Key findings Tools for encouraging collaboration • Employees most frequently use video conferences, chat, and cloud documents for collaboration. • Clear rules of collaboration are more important than the choice of provider. Techniques for encouraging social collaboration • Larger virtual team events online are ine.ective, virtual interactions lack spontaneity. • Employees desire in-person socializing. • O.ce hours are an e.ective way for exchanging knowledge and best practices. • Occasional informal team meetings facilitate easier connection among employees. Techniques for encouraging creative collaboration • Companies do not o.er programs that encourage virtual collaboration. • Companies should dedicate time to creative exchanges and approach them intentionally. • Creativity requires di.erently set goals; the company culture should allow for risk and failure. Key findings Independent routine work • Distributed work positively a.ects the e.ciency of independent work. • Fewer distractions and noise increase employees’ concentration. • Work e.ciency depends on the individual’s personal circumstances. Routine collaboration • Participants notice a general decline in collaboration. • Distributed work enables e.cient collaboration on routine tasks, but only when tasks are uncomplicated. • Collaboration on complex tasks remotely requires more time and planning. • There is a decrease in spontaneous interactions, with an increase in the number of formal interactions. Routine tasks • Distributed work increases the amount of routine administrative tasks and reporting. • Distributed work increases the number of meetings and negatively impacts their productivity. • Computer-based meetings allow multitasking and are less e.ective. • Including and educating new employees is more di.cult and takes longer in a virtual environment. • Building a work network, seeking help, exchanging knowledge, processes, and responses in a virtual environment takes longer. Creative collaboration • Creative interactions are less frequent and more di.cult in a virtual environment. • Overload and lack of personal interactions lead to decreased creativity. Creative tasks • Due to a lack of spontaneity, brainstorming in a virtual environment is di.cult. Social collaboration • Distributed work reduces the frequency of social-collaborative interactions. • Employees find it more challenging to form perceptions of their colleagues, leading to more conflicts. • In a virtual environment, opportunities for networking and informal connections are reduced. Social tasks • Virtual networking must be planned and intentional. • Lack of spontaneity demotivates employees. • Employees rely on networks built in o.ces. Person Company Gender Age Position Date of Interview Duration (minutes) 1 Microsoft F 30 Key Account Manager 28. 6. 2021 31 2 Salesforce F 29 New Customer Sales 18. 6. 2021 29 3 Facebook M 31 Key Account Manager 29. 7. 2021 26 4 Google F 27 Partner Manager 30. 7. 2021 30 5 Google F 26 Key Account Manager 4. 8. 2021 20 6 Microsoft M 33 Sales Specialist 1. 7. 2021 34 7 Google F 32 Customer Segment Manager 28. 7. 2021 28 8 Google M 41 Sales Team Leader 4. 8. 2021 32 9 Facebook F 47 Sales Team Leader 7. 7. 2021 30 10 Salesforce F 31 Marketing 29. 7. 2021 27 Synchronicity of communication Asynchronous communication Synchronous communication Duration of interaction Richness of the communication medium Message: short-term Written communication: long-lasting Written communication Multimedia communication Communication patterns” and “intensity of collaboration 1:1, intensive collaboration Email Documents Chat (messaging) Screen sharing Group collaboration Blogs, groups Shared web pages, databases, and instructions (wiki) Group chat (messaging), social networks Video conference Mass informing Websites, portals O.cial databases, reports, and instructions Microblog, social networks Video streaming content Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 85 attention and changed the working environment. There are many di.erent forms of distributed work (e.g., remote work, virtual work, hybrid work, tele­work, telecommuting), mainly distinguished by the use of information-communication technologies (ICT), ge­ographical distribution and location of work. Practi­1INTRODUCTION EFFECTS OF SHIFTING FROM IN-PERSON TO DISTRIBUTED WORK ON ROUTINE, CREATIVE, AND SOCIAL COLLABORATION Sara Rotter Šešok Google sarasesok@google.com Dejan Uršic School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana dejan.ursic@ef.uni-lj.si Amadeja Lamovšek School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana amadeja.lamovsek@ef.uni-lj.si Anja Svetina Nabergoj School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana anja.svetina@ef.uni-lj.si Advances in technology and digital transforma­tion have changed the working environment (Allen et al., 2015). As modern technologies enable the constant and continuous communication and cooperation be­tween co-workers, distributed work gained significantThis study explores how the transition to distributed work environments has impacted collaboration processes, team dy­namics and overall productivity in Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Salesforce, all global technology companies included in the Fortune 500 top US companies list. It also examines the role of corporate culture, leadership, social and psychological factor, technological infrastructure, and individual customization in shaping these outcomes. In addition, it discusses strategies for optimizing collaboration in distributed forms of work that balance technological advances with the need for interpersonal interaction. This study contributes to the growing discourse on distributed work and provides valuable insights for organizations navigating this evolving work landscape. The research uses a qualitative approach that enables a deep investigation of the impact that distributed work has had on di.erent types of employee collaboration (i.e., routine, creative and social) and the key factors contributing to a successful transition to distributed work. The findings reveal a di.erentiated landscape in which distributed work o.ers flexibility and potential individual productivity gains, but also presents challenges in maintaining e.ective team cohesion and spontaneous communication. Keywords: distributed work, routine collaboration, creative collaboration, social collaboration, collaboration tools three forms of work, namely on-site, hybrid and re­mote (Lamovšek & Cerne, 2023). The data shows that distributed forms of work are the future of work, which is why it is crucial for organizations to understand and adapt to them (Malhotra, 2021). One aspect that is sig­nificantly impacted by distributed work is employee collaboration. A study by Dahik et al. (2020) found that the switch to distributed work did not result in a loss of productivity on individual tasks for 75% of respon­dents. However, almost half stated that productivity decreased for collaborative tasks such as information sharing, teamwork and customer contact. This decline in collaboration productivity was most evident among employees who switched from o.ce environments to distributed work. The emergence of distributed work has therefore brought both challenges and opportuni­ties for employee collaboration (Allen et al., 2015; Olson & Olson, 2000). Despite extensive research on distributed work, a comprehensive understanding of its impact on employee collaboration remains elusive. Existing studies have predominantly concentrated on the ef­fects of various forms of distributed work on indi­vidual productivity and well-being (e.g. Allen et al., 2014, 2015; Grant et al., 2013). Additionally, re­search has explored how ICT influence collaboration in strategic processes, including new product devel­opment (Manca et al., 2018) and innovation pro­cesses within collaborative work environments (Bala et al., 2017). While understanding how ICT has transformed work environments and processes within companies is crucial, the literature focusing specifically on the e.ects of distributed work on col­laboration is sparse. Moreover, this body of work often considers employee collaboration as a mono­lithic construct (Karis et al., 2016), neglecting the nuanced di.erences between types of collabora­tion. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by examin­ing how distributed work a.ects the dynamics of collaboration in four companies, specifically Mi­crosoft, Google, Facebook, and Salesforce, all in­cluded in the Fortune 500 list of top US companies. The Fortune 500 is an annual list that ranks the 500 largest United States corporations by total revenue for their respective fiscal years. Therefore, we will try to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the impact of the transition to distributed work on routine, creative and social collaboration among employees? 2) What factors influence the success of collaboration in distributed forms of work? 3) What are the tools and techniques that promote e.ective and successful collaboration in distributed forms of work? We contribute to the scholarly discussion by presenting new insights into the complex relation­ship between distributed work environments and collaborative processes. We intend to advance the literature on distributed work by introducing the phenomenon of employee collaboration and high­lighting how various forms of collaboration are re­shaped within contemporary work settings. Drawing on the work by Olson and Olson (2000), our findings resonate with the idea that collaboration in dis­tributed work can be e.ective, however, certain types of collaboration should be carried out in face-to-face environments. Furthermore, our work not only corroborates the insights of Manca et al. (2018) regarding the enabling factors for successful dis­tributed work but also expands upon them by ex­ploring these dynamics across diverse functional areas within organizations, beyond the innovation process alone. It also complements the existing lit­erature by integrating empirical data from a unique context of Fortune 500 top US companies. Our re­search findings carry both theoretical as well as practical implications as they provide a deeper un­derstanding of how distributed work environments can be optimized for improved collaboration, thus contributing to the broader discourse in organiza­tional and management research. 2THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1Collaboration Collaboration is defined as an evolving process where two or more entities actively engage in joint activities to achieve a common goal (Bedwell et al., 2012). It requires combining complementary skills and resources to achieve results that would be unattainable individually (Hartono, 2004). The qual­ity of collaboration demands deep, frequent, intense interaction and a high level of mutual awareness (Frost, 2007). Successful collaboration needs clear goals, mutual respect, communication, openness to learning, and new information (Liedtka et al., 1998). E.ective collaboration positively impacts financial success, customer satisfaction, employee motiva­tion, productivity, and innovation (Frost, 2007). In the following paragraphs, we will provide descrip­tions of the three types of employee collaboration (Obstfeld, 2012; Sandow & Allen, 2005): Routine collaboration. When work is carried out within repetitive processes or clearly defined steps with the aim of completing a project or task, we speak of routine work (Obstfeld, 2012). Routine collaboration is about coordinating existing pro­cesses and making minor adjustments to them. It is based on utilizing existing ideas, inputs, experiences and steps to achieve a predefined, routine goal and its outcomes. Routine collaboration is tactical and process-orientated and relies on the use of existing ideas (Sutton, 2002). Although it also involves adapting and improving processes, its goal is always at least partially predictable (Obstfeld, 2012). Rou­tines deliver proven results, mature processes and proven technologies that generate profit. To be suc­cessful in the long term, organizations need new processes to satisfy customer demand and maintain a competitive advantage (Sutton, 2002). Creative collaboration. In order to remain rele­vant in the market, organizations must foster cre­ativity and promote innovation. Creative tasks are activities that initiate and discover new ideas and routines (Obstfeld, 2012). Therefore, creative collab­oration is a process that requires the coordination of new processes and ideas. Creative, innovative or non-routine collaboration takes place outside the usual routines of the organization. Creative projects are about “introducing change with an evolving vi­sion or projection of a new end state and pursuing that anticipated end state through new actions and new ways of working” (Obstfeld, 2012). Creative col­laboration is an important source of organizational change and change of routines. Creativity is the gen­eration of new ideas, and innovation is their suc­cessful implementation (Nahavandi et al., 2013). Social collaboration. Social collaboration in an organization involves networking, sharing experi­ences, knowledge, ideas and advice. Networking and knowledge sharing improve the social capital of the organization and vice versa – employees in an organization with strong social capital work better together (Sandow & Allen, 2005). The social capital of an organization consists of resources that are available to individuals and groups, members of so­cial networks (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). Collaboration in terms of social capital is “socially coordinated action that takes place in a system of social relationships in which everyone contributes to a common purpose” (Sandow & Allen, 2005). The flow of relationships that results from collaboration enables each individual in the network to access the knowledge of the whole. 2.2Distributed work, collaboration barriers and enabling factors Distributed work refers to “an arrangement that allows employees and their tasks to be dis­tributed away from the physical location of the com­pany” (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). It comes with many benefits for both the employees and compa­nies, such as reduced costs and access to a larger talent pool (Karis et al., 2016). However, it also has some disadvantages, such as blurred boundaries be­tween personal and professional life and a.ect mental health (Kni.n et al., 2021). As we move from the broader concept of distributed work, with its benefits and challenges, to the more focused area of collaboration in distributed forms of work, we see how these principles are applied in the for­mation and operation of virtual teams. Collaboration in distributed forms of work typi­cally takes place through regular, intensive face-to-face virtual meetings, followed by less intensive, shorter interactions using faster communication methods such as email and chat tools (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). The rhythm of interactions is key to the success of collaboration in distributed forms of work as it allows for a regular exchange of informa­tion and prevents duplication of e.ort. Successful virtual teams are those that can adapt their mode of interaction and communication to the decision-mak­ing process, the degree of interdependence and the complexity of the problem. Ine.ective virtual teams often work in reverse – they use long video confer­ences for routine coordination instead of email or virtual chat tools. Virtual teams encounter social and communication challenges (Martins et al., 2004). Virtual environment o.ers fewer opportunities for spontaneous interactions, such as impromptu en­counters and discussions in the hallway, conversations in the kitchen, meetings in cafés and informal gather­ings. Thus, employees miss out on rich informal inter­actions, lack opportunities to build emotional connection, psychological safety and trust, all of which foster collaboration (Alexander et al., 2020). Moreover, the loss of spontaneous interactions leads to a lack of feedback (Kni.n et al., 2021) and feelings of loneliness and isolation (Choudhury et al., 2021), loss of motiva­tion a feeling of missing out (Grant et al., 2013). The same applies to creative work, since there is less face-to-face interaction in a virtual work environment (Allen et al., 2015), which leads to fewer spontaneous cre­ative collisions (Alexander et al., 2020). 2.2.1Cultural and structural factors 2.2.1.1The culture of openness and decentralization of the company According to Frost (2007), a culture of openness is the strongest factor for quality collaboration. Simi­larly, Manca et al. (2018) underscore the imporan­tance of organizational culture in collaborative workplaces. Companies with a high level of collabo­ration cultivate an entrepreneurial culture of open­ness and are decentralized, which enables e.ective virtual strategic planning. Factors such as the ability to communicate with all employees, their accessibility regardless of hierarchy and the frequency of collabo­ration between di.erent departments are crucial. An open organizational culture is characterized by orga­nizational norms and values based on collaboration, respect, trust, interculturality, constructiveness and sharing (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Companies that fos­ter a culture of adaptability, openness and accessibility are easier to adapt to change (Staples & Zhao, 2006). Flexible and technologically advanced, non-hierarchi­cal organizations perform better in a virtual environ­ment (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). 2.2.1.2Leadership in distributed forms of work Distributed work requires clearly defined rules and methods of collaboration within the company. Just because a manager has led successfully in an in-person setting it does not mean that they will be equally successful in a virtual environment (Alexan­der et al., 2020). Managers have less control over employees due to distance, which requires di.erent methods of evaluation and reward. In virtual teams, evaluation and rewards are usually based on results (Kni.n et al., 2021). Virtual teams often work to­gether in cross-functional and cross-organizational environments, so it is important that goals and in­dicators are clearly defined (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). 2.2.2Social and psychological factors Successful collaboration in distributed forms of work requires first and foremost e.ective communi­cation between employees and their managers (Sta­ples & Zhao, 2006). For e.ective communication, employees must be connected and cultivate a culture of trust; the organization must invest in building social capital and an appropriate leadership style. Strong so­cial connectedness among employees is key to team culture in virtual and hybrid teams (Alexander et al., 2020). Highly connected teams are more productive (Dahik et al., 2020). The building blocks of trust are clear and timely communication, concern for a posi­tive atmosphere in the team, building solidarity, friendliness and belonging, predictable patterns of be­havior, and equal inclusion and encouragement of all participants (Coppola et al., 2004). 2.2.3Technological factors Appropriate information technology facilitates communication between the members of a unit, de­partment or the entire organization. It is the most important building block for virtual teams, which could not exist without the internet, email, video conferencing and audio bridges (Daim et al., 2012). Choosing the right technology is critical to the suc­cess of interactions, teamwork, collaboration and leadership (Kahai et al., 2012). Technology improves productivity, e.ciency and collaboration (Avolio et al., 2014). Employees who are satisfied with their work tools and technology are up to twice as pro­ductive compared to those who do not have access to high-quality tools such as video conferencing tools, virtual whiteboards for idea sharing and pro­ject management software (Dahik et al., 2020). There is a wide range of high-quality information and communication technologies on the market that promote close collaboration. However, technology is only e.ective if employees know how to use it prop­erly (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). The simpler the tech­nology is, the more popular it is (Karis et al., 2016). 