relationships with their colleagues (Hill, 2005), which is likely to diminish levels of trust among team members. Weak relationships and lack of awareness of each other's constraints may lead to incorrect attributions about undesirable behaviors of remote colleagues to internal rather than to situational factors. Such dynamics may weaken their sense of similarity and undermine the likelihood that the team members will develop trust in each other (Cramton et al., 2007; Gibson et al., 2011). Competing demands faced by team members in different types of team structures may negatively affect the opportunities team members have to closely work together (O'Leary et al., 2006) and may also diminish social integration Hinds & Kiesler, 1995 in turn, negatively influencing trust. When the structure of the team creates an increased number of barriers to interactions among teammates, we anticipate that the effects on how a team member perceives levels of trust on their team will be mediated through psychological distance from fellow team members. Therefore, we posit: Proposition 8. The effects of different types of team structures on an individual member's perceptions of team trust will be mediated by a team member's psychological distance from the rest of the team. 9

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

7. Discussion The utilization of teams has proliferated because teams offer significant advantages to companies as they grow, globalize, and seek opportunities. The research literature has documented, however, the likely negative effects on the ability of team members to freely interact with each other when there are constraints introduced by the mechanisms associated with different types of team structures. As a result, the research literature has moved recently to explore the boundary conditions and the multiple influences on team functioning (Gilson et al., 2015). Our aim in this paper has been to contribute to the literature on teams by outlining multiple types of team structures and teasing apart the different mechanisms by which each of these structures has effects on individual team member psychological responses and team processes and emergent states. In our model, we argue that in addition to the established direct effects a team structure has on team member interactions, there are also important indirect effects that work through the psychological responses of individual team members. Whether a team member feels psychologically distant or close to other team members depends on whether he or she has a sufficient number of rich social cues about others on the team and feels that he or she can contribute to the team with a sense of psychological safety. Social cues facilitate a team member's abilities to interact and develop social relationships that facilitate closer relationships among team members, while psychological safety provides an environment that is conducive to positive interaction. Both leaders and team members need to understand these dynamics. Our theoretical paper highlights opportunities for future empirical research by conceptualizing the mechanisms by which different types of team structures affect successful team collaboration. Our model examines the effects of different types of team structure on psychological distance, and in turn, on communication with or trust of team members. Future empirical research may want to examine the strength of the effects of different types of team structures on member psychological responses and on team collaboration. The framework we present can be used to influence organizational human resources policies and approaches to team management, in turn facilitating team effectiveness. Understanding the mechanisms through which different types of team structures impact team member perceptions of psychological distance may provide managers with guidance on how to attenuate the potential negative dynamics in team interactions when the type of team structure may present a problem. Our model suggests several leverage points for how improving effectiveness in teams even when teams are structured in ways that make collaboration more challenging. First, team leaders and members need to understand how a particular team structure might introduce challenges to team collaboration. Human resource representatives should provide training to employees that highlights the likely impact the types of team structures may have on the psychological responses of team members. Such training should include information on both the kinds of problems that might emerge and on ways to mitigate collaboration-related challenges. Second, organizations should continue to invest in technologies that can provide team members with richer social cues, thus facilitating interactions in complex team structures. Technology that facilitates relationship building and raises awareness of challenges in different team structures can mitigate the challenges by providing greater access to social cues. For example, advances in group video conferencing technology can provide team members with richer social cues despite the complexities of the type of team structure. Third, team leaders and members need to create and maintain a psychologically safe environment by encouraging all team members to help others feel confident that their contributions will be accepted and considered without bias. To facilitate this goal, we suggest that managers use performance appraisal and other human resource practices to reward individuals who exhibit behaviors that foster psychological safety and to penalize those who impede or interfere with a perception of psychological safety. Encouraging a perception of psychological safety on teams should facilitate interactions among team members and perhaps improve team outcomes. Organizations can also facilitate psychological safety by fostering an atmosphere where employees are encouraged to take risks, even if their ideas fail, as well as by treating them with respect. Finally, knowing that geographical distance can contribute to a sense of psychological distance, team leaders should make an effort to foster a sense of greater connection and common purpose in teams whose members are separated by spatial distance. They can do so by encouraging, facilitating, and rewarding greater levels of team member interactions through whatever means are available. If financially feasible, leaders should try to bring team members from various locations to meet each other at an offsite for team building exercises, especially at the outset of a team assignment. At minimum, representatives from different locations should be brought together occasionally to meet face-to-face. Even for teams whose members are not physically separated from each other, managers need to be attuned to whether the structure of the team might create the conditions for increasing psychological distance. For example, if team members frequently work out of the office, even when they are ostensibly collocated, managers should foster opportunities for team members to interact. Understanding the mechanisms through which different types of team structure affect the psychological responses of team members and knowing how mediating and moderating influences affect team members should help enhance the effectiveness of team collaboration and mitigate the challenges to successful team performance. Our model has not tried to address every type of extant team structure, but instead, has included those types that we believe to be most representative of earlier studies. Drawing from what we consider the most relevant earlier conceptualizations of how teams are structured, we endeavored to build a framework for analyzing the different mechanisms associated with different types of team structure on the psychological effects of team members. In our efforts to develop the model that we discuss in this paper, however, we faced a challenge with regard to terminology, precisely because the research literature has been imprecise in the conceptualization of teams. We variously talked about team “configurations,” team “context,” and team “connections,” but we found it difficult to be consistent across the different types of teams we found in the literature, among other reasons because the types that we wanted to discuss were not sufficiently discrete from each other. For example, multiple team assignments is not strictly a configuration or type of connection. Hence, we finally settled on the more familiar term of team “structure” because we wanted to highlight managerial 10

