Virtual Teams and Remoting Working; a research based perspective

Virtual Teams & Remote Working

In 2020 I finished a MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice, the final step being a research project which focused on the aspects of virtual teams and remote working. It's how I've worked for the majority of my career and a topic I think about a lot.

I finished the research while coronavirus was erupting, which was as timely as it was frustrating; as I couldn't share the research straight away (due to university rules on plagiarism and sharing before marking).

Because of covid-19 I've seen many posts and articles for workers who are new to remote teams, or home working. Most of these are focused on the individual and their working day, ergonomics, routine, etc. Which is great, though, I think they're mostly subjective and a little prescriptive, opposed to informative.

I believe it's best for each individual to use those kinds of posts as a starting point and explore what works for them and their team. There are many different modes of working, as well as types of team interaction.

This blog post is a summary from my MSc research paper, which shares the nature of distributed teams, and what topics I found  the research to show is important.

My focus was guided by some questions, a few being:

• What matters in a virtual team? 
• What are the emergent properties and issues of virtual teams?
• What are the common dynamics within (distributed) work teams?
  

Terms

First I'll try and clarify some terms I'm going to use, the "nomenclature" for the fancy people amongst you. Ensuring a shared meaning (mental model) is one of the many important aspects of virtual teams; same words and different understandings lead to all kinds of issues that most of us can relate to.

Distance, has many dimensions as we'll talk about later, geographical, temporal, cultural and so on. For example a remote team "has more geographical distance" that a co-located one.

For example, one part of a global team based in New York City will have geographical as well as cultural distance from another team  based in Seoul.

Virtual team, is used to refer to two or people people who have geographical distance, though work together to achieve a goal.

Organisation, is the company, e.g. Google.

Team, will be relative to the size of the organisation. A "team" in a large organisation could be "the group of developers, designers along with a project/product manager that take care of product X". Though in a smaller company or start up (which is where most of my experience is) team and organisation are interchangeable.

When I say team, I typically means organisation as well depending on the site of team/company. Pick which ever makes sense. My findings are the same, it's just a matter of perspective.

Why did I do it? 

I have spent the majority of my career and life in a virtual settings (opposed to an physical office). I have been in offices on occasion, though I've already shared my views and research on them.

Over the last 10-15 years most of my time and focus has been thinking about others and what they need. Trying to figure out the balancing act that is management, facilitation and leadership. What are all the factors that go with being responsible for supporting a team and facilitating an outcome.

As I had to deliver a research project to finish my MSc, I wanted to use the opportunity to spend the time focused on something I really care about. Which is the way teams (and the members of them) interact and work together. How can it be done better? What are the issues and barriers to success? What pisses most people off?

I've been extremely lucky in a few teams, as we experienced flow simultaneously. I strive to share that with team mates as well as experience it again myself. I'm also very sensitive to behaviours and attitudes (conscious or otherwise) that stop a team getting there. So continuing to improve my understanding of this is important to me.

So, it's personal, it's something that fascinates me and I do it for a job.

Evidence supports that the world is moving towards remote work (where people can) long before covid-19, so I want to share some insights where I can to help out.

I saw a headline during this write up that sums it up:

"The biggest coronavirus challenge? Getting us all to ditch homeworking and come back to the office"

What was the research, how did I do it?

What:

I took the route of Secondary Research, that means I used the data that others have gathered, opposed to doing the data gathering myself.

Pros - I get a lot of data to use for the research.
Cons - It's not 100% focused on answering the questions I'm asking.

So, the dry academic aim of the research was:

"To investigate the barriers to organisational performance within distributed agile software development teams."

I had to focus on a certain type of team, so focused on my own experience. Though I found the research is relevant to any type of remote, virtual or hybrid team.

How:

I think a quick overview of the "how" will help to give some legitimacy and context to what's coming. I've cut out all the dry academic ground work for sanity ...


I combined the three theories below in the research, to guide the data gathering (from peer reviewed journals). I focused on the three that I know about:

1. Project Management (PM)
2. Group Dynamics     (GD)
3. Communications     (CM)

Then I went on the hunt for relevant peer review journals published since 2000. I found 150 and filtered it down by measuring relevancy and quality to 90, to make sure the data was good enough.

From each of the 90 documents I extracted the supported arguments or proven hypotheses and turned them into "statements".

