1. No category

Chapter 1
Introduction to Globally Distributed Work:
Redefining Distance
(Why the World is Not Flat and Distance Can Never Be ‘Dead’)
Darl G. Kolb
University of Auckland Business School
Auckland, New Zealand
d.kolb@auckland.ac.nz
Abstract
The world is increasingly connected and this increased social and technical connectivity has led some
to proclaim the ‘death of distance’ and to suggest that ‘the world is flat.’ But is the world flat? And,
can distance ever be dead? I suggest the answer to both questions is ‘no.’ What is perhaps needed,
however, is a new perspective on what constitutes distance in a connected age. Existing models and
metaphors of distance--including spatial, temporal, gravity, center-periphery, networks and
dichotomous--are still useful. But a new definition of distance, based on connective gaps between
places and/or actors, shows why distance can never die. Defining distance as gaps may help us better
manage others who are static or mobile, near or far away.
Introduction
We all know the world is getting smaller. Or is it? Indeed, the world has been ‘shrinking’ via
exploration, communication, trade and travel for centuries (Belich, 2001: 66; Berdayes, 2000;
Graham, 2001; King & Frost, 2002; M. O'Leary, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2002; J. R. Short, 2001). In
recent history, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have had a significant impact on
human connections. The rapid uptake of ICTs has made it easier than ever before to make contact
with others across borders and around the world. This unprecedented surge in technical connectivity
has led many observers to be wildly enthusiastic regarding the potential for information and
communication technologies to transform organizational life (for example, Davis, 1986; Davis &
Meyer, 1998; Negroponte, 1995). The epitome of this optimism vis-à-vis distance was two editions
of a book entitled, The Death of Distance (Cairncross, 1997, 2001), with its glowing summaries of the
possibilities of a highly connected world.
New ideas will spread faster, leaping borders. Entire electorates will learn
things that once only a few bureaucrats knew. Small companies will offer
services that previously only giants could provide. Poor countries will have
immediate access to information that was once restricted to the industrial world
and travelled only slowly, if at all, beyond it. In all of these ways, the
communications revolution is profoundly democratic and liberating, levelling
the imbalance between large and small, rich and poor. The death of distance,
overall, should be welcomed and enjoyed (2001: 6).
2
Besides getting smaller, the world is also now supposedly ‘flat,’ according to another journalist,
Thomas Friedman, author of the highly acclaimed book, The World is Flat. (2005). While operational
standards and practices have dramatically increased the ability of formerly isolated locales to more
fully participate in the global economy, to put it bluntly, Friedman (2005) are Cairncross are wrong.
The world is not flat and distance is not dead! Indeed, it can be argued that for all our
interconnectedness humans are as fragmented and isolated as ever (Marx, 1999). And, while the
general efficacy of and accessibility to ICTs are no doubt having an impact on the world, the question
remains: to what extent do (or can) connective technologies actually shrink distance? Or, the question
I consider here is this: How do we define distance in a connected world? Is it the number of
kilometres or miles between us? The number of time zones? Despite the proliferation of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) designed to reduce the impact of physical distance and
facilitate close social and professional working relationships, the core concept of ‘distance’ itself has
received relatively little attention in the organizational literature.
In this chapter, I revisit the central concept of ‘distance’ in distributed work environments, first by
problematizing the ‘death of distance’ and ‘flat world’ theses. Then, I review models and metaphors
of distance and outline their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, I propose a new definition of
distance, namely as connective gaps. Defining distance as connective gaps may help us better
understand distance in mobile and distributed work contexts. Implications for managing distributed
work are also discussed.
Managing Distance to Death?
Physical exchange across geographical distance including tourism, immigration, and trade of goods
and services has long existed as both means and ends of connecting humans to other humans
(Berdayes, 2000). Physically travelling from one’s own camp to a neighbour’s camp was followed by
exchanges of text in various formats, from runners to noise (drums) and visual exchanges (smoke
signals) to codified written messages and documents, each able to convey messages with increasingly
complex meanings. The story of techno-physical connectivity throughout history is one of
incremental advances, occasionally disrupted by significant spikes of advancement (i.e., the printing
press, steam generation, telegraph, combustion engine). With each new technology came advances in
human connectivity, but not without some (often significant) delays, errors, inconsistencies,
misinterpretation and misunderstanding between parties.
Reviews of the management of organizational empires include King and Frost’s (2002) portrayal of
how civilizations have managed and worked across distance for several thousand years. These authors
describe the importance of balancing ‘ambiguation’ and ‘dis-ambiguation’ in the Catholic Church and
America’s Constitutional government model. Similarly, O’Leary et al (2002) describe how the
Hudson’s Bay Company managed its sprawling Canadian empire from headquarters in London for
more than a century by keeping tight controls over some aspects of the business and fairly loose
autonomy in other aspects of managerial practice. New Zealand historian James Belich convincingly
illustrates how for nearly 100 years (1880-1973) a “protein bridge” (2001: 66) was formed between
New Zealand and Britain, whereby New Zealand was effectively as close to London as any provincial
English town. In exchange, London served as New Zealand’s cultural capital. Australia’s Blainey
portrays a different story, where the hardships of exchanging people and goods between Australia and
the world were notoriously coined as ‘the tyranny of distance’ (1966, 2001), an expression still in use.
