Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: a socio-technical systems perspective

Abstract

Informal interactions are vital in daily workplace communication, shaping performance, well-being, collaboration, and overall organizational functioning. However, as the ongoing trends of remote and hybrid work present significant changes and challenges to these interactions, supporting remote informal communication (RIC) becomes urgent. To address this pressing issue, we adopt a socio-technical systems perspective to gain in-depth insights into the enabling and constraining factors related to RIC. Our findings of semi-structured interviews with working adults (N=33) reveal important changes and challenges related to informal communication in the remote work context. We identify eleven interrelated socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors, culminating in a comprehensive conceptual framework of RIC. Based on our findings, we provide practical recommendations to effectively facilitate RIC in organizations and discuss future research avenues for understanding effective RIC in organizations.

How do we support spontaneous and informal interactions at work when we do not work in the same office, building, or even country? First raised by Kraut et al. (1990) over 30 years ago, this question has become more and more pressing with the proliferation of remote work (Mark et al., 2022). Thanks to technological advancements (e.g., information and communication technology and broadband internet), remote work is no longer restricted to the high-income workforce and/or globally distributed teams but now extends to all workers who are able to perform at least some of their tasks away from the office (Allen et al., 2015; Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016; Gallup, 2022). Accordingly, remote work concerns most office workers to at least some extent now—whether in fully remote or partially remote (i.e., hybrid) work arrangements—and will do so even more in the future (Gallup, 2022).

The shift to remote work, however, has profoundly affected intraorganizational communication practices, as many of these no longer occur within the same physical space but are mediated through communication technology (Viererbl et al., 2022). This poses a significant impact on informal communication, which has been assumed to depend on physical proximity (Kraut et al., 1990; Liu & Fan, 2022). As a result, familiar communication behaviors, norms, and rituals related to face-to-face informal communication (e.g., literally meeting at the water cooler) change, which can lead to a severe reduction of remote informal communication (RIC; e.g., Bleakley et al., 2021; Lal et al., 2021; Tautz et al., 2022; Viererbl et al., 2022). Because informal communication constitutes a significant amount of overall workplace communication (Koch & Denner, 2022; Kraut et al., 1990; Whittaker et al., 1994), a drastic decrease due to remote work is problematic. A lack of informal communication implies a loss of its associated functions, such as sensemaking (Crampton et al., 1998), fast information spreading (Burke & Wise, 2003), and social bonding (Holmes & Marra, 2004), with detrimental consequences for individual well-being as well as team and organizational functioning. For example, a deficit in informal communication decreases communication efficiency (Wang et al., 2021), creates obstacles to establishing and maintaining team cohesion and shared mental models (Bleakley et al., 2021; Lal et al., 2021; Lechner & Tobias Mortlock, 2021), and can increase feelings of loneliness and isolation (Wang et al., 2021).

Previous research largely builds on Kraut et al.’s (1990) proposition that informal workplace communication occurs less or in different forms when colleagues do not have the chance to “run into each other” (e.g., Golden et al., 2008; Sarbaugh-Thompson & Feldman, 1998; Viererbl et al., 2022). However, we still lack insights into how informal interactions in remote work settings are actually accomplished. Specifically, previous studies on RIC have mostly focused on its content (e.g., discussed topics; Fay & Kline, 2012), typical scenarios (e.g., pre-meeting talk; Viererbl et al., 2022), functions and mechanisms (e.g., social bonding; Bleakley et al., 2021; Blithe, 2014), or consequences (e.g., organizational commitment; Fay & Kline, 2011). This means that previous empirical research on RIC may have advanced our knowledge on the nature and consequences of RIC but not on its constraining and enabling factors. Consequently, despite its importance, we are still missing tangible implications for supporting RIC, today and in the future (Mark et al., 2022).

In response to this critical issue, we adopt a socio-technical systems perspective (Trist, 1981; Trist & Bamforth, 1951) and understand remote work as a context that changes organizational practices (Bélanger et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2021), including informal communication. Specifically, we aim to provide initial insights into the enabling and constraining factors of informal interactions in remote work settings. To uncover these factors, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 working adults who worked in team settings and had experienced both remote and face-to-face work arrangements. Our findings point to an intricate relationship between socio-contextual, intrapersonal and technological factors of RIC. Adopting a socio-technical systems perspective, we extend previous research and propose a comprehensive conceptual framework of RIC that integrates these different factors. This framework serves to guide future research and provide actionable implications for organizations to support RIC.