A statement is one word or a short phrase, to paraphrase what was being said by the document.

Creating statements made it possible to group data from the disparate documents together and then count how many times they occurred. I did this for each of the theories and then ranked the statements.

Reading that many journals gave me a ton of insight to aspects of each theory I'd not considered before, though the main goal here was to find the statements that occurred in each of the three theories (I called these "core statements").

For me, that intersection of the theories, was the mental Venn diagram I was after, i.e. What is each theory saying is important?

At the end of all that I had a list of ranked statements from each theory and the ones that all appear in all three.

Then I wanted to create a simple diagram, to be able to picture my findings. Also this would allow me to try to communication how the core statements interacted from all the research I'd done.

I wanted to create a visual aim or guide to my findings. Though to condense 90 verbose peer reviewed journals into 1 diagram is distilling out some nuance, to say the least!

Findings

Caveat - I've removed a LOT of the details and nuance to get this down to a readable blog post size. I could likely add several volumes just on the different types of communications and what the research shows works best in different teams and environments. Maybe I'll expand on each point in a future blog post, as the intricacies of communication are fascinating to me.

Well this diagram is the fun bit, I hope this helps others who are responsible facilitating virtual teams. This is new to some, old to others, but is certainly not going away and a lot of organisations need to get a lot lot better at it.

So here is a guide to help with that.

All the core statements from the intersection of all the theories, turned into this diagram:

 So the 7 core statements that came from all the research were:

1. Team & (the) Team Structure
2. Goals
3. Process
4. Leadership
5. Culture
6. Trust
7. Asynchronous Interaction

The original paper was 10K words, so I'll just share a few notes on each now, which are mostly lifted from my project, hence the slight change in use of language. 

Team & (the) Team Structure

Existing research (Mitchell, et al. 2011) shows that the creation of a team goes beyond selecting a set of individuals with the appropriate skills sets, but to the psychology of shared identity. The formation of a team and its accepted norms helps to define its boundaries and culture.

The research found conflicting findings on the physical distance in distributed teams being a negative impact (Amber et al. 2019; Willis. 2010). Though the majority of the findings suggested that the geographical distance is inconsequential. The method and quality of the communication, as well as training, were found to be more impactful than distance barriers (Warkentin and Beranek. 1999). The evidence that some highly performant distributed teams outperform co-located teams supports this (Colomo-Palacios. 2014).

One document indicated a tendency for conflict to emerge more in distributed teams, opposed to co-located ones (Cramton, Hinds. 2004).

It's vital to understand the importance of proactively building a team structure to mitigate conflict, as well as instilling a shared identity and culture.

Process

Marks et al. (2001) describes process as:

“... member’s interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals”

Process ranked very highly in the research - in all areas - but this doesn't mean that there has to be a very complex heavy process. But that there should be a suitable, well communicated and understood one.

A process is a organisational tool, different tools are suited to different organisations. Treat anyone who claims to have "the one true answer" with a healthy amount of suspicion (i.e. die hard agile evangelists, who - quite ironically - by nature and view are quire rigid).

Goals

The description of process, above includes the behavioural activities by which a team attempts to deliver their goals (Marks. 2001). The findings throughout the research spoke to communication having distinct (and usually unrealised) goals.

Some describe the primary goal of communication being “to send clear, unambiguous and complete information.” (Ziek, Anderson. 2015). The issue with this is that it focuses on broadcasting information and not on ensuring that the people(s) receiving it have the same decoding of it into understanding as the sender.

Qualifying with people what they have understood is vital, this is why I mentioned "shared mental models" in the terms section above.

The work by Butchibabu (2016) demonstrates the value of not only clearly defining and communicating team goals, but proactively sharing them to teammates.

The approach of broadcasting (opposed to having to constantly request) information to increase team members situational and workload awareness, is also observed in superior teams by Orasanu (1990).

Shantz and Latham (2011) stated “Overwhelming evidence in the behavioral sciences shows that consciously set goals can increase an employee’s performance.”. This aligns with the findings extracted during this research.

The focus on goals in all three theories is indicative of the importance of having an understood intent in communication, action and outcome.

In summary - As a team (or via leadership), set very clear goals and communicate to the team.

The goals should be set and clear at a company level. A common (and I think good model) is OKR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKR) which then feed into each team and team member.

