1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.22161

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Effective communication for relational coordination

in remote work: How job characteristics and HR practices
shape user–technology interactions

Christina Fuchs | Astrid Reichel

Department of Business, Human Resource

Management Group, University of Salzburg,
Salzburg, Austria
Correspondence
Christina Fuchs, Department of Business,
University of Salzburg, Kapitelgasse 5, 5020
Salzburg, Austria,
Email: christina.fuchs@plus.ac.at
Funding information
Kaiserschild Foundation, Grant/Award
Number: 2.659 EURO
Abstract
The theory of relational coordination holds that frequent, timely, accurate, and
problem-solving communication positively interacts with relationships of mutual
respect, shared goals, and shared knowledge to support effective work coordination.
With increasing numbers of employees working remotely, Advanced Communication
Technologies (ACTs) are crucial for enabling the communication necessary for rela-
tional coordination. To investigate how organizations can maintain effective commu-
nication between employees in remote work settings, we conducted 47 interviews
across multiple organizations. We find that users enact different affordances, that is,
action possibilities, of the same material features of an ACT. Enacting these affor-
dances supports frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication
when working remotely. Which affordances users enact varies systematically with
job characteristics. Specifically, users whose jobs have high levels of task variety,
autonomy, creative problem solving, and interdependence across teams enact more
of the affordances that enable effective communication. Comprehensive ACTs that
integrate all communication features into one technology and rules requesting the
company-wide exclusive interaction with this ACT strengthen the relationship
between users' job characteristics and affordance enactment. Our findings show that
it is important to involve HRM from the outset so that, in close cooperation with IT,
a system can be found that—supported by suitable sets of rules—enables effective
communication.

KEYWORDS
advanced communication technologies, affordance theory, effective communication, HR
practices, job characteristics, relational coordination, user-technology interaction

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N knowledge, and mutual respect, plays a key role in facilitating perfor-

mance and work quality when individuals must coordinate tasks
Relational coordination, characterized by frequent, timely, accurate,
pez-
(Bolton et al., 2021). The ongoing trend of location flexibility (Lo
and problem-solving communication and by shared goals, shared Igual & Rodríguez-Modroño, 2020) poses challenges for relational

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Human Resource Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Hum Resour Manage. 2023;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm 1


2 FUCHS AND REICHEL
coordination, which benefits from a shared workspace and spontane-
ous face-to-face interactions (McEvoy et al., 2011). Such interactions
are scarce in a remote work setting, resulting in a lower likelihood of
effective communication (Wang et al., 2020).
Advanced Communication Technologies (ACTs) are essential for
communication between colleagues (Greer & Payne, 2014) who work
remotely, meaning they substitute “a portion of their typical work hours
[…] to work away from a central workplace” (Allen et al., 2015, p. 44).
These technologies offer various material features for synchronous and
asynchronous communication (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). But it is
unclear if employees really use ACTs' features in ways that make com-
munication effective. Findings on behavioral effects of employee–ACT
interaction are mixed and little is known about when the appropriation
of ACTs suffices to maintain effective communication (e.g., Claggett &
Karahanna, 2018; Leonardi et al., 2010; Majchrzak et al., 2013). There-
fore, we investigate which factors shape user–ACT interactions that
are associated with effective communication.
A recent systematic literature review systematically identified fac-
tors affecting relational coordination and concluded that relational
coordination is likely to be found in organizational contexts character-
ized by specific structures (e.g., shared meetings, shared protocols and
routines, shared accountability and rewards). The review concluded
that the relationship between organizations' structural context and
relational coordination is more complex than a unidirectional arrow
from structures to relational coordination, however. In addition, it
revealed the relevance of “interventions” (Bolton et al., 2021) includ-
ing HR practices (McMackin & Flood, 2019) such as training programs
(Ross, 2015). Against this background, we focus on the structural con-
text of organizations including their HR practices to investigate user–
ACT interactions for effective communication.
For our analysis, we use affordance theory. Affordances are action
possibilities arising from the relation between the ACT and a human
actor. The material features of the ACT are common to each person who
encounters them. But the affordances perceived and possibly enacted
differ between actors, depending on the context in which they operate
(Leonardi, 2017). Thus, the context of the interaction between the ACT
and human actors, including structural factors and HR practice in place,
can influence whether affordances are enacted or not (Leonardi, 2011,
p. 153). This perspective allows us to uncover structural context factors,
HR practices, and relational coordination as possible interventions.
We analyzed 47 semi-structured interviews of employees work-
ing remotely in a variety of organizational contexts. This data revealed
that job characteristics are the most relevant structural context fac-
tors for explaining variation in affordance enactment associated with
effective communication (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). In addition,
we identified two HR practices that foster the enactment of affor-
dances connected to effective communication: the introduction of a
comprehensive ACT and rules requesting the company-wide use of
this technology. We combine these findings on affordance enactment,
job characteristics, and the moderating role of interventions into prop-
ositions that explain how employees interact with ACTs in remote
work settings and how job characteristics and specific HR practices
influence affordance enactment.
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Our study contributes to the literature on relational coordination in
three important ways. First, we introduce an affordance perspective as
another relational theory into relational coordination theory. In doing
so, we integrate the relationship between social (user) and material
(technology) agency along with relationships between social actors.
Second, we contribute to the relational coordination literature by unco-
vering new structural context factors, that is, task, knowledge, and
social job characteristics, and interventions in the form of HR practices
that are highly relevant for effective communication—especially in a
remote work setting. Third, most of the existing research on relational
coordination assumes a shared workspace (Bolton et al., 2021). We
suggest a model that integrates important factors for achieving effec-
tive communication in remote work settings.
2 | E F F E C T I V E CO M M U N I C A T I O N F O R
RELATIONAL COORDINATION IN REMOTE
WO R K SE T T I NGS
Coordination, defined as “the process of interaction that integrates a
collective set of interdependent tasks” (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009,
p. 463) is central whenever individuals have to collaborate to fulfill a
shared goal (Gittell, 2002). At its core, coordination or the manage-
ment of task dependencies (Malone & Crowston, 1994) is a relational
process that occurs through networks of relationships (Gittell, 2011;
Gittell et al., 2008). Relational coordination is one type of coordination
that facilitates high performance, increased work quality, efficiency,
worker well-being, and engagement in a broad range of settings
(e.g., different sectors and types of organizations) (Bolton et al., 2021).
Relational coordination theory conceptualizes this direct and network-
based form of coordination by illustrating the social processes underlying
the coordination of complex work tasks. It holds that strong relationships,
characterized by shared knowledge, shared goals, and mutual respect,
support frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication,
and vice versa (Gittell, 2000; Gittell, 2002). The two dimensions of rela-
tional coordination—relationship quality and communication quality—thus
reinforce each other. Effective communication increases relationship qual-
ity over time, which in turn improves communication (Gittell, 2006).
Accordingly, relational networks between organizational members help
them to share information, knowledge, and resources, foster learning and
mentoring, and ultimately lead to the building and strengthening of intel-
lectual capital (e.g., Collins & Clark, 2003; Gibson et al., 2011; Kwon &
Adler, 2014; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Ongoing digital advances (O'Leary et al., 2002) and a trend
toward increased workplace decentralization (Contreras et al., 2020)
raise the question of how to enable effective communication, a key
dimension of relational coordination (Gittell, 2006), when employees
are working remotely. The extent of communication between
individuals strongly depends on proximity or distance (Allen, 1984)
and physical proximity is among the main mechanisms for successful
coordination. Not only does it enhance visibility and familiarity
between individuals, but it also enables formal and informal exchanges
(Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). Hence, a shared workspace should

FUCHS AND REICHEL
improve relational coordination by providing opportunities for direct,
face-to-face communication. When working in physical proximity to
one another, employees are also more likely to engage in informal task
discussions, which are valuable for successful relational coordination
(McEvoy et al., 2011). In contrast, in a remote work setting, interac-
tions are typically limited to planned events with no possibility for
spontaneous, informal interactions. This lowers the likelihood of
effective communication (Wang et al., 2020).
To foster communication in a remote work setting, most compa-
nies introduce ACTs that allow for asynchronous and synchronous
exchanges through various material features (Greer & Payne, 2014;
Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). Since the early days of remote work,
ACTs have evolved to better facilitate informal or spontaneous inter-
actions and mimic analog face-to-face communication (Allen
et al., 2015; Waber, 2013). Contemporary ACTs, such as Microsoft
Teams or Webex, offer several features for communication, including
call, videoconferencing, chat, status, and calendar functionalities.
These properties aim to replicate analog communication as closely as
possible (Fuchs & Reichel, 2021). However, empirical findings on how
well ACTs can prevent negative effects of spatial dispersion on com-
munication are mixed.
ACTs may positively influence communication, as employees can
appropriate them to preserve relevant information flows. With social
interactions being more targeted, some employees perceive an
increase in communication quality (Leonardi et al., 2010). In addition,
modern ACTs that support high levels of synchronicity foster commu-
nication performance for convergence processes (Dennis et al., 2008),
and they also enhance communication as they allow people to share
information via multiple types of communication streams. (Malhotra &
Majchrzak, 2004, 2012). On the downside, several studies emphasize
ACTs' inability to substitute for spontaneous, informal interactions
(Golden et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2020), which are relevant for suc-
cessful relational coordination (McEvoy et al., 2011; Okhuysen &
Bechky, 2009). Due to reduced opportunities for spontaneous
exchanges, remote teams are more prone to conflicts (Hinds &
Mortensen, 2005) and efforts to assess co-workers' knowledge and
skills are higher through digital channels (van der Lippe &
Lippényi, 2020). Research on teleworkers' use of synchronous ACTs
also shows that employees may strategically use the functionalities of
these ACTs to create distance and avoid frequent exchanges, contrary
to the intended purpose (Leonardi et al., 2010).
3 | EFFECTIVE DIGITAL
COMMUNICATION FROM AN AFFORDANCE
PERSPECTIVE
One well-suited means for understanding varying outcomes of user–
ACT interaction in different structural contexts is the affordance
approach. This perspective originates from Gibson's (1977) affordance
theory, according to which behavior depends on the perceived oppor-
tunities provided by objects, other actors, or information technology.
The theory acknowledges that both material and human actors
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
possess agency. Through their features, capabilities, and underlying
design choices, technologies set constraints and offer action
possibilities—this is material agency. Human users perceive action
possibilities and choose if and how to interact with certain features of
the technology—this is social agency (Leonardi, 2009; Leonardi &
Barley, 2008).
Volkoff and Strong define affordances as “the potential for
behaviors associated with achieving an immediate concrete outcome
and arising from the relation between an object (e.g., an IT artefact)
and a goal-oriented actor or actors” (2013, p. 823). Therefore, affor-
dances differ from the technology's intended design and from static
features and capabilities. These static features are independent of
human users or the context, that is, an ACT offers the same material
functionalities to all users (Evans et al., 2017). In contrast, affordances
may differ between users (Volkoff & Strong, 2013). A variety of affor-
dances can exist within the same technology but will only be per-
ceived depending on characteristics of the human actor (e.g., actors’
previous experience with a material entity) and the context in which
the user–technology interaction occurs (Faraj & Azad, 2012).
Perceived affordances might be enacted or not depending on personal
choice, for example, whether enacting the affordance would serve
users’ individual goals; ability, for example, whether users have the
skills to enact the affordance or whether the affordance is associated
with another affordance that needs to be enacted first; and the partic-
ular context, for example, whether enactment would be sanctioned
(Volkoff & Strong, 2013). An affordance perspective thus explicitly
states that the context for the user–technology interaction shapes
which affordances users perceive and which affordances users enact
(Evans et al., 2017). The mixed results on communication outcomes
when ACT and users interact also suggest the relevance of contextual
factors, such as the structural context or context-shaping interven-
tions for explaining diverging outcomes of user–ACT interaction.
4 | METHODOLOGY
4.1 | Study informants
This study relies on qualitative data gained from 47 semi-structured
interviews. First, we interviewed 26 professionals from two interna-
tional companies, one operating in the automotive (CompA) and one
in the machinery industry (CompB). In both organizations, most
employees in white-collar jobs were working remotely or part
remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Our goal was to identify con-
textual factors shaping user–ACT interaction related to effective com-
munication. Therefore, we chose two corporations that differed in
their digital structures. CompA strongly emphasized digitalization in
their HR strategy, while CompB followed what they call a “more tradi-
tional approach,” emphasizing the relevance of face-to-face contact
within the office and not emphasizing digitalization in their HR strat-
egy. Within the companies, we aimed for heterogeneity when select-
ing individual interviewees. Analyzing these interviews revealed that
the structural context driving affordance perception associated with
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 FUCHS AND REICHEL

effective communication was mainly located at the job level. In qualita-
tive research, the emergence of new theories often requires the conceptu-
ally driven selection of additional informants to examine and compare
evolving relationships (Marshall, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994). As Moser
and Korstjens (2018) explain, “the sample will emerge during the study:
based on further questions raised in the process of data collection and anal-
ysis, inclusion and exclusion criteria might be altered, or the sampling sites
might be changed” (p. 10). Following this principle, we aimed to increase
the heterogeneity of organizational level contexts to make sure that job
characteristics were indeed the most relevant structural factors impacting
affordance enactment for effective communication. Thus, we interviewed
another 21 informants who were mainly working remotely in 21 additional
companies.
All 47 individual participants were chosen following a sampling
plan aiming for a sample likely to offer differing perceptions of affor-
dances. Therefore, we combined four main criteria—field of work,
computer experience, length of team membership, and leadership
responsibilities—with varying expressions shown in a cross-table (see
Table 1) (Schreier, 2010; Schreier et al., 2008).
By incorporating different fields of work into our sampling plan,
we expected to capture variation in computer experience and
variation in communication needs. As affordance perception and
enactment can vary with ability gathered through experience
(e.g., Leonardi, 2011), we captured varying computer experience
(Beckers & Schmidt, 2003; van Esch et al., 2019) by including jobs
that mainly require technical skills (i.e., IT). Furthermore, we included
jobs that we expected would require frequent communication
(i.e., multiple times a day), such as product management, project man-
agement, or recruitment, and jobs that we expected would have a
lower need for regular communication, such as accounting or payroll,
in the sampling plan.
A shift to remote work affects relationships between leaders
and subordinates, requiring leadership adaptions, as team leaders are no
longer physically present with their subordinates (Brunelle, 2013). Thus,
we included employees with and without leadership responsibilities.
Finally, in our initial conversations, HR representatives of both
CompA and CompB expressed concerns about the effects of a shift to
remote work on employees with a shorter company tenure. We
addressed these concerns by including at least one employee with a
tenure of less than 1.5 years in each job-type group.
In the two companies in which we started data gathering, com-
pany representatives provided us with access to heterogeneous infor-
mants (n = 26) and we then recruited employees from the mixed
sample of organizations through student outreach (n = 21). We were
able to find employees covering all relevant combinations of criterion
expressions (as shown in Table 1), with one exception. CompB could
not provide access to their IT department because of high work inten-
sity related to widespread remote work. Thus, we interviewed a total
of 47 employees with varying work tasks, leadership responsibilities,
and tenure (see supplementary appendix 7 for more detailed informa-
tion about informants).
4.2 | Advanced communication technologies
The ACTs analyzed in this study were commercially available digital
communication systems with various features that allowed communi-
cation between users. The corporations in our sample used ACTs from
different technology providers. However, the ACTs used by all com-
panies offered the same main features, resulting in similar material
functionalities and potential affordances. The two main features of
synchronous and semi-synchronous communication were the call and
chat functions. The call function enabled users to interact with one or
more persons in a virtual meeting room, using audio and video tech-
nology. With the chat function, users could send instant messages to
individuals or within groups. The chat then displayed messages in a
chronological communication stream. While the chat function, strictly
speaking, constitutes a form of asynchronous communication, in
practice and in our interviews, users appropriated it in an “almost
synchronous” way. They typically read and replied to chat messages

TABLE 1 Theoretical sampling plan

CompA team CompB team Mixed sample team

membership membership membership
Leadership
Field of work responsibility <1.5 years ≥1.5 years <1.5 years ≥1.5 years <1.5 years ≥1.5 years Total
Jobs with low expected Yes 1 (1) 0 (1) 1 (0) 3 (2) 18 (16–20)
communication needs No 1 (1) 4 (2–4) 1 (1) 2 (2–4) 1 (2) 4 (4)
Jobs with high expected Yes 2 (1) 3 (1) 3 (2) 21 (16–20)
communication needs No 1 (1) 3 (2–4) 2 (1) 1 (2–4) 3 (2) 3 (4)
ITa Yes 3 (1) 0 (1) 8 (8)
b
No 1 (1) 1 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2)

Total 17 (15) 9 (10) 21 (20) 47 (45)

Note: Numbers in braces resemble planned, numbers outside of braces resemble the actual number of interviewees.
a
Reflects high computer experience.
b
Interviewee could not remember exact tenure, approx. 1.5 years.