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

decisions about how to organize teams and how those ways of organizing affect the ability of teams to interact and collaborate with each other. We believe that our main contributions are to outline the different mechanisms associated with each type of team structure and to relate those mechanisms to the psychological responses of team members. While these, too, are not exhaustive nor complete, they should be helpful for others to suggest future refinements and further elaboration of our model. Even though the processes we are describing are complicated and multifaceted, we have tried to minimize the level of complexity of our model. Empirical analyses of our model may be most successful if separated into multiple stages. Further, given the lack of clarity about different types of team structural arrangements, qualitative analyses, for example, those that use the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) (Haxhi & Aguilera, 2017; Ragin, 2000) might add important insights in future research. In summary, our analysis highlights the central role of psychological distance over physical distance. We believe that our model may help clarify the previous literature that tries to compare the dynamics within traditional or collocated and virtual teams. We try to show that the distinction between collocated and virtual teams is currently a blurred one, because teams of all types have challenges related to collaboration. Whether team members are located in far distant places or whether they ostensibly work in the same location, collaboration is increasingly difficult, in part, because of the increasing complexity in terms of how teams are organized and how and where people do their work. All teams have members who come and go, who are present or away, who are available through technology-mediated interactions and are only sometimes face-to-face, and as such face collaboration challenges that we believe can be addressed by taking steps to reduce psychological distance. Managers can influence how team members feel about each other and the effectiveness of their interactions, even when they cannot change the physical distance among team members nor reduce the complexity of team structural arrangements. In other words, understanding that physical distance and psychological distance are distinct and that psychological distance is perhaps the more relevant can provide companies with a means to address the challenges to team collaboration, even in a global and fast changing world. 8. Conclusion The use of teams has become essential for what organizations need to accomplish, whether generating new discoveries, developing and introducing new products, managing global supply chains, serving customers around the world, or collaborating as well as competing with other organizations. Using teams effectively requires increased reliance on technology-mediated collaborations whether teams are virtual or ostensibly collocated. The increasing complexity of team structures, however, complicates the interactions among team members, and in turn, the psychological responses that team members have toward each other. Although managers may not be able to bridge physical distance, they can improve team collaboration by understanding how different types of team structures affect psychological distance. Managers can then take actions to counteract the challenges of feelings of invisibility among isolates, an “us vs. them” mentality when faultlines arise in teams with subgroups, conflicted commitments across team assignments, and the complications of interactions across geography, whether spatial only or also by time zone, country differences, or some combination. While these are not the only types of team structure, nor the only mechanisms by which team members are affected, we know from the research literature that each of these types of team structure affect the relationships team members are likely to develop and their ability to interact, both of which are necessary for team collaboration and success. Thus, our model should contribute to greater clarity about these effects. By recognizing that the challenge is not between collocated, virtual, or other types of teams, but rather that problems related to collaboration are likely in all teams, managers can more effectively devise solutions that enhance team collaboration no matter what the team structure. As organizational trends predict increasing geographical and global dispersion of teams over the coming decades, it will become increasingly important to evaluate the influence of psychological distance, feelings of psychological safety, and the availability of richness in social cues to enhance team communication and trust. Understanding the mechanisms through which different types of team structures affect a team member's psychological responses may help address challenges associated with working in all types of teams, and in turn, contribute to enhanced team performance. References Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00524-1. Ambos, T., Ambos, B., Eich, K., & Puck, J. (2016). Imbalance and isolation: How team configurations affect global knowledge sharing. Journal of International Management, 22(4), 316–332. Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2011). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0661. Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0379. Bradley, B., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: the critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. Caligiuri, P., & Lazarova, M. B. (2002). A model for the influence of social interaction and social support on female expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(5), 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210125903. Caligiuri, P., Lepak, D., & Bonache, J. (2010). Managing the global workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities. Journal of World Business, 44(3), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb. 2008.11.005. Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 732–758. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033593. Chae, S. W. (2016). Perceived proximity and trust network on creative performance in virtual collaboration environment. Procedia Computer Science, 91(Itqm),