Leadership

Leadership (not surprisingly I hope) was found to be vital in all areas of efficient and effective teams (Colomo-Palacios. 2014; Hamersly, Land. 2015; Thamhain. 2011).

It was also observed that leadership - as a property of a team - isn't necessarily represented consistently by a single person or group. Rather that leadership is an emergent property (Ziek, Smulowitz. 2014) and that it can be fluid.

Meaning that it can move amongst suitable members of a team depending on project context (Cascio, Shurygailo. 2003; Eubanks, et al. 2016).

Not only is leadership vital and potentially fluid within a team, but also needed to be multi-dimensional (Zigurs. 2003; Pauleen. 2003; Eubanks. 2016).

This is due to the multitude of dimensions in distributed teams. Zigurs (2003) researched that and created a convenient diagram of the dimensions:

These dimensions of a team, are one aspect and how disperse they are is the measurement. It's not just geographical distance (which infers time) but also culturally and organisationally, i.e. accounting and engineering having a day to day working distance within an organisation.

The insight from Zigurs (2003) was to not think of a team on any dimension (geographical, cultural, etc) as one one extreme or the other. Remote or not, but on a continuum.

So a co-located team has a low dispersion of geographical difference, where as team members around the world have a high dispersion. This can also be in flux as some members work in an office a few days a week and at home for the rest, so over time the dimensions change.

Having a scale and seeing our own place on it can help with team context and self-awareness. Which is a good way to mitigate the dreaded "us and them" (in/out group) thinking that can occur in teams, virtual or not.

Culture

Culture has been described as:

“... one of the VT’s [virtual team] most significant boundaries.” (Han,  Beyerlein. 2016). 

 

There are thousands of books and millions of blog posts on culture and I'm not here to define what is a "good" or a "bad" one, only that we should be mindful of the cultures we cultivate.

I'd suggest being wary of ideologically driven missions from teams/people trying to enforce their narrow view of what is an appropriate culture. Apply a large amount of critical thinking to the motivations of such initiatives.

Culture was found throughout the research and is the main contributor to trust within a team. The dimensional complexity of culture increases a LOT within distributed teams. This is because different groups have different norms and local cultures, as well as the cultures of the countries they live in.

During the extraction of Project Management and Group Dynamics  findings, many documents indicated the issues that occur from a lack of understanding (opposed to prejudice or hostility) of the different cultures within a team. Not only with a co-located team, though more frequently between geographically dispersed teams (Dani, et al. 2006).

Culture directly underpins and affects the ability for a team to innovate (Kratzer, et al. 2017) and contributes significantly to the development of trust within a team (Parra,  et al. 2011).

The documents showed a close relationship between culture, team building and trust.

This is no simple topic ... and I suggest it's for the leadership to figure out asap if it's not already there.

Trust

Trust is a vital component of a harmonious team, basically the foundation for everything. If you don't have this, there isn't much else that matters.

It's likely the hardest aspect for inexperienced or weak leaders to deal with. Not trusting members of the team quickly leads to a breakdown of all other aspects of the work and interactions.


Trust is described by Mayer et al. (1995) as

“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to actions of another party based on the expectations that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor irrespective to the ability to monitor or control that other party”.

As with leadership and culture, trust was shown to be multi-dimensional (Baskerville, Nandhakumar. 2007) Baskerville and Nandhakumar (2007) describe two types of trust, Personal and Abstract trust. Personal coming from relationships within the team and Abstract being based upon the structures of an organisation.

Asynchronous Interaction

Asynchronous behaviour is an interaction that isn’t dependent on immediate response. In distributed teams this will typically be out of necessity due to time zone differences. Email was the most common example of asynchronous communication in the findings.

Though Slack, Microsoft Teams, etc are all good examples as we can't be working in a manner which is dependant on others all the time, and this should be minimised as much as possible.

Much as most meetings are a waste of time, trying to "get everyone on a call" is usually the same waste of time.

Asynchronous working was shown to lead to more knowledge capturing and transfer due to the medium of transfer being recorded (email, PM tools and Slack chat) (Beise. 2010). Asynchronous is core to distributed teams communications and process (Fischer, Mosier. 2015), GD (Eubanks, et al. 2016) and PM (Massey, et al. (2003).