Blainey’s accounts of incredible hardships notwithstanding, all these examples suggest that
organizations and whole industries have been managing across distance for hundreds, if not thousands
of years. The point here is that technologies such as sailing and steam ships, telegraphs, and railways
linked people and societies together long before contemporary information and communication
technologies (ICTs) came on the scene (J. R. Short, 2001). And that, like other technologies,
information technologies are often viewed with eutopic euphoria, only to have the reality turn out
differently (Marx, 1999).
Other scholars, including economists, sociologists and geographers, have long addressed the concept
of distance. Theories of industry location date back to the early 1900s (e.g., Weber, 1909) and studies
of the concentration of economic activity appeared not long after that (Christaller, 1933). One can
3
find extensive and growing literatures on topics such as attributes of new communication media (e.g.,
Daft & Lengel, 1986; Epley & Kruger, 2005; Kiesler, Seigel, & McGuire, 1984; Taylor, Groleau,
Heaton, & van Every, 2001), the information revolution (e.g., Calcutt, 1999; Carr, 2003) and virtual
environments (for example, Rheingold, 1994; Turkle, 1995; Woolgar, 2002). The ‘shrinking’ world
around organizations is the focus of discussions of networks (Castells, 1996, 2000; Hiltz & Turoff,
1993; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Watts, 2003), global culture (Nisbett, 2003; Thomas & Inkson, 2004;
Tomlinson, 1999) and globalization (Chomsky, 2003; Osland, 2003; Stiglitz, 2002). But, until
recently, little specific attention has been paid to definitions of distance.
Calls for more conceptual clarity, however, have been made (Leonardi, Jackson, & Marsh,
forthcoming; M. B. O'Leary & Cummings, 2007). King and Frost remind us that distance is not only
important, but it requires our conscious attention in order to manage it.
New technologies are changing important aspects of how we live and work and,
among them, the ways we manage distance. However, the management of
distance has always required far more than technical artefacts. It has required as
well techniques, social conventions and norms, folkways and mores,
organizational structures, and institutions (2002: 4).
This article is an attempt to present existing models and metaphors of distance and to add new
thinking around the concept of distance, especially in work and organizational contexts.
Models and Metaphors of Distance
The way we measure a thing influences the resulting measurement (Gleick, 1987; M. B. O'Leary &
Cummings, 2007). Therefore, if distance can be defined in different ways, then each definition will
provide a different measurement. Several conceptualizations of distance include spatial, temporal,
center-periphery, gravity, networks, and, in the context of distributed work, as dichotomous, i.e.,
collocated/dispersed workers. (See Table 1) Each is reviewed briefly below.
Spatial Models
Spatial models of distance include geographic and other physical propinquity models, where distance
is considered to be equivalent to the geographic or physical space between one place/actor and
another place/actor. This form of distance results in measures expressed as feet, yards, meters,
kilometers, miles, etc. As an example, the distance between, say London and Los Angeles is around
8,757 kilometers or 5,441 miles. Though spatial models are generally place-based, they nonetheless
incorporate a temporal dimension, wherein time is used as proxy for physical distance. For example,
we commonly express distance as an estimate of the time it takes to travel, exchange goods or
transmit information between two points, i.e., a 20-minute walk, an hour’s drive, a 3-hour flight.
Returning to our London-Los Angeles example, sitting in London we might say it is ‘12 hours to LA’,
referring to the approximate time it takes to fly from London to Los Angeles by commercial airliner.
Time as proxy for spatial distance has led to what has been referred to as time-space compression
(Giddens, 1979), whereby distance is in fact shrinking as the time required to travel or exchange
goods or information between places is reduced (Gleick, 1999).
In spatial models, greater travel or communication transfer speeds lead to a reduced sense of physical
distance between places, nodes or actors. These speed improvements, played out to their extreme,
underpin claims of the ‘death of distance,’ the logic being that, if distance equals time to connect or
transfer, then, as transfer times become minuscule, the effects of distance diminish radically. The
logic is sensible, if one is constructing distance to mean fixed geographic places and travel or transfer
times (hypothetical, actual, and/or average) between geographic places. Of course, where time as
proxy for distance has truly had a dramatic effect is in the transfer of packets of information via the
Internet at speeds that could only be dreamed of just a few decades ago. Now, we are able to say that
the time to ‘get to LA’ by email is less than a minute from anywhere in the world and doing so brings
LA, or any other place with Internet access, much ‘closer’ to anyone on Earth.
4
Temporal Models
Time is not just a proxy for spatial distance. It also represents another dimension to distance, that is,
synchronicity. Being in different time zones challenges most communication processes and while
extreme asynchronicity (i.e., opposite waking hours) can have commercial benefits, it is generally a
challenge or barrier to distributed organizational work (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001;
Olson, Teasley, Covi, & Olson, 2002; Saunders, van Slyke, & Vogel, 2004). For example, in our LALondon example, the overlap of synchronous business hours is severely limited, i.e., when it is 9:00
AM in California, it is already 6:00 PM in London. However, the same firm may be taking advantage
of asynchronous locations to have call center work or computer program development conducted in
India to take advantage of (among other things) opposite time zones, i.e., one part of the world’s night
is another’s daytime (Friedman, 2005).
Some asynchronous technologies reduce the effects of distance. Email messages, for example, can be
dropped into email inboxes at any time and be accessed at any time. Alternatively, by allowing us to
communicate in ‘real time,’ synchronous technologies increase the perception of social presence (J.
Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and thereby reduce the perception of distance. Instant messaging
(IM), for example, makes us feel ‘closer’ than email does. Another feature of IM is that, by noting
one’s on-line/off-line status, it serves as a proxy for availability among users and therefore promotes
other real-time interactions (such as phone calls) (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002; Kraut, Fussell,
Brennan, & Seigel, 2002; Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000).