Informal communication at the core of organizations

Formal communication refers to structured and planned communication, for instance during a scheduled meeting that adheres to a pre-defined agenda. Informal communication has less clear-cut definitional boundaries. It encompasses a range of different communication behaviors, leading to diverse conceptualizations in previous research. Informal communication has been described as unstructured or messy talk (e.g., Koch & Denner, 2022; Mandhana, 2022) that is not planned in advance (e.g., Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Whittaker et al., 1994), and may comprise either only social topics (e.g., Bleakley et al., 2021; Jämsen et al., 2022; Viererbl et al., 2022) or both social and work-related topics (e.g., Fay, 2011; Fay & Kline, 2012; Kraut et al., 1990). Moreover, the existing literature underscores the multifaceted nature of informal communication, noting that workplace interactions often cannot be categorized as either completely informal or completely formal (Koch & Denner, 2022; Kraut et al., 1990). Indeed, even within a single conversation, the nature of communication can shift from formal to informal (Begemann et al., 2021; Mandhana, 2022).

We integrate prior conceptualizations and characteristics and define informal communication as unstructured and/or unplanned communication behavior than can span both non-work (e.g., weekend plans) and work-related topics (e.g., latest work project). Moreover, we conceptualize informal communication along two continuous dimensions: spontaneity (scheduled to spontaneous) and structure (structured to random). Informal communication can manifest as (1) unstructured but planned (e.g., social talk that occurs just before or during the opening moments of a planned meeting), (2) structured but unplanned (e.g., rather superficial small-talk or polite exchanges during greeting rituals that tend to follow the same pattern), or (3) both unplanned and unstructured (e.g., chance encounters in the office kitchen that do not follow any discernible pattern). This third type is most aligned with the common understanding of informal communication by laypersons.

Informal communication is a pervasive workplace phenomenon that strongly impacts team and organizational functioning. Essentially, informal communication significantly influences social capital in organizations (i.e., social networks that enable collective action and mutual support; Knoke, 1999) by fostering relationships and cooperation beyond formal structures in organizations (Holmes, 2003; Holmes & Marra, 2004; Shaik & Makhecha, 2019). It creates efficient information networks, which are especially vital when formal channels are constrained (Crampton et al., 1998), facilitating problem-solving, interdisciplinary collaboration (Mandhana, 2022), and sensemaking (Burke & Wise, 2003). Thus, informal communication has been tied to a variety of benefits for individuals, teams, and organizations, including well-being (Methot et al., 2021), job satisfaction (Koch & Denner, 2022), or shared cognition (Leonardi, 2018).

Previous research highlights several factors influencing informal interactions in co-located work settings, including social norms, privacy (Fayard & Weeks, 2007), the need to fulfill specific functions (e.g., sharing information; Koch & Denner, 2022), close relationships, spontaneity, visibility and availability of communication partners (e.g., the open door of a colleague’s office; Kraut et al., 1990), or the office layout (e.g., location and design of breakrooms; Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Liu & Fan, 2022). Most of these factors are closely tied to physical proximity, which has consistently been emphasized as paramount for informal communication (e.g., Conrath, 1973; Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Kraut et al., 1990). However, as remote work is inherently characterized by a lack of physical proximity, it appears substantially less conducive to informal interactions (e.g., Lal et al., 2021; Viererbl et al., 2022).

Informal communication and remote work

Given its pervasiveness and importance for organizational functioning, a decline of informal communication within remote work settings is concerning (Blanchard, 2021; Stöckl & Struck, 2022), risking increased isolation (Charalampous et al., 2019; Cooper & Kurland, 2002), narrower collaboration networks (Yang et al., 2022), and reduced communication efficiency (Wang et al., 2021). Despite these challenges, informal communication still emerges in remote settings (Jämsen et al., 2022; Woo et al., 2023), fulfilling largely the same functions (Blithe, 2014; Viererbl et al., 2022) and offering similar organizational benefits as face-to-face informal communication (e.g., enhanced organizational commitment and identification; Fay & Kline, 2011, 2012). However, as RIC happens within the confines and possibilities of remote work settings, there are notable differences in how RIC is accomplished compared to face-to-face informal communication. RIC is often less spontaneous (Viererbl et al., 2022; Woo et al., 2023), more siloed (Lechner & Tobias Mortlock, 2021), and can even differ linguistically from face-to-face communication (e.g., explicitly stating privacy clauses; Blithe, 2014). These differences suggest that understanding RIC requires a context-specific analysis, recognizing the unique affordances and constraints of the context in which it occurs.

