What Do We Know about Proximity and Distance in Work Groups? A Legacy of Research

Significant increases in the geographic distribution of work have been touted widely. Yet a large body of evidence suggests that close proximity is beneficial to relationships and group interaction. We examine these benefits through the lens of research on the mere presence of others, face-to-face communication, shared social settings, and frequency of spontaneous communication. Technological and organizational remedies for the absence of these factors in distributed work groups are popular but often problematic. We propose that communication technology is more likely to be effective when groups are cohesive than when they are not, and that structured management (as well as technology) is likely to be needed in groups lacking cohesion. 77 " Collaboration is a body contact sport. " The researcher who said this during an interview believes, as many do, that people's physical proximity has a tremendous impact on their ability to work together. There is considerable support for this belief in the academic community as well. Research harking back fifty years has demonstrated that close proximity between people is associated with numerous emotional, cognitive, and behavioral changes that affect the work process for the better. In this chapter, we describe these findings, discuss reasons why proximity has been thought very good for group functioning, and consider how well people adapt to working apart. Our purpose is to stimulate discussion on fundamental problems in the psychology of distributed work and the management of distance. What Is Proximity? Proximity refers to the physical distance between people measured in units such as inches, meters, or miles. In the research literature, however concepts like " proximity, " " physical distance, " " collocation, " and " dispersion " have been operationalized differently over time (Monge & Kirste, 1980; Monge et al., 1985). Four and five decades ago, the dominant model of group dynamics was the small group framework of Kurt Lewin and his students (see Forsyth, 1998, pp. 1-24). Groups studied within this framework typically were collocated. A social psychologist in the 1960s, when speaking of proximity, might be talking about the seating arrangements at a table of diners, a jury, or a committee (Strodtbeck & Hook, 1961; Howells & Becker, 1962). During this same decade, the dominant model of organizations was driven by the production framework (e.g., Thompson, 1967), in which the proximity of workers typically was defined and dictated by work flow, task interdependence, and coordination needs (e.g., Kmetz, 1984). …