The Gravity Model
In the late 1940s, James Stewart, an astronomer at Princeton applied the analogy of ‘gravity’ to the
social sciences generally (1947) and to demographic movements in particular (1948). Soon after that,
an early model explaining regional trading patterns in Europe (Beckerman, 1956) was referred to as
the ‘gravity model’ of international trade. Similar and extended models (e.g., Tinbergen, 1962)
predict the volume of trade between places diminishing the farther apart they are. Essentially, regions
and countries’ trade levels are almost universally highest with their nearest neighbors, decreasing
correspondingly in proportion to the distance between countries or regions. Though other models
have emerged and robust theoretical explanations for its success are still lacking, the gravity model is
still empirically valid (e.g., such patterns of trade widely persist) and is still discussed in
contemporary economic geography textbooks (for instance, Brakman, Garretsen, & Marrewijk, 2001).
One might imagine that new communication technologies and the Internet effectively ‘defy gravity,’
making distance irrelevant in a highly connected world. Returning to our previous example, under
‘old’ economic and technological conditions, the farther we are from London or LA, the less trade
activity we would expect with those cities. By contrast, in the so-called ‘new economy,’ we might
expect new patterns of trade on the frictionless World Wide Web. But foreign investment patterns are
still influenced by distance (P. Ghemawat, 2001; Pankaj Ghemawat, 2007; Nachum & Zaheer, 2005)
and the fact of the matter is that the geography of the Internet largely mimics or mirrors pre-existing
trade patterns (Leamer & Storper, 2001). So, to a greater or lesser extent, the Internet
notwithstanding, the gravity model lives on.
Center-Periphery Model
Borrowed from sociology, a center-periphery model of distance is less predictive, but somewhat more
explanatory than the gravity model. How distant one is vis-à-vis a given ‘center’ or ‘periphery’ is
relative to one’s relationship with that ‘center’. For example, staying with our previous example, one
might construct London or Los Angeles as the cultural center of the world and thereby any distance
away from it is always great. Taken to its extreme, anyone who is not located at the ‘Center’ is by
definition ‘playing at the periphery.’ Art and culture might be replaced by power and wealth and we
have the ‘all roads lead to Rome’ syndrome, whereby certain ‘global cities’ predominate in global
infrastructure, cultural production and social influence (Sassen, 2002; Townsend, 2001).
5
In organizations, the head office may be seen as quite separate or remote from the rest of the
organization or vice versa, regardless of the physical or temporal distance involved. ‘Centers,’ of
course, may change over time and depend on what criteria one applies. They may also be the thing
from which we ‘distance’ our local selves (Giddens, 1991; Thomlinson; 1999). Consider, for
example, the resurgence of local and regional pride that flourishes alongside global hegemony.
In summary, the center-periphery model of distance locates an entity (individual, group, people,
nation) more or less proximal to ‘centers’ of social activity, commerce, culture, power and other
influences. The logic is that we are more or less distant or close depending on our relationship with
those who matter to us and/or have influence over us. Minority or marginalized sub-cultures often
experience distance from centers of power and global decision-making. The key issue here is that,
while the center-periphery model of distance is subjective, it nonetheless can strongly affect
relationships. And, those at the periphery are often more aware of and/or sensitive to their location
vis-à-vis the center than those in the center, who may be oblivious to the power and powerlessness
constructed around location and distance.
Distance in Networks
Disentangling the notion of distance within networks is a conceptual challenge. Networks are
characterized by an almost infinite number of established and potential linkages (relationships)
between nodes or actors (Castells, 1996, 2000; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993; Watts, 2003; Wellman, 1999).
Distance exists in networks, but this fact is downplayed if we apply simple definitions, wherein being
in or out of the network is the primary attribute of being ‘networked.’ We should not underestimate,
however, the importance of the relative position of nodes/actors, i.e., where they are located relative
to other nodes/actors in the network. Empirical network analysis does, of course, attempt to
statistically describe actors’ relationships on a variety of dimensions, including being more or less
proximal or distal to one another (Ahuja & Carley, 1999), including the effects of being more or less
‘central’ in virtual environments (Ahuja, Galletta, & Carley, 2003).
The logic of networks is that the addition of nodes exponentially increases the connective possibilities
of each member/node and thereby the reach of the network fills in the connective spaces between
actor/nodes. For example, assuming that every member of a network has an email connection, then
the time (as proxy for distance) it takes to make contact with everyone on the network is ‘only an
email away,’ that is to say the few seconds it takes to click on a group list and send a message. Such
bundled communications afforded by networks greatly multiply the span (distributed distance) a
message or service can travel, i.e., it travels to multiple places in the same amount of time as required
for a single message to go to a single place. Because many members can be contacted in (essentially)
the same time as it takes to reach a single member, the ‘network effect’ compounds time-space
compression effects with synchronicity effects, thereby rendering perceived distance within a network
to be further reduced than distance in place-to-place, actor-to-actor models. Metaphorically, if we can
deliver 1000 pieces of mail with the same energy as one piece of mail, we mentally calculate that we
have really covered a lot of ground!
