You have 0 free articles left this month.
You are reading your last free article for this month.
Create an account to read 2 more.
Groups don’t become teams because that is what someone calls them. Nor do teamwork values by themselves ensure team performance. So what is a team? How can managers know when the team option makes sense and what they can do to ensure team success? In this article, drawn from their recent book The Wisdom of Teams, McKinsey partners Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith answer these questions and outline the discipline that makes a real team. The essence of a team is shared commitment. Without it, groups perform as individuals; with it, they become a powerful unit of collective performance. The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time shaping a purpose that they can own. The best teams also translate their purpose into specific performance goals. And members of successful teams pitch in and become accountable with and to their teammates. The fundamental distinction between teams and other forms of working groups turns on performance. A working group relies on the individual contributions of its members for group performance. But a team strives for something greater than its members could achieve individually. In short, an effective team is always worth more than the sum of its parts. Katzenbach and Smith identify three basic types of teams: teams that recommend things–task forces or project groups; teams that make or do things–manufacturing, operations, or marketing groups; and teams that run things–groups that oversee some significant functional activity. For managers, the key is knowing where in the organization real teams should be encouraged. Team potential exists anywhere hierarchy or organizational boundaries inhibit good performance. Considering the extra level that teams can achieve, the authors believe that teams will become the primary work unit in high-performance organizations.
The word team gets bandied about so loosely that many managers are oblivious to its real meaning—or its true potential. With a run-of-the-mill working group, performance is a function of what the members do as individuals. A team’s performance, by contrast, calls for both individual and mutual accountability.
Though it may not seem like anything special, mutual accountability can lead to astonishing results. It enables a team to achieve performance levels that are far greater than the individual bests of the team’s members. To achieve these benefits, team members must do more than listen, respond constructively, and provide support to one another. In addition to sharing these team-building values, they must share an essential discipline.
The Idea in Practice
A team’s essential discipline comprises five characteristics:
1. A meaningful common purpose that the team has helped shape. Most teams are responding to an initial mandate from outside the team. But to be successful, the team must “own” this purpose, develop its own spin on it.
2. Specific performance goals that flow from the common purpose. For example, getting a new product to market in less than half the normal time. Compelling goals inspire and challenge a team, give it a sense of urgency. They also have a leveling effect, requiring members to focus on the collective effort necessary rather than any differences in title or status.
3. A mix of complementary skills. These include technical or functional expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and interpersonal skills. Successful teams rarely have all the needed skills at the outset—they develop them as they learn what the challenge requires.
4. A strong commitment to how the work gets done. Teams must agree on who will do what jobs, how schedules will be established and honored, and how decisions will be made and modified. On a genuine team, each member does equivalent amounts of real work; all members, the leader included, contribute in concrete ways to the team’s collective work-products.
5. Mutual accountability. Trust and commitment cannot be coerced. The process of agreeing upon appropriate goals serves as the crucible in which members forge their accountability to each other—not just to the leader.
Once the essential discipline has been established, a team is free to concentrate on the critical challenges it faces:
- For a team whose purpose is to make recommendations, that means making a fast and constructive start and providing a clean handoff to those who will implement the recommendations.
- For a team that makes or does things, it’s keeping the specific performance goals in sharp focus.
- For a team that runs things, the primary task is distinguishing the challenges that require a real team approach from those that don’t.
If a task doesn’t demand joint work-products, a working group can be the more effective option. Team opportunities are usually those in which hierarchy or organizational boundaries inhibit the skills and perspectives needed for optimal results. Little wonder, then, that teams have become the primary units of productivity in high-performance organizations.
Early in the 1980s, Bill Greenwood and a small band of rebel railroaders took on most of the top management of Burlington Northern and created a multibillion-dollar business in “piggybacking” rail services despite widespread resistance, even resentment, within the company. The Medical Products Group at Hewlett-Packard owes most of its leading performance to the remarkable efforts of Dean Morton, Lew Platt, Ben Holmes, Dick Alberting, and a handful of their colleagues who revitalized a health care business that most others had written off. At Knight-Ridder, Jim Batten’s “customer obsession” vision took root at the Tallahassee Democrat when 14 frontline enthusiasts turned a charter to eliminate errors into a mission of major change and took the entire paper along with them.
A version of this article appeared in the March–April 1993 issue of Harvard Business Review.
