IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/427.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defying Gravity: What Drives Productivity in Remote Teams?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Fackler

    (ifo Institute, LMU Munich, CESifo, Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard)

  • Michael Hofmann

    (LMU Munich)

  • Nadzeya Laurentsyeva

    (LMU Munich, CESifo)

Abstract

How can teams organize for productive online collaboration? The coronavirus pandemic has led to a large and persistent shift toward remote work. Using fine-grained data from the world's largest platform for open-source software development, we find that the pandemic reduced the productivity of previously co-located teams substantially, whereas similar teams with remote work experience remained resilient. While access to remote talent and experience are important for overall team success, our results highlight the crucial role of communication for productive online collaboration. We find suggestive evidence that, with their peers shifting to online work, remote workers become better integrated into their teams' communication. We conclude that while teams' performance may suffer from the shift to remote work, setting up systems for effective online communication can help mitigate productivity loss.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Fackler & Michael Hofmann & Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, 2023. "Defying Gravity: What Drives Productivity in Remote Teams?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 427, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/427.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrero, Jose Maria & Bloom, Nick & Davis, Steven J., 2020. "Why Working From Home Will Stick," SocArXiv wfdbe, Center for Open Science.
    2. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    3. Cevat Giray Aksoy & Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis & Mathias Dolls & Pablo Zarate, 2022. "Working from Home Around the World," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 53(2 (Fall)), pages 281-360.
    4. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    5. Nicholas Bloom & Ruobing Han & James Liang, 2022. "How hybrid working from home works out," POID Working Papers 059, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    7. Hu, Albert G. Z. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2003. "Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 849-880, June.
    8. Anna Mayda, 2010. "International migration: a panel data analysis of the determinants of bilateral flows," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(4), pages 1249-1274, September.
    9. Michael Gibbs & Friederike Mengel & Christoph Siemroth, 2023. "Work from Home and Productivity: Evidence from Personnel and Analytics Data on Information Technology Professionals," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 7-41.
    10. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    11. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    12. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 465-466, March.
    13. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 450-460, March.
    14. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00984211 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Fackler & Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, 2020. "Gravity in Online Collaborations: Evidence from GitHub," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 21(03), pages 15-20, September.
    2. Michele Mariani & Livia Ristuccia & Pasqualino Montanaro, 2023. "Propensity to work remotely in the Bank of Italy: a behavioural analysis," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 753, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    3. Soonwoo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae (Simon) Lee, 2014. "International trends in technological progress: stylized facts from patent citations, 1980-2011," CeMMAP working papers 16/14, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Li, Yao Amber, 2014. "Borders and distance in knowledge spillovers: Dying over time or dying with age?—Evidence from patent citations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 152-172.
    5. Jennifer H. Chen & Shihmin Lo & Show-Ling Jang & Chi-Cho Huang, 2012. "Strategic partnership and its effect on external learning of technology descendants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 157-179, July.
    6. Heide Fier & Andreas Pyka, 2014. "Against the one-way-street: analyzing knowledge transfer from industry to science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, April.
    7. Guillaume Gueguen & Claudia Senik, 2023. "Adopting telework: The causal impact of working from home on subjective well‐being," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 832-868, December.
    8. Fackler, Thomas A. & Giesing, Yvonne & Laurentsyeva, Nadzeya, 2020. "Knowledge remittances: Does emigration foster innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(9).
    9. Yu-tao Sun & Feng-chao Liu, 2013. "Measuring international trade-related technology spillover: a composite approach of network analysis and information theory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 963-979, March.
    10. Jinyoung Kim & Sangjoon John Lee & Gerald Marschke, 2009. "International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from an Inventor-Firm Matched Data Set," NBER Chapters, in: Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, pages 321-348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Long, Cheryl Xiaoning & Yi, Wei, 2024. "Information effects of high-speed rail: Evidence from patent citations in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Vij, Akshay & Souza, Flavio F. & Barrie, Helen & Anilan, V. & Sarmiento, Sergio & Washington, Lynette, 2023. "Employee preferences for working from home in Australia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 782-800.
    13. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    14. Hyuk-Soo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae Lee & Ryungha Oh, 2022. "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: trends in geographic localization, 1976–2015," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 123-147, April.
    15. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.
    16. Keith Head & Yao Amber Li & Asier Minondo, 2019. "Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 713-727, October.
    17. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    18. Duranton, Gilles & Puga, Diego, 2014. "The Growth of Cities," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 5, pages 781-853, Elsevier.
    19. Cui Zhang & Xiongjin Feng & Yanzhen Wang, 2022. "Technology Spillovers among Innovation Agents from the Perspective of Network Connectedness," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Cristian Barra & Nazzareno Ruggiero, 2022. "On the impact of knowledge and institutional spillovers on RIS efficiency. Evidence from Italian regional level," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 702-752, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gravity model; open source; knowledge workers; knowledge flows; remote work; online labor markets; COVID-19;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • M54 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Labor Management
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.