CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 426Team Dynamics and PerformanceWork-Family Balance ChallengesOnline and Blended Learning

Virtual Work: Bridging Research Clusters

Open access
Raghuram, Sumita, Hill, N. Sharon, Gibbs, Jennifer L., Maruping, Likoebe M.·2019·Academy of Management Annals
DOI 10.5465/annals.2017.0020
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Virtual work is the new normal, with employees working from dispersed locations and interacting using computer-mediated communication. Despite the growth in virtual work research, it has tended to occur in siloes focused on different types of virtual work (e.g., virtual teams and telecommuting) that are grounded in different research traditions. This limits opportunities to leverage research across these different domains. We use a co-citation analysis to examine the degree of segmentation in the field of virtual work into disparate research clusters. We find the emergence of three major research clusters: telecommuting, virtual teams, and computer-mediated work (CMW). Motivated by this finding, we carry out a comparative review of the literature in each cluster with the objective of seeking ways to exploit opportunities that cut across them. Based on our review, we first develop a conceptual model using the dispersion and technology dependence dimensions of virtuality to compare different approaches to studying virtuality-related issues across clusters. Next, we use our comparative review to propose a systematic approach for developing research questions that bridge research across the clusters by considering how different approaches to studying virtuality and the ensuing problem domains addressed in one cluster might help to advance research in another. To illustrate this approach, we discuss 12 research questions for bridging across the three virtual work clusters. Finally, we discuss the research implications of our conceptual model and bridging approach. Our review and conceptual model along with the proposed bridging approach help to facilitate a forward-looking agenda for accelerating and enriching virtual work research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/annals.2017.0020

Cites

237 of 237 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most research conceptualizes team virtuality as a construct with two dimensions: geographical dispersion and reliance on technology.

    “Most research conceptualizes team virtuality as a construct with two dimensions: geographical dispersion and reliance on technology153,155.”

    From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [153]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Brzozowski, M. J. 2009. Water Cooler: Exploring an organization through enterprise social media. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, 219-228. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  2. Cascio, W. F. 2000. Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 81-90.
  3. DiMicco, J., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., & Muller, M. 2008. Motivations for social networking at work. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 711-720.
  4. Fuller, R. M., & Dennis, A. R. 2009. Does fit matter? The impact of task-technology fit and appropriation on team performance in repeated tasks. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 2-17.
  5. Gibbs, J. L., Nekrassova, D., Grushina, Y., & Abdul Wahab, S. 2008. Reconceptualizing virtual teaming from a constitutive perspective: Review, redirection, and research agenda. Communication Yearbook, 32(1), 187-229. Routledge: New York.
  6. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. 2002. Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79.
  7. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer- mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
  8. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
  9. Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. 1999. When workers are here, there, and everywhere: A discussion of the advantages and challenges of telework. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53-58.
  10. Kurzberg, T. & Gibbs, J. L. 2017. Distracted: Staying connected without losing focus. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Press.
  11. Leonardi, P., & Neeley, T. (2017, Nov-Dec). What managers need to know about social tools. Harvard Business Review, 118-126.
  12. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. 1997. Virtual Teams: Working Across space, time and organizations with Technology. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.
  13. McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. 1998. A review of the empirical research on telecommuting and directions for future research. In (Ed. M. Igbaria & M. Tan) The Virtual Workplace, 338-358, The Idea Group: Hershey USA.
  14. Mokhtarian, P. L. 1991. Telecommuting and travel: State of the practice, state of the art. Transportation, 18(4), 319-342.
  15. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. 2004. Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6-36.
  16. Raghuram, S. 1996. Knowledge creation in the telework context. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7-8), 859-870.
  17. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. 1998. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.
  18. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. 2012. Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36(1), 143-189.
  19. Watad, M. M., & DiSanzo, F. J. 2000. The synergism of telecommuting and office automation. Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 85.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Annals
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2019-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
308-341
ISSN
  • 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-6520
DOI
10.5465/annals.2017.0020
OpenAlex
W2896883760
Cited by
426
References
237
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 2
FWCI
33.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
principle of virtual work, remote work, virtual teams, research clusters, virtuality, dispersion, technology dependence, conceptual model, research agenda, co-citation analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review