Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights regarding the effects of spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors on 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 individual, subgroup, and team-level 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 two-site configurations. As predicted based on social categorization, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamics—independent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that the social categorization in teams with geographically based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) triggers significantly weaker identification with the team, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination problems. Furthermore, imbalance in the size of subgroups (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) invokes a competitive, coalitional mentality that exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on identification, transactive memory, conflict, and coordination problems. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) have better scores on these same four outcomes than both balanced and imbalanced configurations.

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.

This Perspectives article seeks to redirect research on distributed (also referred to as virtual) groups, a well-established organizational phenomenon in which group members are separated by one or more forms of distance (e.g., geographic or temporal). Such distances directly affect individual behavior and shape other features of the context that alter group processes (e.g., by forcing groups to adopt new communication tools). Prior research has examined isolated effects of various dimensions of virtuality without considering how these effects on individual behavior and group dynamics might have conceptually related underpinnings. To address this gap, we propose an extension of construal-level theory as a way to link the effects of virtuality through a common mediating mechanism. According to construal-level theory, events or objects that are physically or temporally distant are also distant psychologically and thus are likely to be described in terms of their general characteristics. In contrast, views of more proximal events or objects will be more detailed and nuanced. We develop propositions that illustrate how objective dimensions of distance create psychological distance and how that in turn affects how individuals view and interact with their teammates. We also develop propositions that show how the context of the distributed group (e.g., technology usage) affects this process over time. We compare and link this construal-based approach to alternatives based in theories of computer-mediated communication and social identity, and we thereby show that construal-level theory offers both parsimonious explanations and novel predictions about how and why distance alters perceptions of distributed group members (including oneself). Finally, we consider theoretical and practical implications of construal-level theory for future organization science research and the management of virtual teams.

Scholars have established that team membership has wide-ranging effects on cognition, dynamics, processes, and performance. Underlying that scholarship is the assumption that team membership—who is and who is not a team member—is straightforward, unambiguous, and agreed upon by all members. Contrary to this assumption, I posit that mental models of membership increasingly diverge within teams as a result of changing environmental conditions. I build on the literatures on membership and on shared mental models to explore such “membership model divergence.” In a study of 38 formally defined software and product development teams, I test a model of structural and emergent drivers of membership model divergence and examine its effect on performance operating through team-level cognition. I use the findings of this study to explore its implications for both management theory and managerial practice.

Teams have long been defined by boundedness—a clear distinction between members and nonmembers. Yet as we argue in this perspective paper, the distinction between members and nonmembers is often blurred in today’s teams, as a result of trends toward increasing team fluidity, overlap, and dispersion. These trends offer potential organizational benefits, but the resulting boundary blurring can undermine team effectiveness. Moreover, boundary blurring calls into question many of the basic assumptions underpinning our theoretical and empirical research on teams. Accordingly, it is time to rethink our fundamental conceptualization of teams and to revisit our approaches to studying them. We propose a shift from viewing teams as clearly bounded groups of members toward instead viewing teams as dynamic hubs of participants. Reconceptualizing teams in this way opens up new avenues for theory development and offers important implications for future empirical research on teams.

Summary The 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. This article explores what the teams research community has to gain by researching, theorizing, and understanding the many new forms of contemporary collaboration. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Despite the prevalence of team-based collaboration in the workplace, many employees feel isolated on the job. While loneliness is often thought of as a personal issue, it is an organizational issue as well. A lack of social connection - whether with friends, family members, or coworkers - can have serious consequences. It is associated not only with health problems, including heart disease, dementia, and cancer, but also with poor work performance, reduced creativity, and flawed decision-making. Quite simply, people who feel lonely cannot do their best work, which means that teams with lonely members are not operating at their peak levels either. You might think that working on a team would stave off loneliness by fostering a sense of community and camaraderie. But in a research, it has been found that the composition, duration, and staffing of teams can trigger or exacerbate feelings of social disconnection in the workplace. Therefore, managers need to view loneliness as a systemic and structural problem that may require a new approach to teamwork.

Teams have long been defined by boundedness—a clear distinction between members and nonmembers. Yet as we argue in this perspective paper, the distinction between members and nonmembers is often blurred in today’s teams, as a result of trends toward increasing team fluidity, overlap, and dispersion. These trends offer potential organizational benefits, but the resulting boundary blurring can undermine team effectiveness. Moreover, boundary blurring calls into question many of the basic assumptions underpinning our theoretical and empirical research on teams. Accordingly, it is time to rethink our fundamental conceptualization of teams and to revisit our approaches to studying them. We propose a shift from viewing teams as clearly bounded groups of members toward instead viewing teams as dynamic hubs of participants. Reconceptualizing teams in this way opens up new avenues for theory development and offers important implications for future empirical research on teams.

Scholars argue that direct knowledge about distant colleagues is crucial for fostering trust in global collaboration. However, their arguments focus mainly on how trust accrues from knowledge about distant collaborators' personal characteristics, relationships, and behavioral norms. We suggest that an equally important trust mechanism is \"reflected knowledge,\" knowledge that workers gain about the personal characteristics, relationships, and behavioral norms of their own site through the lens of their distant collaborators. Based on surveys gathered from 140 employees in a division of a global chemical company, we found that direct knowledge and reflected knowledge enhanced trust in distinct ways. Although both enhanced feelings of closeness with others, results indicate that direct knowledge increased focal actors' understanding of their distant colleagues, whereas reflected knowledge promoted feelings of being understood. We discuss implications of reflected knowledge to theories of trust and interpersonal dynamics in globally distributed collaboration. This paper was accepted by Jesper Sørensen, organizations.

Glycosylation is an effective way to improve the water solubility of natural products. In this work, a novel glycosyltransferase gene (BbGT) was discovered from Beauveria bassiana ATCC 7159 and heterologously expressed in Escherichia coli . The purified enzyme was functionally characterized through in vitro enzymatic reactions as a UDP-glucosyltransferase, converting quercetin to five monoglucosylated and one diglucosylated products. The optimal pH and temperature for BbGT are 35 ℃ and 8.0, respectively. The activity of BbGT was stimulated by Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , and Mn 2+ , but inhibited by Zn 2+ . BbGT enzyme is flexible and can glycosylate a variety of substrates such as curcumin, resveratrol, and zearalenone. The enzyme was also expressed in other microbial hosts including Saccharomyces cerevisiae , Pseudomonas putida , and Pichia pastoris . Interestingly, the major glycosylation product of quercetin in E. coli , P. putida , and P. pastoris was quercetin-7-O-β- d -glucoside, while the enzyme dominantly produced quercetin-3-O-β- d -glucoside in S. cerevisiae . The BbGT-harboring E. coli and S. cerevisiae strains were used as whole-cell biocatalysts to specifically produce the two valuable quercetin glucosides, respectively. The titer of quercetin-7-O-β- d -glucosides was 0.34 ± 0.02 mM from 0.83 mM quercetin in 24 h by BbGT-harboring E. coli . The yield of quercetin-3-O-β- d -glucoside was 0.22 ± 0.02 mM from 0.41 mM quercetin in 12 h by BbGT-harboring S. cerevisiae . This work thus provides an efficient way to produce two valuable quercetin glucosides through the expression of a versatile glucosyltransferase in different hosts. Key points • A highly versatile glucosyltransferase was identified from B. bassiana ATCC 7159. • BbGT converts quercetin to five mono- and one di-glucosylated derivatives in vitro . • Different quercetin glucosides were produced by BbGT in E. coli and S. cerevisiae.