2.2.4Collaboration tools There is no standardized classification of collab­oration tools. In the literature, collaboration tools are often di.erentiated according to their purpose. The collaboration process comprises three elements – communication, coordination and cooperation (Fuks et al., 2008). Communication is used to ex­change messages and negotiate between people. Coordination is used to manage people, activities and resources. Cooperation serves the production of products and ideas. Collaboration tools cover all three aspects of collaboration and enable both rou­tine, social and creative-innovative collaboration. They can be divided into communication tools (i.e., synchronous and asynchronous communication, networking, and information exchange, e.g., email, Zoom), coordination tools (i.e., coordination of teamwork and results; e.g., Google drive) and tools for creation (i.e., execution of ongoing tasks, collab­orative writing, and editing). Most collaboration tools today are integrated into systems that bring all the necessary programs together in one place, re­ducing technological noise. Collaboration systems in companies are ‘socio-technical systems that support employees in their daily work and facilitate mutual collaboration’ (Schubert, 2019). Examples of such systems include Google Workplace and Microsoft Teams. Modern systems often include internal social networks that are a mix of messaging tools and in­teractive versions of intranets (e.g. Facebook’s Slack and Blue Jeans) – employees use them to share best practices and news, documents, and ideas, find rel­evant stakeholders, highlight important messages and follow relevant stakeholders and topics. In ad­dition to sending messages, such tools also enable tagging, liking, sharing and other interactive func­tions (Schubert, 2019). The choice of collaboration tools depends on the context of the collaboration, as shown in Table 1. In the literature, the instruments are often dif­ferentiated according to the synchronous and asyn­chronous nature of communication. Geographically dispersed teams often communicate via asyn­chronous tools such as email and shared docu­ments. For intensive collaboration, however, occasional synchronous communication is required, so such teams often meet in the early morning or late evening hours (Karis et al., 2016). Table 1 shows that the choice of tools depends, among other things, on the required communication density of the interaction. Some communications are better conducted face-to-face, especially when it comes to building trust, solving problems, sensitive issues and conflicts. On the other hand, written communica­tion is sometimes even better, as it shortens the time for the individual, allows time for reflection and enables a structured response (Alexander et al., 2020). Microsoft found a 72% increase in the use of messaging apps and a 10% increase in time spent on video conferencing. This is confirmed by the lit­erature in the field of computer science (Hu et al., 2020), which found an increase in the use of video conferencing tools such as Zoom, WebEx, Google Meet and Skype. While the aforementioned tech­nologies became a necessity, the use of tools for project management and creative collaboration is still not widespread. In 2016, Karis, Wildman and Mané found that few organizations were using vir­tual tools to promote drawing and brainstorming. 3METHODOLOGY In this research we conducted a study of how distribtued work a.ects employee collaboration in in­ternational Fortune 500 top US companies. We used the qualitative research method of semi-structured in-depth interviews. This method o.ers ample oppor­tunity to discover new constructs, factors, dynamics and contexts, and enables a spontaneous flow of con­versation (Saunders et al., 2009). Due to its flexibility and openness, this method is suitable for exploring new and not yet well understood phenomena. The analysis of the semi-structured in-depth interviews provides a comprehensive picture of collaboration in distributed forms of work and o.ers answers to the research questions posed in the introduction. We chose a purposive sampling method to conduct semi-structured interviews with professionals in di.erent business units of Fortune 500 top US companies in Ireland. The interviews were conducted from June 2021 to August 2021 with ten employees holding leading positions in Microsoft, Google, Facebook, or Salesforce. These organizations were selected due to their progressive adoption of distributed work and advanced collaborative technologies. The interviews were designed to explore personal experiences, chal­lenges and adaptations associated with distributed work. Sample data and interview information can be seen at Table 2. First, we gathered a purposive sample of ten peo­ple employed in international technology companies in Ireland. We contacted the participants via the LinkedIn platform. At the same time, we identified the main themes based on a literature review and individ­ual experiences of distributed working and formulated the initial questions for conducting semi-structured interviews. In the next step, we conducted a test in­terview and adapted the questionnaire accordingly. Due to the pandemic, the interviews were conducted via the Google Meet platform. We informed the inter­viewees about the purpose and topic of the research and ensured their anonymity. We explained that the results of the interviews would be published and ob­tained permission to record them. We recorded the interviews. As researchers, we played an active role during the interviews. We asked follow-up questions, asked for clarifications, and paid attention to verbal and non-verbal reactions. The interviews were then transcribed. We analyzed the transcripts using the­matic analysis. Thematic analysis, or the method of condensing meaning, enables the discovery of simi­larities (common themes), di.erences and unex­pected findings from semi-structured interviews (Kiger & Varpio, 2020). Although thematic analysis is primarily a descriptive method, the researcher must interpret the results by selecting codes and forming themes. We have broken down and categorized the results of the interviews according to their common meanings. We assigned keywords or codes to these meanings. We took an inductive approach to coding as we identified themes based on the findings from the transcripts. In the next step, we grouped parts of the transcripts with the same code to form common meanings – themes. 4FINDINGS The results of the study indicate that the influ­ence of distributed work on employee collaboration in international Fortune 500 top US companies is multifaceted. It emphasizes that while distributed work o.ers flexibility and potential productivity gains, it also presents challenges in maintaining team cohesion and spontaneous communication. The study also highlights that di.erent experiences are contingent upon factors such as company cul­ture, technological infrastructure and individual role in the organization. These findings o.er fresh and valuable perspectives for adapting strategies and tools to improve collaboration in distributed forms of work in the tech industry. 4.1The impact of the transition to distributed work on routine, creative and social collaboration among employees 4.1.1Routine collaboration Most interviewees noted that self-e.cacy in performing routine tasks which require indepen­dent and focused work increased during the transi­tion to distributed work. In the home working environment, employees were exposed to less noise and were less distracted, allowing them to concen­trate better. Motivation to get the job done was higher as they desired more free time. Productivity in the home working environment was highly de­pendent on personal circumstances. The aforemen­tioned respondents lived without children, while the experience of a mother working from home was more challenging. During the distributed work period, respon­dents conducted meetings virtually, saving time for commuting and traveling that they could use for other tasks. Most respondents believed that col­laborating on simple tasks remotely was efficient, while collaborating on complex problems required more time and planning. Tasks that require syn­chronous collaboration took longer. Remote work reduced the frequency of collaborative interac­tions and hindered the free flow of information, leading to an increase in routine administrative tasks and reporting. The distributed work environ­ment required more meetings. Meeting overload was most noticeable in the early months of remote work, but over time, companies have adapted and optimized. Google introduced meeting-free days and weeks. However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with the number and inefficiency of virtual meetings, as they enabled multitasking and thus reduced the attention of participants. The overload caused by meetings was particularly no­ticeable among Google and Facebook employees, while Microsoft employees noticed an inundation of email messages. For people who have joined the company during the COVID-19 period, collabora­tion in distributed forms of work presented a par­ticular challenge. Consequently, distributed work enabled e.­cient collaboration on routine tasks, but only when the tasks were straightforward. Collaboration in dis­tributed forms of work on complex tasks required more time and planning. Participants noted a gen­eral decrease in collaboration; when they could complete a task independently, they did it so. Dis­tributed work had a positive impact on independent routine tasks, as for most respondents the noise in the o.ce was a distraction that had a negative im­pact on concentration. 4.1.2Creative collaboration Most interviewees noticed a decrease in cre­ative collaboration and lower e.ciency of creative-collaborative interactions when transitioning to distributed work. Although the virtual environment o.ered faster organization and international acces­sibility, employees in business positions had pushed creative work to the sidelines. The lack of face-to-face interactions lead to overwork and demotivation, which had a negative impact on creativity and the desire for it. The most common form of creative col­laboration among interviewees was brainstorming. Brainstorming was more di.cult in a distributed work environment, especially when there were more participants. Most respondents missed the informal meetings that were used in the past to develop new ideas. Virtual interactions often felt forced. 4.1.3Social collaboration Building new relationships and getting to know people was more di.cult in the distributed work envi­ronment due to the lack of informal interactions. It was more di.cult for employees to form an impression of colleagues they had only met virtually, which could lead to conflicts more quickly. The interviewees missed spontaneous interactions, such as having co.ee to­gether and socializing. Due to the general overload, they took a more considered approach to socializing. Just like building relationships within the company, building relationships with customers was also more di.cult. Distributed work o.ered fewer opportunities for networking and building informal relationships. Meetings needed to be planned and put in the calen­dar. Due to the lack of spontaneity, people were not motivated to build additional networks. They relied on the networks they built up before distributed work. Col­laboration in distributed forms of work with the aim of building a personal network and sharing best practices required a higher level of proactivity than collaboration between employees in the o.ce. The transition to dis­tributed work had a strong negative impact on employ­ees’ social collaboration. Table 3 shows the key findings on the impact of distributed work on employees’ rou­tine, creative and social collaboration. To sum up, the findings reveal that the transition to distributed work has di.erent implications for the di.erent types of collaboration between employees. Overall, while distributed working has certain advan­tages for independent routine tasks, it poses a major challenge for routine, creative and social collabora­tion. The lack of physical presence and spontaneous interactions in a shared workspace significantly dampens the potential for creative output and build­ing strong interpersonal relationships, emphasizing the need for innovative solutions to foster these es­sential aspects of work in a distributed