A socio-technical systems perspective on RIC

Socio-technical systems theory views social processes in organizations, such as informal communication, as intricately intertwined with their context and as a function of recursive relationships between a social subsystem and a technical subsystem (Trist, 1981; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; for a review on socio-technical systems and related theories, see Leonardi, 2012). The social subsystem involves factors related to the social context, such as organizational norms or interpersonal relationships (which we will call socio-contextual factors). The technical subsystem involves individuals’ use of technological artifacts and resembles what scholars today refer to as sociomaterial practice (Orlikowski, 2007; see also Leonardi, 2012 for a detailed discussion of socio-technical systems and sociomateriality). That is, although the original socio-technical systems scholars did not draw on this terminology, their description of the technical subsystem reflects the imbrication between materiality (i.e., factors intrinsic to an artifact, like specific design features) and intentionality (i.e., factors that shape how materiality is perceived or used, which we will call intrapersonal factors). A result of this imbrication are factors that reflect the affordances and constraints individuals tie to specific technologies (which we will call technological factors), such as their richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986), propinquity (Korzenny, 1978), or social presence (Short et al., 1976).

Many of these technological factors are elements of computer-mediated communication (CMC) theories, which are central to understanding communication in remote work settings. So-called “cues-filtered-out” CMC theories such as media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and social presence theory (Short et al., 1976) consider how the inherent capacities of technologies (e.g., lack of non-verbal cues in emails) impact communication (e.g., lower in richness and social presence). As such, these theories assume that technological affordances and constraints stem more or less directly from the technology’s materiality. While these theories highlight differences between remote and co-located work settings—most notably in terms of less non-verbal and contextual cues, thus inducing ambiguity—, they portray technology use and perception as relatively static (see also Handke et al., 2018, 2021). In contrast, more agentic CMC theories such as channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), electronic propinquity theory (Korzenny, 1978), or social information processing theory (Walther, 1992) consider technological affordances and constraints as perceptions defined not only by the technology’s materiality but also by individuals’ knowledge about the technology itself and their communication partners. This reasoning aligns with the socio-technical systems perspective we adopt in this study, where we consider technological factors to be shaped by—and shape—the way individuals use and perceive technologies, as well as their social environment.

To understand social processes such as RIC thus requires exploring the interplay between the technical and social subsystems (i.e., between what we call socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors) in remote work settings. Building on socio-technical systems reasoning, we assume that the social-contextual factors, intrapersonal, and technological factors not only mutually shape how RIC is accomplished but that they also shape each other to optimally fit the unique context of remote work (Landers & Marin, 2021; Leonardi, 2012; Orlikowski, 2007; Wang et al., 2021). Thus, transitioning from co-located to remote work settings should not only alter technological factors of informal communication but also its socio-contextual and intrapersonal factors to optimally fit the remote work context. Understanding how RIC is accomplished necessitates a reevaluation of these factors, implying changes in their meaning (i.e., their interpretation) and meaningfulness (i.e., their importance; Busco, 2009; Giddens, 1991). By examining specific work experiences characteristic to RIC, we aim to identify enabling and constraining factors of RIC (categorized into socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors) and elucidate how they interact.

Method

Sample and study procedure

In Spring 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were part of a larger research project. The interviews consisted of two parts. For our study’s purpose, we analyzed the data from the second part of the interview, which concerns participants’ experiences with informal communication while working remotely over the past year. We chose a qualitative approach over quantitative methods due to the exploratory nature of our research question. Combining previous literature on informal communication, CMC, and socio-technical systems led us to assume that RIC is accomplished differently than co-located informal communication. Given the limited empirical research on this topic, we aimed to uncover potential enabling and constraining factors of RIC and provide initial theoretical considerations. In-depth interviews provide more detailed information and also allowed us to explore the function and significance of potential factors (Tracy, 2019).

