This week I read an interesting research article (Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close) that talked about perceived proximity.  The authors (Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, and Jett) define perceived proximity as two or more individuals having the feeling of being close, regardless of physical distance between them.  Often, one assumes that physical proximity and perceived proximity are highly correlated, but the authors of this article investigate why actual geographic proximity doesn’t always coincide with a feeling of closeness.

In this article I cover the following:

1. What influences perceived proximity,
2. Perceived & physical proximity matrix,
3. Suggestions for moving a team from low perceived proximity to high perceived proximity, and
4. Suggestions for maintaining a positive situation of high perceived proximity.

What influences perceived proximity?

The authors argue that within a team, actual physical proximity, level of communication, and level of identification with other members are the main influences on perceived proximity.  For instance, in a previous post Surinder talked about the outpouring of emotion that fans of Ms. Nielson’s blog offered when she was seriously injured in an accident.  We can see from the reaction of her fans, who were located all over the world, that they felt very close to her. This feeling of proximity arose from Ms. Nielson’s frequent communication and her fans identifying strongly with the content of her blog.

Individual characteristics such as openness to experience and level of experience with dispersed work can influence this equation as well, as can socio-organizational factors. One example of a socio-organizational factor might be the collaboration technology employed by an organization – if it works, it helps team members to feel closer; if it doesn’t work well, it might make team members feel distant.

Perceived & physical proximity matrix

Perhaps the most useful part of this article for practitioners is a matrix the authors include, placing teams into one of four quadrants.  The axes are based on two dimensions:  physical proximity and perceived proximity of members.  Generally, quadrants 1 and 2 are more desirable than quadrants 3 and 4 for the positive effect on productivity and team effectiveness. 

Consider which quadrant your team is currently in.  We offer some suggestions for what a team leader can do to help teams in quadrants 3 and 4 move towards quadrants 1 and 2.  Similarly, we suggest things to look out for when your team is in quadrant 1 or 2 and you wish to stay there.

	Low physical proximity	High physical proximity
High perceived proximity	2. Far, but feel close	1. Close, and feel close
Low perceived proximity	3. Far, and feel far	4. Close, but feel far

Moving from low perceived proximity to high perceived proximity

In most work situations, teams are more productive and effective when they have higher perceived proximity.  Chances are there is little to be done about physical proximity in the near future.  However, it is possible to lead a team from quadrant 3 to quadrant 2, or from quadrant 4 to quadrant 1.

Quadrant 3 – far, and feel far

This quadrant can be disastrous for virtual teams.  The authors cite that teams with half of their members in one country and half in another often experience this lack of perceived proximity.  Based on the examples they give, it seems that a lack of common goal is the most pervasive problem here.  Leaders should be sure that all team members are dedicated to the same goal, and have similar ideas of how to get it done.

• Be sure that no unit feels isolated, or like they are overlooked.  The authors indicate that frequent, high-quality communication can help remedy this problem.
• Develop a team compact to reduce uncertainty about the team’s goals and how it will accomplish its goals.
• Support the move towards a shared team goal by showing individualized consideration to members in all locations, for the sake of the team as well as individual development.

Quadrant 4 – close, but feel far

Based on the article’s explanation, lack of perceived proximity for a geographically co-located might be based on individual differences, such as introverted team members.  Also, it may occur because team members are not highly interdependent during completion of the task (for example, team members do separate work and compile it for a final report).

• A team leader should first consider how important it is to achieve perceived proximity before dedicating resources to attempting a change.
• You should also look for sources of dysfunctional conflict within the team – perhaps team members don’t particularly like one another on a personal level.  In that case, find ways to increase the positive, task-related interactions while reducing dysfunctional conflict.
• Perhaps the use of collaboration technologies could help team members to share necessary information without irritating one another.

Maintaining a positive situation of high perceived proximity

Higher perceived proximity is generally a good thing.  However, even teams in quadrants 1 and 2 should monitor for some potential pitfalls.

Quadrant 1 – close, and feel close

This may sound ideal, and it can mean the team is high-performing.  However, this quadrant is where groupthink can commonly occur.  Be sure the team is not cohesive to the point of disregarding dissenting ideas.  Also, a group in this quadrant might be in danger of excluding others.  The dark side of having a cohesive in-group is excluding those who feel like part of the out-group, even other teams and units within the organization.

• Utilize a little functional conflict to keep ideas flowing.  This can include something as simple as assigning a devil’s advocate during brainstorming or decision making sessions.
• Make sure team members can keep their focus on organizational goals in addition to team goals if their focus is becoming too narrow.
• Provide reminders of the relationships and dependencies with other org members who are outside your team.  Keeping those relationships salient to your team will counteract a dysfunctional out-group mentality.

Quadrant 2 – far, but feel close

Leaders of geographically dispersed teams are often aiming for this quadrant.  Team leaders in this quadrant should make sure that team members not only feel close, but are also productive and effective.  Feeling close is an antecedent of team productivity, but not necessarily a guarantee.  In this quadrant, a team leader can probably relax a bit on monitoring perceived proximity and focus the team’s attention on high performance.

• This means making sure that collaboration technologies employed work for the team, and that team members have access to information they need without being bogged down with information that is unorganized and overwhelming.
• If you have a team compact, focus on milestones and how well they are being achieved.  After Action Reviews are a simple and short, but effective, way to assess goal achievement.
• In this quadrant, teams are in a great position to focus on individual development and self-actualization.

This article has much content that is useful to practitioners, and we have inferred some recommendations from their theory.  Perhaps most important, though, is that it encourages us to question the assumption that physical or geographical proximity necessarily leads to a feeling of closeness among members.  There are a number of other factors that can influence a team’s sense of proximity, which is good news to teams whose members are far from one another, and fair warning to those teams whose members are near.