One's colleagues can be situated in close physical proximity, yet seem quite distant. Conversely, one's colleagues can be quite far away in objective terms, yet seem quite close. In this paper, we explore this paradoxical phenomenon of feeling close to geographically distant colleagues and propose a model of perceived proximity (a dyadic and asymmetric construct which reflects one person's perception of how close or how far another person is). The model shows how communication and social identification processes, as well as certain individual and socio-organizational factors, affect feelings of proximity. The aim is to broaden organizational studies' theoretical understandings of proximity to include the subjective perception of it. By shifting the focus from objective to perceived proximity, we believe that scholars can resolve many conflicting findings regarding dispersed work. By understanding what leads to perceived proximity, we also believe that managers can achieve many of the benefits of co-location without actually having employees work in one place.

While organizations strive to manage the time and attention of workers effectively, the practice of asking workers to contribute to multiple teams simultaneously can result in the opposite. We present a model of the effects of multiple team membership (MTM) on learning and productivity via the mediating processes of individual context switching, team temporal misalignment, and intra-organizational connectivity. These effects are curvilinear, with learning and productivity peaking at moderate levels of these mediating processes.Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1474336 do -Manager (Authors, 2007) Over the last century, the primary approach to organizing has shifted from individual work in hierarchical structures, to more team-based work in hierarchical structures, to teambased work in matrix structures, and ultimately to team-based work in multi-team systems (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006;Hobday, 2000;Malone, 2004;Marks, Dechurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005;Scott & Davis, 2006). As these changes have taken place, an increasing amount of responsibility has shifted to individual employees -responsibility for managing their own learning, allocating their own time, and focusing their own attention. This is especially true when employees are members of multiple teams concurrently, with no one manager aware of each employee's full portfolio of work or team commitments. In such situations, individuals may make decisions (about their time, attention, information, etc.) that are completely rational for them, but that do not result in optimal productivity and learning at the team and organizational levels (Schelling, 1978). Conversely, without complete knowledge of individuals' multiple team commitments, teams, managers, and organizations may make reasonable team-and organizationallevel decisions that have very problematic effects for individuals. In this paper, we address this theoretical and practical tension regarding the allocation of time and attention, as well as the flow of information, when people are simultaneously members of multiple teams.Based on our own survey data and surveys by other scholars (Lu, Wynn, Chudoba., & Watson-Manheim, 2003;Martin & Bal, 2006) (Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom, & Engwall, 2006). Some surveys place the percent of knowledge workers who are members of more than one team as high as 94.9 percent (Martin & Bal, 2006) and in at least one company (Intel), 28% are on five or more (Lu et al., 2003). In addition, a wide variety of scholars and practitioners have mentioned the commonality of MTM. For example, Gonzalez and Mark's (2005: 143-4) comment is typical: "In fields as diverse as finance, software development, consulting, and academia, we are finding that it is commonplace that information workers are involved in multiple collaborations that occur in parallel. This demands that individuals enact specific efforts to coordinate, manage and track those collaborations." MTM seems especially common (and particularly challenging) in information technology (e.g., Bas...

Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights into how spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors affect GDT functioning and performance. Largely missing, however, is research on the effects of the basic geographic configuration of GDTs. In this study, we explore the impact of GDT configuration (i.e., the relative number of team members at different sites, independent of the characteristics of those members or the spatial and temporal distances among them) on GDT dynamics. In a quasi-experimental setting, we examine the effects of configuration using a sample of 62 six-person teams in four different one-and twosite configurations. As predicted, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamicsindependent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that teams with geographically-based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) have significantly less shared team identity, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination issues.Furthermore, in teams with subgroups, imbalance (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on the same four outcomes. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) outperform both balanced and imbalanced configurations.1

Zapp, and the MITRE Corp.; and our anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. We especially acknowledge Jeff LePine for his support throughout the revision process.