With distributed teams commonly working (globally) at different times, figuring out the best asynchronous practices will benefit everyone.

Summary

So, those 7 core statements were my findings for the aspects that effect teams. Teams with various dimensions of distance (geographical, cultural, etc) will experience each of the dimensions in different ways, though each aspects will be present and should be considered by the members, be they facilitators/leaders or not.

 

Bibliography

Project Management

Hashmi, A., Hafeez, Y., Jamal, M., Ali, S. and Iqbal, Naila. (2019) ‘Role of Situational Agile Distributed Model to Support Modern Software Development Teams’, Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, 38(3), pp. 655–666.

Massey, A., Montoya-Weiss, M. and Hung, Y. (2003) ‘Because Time Matters: Temporal Coordination in Global Virtual Project Teams’ (2003) Journal of Management Information Systems. Routledge, 19(4), pp. 129–155.

Beise, C., Carte, T., Vician, C., and Chidambaram, L. . (2010) ‘A case study of project management practices in virtual settings: lessons from working in and managing virtual teams’, ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems. ACM, 41(4), pp. 75–97.

Bharadwaj, S. and Saxena, K. (2005) ‘Knowledge Management in Global Software Teams’, Vikalpa. Ahmedabad: Sage Publications, New Delhi India, 30(4), pp. 65–76.

Casey, V. (2010) ‘Virtual software team project management’, Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society. London: Springer-Verlag, 16(2), pp. 83–96.

Colomo-Palacios, R., Casado-Lumbreras, C., Soto-Acosta, P., García-Peñalvo, F. and Tovar, E. (2014) ‘Project managers in global software development teams: a study of the effects on productivity and performance’, Software Quality Journal. Boston: Springer US, 22(1), pp. 3–19.

Curlee, W. (2008) ‘Modern virtual project management: The effects of a centralized and decentralized project management office’, Project Management Journal. Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, 39(S1), pp. S83–S96.

Drouin, N., Bourgault, M. and Gervais, C. (2010) ‘Effects of organizational support on components of virtual project teams’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3(4), pp. 625–641.

García, J., Saldaña, J., Amescua, A. and Sanz, A. (2010) ‘How to get mature global virtual teams: a framework to improve team process management in distributed software teams’, Software Quality Journal. Boston: Springer US, 18(4), pp. 409–435.

Hamersly, B. and Land, D. (2015) ‘Building productivity in virtual project teams.’ Universidade Nove de Julho, 6(1), pp. 01–13.

Henderson, L. S., Stackman, R. W. and Lindekilde, R. (2016) ‘The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams’, International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd, 34(8), pp. 1717–1730.

Kuruppuarachchi, P. R. (2009) ‘Virtual team concepts in projects: A case study’, Project Management Journal. Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, 40(2), pp. 19–33.

Lockwood, J. (2015) ‘Virtual team management: what is causing communication breakdown?’, Language and Intercultural Communication. Routledge, 15(1), pp. 125–140.

Mcdonough, E. , Kahn, K. B. and Barczak, G. (2001) ‘An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Inc, 18(2), pp. 110–120.

Pokharel, S. (2011) ‘Stakeholders’ roles in virtual project environment: A case study’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. Elsevier B.V, 28(3), pp. 201–214.

Reed, A. and Knight, L. (2010) ‘Effect of a virtual project team environment on communication-related project risk’, International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd, 28(5), pp. 422–427.

Swain, D. and Lightfoot, J. (2016) ‘A knowledge management framework for global project development based on Tai Chi principles and practices’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 9(3), pp. 624–653.

Swartz, S. and Luck, S. (2018) ‘Virtual Teams: Learning Intercultural Business Communication by Doing’, Journal of Organizational Psychology. West Palm Beach: North American Business Press, 18(1), pp. 42–45.

Thamhain, H. (2011) ‘Critical Success Factors for Managing Technology-Intensive Teams in the Global Enterprise’, Engineering Management Journal. Taylor & Francis, 23(3), pp. 30–36.

Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2017) ‘Working separately but together: appraising virtual project team challenges’, Team Performance Management: An International Journal. Emerald Publishing Limited, 23(5/6), pp. 227–242.

Group Dynamics

Maznevski, M. and Chudoba, K. (2000) ‘Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness’, Organization Science, 11(5), pp. 473–492.