We recruited N = 34 working adults through social networks. To take part in the study, participants had to be at least 18 years of age, work at least part-time, needed to regularly be in contact with other people at work (i.e., work in a team), and have worked at least partially remotely during the past year. One interview had to be excluded because the interviewee’s lengthy responses exceeded the time limit, preventing completion of the crucial second part of the interview within the interviewee’s time constraints. The final sample thus comprised 33 working adults (M_age = 32.61 years, SD_age = 11.64; 63.6% female, 36.4% male). The average job tenure of participants was 6 years (SD = 6.69), and participants had worked in their current team for 3.09 years on average (SD = 4.24). Participants worked in teams with an average size of 11.28 team members (SD = 9.04) and generally perceived the work-related collaboration with their colleagues as very close (M = 4.12, SD = 0.86, on a scale from 1 = not close at all to 5 = extremely close), implying a high interdependency of their work tasks. Most participants (90.9%) indicated having no leadership position at work. All participants mentioned that back in the office, they frequently communicated informally to discuss work-relevant topics, share personal information, and to socialize.  Appendix A presents the participant profiles in detail.

Prior to the pandemic, most participants (72.7%) had no remote or hybrid work arrangements. However, all participants reported substantial remote working experience over the past 12 months, either with fully remote or hybrid work arrangements. Thus, our sample did not just recently transition to remote work but had been working in rather established remote settings. This was particularly beneficial for investigating the interrelated enabling and constraining factors of RIC. In addition to having time to adjust to the constraints and affordances of the remote work context, our sample had also had more time to reflect on remote communication processes over the past year of remote and hybrid work arrangements.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconferences or phone and lasted approximately 30–45 minutes. Prior to the interviews, participants filled out a short online survey assessing demographic variables. During the second and relevant part of the interview for this study, the participants were asked about (1) their current experiences of informal communication practices with their team members while working remotely, (2) whether these experiences changed over the past year, (3) whether and why they missed informal communication, (4) potential barriers for RIC, and finally, (5) strategies used to enhance RIC. The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis, resulting in complete transcripts totaling 104,155 words across 114 pages of the relevant part of the interview.

Analytical procedure

Using MAXQDA (VERBI Software, 2020), we conducted a qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to identify relevant enabling and constraining factors. The process was iterative and involved a blend of two inductive steps and one deductive step. In the first inductive step, the first author familiarized herself with the data by reading and re-reading the transcribed interviews. This led to codes derived directly from the data. Any reports that were associated with our research focus (i.e., enabling and constraining factors of RIC) were coded. In the second inductive step, the codes were utilized to create a working coding scheme. The first author selected exemplary quotes for each first-order code and generated names and definitions. To enhance the rigor of the analysis, the first author and a second independent coder double-coded six interviews using the working coding scheme and discussed the coding afterward to resolve differences. This step aimed to further refine the codes, establish more precise coding rules, and create detailed code descriptions. All codes were treated as non-exclusive, meaning that the same piece of data could be assigned to multiple codes. Third, tying the codes back to our theoretical framework, the first and second author deductively categorized the codes into three categories: socio-contextual factors (relating to the social subsystem), intrapersonal factors, and technological factors (both of which relate to the technical subsystem, or sociomaterial practice; Leonardi, 2012; Orlikowski, 2007). Afterward, we refined the codes one final time to ensure they accurately represented their corresponding factors, for example by adjusting labels for clarity and abstraction. Table 1 presents the main ideas of the codes, exemplary quotes, and the three categories based on socio-technical systems theory.

Results

Although 60.6% of participants noted their organization’s top-down initiatives to increase RIC (e.g., virtual coffee breaks), two-thirds of all participants reported that RIC either consistently remained low or decreased after transitioning to remote work a year ago. However, this experience was not universal across interviewees, suggesting that adapting to the changed communication context and practice varies and is shaped by different factors of RIC.

Interrelated enabling and constraining factors of RIC

We identified eleven enabling and constraining factors of RIC, categorized into socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors. Table 1 presents these factors, their main ideas, and exemplary quotes from the data. Figure 1 presents a comprehensive conceptual model of RIC and its factors. Consistent with the socio-technical systems perspective (Trist, 1981), the socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors we identified appear to interrelate and interact in enabling and constraining RIC.