Ackerman MS (2000) The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Hum Comput Interact 15(2–3):179–203
Google Scholar
Ågerfalk PJ, Fitzgerald B, Holmstrom Olsson H, Lings B, Lundell B, Ó Conchúir E (2005) A framework for considering opportunities and threats in distributed software development. In: Proceedings of the of DiSD’05. Austrian Computer Society, pp 47–61
Alder GS, Noel TW, Ambrose ML (2006) Clarifying the effects of internet monitoring on job attitudes: the mediating role of employee trust. Inf Manag 43(7):894–903
Google Scholar
Allen TJ (1984) Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. MIT Press Books 1, London
Google Scholar
Alsharo M, Gregg D, Ramirez R (2017) Virtual team effectiveness: the role of knowledge sharing and trust. Inf Manag 54(4):479–490
Google Scholar
Apple Inc (2017) Use FaceTime with your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. //support.apple.com/en-us/HT204380
Ardissono L, Bosio G (2012) Context-dependent awareness support in open collaboration environments. UMUAI 22(3):223–254
Google Scholar
Armstrong DJ, Cole P (1995) Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In: Jackson SE, Ruderman MN (eds) Diversity in work teams: research paradigms for a changing workplace. American Psychological Association, pp 187–215. //doi.org/10.1037/10189-007
Barczak G, Lassk F, Mulki J (2010) Antecedents of team creativity: an examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creat Innov Manag 19(4):332–345
Google Scholar
Batarseh FS, Usher JM, Daspit JJ (2017) Collaboration capability in virtual teams: examining the influence on diversity and innovation. Int J Innov Manag 21(04):1750034
Google Scholar
Battin RD, Crocker R, Kreidler J, Subramanian K (2001) Leveraging resources in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):70–77
Google Scholar
Bell BS, Kozlowski W (2002) Goal orientation and ability: interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. J Appl Psychol 87(3):497
Google Scholar
Berry GR (2011) Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. J Bus Commun (1973) 48(2):186–206
Google Scholar
Bjørn P, Ngwenyama O (2009) Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Inf Syst J 19(3):227–253
Google Scholar
Bjørn P, Esbensen M, Jensen RE, Matthiesen S (2014) Does distance still matter? Revisiting the CSCW fundamentals on distributed collaboration. TOCHI 21(5):27
Google Scholar
Blaskovich JL (2008) Exploring the effect of distance: an experimental investigation of virtual collaboration, social loafing, and group decisions. J Inf Syst 22(1):27–46
Google Scholar
Bly SA, Harrison SR, Irwin S (1993) Media spaces: bringing people together in a video, audio, and computing environment. Commun ACM 36(1):28–46
Google Scholar
Bodemer D, Dehler J (2011) Group awareness in CSCL environments. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1043–1045
Google Scholar
Boland D, Fitzgerald B (2004) Transitioning from a co-located to a globally-distributed software development team: a case study at Analog Devices Inc. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on global software development at ICSE’04. IET, pp 4–7
Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson G, Wright Z (2002) Effects of four computer—mediated communications channels on trust development. In: Proceedings the of CHI’02. ACM, New York, pp 135–140
Bradner E, Mark G (2002) Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. In: Proceedings of CSCW’02. ACM, New York, CSCW’02, pp 226–235
Brannen MY, Salk JE (2000) Partnering across borders: negotiating organizational culture in a German–Japanese joint venture. Hum Relat 53(4):451–487
Google Scholar
Breuer C, Hüffmeier J, Hertel G (2016) Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. J Appl Psychol 101(8):1151
Google Scholar
Brewer MB (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol Bull 86(2):307
Google Scholar
Buder J (2011) Group awareness tools for learning: current and future directions. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1114–1117
Google Scholar
Budgen D, Burn AJ, Brereton OP, Kitchenham BA, Pretorius R (2011) Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review. Softw Pract Exp 41(4):363–392
Google Scholar
Burke K, Aytes K, Chidambaram L, Johnson JJ (1999) A study of partially distributed work groups: the impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Res 30(4):453–490
Google Scholar
Buvik MP, Tvedt SD (2017) The influence of project commitment and team commitment on the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing in project teams. Proj Manag J 48(2):5–21
Google Scholar
Calefato F, Lanubile F (2017) Establishing personal trust-based connections in distributed teams. Internet Technol Lett 1:e6
Google Scholar
Calefato F, Lanubile F, Novielli N (2017) A preliminary analysis on the effects of propensity to trust in distributed software development. In: Proceedings of ICGSE’17. IEEE, New York, pp 56–60
Carmel E, Agarwal R (2001) Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):22–29
Google Scholar
Carte T, Chidambaram L (2004) A capabilities-based theory of technology deployment in diverse teams: leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and leveraging its potential with collaborative technology. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11):4
Google Scholar
Casey V, Richardson I (2004) Practical experience of virtual team software development. //ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/2149/2004_Casey.pdf?sequence=2
Chae SW (2016) Perceived proximity and trust network on creative performance in virtual collaboration environment. Proc Comput Sci 91(Itqm):807–812
Google Scholar
Charlier SD, Stewart GL, Greco LM, Reeves CJ (2016) Emergent leadership in virtual teams: a multilevel investigation of individual communication and team dispersion antecedents. Leadersh Q 27(5):745–764
Google Scholar
Cheng X, Fu S, Druckenmiller D (2016) Trust development in globally distributed collaboration: a case of us and chinese mixed teams. J Manag Inf Syst 33(4):978–1007
Google Scholar