11

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

807–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.084. Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Jornal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. Connaughton, S. L., & Daly, J. (2004). Leading from afar: Strategies for effectively leading virtual teams. In S. H. Godar, & S. P. Ferris (Eds.). Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies and practice (pp. 49–75). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Cordery, J. L., & Soo, C. (2008). Overcoming impediments to virtual team effectiveness. Human Factors, 18(5), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm. Cramton, C., & Hinds, P. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26006-3. Cramton, C., Orvis, K. L., & Wilson, J. M. (2007). Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. Journal of Management, 33(4), 525–546. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302549. Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/job. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2014). Organization theory and the changing nature of science. Journal of Organization Design, 3(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.7146/jod. 18596. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural determinants. Management Science, 32, 554–571. Darke, P. R., Brady, M. K., Benedicktus, R. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2016). Feeling close from Afar: The role of psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers. Journal of Retailing, 92(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.02.001. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589–609. Dixon, K. R., & Panteli, N. (2010). From virtual teams to virtuality in teams. Human Relations, 63(8), 1177–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709354784. Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 569–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-012-0152-6. Ebrahim, A., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 1–9. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999. Edmondson, A. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork, 1–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1026/0932-4089.48.3.158. Edmondson, A. (2003). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: a group-level lens. Trust and Distrust In Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, (February), 239–282. Eisenberg, J., Glikson, E., & Lisak, A. (2019). Global teams: The effects of media and language diversity on perceived proximity and performance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. Eisenberg, J., & Mattarelli, E. (2017). Building bridges in global virtual teams: The role of multicultural brokers in overcoming the negative effects of identity threats on knowledge sharing across subgroups. Journal of International Management, 23, 399–411. Gibbs, J. L., Eisenberg, J., Rozaidi, N. A. N. A., & Gryaznova, A. (2015). The “‘megapozitiv’” role of enterprise social media in enabling cross-boundary communication in a distributed Russian organization. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540511. Gibbs, J. L., Rozaidi, N. A. N. A., & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12034. Gibbs, J. L., Sivunen, A., & Boyraz, M. (2017). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team processes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.006. Gibson, C., & Cohen, S. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gibson, C., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495. Gibson, C., Gibbs, J., Stanko, T., Tesluk, P., & Cohen, S. G. (2011). Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: Extending the job characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual experiences of electronic dependence and copresence. Organization Science, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100. 0586. Gibson, C., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-firstcentury teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413091240. Gilson, L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946. Godar, S. H., & Ferris, S. P. (2004). Virtual and collaborative teams. London: Idea Group Publishing. Gressgård, L. J. (2011). Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations. Team Performance Management, 17(1/2), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13527591111114738. Gruman, J., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004. Håkanson, L., Ambos, B., Schuster, A., & Leicht-Deobald, U. (2016). The psychology of psychic distance: Antecedents of asymmetric perceptions. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.11.005. Haxhi, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2017). An institutional configurational approach to cross-national diversity in corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 261–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12247. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002. Hill, N. S. (2005). Leading together, working together: The role of team shared leadership in building collaborative capital in virtual teams. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 11(5), 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-0977(05)11007-3. Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. (2009). Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.10.002. Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6(4), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.4.373. Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632. https://doi.org/10. 1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H., Science, D., Avenue, W. F., Hans, H., & Gemuenden, G. (2001). Teamwork and the success of quality a theoretical concept projects : Innovative and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. Holmstrom, H., Conchúir, E., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Global software development challenges: A case study on temporal geographical and sociocultural distance. IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. Hsu, J. S.-C., Shih, S.-P., Chiang, J. C., & Liu, J. Y.-C. (2012). The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams’ coordination, communication, and performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.003. Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.014.