Bushe, G. and Coetzer, G. (2007) ‘Group Development and Team Effectiveness: Using Cognitive Representations to Measure Group Development and Predict Task Performance and Group Viability’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. London, England: Sage Publications, 43(2), pp. 184–212.

Byrd, J. and Luthy, M. (2008) ‘IMPROVING GROUP DYNAMICS: CREATING A TEAM CHARTER’, Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Educational Leadership. Proceedings. Arden: Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc, 13(2), p. 17.

Cascio, W. and Shurygailo, S. (2003) ‘E-Leadership and Virtual Teams’, Organizational Dynamics. Elsevier Inc, 31(4), pp. 362–376.

Caya, O., Mortensen, M. and Pinsonneault, A. (2013) ‘Virtual teams demystified: an integrative framework for understanding virtual teams.’, International Journal of e-Collaboration. IGI Global, 9(2), pp. 1–33.

Dani, S., Burns, N., Backhouse and C. Kochhar, A. (2006) ‘The Implications of Organizational Culture and Trust in the Working of Virtual Teams’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. London, England: SAGE Publications, 220(6), pp. 951–960.

Eubanks, D., Palanski, M., Olabisi, J., Joinson and A. Dove, J. (2016) ‘Team dynamics in virtual, partially distributed teams: Optimal role fulfillment’, Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 61(C), pp. 556–568.

Ferreira, P. , Lima, E. and Da Costa, S. (2012) ‘Perception of virtual team’s performance: A multinational exercise’, International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier B.V, 140(1), pp. 416–430.

Ford, R., Piccolo, R. and Ford, L. (2017) ‘Strategies for building effective virtual teams: Trust is key’, Business Horizons. Elsevier Inc, 60(1), pp. 25–34.

Han, S., Chae, C., Macko, P., Park, W. and Beyerlein, M. (2017) ‘How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges’, European Journal of Training and Development. Emerald Publishing Limited, 41(3), pp. 261–276.

Han, S. and Beyerlein, M. (2016) ‘Framing the Effects of Multinational Cultural Diversity on Virtual Team Processes’, Small Group Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 47(4), pp. 351–383.

Holton, J. (2001) ‘Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team’, Team Performance Management: An International Journal. MCB UP Ltd, 7(3/4), pp. 36–47.

Kennedy, D. Sommer, S. and Nguyen, P. (2017) ‘Optimizing multi-team system behaviors: Insights from modeling team communication’, European Journal of Operational Research. Elsevier B.V, 258(1), pp. 264–278.

Jaakson, K., Reino, A. and Mcclenaghan, P. B. (2019) ‘The space between – linking trust with individual and team performance in virtual teams’, Team Performance Management: An International Journal. Emerald Publishing Limited, 25(1/2), pp. 30–46.

‘Laborious but Elaborate: The Benefits of Really Studying Team Dynamics.’ (2019) Frontiers in Psychology. Frontiers Research Foundation, 10, p. 1478.

Lurey, J. and Raisinghani, M. (2001) ‘An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams’, Information & Management. Elsevier B.V, 38(8), pp. 523–544.

Ocker, R., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R. and Hiltz, S. (2011) ‘Leadership Dynamics in Partially Distributed Teams: an Exploratory Study of the Effects of Configuration and Distance’, Group Decision and Negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 20(3), pp. 273–292.

Paul, R., Drake, J. and Liang, H. (2016) ‘Global Virtual Team Performance: The Effect of Coordination Effectiveness, Trust, and Team Cohesion’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. IEEE, 59(3), pp. 186–202.

Pauleen, D. (2003) ‘An Inductively Derived Model of Leader-Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members’, Journal of Management Information Systems. Routledge, 20(3), pp. 227–256.

Privman, R., Hiltz, S. and Wang, Y. (2013) ‘In-Group (Us) versus Out-Group (Them) Dynamics and Effectiveness in Partially Distributed Teams’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. IEEE, 56(1), pp. 33–49.

Warkentin, M. and Beranek, P. (1999) ‘Training to improve virtual team communication’, Information Systems Journal. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd, 9(4), pp. 271–289.

Whatley, L. (2012) ‘Individual "States" Model for Healthy Group Dynamics’, Organization Development Journal. Chesterland: International Society for Organization Development, Inc., 30(3), pp. 40–53.

