Geographically distributed teams are increasingly prevalent in the workplace, and research on distributed teams is ever more available. Despite this increased attention, we still know surprisingly little about how the dynamics of distributed teams differ from those of their collocated counterparts and how existing models of teams apply to this new form of work. For example, although it has been argued that distributed as compared with collocated teams have more severe conflicts that fester longer and resist resolution, few comparative studies investigate dynamics such as conflict in both distributed and collocated teams. In this study, we examine conflict, its antecedents, and its effects on performance in distributed as compared with collocated teams. Our goal is to understand how conflict plays out in distributed and collocated teams, thus providing insight into how existing models of conflict must be augmented to reflect the trend toward distributed work. We report the results of a field study of 43 teams, 22 collocated and 21 distributed, from a large multinational company. As expected, the distributed teams reported more task and interpersonal conflict than did the collocated teams. We found evidence that shared identity moderated the effect of distribution on interpersonal conflict and that shared context moderated the effect of distribution on task conflict. Finally, we found that spontaneous communication played a pivotal role in the relationship between distribution and conflict. First, spontaneous communication was associated with a stronger shared identity and more shared context, our moderating variables. Second, spontaneous communication had a direct moderating effect on the distribution-conflict relationship, mitigating the effect of distribution on both types of conflict. We argue that this effect reflects the role of spontaneous communication in facilitating conflict identification and conflict handling.

While organizations strive to manage the time and attention of workers effectively, the practice of asking workers to contribute to multiple teams simultaneously can result in the opposite. We present a model of the effects of multiple team membership (MTM) on learning and productivity via the mediating processes of individual context switching, team temporal misalignment, and intra-organizational connectivity. These effects are curvilinear, with learning and productivity peaking at moderate levels of these mediating processes.Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1474336 do -Manager (Authors, 2007) Over the last century, the primary approach to organizing has shifted from individual work in hierarchical structures, to more team-based work in hierarchical structures, to teambased work in matrix structures, and ultimately to team-based work in multi-team systems (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006;Hobday, 2000;Malone, 2004;Marks, Dechurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005;Scott & Davis, 2006). As these changes have taken place, an increasing amount of responsibility has shifted to individual employees -responsibility for managing their own learning, allocating their own time, and focusing their own attention. This is especially true when employees are members of multiple teams concurrently, with no one manager aware of each employee's full portfolio of work or team commitments. In such situations, individuals may make decisions (about their time, attention, information, etc.) that are completely rational for them, but that do not result in optimal productivity and learning at the team and organizational levels (Schelling, 1978). Conversely, without complete knowledge of individuals' multiple team commitments, teams, managers, and organizations may make reasonable team-and organizationallevel decisions that have very problematic effects for individuals. In this paper, we address this theoretical and practical tension regarding the allocation of time and attention, as well as the flow of information, when people are simultaneously members of multiple teams.Based on our own survey data and surveys by other scholars (Lu, Wynn, Chudoba., & Watson-Manheim, 2003;Martin & Bal, 2006) (Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom, & Engwall, 2006). Some surveys place the percent of knowledge workers who are members of more than one team as high as 94.9 percent (Martin & Bal, 2006) and in at least one company (Intel), 28% are on five or more (Lu et al., 2003). In addition, a wide variety of scholars and practitioners have mentioned the commonality of MTM. For example, Gonzalez and Mark's (2005: 143-4) comment is typical: "In fields as diverse as finance, software development, consulting, and academia, we are finding that it is commonplace that information workers are involved in multiple collaborations that occur in parallel. This demands that individuals enact specific efforts to coordinate, manage and track those collaborations." MTM seems especially common (and particularly challenging) in information technology (e.g., Bas...

Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights into how spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors affect GDT functioning and performance. Largely missing, however, is research on the effects of the basic geographic configuration of GDTs. In this study, we explore the impact of GDT configuration (i.e., the relative number of team members at different sites, independent of the characteristics of those members or the spatial and temporal distances among them) on GDT dynamics. In a quasi-experimental setting, we examine the effects of configuration using a sample of 62 six-person teams in four different one-and twosite configurations. As predicted, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamicsindependent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that teams with geographically-based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) have significantly less shared team identity, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination issues.Furthermore, in teams with subgroups, imbalance (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on the same four outcomes. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) outperform both balanced and imbalanced configurations.1

Zapp, and the MITRE Corp.; and our anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. We especially acknowledge Jeff LePine for his support throughout the revision process.

SummaryThe nature of collaboration has been changing at an accelerating pace, particularly in the last decade. Much of the published work in teams research, however, is still focused on the archetypal team that has well-defined membership, purposes, leadership, and standards of effectiveness-all characteristics that are being altered by changes in the larger context of collaboration. Each of these features is worth attention as a dynamic construct in its own right. Much of the published work in teams research, however, is still focused on the archetypal team that has well-defined membership, purpose, leadership, and standards of effectiveness. There is still more to learn about that kind of team. But the profound gap between what teams scholars are studying and what people are doing in the world-both within and between organizations-inspired us to propose this special issue. Our goal is to provoke theory, research, approaches, and methodologies that will help scholars recognize and understand the rapidly expanding universe of contemporary collaboration and teamwork.Indeed, as we argue in this article and as suggested in some of the articles offered in this issue, the very notion of a traditionally defined "team" may become increasingly outmoded. Our domain in this special issue is collaboration, which we define as "team-like behavior over time and across projects"-a definition that includes but is not restricted to what has traditionally been studied as "teams." Trends such as digitalization and globalization are already well-established subjects in teams research and will be addressed by articles in this issue. Other trends, such as value pluralism and climate change, are having surprising and critical effects on the uses and methods of collaboration but have not yet been the subject of much teams research.