However, whether or not networks actually provide much real closeness and/or social connectivity is
debatable. It is fine to have a wide-ranging set of contacts, but getting anything like a lunch date or
job with someone becomes very difficult once you get beyond the first or second degree of separation
within a social network (Fitzgerald, 2004; Watts, 2003). Moreover, what you get via close network
connections can be worse than if you had used more diverse and socially distant contacts (Marquis,
2003; McDonald, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). On the one hand, it might be argued that
networks do not need to be fully or continuously activated in order to be nonetheless effective or
relevant. Indeed, many networks only realize their potential under emergency or special
circumstances. Civil defence, emergency systems and job seeking through friends-of-a-friend exist as
latent connections until needed (Turoff, 2004). In these cases, not being contacted is not necessarily a
dysfunction, nor does lack of contact necessarily imply distance or isolation. Connectivity can be
latent and/or episodic and still be effective (Kolb, in press).
6
Watts reminds us that, ‘…distance is deceiving…We may be connected, but that doesn’t make us any
less foreign to each other, nor does it necessarily incline us to reach out beyond the little clusters that
define our individual lives’ (2003: 300). Others suggest that while contemporary networks are
different from (possibly over-romanticised) traditional communities (Wellman, 2001), they (virtual
communities) still work (Wellman & Milena, 1999). While most people still prefer the quality of
face-to-face interactions (J. Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, 2002), it is difficult to refute the remarkable
nature of remote connections, or the ‘the strength of weak ties’ thesis (Granovetter, 1973), which has
empirical support in on-line environments (Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996).
Dichotomous Models
Finally, while research on virtual teams generally acknowledges variations and continua of
‘virtualness,’ O’Leary and Cummings (2007) suggest that, with a few notable exceptions, there are
still few authors who operationalize distance in teams to be anything other than a dichotomous
variable, i.e., ‘dispersed’ vs. ‘co-located.’ The logic of dichotomous models might be expressed
simply as ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ Comparing distributed and non-distributed work (for example,
Hinds & Mortensen, 2005) is, of course, extremely important to our understanding of distributed
work. Moreover, collocated/dispersed dichotomies may be justified on the basis that once a person is
about 30 meters away, we tend to treat them the same as if they were half-a-world away (Kiesler and
Cummings, 2002).
Advances have been made, however, toward multidimensional conceputalizations of dispersion.
Orlikowski (2002) found that global engineering design teams had to bridge and negotiate multiple
‘boundaries’ including temporal, geographic, cultural, historic, technical and political. Boundaries
identified by Espinosa et al (2003) include geographic, functional, temporal, identity, and
organizational. Kirkman et al (2004) have also applied a refined, multidimensional model of
dispersion in their empirical work and O’Leary and Cummings (2007) have created a multidimensional model of dispersion within work groups, which includes ‘spatial,’ ‘temporal,’ and
‘configurational’ dimensions. Leonardi, Jackson and Marsh (2004) have helpfully introduced two
important dimensions to the construct of distance, namely the ‘emotional’ dimension and the
‘strategic’ use of distance by workers. These advances in the conceptualisation of distance in
distributed work have begun to break the dichotomous variable mould in our thinking about distance
in organizational contexts.
In summary, each of these conceptual models and metaphors can be used to define distance. The
argument here is not that these existing definitions of distance lack validity. They have their place (so
to speak), but they also have their limitations. Place-based definitions still apply to travel and face-toface interactions, but have less and less meaning in virtual environments and are largely confounded
by high speed and mobile ICT applications. While temporal, time-based definitions are still relevant
in most work contexts, there is, however, a mental trap in believing that increasing transfer times
(time compression) necessarily can ever fully erase the practical effects of distance in day-to-day life.
Moreover, time zone differences and issues of synchronicity/asynchronicity remain significant
challenges for groups and organizations. Gravity and center-periphery models are useful in
describing social relationships, i.e., where we situate ourselves in relation to an ‘other’ and, to some
extent, can explain interaction levels with others. But, how can we describe such forms of distance?
While being at the periphery (i.e., branches in relation to a Head Office) may be tacitly understood,
how might we compare two branches’ relationship to head office and/or how might we discuss how
such a relationship is getting ‘closer’ or more ‘distant’? Networks are defined by links that exist, but
not potential links that might or should exist. The absence of connections is where potential lies for
groups and organizations to advance their collective capacity. Similarly, dichotomous definitions of
dispersion, i.e., collocated/dispersed, are far too simple to account for the nuances of distributed work.
Given these limitations of existing models, a new definition of distance may be helpful.
7
Defining Distance as Connective Gaps
The term connectivity, which began as a description of the relationship between electronic devices, is
becoming commonly applied to social relationships (Kolb, in press). Some authors use the term
connectivity per se (Cartwright, 2002; Cross, Nohria, & Parker, 2002; Davis & Meyer, 1998;
Tomlinson, 1999; Wellman, 2001), or extensions thereof, i.e., “superconnectivity” (Hiltz & Turoff,
1993: 455), or “global connectivity” (Kanter, 1999: 8). Others use related terms, such as
“connections” (Rheingold, 1994; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), “connectedness” (Laumann,
Galaskiewicz, & Marsden, 1978; Raghuram, Garud, Wiesenfeld, & Gupta, 2001) or “connexity”
(Mulgan, 1997). Connectivity suggests a state of having techno-physical and/or social contact with
others. An implicit characteristic of technical connectivity is that once links are established, they are
continuous, i.e., the wires to your landline telephone or modem are always there. But, what happens
when ties or links are severed or interrupted?