Ziek, P. and Smulowitz, S. (2014) ‘The impact of emergent virtual leadership competencies on team effectiveness’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 35(2), pp. 106–120.

Zigurs, I. (2003) ‘Leadership in Virtual Teams:: Oxymoron or Opportunity?’, Organizational Dynamics. Elsevier Inc, 31(4), pp. 339–351.

Communication

Anders, A. and Cardon, P. (2016) ‘Team Communication Platforms and Emergent Social Collaboration Practices’, International Journal of Business Communication. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 53(2), pp. 224–261.

Bano, M., Zowghi, D. and Sarkissian, N. (2016) ‘Empirical study of communication structures and barriers in geographically distributed teams’, IET Software, 10(5), pp. 147–153.

Bowman, J. and Targowski, A. (1987) ‘Modeling the Communication Process: The Map is Not the Territory’, Journal of Business Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 24(4), pp. 21–34.

Butchibabu, A., Sparano-Huiban, C., Sonenberg, L. and Shah, J. (2016) ‘Implicit Coordination Strategies for Effective Team Communication’, Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 58(4), pp. 595–610.

Cardon, P. and Marshall, B. (2015) ‘The Hype and Reality of Social Media Use for Work Collaboration and Team Communication’, International Journal of Business Communication. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 52(3), pp. 273–293.

Cash, P., Dekoninck, E. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2017) ‘Supporting the development of shared understanding in distributed design teams’, Journal of Engineering Design. Taylor & Francis, 28(3), pp. 147–170.

Chen, N. et al. (2019) ‘An Analytical Framework for Modeling, Analysis, and Improvement of Team Communication and Collaboration Process in Primary Care Clinics’, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. IEEE, 16(3), pp. 1148–1162.

Cheshin, A., Kim, Y., Bos, D., Ning, N. and Olson, J. (2013) ‘Emergence of Differing Electronic Communication Norms Within Partially Distributed Teams’, Journal of Personnel Psychology. Hogrefe Publishing, 12(1), pp. 7–21.

Chong, D., ; Eerde, W., Rutte, Christel, G. and Chai, K. (2012) ‘Bringing Employees Closer: The Effect of Proximity on Communication When Teams Function under Time Pressure’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), pp. 205–215.

Condit, C. (2000) ‘Culture and biology in human communication: Toward a multi-causal model’, Communication Education. Taylor & Francis Group, 49(1), pp. 7–24.

Defranco, J. and Laplante, P. (2017) ‘Review and Analysis of Software Development Team Communication Research’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. IEEE, 60(2), pp. 165–182.

Eisenberg, J., Post, C. and Ditomaso, N. (2019) ‘Team Dispersion and Performance: The Role of Team Communication and Transformational Leadership’, Small Group Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 50(3), pp. 348–380.

Espevik, R., Johnsen, B. H. and Eid, J. (2011) ‘Communication and Performance in Co-Located and Distributed Teams: An Issue of Shared Mental Models of Team Members?’, Military Psychology. Taylor & Francis Group, 23(6), pp. 616–638.

Fischer, U. and Mosier, K. (2014) ‘The Impact of Communication Delay and Medium on Team Performance and Communication in Distributed Teams’, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 115–119.

Fischer, U. and Mosier, K. (2015) ‘Communication Protocols to Support Collaboration in Distributed Teams Under Asynchronous Conditions’, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 1–5.

Gajendran, R.and Joshi, A. (2012) ‘Innovation in Globally Distributed Teams: The Role of LMX, Communication Frequency, and Member Influence on Team Decisions’, Journal of Applied Psychology. American Psychological Association, 97(6), pp. 1252–1261.

Gervits, F., Eberhard, K. and Scheutz, M. (2016) ‘Team Communication as a Collaborative Process.’, Frontiers in Robotics and AI. Frontiers Research Foundation, 3.

Giuffrida, R. and Dittrich, Y. (2015) ‘A conceptual framework to study the role of communication through social software for coordination in globally-distributed software teams’, Information and Software Technology. Elsevier B.V, 63, pp. 11–30.

Gorman, J., Hessler, E., Amazeen, P., Cooke, N. and Shope, S. (2012) ‘Dynamical analysis in real time: detecting perturbations to team communication’, Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, 55(8), pp. 825–839.