FUCHS AND REICHEL
immediately and engaged in real-time written chat conversations, not
unlike synchronous exchanges. To account for this “almost synchro-
nous” form of communication, we use the term “semi-synchronous.”
ACTs typically offered additional material capacities, such as status
(indicating availability), a calendar (facilitating the scheduling of meet-
ings), and some screen- or document-sharing functions. In most organi-
zations (including CompA) in our final sample, one comprehensive
technology integrated these features, but there were also organiza-
tional contexts (including CompB) in which separate technologies were
in place, for example, different systems for the call and chat function.
4.3 | Data collection and analysis
We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews, which enabled us
to establish a set of guiding questions while simultaneously adapting
flexibly to participants' experiences and giving them conversational
freedom (Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2005). Interviews took place from
the third quarter of 2020 to the second quarter of 2021. During this
time, employees worked remotely or alternated between office and
remote work in most cases because of COVID-19 restrictions.
We conducted all interviews online using ACTs. On average,
interviews took 45 minutes. We transcribed and coded all interviews
using the content structuring form of qualitative content analysis. This
analysis follows a mixed inductive-deductive approach for category
building to identify and conceptualize selected aspects of the material
(Schreier, 2012). First, we deductively derived main categories based
on relevant literature and our interview guidelines. As a second step,
we inductively derived sub-categories from the data material itself.
Following an iterative approach, we revised the coding schema (see
Supplementary Appendix 1 for coding schema and Supplementary
Appendices 2–4 for sample quotes) multiple times throughout the
coding process and adapted it to fit emerging expressions and sub-
codes. This inductive coding strategy, known as subsumption, should
ensure that the coding schema captures all relevant aspects of the
data material (Schreier, 2010; Schreier et al., 2008).
For data analysis, we initially treated the two companies as con-
trasting cases. As this first comparison revealed no conclusive connec-
tions between wider company context and affordance enactment, we
changed our focus and conducted a within-case analysis, treating each
informant as a separate case. Then, we grouped individuals based on
relevant code expressions for further cross-case comparisons
(Eisenhardt, 1989). To determine these group assignments, we used
scaling structuring to interpret and estimate the qualitative material
(i.e., interview statements) on an ordinal scale (Mayring, 2015). We
conducted this categorization for all relevant code expressions.
First, we closely analyzed each employee's interaction with all
core material features of the ACT (i.e., individual call, conference call,
individual chat, group chat, status, calendar, screen and document
sharing). We contrasted individuals’ statements with each other and
categorized individuals as users with “high,” “medium,” or “low” ACT
interaction depending on how regularly and how comprehensively
(i.e., how many ACT features, for which purpose) they interacted
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
with the ACT. Similarly, we analyzed coded segments about perceived
positive or negative effects on communication and coordination
(e.g., value statements about digital communication and its effectiveness,
advantages, or barriers; comparison of communication and coordination
before and after the shift to remote work) for each interviewee, and we
classified interviews depending on whether the positive or negative
effects prevailed.
Once we finished this process of categorization, we aimed to con-
nect individual patterns into an overarching theory. For this, we cre-
ated a matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that contrasted users with
(1) high, medium, or low ACT interaction for communication, and
(2) perceived positive or negative effects on communication and coor-
dination. This matrix was the basis for our final cross-case analysis:
For each of the matrix groups, we closely analyzed and compared
coded segments related to the perception and enactment of affor-
dances and the context. The goal was to detect which affordances
were most relevant for effective communication, and which context
factors influenced whether users perceived and enacted these affor-
dances (see Supplementary Appendices 5 and 6).
This inductive comparison pointed toward job characteristics as a rel-
evant structural context. To examine this emerging assumption, we con-
sidered all coded statements relating to job characteristics
(e.g., statements about jobs or work tasks, descriptions of responsibilities
or a typical workday), and we categorized these statements along the four
dimensions of job design: physical, task, knowledge, and social character-
istics of a job (Grant et al., 2011; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). For
example, an employee describing that their typical workday contained a
broad variety of tasks was categorized as having a job with “high task
variety,” whereas an employee describing a strict work routine with a few
repetitive tasks was categorized as having a job with “low task variety.”
We then analyzed how varying interventions (e.g., rules) related to differ-
ent types of jobs (i.e., different expressions of job characteristics).
5 | FI ND I NG S
5.1 | Affordances and effective communication
In remote work settings, ACTs were crucial for effective comm-
unication among our informants. While asynchronous exchanges
(e.g., e-mail) remained largely unchanged, a shift to remote work
threatened the synchronous face-to-face and spontaneous communi-
cation happening in the office. As one interviewee explained:
[This is] what work is all about. To have colleagues and
to see them in person. Or even these spontaneous
encounters in the hallway or in the kitchen. (Interview 6)
The call and chat functions were the main features to digitally
replace analog communication. Both enabled synchronous (call) or
semi-synchronous (chat) interactions between two or more users.
However, whether and how users appropriated these features dif-
fered among study informants, as did the degree of individuals'
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 FUCHS AND REICHEL

frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication in a
remote work setting.
In the following findings section, we first uncover affordances under-
lying frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication.
Then, we present which structural context factors and HR practices shape
effective communication and how their influence unfolds.
Communication always involves at least two parties—the sender
and the recipient of a message—and each user takes on both roles at
times. Thus, we considered both sides when analyzing imbrications of
social and material agency.
5.1.1 | Communication frequency and timeliness
Among our informants, communication frequency was high if
employees enacted the affordance called interconnectivity, that is the
ability to directly associate with other members of the team or
organization (adapted from “internal networking formation” as
defined by Bobsin et al., 2019; Burt & Taylor, 2000). ACTs invited
interconnectivity by allowing users to connect directly to each other's
workstations or to schedule meetings, simply by selecting a recipient
through the integrated address book. Thus, they enabled barrier-free
interactions with other users regardless of their location, team affilia-
tion, or typical restrictions of analog interactions (e.g., maximum meet-
ing sizes), as shown in Table 2.
For users to enact interconnectivity, the reaction of the recipient
of their message was relevant. If recipients did not respond to com-
munication requests, users could not enact interconnectivity success-
fully. In addition, communication frequency depended not only on the
degree of users' enactment of interconnectivity but also on that of
their peers, as every user was also a communication recipient. Users
who perceived and enacted interconnectivity benefited from a higher
ease of contact, rendering this affordance relevant for communication
frequency, as one interviewee explained:

TABLE 2 Overview of affordances and related imbrications relevant for frequent and timely communication

Effects on
Affordances
communication
Material agencies/capacities Social agencies/capacities

Communication Frequency and Timeliness

ACT affords Interconnectivity

ACT provides an internal repository,
including all organizational users
ACT connects senders directly to the
recipients’ workstation
ACT allows users to schedule calls by
sending invitations, incl. ‘links’ to recipients
ACT automatically creates a calendar entry
for each participant
ACT affords Immediacy
ACT provides an internal repository,
including all organizational users
Users choose recipients by typing or
clicking on their name to initiate contact
Recipients respond to the communication Fosters frequent
request communication
Users send a digital meeting invitation
Recipients accept the meeting invitation or Fosters frequent
suggest an alternative date communication
Users choose recipients by typing or clicking
on their name to initiate contact

ACT instantly notifies recipients about the

Recipients respond to the communication Fosters timely
incoming call or message on their
request immediately communication
workstation
ACT automatically adapts users’ status Users check the recipients’ status to see if
they are available
ACT allows users to contact recipients Recipients respond to the communication Fosters timely
through the same technology request immediately communication
ACT affords Schedulability
ACT allows users to schedule calls by
sending invitations, incl. meeting date, time, Users send a digital meeting invitation
and topic
Fosters frequent
ACT automatically creates a calendar entry, Recipients accept the meeting invitation or communication if
incl. the meeting topic for each participant suggest an alternative date immediacy is also
enacted
Hampers frequent
and timely
communication if
immediacy is not
enacted

FUCHS AND REICHEL
I would say that the contact is the same in terms of fre-
quency. […] in the past I just got up and […] knocked
briefly and asked if I was interrupting or if I could come
in quickly. And now I just write a [ACT] message. […] or
we also call each other. (Interview 6)
In contrast, some individuals reported communication barriers
and a higher effort to get in touch with each other. They perceived
interconnectivity to a lower degree or not at all and, subsequently, did
not enact it, resulting in decreased communication frequency:
If you would otherwise just have said any information
in the office, you now either must schedule a [digital]
meeting and wait until everyone is there, or you must
call everyone. And that's just […] the hardest thing to
do. (Interview 17)
Timely communication benefited from the enactment of immedi-
acy, that is, the ability to cooperate responsively and speedily
(adapted from “interactivity” as defined by Liu, 2003; Lu et al., 2014).
This affordance was based on the ACT's functionality to immediately
notify recipients about incoming calls or messages on their worksta-
tions and to display an automatically updated status to indicate avail-
ability to other users.
Like interconnectivity, employees could only enact immediacy if
recipients responded to their communication requests in a timely
manner. When this was the case, meaning that users and recipients
perceived and enacted immediacy, they maintained timely communi-
cation. These individuals reported fast communication as a main bene-
fit of remote work:
I think it's just faster and you can see right away if
someone is green or red [in their status], whether
somebody's busy or not. It's just way faster and easier.
(Interview 15)
Individuals who did not perceive immediacy reported a higher
temporal effort of communication. They perceived it as more difficult
and time-consuming to communicate or to get answers via ACTs:
If you are in the office, you can […] simply ask ques-
tions within the office, and you get an immediate
response. Now you must write an e-mail, call, or write
via […] the chat program, and of course, you always
must wait for an answer. (Interview 33)
These individuals perceived immediacy to a lesser degree and,
subsequently, did not enact it or enacted it less, resulting in lower
communication timeliness.
A related affordance was schedulability, the ability to control
when to communicate with others (derived from interview data).
This affordance was associated with the material calendar, schedul-
ing, and call features. Employees could enact schedulability by using
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
7
these features to plan and schedule meetings with selected participants
and for pre-specified topics. Recipients of these communication
requests could accept, decline, or suggest alternative dates for the
meeting, which their calendar would then automatically display. This
enabled senders and recipients to better control their work schedules.
Even though all interviewees perceived and enacted schedulability,
the effects on communication frequency and timeliness varied among
individuals. Communication frequency was high if individuals enacted
schedulability in addition to immediacy. These users engaged in both
planned and spontaneous communication through digital channels and
chose which affordance to enact depending on the communication
topic or recipient, resulting in higher communication frequency:
The exchange in the team has become better, I would
say. […] we now simply exchange with each other more
frequently online. […] You can see when the other peo-
ple have appointments, you can also schedule new
meetings. And you can also use [ACT] very well as a
chat to ask small questions and exchange information
quickly. (Interview 42)
In contrast, individuals who enacted schedulability but not imme-
diacy (i.e., they largely or exclusively relied on scheduled communica-
tion) reported lower communication frequency and timeliness. The
reason was that instead of contacting their colleagues with single
communication requests (e.g., with questions arising in the moment),
they “collected topics” and waited until the scheduled meeting to
address them:
Short meetings […] just for quick information [are miss-
ing]. You do not make an extra appointment for that
and invite somebody. A lot of informal information is
lost from my point of view because you do not make
an appointment. (Interview 3)
Thus, we propose:
Proposition 1a. Enacting the affordance ‘interconnectiv-
ity’ fosters frequent communication.
Proposition 1b. Enacting the affordance ‘immediacy’
fosters timely communication.
Proposition 1c. Enacting the affordance ‘schedulability’
fosters frequent communication only in combination with
enacting the affordance ‘immediacy’.
5.1.2 | Communication accuracy & problem-solving
communication
Effective communication not only depends on frequency and timeli-
ness but also on the accuracy of the information exchanged (Romero
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 FUCHS AND REICHEL