12

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

Ishii, K., Lyons, M. M., & Carr, S. A. (2019). Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 124–131. https:// doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138. Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there ? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64. Jarvenpaa, S., & 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. Jassawalla, A., & Sashittal, H. (2002). Cultures that support product-innovation processes. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 42–54. Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, (January–February), 66–73. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206305279113. Kirkman, B. L., Cordery, J. L., Mathieu, J., Rosen, B., & Kukenberger, M. (2013). Global organizational communities of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community performance. Human Relations, 66(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712464076. Klitmøller, A., Schneider, S. C., & Jonsen, K. (2015). Speaking of global virtual teams: Language differences, social categorization and media choice. Personnel Review, 44(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2013-0205. Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1990). Informal communication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.). Human reactions to technology: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lam, C. (2016). Improving technical communication group projects: An experimental study of media synchronicity theory training on communication outcomes. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915602293. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and Faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325. https://doi.org/10.2307/259377. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50. Lepine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307. Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-0120152-6. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives60–71 February. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001, July). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review.. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182. Markulis, P., Jassowalia, A. R., & Sashittal, H. (2006). The impact of leadership modes on team dynamics and performance in undergraduate management classes. Journal of Education for Business, (January/February), 145–150. Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 4(January), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005 online. Martins, L., Gilson, L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from Here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061. Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 365, 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/job. Meyer, B., Glenz, A., Antino, M., & Rico, R. (2014). Faultlines and subgroups : A meta-review and measurement guide. Small Group Research, 45(6), https://doi.org/10. 1177/1046496414552195. Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization, and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., Hung, Y.-T. C., & Crisp, C. B. (2009). Can you hear me now? Communication in virtual product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00342.x. Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D. (2007). An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organi- zational setting. Knowledge and Process Management, 14, 158–168. O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture, and time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452. O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0434. O'Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478. O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., Leary, M. B. O., Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., & Woolley, A. W. (2006). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals, teams and organizations. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478. https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.1550193. O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014). Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1243. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.1.39.12750. Ortega, A., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Rico, R. (2010). Team learning and effectiveness in virtual project teams: The role of beliefs about interpersonal context. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 267–276. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20480695. Panteli, N., & Chiasson, M. (2008). Epilogue: An agenda for research and practice on the nature of virtuality. Exploring Virtuality within and beyond organizations: Social, global and local dimensions (pp. 286–291). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: Team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840410570258. Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(3), 200–212. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083024. Post, C. (2012). Deep-level team composition and innovation: The mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning. Group & Organization Management, 37(5), 555–588. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(1), 6–36. https:// doi.org/10.1145/968464.968467. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393868. Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A., Bedwell, W., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm. Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. R. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.12691177. Schulze, J., & Krumm, S. (2017). The ‘“ virtual team player ”’: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual

13

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

J. Eisenberg and N. DiTomaso

collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 66–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522. Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a shared understanding in multicultural teams. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & Y.-R. Chen (Vol. Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: . Vol. 9. National culturand groups (pp. 325–352). San-Diego, CA: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www. emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1759685&show=abstract. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance : Assessing the mediating role of Intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2014.6826189. Thatcher, S. M. B. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Group Faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206311426187. Tong, Y., Yang, X., & Teo, H. H. (2013). Spontaneous virtual teams: Improving organizational performance through information and communication technology. Business Horizons, 56(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.003. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963. Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57(4), 381–398. Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. T. (2009). Social identification and interpersonal communication in computer-mediated communication: What you do versus who you are in virtual groups. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01338.x. Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1124–1151. https://doi.org/10.2307/256623. Wilson, J. M., Boyer O’Leary, M., Metiu, A., Jett, Q. R., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083105. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. Management Information Systems, 25(3), 371–390. Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart ? Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–30. Zakaria, N., Yusof, M., Affendi, S., Muton, R., & Ab, N. (2015). Virtually, you are there! Exploring the teamwork challenges to swift trust formation when working in global virtual team. Advanced Science Letters, 21(5), 1206–1210. Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of Copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761261.

14