Cheng X, Fu S, Sun J, Han Y, Shen J, Zarifis A (2016) Investigating individual trust in semi-virtual collaboration of multicultural and unicultural teams. Comput Hum Behav 62:267–276
Google Scholar
Cheng X, Yin G, Azadegan A, Kolfschoten G (2016) Trust evolvement in hybrid team collaboration: a longitudinal case study. Group Decis Negot 25(2):267–288
Google Scholar
Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inf Syst Res 16(2):149–168
Google Scholar
Chinowsky PS, Taylor JE (2011) Distance matters: a social network analysis of geographic dispersion in engineering organizations. In: Proceedings of EPOC’11
Cho J (2006) The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. J Retail 82(1):25–35
Google Scholar
Choi OK, Cho E (2019) The mechanism of trust affecting collaboration in virtual teams and the moderating roles of the culture of autonomy and task complexity. Comput Hum Behav 91:305–315
Google Scholar
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 127–149
Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol 92(4):909
Google Scholar
Cooper CD, Kurland NB (2002) Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. J Organ Behav 23(4):511–532
Google Scholar
Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3):346–371
Google Scholar
Cramton CD, Hinds PJ (2004) Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Res Organ Behav 26:231–263
Google Scholar
Crisp CB, Jarvenpaa SL (2013) Swift trust in global virtual teams: trusting beliefs and normative actions. J Pers Psychol 12(1):45
Google Scholar
Cummings JN (2011) Geography is alive and well in virtual teams. Commun ACM 54(8):24–26
Google Scholar
Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703–722
Google Scholar
Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2007) Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. RP 36(10):1620–1634
Google Scholar
Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2008) Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. In: Proceedings of CSCW’08. ACM, New York, pp 437–446
Cummings L, Bromiley P (1996) The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and validation. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 302–330
Google Scholar
Cundill G, Harvey B, Tebboth M, Cochrane L, Currie-Alder B, Vincent K, Lawn J, Nicholls RJ, Scodanibbio L, Prakash A et al (2019) Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: challenges and insights. Glob Chall 3(4):1700132
Google Scholar
Curtis B, Krasner H, Iscoe N (1988) A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun ACM 31(11):1268–1287
Google Scholar
Dahlin KB, Weingart LR, Hinds PJ (2005) Team diversity and information use. Acad Manag J 48(6):1107–1123
Google Scholar
Damian DE, Zowghi D (2002) The impact of stakeholders’ geographical distribution on managing requirements in a multi-site organization. In: Proceedings of RE’02. IEEE, New York, pp 319–328
Darics E (2014) The blurring boundaries between synchronicity and asynchronicity: new communicative situations in work-related instant messaging. Int J Bus Commun 51(4):337–358
Google Scholar
De Jong BA, Dirks KT, Gillespie N (2016) Trust and team performance: a meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. J Appl Psychol 101(8):1134
Google Scholar
Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600
Google Scholar
Desanctis G, Monge P (1999) Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):693–703
Google Scholar
Dourish P, Bellotti V (1992) Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: Proceedings of CSCW’92. ACM, New York, pp 107–114
Duarte DL, Snyder NT (2006) Mastering virtual teams: strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. Wiley, Berlin
Google Scholar
Dubé L, Robey D (2009) Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. ISJ 19(1):3–30
Google Scholar
Dvir T, Eden D, Avolio BJ, Shamir B (2002) Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad Manag J 45(4):735–744
Google Scholar
Edwards HK, Sridhar V (2005) Analysis of software requirements engineering exercises in a global virtual team setup. J Glob Inf Manag (JGIM) 13(2):21–41
Google Scholar
Eisenberg J, Krishnan A (2018) Addressing virtual work challenges: learning from the field. Organ Manag J 15(2):78–94
Google Scholar
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. J Int Manag 23(4):399–411
Google Scholar
Eisenberg J, Post C, DiTomaso N (2019) Team dispersion and performance: the role of team communication and transformational leadership. Small Group Res 50(3):348–380
Google Scholar
Elron E (1997) Top management teams within multinational corporations: effects of cultural heterogeneity. Leadersh Q 8(4):393–412
Google Scholar
Erickson T, Smith DN, Kellogg WA, Laff M, Richards JT, Bradner E (1999) Socially translucent systems: social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of “babble”. In: Proceedings of CHI’99. ACM, New York, pp 72–79
Esbensen M, Bjørn P (2014) Routine and standardization in global software development. In: Proceedings of GROUP’14. ACM, New York, pp 12–23
Espinosa JA, Carmel E (2004) The effect of time separation on coordination costs in global software teams: a dyad model. In: Proceedings of HICSS’04. IEEE, New York, p 10
Espinosa JA, Pickering C (2006) The effect of time separation on coordination processes and outcomes: a case study. In: Proceedings of HICSS’06, vol 1. IEEE, New York, pp 25b–25b
Espinosa JA, Cummings JN, Pickering C (2011) Time separation, coordination, and performance in technical teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 59(1):91–103
Google Scholar
Ferrell JZ, Herb KC (2012) Improving communication in virtual teams, pp 1–7. //www.siop.org/Research-Publications/SIOP-White-Papers
Finholt T, Sproull L, Kiesler S (1990) Communication and performance in ad hoc task groups. In: Galegher J, Kraut RE (eds) Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Psychology Press, New York, pp 291–325
Google Scholar
Finholt TA, Olson GM (1997) From laboratories to collaboratories: a new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychol Sci 8(1):28–36
Google Scholar