et al., 2014). We found evidence that the lack of physical contact chal-
lenged communication accuracy whenever individuals needed to col-
laborate on joint documents or discuss physical objects. For example,
one informant explained:
[…] if you stand around a device […], many things are eas-
ily explained and discussed much faster than if you do
video conferencing. If you are lucky, you have a video
where you see the [technical] part. Otherwise, everyone
has a drawing in front of their nose, and you do not know
if you are talking about the same thing. (Interview 26)
To overcome this challenge, ACTs afforded shareability, the
ability to share sources with other collaborators without delay
(Jung et al., 2017), as displayed in Table 3. Examples of shared
sources were documents, screenshots, presentations, shared
screens, or other visual aids. Enacting shareability strengthened
communication accuracy as it allowed individuals to display infor-
mation, collaborate on documents, and refer to shared material in
their discussions:
The most important thing is that the content I'm talking
about is visualized either in an Excel spreadsheet, in a
PowerPoint, or in an e-mail to the other person
because otherwise, you lose people. (Interview 40)
Almost all individuals in our study perceived and enacted this
affordance, and they reported it as a major facilitator of accurate
information exchange for the sender (i.e., the person who shared
sources) and the recipient (i.e., the person who received/watched
shared sources) of the communication.
Another relevant affordance for accurate communication was
cue communicability, that is, the ability to transmit or communicate a
variety of communication cues, resulting in rich communication

TABLE 3 Overview of affordances and related imbrications relevant for accurate and problem‐solving communication

Effects on
Affordances
communication
Material agencies/capacities Social agencies/capacities

Communication Accuracy and Problem-Solving

ACT affords Shareability
ACT allows sharing the screen during Users share their screen and/or show
individual and group calls presentations or documents
ACT displays users’ screen to other Fosters accurate
Recipients view relevant material
participants of the call communication
ACT allows sending documents, Users choose the recipient(s), type
screenshots, or other data in the chat-stream message, attach documents, and send it
ACT displays the screenshot, document, or Fosters accurate
Recipients view relevant material
other data in a chronological stream communication
ACT-Call affords Cue Communicability
ACT allows switching the microphone and Users switch the camera and microphone
camera on or off during meetings on
Fosters accurate and
ACT displays videos on the recipients’ Users can convey verbal and nonverbal
problem-solving
screen and transmits sound synchronously information
communication
ACT allows switching the microphone and Recipients switch the camera and
camera on or off during meetings microphone on
Fosters accurate and
ACT displays videos on the users’ screen Recipients can convey verbal and problem-solving
and transmits sound synchronously nonverbal information communication
ACT-Call affords Cue Hideability
ACT allows switching the microphone and Users switch the camera and microphone
camera on or off during meetings off
Hampers accurate
ACT shows a black screen or static picture Users can hide and/or withhold verbal and and problem-solving
and does not transmit sound nonverbal information communication
ACT allows switching the microphone and Recipients switch the camera and
camera on or off during meetings microphone off
Hampers accurate
ACT shows a black screen or static picture
Recipients can hide and/or withhold verbal and problem-solving
and does not transmit sound
and nonverbal information communication

FUCHS AND REICHEL
(derived from interview data). According to media richness theory,
communication channels that provide a variety of communication
cues, such as verbal, auditive, or visible information, are best suited
for complex topics (Daft & Lengel, 1986). The call function and its
material features enabled users to engage in rich communication by
sending verbal and visual (i.e., nonverbal) communication cues. As one
interviewee explained:
Video conferencing is much better […] You can really
see much more, yes. Because not only verbally, but
also sometimes, you can see facial expressions.
(Interview 48)
If individuals enacted cue communicability, they enriched their
explanations with nonverbal cues, resulting in higher communication
accuracy. In addition, if recipients of the communication enacted cue
communicability, their counterparts were better able to interpret
recipients' level of understanding or to act toward nonverbal feed-
back. This fostered accurate communication:
It's important as a presenter or as a manager that you
know, when you deliver a message, how it will be
received. Whether the other person understands you
or not. And you can tell that simply by looking at their
facial expressions. (Interview 8)
The affordance of cue communicability was also essential for prob-
lem-solving communication. Problem-solving communication refers to
how individuals handle problems or challenges that arise when work-
ing interdependently. They might collaborate to find a solution, or
instead focus on who is to blame (Gittell, 2006). We found that indi-
viduals were encouraged to engage in digital problem-solving commu-
nication if they perceived, what they called, a “personal feeling.” By
enacting cue communicability, employees were able to replicate ana-
log face-to-face communication closely. This allowed employees to
use nonverbal cues and to establish a stronger feeling of connected-
ness, thus fostering problem-solving communication.
I [try to] educate myself to call people as much as pos-
sible. And to always call with video. Because you are
simply much […] closer to the people. (Interview 8)
However, ACTs also afforded cue hideability, that is, the ability
to withhold rich information cues (derived from interview data). This
affordance was related to the ACT's functionality of allowing users
to switch off their cameras and mute their microphones when not
speaking. Respondents perceived and enacted cue hideability as an
action possibility different from just not enacting perceived cue
communicability as it requires directed activity (e.g., actively switch-
ing the camera off). Furthermore, this affordance enabled individ-
uals to fulfill goals ranging from privacy (i.e., not wanting others to
see the private work location), and convenience (i.e., not wanting to
dress up for a meeting) to work control (i.e., working on side tasks
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9
while in the meeting) and avoiding certain discussions. One inter-
viewee explained:
It's easier to hide digitally for some things and not be
present. […] you can, I think, also avoid some topics a
bit or delay them. Because maybe you cannot be
pinned down online to a certain statement or some-
thing. […] I think it's sometimes easier to wriggle out of
something when you just see each other digitally
[in contrast to being physically present]. (Interview 1)
If users enacted cue hideability, they restricted the exchange of
rich information, which negatively affected communication accuracy,
manifested in vague feedback, misunderstandings, and uncertainty
about the level of understanding. This was not only the case if senders
of the communication enacted cue hideability, but also (and particu-
larly) if recipients did so because their reactions could not be inter-
preted accurately:
It is difficult to say if everyone understood everything in
the same way. So, did everyone get all the content? […]
that is better understood in the office, so to speak,
or when you are together in a meeting room.
(Interview 17)
The enactment of cue hideability also negatively affected
problem-solving communication for two reasons. First, it led to a
reluctance to engage in digital conflict communication due to a lack of
“personal feeling” and nonverbal communication:
If it's really a critical topic where you must criticize or
[when] it's about measures or topics that you must dis-
cuss further, I think that would be more pleasant and
nicer in person. […]. Because you can record the emo-
tions and because you give the other person a different
feeling of being there for someone […]. (Interview 15)
Second, by enacting cue hideability, users withheld rich informa-
tion cues, resulting in a lack of relevant nonverbal feedback and a
higher risk of misunderstandings when engaging in problem-solving
communication:
[Without] video, I'm missing the body language. I do not
know that there's a misunderstanding in the room and
[…] you are talking […] and suddenly someone turns on
the microphone and the volcano explodes, and you are
totally surprised as a speaker […] and you could not catch
it, you are at the limit. (Interview 40)
Thus, we propose:
Proposition 1d. Enacting the affordance ‘shareability’
fosters accurate communication.