environment. Specifically, in the area of routine collabora­tion, there has been a notable improvement in self-e.cacy in tasks that require independence and concentration, largely due to the quieter, distrac­tion-free home environment. This environment has increased motivation and, for some, productivity, especially for tasks that can be completed alone. However, this increase in productivity is closely linked to personal circumstances, with those with­out caring responsibilities generally performing bet­ter than those with children. When it comes to collaborating on complex tasks, the distributed work model presents significant challenges. The ef­ficiency of such collaboration often su.ers as more time and careful planning is required. The fre­quency of collaborative interactions decreases, and the shift to distributed work complicates the syn­chronous collaboration, which is essential for more di.cult, complex problem-solving. This scenario has led to an increase in routine administrative tasks and a perceived need for more meetings, which initially led to an overwhelming number of virtual meetings. Although companies such as Google have taken steps to address this issue by in­troducing meeting-free days, the general dissatis­faction with the number and e.ciency of virtual meetings remains a problem. Creative collaboration in particular has su.ered as a result of the changeover. The shift away from physical o.ce spaces has led to a decline in creative collaboration and the e.ciency of creative endeav­ors, with the lack of face-to-face interaction playing a major role in this decline. While the virtual envi­ronment allows for faster organization and interna­tional accessibility, it often crowds out creative work due to overwork and demotivation. Brainstorming sessions, a cornerstone of creative collaboration, have become more challenging, especially with a larger number of participants. The absence of infor­mal meetings, which used to serve as fertile ground for the germination of new ideas, is clearly felt, and virtual interactions often feel forced and are less conducive to creativity. Social collaboration has been most a.ected by the transition to distributed work. Building new re­lationships and maintaining existing ones has be­come much more di.cult without the organic, informal interactions that o.ce environments nat­urally provide. The lack of spontaneous interactions such as co.ee or casual get-togethers has not only made it harder for employees to get to know their colleagues but has also reduced opportunities for networking and building informal relationships with clients. Meetings have become something that needs to be scheduled and planned, losing the spontaneity that often leads to personal network­ing. This has had a very negative impact on employ­ees’ ability to collaborate socially and requires a greater degree of proactivity to build and maintain personal networks and share best practice. 4.2Factors that influence the success of collaboration in distributed forms of work The analysis of the interviews identified the fol­lowing factors for successful collaboration in dis­tributed forms of work: experience with distributed work and education, culture and leadership of openness and trust, clarity of communication and goals, hybridity of collaborative interactions, psy­chological and external motivators, and appropriate technology and work environment. 4.2.1Experience with distributed work and training Geographically collaboration in distributed forms of work in Fortune 500 top US companies is widespread. The extent of company’s past engage­ment with distributed work and collaboration tools significantly influenced its ability to foster collabora­tion in distributed forms of work. The longer individ­uals worked remotely, the easier and more e.cient collaboration became. Individuals learned from the experience and optimized their collaboration pro­cesses. To successfully integrate collaboration in dis­tributed forms of work within an organization, it was crucial to allocate resources for training and teach employees e.ective techniques for collaboration in distributed forms of work. Participants emphasized the need for training soft skills, such as how to con­duct virtual meetings e.ectively or how to resist dig­ital distractions. 4.2.2Culture and leadership of openness and trust The culture of an organization played an impor­tant role in a virtual environment. When the com­pany’s culture was strong, employees were more motivated to work together. A company must con­sciously create a virtual culture and reward adapt­ability, openness, and trust, and encourage sharing and receiving of feedback. In the absence of physical meetings and shared physical space, maintaining and building a team culture in a virtual environment is more challenging. Companies need to consciously approach virtual culture, promote it and adapt to the new circumstances. Hybrid work brought addi­tional challenges. In addition to culture, leadership also played an important role in promoting collabo­ration in distributed forms of work. Superiors have less control over employees in a virtual environ­ment, so it is crucial to adapt the leadership style accordingly. In a virtual setting, micromanagement proves ine.ective. Our research highlights that trust and adaptability serve as the primary motivators for individuals. 4.2.3Clear communication and objectives To achieve a culture of trust and adaptability, clear and transparent communication is important. In a distributed work environment, it is more di.cult to understand non-verbal cues, so it is crucial for managers and employees to promote openness and clarity of communication channels. Alongside e.ec­tive communication, well-defined objectives play a crucial role in collaboration in distributed forms of work. The distributed work environment demands distinct goals compared to traditional o.ce settings. Additionally, successful collaboration necessitates a precise division of roles and responsibilities. 4.2.4Hybridity of collaborative interactions The interviewees note that sustaining exclusive distributed work in the long run would be challeng­ing for them. Successful collaboration requires in­terpersonal relationships, which are easier to build when meeting in the same room. The hybrid future of work will make it possible to build personal rela­tionships while taking advantage of distributed work. 4.2.5Psychological and external motivators The ability of a company and an individual to collaborate remotely is influenced by environmental and personal circumstances. Most interviewees no­ticed fatigue and a general decrease in motivation when working remotely, which a.ected their will­ingness to collaborate. As a result, some companies o.ered additional psychological support to their employees. Distributed work, especially when done from home, blurs the boundaries between personal and professional life. For some people, this form of work is suitable as it o.ers them flexibility. For oth­ers, distributed work means additional stress. An in­dividual’s predisposition to such a form of work has a major influence on their desire to collaborate. 4.2.6Technology and workspace Collaboration in distributed forms of work would not be possible without technology. The in­terviewees noted that their companies provided good technology and adequate technological sup­port. In addition to appropriate technological tools, interviewees emphasized the importance of appro­priate o.ce equipment and space. Interviewees recognized that having the necessary equipment at home promotes a comfortable and focused work environment. Initially, interviewees took advantage of financial support from their employers, who pro­vided funds to purchase the needed equipment. A comfortable work environment positively impacted the motivation of the respondents. To sum up, the findings highlighted several fac­tors that influence successful collaboration in dis­tributed forms of work. The success of collaboration in distributed work arrangements depends on sev­eral critical factors that were identified in extensive interviews. First, an organization’s prior engagement with distributed work and collaboration tools has a significant impact on its ability to foster e.ective re­mote collaboration. The more familiar employees are with distributed work, the smoother and more productive collaboration tends to be. Training plays a central role here, focusing on equipping employ­ees with the necessary skills for remote collabora­tion, including how to e.ectively conduct virtual meetings and strategies to resist digital distractions. The culture within an organization of openness and trust is another important component. In a vir­tual environment where physical interactions are lim­ited, a strong, adaptable culture that rewards flexibility, openness and trust can significantly moti­vate employees to work together e.ectively. Leader­ship style must also adapt in this context, moving away from micromanagement to fostering an envi­ronment of trust and adaptability. Clear communica­tion and clearly defined goals are also fundamental to successful collaboration in distributed forms of work. Since there are no non-verbal cues in virtual in­teractions, it is imperative that both managers and employees maintain open and clear channels of com­munication. Setting clear goals and clarifying roles and responsibilities are equally important to ensure that everyone is pulling in the same direction and can contribute e.ectively. The hybrid nature of future work environments, combining face-to-face and re­mote interactions, is recognized as a key factor in building interpersonal relationships that are critical to collaboration. While pure remote work makes it di.cult to maintain these relationships, a hybrid ap­proach enables the benefits of both face-to-face and remote work to be leveraged. Psychological and external motivators have a significant impact on an individual’s ability to col­laborate remotely. Factors such as remote work-re­lated fatigue, motivation levels and the blending of personal and professional life can either hinder or encourage the willingness to collaborate. Compa­nies that o.er psychological support and acknowl­edge these challenges can help mitigate the negative e.ects. Finally, technology and the appro­priateness of the workspace are also fundamental. E.ective collaboration in distributed forms of work is not possible without the right technology and support. In addition, setting up a suitable home working space, supported financially by the em­ployer if required, can significantly increase produc­tivity and motivation. 