Fjermestad J (2004) An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decis Support Syst 37(2):239–263
Google Scholar
Gajendran RS, Harrison DA, Delaney-Klinger K (2015) Are telecommuters remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-deals and job resources. Pers Psychol 68(2):353–393
Google Scholar
Gaver WW, Sellen A, Heath C, Luff P (1993) One is not enough: multiple views in a media space. In: Proceedings of INTERACT’93 and CHI’93. ACM, New York, pp 335–341
Gibbs JL, Kim H, Boyraz M (2017) Virtual teams. In: The international encyclopedia of organizational communication, pp 1–14. //www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer_Gibbs/publication/314712225_Virtual_Teams/links/5a3d942a0f7e9ba8688e91f6/Virtual-Teams.pdf
Gibson CB, Gibbs JL (2006) Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Adm Sci Q 51(3):451–495
Google Scholar
Gibson CB, McDaniel DM (2010) Moving beyond conventional wisdom: advancements in cross-cultural theories of leadership, conflict, and teams. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(4):450–462
Google Scholar
Gibson CB, Gibbs JL, Stanko TL, Tesluk P, Cohen SG (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. Organ Sci 22(6):1481–1499
Google Scholar
Gibson CB, Huang L, Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL (2014) Where global and virtual meet: the value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 1(1):217–244
Google Scholar
Gilbert D, Tsao J (2000) Exploring Chinese cultural influences and hospitality marketing relationships. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 12:45–54
Google Scholar
Gilson LL, Maynard MT, Jones Young NC, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M (2015) Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J Manag 41(5):1313–1337
Google Scholar
Glikson E, Wolley AW, Gupta P, Kim YJ (2019) Visualized automatic feedback in virtual teams. Front Psychol 10:814
Google Scholar
Google Inc (2017) Google Hangouts. //hangouts.google.com/
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331(7524):1064–1065
Google Scholar
Gressgård LJ (2011) Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations. Team Perform Manag Int J. //doi.org/10.1108/dlo.2011.08125daa.007
Article Google Scholar
Grinter RE (2003) Recomposition: coordinating a web of software dependencies. J CSCW 12(3):297–327
Google Scholar
Gudykunst WB (1997) Cultural variability in communication: an introduction. Commun Res 24(4):327–348
Google Scholar
Hall ET (1976) Beyond culture. Anchor, Garden City
Google Scholar
Han SJ, Chae C, Macko P, Park W, Beyerlein M (2017) How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges. Eur J Train Dev. //doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2016-0073
Article Google Scholar
Handley SM, Benton W (2013) The influence of task-and location-specific complexity on the control and coordination costs in global outsourcing relationships. JOM 31(3):109–128
Google Scholar
Hardin AM, Fuller MA, Davison RM (2007) I know i can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Res 38(1):130–155
Google Scholar
Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad Manag J 45(5):1029–1045
Google Scholar
Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. AMJ 45(5):1029–1045
Google Scholar
Herbsleb JD, Grinter RE (1999) Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway’s law revisited. In: Proceedings of ICSE’99. IEEE, New York, pp 85–95
Herbsleb JD, Mockus A (2003) An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(6):481–494
Google Scholar
Herbsleb JD, Mockus A, Finholt TA, Grinter RE (2000) Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. In: Proceedings of CSCW’00. ACM, New York, pp 319–328
Hertzum M, Pries-Heje J (2011) Is minimizing interaction a solution to cultural and maturity inequality in offshore outsourcing? In: Balancing sourcing and innovation in information systems development, pp 77–97
Hill NS, Bartol KM (2016) Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Pers Psychol 69(1):159–198
Google Scholar
Hinds P, Kiesler S (2002) Distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ Sci 14(6):615–632
Google Scholar
Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci 16(3):290–307
Google Scholar
Hoch JE (2013) Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. J Bus Psychol 28(2):159–174
Google Scholar
Hoch JE, Dulebohn JH (2017) Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: a theoretical framework. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):678–693
Google Scholar
Hoch JE, Kozlowski SW (2014) Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J Appl Psychol 99(3):390
Google Scholar
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequence international differences in work-related values. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Google Scholar
Hofstede G (1991) Organizations and cultures: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New York
Google Scholar
Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Google Scholar
Hollenbeck JR, Beersma B, Schouten ME (2012) Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad Manag Rev 37(1):82–106
Google Scholar
Holmstrom H, Conchúir EÓ, Agerfalk J, Fitzgerald B (2006) Global software development challenges: a case study on temporal, geographical and socio-cultural distance. In: Proceedings of ICGSE’06. IEEE, New York, pp 3–11
Homan AC, Van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CK (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. J Appl Psychol 92(5):1189
Google Scholar
Huang D (2015) Temporal evolution of multi-author papers in basic sciences from 1960 to 2010. Scientometrics 105(3):2137–2147
Google Scholar
Hudson SE, Smith I (1996) Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption trade-offs in awareness support systems. In: Proceedings of CSCW’96. ACM, New York, CSCW’96, pp 248–257. //doi.org/10.1145/240080.240295
Imsland V, Sahay S, Wartiainen Y (2003) Key issues in managing a global software outsourcing relationship between a Norwegian and Russian firm: some practical implications. In: Proceedings of IRIS26