10
Proposition 1 e:. Enacting the affordance ‘cue communi-
cability’ fosters accurate and problem-solving
communication.
Proposition 1f. Enacting the affordance ‘cue hideability’
hampers accurate and problem-solving communication.
5.2 | The structural context of job characteristics
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, we identified interconnectivity, immedi-
acy, and schedulability as affordances related to frequent and timely
communication, and shareability and cue communicability as relevant
for accurate and problem-solving communication. The enactment of
these affordances varied systematically between actors and contexts.
With our heterogeneous sample, we aimed at capturing actors with
varying individual characteristics and various organizational structural
contexts. The empirical analysis, however, revealed that the structural
context influencing affordance perception and enactment the most is
neither found on the micro-level of the actor nor the macro-level of
the organization but at the job level. When comparing individuals who
communicated effectively to those who were less likely to enact
affordances enabling effective communication, we found that the per-
ceived and enacted affordances varied with job characteristics.
Management research recognizes job characteristics as a major
antecedent of organizational outcomes (Parker et al., 2017). Our find-
ings point toward their impact also for effective communication. To
investigate their influence on the enactment of affordances relevant
for effective communication, we used the contemporary models of
job design by Grant et al. (2011) and Morgeson and Humphrey
(2006), and we present our findings along the four dimensions of
these frameworks: physical, task, knowledge, and social characteristics
(Grant et al., 2011).
Physical characteristics refer to the physical features of a job and
include the physical work conditions, physical work demands, ergo-
nomics, equipment, and tools used to perform a job (Grant
et al., 2011). Hence, they build the basic context of human–
technology interaction. A shift to remote work and the introduction of
new technical equipment such as ACTs denoted stark changes in
physical job characteristics. How these changes affected communica-
tion depended on the task, knowledge, and social characteristics of
job, as shown in Table 4.
Task characteristics denote the “tasks or activities that employees
complete for their organizations on a daily basis” (Oldham &
Fried, 2016, p. 20). This category encompasses task significance, task
identity, task variety, autonomy and feedback, specialization, and infor-
mation processing (Grant et al., 2011; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2008).
We discovered that employees with jobs characterized by high task
variety (i.e., their jobs encompassed a broad range of different tasks)
and decision-making- and work methods autonomy (e.g., they often
worked on projects that allowed them to decide over work methods
and outcomes) were more likely to enact interconnectivity, immediacy,
and schedulability, associated with high communication frequency and
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL
timeliness. In contrast, employees with little task variety in their jobs
and lower levels of decision-making and work methods autonomy were
less likely to enact immediacy and interconnectivity. Most of them only
enacted schedulability, which was associated with low communication
frequency and timeliness.
All informants enacted shareability, regardless of task characteris-
tics. However, we found that task variety and autonomy affected the
enactment of cue communicability and cue hideability. If provided
with an integrated ACT, individuals with jobs that have high autonomy
and task variety tended to enact cue communicability to share rich
information, which fostered accurate and problem-solving communi-
cation. In contrast, individuals having jobs with low autonomy and
task variety tended to enact cue hideability, which hampered accurate
and problem-solving communication.
We found a similar trend when comparing groups with varying
knowledge characteristics, which describe the knowledge that
employees need to acquire, retain, and use to fulfill their duties
(Grant & Parker, 2009). This dimension includes job complexity, infor-
mation processing, creative problem solving,1 skill variety, and special-
ization (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Differences were most
pronounced between jobs that required high and low levels of crea-
tive problem solving. This knowledge characteristic describes the need
to solve tasks with no clear answer, find unique solutions, and work
creatively (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Creative jobs or those con-
taining project work typically required high levels of creative problem
solving. Employees who held these jobs were more likely to enact
interconnectivity, immediacy, and cue communicability than those
with jobs that followed a standardized process (e.g., payroll, finance)
and required lower levels of creative problem solving (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006). Jobs requiring lower levels of creative problem
solving were associated with the enactment of cue hideability, which
hampered accurate communication.
Social characteristics are the interpersonal interactions and rela-
tional networks employees have as part of their job (Grant &
Parker, 2009, p. 322). This dimension includes social support, interac-
tions within and outside of the team or organization, initiated and
received interdependence, and feedback from others (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006, 2008). A social characteristic relevant to digital com-
munication was interdependence across teams. Among our informants,
some employees had jobs with interdependence only between col-
leagues of the same functional specialization. They were required to col-
laborate with their direct team members, but not with colleagues
working for other teams, departments, or subsidiaries. When working in
the office, individuals still had unplanned informal exchanges with mem-
bers of other teams (e.g., when meeting colleagues from other teams in
the tea kitchen). When working remotely, they enacted the affordance
of interconnectivity to a lower extent, and cross-departmental interac-
tions were scarce. This could easily lead to feelings of “siloing” (individ-
ual or group isolation) because employees were missing information
from other departments, as one interviewee explained:
But outside, in related […] departments or in general
[…] these coincidental meetings have become fewer.

FUCHS AND REICHEL
TABLE 4 Exemplary quotes and comparison of task, knowledge, and social characteristics
Job characteristics Low expression of characteristic
Task characteristics So, my main job is pre-capturing invoices
Task Variety
[…]. Then we must check the invoices,
from the invoice number to the invoice
date, and send them to the person who
must check or release them, and then
they continue in the workflow […].
(Interview 20)
Decision-Making […] it's about financing decisions over a cer-
Autonomy Work
tain amount. […] the national bank and
Methods
Autonomy European central bank give us the stan-
dards and guidelines. And our entire work
process is based on these. (Interview 2)
Knowledge That is essentially the procedure. Checking
characteristics
the application, passing on the docu-
Creative Problem
Solving ments, obtaining the documents, obtain-
ing expert opinions, and processing the
regular mail, and finally issuing the deci-
sion is the crowning glory of each course
of proceedings. (Interview 36)
Social I'm basically […] solely responsible for my
characteristics
training, of course, coordinated with my
Interdependence
Across Teams supervisor. And then I have four brand
colleagues [= same team …]. And I coor-
dinate with them […] and exchange infor-
mation […]. So, I'm in exchange with
them, but I work on my own.
(Interview 3)
⇩ ⇩
Low affordance enactment for effective communication
[…] Certain things are simply not visible, […] what you
heard before over the grapevine―you do not get
that anymore, so it's not there. And sometimes you are
just in your own silo. (Interview 21)
On the other hand, employees with jobs that were inter-
dependent across teams or even divisions tended to perceive and
enact interconnectivity, which allowed them to maintain effective
communication:
For me, the main thing is this change, this being on an
equal footing, this togetherness, which did not really
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
High expression of characteristic
The bottom line is that we do not have
that [typical workday], I have to say.
Because we do a lot of new things in
employer branding […]. Accordingly, we
do not really have a typical day that
always runs the same way. There is rel-
atively little routine. (Interview 16)
[…] we get certain projects. [… we] deal
with the topic independently […] And
then we ask the other employees […] if
they want to have a look at it […] Then
we work together on a concept. That's
usually the way it works, but it's very
project dependent. (Interview 38)
There are project planning issues. […]
what do we get done and how quickly?
Which resources. How do we do
change management and project man-
agement well? That has of course been
a focus in the entire project because it
was a huge hummer. (Interview 8)
[…] we have an interface with many
departments. For example, payroll
accounting is a strong interface when it
comes to legal issues […]. We have a
strong interface with employer brand-
ing and site marketing. […] We work
very closely together […] and, of
course, with the individual departments
[…]. (Interview 24)
High affordance enactment for effective communication
exist before. You now know all your colleagues from
other locations. […] and I would advise every company
to use these communication tools to take advantage
of this opportunity and bring the team together.
(Interview 35)
In summary, individuals holding jobs with higher task variety,
autonomy, and creative problem solving were more likely to
enact all affordances related to effective communication. Individ-
uals with interdependence across teams were more likely to
enact interconnectivity, associated with frequent and timely
communication.