Communication theories have long recognised the importance of gaps (e.g., Dervin, 1983). In the
organizational literature, Masnevski and Chudoba’s (2000) observations of global virtual teams led
them to suggest that it was the broken, interrupted streams of communication (for example, time gaps
between face-to-face meetings) that had a major impact on team performance. Watson-Manheim and
colleagues (2002) have applied the term ‘discontinuity’ to describe the common characteristic across
diverse types of distributed work environments suggesting it (discontinuity) to be the central ‘thread’
within the literature’s diverse definitions of ‘virtual’ work. Their empirical findings suggest that
spatial and temporal discontinuities or “gaps” are the main challenges associated with virtual teams
and that interrupted connections are a key characteristic across many forms of distributed work.
Others have identified other types of ‘gaps’ in distributed work environments. For example, it has
been concluded that leaders must not let too many gaps exist in the communication flows of teams
(Cascio, 2000; J. N. Cummings, forthcoming; Majchrzak, Malhotra, Stamps, & Lipnack, 2004;
Weisband, 2002). Taken further, socio-technical gaps may be seen as the basis for a new definition
of distance.
I propose that distance can be defined as the length or endurance of the gaps in social and technical
connective links, rather than the length of the link itself. The crux of the matter and the base logic of
this definition is that links or connections between Point A and Point B or Actor A and Actor B are
seldom fully continuous, but rather they are typified by connective gaps. Applying the notion of
connective gaps to our earlier example of the distance between London and Los Angeles, the distance,
expressed in time (i.e., 12 hours to fly from London to LA), only applies if one is sitting in a plane on
the runway as the plane is taking off (waiting for take-off is a temporal gap). So, even if the time
required to physically or technically connect Point A to Point B is negligible and shrinking, the total
connective distance may remain the same or become greater, if we take into account the social,
political, bureaucratic and logistical gaps between actor/nodes.
In an ICT context, the experience of distance is determined by the number and length of connective
gaps in the system, not from the length of wires between computers. Logged in to a high-speed
connection can make distance seem irrelevant. But gaps almost always appear. For instance, the
server may go down, or there may be a time lag getting to a network terminal (personal computer), or
one may have to wait for the terminal to be available. One might argue that ubiquitous wireless
mobile applications will address these technical issues and make connectivity seamless, but technical
systems are never 100% robust. Similarly, social connections are fleeting and tentative at best,
always requiring connection and re-connections (Luhman, 1995; Morner, 2003).
Connective gaps are defined here as the combination of all connective absences (i.e., not available,
affordable), interruptions, and disconnects between one social actor and another, including spatial
distance (down the hall, or around the world), temporal (slow transfer times, different time zones),
technical problems (slow boats, missed flights, no Internet connection, etc.), security checks (spam
filters, airport security lines), plus social connective gaps, including interpersonal differences
(personality conflicts, different values, intentions, agendas, etc.), group issues (lack of trust,
8
leadership and effective communication, etc.), organizational setting (lack of flexibility, structural
impediments, inadequate resources, power struggles, etc.), as well as industry context (suppliers,
customers, competitors, etc.), economic barriers (local, regional and national policy, trade blocs, trade
barriers, etc.) cultural differences (world-views, values, belief systems, etc.), political conflict (wars,
instability, uncertainty, etc.) and exclusionary philosophical perspectives (individualism, isolationism,
exceptionalism, fundamentalism, etc.). Taken together, all the gaps in all of these dimensions
constitute the total socio-technical distance between any two actors.
Not all gaps are equal of course. Some are more salient than others. Moreover, a lack of connection
in a technical dimension may not rule out or interfere with existing social connectivity (i.e., we might
still feel connected to our families, even if we don’t call home often). Similarly, giving workers new
connective technologies does not ensure social connections, let alone cooperation, if social
connectivity is not already present. On the other hand, even the most socially compatible work
groups struggle when one or more members are technologically disconnected (i.e., no email, mobile
phone switched off, no cell phone coverage).
Managing Connective Distance
What are some implications for managers and leaders? Since a connective gap model of distance
accounts for more types of distance between actors, it may help mitigate against and/or help us
manage gaps (distance) between ourselves and others. There are several ways in which a connective
definition of distance may help those who manage distributed workers.
Lesson 1: Out of Sight Doesn’t Mean Out of Mind
Since connective distance is relative to the expectations of others and can bear an indirect or no
relationship to other forms of distance, one starting point for distributed and mobile workers might be
to manage and/or discuss mutual expectations of how and how often we will be in contact, and also
what happens if we are not heard from as expected. As one philosopher of space puts it, we are
always close to those we care about no matter where they are, near or far (Coyne, 1997). However,
the opposite is similarly true, in that we can feel particularly distant from those with whom we want
or need to make contact, such as virtual team members or isolated coworkers.
Lesson 2: Connective Links - The More, The Merrier
A related application of the concept of connective distance is that the number of connections is also
critical. Consider a synchronous virtual meeting, for example, where participants have called in from
around the globe. Of course, there are usually several connective media present, so that if the audio
or video link goes down, participants reach for their mobile phones or turn to a PC or laptop computer
to send email or instant messages to those not physically assembled (Kane, 2005). Fortunately,
distance as connective gaps can be managed by involving multiple connective options. If distance
equals the gaps in multiple dimensions between places and/or persons, then connective gaps in one
dimension can be offset by other links. The combined viable range of social and technical
connections between two or more persons or collectives might be referred to as connective density.1
The more dimensions of connectivity that exist between parties, the more options they have to
overcome connective distance (gaps). For instance, a relationship with a peer who has very fast
Internet and roaming cell phone coverage, a travel budget to visit you, and who also shares your
personal interests, political views and cultural background could be described as having high
connectivity density. By contrast, low connective density would be expected between parties of very
different cultures communicating via low quality telecommunications with no possibility for face-toface interaction.