Inc ZC (2020) Zoom for video, conferencing, and phones. //zoom.us/
Jakobsen CH, McLaughlin WJ (2004) Communication in ecosystem management: a case study of cross-disciplinary integration in the assessment phase of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Environ Manag 33(5):591–605
Google Scholar
Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. JCMC 3(4):791–815
Google Scholar
Jarvenpaa SL, Shaw TR, Staples DS (2004) Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. Inf Syst Res 15(3):250–267
Google Scholar
Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q 42:530–557
Google Scholar
Johnson SK, Bettenhausen K, Gibbons E (2009) Realities of working in virtual teams: affective and attitudinal outcomes of using computer-mediated communication. Small Group Res 40(6):623–649
Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird PN (1989) Mental models. The MIT Press, London
Google Scholar
Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2002) Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):187–213
Google Scholar
Kaplan AM, Haenlein M (2010) Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz 53(1):59–68
Google Scholar
Kayworth T, Leidner D (2000) The global virtual manager: a prescription for success. Eur Manag J 18(2):183–194
Google Scholar
Kayworth TR, Leidner DE (2002) Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst 18(3):7–40
Google Scholar
Kiel L (2003) Experiences in distributed development: a case study. In: Proceedings of international workshop on global software development at ICSE’03
Kiesler S, Cummings JN (2002) What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In: Distributed work, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 57–80
Kimmerle J, Cress U (2007) Group awareness and self-presentation in the information-exchange dilemma: an interactional approach. In: Proceedings of CSCL’07. International Society of the Learning Sciences, New York, pp 370–378
Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL (2005) The impact of cultural value diversity on multicultural team performance. Adv Int Manag 18:33–67
Google Scholar
Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB (2004) The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad Manag J 47(2):175–192
Google Scholar
Kitchenham B, Brereton P (2013) A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Inf Softw Technol 55(12):2049–2075. //doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010
Article Google Scholar
Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45(4ve):1051
Google Scholar
Kittler MG, Rygl D, Mackinnon A (2011) Special review article: beyond culture or beyond control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept. Int J Cross Cult Manag 11(1):63–82
Google Scholar
Klitmøller A, Lauring J (2013) When global virtual teams share knowledge: media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. J World Bus 48(3):398–406
Google Scholar
Koehne B, Shih PC, Olson JS (2012) Remote and alone: coping with being the remote member on the team. In: Proceedings of CSCW’12. ACM, New York, pp 1257–1266
Kotlarsky J, Oshri I (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 14(1):37–48
Google Scholar
Kramer WS, Shuffler ML, Feitosa J (2017) The world is not flat: examining the interactive multidimensionality of culture and virtuality in teams. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):604–620
Google Scholar
Kraut RE, Fussell SR, Brennan SE, Siege J (2002) Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 137–162
Google Scholar
Krishna S, Sahay S, Walsham G (2004) Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing. Commun ACM 47(4):62–66
Google Scholar
Kroll J, Hashmi SI, Richardson I, Audy JL (2013) A systematic literature review of best practices and challenges in follow-the-sun software development. In: Proceedings of international workshop on global software development at ICSE’13. IEEE, New York, pp 18–23
Kuo Fy, Yu Cp (2009) An exploratory study of trust dynamics in work-oriented virtual teams. J Comput Med Commun 14(4):823–854
MathSciNet Google Scholar
Lau DC, Murnighan JK (2005) Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demographic faultlines. Acad Manag J 48(4):645–659
Google Scholar
Leung K, Bhagat R, Buchan N, Erez M, Gibson C (2011) Beyond national culture and culture-centricism: an integrating perspective on the role of culture in international business. J Int Bus Stud 42:177–181
Google Scholar
Liao C (2017) Leadership in virtual teams: a multilevel perspective. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):648–659
Google Scholar
Lipnack J, Stamps J (1997) Virtual teams: reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Wiley, New York
Google Scholar
Livingston G, Waring B, Pacheco LF, Buchori D, Jiang Y, Gilbert L, Jha S (2016) Perspectives on the global disparity in ecological science. Bioscience 66(2):147–155
Google Scholar
López G, Guerrero LA (2014) Notifications for collaborative documents editing. In: Proceedings of UCAmI’14. Springer, Berlin, pp 80–87
López G, Guerrero LA (2017) Awareness supporting technologies used in collaborative systems: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of CSCW’17. ACM, New York, pp 808–820
Lowry PB, Zhang D, Zhou L, Fu X (2010) Effects of culture, social presence, and group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups. Inf Syst J 20(3):297–315
Google Scholar
Lu LC, Chang HH, Yu ST (2011) The role of individualism and collectivism in consumer perceptions toward e-retailers’ ethics. In: 2011 international conference on information management, innovation management and industrial engineering, vol 2. IEEE, New York, pp 194–197
Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Rosen B (2007) Leading virtual teams. Acad Manag Perspect 21(1):60–70
Google Scholar
Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. CSUR 26(1):87–119
Google Scholar
Mannix EA, Griffith T, Neale MA (2002) The phenomenology of conflict in distributed work teams. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 213–233
Google Scholar