12
Proposition 2a. Employees holding jobs with high task vari-
ety and autonomy (task characteristics) are more likely to
enact interconnectivity, immediacy, and cue communicability
than those holding jobs with low task variety and autonomy.
Proposition 2b. Employees holding jobs with high crea-
tive problem solving (knowledge characteristic) are more
likely to enact interconnectivity, immediacy, and cue com-
municability than those holding jobs with low creative
problem solving.
Proposition 2c. Employees holding jobs with high interde-
pendence across teams (social characteristic) are more
likely to enact interconnectivity than those holding jobs
with low interdependence across teams.
5.3 | The moderating effects of HR practice
For jobs characterized by high task variety, autonomy, creative
problem-solving requirements, and interdependence across teams,
we found differences in affordance enactment despite generally
strong enactment of affordances associated with effective commu-
nication. This led us to investigate factors that influence the rela-
tionship between job characteristics and affordance enactment. We
found that interventions in the form of HR practices played a crucial
role in shaping human–technology interaction. The practice school
of strategy denotes that all practical activities carried out by organi-
zational actors that affect the micro-, meso-, or macro-level of an
organization are practices (Jarzabkowski, 2004). Building on this, a
new research stream of HRM-as-practice sees HR practices as
observable, actual interventions carried out or implemented by
practitioners within an organization (Björkman et al., 2014). Follow-
ing this definition, we identified two practices that moderated the
relationship between job characteristics and affordance enactment
FIGURE 1 Integrative framework for effective communication via ACT
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL
but also had a direct positive effect on affordance enactment for
effective communication: introducing an integrated ACT and imple-
menting rules requesting the use of the integrated ACT by all orga-
nizational members. Figure 1 combines these findings with the
findings on job characteristics.
In organizations that implemented different technologies for each
communication type or feature (e.g., separate technologies for the
chat and call function), users were less likely to enact interconnectivity
and immediacy, the two main affordances inviting frequent and timely
communication:
I would find it good if you could solve everything
through a program. […] Supposedly [an integrated
ACT] is coming soon, which would of course improve
the whole thing. But as of today […] I work with three
if not four different [communication] programs, which
makes the whole thing very time-consuming and
also represents an obstacle for many colleagues.
(Interview 45)
They were also less likely to enact cue communicability, an affor-
dance relevant to accurate and problem-solving communication. In
contrast, individuals in organizations that implemented one ACT that
integrated all characteristics into one technology were more likely to
enact affordances relevant to effective communication.
However, providing an integrated ACT was not always suffi-
cient in fostering effective communication. This was the case if indi-
viduals (or the recipients of their communication) only interacted
with singular features of the ACT or if they interacted with alterna-
tive technologies as a substitute for the integrated ACT. For exam-
ple, some individuals appropriated the telephone instead of the ACT
call function, or they appropriated external messaging programs
instead of the ACT chat function. In these cases, their perception of
affordances was like that of individuals who did not have an
integrated ACT.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL 13

TABLE 5 Matrix connecting interventions (HR practices) with job characteristics

No Intervenons Intervenons

High
Task Variety, Autonomy, Creave Problem

Low enactment of High enactment of

Solving, Interdependence across Teams

communicaon affordances communicaon affordances

Ø Ø
Job Characteriscs

Negave effect on effecve Posive effect on effecve

communicaon communicaon

Low enactment of Varying enactment of

communicaon affordances communicaon affordances
Ø Ø
Neutral or negave effect on Varying effects on effecve
effecve communicaon communicaon
Low

Our analysis showed that introducing rules requesting the use of were not provided with an integrated ACT or if the organization
the integrated ACT was a successful means to ensure that individuals accepted the appropriation of alternative tools, employees were less
leveraged the full potential of an integrated ACT. Examples of such likely to enact affordances for effective communication. Then
rules were restrictions of alternative communication technologies, employees reported negative effects on communication (e.g., barriers
communication guidelines governing the appropriation of the ACT to communication, misunderstandings, lacking information, and
(e.g., guidelines to prioritize synchronous ACT features over e-mail), or delays).
best practices on availability and maximum answer times through the Employees holding jobs marked with low task variety, autonomy,
ACT (which implicitly forced employees to be logged into the ACT), as creative problem solving, and interdependence across teams were less
one interviewee explained: likely to perceive and enact affordances for effective communication.
The few who could maintain effective communication in a remote
[…] we have a commitment with our company. When work setting had an integrated ACT that was used by all members of
we are [working] mobile, we have a maximum response the organization. But for many of these employees, neither an inte-
time on the phone and [ACT] of fifteen minutes if you grated ACT nor communication rules lead to the enactment of affor-
are not in an appointment. (Interview 15) dances in a way that maintained effective communication. This points
toward a positive, albeit weak effect of the described interventions
Both interventions (i.e., an integrated ACT and communication rules) also on the relationship between job characteristics and affordance
seemed to have a direct and positive effect on the enactment of affor- enactment for this group of employees. Those who did not enact
dances relevant to effective communication. Thus, we propose: affordances for effective communication described some adverse
effects on communication. However, the negative impact was less
Proposition 3. The provision of an integrated ACT pronounced compared to the group with high expressions of
accompanied by rules requesting the use of this ACT by all described job characteristics (see Table 5).
organizational members positively affects the enactment Summing up, we formulated the following propositions:
of affordances for effective communication.
Proposition 4. The provision of an integrated ACT and
The interventions described above also moderated the relation- the implementation of rules requesting the use of this ACT
ship between job characteristics and affordance enactment, as dis- by all organizational members affect the relationship
played in Table 5. between job characteristics and effective communication.
Individuals holding jobs with higher task variety, autonomy, crea-
tive problem solving, and interdependence across teams—who were Proposition 5a. Employees holding jobs with high task
overall more likely to maintain effective communication in a remote variety and autonomy (task characteristics) will likely enact
work setting—enacted affordances associated with effective commu- interconnectivity, immediacy, and cue communicability
nication if they were provided with an integrated ACT plus rules if provided with an integrated ACT accompanied by
ensuring the company-wide use of this ACT. They maintained or even rules requesting the use of this ACT by all organizational
improved effective communication. In contrast, if these employees members.

14
Proposition 5b. Employees holding jobs with high crea-
tive problem solving (knowledge characteristic) will likely
enact interconnectivity, immediacy, and cue communica-
bility if provided with an integrated ACT accompanied by
rules requesting the use of this ACT by all organizational
members.
Proposition 5c. Employees holding jobs with interdepen-
dence across teams (social characteristic) will likely enact
interconnectivity if provided with an integrated ACT
accompanied by rules requesting the use of this ACT by all
organizational members.
6 | DISCUSSION
6.1 | General Discussion
Our study investigated how to maintain effective communication in a
remote work setting. When employees work remotely, frequent face-
to-face communication in a shared workspace is scarce. ACTs then
become essential for continuing communication between colleagues
(Greer & Payne, 2014). From an affordance perspective, an ACT is a
material actor with which social actors interact. In this interaction,
social actors perceive material action possibilities and potentially
enact them (Evans et al., 2017). Enacting affordances in turn affects
communication outcomes. Hence, investigating affordances is a valu-
able perspective for explaining why (unexpected) outcomes occur
when organizations introduce new technologies (Leonardi, 2009;
Leonardi & Barley, 2008; Orlikowski, 2000).
In line with existing research, we find that the ACT's material fea-
tures relate to several affordances that can both foster and hamper
effective communication. In our heterogeneous sample, employees
perceive and enact the affordances of interconnectivity, immediacy,
and schedulability as well as shareability, cue communicability, and
cue hideability. The enactment of interconnectivity and immediacy
fosters frequent and timely communication, respectively. For schedul-
ability, the control over when to communicate with others, we see an
interdependence with the affordance of immediacy. If users enact
both affordances, frequent communication is fostered, but if they
enact schedulability without immediacy, it hampers frequent and
timely communication. Enacting shareability and cue communicability
fosters accurate communication. Cue communicability is also associ-
ated with problem-solving communication. In contrast, enacting cue
hideability hampers accurate and problem-solving communication.
Employees across organizations with diverse fields of work, hier-
archical levels, team tenure, and computer experience reported the
affordances described above. However, we find a pattern in the varia-
tion of affordance perception and enactment driven by job character-
istics, following the job design models by Grant et al. (2011) and
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Relational coordination theory iden-
tifies organizational structures as relevant for relational coordination
(Bolton et al., 2021). Jobs are important components of organizational
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL
structures. Thus, our findings support previous studies on relational
coordination but go far beyond them because we identified the full
range of job characteristics as described in up-to-date job design liter-
ature as impacting on effective communication. The affordance per-
spective can explain how this impact unfolds.
Relational coordination theory also proposes that relational and
work process interventions positively influence communication and
relationship ties (Bolton et al., 2021). Our inductive analysis reveals two
additional practices—introducing an integrated ACT and rules request-
ing the company-wide use of this specific ACT—that directly impact
effective communication but also act as a moderator for the relation-
ship between job characteristics and affordance enactment. Specifically,
individuals holding jobs with high task variety and autonomy (task char-
acteristics), creative problem solving (knowledge characteristic), and
interdependence across teams (social characteristic) enact affordances
for effective communication if these practices are in place.
Findings on the impact of shared information systems on relational
coordination have been mixed (Bolton et al., 2021). Our study points
toward the positive effect of integrated ACTs on the enactment of affor-
dances for effective communication. Introducing such a comprehensive
ACT combined with rules guiding its use is the most successful practice—
and it even seems to be a requirement—for maintaining effective
communication. Thus, our data support the beneficial influence of shared
information systems and shared communication systems for supporting
relational coordination when employees work in separated locations.
When looking at the structural context of job characteristics, our
most surprising findings are those on the influence of task characteris-
tics. Autonomy and task variety encourage jobholders to perceive and
enact affordances that allow them to maintain effective communication
if provided with an integrated ACT. While existing studies uncovered
various organizational structures that influence relational coordination
(Bolton et al., 2021), autonomy and task variety have not yet been iden-
tified as influencing contextual structures in this discourse.
The knowledge characteristic of creative problem solving, too,
links to relational coordination. Previous studies show that communi-
cation and relationships influence problem solving mediated by the
perceived collaborative environment (Bozan, 2017). We expand these
findings by proposing that creative problem solving is not just an out-
come, but (as a knowledge characteristic) also an antecedent of rela-
tional coordination. Creative problem solving does not necessarily
involve interaction with others. However, our findings show that
holders of jobs that require a great deal of creative problem solving
are more likely to enact affordances in a way that allows them to
maintain effective communication if provided with an integrated ACT.
Combined with previous studies on creative problem-solving out-
comes, this finding strengthens a more dynamic view of relational
coordination. This view has gained popularity in recent years. It pro-
poses a more circular role of relational coordination (Gittell, 2016),
i.e., relational coordination promotes creative outcomes and it is pro-
moted by jobs with creative problem-solving characteristics.
The positive link of the social characteristic ‘interdependence across
teams’ with the enactment of affordances for effective communication
is in line with existing research that finds relational coordination to be

