As more and more of us have been working remotely during the pandemic, and commentators argue that a hybrid work style will become the norm after the pandemic, there has been growing attention given to the effective functioning of remote teams.

Research from Northeastern University suggests that the actual location of team members may not be quite as important as we assume, with how we work more important than where we work.

Effective working

The researchers examined over 1,300 teams containing over 5,000 individuals, and found that those working remotely could be just as effective as those working face to face.  What’s more, there was little, if any, difference in the collective intelligence of the teams in both situations.

“How” work was done was hugely important, however, as was “who” was doing it, with both strong predictors of the collective intelligence of the group.  For example, the most significant predictor of the collective intelligence of the group was the way it collaborates.  This was particularly important in terms of their ability to understand who is the best person to perform specific tasks, to get that person to perform that task, and then to effectively coordinate tasks so that the work is done cohesively.

Who was doing the task was arguably the most important thing, as both the technical skills of that individual and their social skills were also crucial to the effective performance of the team.  Indeed, the study found that groups with high social skills were better able to pick up on the various subtle and nonverbal cues that are often so important to cohesive group work.

That these things are just as important for remote teams as they are for in-person teams is particularly interesting.  This is especially so as there appears to be concern that remote teams won’t be as effective as in-person teams, especially in areas such as collaboration and relationship building.  The study reminds us that it’s more how the team functions than where it functions that is key here.

Indeed, the authors argue that remote teams may even have an advantage over in-person teams because it’s that much easier to assemble people with the right skills for a particular task.  The flexibility around working hours might also help in effectively coordinating the group.

If hybrid working does become the norm, then understanding how to make teams function effectively in such an environment is likely to be key.  This research provides some useful pointers to help us achieve that.