Mantei MM, Baecker RM, Sellen AJ, Buxton WA, Milligan T, Wellman B (1991) Experiences in the use of a media space. In: Proceedings of CHI’91. ACM, New York, pp 203–208
Mark G (2002) Extreme collaboration. Commun ACM 45(6):89–93
Google Scholar
Marlow J, Dabbish L (2012) Designing interventions to reduce psychological distance in globally distributed teams. In: Proceedings of CSCW’12 companion. ACM, New York, pp 163–166
Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Salas E (2017) Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):575–589
Google Scholar
Martins LL, Shalley CE (2011) Creativity in virtual work: effects of demographic differences. Small Group Res 42(5):536–561
Google Scholar
Maruping LM, Agarwal R (2004) Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol 89(6):975
Google Scholar
Maruping LM, Magni M (2015) Motivating employees to explore collaboration technology in team contexts. Mis Quarterly 39(1):1–16
Google Scholar
Mattessich PW, Monsey BR (1992) Collaboration: what makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. ERIC, St. Paul
Maynard MT, Gilson LL (2014) The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group Organ Manag 39(1):3–32
Google Scholar
Maynard MT, Mathieu JE, Rapp TL, Gilson LL (2012) Something (s) old and something (s) new: modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. J Organ Behav 33(3):342–365
Google Scholar
McDonough EF, Kahnb KB, Barczaka G (2001) An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 18(2):110–120
Google Scholar
McGuffin LJ, Olson GM (1992) ShrEdit: a shared electronic work space. University of Michigan, Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory, Ann Arbor
McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yánez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “‘urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosys 4(1):5–24
Google Scholar
McNamara K, Dennis AR, Carte TA (2008) It’s the thought that counts: the mediating effects of information processing in virtual team decision making. Inf Syst Manag 25(1):20–32
Google Scholar
Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM et al (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust Organ Front Theory Res 166:195
Google Scholar
Microsoft (2017) Skype. //www.skype.com/en/
Microsoft (2020) Microsoft teams. //products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software
Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad Manag Rev 21(2):402–433
Google Scholar
Montoya MM, Massey AP, Hung YTC, Crisp CB (2009) Can you hear me now? Communication in virtual product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 26(2):139–155
Google Scholar
Mortensen M, Hinds PJ (2001) Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. Int J Confl Manag 12(3):212–238
Google Scholar
Navimipour NJ, Charband Y (2016) Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: literature review, classification, and current trends. Comput Hum Behav 62:730–742
Google Scholar
Neuliep JW (2020) Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Google Scholar
Newman SA, Ford RC, Marshall GW (2019) Virtual team leader communication: employee perception and organizational reality. Int J Bus Commun. //doi.org/10.1177/2329488419829895
Article Google Scholar
Nguyen-Duc A, Cruzes D, Conradi R (2012) Dispersion, coordination and performance in global software teams: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of ESEM’12. ACM, New York, pp 129–138
Nguyen-Duc A, Cruzes DS, Conradi R (2015) The impact of global dispersion on coordination, team performance and software quality—a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 57:277–294
Google Scholar
Noll J, Beecham S, Richardson I (2010) Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions. ACM Inroads 1(3):66–78
Google Scholar
O’Hara-Devereaux M, Johansen R (1994) Globalwork: bridging distance, culture, and time. Jossey-Bass Pub, San Francisco
Google Scholar
O’Leary MB, Cummings JN (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. Manag Inf Syst Q 31(3):433–452
Google Scholar
O’Leary MB, Mortensen M (2010) Go (con) figure: subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organ Sci 21(1):115–131
Google Scholar
O’Leary MB, Wilson JM, Metiu A (2012) Beyond being there: the symbolic role of communication and identification in the emergence of perceived proximity in geographically dispersed work. ESSEC working paper 1112
Olson G, Ackerman M, Atkins D, Bos N, Derrick C, Cohen M, Finholt T, Furnas G, Hedstrom M, Herbsleb J, Myers J, Olson J, Prakash A, Radev D, Teasley S, Trimble J, Weymouth T, Elizabeth Yakel, Zimmerman A, Cooney D, Hardin J, Hofer E, Knoop P, Peters G, Verhey-Henke A, Bietz M, Birnholtz J, Luo A, Potter A, Puetz M, Yew J (2006) Science of collaboratories. //soc.ics.uci.edu/
Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact 15(2):139–178
Google Scholar
Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N (2008) Scientific collaboration on the Internet. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Olson JS, Olson GM (2006) Bridging distance: empirical studies of distributed teams. In: Proceedings of human factors in MIS’06, vol 2, pp 27–30
Olson JS, Olson GM (2013) Working together apart: collaboration over the internet. Synth Lect Hum Center Inform 6(5):1–151
Google Scholar
O’Reilly CA, Williams KY, Barsade S (1997) Demography and group performance: does diversity help? Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford
Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ Sci 13(3):249–273
Google Scholar
Otjacques B, McCall R, Feltz F (2006) An ambient workplace for raising awareness of internet-based cooperation. In: Proceedings of CDVE’06. LNCS, London, pp 275–286
O’Neill TA, Hancock SE, Zivkov K, Larson NL, Law SJ (2016) Team decision making in virtual and face-to-face environments. Group Decis Negot 25(5):995–1020
Google Scholar
Pan RK, Kaski K, Fortunato S (2012) World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Sci Rep 2:902
Google Scholar