Hedman-Phillips, E. and Barge, J. (2017) ‘Facilitating Team Reflexivity About Communication’, Small Group Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 48(3), pp. 255–287.

Kaye, M. and Gilpin, A. (1998) ‘Successful organisational teams: Theory and practice from an adult communication management perspective’, Journal of Communication Management, 2(4), pp. 305–319.

Kim, A., Lee, S., Park, J., Kang, H. and Seong, P. (2013) ‘Correlation analysis between team communication characteristics and frequency of inappropriate communications’, Annals of Nuclear Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 58, pp. 80–89.

Lee-Kelley, L. and Sankey, T. (2008) ‘Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: A case study’, International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd, 26(1), pp. 51–62.

Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2014) ‘Enhancing performance of geographically distributed teams through targeted use of information and communication technologies’, Human Relations. London, England: SAGE Publications, 67(4), pp. 389–411.

Marlow, S., Lacerenza, C., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. and Salas, E. (2018) ‘Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Elsevier Inc, 144, pp. 145–170.

Mccomb, S., Schroeder, A., Kennedy, D. and Vozdolska, R. (2012) ‘The five Ws of team communication.’, Industrial Management. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Inc. (IIE), 54(5), pp. 10–13,5.

Mohorek, M. and Webb, T. (2015) ‘Establishing a Conceptual Framework for Handoffs Using Communication Theory’, Journal of Surgical Education. Elsevier Inc, 72(3), pp. 402–409.

Nematzadeh, A., Ciampaglia, G., Ahn, Y. and Flammini, A. (2019) ‘Information overload in group communication: from conversation to cacophony in the Twitch chat’, Royal Society Open Science. The Royal Society, 6(10), p. 191412.

Nonose, K., Kanno, T. and Furuta, K. (2015) ‘An evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis’, Cognition, Technology & Work. London: Springer London, 17(4), pp. 607–618.

Philip Ball (2015) ‘Information theory: Knowledge and know-how’, Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 521(7553), pp. 420–421.

Pinto, M. and Pinto, J. (1990) ‘Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management. Elsevier Inc, 7(3), pp. 200–212.

Reed, A. and Knight, L. (2010) ‘Effect of a virtual project team environment on communication-related project risk’, International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd, 28(5), pp. 422–427.

Stryker, J. , Santoro, M. and Farris, G. (2012) ‘Creating Collaboration Opportunity: Designing the Physical Workplace to Promote High-Tech Team Communication’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. IEEE, 59(4), pp. 609–620.

Srikanth, K. and Puranam, P. (2011) ‘INTEGRATING DISTRIBUTED WORK: COMPARING TASK DESIGN, COMMUNICATION, AND TACIT COORDINATION MECHANISMS’, Strategic Management Journal. John Wiley & Sons, 32(8), pp. 849–875.

Targowski, A. and Bowman, J. (1988) ‘The Layer-Based, Pragmatic Model of the Communication Process’, Journal of Business Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 25(1), pp. 5–24.

Tiferes, J. and Bisantz, A. (2018) ‘The impact of team characteristics and context on team communication: An integrative literature review’, Applied Ergonomics. Elsevier Ltd, 68, pp. 146–159.

Pamela J. and Mortensen, M. (2015) ‘Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication’ (2005) Organization Science, 16(3), pp. 290–307.

Valls, V., González‐Romá, V. and Tomás, I. (2016) ‘Linking educational diversity and team performance: Team communication quality and innovation team climate matter’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(4), pp. 751–771.

Walker, R. , Cardon, P. and Aritz, J. (2018) ‘Enhancing Global Virtual Small Group Communication Skills’, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. Routledge, 47(5), pp. 421–433.

Willis, J. (2010) ‘Communications Management in Partially Distributed Teams’, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43(25), pp. 117–122.

Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Zhu, C., Hu, M. and Duong, V. (2016) ‘Human activity under high pressure: A case study on fluctuation scaling of air traffic controller's communication behaviors’, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. Elsevier B.V., 441.

Xiao, L. and Huang, D. (2016) ‘Between-team communication in the intercultural context’, Information, Communication & Society. Routledge, 19(7), pp. 940–955.

Ziek, P. and Anderson, J. D. (2015) ‘Communication, dialogue and project management’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 8(4), pp. 788–803.