1
An alternative term, “bandwidth,” is not used here, in part to avoid confusion with the technical use of the
term and also because bandwidth normally refers to one medium versus multiple dimensions as suggested by
the term “connective density.”
9
Lesson 3: Gaps Can Be Repaired
If both social and technological dimensions of connectivity are vulnerable to connective gaps
(distance), what else might managers do to ensure continuity when confronted with connective gaps?
They seek alternative links, as stated above, or they restored the connection by repairing or bridging
gaps. Watson-Manheim and colleagues (2002: 200) suggest that, “Discontinuities introduced into
organizational processes are accompanied by continuities, i.e., factors that are in place or emerge to
bridge the discontinuities. Continuities play a significant role in bridging the potential differences
introduced with discontinuities.” In one recent case study, the manager of a multinational, multicultural product development team applied processes within her virtual team to make sure the
functional and cultural bridges were built and maintained so that the necessary information was
available and that everyone remained involved and up-to-speed with everyone else. When a team
member metaphorically went missing, she found them and made the (mostly telephone) connections
necessary to keep the team on track (Majchrzak et al., 2004). In virtual and distributed work teams,
leaders and managers can not take participation for granted. Virtual nods of approval must be sought
and silence must be investigated. Otherwise, small gaps can become enormous gulfs between team
members.
Lesson 4: It All Matters
Seeing distance as connective gaps does not supplant or supersede other forms or dimensions of
distance. On the contrary, it allows us to account for multiple forms of distance between ourselves
and others. Work teams, for example, might create a list all the forms of distance they might
encounter and which could potentially affect their ability to collaborate effectively and efficiently.
Typically, this involves discussions of how to deal with time zone differences. Redefining distance
may help managers see it more holistically, and therefore avoid platitudes such as ‘distance doesn’t
matter anymore.’ Not only does distance still matter, but it matters and occurs on many levels in a
global economy.
Lesson 5: Keeping Our Distance is OK
Not only is distance a complex and enduring phenomenon, but it may also be a good thing. In order
to function, humans seem to require some space away from others. For every technical advance in
connectivity, there seems to be at least some social ambivalence about becoming too close, too
connected for comfort (Kolb, Collins, & Lind, in press). Even if 24/7 ubiquitous networks become
reality, social actors are likely to insist on some ‘distance’ within or outside of those networks.
Security, health and resilience are but a few reasons to switch off. For many of us, especially
creativity and reflection require periods of isolation (Murphy, 2007), even if it is merely a few
moments in our busy daily schedule or a few weeks of holiday each year. Managers and leaders may
increasingly be able to bridge and overcome distance, only to realise that some distance is necessary
and beneficial within high-performing systems. With that in mind, we should continue to manage
across distance, but hope it never completely dies.
Implications for Research
A connective gap model of distance sits alongside other models of distance, but has several
advantages. First, seeing distance as gaps accounts for the tentative, fluid and dynamic aspect of
distanciated relationships, where our experience of distance fluctuates as gaps come and go.
Technical connections are seldom continuous and even a strong cultural connection within a virtual
team can be expected to encounter gaps in understanding, values and norms from time to time.
Second, the concept of connective distance lends itself to new areas of empirical research. For
example, gap analysis could be applied to one’s ‘expected’ vs. ‘experienced’ distance from others.
This factor alone might account for greater or lesser member satisfaction in distributed team
situations. One might also compare ‘social’ vs. ‘technical’ connectivity within organizations and/or
expand each of these dimensions using broader multidimensional analyses. Third, whereas models of
distance based on physical locality apply less and less as workers become more and more mobile,
defining distance as connective gaps is more applicable to distance in mobile applications. Fourth, this
model allows us to examine not just what a technology can do, but how reliably it does it. A gap-
10
based analysis allows us to investigate what we might think of as the shadow side of a technology--its
faults as well as its capabilities. Finally, seeing distance as connective gaps and taking these gaps
seriously allows us to explore in more depth how the gaps got there. Are they accidental, just bad
luck, or symptomatic of disparities in wealth and power? Are they temporary problems with
otherwise robust technologies, or caused by ‘cyberbole’ (Woolgar, 2002), that is the tendency to oversell technology and underestimate human complexity? Or, are gaps a form of personal space created
by humans to maintain sanity when hyper-connectivity becomes too much to handle?
Conclusion
The intent of this introductory chapter is to challenge us to rethink what distance means in distributed
work environments. While advances in technical connectivity make it seem that the world is
shrinking (or being flattened), distance is not dead…nor can it ever be. Measuring distance in
distributed environments like we measure the length of string between two tin cans yields a spatial
estimate that has decreasing relevance in the context of high-speed mobile ICTs. Instead of the length
of the string, it is more meaningful to consider distance to be the cumulative (intermittent) connective
gaps where the string between the cans is disconnected.
Having reviewed the logic, strengths and weaknesses of several models of distance (e.g., spatial,
temporal, gravity, center-periphery, network and dichotomous), I propose a new definition that is
based on the connective gaps between actors/nodes, whereby the more connective gaps that exist
between actors, the more distance exists between them. Connective gaps occur on multiple technical
and social dimensions. Technical gaps can occur in any ICT medium, including travel to face-to-face
meetings. Social gaps can occur in emotional, interpersonal, group, organizational, economic,
cultural (including language), political, historical and philosophical dimensions. Security is another
socio-technical dimension where risk creates security gaps. Along with increases in social and
technical connectivity, individuals and groups will at times choose to keep or establish some gaps
between themselves and others, thereby ‘keeping their distance.’ Humans have a long history of
employing technologies to overcome distance, but no matter what the technology, gaps, faults and
inconsistencies persist. Thinking of these gaps as the essence of distance, we begin to see worlds
within the wires. It is into those worlds that our explorations continue.