Parreira MR, Machado KB, Logares R, Diniz-Filho JAF, Nabout JC (2017) The roles of geographic distance and socioeconomic factors on international collaboration among ecologists. Scientometrics 113(3):1539–1550
Google Scholar
Patel H, Pettitt M, Wilson JR (2012) Factors of collaborative working: a framework for a collaboration model. Appl Ergon 43(1):1–26
Google Scholar
Paul DL, McDaniel RR Jr (2004) A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. Manag Inf Syst Q 28:183–227
Google Scholar
Pearce WB (1974) Trust in interpersonal communication. CM 41(3):236–44
Google Scholar
Pelled LH (1996) Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organ Sci 7(6):615–631
Google Scholar
Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Adm Sci Q 44(1):1–28
Google Scholar
Pe narroja V, Orengo V, Zornoza A, Hernández A (2013) The effects of virtuality level on task-related collaborative behaviors: the mediating role of team trust. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):967–974
Google Scholar
Pe narroja V, Orengo V, Zornoza A (2017) Reducing perceived social loafing in virtual teams: the effect of team feedback with guided reflexivity. J Appl Soc Psychol 47(8):424–435
Google Scholar
Pinjani P, Palvia P (2013) Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inf Manag 50(4):144–153
Google Scholar
Pivotal Software (2017) Agile project management. //www.pivotaltracker.com/
Polzer JT, Crisp CB, Jarvenpaa SL, Kim JW (2006) Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: how colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Acad Manag J 49(4):679–692
Google Scholar
Ponds R, Van Oort F, Frenken K (2007) The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap Reg Sci 86(3):423–443
Google Scholar
Rains SA (2005) Leveling the organizational playing field-virtually: a meta-analysis of experimental research assessing the impact of group support system use on member influence behaviors. Commun Res 32(2):193–234
Google Scholar
Ramasubbu N, Cataldo M, Balan RK, Herbsleb JD (2011) Configuring global software teams: a multi-company analysis of project productivity, quality, and profits. In: Proceedings of ICSE’11. ACM, New York, pp 261–270
Raymond E (1999) Homesteading the Noosphere, the Cathedral, and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol Calf
Google Scholar
Robert LP (2016) Far but near or near but far? The effects of perceived distance on the relationship between geographic dispersion and perceived diversity. In: Proceedings of CHI’16. ACM, New York, pp 2461–2473. //doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858534
Robert LP, Denis AR, Hung YTC (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. J Manag Inf Syst 26(2):241–279
Google Scholar
Robert LP Jr, You S (2018) Are you satisfied yet? Shared leadership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual teams. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 69(4):503–513
Google Scholar
Rusman E, Van Bruggen J, Sloep P, Koper R (2010) Fostering trust in virtual project teams: towards a design framework grounded in a trustworthiness antecedents (TWAN) schema. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(11):834–850
Google Scholar
Sarker S, Sahay S (2004) Implications of space and time for distributed work: an interpretive study of US–Norwegian systems development teams. Eur J Inf Syst 13(1):3–20
Google Scholar
Sarker S, Ahuja M, Sarker S, Kirkeby S (2011) The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 28(1):273–310
Google Scholar
Saunders C, Van Slyke C, Vogel DR (2004) My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Acad Manag Perspect 18(1):19–37
Google Scholar
Saunders C, Van Slyke C, Vogel DR (2004) My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Acad Manag J 18(1):19–37
Google Scholar
Schaubroeck JM, Yu A (2017) When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team characteristics as contingency factors. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):635–647
Google Scholar
Schmidt K (2002) The problem with “awareness”: introductory remarks on “awareness in CSCW”. Comput Supported Coop Work 11(3):285–298. //doi.org/10.1023/A:1021272909573
Article Google Scholar
Schmidt K, Bannon L (1992) Taking CSCW seriously. J CSCW 1(1–2):7–40
Google Scholar
Schmidtke JM, Cummings A (2017) The effects of virtualness on teamwork behavioral components: the role of shared mental models. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):660–677
Google Scholar
Schneier CE, Goktepe JR (1983) Issues in emergent leadership: the contingency model of leadership, leader sex, leader behavior. Small Groups Soc Interact 1:413–421
Google Scholar
Scott CPR, Wildman JL (2015) Culture, communication, and conflict: a review of the global virtual team literature. Springer, New York, pp 13–32
Google Scholar
Scrumwise Inc (2017) The easiest scrum tool you’ll find. //www.scrumwise.com/
See M (2018) 18 international collaboration: are the challenges worth the benefits? J Anim Sci 96(suppl–3):2–2
Google Scholar
Siebdrat F, Hoegl M, Ernst H (2014) Subjective distance and team collaboration in distributed teams. J Prod Innov Manag 31(4):765–779
Google Scholar
Slack (2017) Where work happens. //slack.com/
Šmite D, Wohlin C, Gorschek T, Feldt R (2010) Empirical evidence in global software engineering: a systematic review. Empir Softw Eng 15(1):91–118
Google Scholar
Sole D, Edmondson A (2002) Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. Br J Manag 13(S2):S17–S34
Google Scholar
Solomon C (2016) Trends in global virtual teams. //www.rw-3.com/resource-center/2016-survey-report-trends-in-global-virtual-teams
Srivastava A, Bartol KM, Locke EA (2006) Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad Manag J 49(6):1239–1251
Google Scholar
Stahl GK, Maznevski ML, Voigt A, Jonsen K (2010) Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: a meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. J Int Bus Stud 41(4):690–709
Google Scholar
Staples DS, Zhao L (2006) The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decis Negot 15(4):389–406
Google Scholar
Steinmacher I, Chaves AP, Gerosa MA (2013) Awareness support in distributed software development: a systematic review and mapping of the literature. J CSCW 22(2–3):113–158
Google Scholar
Straub D, Loch K, Evaristo R, Karahanna E, Srite M (2002) Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. J Glob Inf Manag (JGIM) 10(1):13–23
Google Scholar
Strauss A (1988) The articulation of project work: an organizational process. Sociol Q 29:163–178
Google Scholar
Swigger K, Alpaslan F, Brazile R, Monticino M (2004) Effects of culture on computer-supported international collaborations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60(3):365–380
Google Scholar
Tang JC, Zhao C, Cao X, Inkpen K (2011) Your time zone or mine? A study of globally time zone-shifted collaboration. In: Proceedings of CSCW’11. ACM, New York, pp 235–244
Tangirala S, Alge BJ (2006) Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: a test of uncertainty management theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 100(1):1–20
Google Scholar
Taras V, Kirkman BL, Steel P (2010) Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: a three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. J Appl Psychol 95(3):405
Google Scholar
Teasley S, Covi L, Krishnan MS, Olson JS (2000) How does radical collocation help a team succeed? In: Proceedings of CSCW’00. ACM, New York, pp 339–346
Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, Manoff M, Frame M (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6(6):e21101
Google Scholar
Tenzer H, Pudelko M, Harzing AW (2014) The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. J Int Bus Stud 45(5):508–535
Google Scholar
Tran H, Zdun U et al (2017) Systematic review of software behavioral model consistency checking. CSUR 50(2):17
Google Scholar
Treinen JJ, Miller-Frost SL (2006) Following the sun: case studies in global software development. IBM J Res Dev 45(4):773–783
Google Scholar
Trello Inc (2017) Trello. //trello.com/
Tress G, Tress B, Fry G (2007) Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects. Land Use Policy 24(2):374–385
Google Scholar
Triandis HC, Singelis TM (1998) Training to recognize individual differences in collectivism and individualism within culture. Int J Intercult Relat 22(1):35–47
Google Scholar
Triandis HC, Bontempo R, Villareal MJ, Asai M, Lucca N (1988) Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(2):323
Google Scholar
Umphress EE, Smith-Crowe K, Brief AP, Dietz J, Watkins MB (2007) When birds of a feather flock together and when they do not: status composition, social dominance orientation, and organizational attractiveness. J Appl Psychol 92(2):396
Google Scholar
Vaccaro A, Veloso F, Brusoni S (2009) The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based processes: an empirical study. Res Policy 38(8):1278–1287
Google Scholar
Van den Bulte C, Moenaert RK (1998) The effects of R&D team co-location on communication patterns among R&D, marketing, and manufacturing. Manag Sci 44(11–part–2):S1–S18
MATH Google Scholar
van Solingen R, Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (2002) Goal question metric (GQM) approach. In: Marciniak JJ (ed) Encyclopedia of software engineering. //doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof142
Van Weijen D (2012) The language of (future) scientific communication. Res Trends 31(11):2012
Google Scholar
Wakefield RL, Leidner DE, Garrison G (2008) Research note—a model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Inf Syst Res 19(4):434–455
Google Scholar
Walsh JP, Maloney NG (2007) Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(2):712–732
Google Scholar
Walther JB, Bunz U (2005) The rules of virtual groups: trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. J Commun 55(4):828–846
Google Scholar
Warkentin ME, Sayeed L, Hightower R (1997) Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis Sci 28(4):975–996
Google Scholar
Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad Manag J 36(3):590–602
Google Scholar
Watson-Manheim MB, Chudoba KM, Crowston K (2002) Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. ITP 15(3):191–209
Google Scholar
Watson-Manheim MB, Chudoba KM, Crowston K (2012) Perceived discontinuities and constructed continuities in virtual work. Inf Syst J 22(1):29–52
Google Scholar
Weinel M, Bannert M, Zumbach J, Hoppe HU, Malzahn N (2011) A closer look on social presence as a causing factor in computer-mediated collaboration. Comput Hum Behav 27(1):513–521
Google Scholar
Wiersema MF, Bantel KA (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad Manag J 35(1):91–121
Google Scholar
Williams K, O’Reilly C III (1998) Demography and diversity in organisations: a review of 40 years of research. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organisational behaviour. Jai Pres, Greenwich
Google Scholar
Wilson JM, Boyer O’Leary M, Metiu A, Jett QR (2008) Perceived proximity in virtual work: explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organ Stud 29(7):979–1002
Google Scholar
Zander L, Zettinig P, Mäkelä K (2013) Leading global virtual teams to success. Org Dyn 42(3 SI):228–237
Google Scholar
Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Gibson CB (2013) How does culture matter. In: Yuki M, Brewer M (eds) Culture and group processes, p 166. //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DtI8BAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA166&dq=Zellmer-Bruhn+ME,+Gibson+CB+(2013)+How+does+culture+matter.+In:+Culture+and+group+processes,+p+166&ots=wE-qqLV173&sig=svs8MQKVi40vMB_fixB86FyRmdQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Zolin R, Hinds PJ, Fruchter R, Levitt RE (2004) Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: a longitudinal study. Inf Organ 14(1):1–26
Google Scholar
Page 2
From: Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review
Inclusion | I1 | Paper is concerned with collaboration |
I2 | Paper contains empirical evidence | |
I3 | Findings are generalizable | |
Exclusion | E1 | Paper is not written in English |
E2 | Paper is not peer-reviewed (e.g., master’s thesis) | |
E3 | Paper is not related to at least one of the research questions | |
E4 | Duplicate paper |