Socio-contextual factors

Our analysis identified two socio-contextual factors: (1) perceived proximity and (2) remote communication norms. Participants found that the closeness and quality of their relationships with colleagues played a significant role in experiencing RIC. Thus, perceived proximity (i.e., the subjective sense of interpersonal closeness) emerged as a significant factor of RIC. Participants with pre-existing office relationships transitioned more seamlessly to remote communication methods, such as group chats or (video) calls. For example, Rosa¹, without pre-pandemic remote work experiences, reported relatively unchanged informal communication with her close colleagues: “It’s still the same as before. […] Just not in person anymore, but via Skype. But the communication is still there, […] in between, when you need a short break.” Indicatively, adapting informal communication practices to the remote work context happened more quickly and was experienced as less challenging, suggesting a less pronounced decline in informal interactions among colleagues with close relationships.

However, employees starting their jobs in remote settings without the opportunity to connect in person may struggle with RIC. For example, Michael observed that transitioning to remote work with a team he had known for over two and a half years had minimal impact on their informal communication. Yet, starting in a new team entirely remotely proved challenging for him. Despite his previous remote work experience and close work-related collaboration with his new colleagues, the inability to meet in person, in a setting where using cameras during meetings was not the norm, made it difficult for him to connect with the new team and hindered RIC.

It’s very different when you only get to know someone, or a whole team, remotely versus in person; the differences are significant. […] In my case, it was even more extreme because for the first five months, no one used their camera in the meetings. So, you only knew the voices of the people. […] What is missing is the interpersonal relationship, which is significantly harder to build digitally. Especially if you work in a company where it is not customary for people to use cameras.

His report not only suggests a perpetual cycle of lacking RIC and struggling to form relationships in remote settings, but also points to the second emerging socio-contextual factor of RIC: organizational norms surrounding remote communication.

Aligning with findings by Fayard and Weeks (2007) regarding the importance of social norms, our results indicated that remote communication norms (i.e., unwritten rules and expectations related to remote communication) played an important role in shaping RIC. Michael’s experience highlights how restrictive norms, such as prohibitions on using video during calls, were perceived as dysfunctional and constraining RIC. Such norms, sometimes formalized as organizational policies, could even leave those in leadership positions, like Ruth, with little recourse: “We are not allowed to use video at all, and I think that already makes a difference.” Despite her leadership position, she did not report having initiated changes.

Next to the presence of dysfunctional norms, the absence of functional norms also posed obstacles to RIC. Elizabeth’s expressed reluctance and fear of being intrusive by “simply calling” someone reflects an uncertainty about the appropriateness of initiating informal interactions: “You don’t exchange as much as before, because somehow there’s this hesitation. You don’t want to annoy each other.” Even with visual availability cues present (e.g., status indicators), participants experienced uncertainty and reluctance in initiating contact, such as Daniel described:

If I see that a colleague with whom I want to have a quick chat because something funny has happened or whatever, has been absent for 10 minutes, I naturally don’t call her […] there is this inhibition: ‘Has she already finished work? Is she still sitting at her desk? Is she already at the playground with her kids or whatever?’

Despite Daniel’s close collaboration with his colleagues, he hesitated to initiate contact due to the inconsistent use of virtual availability cues.

Pointing to the important role of norms surrounding availability while working in remote settings, Angela criticized the expectation at her work to always be available while working remotely: “You always have to be available, which is annoying. It was never like that in the past.” Due to perceived norms in her organization, she felt compelled to be always available for potential communication requests. Overall, these insights shed light on how remote communication norms can shape RIC.

Intrapersonal factors

Our analysis identified four intrapersonal factors affecting RIC: (1) perceived workload, (2) need for informal communication, (3) proactivity, and (4) technology skills and familiarity. First, participants reported that a high perceived workload (i.e., the amount and intensity of work-related tasks and responsibilities) when working remotely impeded their ability to engage in RIC. For example, Angela reported that she did not have the time or interest in engaging in additional activities such as RIC: “If you are attending video calls 24/7, then you do not feel like having another video call in the evening anymore [for a remote informal conversation].” The increase in formal meetings in remote settings further exacerbated the impact of workload, reducing the time and energy for informal communication. For example, Richard reported: “You are definitely much more involved in various meetings and, accordingly, have less time to just talk with colleagues.” Arguably, the increase in formal meetings may also have resulted from a lack of fast and efficient informal information sharing, pointing to a vicious cycle of too little RIC and too many formal meetings.