FUCHS AND REICHEL
strengthened by structures that cut across teams, departments, or even
organizations (Bolton et al., 2021). Gittell (2000) shows that creating
well-defined roles that include a need for cross-role coordination is asso-
ciated with higher levels of relational coordination. Similarly, our study
shows that jobholders whose jobs are interdependent with jobs in other
departments or teams perceive and enact affordances for effective com-
munication if provided with an integrated ACT. If interdependence only
exists within teams or departments, affordances for effective communi-
cation are less likely to be enacted regardless of the type of ACT and
regardless of the existence of communication rules.
6.2 | Theoretical implications
Based on a qualitative analysis, we engaged in theory-building activi-
ties and created a model that integrates relational coordination theory
and affordance theory (see Figure 1). Affordance theory, which is at
the center of our empirical investigation, emphasizes the role of mate-
rial agency (Evans et al., 2017). Hence, it challenges the viewpoint of
technologies as “passive tools” or simple input variables. Introducing
it to the field of relational coordination to analyze human–technology
interactions allowed us to uncover affordances underlying digital com-
munication and factors (structural context factors and interventions)
shaping them. We show that the material features of ACTs have the
potential to maintain effective communication in remote work
settings—but only if users enact relevant affordances. We identify the
affordances of interactivity, immediacy, schedulability, shareability,
and cue communicability as necessary for effective communication
with ACT. Thus, they function as a mediator that can explain why
the shift to digital communication channels does or does not trans-
late into effective communication for employees. However, whether
employees perceive and enact these affordances strongly depends on
the structural context (Volkoff & Strong, 2013).
Job characteristics have a significant impact on a variety of desir-
able outcomes for organizations and employees (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2008). Our empirical analysis reveals that they are also
critical for effective communication in remote work settings, as they
function as a relevant structural context shaping user–ACT interac-
tion. We build on this finding and provide new empirical results on
how task, knowledge, and social characteristics of jobs shape the per-
ception and enactment of affordances relevant to effective communi-
cation. To do so, we rely on established models of job design (Grant
et al., 2011) and conceptualize the job characteristics as the structural
context in which user-ACT interaction unfolds. In doing so, we enrich
relational coordination theory as we show that job characteristics
beyond those already studied (i.e., relational job design defined as
clear roles with flexible boundaries; Bolton et al., 2021) influence
effective communication.
In addition, we identify targeted interventions in the form of HR
practices that strengthen the relationship between these job charac-
teristics and affordance enactment for effective communication. Our
analysis shows that these practices do not only directly affect affor-
dances related to effective communication. They also moderate the
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
relationship between job characteristics and affordance enactment. As
a result, we derived first propositions on how specific job characteris-
tics combined with HR practices relate to frequent, timely, accurate,
and problem-solving communication, mediated by affordances. Thus, in
the research field of relational coordination theory that mostly assumes
a shared workspace, this is one of the first studies that analyzes how to
maintain effective communication in a remote work setting.
6.3 | Practical implications
Our findings emphasize the crucial role of job characteristics and HR
practices in influencing user–ACT interaction and fostering effective
digital communication. This notion is relevant for organizations and
practitioners faced with the task of supporting effective communica-
tion in a remote work environment. As shown in this article, imple-
menting any ACT and assuming that employees will interact with it
in ways desired by the organization will not suffice in maintaining
effective communication. Rather, practitioners need to acknowledge
perceived action possibilities that underly employees' appropriation
of ACTs to decide on the type of ACT and related practices
(e.g., communication rules). Using an affordance approach, we dis-
cover that introducing a comprehensive ACT that integrates all func-
tions into one technology and rules that request the use of that
technology by all organizational members are most successful in main-
taining effective communication. These are actionable pieces of infor-
mation for practitioners.
Research reports that when new technologies are introduced in
organizations, the IT department and IT leaders typically carry the
main responsibility for the organization's digital transformation
(e.g., Gobble, 2018; Hsu et al., 2018). HR managers are rarely consid-
ered relevant actors when new technologies are introduced (e.g., case
studies on the introduction of a knowledge management system
Leonardi, 2011, computer simulation technology Leonardi, 2009,
mobile communication devices Mazmanian et al., 2006). Our findings,
however, show that HR practitioners were involved in the transforma-
tion process and were leading the creation and spreading of the rules
requesting the use of the comprehensive ACT. Still, decisions about
which technologies to introduce are not seen as an HRM task. Our
findings show that it is important to involve HRM from the outset so
that, in close cooperation with IT, a system can be found that—
supported by suitable sets of rules—enables effective communication.
Despite the importance of HR practices as interventions for
effective communication, these practices do not guarantee that all
users will enact affordances for effective communication. The reason
is that the characteristics of jobs strongly influence which affordances
individuals perceive and enact. In the short run, job characteristics
represent the structural context in which users interact with ACTs.
However, over longer time-periods, structures, too, can be changed.
Managers have a substantial influence on work-design choices (i.e., the
configuration and development of task, knowledge, social, and physical
characteristics), rendering it a powerful practice to positively influence
organizational outcomes (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2008). While some

16
job characteristics are subject to organizational needs (e.g., certain tasks
need to be fulfilled) and cannot be altered, HR practitioners may be
able to adapt other job characteristics in a way that helps to reach
desired outcomes (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
6.4 | Limitations and future research
In our study, we found that job characteristics and HR practices
have an impact on user–ACT interaction in an inductive process.
This means, we could only observe but not alter existing job charac-
teristics. While our findings combined with existing theory strongly
point toward the potential to pro-actively influence user–ACT inter-
action through targeted decisions about job characteristics, addi-
tional studies with a more controlled structural context or even
planned changes of job characteristics are in order. Similarly, we
analyzed HR practices implemented (and decided upon) by the orga-
nization but were not able to influence these practices. Thus, a
semi-experimental study with controlled variations of interventions
in the form of HR practices would be valuable in gaining a deeper
understanding of specific practices' relative success in maintaining
effective communication compared to each other.
The perception and enactment of affordances depend on the con-
text and the actor (Volkoff & Strong, 2013). While our empirical analy-
sis identified job characteristics as the most relevant structural
context, existing research points toward the influence of individual
characteristics and goals. For example, technology-related traits such
as computer literacy (Neely et al., 2017) or computer self-efficacy
have been identified as characteristics that influence user–technology
interaction in related fields of research (Panopoulos & Sarri, 2013).
These traits may also affect how different job characteristics influence
user–ACT interaction. A closer examination of these actor-level fac-
tors could be a promising avenue for future research.
Another potential avenue for future research lies in the realm
of communication dimensions. According to relational coordina-
tion theory, effective communication consists of four elements:
frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication
(Gittell, 2011). When employees are communicating mainly or
solely through digital channels, a fifth dimension may play a crucial
role in communication effectiveness: rich communication. Early
research on user–technology interaction shows that the richness of
communication channels (i.e., the variety of communication cues)
affects communication success and that rich channels are best suited
for complex topics (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Rich communication is
anchored within two of the affordances we defined as relevant for
effective communication (cue communicability and cue hideability). Our
analysis shows that the enactment of these affordances fosters accu-
rate and problem-solving communication largely due to an increase in
rich communication. This leaves the question of what role communica-
tion richness plays for effective communication: Is it only a component
of affordances connected to effective communication, does it function
as a mediator or may it be an additional, fifth dimension of effective
digital communication?
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL
CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this study are available on
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly
available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
ENDNOTE
1
Note that despite the similar terms, “problem-solving communication”
(i.e., communication to solve problems that arise when collaborating
(Gittell, 2006; Gittell, 2002)) and “creative problem solving” (i.e., the
degree to which jobs require finding creative or unique solutions or ideas
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)) refer to different concepts.
RE FE RE NCE S
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is tele-
commuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychologi-
cal Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and
the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organiza-
tion (Vol. 1). The MIT Press.
Beckers, J. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2003). Computer experience and computer
anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 785–797.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2014).
From HRM practices to the practice of HRM: Setting a research
agenda. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
1(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2014-0008
Bobsin, D., Petrini, M., & Pozzebon, M. (2019). The value of technology
affordances to improve the management of nonprofit organizations.
RAUSP Management Journal, 54, 14–37.
Bolton, R., Logan, C., & Gittell, J. H. (2021). Revisiting relational coordina-
tion: A systematic review. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
57(3), 290–322.
Bozan, K. (2017). The perceived level of collaborative work environment's
effect on creative group problem solving in a virtual and distributed
team environment. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international confer-
ence on system sciences.
Brunelle, E. (2013). Leadership and mobile working: The impact of distance
on the superior-subordinate relationship and the moderating effects
of leadership style. International Journal of Business and Social Science,
4(11), 1–14.
Burt, E., & Taylor, J. A. (2000). Information and communication technolo-
gies: Reshaping voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 11(2), 131–143.
Claggett, J. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Unpacking the structure of coordi-
nation mechanisms and the role of relational coordination in an era of
digitally mediated work processes. Academy of Management Review,
43(4), 704–722.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top
management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of
human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advan-
tage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740–751.
Contreras, F., Baykal, E., & Abid, G. (2020). E-leadership and teleworking in
times of COVID-19 and beyond: What we know and where do we go.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 590271.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements,
media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and com-
munication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly,
32(3), 575–600.