Darl G. Kolb is Associate Professor of Management and International Business at the University of Auckland
Business School. His research interests are in connectivity as it applies to distributed work and the management
of distance and isolation. His current research sites include globally distributed R&D product development and
service delivery teams as well as growth-oriented New Zealand firms. He received his PhD from Cornell
University.
Address: Management and International Business, University of Auckland Business School, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland, New Zealand.
http://staff.business.auckland.ac.nz/dkolb
E-mail: d.kolb@auckland.ac.nz
References
Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 741-747.
Ahuja, M. K., Galletta, D. F., & Carley, K. M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An
empirical study. Managment Science, 49(1), 21-38.
Beckerman. (1956). Distance and the pattern of intra-European trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 38.
Belich, J. (2001). Paradise Reforged: A history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000. Auckland: Penguin
Press.
Berdayes, V. (2000). Information and behavioral flows: The historical context of workplace computerization. In V. Berdayes
& J. W. Murphy (Eds.), Computers, human interaction, and organizations (pp. 207-230). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Blainey, G. (1966, 2001). The Tyranny of Distance: How distance shaped Australia's history. Sydney: Macmillan.
Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Marrewijk, C. v. (2001). An introduction to geographical economics: Trade, location and
growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cairncross, F. (1997, 2001). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives (2 ed.).
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Calcutt, A. (1999). White Noise: An A-Z of the Contradictions in Cyberculture. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Carr, N. (2003). IT doesn't matter. Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 41-.
Cartwright, P. A. (2002). Only Converge: Networks and connectivity in the Information Economy. Business Strategy
Review, 13(2), 59-64.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 81-90.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2 ed. Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell Press.
Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: America's quest for world dominance. Crow's Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Christaller, W. (1933). Central places in Southern Germany. Jena: Fischer.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for
technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
Coyne, R. (1997). Language, space and information. In P. Droege (Ed.), Intelligent environments: Spatial aspects of the
information revolution (pp. 495-517). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Cross, R., Nohria, N., & Parker, A. (2002). Six myths about informal networks -- and how to overcome them. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43(3), 67-74.
Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. E. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM,
45(7), 103-108.
Cummings, J. N. (forthcoming). Leading groups from a distance: How to mitigate consequences of geographic dispersion. In
S. Weisband & L. Atwater (Eds.), Leadership at a distance.
Daft, R., & Lengel. (1986). Organisational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Managment
Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Davis, S. (1986). Future perfect. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Davis, S., & Meyer, C. (1998). Blur: The speed of change in the connected economy. Reading, MA: Perseus.
Epley, N., & Kruger, J. (2005). When what you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies
over e-mail. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414-422.
Espinosa, J. A., Cummings, J. N., Wilson, J. M., & Pearce, B. M. (2003). Team Boundary Issues Across Multiple Global
Firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 157-190.
Fitzgerald, M. (2004, April). Internetworking. Technology Review, 107, 44-49.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 137-147.
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences still matter. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: MacMillan.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: The making of a new science. New York: Penguin.
Gleick, J. (1999). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything (330 ed.). New York: Random House.
Graham, S. (2001). Telecommunications and the future of cities: Debunking the myths. In D. Holmes (Ed.), Virtual
Globalization: Virtual spaces/Tourist spaces. London: Routledge.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer (2nd ed.). Boston: M.I.T. Press.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of
shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290-307.
Kane, D. (2005). We've got to talk about this: Structuration and artifact systems in virtual teams. Unpublished Masters,
University of Auckland, Auckland.
Kanter, R. M. (1999). Change is everyone's job: Managing the extended enterprise in a globally connected world.
Organizational Dynamics, 7-23.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of Research.
In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 57-80). Boston: MIT Press.
Kiesler, S., Seigel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.
American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
King, J. L., & Frost, R., L. (2002). Managing distance over time: The evolution of technologies of Dis/ambiguation. In P. J.
a. K. Hinds, Sara (Ed.), Distributed work (pp. 3-26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of empowerment on virtual team performance:
The moderating effect of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192.
Kolb, D. G. (in press). Exploring the connectivity metaphor: Attributes, dimensions and duality. Organization Studies.
Kolb, D. G., Collins, P. D., & Lind, E. A. (in press). Requisite connectivity: Finding flow in a not-so-flat world.
Organizational Dynamics.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Seigel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration:
Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed
work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. (1978). Cummunity structure as inter-organizational linkage. Annual
Review of Sociology, 4, 455-485.
Leamer, E. E., & Storper, M. (2001). The economic geographyof the Internet age. Journal of International Business Studies,
32(4), 641-665.
Leonardi, P. M., Jackson, M. H., & Marsh, N. N. (2004). The strategic use of "distance" among virtual team members: A
multi-dimensional communication model. In S. Godar & S. Ferris (Eds.), Virtual and collaborative teams:
Process, technologies, and practice (pp. 156-172). Hersey, PA: Idea Group.
Leonardi, P. M., Jackson, M. H., & Marsh, N. N. (forthcoming). The strategic use of "distance" among virtual team
members: A multi-dimensional communication model. Work in progress, Stanford University.
Luhman, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J., & Lipnack, J. (2004). Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harvard Business
Review, 82(5), 131-137.
