Banter, focus, and suitable monitoring: Perspectives on virtual team effectiveness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v30.6451Keywords:
Virtual Teams, Team Effectiveness, Semi-Structured Interviews, Thematic Analysis, Australian IT IndustryAbstract
This interpretive study examines how members of virtual teams experience Virtual Team (VT) effectiveness as a socio-technical accomplishment shaped by people, collaboration technologies, and enacted practices. Drawing on 37 semi-structured interviews with Australian IT professionals and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three digitally mediated practice domains: temporal structuring (Focus Time), social presence (Workplace Banter), and visibility/control (Monitoring). Participants’ accounts suggest each domain can enable or inhibit effectiveness depending on calibration. Focus practices support deep work when protected by shared norms and legitimate signalling; lightweight social presence sustains cohesion and psychological safety when optional and inclusive; and visibility practices support accountability when transparent and outcome-oriented but become counterproductive when experienced as surveillance. Our central contribution is a socio-technical calibration account of VT effectiveness, developed through three specific theoretical contributions concerning calibration, digitally mediated practice domains, and enabling/inhibiting boundary conditions. We show that perceived effectiveness arises not from temporal structuring, social presence, or visibility/control in isolation, but from the ongoing adjustment of these digitally mediated practices in relation to one another. This account explains why similar collaboration technologies can enable effectiveness in some teams while inhibiting it in others. We extend VT scholarship by specifying how platform features and local norms jointly shape attention, cohesion, and trust, and we offer design guidance for focus-friendly, socially connective, and trust-preserving digital work arrangements.
References
Alaiad, A., Alnsour, Y., & Alsharo, M. (2019). Virtual teams: Thematic taxonomy, constructs model, and future research directions, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 62(3), 211–238. doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2019.2929370
Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230. doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270109
Andrade, M. D., Martínez-Córcoles, M., Fialho, P., & Guimaraes, M. (2025). The effects of being under watch: The impact of electronic monitoring on remote workers’ psychological safety. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–18. doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2025.10039
Begemann, V., Handke, L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2024). Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: a socio-technical systems perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(5). doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae008
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 1–7). Springer International Publishing. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3470-2
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., Hibben, F., & Hertel, G. (2020). Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in face-to-face and virtual teams. Human Relations, 73(1), 3–34. doi.org/10.1177/0018726718818721 %U
Chamakiotis, P., Panteli, N., & Pérez-Arechaederra, D. (2025). Practices for effective onboarding in dynamic global virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 54(1), 101076. doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101076
Chamakiotis, P., Symon, G., & Whiting, R. (2024). Agentic interplay between hybridity and liminality in contemporary boundary work. Information Systems Journal, 34(1), 261–283. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12477
Chamakiotis, P., van Zoonen, W., & Lee, J. Y.-H. (2025). Managing Email boundaries in a boundaryless world. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 29. doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v29.6089
Charalampous, M., Grant, C., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2018). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: a multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1–23. doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization science (Providence, R.I.), 5(2), 121–147. doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569–574. doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004
Ferreira, P. G. S., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Eduardo Gouvea da Costa, S., Monteiro, N. J., & de Castro e Silva, A. (2022). Key performance measurement capabilities for managing distributed teams [Article]. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–25. doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2155512
Froese, F. J., Blay, T., Gibson, C. B., Shaffer, M. A., & Benitez, J. (2025). Global virtual work: a review, integrative framework, and future research opportunities. Journal of international business studies, 56(6), 691–719. doi.org/10.1057/s41267-025-00775-1
Gamero, N., González-Anta, B., Orengo, V., Zornoza, A., & Peñarroja, V. (2021). Is team emotional composition essential for virtual team members' well-being? The Role of a Team Emotional Management Intervention. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18(9). doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094544
Garro-Abarca, V., Palos-Sanchez, P., & Mariano, A. (2021). Virtual teams in times of pandemic: Factors that influence performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624637. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Handke, L., Costa, P., & O'Neill, T. A. (2024). Virtual teams: Taking stock and moving forward. Small Group Res, 55(5), 671–679. doi.org/10.1177/10464964241274129
Harker Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations?: A meta‐analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616. doi.org/10.1108/01409171211238820
Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Aghakhani, N. (2022). Virtual work meetings during the covid-19 pandemic: The good, bad, and ugly. Small Group Res, 53(3), 343–365. doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286
Kirkman, B. L., & Stoverink, A. C. (2021). Building resilient virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 50(1), 100825.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE Publications.
Lane, J. N., Leonardi, P. M., Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2024). Teams in the digital workplace: Technology’s role for communication, collaboration, and performance. Small Group Research, 55(1), 139–183. doi.org/10.1177/10464964231200015
Lechner, A., & Tobias Mortlock, J. (2022). How to create psychological safety in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 51(2), 100849. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100849
Leonardi, P. M., Parker, S. H., & Shen, R. (2024). How remote work changes the world of work. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 11(1), 193–219. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852
Lisak, A., & Harush, R. (2021). Global and local identities on the balance scale: Predicting transformational leadership and effectiveness in multicultural teams. PLoS One, 16(7), e0254656. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254656
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21. doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.24286164
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6), 1096. doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
Ohly, S., & Bastin, L. (2023). Effects of task interruptions caused by notifications from communication applications on strain and performance. J Occup Health, 65(1), e12408. doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12408
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 433–474. doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications.
Paul, R., Furner, C., Drake, J., Hauser, R., & Kisling, E. (2021). The moderating effect of virtuality on team trust and effectiveness, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(2), 185–200. doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3064393
Prasad, A., Derosa, D., & Beyerlein, M. (2017). Dispersion beyond miles: configuration and performance in virtual teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 23(3), 186–204. doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2016-0026
Roehling, M. (2017). The important but neglected legal context of virtual teams: Research implications and opportunities. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 621–634. doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.008
Ryan, G. (2018). Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse researcher, 25(4), 41–49.
Safadi, H. (2024). Balancing Affordances and constraints: Designing enterprise social media for organizational knowledge work. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 48(1), 347–374. doi.org/10.25300/misq/2023/16499
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education, Limited.
Schaubroeck, J., & Yu, A. (2017). When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team characteristics as contingency factors. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 635–647. doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.009
Shockley, K. M., Allen, T. D., Dodd, H., & Waiwood, A. M. (2021). Remote worker communication during COVID-19: The role of quantity, quality, and supervisor expectation-setting. J Appl Psychol, 106(10), 1466–1482. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000970
Siegel, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022). The impact of electronic monitoring on employees' job satisfaction, stress, performance, and counterproductive work behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100227. doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227
Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27, 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2015-0181
Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. Routledge. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315125930
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189. doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Vitak, J., & Zimmer, M. (2023). power, stress, and uncertainty: Experiences with and attitudes toward workplace Surveillance During a Pandemic. Surveillance & Society, 21, 29–44. doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i1.15571
Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European journal of information systems, 15(3), 320–330. doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ashley Woods, Amanda McCubbin, Abdul Hafeez-Baig
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
AJIS publishes open-access articles distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Attribution License which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and AJIS are credited. All other rights including granting permissions beyond those in the above license remain the property of the author(s).