FUCHS AND REICHEL
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating
affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances
in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion, 22(1), 35–52.
Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance
perspective. In materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a techno-
logical world (pp. 237–258).
Fuchs, C., & Reichel, A. (2021). The missing spark of digital channels: Digi-
talisation and informal employee voice behaviour. In P. Kumar, A.
Agrawal, & P. Budhwar (Eds.), Work from home: Multi-level perspectives
on the new Normal (pp. 39–56). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Gibson, C. B., Gibbs, J. L., Stanko, T. L., Tesluk, P., & Cohen, S. G. (2011).
Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: Extending the job
characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual
experiences of electronic dependence and copresence. Organization
Science, 22(6), 1481–1499.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, 1(2), 67–82.
Gittell, J. H. (2000). Organizing work to support relational co-ordination.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(3), 517–539.
Gittell, J. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Rela-
tional coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator
of performance effects. Management Science, 48(11), 1408–1426.
Gittell, J. H. (2006). Relational coordination: Coordinating work through
relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. In
O. Kyriakidou & M. Èzbilgin (Eds.), Relational perspectives in organizational
studies: A research companion (pp. 74–94). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gittell, J. H. (2011). Relational coordination: Guidelines for theory, measure-
ment and analysis (p. 1). Brandeis University.
Gittell, J. H. (2016). Transforming relationships for high performance. In Trans-
forming relationships for high performance. Stanford University Press.
Gittell, J. H., Weinberg, D. B., Bennett, A. L., & Miller, J. A. (2008). Is the
doctor in? A relational approach to job design and the coordination of
work. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 729–755.
Gobble, M. M. (2018). Digital strategy and digital transformation.
Research-Technology Management, 61(5), 66–71.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional
isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does
time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to
communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 93(6), 1412–1421.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in
classic and contemporary perspectives. In S. E. Zedeck (Ed.), APA hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and
developing the organization (pp. 417–453). American Psychological
Association.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories:
The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Manage-
ment Annals, 3(1), 317–375.
Greer, T. W., & Payne, S. C. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Out-
comes of successful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, 17(2), 87–111.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographi-
cally distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity,
shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Sci-
ence, 16(3), 290–307.
Hsu, C. C., Tsaih, R. H., & Yen, D. C. (2018). The evolving role of IT depart-
ments in digital transformation. Sustainability, 10(10), 3706.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation,
and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560.
Jung, Y.-W., Lim, Y., & Kim, M. (2017). Possibilities and limitations of online
document tools for design collaboration: The case of Google Docs. In
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coop-
erative Work and Social Computing.
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
Kwon, S.-W., & Adler, P. S. (2014). Social capital: Maturation of a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 412–422.
Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie
organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalign-
ments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communica-
tion Research, 35(3), 407–441.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies:
Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material
agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
Leonardi, P. M. (2017). Methodological guidelines for the study of materi-
ality and affordances. In M. Raza & S. Jain (Eds.), Routledge companion
to qualitative research in organization studies (pp. 279–290). Routledge.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges
to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information
and Organization, 18(3), 159–176.
Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity
paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions
of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Com-
munication Research, 38(1), 85–105.
Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites.
Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), 207–216.

pez-Igual, P., & Rodríguez-Modroño, P. (2020). Who is teleworking and
Lo
where from? Exploring the main determinants of telework in Europe.
Sustainability, 12(21), 8797.
Lu, Y., Kim, Y., Dou, X. Y., & Kumar, S. (2014). Promote physical activity
among college students: Using media richness and interactivity in web
design. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 40–50.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradic-
tory influence of social media affordances on online communal
knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
19(1), 38–55.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-
flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4), 75–88.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). How virtual teams use their virtual
workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on Manage-
ment Information Systems, 3(1), 1–14.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Enhancing performance of geograph-
ically distributed teams through targeted use of information and com-
munication technologies. Human Relations, 67(4), 389–411.
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coor-
dination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice,
13(6), 522–526.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 12., überarb. Aufl. Weinheim:
Beltz: Weinheim: Beltz.
Mazmanian, M., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2006). Ubiquitous email:
Individual experiences and organizational. Proc. 65th Ann. Meeting of
the academy of management.
McEvoy, P., Escott, D., & Bee, P. (2011). Case management for high-
intensity service users: Towards a relational approach to care co-ordi-
nation. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(1), 60–69.
McMackin, J., & Flood, P. (2019). A theoretical framework for the social
pillar of lean. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Perfor-
mance., 6, 39–55.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. Sage publications.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire
(WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for
assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91(6), 1321–1339.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design:
Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In
Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.

18
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative
research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Jour-
nal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital,
and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Neely, A. R., Cotton, J., & Neely, A. D. (2017). E-mentoring: A model and
review of the literature. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interac-
tion, 9(3), 220–242.
O'Leary, B. S., Lindholm, M. L., Whitford, R. A., & Freeman, S. E. (2002).
Selecting the best and brightest: Leveraging human capital. Human
Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Busi-
ness Administration, the University of Michigan and in Alliance with the
Society of Human Resources Management, 41(3), 325–340.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An
integrative perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1),
463–502.
Oldham, G. R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: Past,
present and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 136, 20–35.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A
practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization
Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Panopoulos, A. P., & Sarri, K. (2013). E-mentoring: The adoption process
and innovation challenge. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment, 33(1), 217–226.
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of
work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420.
Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Challenges in conducting empiri-
cal work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. Organi-
zation Studies, 26(9), 1353–1376.
Romero, J. A. V., Del Señarís, J. L., Heredero, C. D. P., & Nuijten, M. (2014).
Relational coordination and healthcare management in lung cancer.
World Journal of Clinical Cases, 2(12), 757–768.
Ross, D. V. (2015). In pursuit of high performing health care teams: A
test of TeamSTEPPS® as a mode to improve relational coordination in
an ambulatory care team (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Califor-
nia School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International
University.
Schreier, M. (2010). Fallauswahl. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.),
Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 238–251).
Springer.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
Schreier, M., Schmitz-Justen, F., Diederich, A., Lietz, P., Winkelhage, J., &
Heil, S. (2008). Sampling in qualitativen Untersuchungen: Entwicklung
eines Stichprobenplanes zur Erfassung von Präferenzen unterschiedlicher
Stakeholdergruppen zu Fragen der Priorisierung medizinischer Leistungen.
Jacobs University FOR 655.
Van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020). Co-workers working from home
and individual and team performance. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 35(1), 60–79.
1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22161 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [20/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FUCHS AND REICHEL
Van Esch, P., Black, J. S., & Ferolie, J. (2019). Marketing AI recruitment:
The next phase in job application and selection. Computers in Human
Behavior, 90, 215–222.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theo-
rizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly,
37(3), 819–834.
Waber, B. (2013). People analytics: How social sensing technology will trans-
form business and what it tells us about the future of work. FT Press.
Wang, W., Albert, L., & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecom-
muter organizational commitment. Employee Relations, 42(3), 609–625.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Christina Fuchs is a research associate and a member of the
Human Resource Management (HRM) Group at the University of
Salzburg, Austria. Before joining the University of Salzburg in
2020, she worked as Human Resource Manager for an interna-
tional media corporation. Her main research interests are digital
HRM with a focus on human–technology interaction, mobile
work, and digital recruiting.
Astrid Reichel is a full professor and head of the Human Resource
Management Group at the University of Salzburg, Austria. Previ-
ously, she worked as an associate professor at WU Vienna. She
earned her Ph.D. in social and economic sciences from the Univer-
sity of Vienna. Her research focuses on careers, “new” forms of
(international) work, on macro-questions of Human Resource
Management, such as power and organization of HR departments,
and on micro-HRM, especially human–computer interaction in
digital HRM.
SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-
ing Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Fuchs, C., & Reichel, A. (2023).
Effective communication for relational coordination in remote
work: How job characteristics and HR practices shape user–
technology interactions. Human Resource Management, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22161