Marquis, C. (2003). The pressure of the past: Networking imprinting in intercorporate communities. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 48(4), 655-689.
Marx, L. (1999). Information technology in historical perspective. In D. A. Schon, B. Sanyal & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High
technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McDonald, M. L. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEO's advice networks and firms' strategic responses
to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 1-32.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict
management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1263.
Morner, M. (2003). The emergence of open-source software projects: How to stabilize self-organizing processes in emergent
systems. In T. Hernes & T. Bakken (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhman's social
system perspective (pp. 259-271). Oslo: Abstract Forlag.
Mulgan, G. (1997). Connexity: How to live in a connected world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Murphy, P. (2007). You are wasting my time: Why limits on connectivity are essential for economies of creativity.
University of Auckland Business Review, 9(2), 17-26.
Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. (2005). The persistance of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for foreign
investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 747-767.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000, 2-6 December). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action.
Paper presented at the CSCW, Association for Computing Machinery, Philadelphia, PA.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently...and why. New York: The
Free Press.
O'Leary, M., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2002). Distributed work over the centuries: Trust and control in the Hudson's Bay
Company, 1670-1826. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 27-54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion
in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433-452.
Olson, J., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In P. Hinds & S.
Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 113-135). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization
Science, 13(3), 249-274.
Osland, J. S. (2003). Broadening the debate: The pros and cons of globalization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 137154.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. JOURNAL
OF MANAGEMENT, 27(3), 383-405.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
Rheingold, H. (1994). The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. London: Secker & Warburg.
Sassen, S. (Ed.). (2002). Global Networks, Linked Cities. New York: Routledge.
Saunders, C., van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Academy
of Management Executive, 18(1), 19-31.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley.
Short, J. R. (2001). Global Dimensions: Space, place and the contemporary world. London: Reaktion Books.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Stewart, J. Q. (1947). Suggested principles of 'social physics'. Science, 106, 179-180.
Stewart, J. Q. (1948). Demographic gravitation: Evidence and applications. Sociometry, 11, 31-58.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London: Penguin.
Taylor, J. R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., & van Every, E. (2001). The computerization of work: A communication perspective.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural Intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Townsend, A. M. (2001). Network cities and the global structure of the Internet. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(10),
1697-1716.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Touchstone.
Turoff, M. (2004). Simulations for Emergency Response Teams. In Author (Ed.). Auckland, New Zealand.
Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities: A new way to
understand virtual work. Information Technology and People, 15(3), 191-209.
Watts, D. J. (2003). Six Degrees: The science of a connected age. London: William Heinemann.
Weber, A. (1909). Theory of the location of industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weisband, S. (2002). Maintaining awareness in distributed team collaboration: Implications for leadership and performance.
In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 311-333). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of personalised networking. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 25(2).
Wellman, B. (Ed.). (1999). Networks in the Global Village: LIfe in Contemporary Communities. Boulder, CO: Westview
Books.
Wellman, B., & Milena, G. (1999). Netsurfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.),
Networks in the Global Village: LIfe in Contemporary Communities. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (2002). Virtual society?: Technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Table 1 – Models and Metaphors of Distance
Model
Logic
Measure
Addresses
Limitations
Spatial
Distance = Physical space
between fixed points
Physical distance (miles,
kilometers)
Territory, Space,
Local/Global, Face-to-Face
as ‘gold standard’ of
communication
Relevant for physical
exchange, but less so for
virtual or mobile
applications
Temporal
Less time = Less distance
Transfer times; time zones
Time compression,
Asynchronicity (time zone
differences)
Transfer speed can not fully
erase effects of distance
Gravity
Closer = Less effort
Influence (pull) of one
entity on another
Historic trade patterns,
‘principle of least effort’
Lacks explanatory power
for ‘why’ other than history
and ‘least effort’
Center-Periphery
Distance or periphery
relative to ‘center’
Tension (2-way pull)
Power, Resource
(inter)dependency; Why
centrality still rules
(almost); Rise of localism
Largely tacit; Difficult to
articulate, quantify
relationships in meaningful
way
Networks
Higher Density = Increased
spread = Less distance
Ties (type, quantity,
quality) multiply one
another’s connections
Exponential spheres of
influence; strength of weak
ties
Unknowable pervasiveness;
strength, potency of most
ties unknown
Dichotomous
Out of sight, out of mind
Collocated vs. dispersed
Comparisons with face-toface
Too simple; maintains faceto-face as gold standard
Connective
Links reduce distance;
Gaps = Distance
Gaps, length of
disconnections
Requisite connectivity;
Creating reliable
connections while keeping
our ‘space’
Difficult to quantify; a
dynamic condition, i.e., gaps
appear, disappear, appear
again
Table 2 – Connective Gaps
Category
Physical
Technical
Social
Dimension
Examples
Spatial
Down the hall, or around the world
Temporal
Slow transfer times, different time zones
Travel
Slow boats, missed flights
Media
No Internet connection, patchy phone coverage
Security
Hackers, spam filters, airport security lines
Interpersonal
Personality conflicts, different values, intentions,
agendas
Group
Lack of trust, leadership and effective
communication
Organizational
Lack of flexibility, structural impediments,
inadequate resources, power struggles
Industry Environment
Suppliers, customers, competitors
Economic
Local, regional and national policy, trade blocs,
trade barriers
Cultural
Diverse world-views, values, belief systems
Political
Wars, instability, uncertainty
Philosophical
Individualism, isolationism, exceptionalism,
fundamentalism