4.3The tools and techniques that promote e.ective and successful collaboration in distributed forms of work Most interviewees named appropriate tools as one of the most important factors for collaboration in distributed forms of work. All four companies – Mi­crosoft, Google, Facebook, and Salesforce – use cloud technologies. Most of the tools used by interviewees are integrated into systems. The companies in the sample are also providers of collaboration technolo­gies. Therefore, interviewees mainly used tools de­veloped by their employers (Microsoft: Microsoft Teams, Google: Google Workspace, Facebook: Work­place and Bluejeans, and Salesforce: Slack and Quip). Regardless of the brand of the tools, interviewees use video conferencing, chat and cloud documents most frequently. Respondents were satisfied with the tools, although there were no significant di.erences in satisfaction between the providers. Merely having access to these tools was not a guarantee for successful collaboration. E.ectively collaborating remotely necessitates well-established guidelines – employees should be aware of the des­ignated tool for communication, the platform for document sharing, and the e.cient means to ac­cess the necessary information. Companies worked with external stakeholders and customers, so it was important to allow employees to use di.erent tools. Restricting access to tools makes collaboration with external stakeholders and networking more di.cult. Video conferencing, chats and documents are the most commonly used collaboration tools. They are used for routine, creative, and social collaboration. The use of specific tools for creative collaboration, such as virtual whiteboards, was not common among employees in business positions. Only a third of interviewees occasionally used tools such as Google Jamboard and Quip. While collaboration on routine tasks was essen­tial for successful work, interviewees note that so­cial and creative collaboration is less common. Companies were trying to compensate for the lack of informal interactions and team culture in the of­fice through virtual events, weekly team meetings and o.ce hours. Respondents believed that net­working and building a team culture online, espe­cially in large groups, was ine.ective as virtual interactions lack spontaneity. Respondents viewed virtual events as unnecessary noise or extra time spent on the computer. O.ce hours and occasional social team meet­ings were more e.ective as people come together more easily in smaller groups. Company respon­dents did not notice any programs that encourage virtual creative collaboration. Companies should plan time for creative exchange and approach it in a targeted manner. Creativity requires di.erently set goals, and the corporate culture must allow for risk and failure. Employees most frequently use video confer­encing, chats, and cloud documents for collabora­tion. Respondents primarily used tools developed by their employers, with no significant di.erences found in e.ectiveness. Successful collaboration in distributed forms of work required clearly defined rules – employees need to know when to use which tool. Participants did not identify e.ective methods to encourage collaboration in distributed forms of work; routine collaboration occurs as needed, while creative and social collaboration occurs less fre­quently in the virtual world. Companies were trying to encourage social collaboration with virtual events, informal meetings and o.ce hours, but were not successful in doing so. Respondents could not identify any particular incentives for virtual cre­ative collaboration but felt that companies could en­courage this collaboration by allocating formal time, workshops and relaxing strictly set targets. Table 4 o.ers an overview of perceived tools and techniques for encouraging collaboration in dis­tributed forms of work. To sum up, successful collaboration in dis­tributed work environments is supported by a com­bination of appropriate technological tools and strategic techniques. These include clear guidelines for the use of tools, encouraging small group inter­actions to improve social relationships, and delib­erately creating space and opportunities for creative collaboration. The e.ectiveness of these tools and techniques is highly dependent on the underlying corporate culture, which must empha­size openness, trust and flexibility in order to adapt to the challenges of distributed collaboration. Ex­plored companies use cloud technologies and have developed their own collaboration tools, including Microsoft Teams, Google Workspace, Workplace and Bluejeans from Facebook, and Slack and Quip from Salesforce. The most commonly used tools in these companies are video conferencing, chat and cloud document platforms. These tools are essen­tial for routine, creative and social collaboration, al­though there are no significant di.erences in satisfaction between the di.erent providers. The use of specific tools for creative collaboration, such as virtual whiteboards, is less common: only a third of respondents occasionally use tools such as Google Jamboard and Quip for creative tasks. Par­ticipants noted that e.ective collaboration in a dis­tributed environment goes beyond simply having access to these tools. Well-established policies are needed so that employees know which tools are in­tended for communication, sharing documents and accessing necessary information. When it comes to social and creative collaboration, which is less common in remote environments, companies are trying to compensate for the lack of informal o.ce interactions through virtual events, weekly team meetings and o.ce hours. However, respondents considered large virtual team events to be ine.ec­tive due to their lack of spontaneity and viewed them as an additional burden rather than an oppor­tunity for real contact. In contrast, o.ce hours and smaller, informal team meetings were seen as more e.ective in fostering connections between employ­ees. Despite these e.orts, there is a lack of formal programs to promote creative collaboration in dis­tributed work. The text suggests that organizations could better foster this type of collaboration by for­mally scheduling time for creative exchange, con­ducting workshops, and setting goals that allow for risks and failures. 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1Discussion There have been many successful examples of implementing distributed work. Despite possessing robust technological infrastructure and prior expo­sure to flexible work arrangements, the majority of interviewees have indicated a preference for a hy­brid return to the o.ce. This desire for a balance between flexibility and face-to-face interactions with colleagues underscores the appropriateness of the decision made by companies such as Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Salesforce to transition to a hybrid work model in the coming years. The litera­ture emphasizes flexibility as a key advantage of dis­tributed work (Frost, 2007), indicating that technologically advanced and non-hierarchical or­ganizations thrive in virtual environments (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). This was supported by our study par­ticipants, who a.rm that distributed work provides them with a greater flexibility including schedule, location of work, better life-work integration and flexibility to customize workspace. Our study reveals that distributed work results in substantial time savings, as employees no longer need to dedicate time to daily commuting as well as spend less time for business trips. Respondents with well-equipped home o.ces and conducive work en­vironments, characterized by a quiet atmosphere, demonstrate higher e.ciency compared to working in a traditional o.ce setting. They also emphasized a greater autonomy in task execution and increased focus while working on a task. These findings align with the conclusions drawn in other studies, such as those by Allen et al. (2014). It’s important to note that personal circumstances and the psychological state of individuals play a significant role in deter­mining the e.ectiveness of distributed work. While interviewees did not identify a negative impact of distributed work on independent tasks, they did ex­press that distributed work diminishes the fre­quency and e.cacy of collaborative exchanges. This observation aligns with the findings from the BCG study conducted by Dahik et al. (2020), where ap­proximately half of the respondents reported a de­cline in e.ectiveness while working remotely. Furthermore, our interviewees observed that, when working remotely and having the ability to complete a task independently, they often opt for individual execution, even though collaboration could poten­tially improve its quality. While independent task completion can be e.ective, striking a balance with collaborative work is crucial for achieving optimal company performance, fostering innovation, and maintaining a cohesive and engaged workforce. Consequently, it is essential for companies to de­velop strategies to encourage and promote collab­oration among their employees. Distributed work has significantly increased the number of meetings and notably extended the cu­mulative time interviewees spend in meetings. In­terviewees believe that meetings in a virtual format are less e.ective, attributing this to ease and attrac­tiveness of digital multitasking, technology fatigue and employee overload. These findings resonate with similar conclusions drawn in other studies, such as the work conducted by Frisch and Greene in 2020. While participants acknowledge that rou­tine collaboration on simple tasks remains as e.ec­tive remotely as it is in the o.ce, engaging in collaboration on complex tasks and addressing un­foreseen issues becomes more challenging. Com­plex collaboration demands additional time and planning, and the process of obtaining feedback tends to be prolonged. These observations align with existing literature findings (Alexander et al., 2020; G. M. Olson & Olson, 2000). Participants also note substantial increase in reporting as supervisors exert less control over their work, which adds addi­tional workload on employees. These findings are in line with previous research by Kni.n et al. (2021). There are more challenges for creative collabo­ration. Participants noted that successful brain­storming requires a spontaneous and physical environment that cannot be created when working remotely. This is also confirmed in the literature. In a distributed work environment, there is less face-to-face interaction (Allen et al., 2015) and therefore fewer spontaneous creative clashes (Alexander et al., 2020). Respondents attribute the decrease in cre­ative collaboration to general overwork and in­creased reporting requirements. Employees who are overwhelmed with work find it di.cult to be cre­ative (Nahavandi et al., 2013). Despite previous find­ings by Thompson (2021), which suggested that the absence of collaborative interactions may not nec­essarily lead to a negative impact on creativity in the virtual environment, our interviewees did not cor­roborate this theory. Instead, our study uncovered a general decline in creativity when individuals are working remotely. It should be noted that most in­terviewees associate creative work with