An Experiment of the Impacts of Workplace Configuration on Virtual Team Creativity

  • Xinlin Yao
  • Xixi LiEmail author
  • Cheng Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1034)


Enabled by advances in information and communication technologies, virtual team has been serving as an effective form to unite knowledge workers beyond various physical and social constraints for more than one decade. Nevertheless, some organizations recently started to question the effectiveness of virtual team. Scholars also argued that virtual team members remain embedded in their situated surroundings and configuration of virtual team members situating in different workplaces would be even more complicated. This study intends to solve this emerging puzzle that is not yet considered in prior work. We draw on literatures of physical workplaces and virtual team creativity and propose a research model to investigate the influence of workplace configuration on virtual team creativity and the influential mechanism of interaction balance among virtual team members. A laboratory experiment is designed to test the proposed research model and hypotheses. We discuss the potential theoretical contributions and practical implications in the end.


Workplace configuration Virtual team Team creativity Team ambidexterity Team interaction 


  1. 1.
    Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., Jones Young, N.C., Vartiainen, M., Hakonen, M.: Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J. Manag. 41(5), 1313–1337 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Leary, M.B., Cummings, J.N.: The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Q. 31, 433–452 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubé, L., Robey, D.: Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Inf. Syst. J. 19(1), 3–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giddens, A.: NowHere: Space, Time, and Modernity. University of California Press, Berkeley (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Walters, S.: The shifting locations of work: new statistical evidence on the spaces and places of employment. Work Employ Soc. 19(2), 415–431 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hislop, D., Axtell, C.: Mobile phones during work and non-work time: a case study of mobile, non-managerial workers. Inf. Organ. 21(1), 41–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jarrahi, M.H., Nelson, S.B., Thomson, L.: Personal artifact ecologies in the context of mobile knowledge workers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75, 469–483 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Browne, R.: 70% of people globally work remotely at least once a week, study says, CNBC, 30 May 2018. Accessed 02 Mar 2019
  9. 9.
    Tkaczyk, C.: Marissa Mayer breaks her silence on Yahoo’s telecommuting policy, Fortune, 19 April 2013. Accessed 02 Mar 2019
  10. 10.
    Kessler, S.: IBM, remote-work pioneer, is calling thousands of employees back to the office, Quartz, 21 March 2017. Accessed 02 Mar 2019
  11. 11.
    Cramton, C.D., Hinds, P.J.: Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Res. Organ. Behav. 26, 231–263 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rennecker, J.A.: The situated nature of virtual teamwork: understanding the constitutive role of place in the enactment of virtual work configuration. Syst. Organ. 2(3), 115–139 (2002). Sprouts: Working Papers on Information EnvironmentsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarker, S., Sahay, S.: 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 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, X., Li, X., Zhang, C., Ling, H.: Fueling virtual teams with creativity through composition of private and public workspaces. In: 38th International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elsbach, K.D., Pratt, M.G.: 4 the physical environment in organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1(1), 181–224 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Been, I., Beijer, M.: The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. J. Facil. Manag. 12(2), 142–157 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., Kline, T.: Traditional versus open office design: a longitudinal field study. Environ. Behav. 34(3), 279–299 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heerwagen, J.H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K.M., Loftness, V.: Collaborative knowledge work environments. Build. Res. Inf. 32(6), 510–528 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., Ying, Z.J.: Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130(1), 165–218 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCoy, J.M., Evans, G.W.: The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Res. J. 14(3–4), 409–426 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    May, D.R., Oldham, G.R., Rathert, C.: Employee affective and behavioral reactions to the spatial density of physical work environments. Hum. Resour. Manag. 44(1), 21–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L., Blum, T.C.: Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Acad. Manag. J. 43(2), 215–223 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alnuaimi, O.A., Robert, L.P., Maruping, L.M.: Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: a perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27(1), 203–230 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibson, C.B., Gibbs, J.L.: 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 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tzabbar, D., Vestal, A.: Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: the moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organ. Sci. 26(3), 811–829 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perry-Smith, J.E., Mannucci, P.V.: From creativity to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42(1), 53–79 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., Farr, J.: A dialectic perspective on innovation: conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2(3), 305–337 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E.: The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 49(4), 693–706 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miron-Spector, E., Erez, M., Naveh, E.: Team composition and innovation: the importance of conformists and attentive-to-detail members. Acad. Manag. J. 54(4), 740–760 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Katz, A., Te’eni, D.: The contingent impact of contextualization on computer-mediated collaboration. Organ. Sci. 18(2), 261–279 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Espinosa, J.A., Nan, N., Carmel, E.: Temporal distance, communication patterns, and task performance in teams. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 151–191 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blau, P.M.: Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. Free Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations