Collaboration technology affordances from virtual collaboration in the time of COVID-19 and post-pandemic strategies

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to explore key collaboration technology affordances from virtual collaboration and remote work during the time of COVID-19. The purpose of this exploration is to improve the understanding of technology-supported collaboration in order to achieve individual and organizational success with the adoption, use and implementation of virtual collaboration in a pandemic and post-pandemic world.

Design/methodology/approach

Qualitative data is collected from 55 graduate students during a time of work transition due to COVID-19. This paper distills key collaboration technology affordances identified from participant feedback.

Findings

This paper identifies topics of virtual collaboration success as well as challenges related to organizational transitions during COVID-19. The findings from this work relate to four collaboration technology affordances including: (1) flexibility and productivity, (2) social connectedness and organizational culture, (3) technology support and (4) management and leadership. Additionally, this research provides insight into the complexities of virtual collaboration in these areas while also making recommendations for the post-pandemic future.

Originality/value

This research makes a contribution through the analysis of a unique set of data elaborating on participant experiences during a global pandemic as well as through the exploration of future implications.

Citation

Mitchell, A. (2023), "Collaboration technology affordances from virtual collaboration in the time of COVID-19 and post-pandemic strategies", Information Technology & People, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1982-2008. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0003

1. Introduction

In the Spring of 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19, a global pandemic, impacting public health and leading to panic and social and economic disruption worldwide (Sharadgah and Sa'di, 2020). One year later, in March 2021, approximately 117 million COVID-19 cases had been reported globally, with over 2.61 million total deaths. In an attempt to mitigate the spread of the virus, various industries and organizations were forced into complete or partial lockdowns with employees sent home to follow shelter-in-place guidelines (PwC, 2020). For many organizations, these lockdown requirements changed employee work processes and created a heightened reliance on technology and virtual collaboration (Nah and Siau, 2020). This increasing rise of virtual collaboration is evident when considering the growth of Zoom, the popular videoconferencing app. According to reports, Zoom ended 2020 with more than 467,000 customers with 10 employees or more, representing a revenue increase of 326% for the year (Levy, 2021).

Virtual collaboration enables individuals to work together through the use of collaboration technologies (such as Zoom) and has been an important collaboration method studied for decades (Martins et al., 2004; Pinsonneault and Caya, 2005; Powell et al., 2004). However, the challenge of a global pandemic, specifically COVID-19, unexpectedly sent many employees into the uncharted scenario of working partly or entirely from home. This shift from face-to-face to remote work can be a significant change for organizations as employees have to learn how to connect and collaborate through the use of technology. A pandemic crisis further complicates this transition as individuals are simultaneously addressing work changes while also dealing with personal and family well-being challenges. Individuals were, in many cases, simultaneously challenged with virus concerns, financial instability and potential job loss. Families with children dealt with another level of disruption, with 1.2 billion children worldwide sent home from school (Xie et al., 2020). During COVID-19, employees found themselves facing many unknowns, including being ill-equipped and unprepared to work from home through the use of technology. In fact, a March 2020 PwC survey found 60% of organizational respondents concerned with employee productivity losses due to the lack of remote work capabilities (PwC, 2020). Additionally, an October 2020 McKinsey global survey of executives concluded the expected time to increase optimal remote work and collaboration within an organization should be 454 days (McKinsey, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations implemented this transition in an average of 10.5 days (McKinsey, 2020).

COVID-19 has certainly had a major impact on organizations in the short term (Nah and Siau, 2020). In the long term, questions remain surrounding employee work practices post-pandemic. For example, 54% of McKinsey global executives surveyed the increased remote work and collaboration during COVID-19 to continue post-pandemic (McKinsey, 2020). Another survey revealed 41% of employees are likely to continue working remotely at least part of the time post-pandemic compared to 30% of employees prior to the pandemic (Gartner, 2020). Therefore, the intent of this research is to learn about the transition from face-to-face to virtual collaboration in the time of COVID-19 in order to prepare for post-pandemic work.

As noted by Fink (2020), COVID-19 offers a unique opportunity to further explore and understand remote work and virtual collaboration as the pandemic has made commuting impossible or undesirable and the digitization of physical collaboration has been adopted at unprecedented levels. It is also not uncommon for researchers to study technology and work changes over a period of time (e.g. dot-com era, Tapia, 2004). The focus of this research is to learn from the first eight months of COVID-19 and to identify what worked during that time period as well as what did not work from the employee perspective regarding pandemic disruption in the workplace. This investigation aims to discover the virtual collaboration transition lessons that the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed to employees and organizational leaders.

Specifically, this paper aims to explore the benefits and challenges resulting from virtual collaboration during the time of COVID-19. Similar to Zammuto et al. (2007), the intent of this work is to use the concept of affordances to capture the interplay of technologies and organization employees as they transition to virtual collaboration and adapt to new work practices and possibilities, while also examining how this impacts the organization. The purpose of this exploration is to improve the understanding of technology-supported collaboration in order to achieve individual and organizational success. This paper analyzes a unique set of data elaborating on participant experiences during the COVID-19 global pandemic and poses the following research questions, which are the focus of this research as follows:

RQ1.

What are the collaboration technology affordances enabled through virtual collaboration during COVID-19?

RQ2.

What strategies (i.e. actions and goals) can be employed to aid in the successful implementation of virtual collaboration both during and post-pandemic?

The results and discussion of these research questions contribute to information systems (IS) research related to collaboration technologies and virtual collaboration as well as IT-associated organizational change while also providing implications as to what these findings mean for the future. The findings from this paper have implications for both research and practice.

2. Collaboration technologies for virtual collaboration

Collaboration is defined as “the process of two or more people working together on a common task” (Zigurs and Munkvold, 2006, p. 145). Collaboration among teams is often supported by collaboration technologies, which have been identified by many different terms including information and communication technologies, computer-mediated communication, electronic meeting systems and team spaces (Brown et al., 2010). These terms are all considered to be inclusive of the general concept of collaboration technology, loosely defined as “any technology that allows individuals to engage or collaborate with other individuals” (You and Robert, 2018, p. 379). Tools that fit under the label of collaboration technologies include e-mail, videoconferencing, groupware and instant messengers (Zigurs and Munkvold, 2006).

Collaboration technology researchers have made numerous attempts at classification (Brown et al., 2010; Zigurs and Munkvold, 2006). For example, one commonly cited classification matrix is the basic time/space matrix which suggests there are four types of activities and possible technology support for each activity type: (1) those that occur in the same place at the same time (e.g. face-to-face conversations with shared computer displays/monitors), (2) the same place at different times (e.g. groupware or team rooms such as SharePoint or Slack), (3) a different place at the same time (e.g. videoconferencing such as Zoom or Skype) and 4) those that occur in a different place at different times (e.g. email) (Baecker et al., 1995; Dix et al., 1998). Historically, this basic time/space matrix was useful; however, as collaboration technologies have evolved, there has been a move to combine various technology functionalities in order to support collaboration at any time and in any place, causing the classification of the technologies to cross into multiple areas of this matrix (Zigurs and Munkvold, 2006).

An alternative approach to classify collaboration technologies is based on collaboration technology capabilities that supports the blending of functionalities by various collaboration technologies, leading to the “bundling of capabilities” (e.g. Microsoft Teams) (Carte and Chidambaram, 2004; Zigurs and Khazanchi, 2008). The collaboration technology capabilities view suggests some technology capabilities limit aspects of face-to-face communication such as visual anonymity, participation equality and synchronous interaction (i.e. reductive capabilities), while others enhance collaboration such as coordination, electronic trail and enhanced capabilities (i.e. additive capabilities) (Carte and Chidambaram, 2004). The options for classifying collaboration technologies have similarities in that they are developed to make it easier to understand the options available for individuals seeking to collaborate virtually. However, the capabilities approach provides an adaptable way of considering the benefits and challenges of face-to-face collaboration compared with virtual collaboration as well as the flexibility for incorporating future and unanticipated developments in tools.

Researchers have studied the use of collaboration technologies for remote or virtual work for decades. In fact, one study from 1987 found employees working from home through the use of technology were faced with challenges of employee growth opportunities, work-home separation and childcare (Christensen, 1987). These challenges with virtual work have persisted over time, suggesting work that can occur “anytime/anyplace” may increase productivity while simultaneously negatively impacting quality of life (Davis, 2002).

Despite the challenges of virtual work, progress has been made on identifying key issues related to virtual or distributed collaboration (e.g. Martins et al., 2004; O'Leary et al., 2020; Pinsonneault and Caya, 2005; Powell et al., 2004). For example, several systematic reviews of virtual collaboration research have organized the contributions from prior studies in the development of input-processes-output (IPO) models (Martins et al., 2004; O'Leary et al., 2020; Pinsonneault and Caya, 2005; Powell et al., 2004). For the most part, these IPO models have the common dimensions of task, technology, situational or environmental factors and communication. These dimensions have all been studied in terms of their impact on virtual team performance, be it task-related (e.g. performance) or non-task related (e.g. satisfaction).

Research on virtual team tasks has found that the type of task a virtual team is working to accomplish, whether specific or ambiguous, does not make a difference if the team has developed a shared language and understanding of their team members and is compatible working together (Hollingshead et al., 1993). Research on virtual team technologies has found that the richer the technology the virtual team is using to communicate the greater the outcomes of the virtual teams (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Lack of cues provided by the technology, for instance, has been suggested as a cause of longer decision times (Cramton, 2002). Previous research on situational or environmental factors has considered dimensions like time and cultural differences as factors that impact virtual team outcomes. For example, cultural differences have been cited as sometimes leading to coordination and communication difficulties (Robey et al., 2000). Finally, research on communication has that found trust and mutual knowledge is necessary for team success and can be achieved through team building activities or training (Cramton, 2001; Mitchell and Zigurs, 2009). Additional research addressing virtual collaboration communication challenges has made recommendations for micro level actions (e.g. turn taking, addressing conversational conflicts) and macro level actions (e.g. virtual presence, social responsiveness, shared goals and identify) (Sarker and Sahay, 2003).

As mentioned previously, collaboration technologies can be used in different time and space combinations to support both face-to-face and virtual collaboration. Understandably, research suggests virtual teams rely on communication via collaboration technologies much more than traditional face-to-face teams who utilize technology for knowledge transfer (Großer and Baumöl, 2017). Hybrid teams, or teams who work together both face-to-face and through the use of technology, have been found to spend most of their day relying on communication through the use of collaboration technologies (Cousins et al., 2007). Furthermore, individuals who are a part of multiple virtual teams (i.e. multiple virtual team membership) face exacerbated collaboration technology communication challenges, including reduced learning (O'Leary et al., 2011), increased job strain (Pluut et al., 2014) and perceptions of overload (Bertolotti et al., 2015).

While previous research has looked at how to improve virtual collaboration processes with the use of collaboration technologies for existing team members, new employee onboarding is yet another important area of research to consider. For example, when established teams are working together solely through the use of collaboration technologies, new employees might “meet” their co-workers in a virtual environment for their interviews or initial introductions (Cummings and Dennis, 2018). In these cases, collaboration technologies such as enterprise social networking sites become even more vital to the development of individual perceptions. Additionally, e-mentoring and using technology for socializing and training individual employees has been recommended for employee development (Neely et al., 2017).

Even with the research and knowledge about how to successfully enable and support virtual collaboration, many organizations have yet to be successful in their transition to a virtual workforce (Eckhardt et al., 2019). However, the deployment of virtual collaboration is recognized by organizations as a way to meet flexibility and mobility needs, suggesting this transition is critical despite the potential impact or organizational growing pains (Großer and Baumöl, 2017). Thus, the research has called for additional exploration of how collaboration happens through the use of technology, including exploring the influence of COVID-19 (O'Leary et al., 2020) and furthering the understanding of what organizations can do to be successful in the transition from face-to-face to virtual work.

3. IT-associated organizational change and affordance theory

Organizational technology adoption, which includes the adoption of collaboration technologies, is a fundamental topic in IS research. One notable example is the widely applied technology acceptance model, which identified the constructs of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as fundamental for system usage (Davis, 1989; Lee et al., 2003). An updated version of this model has even been studied in relation to collaboration technology adoption finding social presence, immediacy and the ability to perform multiple tasks concurrently to be significant adoption factors (Brown et al., 2010).

Most often, the adoption and implementation of new organizational technologies follows an organizational agenda for workplace change (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Leonardi, 2009), a luxury that is not an option during the time of crisis (Pearson and Clair, 1998). In fact, little response time is a commonality of organizational crises whether the crisis is natural or man-made, along with other commonalities of ambiguity, low probability, possibly surprising and confrontation of a dilemma (Pearson and Clair, 1998). Additionally, communication, a critical dimension of successful virtual collaboration, has been found to be particularly challenging during a crisis due to technological barriers of infrastructure failure, non-acceptance of technology, use of different technology and social media (Fischer et al., 2016). Researchers have already recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a crisis situation having implications on organizational technology adoption (Hadidi and Power, 2020). Furthermore, COVID-19 challenges technology adoption as organizations and entire industries are being required to shift (temporarily, although this remains to be seen) when they were not planning, intending to or even interested in shifting (Dubey and Tripathi, 2020; Fink, 2020). One study of COVID-19 impact reviewed 100,000 Twitter comments and found the perceptions of people working from home due to the pandemic to be a new experience for most, with sentiments ranging from feeling very excited to feeling very hopeless (Dubey and Tripathi, 2020).

Related to the topic of organizational technology is the concept of sociomateriality, which investigates an entanglement between the social and material in organizational life and how that manifests itself in technology, workplace and organizational choices (Orlikowski, 2007). Research from Leonardi (2009) supports this view, suggesting there is a misalignment of organizational technology's material features as the implementation of organizational technology often dismisses individual interpretations of technology and other human factors. Research has continued to call for further study of individual, organizational and society influences in an effort to understand the interface and interaction between organizations and technology as current ubiquitous technologies (at home and at work) offer benefits and challenges (Pauleen et al., 2015). In a situation where organizational employees are solely working from their homes, as prompted by COVID-19, the distinction between technology, work and organization is blurred, potentially complicating these ideas even further. Therefore, the dramatic digital revolution resulting from COVID-19 offers a particularly unique opportunity to explore and understand key affordances of collaboration technology from an organizational perspective as the adoption of remote work and virtual collaboration is at an unprecedented level (Fink, 2020). For this research, it is, therefore, useful to consider the theory of affordances as a lens for understanding collaboration technology adoption for virtual collaboration use during a global pandemic.

The theory of affordances was originally developed in order to explain how observers are able to orient objects in their world by considering the possibilities that objects may afford, noting that affordances of an object may vary based on the observer (Gibson, 1979). In relation to technology, the use of affordances offers a lens to explain the relationship between technology and an organization, suggesting that while technology and organizations exist independently of one another, their value comes from how they are enacted together (Jónasdóttir and M; Zammuto et al., 2007). Previous research has used the theory of affordances to explore human–computer interaction (Norman, 1988), mobile devices (Cousins and Robey, 2015), wearable technology (Benbunan-Fich, 2020), and even enterprise social media (Laitinen and Sivunen, 2021) and digital innovation in an organizational context (Jónasdóttir and Müller, 2020). Prior research has attempted to conceptualize affordances in relation to how a technology is used within an organizational context suggesting “one cannot talk about a complex technology without reference to the social setting” (Zammuto et al., 2007, p. 752). This is certainly the case when considering how collaboration technology can enable and challenge virtual collaboration within an organization during a pandemic.

Prior research emphasizes the relational perspective of affordances, with a focus on affordances in interaction. For example, Majchrzak and Markus (2012) argue that affordances and constraints are neither properties of human actors nor technology but should be viewed as potential interactions between actors and technology. This view suggests affordances are not necessarily built-in features of a technology but instead emerge through the interaction between technology and human actors (Jónasdóttir and Müller, 2020). Furthermore, it may be there are multiple possible outcomes of affordance actualization as the actualization of affordances does not always follow the logic of cause-and-effect (Arnold, 2003), and while human actors have the abilities and means to actualize available affordances, this is not always the case (Strong et al., 2014). While affordances are independent of perceptions, a human actor's ability to recognize the affordances of a technology may, in fact, is determined by their background and purpose, including culture, experiences, social settings and intentions (Gaver, 1991).

Affordance theory has often been adopted as a lens for exploratory work in understanding the interaction between human actors and technology (e.g. Cousins and Robey, 2015; Jónasdóttir and Müller, 2020; Strong et al., 2014). For example, Strong et al. (2014) used the theory of affordances in examining the implementation of an electronic health record system in order to develop an affordance-based theory of IT-associated organizational change. Specifically, this work identified precise technology features, human actor characteristics and examples from observational data in order to pinpoint affordance actualization actions and goals (Strong et al., 2014). There have been some prior studies of collaboration technology affordances, though not specific to virtual collaboration. For example, a study of collaboration technology in a physical space identified affordances for vision, listening, movement, interactive movement and predictable interaction (Gaver, 1992), while another study of the implementation of Microsoft SharePoint identified processes for technology affordances perception to include imitation, exploration and transformation as important steps toward affordance actualization (Lehrig et al., 2017). In the current study, the COVID-19 pandemic provides the opportunity to explore collaboration technology adoption during a crisis and to understand what organizations need to do to maintain and improve collaboration technology adoption post-pandemic. It is this interaction between human actors and the use of collaboration technologies for their work that will allow for the identification of affordances as technology affordances define user perceptions of a technology platform and its usage possibilities (Laitinen and Sivunen, 2021). As in the research from Strong et al. (2014), post-pandemic lessons and strategies (i.e. actions and goals) can be uncovered by specifically studying employee successes and difficulties in adjusting to new work processes with the actualization of collaboration technology affordances.

Taken together, a review of literature on collaboration technologies for virtual collaboration combined with an understanding of IT-associated organizational change and technology affordances reveals a need to understand the transition and organizational adoption of collaboration technologies and the resulting affordances during a time of a crisis. Research has recognized a need for further exploration of the organizational adoption of collaboration technologies (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Großer and Baumöl, 2017) and the rapid development of COVID-19 has greatly accelerated this adoption across industries around the world (Dubey and Tripathi, 2020). In fact, a systematic review of collaboration technology research has identified an increased need to thoroughly examine the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of distributed collaboration particularly in light of “entire organizations” being rapidly “forced” into the adoption of virtual collaboration technologies as this type of adoption may have a lasting impact on the success of distributed collaboration usage (O'Leary et al., 2020, p. 477). This study attempts to address this gap using the theory of affordances as a lens for understanding collaboration technology adoption and organizational use during a pandemic.

4. Research methodology and data collection

4.1 Research method

Survey research has been identified as an important experimental method used in IS research (Kerlinger, 1986; Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1993). For this study, a survey research design was used relying primarily on qualitative measures to explore virtual collaboration experiences and preferences during COVID-19. Qualitative data was collected soliciting feedback related to the benefits and challenges of remote work as well as an explanation of participant experiences. Additionally, data related to participant demographics and participant interest (or lack of interest) in remote work post-pandemic was collected. Participants were asked several open-ended questions to capture perceptions related to the pros and cons of virtual collaboration and their experiences during the time of COVID-19. Specifically, questions focused on four key areas: (1) current remote work arrangement (e.g. in the time of COVID-19 what is your work experience like; what are some of the technologies and processes you are using to get work done); (2) remote work benefits (e.g. what is going well; what aspects are positive); (3) remote work challenges (e.g. what is not going well; what aspects are negative) and (4) post-pandemic future (e.g. how would you prefer to move forward post-pandemic; what might the future of your work arrangement look like). The goal was to identify individual and organizational successes and struggles related to collaboration technology usage for virtual collaboration during this work transition, while also capturing individual preferences for post-pandemic work arrangements.

4.2 Research participants

Graduate business students enrolled in an MBA course with an emphasis on IT and business were used as the primary data source for this study. The perspectives of MBA students are useful in exploring the research questions from this study as often these students are either current or future organizational leaders. The survey instrument was distributed to a total of 55 graduate students (30 women and 25 men) in both the summer and fall 2020 semesters. Overall, the research participants represented a variety of organizational and industry sectors (e.g. insurance, agriculture, manufacturing, financial services, government and legal) and varied in their years of professional work experience. Remote work experience among the participants ranged from some participants working remotely prior to COVID-19 (18.2%), to the majority of participants transitioning to remote work during COVID-19 (74.5%) and even a few essential employees who did not move to remote work during COVID-19 (7.3%). Furthermore, the two different time periods of data collection allow for understanding both early pandemic solutions (in May 2020) as well as lessons after several months of transition (in September 2020). Altogether, these different backgrounds and experiences offer a diversity of perspectives that is helpful in developing and understanding the use of collaboration technologies for virtual collaboration in the time of COVID-19. Table 1 summarizes the participant demographics.

4.3 Data collection and analysis

An analysis of participant data informs the findings from this research. Specifically, this research follows an interpretive approach with the use of grounded theory for the systematic gathering and analysis of data for the discovery of themes and patterns (Klein and Myers, 1999; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory is a useful methodology for this study as it allows a focus on organizational practices and the interpretations of those practices by individual participants (Suddaby, 2006). For this study, the qualitative data gathered from the participants was analyzed using the open coding technique. This method is helpful for conceptualizing the responses to descriptive survey questions through the process of naming and categorizing themes and patterns in the data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) and has been successfully applied in previous studies of affordances (e.g. Cousins and Robey, 2015; Strong et al., 2014).

To begin the process of data analysis, all of the qualitative participant comments were exported into an Excel spreadsheet for review. Altogether, 394 rows of data were collected and analyzed. In attempt to identify key collaboration technology affordances enabled through virtual collaboration during COVID-19, the data in this study when through multiple rounds of review. In the first few rounds of data review, participant comments were classified as either positive or negative. Subsequent to the initial coding (positive or negative), data was further labeled based on comment similarities. Specifically, positive aspects of virtual collaboration during COVID-19 were identified using labels of flexibility (57), productivity (55), commute time (39), satisfaction (23), location independence (21), social relationships (21), childcare (20), sustainability (19), technology (19), informal dress (17), recruiting (14), health (9) and pet care (3). Negative aspects of virtual collaboration included social relationships (94), productivity (49), leadership (46), work-home separation (35), technology (24), measurement (21), lack of fit (18), spontaneity (17), childcare (16), satisfaction (16), health (9), privacy and security (8), conflict management (4) and pet care (1). It should be noted some of the participants' comments were given multiple labels in cases where feedback fit within two areas (e.g. a comment about decreased “commute time” allowing for increased “productivity”).

As grounded theory methodology recommends, the data from this study went through an iterative process of constant comparison as the data was read and reread to identify themes, connections and emerging patterns (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This process was adopted in order to identify patterns across the participant comments in this study. Ultimately, as visualized in Figure 1, the data was categorized into key themes or affordances related to flexibility and productivity, social connectedness and organizational culture, technology support and management and leadership. These affordances are presented as findings from this research.

5. Research findings

The first research question from this study asks: What are the collaboration technology affordances enabled through virtual collaboration during COVID-19? The analysis of participant comments revealed four key themes of consideration for virtual collaboration during COVID-19. These themes include (1) flexibility and productivity, (2) social connectedness and organizational culture, (3) technology support and (4) management and leadership. The following sections describe how each of these collaboration technology affordances were identified with support from specific individual comments followed by a participant number and job title.

5.1 Flexibility and productivity

In the review of data, comments related to the collaboration technology affordance of flexibility and productivity were overwhelmingly highlighted as the most commonly referenced benefits of virtual collaboration during COVID-19. To begin, this affordance is enabled by the reliance of organizations on collaboration technology, as organizations and employees benefited by having the flexibility to be out of the office and to continue work productivity during the shut-down period. This idea is illustrated by the comment as follows:

Due to COVID-19 our entire organization moved to a remote work environment in mid-March. I have heard from staff and other colleagues their recognition of the challenges of working remotely but also the benefits of the situation. Leaders in the organization who had been hesitant to allow remote work due to the lack of trust they had in their employees are now realizing work is still being completed, productivity is often higher in some cases and the ability to stay connected to employees could not have been made easier due to the use of technology. [21, Executive Director of Finance]

On the other hand, this value of this affordance was not recognized by all participants. Specifically, there were some industries and jobs represented where remote work was not suitable. This included a marine, a firefighter and a manufacturing line worker, as well as some employees, who were able to do some but not all of their tasks remotely (e.g. workshops, usability testing and printing). For example, one comment suggested as follows:

I need to be in the office Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for at least 4 hours a day due to printing payables checks and other responsibilities. [1, Accountant]

Flexibility related to scheduling was often recognized as a benefit to virtual collaboration. Some of the participant comments noted the benefit of being able to organize their day to allow for housework or chores (e.g. do a load of laundry, start dinner or take a child to the doctor) or to accommodate organizational meetings in other time zones. The comment illustrates this idea as follows:

I work across the globe with numerous time zones, so I have conference calls and request throughout the day and evening. Having the ability to be flexible; my schedule allows for personal tasks (workout, dinner preparation, golf) to occur in the middle of my day. [13, Director of Global Support]

Alternatively, this work flexibility was a challenge for those who need more structure to get their work done. One respondent noted as follows:

There is something about the accountability of an office that helps with keeping people on task and the support of your co-workers to aid in the event of a snag in the road. [33, Law Clerk]

The data included several comments citing productivity benefits due to the minimization of wasted time (whether that be commute time, time spent getting ready in the morning, showering after the gym or even social work conversations) as follows:

I find that I actually work more while working remotely than being in the office. The office can have more interruptions at times and working at home I often find myself not even realizing its lunch time and working until 2pm then taking a break. I find the time collaborating with teammates on issues or projects is much more structured and progress is made more rapidly than in the office. There is less time for work chatter and more focused on getting through a WebEx, Google Meet, etc. to complete projects. [17, Technical Analyst]

On the other side of this argument was the concern about too much work connectivity and productivity. Many respondents noted the need for more work-home life separation as work was bleeding too much into their home life. One respondent shared as follows:

I look at it as my home is where I go to relax from work. I have found that the more I work from home, the more I carry the same emotions (stress, irritation, etc.) I have at work at home as well. This can (and has) caused issues within my family. When I stopped working from home as much, things got a lot better. [1, Accountant]

In relation to flexibility and productivity, the topic of childcare and pet care was highlighted a number of times. The challenge with childcare is a unique virtual collaboration challenge due to the pandemic because of the closure of schools. However, some respondents highlighted the home flexibility of childcare as a major benefit during this time. For example:

The flexibility myself and our team has been given from this new structure has been extremely impactful with all the school closings occurring at the same time. I have had several team members comment to me their appreciation with our organization in allowing them to work remote during this time and have the ability to watch after their children. Without this flexibility; we would have individuals who would have to make a choice between their kids and their job which is something no parent should have to choose. [2, Complaints Manager]

Alternatively, having children or pets at home was considered a distraction from work and was sometimes identified as a major challenge:

I have found that many people find it less distracting to work from home. I actually find the opposite. I have two very “needy” dogs who end up annoying me more than social co-workers in the office. [1, Accountant]

Finally, there were comments suggesting work flexibility can be viewed as an employee benefit. For example:

The personal schedule suddenly opens up and you have a greater ability to adjust to kid's schedules, get a jump start on the long weekend road trip, be available for the electrician to stop by the house, etc. Suddenly, there's less pressure to use paid time off (PTO) in the winter when you're facing icy roads and blizzard conditions in the morning on your commute. This flexibility can really improve the employee retention rate and overall satisfaction. [55, Accounting Associate]

Ultimately, the comments related to the collaboration technology affordance of flexibility and productivity highlighted a number of benefits and challenges. Overall, the flexibility and productivity comments were primarily positive. However, there were also negative aspects of virtual collaboration identified. Again, because affordances do not exist in a vacuum, the value placed on the flexibility and productivity of collaborating virtually depended largely on an individual's background and purpose within the larger social structure of a COVID-19 world, as it does for all following affordances in this study.

5.2 Social connectedness and organizational culture

While the affordance of flexibility and productivity received the most positive attention, social connectedness and organizational culture received the most negative attention. Due to the lockdown and shelter-in-place restrictions from COVID-19, numerous comments about the lack of social connectedness were highlighted in the comments, suggesting that social connectivity requires much more planned and intentional effort in a virtual setting. For example:

Carrying the personality type that I carry itcan be a little more difficult without true human interaction. This could be different had I not lived alone, but that's how I live. Part of this interaction is with the team in which you work. This is much less interaction when you're not in an office next to one another, rather you're a Zoom, Skype or Teams meeting away which must be planned accordingly. [7, Underwriter]

This social connectedness was not only a concern from the individual perspective but also when considering organizational culture and teamwork as one respondent wrote as follows:

I have also noticed that it is harder to gel as a team and have relationships with other teams, if there is a lack of face-to-face time. It can also be harder to sustain positive culture or change culture positively if leaders are not with the employees. While some of my staff is happier working remotely, due to safety and commute times being diminished, others on my team are less happy due to the lack of interpersonal interactions. [14, IT Director]

On the other hand, there were comments about teams who were able to utilize technology to maintain their social connectivity, suggesting that social connectedness and organizational culture is an affordance of collaboration technologies. Specifically, this affordance is realized by the use of technology for individuals and teams to connect and engage in ways to develop and enhance social connections and culture. For example:

I was extremely concerned about losing all the hard work we had done to create a unique and fun working culture. Many of the teams had bonded and work extremely well together within the office. To my shock, in the two months we have been remote, the team bonding and culture has only increased. As I started to dive into this with my management team and front-line employees; many mentioned how much more comfortable the team is communicating via a chat/instant messaging platform as opposed to face-to-face. I have been blown away by this development and tend to wonder how much of it is generational driven. Many of my front-line team members would fall within the millennial designation and I believe they are just more comfortable communicating in that form as opposed to previous generations who prefer more face-to-face interaction. [2, Complaints Manager]

With the transition from face-to-face work to virtual collaboration, concerns about maintaining social connection and culture did include the ability to address any miscommunications and manage conflict. For example:

The one thing that makes me nervous is the potential for conflict to be escalated. It is much easier to diffuse conflict if you have a conversation with someone over coffee or around a conference table then it is to manage conflict through a series of emails, texts, Skype calls, etc. [10, Compliance Leader]

Concerns about engagement and presence were also expressed, as the use of technology can present distractions during virtual collaborations with individuals using technology to multitask or not be fully present as follows:

During the virtual chats that I do have with co-workers currently, I still feel like we are tempted to have another tab open or our minds working on the next task instead of fully engaging with others. [55, Accounting Associate]

On the other hand, some participant comments suggested that collaboration technology offered a useful way for teams to work together and engage when operating in different locations. One respondent stated as follows:

Connectivity is still a possibility through the use of virtual happy hours through Zoom, where you and your team meet up and play getting to know you games, or you meet in person if that is a possibility (in my role, my colleagues are all over the USA. so it's not a possibility to meet in person). I believe that we can maintain the human connection and still work remotely, but we have to be smart about the work/life balance…We've played two truths and a lie, guess the person where we send in a baby picture and it's shown, or trivia where we all send our answers through the chat in Zoom. It's a very creative way to keep the connection between our colleagues as remote workers. We've even had virtual [holiday] parties where you bring your drink of choice and dress up, ugly sweaters or best costume. [15, Project Manager]

Of course, concerns with social connectivity were not only for small teams and groups. Some comments highlighted the importance of the intentional development of these types of connections with outside clients as follows:

Face-to-face contact with clients is so important to creating and maintaining a strong relationship and building trust. It has been much more difficult to achieve this type of relationship, especially with new clients, over the phone or virtually. [42, Criminal Defense Attorney]

However, technology was able to be used successfully by some participants to create engagement opportunities and expand networks. One respondent remarked as follows:

Working remotely has forced me to focus tremendous time and effort on building relationships with not only my team but other departments in our organization. Because of time invested in forming rapport with other leaders in our organization, I've been asked to participate in projects, discussions and decisions that my role would typically not have been asked to be a part of. [21, Executive Director of Finance]

Ultimately, comments related to the affordance of social connectedness and organizational culture suggested that some individuals were able to build on their face-to-face connections in order to collaborate virtually without the loss of culture and community. However, other comments highlighted concerns about the social and organizational challenges with virtual work and the potential loss for spontaneous conversations, idea generation and problem solving. For example:

I think that finding the balance between remote work and in person is crucial to having the most effective workplace. I also get a lot more done at home with less distraction than in the office, but without casual in-person collaboration and connection I feel as though I lose out on ideas that I may not have obtained without that type of social setting. [12, Small Business Owner/Entrepreneur]

The biggest con I've experienced in remote work is not being able to interact with my co-workers as much. There are not the “water cooler” conversations that happen in the office and most of our attempts to replicate that have not been overly successful. [29, Actuary]

In sum, while flexibility and productivity received mostly positive attention, in order to take advantage of the social connectedness and organizational culture affordance of collaboration technology, leaders and employees need to intentionally focus and commit to the development of social connections and culture in a virtual environment.

5.3 Technology support

The third theme from the data in this study relates to the actual support offered by technology during COVID-19. Specifically, the collaboration technology affordance of technology support is portrayed by the use of tools and features that allowed individuals to continue to work despite global disruption. This idea is illustrated by the comment as follows:

The last couple months have changed my work environment and methods significantly. In mid-March I was suddenly sent to work at home with my laptop and a VPN connection and nothing else. A couple weeks later my entire team was sent home with their laptops and VPN. We were part of the lucky ones; we were part of emergency preparedness and had our own laptops. [27, Commercial Accounts Manager]

Of course, technology challenges related to network connectivity, hardware and software issues were often cited as key concerns. One respondent noted as follows:

I've had first-hand experience now where I'm attending Zoom or Teams meetings and my Internet download rate is not at the rate it needs to be, so I lose connection to the meeting and team. [7, Underwriter]

Somewhat predictably, homes with multiple individuals (e.g. spouses, children) relying on Internet connections were especially pressed for resources. For example:

Next week, three of my four kids will be starting virtual school and I am just now thinking about running multiple meetings off our personal Internet. Hopefully our connectivity will be able to handle that! [48, Placement Coordinator]

However, it is important to note that with appropriate preparation, planning and resources, these concerns were often able to be mitigated. Multiple respondents addressed how their organizations were able to ensure successful work-from-home arrangements as follows:

All the tools I need to do my job are available from my apartment, thanks especially to the company's VPN and IT team that keep our applications up and running. The only steps to getting to work in the morning is logging in and going from there…Since I have the ability to work outside of normal business hours right now, I can work later into the day if a task requires it. [28, Staff Accountant]

I am fortunate in that my company has been planning for remote working for at least six years. Ours were mostly surrounding weather- or building- related issues, but we were on target when the pandemic hit. People were told prior to the offices closing to take their additional monitor and docking station home…and it appears we are not going back anytime soon. [15, Project Manager]

Interestingly, several participants recognized how the necessarily rapid transition from face-to-face to virtual work forced organizations to speed up technological advancements and processes. In fact, a few participants elaborated on these changes as follows:

We used to pass around paper documents and hand-sign off on them. These documents would be lost, and the creator would have to go hunt it down and figure out who had it last, who they passed it to and complete the process until finding the individual who had lost it on their desk of papers. Not only have we saved paper and printing costs, but we have learned how to keep electronic files and use simple systems to signal to leaders that we have reviewed or signed off on a document. We are continuing our work with Oracle to push our systems to house our data for us rather than having paper files. These automations are allowing people to be more productive as they are allowing people to not spend as much time on the process and more time on the core of their work. [47, Category Manager]

I quickly learned that I could work 100% remote. I learned how to print to PDF and learned how to edit PDFs and sign them electronically. I got a lot better at Zoom meetings and WebEx. I even got my camera to work on my laptop. [53, Director of Treasury]

The pandemic forced many of us to start using tech tools and apps we previously pushed off “for another day.” I'll be interested to see how we evolve again once we're safely able to be together with many people again. [36, Public Relations Manager]

In some cases, individual technology concerns were recognized and addressed by organizational leadership as the virtual collaboration processes matured. For example, some organizations responded with increased investments in software and hardware as follows:

We recently got the Microsoft 365 suite that includes Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, Planner, Power Automate to name a few and this has helped tremendously. [18, Pricing Manager]

I asked for feedback on working at home last week from my team…the main complaint was the lack of monitors for all our tools which is something that the company is investigating a long-term solution. [27, Commercial Accounts Manager]

The importance of privacy and security in a virtual setting was another concern, especially as it related to government employees, corporate research and development, technology and auditor roles. For example:

We have to be more careful that employees are using the right measures to connect remotely into our systems, servers, etc. because it's harder to control someone's security and patches on their PCs while home than using an office provided form of connecting and working. [17, Technical Analyst]

A huge advantage of working remotely in my field is having a record of everything that was given or said. If I need a document, I can email somebody and ask for it. That email record makes future review extremely easy. An almost overwhelming con of remote work is that it is easier to send falsified documents over email because I do not get to actually look at whatever I'm using as support, but a copy of it instead. [54, Auditor]

In contrast to the challenges, many were positive about the affordance of technology support in relation to aspects including location independence, workforce diversity and accessibility and even sustainability benefits as follows:

I have spent several weeks at a time in Florida (not on vacation), working. Creating my own flexible workspace that accomplishes personal desires (enjoying Florida) and work tasks using technology supported by [company]. [13, Director of Global Support]

The primary advantage at this time is obviously that housebound employees can continue to work during the pandemic. [27, Commercial Accounts Manager]

Not having to commute to work. This saves me over an hour a day. I am saving on gas and the environment is thanking me. And since I am printing to PDF, I am saving some trees. [53, Director of Treasury]

Overall, the collaboration technology affordance related to the actual support offered by technology can be realized through preparation, planning and making sure employees have the necessary resources (network access, hardware, software, security protocols and space to work). Employees who had these resources, either prior to or soon after beginning, to work remotely largely reported that they were able to contribute as needed.

5.4 Management and leadership

The final affordance of collaboration technologies identified in this study is the affordance of management and leadership. This affordance is enabled by the reliance on collaboration technologies to direct, lead and check-in with employees through the use of virtual collaboration tools and processes, as the respondents state as follows:

At the start of the pandemic, my manager, who enjoys micromanaging, would call and text me several times each hour. She was not rude or anything, but I believe she got nervous not being able to see me and my co-workers. The funny thing is she realized that she cannot do that if she wants to get her own work done and is now one of the most lenient managers that I have ever worked for! [54, Auditor]

I do think many managers expect to have more problems with employees then they find after trying it. A good employee will make good work decisions regardless of location. The employees we see struggling were the same ones struggling on site for the most part. [27, Commercial Accounts Manager]

When it comes to project-based work…when you show you trust your team and the work is getting done, they tend to work harder. [15, Project Manager]

Alternatively, some leaders commented that they were challenged in their reliance on technology to manage their teams. For example:

We fail to realize how “physical” of being we truly are. Our ability to convey messages with our body is an underrated attribute of a work environment, and it can really cut down on inherent sleaziness that is associated with remote working. Learning how to achieve that same level of productivity and control remotely is definitely a skill in it of itself. [39, Financial Analyst]

In some cases, managers struggled to create structure for their employees. Likewise, monitoring and addressing performance proved to be difficult as follows:

As a team manager…I am having to learn how to balance my assignments to them. I have also seen some declines in the metrics that we use to evaluate them, and I am still figuring out if that is due to less direct supervision, different environment or something else…may be the design of the metrics…or it may be that our work has changed a bit with the pandemic. [27, Commercial Accounts Manager]

I also miss my employees. It is very hard to supervise them when I cannot see them. [53, Director of Treasury]

Interestingly, some leaders were able to identify creative methods to motive, reward and engage their teams. For example:

Some creative ways to challenge them, even though you cannot be there, is to set up goals for them to meet and then they get a certain prize like sending them a Sandwich from Jimmy John's or a bag of candy. Little things make a big difference. [15, Project Manager]

Another important task for managers and leaders is the onboarding of new employees. In fact, there were a number of comments related to challenges with new employees onboarding during the pandemic, as the respondents indicate as follows:

During this timeframe I onboarded two employees. One received a single work week in the office for face-to-face interactions before switching to remote work; the other has worked entirely remotely for the past four months. In both cases, my employees and I had to determine what the best way to connect was. Did it mean scheduling short check-in's frequently during the day or was it longer, less frequent discussions? The playbook was different for each, but the overriding constant was that the more potential for communication the more successful the onboarding. [45, Senior Financial Accountant]

I started leading an employee for the first time in June, which means we've never met face-to-face. I realized so much of how I thought I'd connect with a new direct report involved face-to-face interaction. It was hard on the fly to figure out how to build a genuine connection with the employee, who was also new to our company and working full time (she is a recent college graduate). Ultimately patience, persistence and learning to overcommunicate helped us forge a strong working relationship. [36, Public Relations Manager]

Certainly, the job description, duties and expectations of both the employees and managers change when working virtually instead of face-to-face. In some cases, leaders were successfully able to adapt and develop creative solutions for onboarding. One such leader noted as follows:

It has definitely required me to be very proactive in setting up times for my new employee to meet people that they will be working with. I have been joining the beginning of meetings to start the introduction and then stepping out to give them time to chat without me in the picture. [45, Senior Financial Accountant]

Another response showed how the challenge of new leadership was not solved until moving back into the office:

I was able to promote into a new role when we were first sent away from the office and gained a new supervisor as well. This individual did not know me or my quirks, and the only way we communicated for the first three months of my new role was via the phone or WebEx calls. He did not always understand where my struggles were and how I was feeling in the role as I also was not comfortable with this individual and sharing my faults with them. Since we have been able to have meetings in the office again (while social distanced and wearing masks) I have learned more about my role and goals than I did in the first 4 months of the job. I believe it is really hard to join a new team or company where everyone works remote and you have to schedule a call to ask a question. I believe this could create more silos if it continues as fewer people will know each other and the barriers between departments could become huge. [47, Category Manager]

In relation to employee well-being and the management of work-life balance, a number of participants did recognize value from virtual collaboration on both their physical and mental health. For example, participants said as follows:

When you work from home you do not have to commute allowing you more time to pursue other activities like working out, eating at home and healthier or time to see your kids during a break. A great example is I've had days where I have 6am, 7am, 8am and 9am meetings and cannot sit anymore. At 10 I go for a 40-minute run, and when I get back, I do not have to worry about people smelling me and can just get back to business. I've run more this year already the all of last year. [18, Pricing Manager]

I checked in with my entire team last week to see if they needed to take time off for mental health or anything and to make sure they knew it was okay to do so. Some took up on it; others at least have it in back of their minds. [11, Small Business Owner/Entrepreneur]

While many comments about employee health were positive (e.g. safety from COVID-19), there were some employees who were facing challenges in establishing a work–home life separation and struggled how that could be managed. Some individuals, for instance, had relied on their commute time for preparation and unwinding and had not successfully established a new method for that while at home. Others simply found parts of their lives which were previously separate now being blurred in ways they had not foreseen. The responses highlight these struggles as follows:

I have noticed that when I work from home, I take less breaks and I work longer hours, because it is harder for me to define where my workday ends. I assume I am not the only one that works that way from home. [51, Business Support Consultant]

The elimination of a commute saves us in gas costs, mileage, time, etc. Yet, we'll also be missing that quiet time in the car before and after work which often serves as therapeutic and helpful for a good “zoning out.” Similarly, the ability to wake up and walk to your work desk in your pajamas is incredibly convenient but this work from home model may also dilute your sense of “home” with work occupying the space which you live in. It seems like our organization has been increasingly favoring outcomes rather than traditional working arrangements as they are planning for greater flexibility in the future. [55, Accounting Associate]

Finally, from an organizational perspective, there were some gains related to costs savings (e.g. decreased building costs, rent, printing and cleaning staff) that were recognized as follows:

I also personally feel that post the Covid-19 pandemic world will change, and hence along with that the business strategies and models associated with it. Work from home will be the new norm as companies will realize that they can save huge costs by not maintaining offices and supplementary staff associated with janitors, cleaners, etc. It will be interesting to see how the productivity levels phase out with so much work from home happening in the near future. [6, Census Analyst]

In fact, a number of respondents commented that they believed the pandemic changes were going to lead to long-term organizational changes in their workplaces. For example:

I expect more organizations to extend their current remote work expectation while adopting a permanent remote policy after the pandemic is declared closed. With the right tools and people in place, leaders can continue effectively managing the productivity and expected deliverables while ensuring employees continue to be successful in their respective roles without recasting performance metrics. [20, Technology Program Manager]

Like the other affordances identified in this study, the comments related to the collaboration technology affordance of management and leadership suggest technology needs to be used in an intentional way for employees to gain or maintain an understanding of their work and feedback on their performance. Managers in this environment need to regularly connect with their employees and team members to check on-task status, address any questions or workload concerns as well as motivate and reward work.

6. Discussion

Along with the qualitative feedback from this study, participants were asked directly about their post-pandemic work preferences. Of the 55 participants in this study, 32.7% (18) were looking forward to returning to the office full time following COVID-19, 27.3% (15) would like to remain fully remote and 40% (22) would prefer to move forward with a hybrid arrangement (partly in office and partly remote). These findings show nearly a 10% increase in post-pandemic fully remote work, as only 18.2% of the participants were fully remote pre-pandemic (see Table 1). Furthermore, these findings highlight that the majority of participants in this study (67.3%) are looking forward to taking advantage of collaboration technology affordances in their post-pandemic work suggesting the importance of developing an understanding of the application of the affordances identified in this study.

Prior research has identified the concept of affordance actualization as the actions necessary for individuals to realize affordance potential (Strong et al., 2014). Therefore, in order to further understand pandemic and post-pandemic applications of the collaboration technology affordances identified in this work, previous research is used as a guide for identifying specific actions and goals that can be employed to aid in the successful actualization of each affordance from this study. This analysis addresses the second research question from this study which asks: What strategies (i.e. actions and goals) can be employed to aid in the successfully implementation of virtual collaboration both during and post-pandemic?

The structure of Table 2, modified from Strong et al. (2014), highlights each of the four affordances outlined above along with the specific collaboration technology capabilities and employee characteristics necessary for engaging with those capabilities. In this study, the collaboration technology capabilities perspective has been adopted as opposed to “technology features,” as the capabilities perspective is a more flexible way for categorizing and understanding collaboration technology features (Carte and Chidambaram, 2004; Zigurs and Khazanchi, 2008). The relation between the first two columns in Table 2 allows for the actualization of each affordance, which is summarized by highlighting the goal-directed actions necessary as well as any applicable post-pandemic goals and organizational context necessary for success. An example from the participant comments is included in the table for illustration.

While reviewing Table 2 and considering the future strategies (i.e. actions and goals) from this study, the affordance of flexibility and productivity has several implications for organizations. Collaboration technology capabilities that support employees to work productively anywhere, at any time, removes a number of constraints and presents multiple opportunities (Davis, 2002). In fact, some of the personal experiences in this study highlighted entrepreneurial and global opportunities. For example, one of the participants was the owner and founder of an online personal training fitness company with multiple streams of revenue from video training, one-on-ones and online merchandise sales. Other respondents included employees of national and global organizations who were regularly altering their schedules to connect with team members in different time zones. To actualize this affordance, it is necessary for organizations to provide the necessary technology access to IS. Likewise, employees need to be able to flex their schedules to focus on individual and collaborative work when best suited.

The collaboration technology affordance of social connectiveness and organizational culture recognizes the intent of virtual collaboration is not to replicate face-to-face work online. Rather, the intent should be to use the technology to afford employee engagement with co-workers (and clients) in different ways depending on the goals of the organization and relevant employees. Some of the participants in this research found success with regular synchronous check-ins, suggesting that regular real-time communication can provide team members with confidence that they are working toward the same goals. Teams should work to find times during the day or week that work for team members to synchronously interact using videoconferencing, text or instant messaging, without having to wait for slow electronic feedback. For example, managers might consider daily team huddles or weekly individual one-on-ones to develop and nurture organizational culture. Of course, task-technology fit should be considered, as scheduling a videoconference to ask a yes/no question is going to result in Zoom-fatigue when a quick phone call, instant message or even email might be sufficient (Junglas et al., 2008). Fully virtual organizations may try to hold in-person meetings for a few days each quarter in a central location to develop social connections and organizational culture. Alternatively, hybrid approaches might be adopted post-pandemic to aid in this development.

The affordance of technology support is focused on employee access and use of technology. When organizations are relying on collaboration technologies for work productivity, it is critical that technology not be an impediment. To actualize this affordance, organizations need to consider making the necessary technology infrastructure investments to ensure their employees can be productive. This may include VPN, videoconferencing or other groupware investments. Organizations may also consider investing in (or paying for) WiFi for remote employees. Archaic paper processes may need to be digitized with the support of the IT team. Additionally, the technology team may be asked to create instruction videos and documents or use virtual assist to make sure employee technology challenges are limited or addressed as needed. Finally, proactive interventions, education and workforce training on how to use technology to work in remote positions could be advantageous in lessening the learning curve for employees and organizations alike (Mitchell and Zigurs, 2013).

Lastly, the collaboration technology affordance of management and leadership suggests that managers need to be comfortable with an outcome-oriented focus for employee performance as opposed to a behavior-oriented focus in order to ensure work productivity. Leaders need to regularly communicate, document, connect and check in with their employees to identify challenges and roadblocks as well as trust that teams are doing what they need to be. Additionally, new employee onboarding processes may need to be established for the virtual environment. Organizational surveys may be a useful technique for identifying big-picture needs and feedback related to organizational processes and leadership. In relation to employee well-being, managers need to be an example and encourage work boundaries including clarifying “expectations around when and how frequently employees are expected to engage” because even though virtual collaboration allows employees to work anywhere at any time does not mean they should (Thomas, 2014, p. 291). Finally, virtual recognition (e.g. acknowledgement) and rewards (e.g. virtual parties/games, happy hour or food delivery) can be used to celebrate successes.

6.1 Theoretical and practical contributions

This paper was motivated by a lack of understanding about the transition and organizational adoption of collaboration technologies for virtual collaboration and the resulting affordances during a time of a crisis. In terms of implications for research, this work makes a couple of key contributions. First, this study contributes to the literature by addressing calls for exploration of how collaboration happens through the use of technology, including exploring the specific influence of COVID-19 (Fink, 2020; O'Leary et al., 2020). The importance of better understanding the transition from face-to-face work to virtual work is well documented (Eckhardt et al., 2019; Großer and Baumöl, 2017), and this research aids in developing an understanding of that process by exploring the interplay of collaboration technologies and organization employees during this transition. Notably, the collaboration technology adoption rate due to COVID-19 is unpreceded (Dubey and Tripathi, 2020; Fink, 2020) and is reflected in this study. As shown in Table 1, nearly 75% of the participants in this study were rapidly transitioned to virtual collaboration because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a key contribution from this study is the ability to learn from employees who were mostly not planning or preparing for remote work yet were forced into this arrangement as a result of crisis. The findings not only highlight that this transition can be possible but also guide research regarding specific challenges in relation to affordances (e.g. social connectedness and organizational culture).

A second research contribution from this work is the application of the lens of affordance theory in relation to collaboration technologies in order to learn about the actualization of collaboration technology affordances and addressing calls for applying the affordance lens in more contexts (Strong et al., 2014). Relatedly, prior research has suggested that the “perceptions of affordance lead people to change their routines” (Leonardi, 2011, p. 147). It may be an unintended consequence of the high rate of collaboration technology adoption due to COVID-19 that the resulting heightened awareness of collaboration technology affordances has a long-lasting impact on employee interest and organizational reliance on collaboration technologies. In fact, this study showed nearly a 10% increase in participants interested in fully remote work post-pandemic. Indeed, there may be other unintended consequences from this transition. For example, sustainability and carbon footprint benefits, digitization of legacy processes and location independence were some of the key benefits highlighted by participants in this study. At the same time, some of the unintended consequences from this transition might not be as beneficial. For example, if more employees are interested in hybrid work, this may result in less face-to-face collaboration and potentially less spontaneous collaboration and problem solving (e.g. as noted by participants in this study). Finally, while the findings and contributions of this work are specific to collaboration technology affordances in the time of COVID-19, it is the expectation that some of these findings can be generalized for post-pandemic collaboration.

Regarding practical contributions, this study identifies important collaboration technology affordances enabled through virtual collaboration during COVID-19 as well as summarizes key strategies (i.e. actions and goals) that can be employed to aid in the successfully implementation of virtual collaboration both during and post-pandemic. Specifically, Table 2 and the related discussion summarize specific goal-directed actions needed to actualize the affordances from this study as well as include applicable post-pandemic goals and organizational context. For example, organizations need to be prepared with appropriate networking (e.g. VPN and Internet), software (e.g. groupware, videoconferencing, instant messenger, calendar, performance tracking and evaluation systems), hardware (e.g. mobile devices, laptops, webcams, headsets and microphones) and secure data access for employees to access regardless of their location (on or off-site). Employees and managers will benefit from coordinated schedules and flexibility, appropriate training (e.g. written documentation or video guidance), an understanding of management and leadership best-practices and support to solve any issues that come up. In addition, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted that many organizations need to update their technology response plans to prepare for fully out of office work (such as forced by a global pandemic). Based on participant comments in this study, only a few individuals indicated that their organizations had been preparing for this type of crisis.

While virtual collaboration is likely best suited for knowledge workers (Davis, 2002), it may be the case (as this study shows) that organizations and employees who were able to be productive virtually during the pandemic will want to take advantage of the benefits of virtual collaboration post-pandemic (Cramer and Zaveri, 2020). This work provides guidance to practitioners engaged in the use of collaboration technologies for virtual work as they are faced with challenges to consider in the post-pandemic environment. The contributions from this paper highlight lessons learned from real employees in a transitional period and provide strategies for practitioners to adopt. Specifically, the final column in Table 2 outlines post-pandemic goals and organizational context which may be utilized in the development of organizational policies for the adoption of an inclusive work environment that allows for and accommodates flexible (and remote) working patterns. Furthermore, participants' comments reveal several useful tips for addressing each of the affordances from this work (e.g. playing virtual games to encourage social connections and the development of culture while physically separated).

6.2 Limitations and future research

The findings from this work should not be considered as an exhaustive classification of collaboration technology affordances, as this study is limited in its focus on technology and work during a global pandemic. Furthermore, as noted in this study, collaboration technology capabilities continue to innovate and evolve over time, suggesting new categories of collaboration technology affordances may emerge in relation to technology innovation or in relation to different empirical contexts. Another limitation from this work may be related to the participant relationships pre-pandemic. For example, the majority of the participants from this study did have significant face-to-face connections to build on during their transition to fully remote work. Therefore, it may be a limitation that employees from this study have more in common with hybrid teams rather than fully virtual teams (e.g. Cousins et al., 2007).

Any findings are further subject to the limitation of the research method, specifically with regard to the sample size and representation. However, while these limitations suggest caution for generalization, they do not diminish the findings of this work. Rather this work provides theoretical and practical contributions for consideration, in addition to a number of paths and possibilities for future work and exploration.

With the massive shift to virtual collaboration and heightened awareness over the course of the pandemic, many organizations, leaders and employees are likely more prepared to collaborate through the use of technology, however, proper training and education remains an area for further investment. There is still much to learn about how employees use technology to collaborate and how work can be designed to leverage technology benefits while addressing technology challenges (e.g. information overload, employee well-being) (Colbert et al., 2016). This research reveals that employees are looking forward to taking advantage of collaboration technology affordances post-pandemic. Continued understanding of these affordances will be important to explore. For example, as organizations embrace virtual collaboration post-pandemic and employees actualize the collaboration technology affordance of technology support to be location-independent, some companies may consider rejecting location-based pay scales and choose to adopt competitive, non-localized pay as an employee benefit (Bindley, 2020). Relatedly, exploration of technology support might investigate successful training practices or further research of the collaboration technology affordance of management and leadership may study successful practices for employee onboarding in a virtual environment. While there have been some studies in this area (e.g. Cummings and Dennis, 2018; Neely et al., 2017), participant comments from this study suggest more understanding of best practices would be valuable.

7. Conclusion

This paper investigates virtual collaboration during COVID-19 in an attempt to uncover the collaboration technology affordances enabled through virtual collaboration as well as recommends strategies for affordance actualization both during and post-pandemic. A unique set of data is used to reveal findings which highlight the interplay of technologies and organization employees as they transition to virtual collaboration and adapt to new work practices and possibilities ultimately affecting the organization in the time of a global pandemic. Four collaboration technology affordances are identified including (1) flexibility and productivity, (2) social connectedness and organizational culture, (3) technology support and (4) management and leadership. The identification of these affordances lends itself to understanding the actualization process and revealing insights into the possibilities for successful adoption, use and implementation of virtual collaboration in a pandemic and post-pandemic world.

According to the findings from this work, most participants were interested in moving forward with some form of remote work arrangement (full or hybrid), suggesting an increased interest in working through technology that will persist post-pandemic. Therefore, understanding how to transition from face-to-face work to virtual work and how to use technology to collaborate and work effectively in this changing environment will continue to be vital for both organizations and individuals. This work presents a step toward developing this understanding.

Figures

Figure 1

Visualization of data coding process

Table 1

Demographic variables

Variable	Summer 05/2020	Fall 09/2020	Total
N	28	27	55
Gender	M (46.4%)	M (44.4%)	M (45.5%)
	F (53.6%)	F (55.6%)	F (54.5%)
Industry	Agriculture (10.7%)	Agriculture (14.8%)	Agriculture (12.7%)
	Education (7.1%)	Education (3.7%)	Education (5.5%)
	Financial services (7.1%)	Financial services (11.1%)	Financial services (9.1%)
	Government (10.7%)	Government (7.4%)	Government (9.1%)
	Healthcare (7.1%)	Healthcare (7.4%)	Healthcare (7.3%)
	Hospitality (7.1%)	Insurance (14.8%)	Hospitality (3.6%)
	Insurance (14.3%)	Legal (18.5%)	Insurance (14.5%)
	Manufacturing (14.3%)	Manufacturing (7.4%)	Legal (9.1%)
	Retail (7.1%)	Retail (7.4%)	Manufacturing (10.9%)
	Technology (7.1%)	Other (7.4%)	Retail (7.3%)
	Other (7.1%)		Technology (3.6%)
			Other (7.3%)
Pandemic remote experience	Remote prior (25.0%)	Remote prior (11.1%)	Remote prior (18.2%)
	Remote transition (67.9%)	Remote transition (81.5%)	Remote transition (74.5%)
	Not remote (7.1%)	Not remote (7.4%)	Not remote (7.3%)

Table 2

Summary of collaboration technology affordances and actualization

Collaboration technology capabilities	Characteristics of employees	Example from data	Goal-directed actions needed to actualize an affordance	Applicable post-pandemic goals and organizational context
Affordance 1: Flexibility and productivity			Actualization
Secure access to organizational information systems (e.g. VPN) Calendar system	Employees can connect to organizational systems in order to complete their work Employees can adjust their schedules	“I like the fact that I am able to work from home as it gives me the flexibility to work in an isolated comfortable environment at home and give time to work-life balance. I live alone so I am able to concentrate and give my best to work and if needed I can always schedule an in-person meeting at the company office. I also feel by doing so I am indirectly protecting myself and the department from COVID-19 as I get to be productive and quarantine” [6, Census Analyst]	Employees can achieve work productivity anywhere anytime through the use of electronic systems	Goals: Provide electronic access to organizational systems, reduce costs, increase productivity, maximize revenue Organizational context: Culture supports flexible scheduling with focus on deliverables
Affordance 2: Social connectedness and culture			Actualization
Videoconferencing (e.g. Zoom) Instant messenger or text chat Email	Employees can engage with co-workers through the use of videoconferencing	“There are definitely times when I left out-mainly because my co-workers are my friends too, and I missed the casual conversations that would happen naturally throughout the workday. What helped was my team started doing a 30-minute daily huddle, where we connect to discuss the latest priorities. And, often these meetings start with light-hearted conversation about families, vacations, etc.” [36, Public Relations Manager]	Employees have regular synchronous interaction with co-workers for spontaneous conversations, idea generation and problem solving as well as social chat	Goals: Provide synchronous communication times, increased collaboration and increased trust Organizational context: Culture encourages synchronous interactions using technology
Affordance 3: Technology support			Actualization
Networking (e.g. VPN, Internet) Software (e.g. groupware, videoconferencing and calendar) Hardware (e.g. mobile devices, laptops, webcams, headsets and microphones) Data	Employees have access to the technology infrastructure tools necessary for their work as well as the training, skills and ability to use these tools	“We invested heavily in Cisco and WebEx technology so that we can video-conference easily. It does make it easier to work remote or have a dispersed operation and still have face-to-face meetings and be able to collaborate. Videoconferencing equipment and subscriptions are certainly cheaper than office space, so I think this is the way of the future, especially with what many companies have learned through COVID-19” [8, Test Development Supervisor]	Employees have limited technical impediments to complete their work and when they are challenged, they know how to have issues addressed	Goals: Provide technology resources for work, limit downtime, recognize opportunities for efficiency and improvement Organizational context: Standards exist for technology infrastructure use and problem resolution
Affordance 4: Management and leadership			Actualization
Videoconferencing Groupware or team rooms Calendar system Performance tracking and evaluation	Employees know what work they are accountable for and where to find guidance Managers know what employees are working on, task status and employee challenges	“Managing a team virtually is completely different than managing a team in person. We had a member of my team start the week our company started working from home. She did say it was interesting and made it challenging, but we got through it. We had to be very intentional about setting up training and consistently checking in with her to ensure she was busy and felt comfortable with the work she was doing. One thing that helps our team-video streaming capabilities. There's something about seeing each other's faces that makes our team feel more connected” [40, Demand Planner]	Employees receive tasks and feedback on performance Managers regularly check with employees about task status, questions and workload as well as offer motivation	Goals: Provide leadership for employee work, task clarity, job satisfaction and ensure task completion Organizational context: Culture supports accountability, documentation and rewards successes