brainstorm­ing and perceive it as a collective and synchronous activity. However, the process of generating new ideas can also be done asynchronously, which, if done properly can also o.er some benefits. For ex­ample, asynchronous collaboration allows individu­als to think about a problem in their own way and avoid the influence of the group (groupthink) and thus a more diverse input, there is less time pressure and more time to deeply think about the topics and lastly, some studies report increased participation as more introverted participants find it easier to ex­press their thoughts in writing. Another reason for the general decline in cre­ativity that our respondents identified as important is the increase in multitasking during meetings (Marchewka et al., 2020). Previous study by De Bruin and Barber (2019), distinguishes between rel­evant multitasking and irrelevant multitasking and while the former is perceived as more acceptable and less rude. However, multitasking during virtual meetings can generally lead to decreased focus, lower engagement, and reduced overall productiv­ity. Participants who engage in multitasking may miss important information, contribute less e.ec­tively to discussions, and negatively impact the overall dynamics of the meeting. Creative collabo­ration in distributed forms of work requires not only appropriate technical equipment, but also undi­vided attention, as well as high level of psychological safety and trust between team members. In order to achieve that despite distractions and noise that accompany virtual meetings, several companies choose active facilitation of important creative meetings. important. Social collaboration in remote setting brings similar challenges - interviewees note that it is more di.cult to socialize and build rela­tionships in a virtual environment. The diminished visibility into colleagues’ work and e.orts can give rise to conflicts. Furthermore, the absence of spon­taneous exchanges, like corridor chats or co.ee breaks, necessitates a more proactive and inten­tional approach to networking and sustaining pro­fessional connections (Sarker et al., 2011). Our results show that distributed work adversely a.ects both the creative and social collaboration among employees. As companies are striving to ad­dress the lack of social collaboration by organizing vir­tual events, o.ce hours, and informal meetings it is important to note that respondents tend to perceive these virtual informal interactions as staged or fabri­cated and generally tend to avoid them. Respondents believe that their employers provide appropriate tools for collaboration. Collaboration in distributed forms of work is most commonly done via video con­ferencing, chats and cloud documents. Although email communication is still prevailing, respondents in our study do not consider email to be an e.ective collaboration tool due to congestion. The use of spe­cialized tools for creative collaboration is rare among respondents and it seems companies in our sample are mainly promoting collaborations tools that sup­port productivity. Despite using tools from various developers, there are no discernible di.erences in the satisfaction levels reported by the interviewees. The interviews confirm the results of the theoretical part that clearly defined guidelines are required for successful collaboration in distributed forms of work – employees need to understand when to use which tool (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Numerous studies have underscored the signifi­cance of technology (Zhao et al., 2022). To foster ef­fective collaboration, it is crucial for these organizations to ensure the availability of the neces­sary technology and tools. In our sample the respon­dents received a laptop and financial support from their employers to purchase suitable o.ce equip­ment, such as a screen, desk, chair, keyboard, and mouse. The companies in the research sample pro­vide adequate technological support and tools for collaboration. Employees in the sample have access to chat, video conferencing, cloud documents, tele­phone, and email. Openness, trust, and adaptability of the corporate culture are important prerequisites for e.ective collaboration within the company. Com­panies that want to create a conducive environment for collaboration in distributed forms of work need to invest in building an appropriate culture and social capital. They should also promote charismatic lead­ership that rewards results and e.ort. Successful col­laboration in distributed forms of work requires clearly defined and achievable goals, e.ective com­munication, and well-defined processes within the organization (Alexander et al., 2020; Duarte & Sny­der, 2011; Frost, 2007; Makarius & Larson, 2017). Companies should be careful when setting targets. This research has shown that an excessive focus on routine tasks stifles creativity, which was previously shown an important building block for an organiza­tion’s long-term success (Obstfeld, 2012). Companies need to make creative time available and consciously encourage creativity. The analysis of the interviews shows that companies should adapt their goals more closely to the dynamics of distributed work. This research has shown that the amount of time spent in meetings increases significantly when dis­tributed work. Virtual meetings are often ine.ective as participants multitask (Frisch & Greene, 2020). The virtual nature of meetings can quickly exhaust em­ployees. Organizations can improve meetings by training employees on e.ective online presentations, the importance of rules, defining the purpose of the meeting, and encouraging feedback (Frisch & Greene, 2020). Organizations can reduce employee overload by implementing weeks or days without meetings. Previous experience of distributed work plays an important role in the success of collaboration in distributed forms of work (Dahik et al., 2020). Com­panies that are not used to this type of work can gradually transition to distributed work and test a hy­brid model first. To achieve e.ective collaboration in distributed forms of work, employees need to be trained (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). In addition to the use of collaboration tools, soft skills are also impor­tant. Respondents expressed a desire for training in e.ective virtual communication, presentations and virtual brainstorming. In a virtual environment, it is more di.cult to understand individual challenges and problems due to the lack of non-verbal commu­nication. As the boundaries between work and leisure are blurred, employees can burn out. For com­panies opting for remote or hybrid working, it is ad­visable to invest in training and psychological support for employees (Dahik et al., 2020). It is also important that companies implement programs that ensure re­spect and inclusion of all employees. What respondents miss most about distributed work is the spontaneity of relationships and live in­teractions. Social connections are easier to make when teams spend some time in the same place. Occasional face-to-face meetings build trust and make it easier to ask less awkward questions and re­ceive feedback (Karis et al., 2016). Face-to-face meetings allow for getting to know each other, building personal relationships and spontaneity. Es­pecially when integrating new team members, train­ing sessions, team events and creative collaboration should take place in a shared location wherever pos­sible. Companies should encourage o.ce hours, in­formal team meetings and occasional team events. To make it easier to maintain the culture of collab­oration, companies can choose a hybrid working model that gives employees freedom while allowing for su.cient face-to-face contact and lively collab­orative interactions (Alexander et al., 2020). 5.2 Theoretical implications The paper advances the literature on distributed work and extends the classic discussion on modern work enviroments by o.ering insights into their im­pact on employee collaboration. Our theoretical con­tributions are threefold. First, we argue that collabo­ration should be regarded as a multifaceted con­struct, segmented into various subtypes rather than viewed as a monolithic entity, as suggested in previ­ous literature (Frost, 2007; Karis et al., 2016). Drawing upon the works of diverse scholars (Obstfeld, 2012; Sandow & Allen, 2005; Sutton, 2002), we introduce a novel classification of employee collaboration, seg­mented into three distinct types: routine, creative, and social. While distributed work has been shown to be an e.ective arrangement (Olson & Olson, 2000), the e.cacy of such arrangements for collabo­rative tasks remains unclear. We posit that individual tasks and routine collaboration can be conducted with comparable e.ciency in distributed settings as in traditional face-to-face arrangements. Conversely, creative and social collaborations necessitate in-per­son interactions to yield substantive outcomes. As our second contribution, we highlight the importance of enabling factors that contribute to successful transition and collaboration to dis­tributed work. We confirm that organizational cul­ture, HR practices, ICT and physical layouts are critical for colloborative workplaces (Manca et al., 2018). We further emphasize that psychological and social factors are as equally important for successful employee collaboration (Alexander et al., 2020; Coppola et al., 2004). In addition, we provide an overview of tools that make colloboration easier. Last, our study makes a significant empirical contribution by situating the analysis within the context of the Fortune 500 top US companies. This approach not only enhances the relevance and ap­plicability of our findings but also a.ords a compre­hensive understanding of how distributed work and employee collaboration are operationalized at the highest levels. By focusing on these leading compa­nies, we are able to draw from a rich dataset that includes a variety of industries, organizational struc­tures, and work cultures, thereby providing a robust and nuanced view of the current state of distributed work. Moreover, the inclusion of these companies allows us to examine the intersection of advanced technological infrastructures, organizational strate­gies, and collaboration outcomes, o.ering invalu­able insights for both academic research and practical application in understanding the evolving dynamics of the modern workplace. 5.3Practical implications The findings of this study on distributed work have several practical implications for managers who want to optimize collaboration and the dis­tributed working environment. Firstly, managers should provide their employees with the necessary technology tools and support to set up an e.cient home o.ce. This includes hard­ware such as laptops and ergonomic o.ce furniture, but also software and collaboration tools. The suitabil­ity of the workplace and the adequacy of hardware and o.ce equipment play an important role in dis­tributed work (Dahik et al., 2020). A high degree of technology acceptance is typical for companies with a high degree of cooperation (Frost, 2007). Invest­ment in education and development and the provi­sion of appropriate technical support play an important role in this (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). In ad­dition to technical training, companies need to pro­vide their employees with appropriate information about working from home, support programs and psychological resources to encourage collaboration in distributed forms of work. The latter include feedback, support and maintaining connection through regular video calls (Kni.n et al., 2021). They should also pro­vide training and support to help employees adapt to distributed working environments, which includes training on e.ective virtual communication, managing work-life boundaries and supporting mental health. Secondly, managers should ensure that employ­ees have access to e.ective communication tools and understand how to best utilize them. This includes video conferencing, chat applications and document sharing in the cloud. Managers need to also provide guidance on when and how to use these tools e.ec­tively for di.erent tasks. They can encourage the use of technology through training and appropriate tech­nical support and ensure that all employees have equal access to technology regardless of their posi­tion or location (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Thirdly, managers should address collaboration in distributed forms of work challenges. For exam­ple, they should recognize that distributed working can reduce the e.ciency of collaborative exchanges and brainstorming sessions. Therefore, they have to develop strategies to encourage collaboration and creativity, even in a distributed environment. This could include setting aside time for creative work and ensuring that meetings are focused and facili­tated e.ectively. They could possibly introduce ‘meeting-free’ days or weeks to reduce overload. Organizations in which managers encourage individ­uals to network and collaborate with each other are more successful (Sandow & Allen, 2005). Fourthly, managers should promote social inter­action and team building. Strong social connected­ness among employees enables collective productivity and is an essential prerequisite for e.ec­tive communication, e.ciency, knowledge acquisi­tion and innovation within the organization (Dahik et al., 2020). Therefore managers should create op­portunities for informal virtual interactions and, where possible, organize face-to-face meetings or events to strengthen team cohesion. To maintain motivation, employees need to feel safe and heard. Such a space can be created through virtual calls, shared calendars, updates and joint planning of goals and outcomes (Karis et al., 2016). Spontaneous in­teractions are also key to building collegial relation­ships, social capital and trust. While social bonds often form spontaneously in a physical environment, the virtual environment requires a more targeted ap­proach. Leaders can encourage interactions through team experiences and organizing su.cient group events (Alexander et al., 2020). Social bonding hap­pens more easily when teams spend some time in the same place, so it’s a good idea for virtual teams to organize occasional face-to-face meetings. Such events encourage spontaneous communication and collaboration, integrate distributed team members into the central team, simplify handover and coordi­nation in event planning and allow easy access to each other. Occasional meetings build trust, which makes it easier to ask less awkward questions and receive feedback (Karis et al., 2016). Fifthly, managers should clearly set the goals and expectations and make sure they align with the dynamics of distributed work. Managers should avoid overemphasizing routine tasks at the expense of creative and collaborative work. For collaboration in distributed forms of work to take place across team boundaries, it is important that the entire or­ganization embraces this way of working. An organi­zation can ensure the acceptance of distributed work with the mechanisms, such as e.ective communica­tion (e.g., managers must make it clear that dis­tributed work is not just a passing trend, but a new way of doing business that leverages knowledge and skills and embraces diversity), and clearly defined procedures and objectives (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Last but not least, managers should adapt lead­ership style and organizational culture to support dis­tributed work. This includes promoting trust, openness, adaptability and a results-oriented ap­proach. Duarte and Snyder (2011) identify the follow­ing competencies of successful virtual team leaders: coaching and managing for success without tradi­tional forms of feedback, appropriate selection and use of collaboration and communication tools, lead­ing in an international environment, the ability to de­velop team members, building and maintaining trust, networking across hierarchies and organizations, de­veloping successful organizational processes to sup­port the virtual team. Team leaders play an important role in building trust. They should foster a culture that values teamwork, communication, learning and di­versity, is open to change and supports collaboration (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Collaboration on routine and creative tasks is easier when there are clear pro­cesses and communication rules within the team (Makarius & Larson, 2017). Rules shorten the time it takes to start a collaborative task and prevent unnec­essary reinvention (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). Success­ful distributed work requires appropriate human resource policies that enable hands-on work (Duarte & Snyder, 2011). The organization must ensure the integration of systems and provide employees same level of recognition, support, and rewards to all em­ployees regardless of where they work. 5.4Limitations and future research directions The study is based on insights gained from a purposive sample of ten individuals employed in in­ternational Fortune 500 top US companies, namely Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Salesforce, that are known for high levels of digitalization. The pro­vided sample enables the attainment of the study objective, namely the development of guidelines for successful collaboration in distributed forms of work. Because these companies are incredibly ad­vanced in their ways of working and have due to their global nature had extensive prior experience with virtual collaboration, we were able to identify both benefits as well as disadvantages of distributed work. The small and purposive sample comes with limitations. The opinion of ten people employed in one sector is di.cult to generalize to the entire pop­ulation. While interviewees answered some ques­tions similarly, certain answers vary depending on the company in which they are employed. Experi­ences of remote creative collaboration would likely be di.erent if the sample included employees from the creative industries. Responses would likely di.er depending on the level of digital transformation in the company and the country of employment. The results of the semi-structured interviews can be used for further research – to understand the general impact of distributed work on employee col­laboration, the results of the study could be sum­marized in a survey and tested for general significance on a broad, representative sample. Sur­vey data collection would also enable structural equation modeling analysis to test the causal rela­tionships between di.erent types of collaboration in distributed forms of work and employee out­comes, including job performance, job satisfaction, work engagement, and innovative behavior. More­over, multilevel analysis could be conducted to un­derstand how employee collaboration is a.ected by team characteristics and firm characteristics. While the literature review and the analysis of the inter­views answer the research questions, new ques­tions arise regarding the future of distributed work, for example: What impact will distributed work have on employees’ creative, routine, and social collabo­ration in five years’ time?, How can companies cul­tivate a successful long-term virtual culture?, What impact will the transition to distributed work have on employee collaboration in the creative indus­tries?, What is the impact on employees in less dig­itized companies?, How do di.erent types of collaboration in distributed forms of work a.ect in­dividual, team, and firm level outcomes? 5.5Conclusion In conclusion, this study has shed light on the complexities of collaboration in distributed forms of work. While the rapid development of information and communication technologies has prompted nu­merous companies to endorse virtual and hybrid work environments, it is important to better understand the nuances of di.erent types of collaborative interac­tions. Virtual setting has definitely empowered inde­pendent work and routine collaborations, while engaging in collaboration for more complex tasks, as well as creative and social collaboration within a vir­tual environment, presents greater challenges. The success of collaboration in distributed forms of work is influenced by technological factors (appropriate technology and work environment), cultural and structural factors (experience with dis­tributed work, training, culture and leadership of openness and trust, clarity of communication and goals, hybridity of collaborative interactions) as well as social and psychological factors (motivation, safety, isolation, etc). Organizations need to ap­proach collaboration in distributed forms of work consciously and consider these factors of collabora­tion. Providing appropriate technologies for collab­oration, investing in employees’ soft skills, building a culture of openness and trust, setting clear goals and o.ering psychological support will go a long way in increasing individuals’ commitment to the orga­nization and thus their willingness to collaborate. In essence, as companies navigate the evolving landscape of collaboration in distributed forms of work, the profound need for genuine human con­nection is emerging as more important than ever. Successful collaboration, rooted in trust, feedback exchange, and the spark of spontaneity vital for cre­ativity, thrives on social contact. Therefore, for vir­tual teams seeking to amplify their collaborative e.orts, a suggestion surfaces—to intentionally allo­cate moments for shared physical presence. Occa­sional face-to-face meetings become not merely a formality but a cornerstone, fostering the bonds that drive collaborative success online and o.ine. Companies, recognizing the transformative power of such encounters, weave them into the fabric of their work culture through initiatives like regular team building activities, o.ce hours, regular all team meetings, o.site events and retreats. By streamlining reporting processes and embracing a flexible or hybrid working model, organizations can transcend the constraints of distance, empowering teams to unleash their creative potential and forge connections that endure. REFERENCES Alexander, A., De Smet, A., & Mysore, M. (2020). Reimag­ining the postpandemic workforce. McKinsey Quarterly. Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work–family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 99–121. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How E.ective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131. Bala, H., Massey, A. P., & Montoya, M. M. (2017). The E.ects of Process Orientations on Collaboration Technology Use and Outcomes in Product Development. Journal of Man­agement Information Systems, 34(2), 520–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334494 Bedwell, W. L., Wildman, J. L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Re­source Management Review, 22(2), 128–145. Choudhury, P. (Raj), Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity e.ects of ge­ographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Profes­sional Communication, 47(2), 95–104. Dahik, A., Lovich, D., Kreafle, C., Bailey, A., Kilmann, J., Kennedy, D., Roongta, P., Schuler, F., Tomlin, L., & Wenstrup, J. (2020). What 12,000 employees have to say about the future of remote work. Boston Consult­ing Group, 1–12. Daim, T., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W., & Bhatla, A. (2012). Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management - INT J PROJ MANAG, 30. De Bruin, R., & Barber, L. K. (2019). Social judgments of electronic multitasking in the workplace: The role of contextual and individual factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 110–121. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2011). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. John Wiley & Sons. Frisch, B., & Greene, C. (2020). What it takes to run a great virtual meeting. Harvard Business Review. Https://Hbr. Org/2020/03/What-It-Takes-to-Run-a-Great-Virtual-Meeting. Frost, S. (2007). Meetings around the world: the impact of collaboration on business performance. Frost & Sullivan White Papers, 1–19. Fuks, H., Raposo, A., Gerosa, M. A., Pimental, M., & Lucena, C. J. P. (2008). The 3c collaboration model. In Encyclo­pedia of E-collaboration (pp. 637–644). IGI Global. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual con­sequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524. Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors a.ecting re­mote e-worker’s job e.ectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546. Hartono, E. (2004). Knowledge, technology, and inter-firm collaboration: a model and empirical study of collab­orative commerce. University of Kentucky. Hu, W.-C., Bansal, B., & Kaabouch, N. (2020). Using Mo­bile and Wireless Computing to Facilitate Virtual Col­laboration During a Pandemic. Kahai, S. S., Huang, R., & Jestice, R. J. (2012). Interaction e.ect of leadership and communication media on feedback positivity in virtual teams. Group & Organi­zation Management, 37(6), 716–751. Karis, D., Wildman, D., & Mané, A. (2014). Improving re­mote collaboration with video conferencing and video portals. Human-Computer Interaction, 31(1), 1–58. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qual­itative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. Kni.n, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ash­ford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., & Choi, V. K. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63. Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Intense collaboration in globally distributed work teams: Evolving patterns of dependencies and coor­dination. In Managing multinational teams: Global perspectives (pp. 127–153). Emerald Group Publish­ing Limited. Lamovšek, A., & Cerne, M. (2023). Past, present and fu­ture: A systematic multitechnique bibliometric review of the field of distributed work. Information and Or­ganization, 33(2), 100446. Liedtka, J. M., Whitten, E., & Sorrells-Jones, J. (1998). En­hancing care delivery through cross-disciplinary col­laboration: A case study/practitioner response. Journal of Healthcare Management, 43(2), 185. Makarius, E., & Larson, B. (2017). Changing the Perspec­tive of Virtual Work: Building Virtual Intelligence at the Individual Level. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 31, 159–178. Malhotra, A. (2021). The Postpandemic Future of Work. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1091–1102. Manca, C., Grijalvo, M., Palacios, M., & Kaulio, M. (2018). Collaborative workplaces for innovation in service companies: barriers and enablers for supporting new ways of working. Service Business, 12(3), 525–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-017-0359-0 Marchewka, M., Nesterak, J., Soltysik, M., Szymla, W., & Wo­jnarowska, M. (2020). Multitasking e.ects on individual performance: an experimental eye-tracking study. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Vir­tual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and ef­fectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492. Nahavandi, A., Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V, & Aristigueta, M. P. (2013). Organizational Behavior. SAGE Publications. Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative Projects: A Less Routine Ap­proach Toward Getting New Things Done. Organiza­tion Science, 23(6), 1571–1592. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15(2–3), 139–178. Sandow, D., & Allen, A. M. (2005). The nature of social collaboration: how work really gets done. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 6(2–3), 2–3. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The Role of Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of Man­agement Information Systems, 28(1), 273–310. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education. Schubert, P. (2019). Joint Work and Information Sharing in the Modern Digital Workplace: How the Introduc­tion of “Social” Features Shaped Enterprise Collabo­ration Systems. In K. Riemer, S. Schellhammer, & M. Meinert (Eds.), Collaboration in the Digital Age: How Technology Enables Individuals, Teams and Businesses (pp. 45–59). Springer International Publishing. Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The E.ects of Cultural Di­versity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389–406. Sutton, R. I. (2002). Weird ideas that spark innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 83. Thompson, L. (2021). Virtual collaboration won’t be the death of creativity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(2), 42–46. Villalonga-Olives, E., & Kawachi, I. (2015). The measure­ment of social capital. Gaceta Sanitaria, 29(1), 62–64. Zhao, X., Wang, C., & Hong, J. (2022). Evaluating the indi­vidual, situational, and technological drivers for creative ideas generation in virtual communities: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. tioners and academics mainly di.erentiate between Abstract Vol. 13, No. 1, 85-104 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2024.v13n01a06 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 86 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 87 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 88 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 89 Table 1: Software components for communication, dependent on the context of collaboration Source: Adapted from Schubert (2019, p. 48). Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 90 Table 2: Sample Data and Interview Information Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 91 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 92 Table 3: The impact of distributed work on employee work, tasks and collaboration Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 93 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 94 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 95 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 96 Table 4: Tools and Techniques for Encouraging Collaboration in Distributed Forms of Work Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 97 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 98 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 99 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 100 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 101 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 102 Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 103 EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLECEK V študiji avtorji raziskujejo ucinke porazdeljenega dela na sodelovanje zaposlenih v Fortune 500 podjetjih, kot so Microsoft, Google, Facebook in Salesforce. Cilj raziskave je prouciti, kako prehod v de­centralizirano delovno okolje vpliva na procese sodelovanja, dinamiko skupin in produktivnost. Raziskava uporablja kvalitativni pristop, ki omogoca poglobljeno preucevanje vpliva porazdeljenega dela na razlicne vrste sodelovanja zaposlenih (npr. rutinsko, ustvarjalno in družbeno) ter kljucne dejavnike, ki prispevajo k uspešnemu prehodu na porazdeljeno delo. Rutinsko sodelovanje na daljavo je sicer lahko ucinkovito, a je mnogo kompleksnejše. Ustvarjalno in družbeno sodelovanje pa je v virtualnem okolju oteženo. Ugo­tovitve kažejo, da ceprav je samostojno delo na daljavo zaradi napredka tehnologij ucinkovito in vpliva na povecano individualno produktivnost, pa le-to hkrati zmanjšuje sodelovanje med zaposlenimi. Na­jvecji izziv je vzdrževanju ucinkovite skupinske povezanosti in spontane komunikacije. Na uspeh porazdel­jenega dela vplivajo tehnološki, kulturni, strukturni, družbeni in psihološki dejavniki. Podjetja morajo za uspešno sodelovanje na daljavo razumeti in upoštevati te dejavnike, zagotavljati ustrezno tehnologijo, graditi kulturo odprtosti in zaupanja, jasno postavljati cilje in nuditi psihološko podporo. Integracija novih zaposlenih, izobraževanja in ustvarjalno delo naj, ce je mogoce, potekajo v živo. Za uspešno sodelovanje je pomembna družbena povezanost, zato naj virtualni timi del casa preživijo skupaj. Obcasna srecanja v živo krepijo zaupanje in spodbujajo ustvarjalnost. Podjetja lahko sodelovanje spodbujajo z virtualnimi dogodki in sestanki ter zmanjšajo poudarek na porocanju, saj s tem omogocajo vec casa za ustvarjalno delo. Rezultati raziskave jasno kažejo na zaželjenost prehajanja na hibridni model dela. Ta študija prispeva k vse bolj popularnim razpravam o porazdeljenem delu in ponuja dragocen vpogled v izzive sodelovanja na daljavo ter hkrati predlaga strategije za optimizacijo porazdeljenega dela v organizacijah. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2024 Sara Rotter Šešok, Dejan Uršic, Amadeja Lamovšek, Anja Svetina Nabergoj: E.ects of Shifting From In-Person to Distributed Work on Routine, Creative, and Social Collaboration 104