Second, the individual need for informal communication (i.e., immediate desire or general inclination for informal communication) emerged as an intrapersonal factor of RIC. This need could be trait-like: Some participants reported having a general disinterest in informal interactions, which corresponded with a reduced need for such communication in remote settings as well. For example, Michael stated that he only enjoys small talk “to a certain extent” and did not enjoy organized attempts to increase RIC, such as scheduled virtual coffee breaks. Especially when the need for RIC was not immediate, measures to instigate RIC were viewed as burdensome. For example, Angela shared her experiences with virtual coffee breaks as “quite terrible” and “no fun at all.” This variation in the intrinsic desire for informal communication may not only impact the immediate experience of RIC but also affect how RIC is accomplished, setting the stage for the next intrapersonal factor—proactivity.

Due to the significant reduction of chance encounters, participants often needed to proactively seek out informal interactions. Thus, we identified proactivity (i.e., taking initiative) as a third important intrapersonal factor that enables or constrains RIC. Unlike informal interactions in the office, RIC was perceived as more intentional and required more conscious choices and actions. Similar to the experiences of the other participants, Michael reported: “I always have to actively choose to do that [informal communication], whether that is asynchronous by participating in a messaging thread or whether that is synchronous by calling someone.” The increased intentional effort needed for RIC occasionally led participants to reconsider whether they really needed to contact their colleagues to “just chat.” Thus, the higher degree of proactivity required for informal communication in remote as opposed to co-located settings was sometimes experienced as an additional barrier.

Fourth, when employees did proactively act on their need for RIC, they had to choose which communication technology (feature) to use and how to use it. Thus, our results suggest that RIC appears to be associated with technology skills and familiarity (i.e., proficiency and comfort with technology). Some participants noted difficulties with adapting to communication technologies and expressed discomfort or concerns about data security. For example, David reported: “It does not come naturally to me, I had to learn everything. I think if I had had my first smartphone when I was six or seven, like the kids nowadays, it would perhaps be more natural,” emphasizing how a lack of familiarity with technology can impede RIC.

Technological factors

Our analysis identified five platform-independent technological factors enabling and constraining RIC: (1) accessibility, (2) usability, (3) visibility, (4) selectivity, and (5) synchronicity. First, the accessibility of communication technologies (i.e., reliability and functioning of technology and technical setup) appears to be a key factor of RIC. For example, next to regular audio quality problems during videoconferences that impaired communication flow, Ruth also mentioned instances of complete failure of their technical infrastructure, which hindered any form of remote communication and left her team frustrated: “Just today, it happened that the technology at home failed completely all morning. Naturally, this caused a considerable amount of stress within the team.” This highlights that smooth technological functioning is a baseline requirement for effective remote communication, including RIC.

Second, even with smoothly functioning ICTs, their usability (i.e., the degree to which communication technologies were easy and effortless to use) impacted RIC. For example, Eric, despite his prior remote work experiences, found using ICTs too effortful to initiate RIC: “To interact with someone, you now must call them, write something. It takes a lot more effort than in the office.” David even described ICTs as a “barrier,” and Frank noted the constant technological intermediary as cumbersome: “There’s always the technology in between.” Thus, depending on the usability of the ICT, RIC could become too effortful to accomplish and may feel less immediate, direct, and personal.

Third, we identified visibility (i.e., ability to see and be seen) as a central technological factor of RIC. Participants highlighted that not being able to see each other and each other’s non-verbal behavior could lead to misinterpretations and increased ambiguity. For example, Angela reported that “because you’re only talking on the phone, you can’t see the facial expressions and gestures of the other person and can misinterpret a lot of things.” Additionally, like Michael, Rosa emphasized the importance of seeing someone’s face, especially for onboarding colleagues: “Some of them might be a bit shy, wondering: ‘Who should I ask now? Who are they even?’ Most of the time, you only see the last name and the initial of the first name, so you can’t really picture who they could be.” This emphasizes the importance of visibility to socialize. Not being able to connect physical features to a name may create barriers to reaching out when needed.

Moreover, visibility also acts as a crucial indicator of availability, essential for initiating RIC. For example, Ruth reported challenges in determining her colleagues’ availability due to a lack of visual availability cues: “We no longer know whether we are easily available or not.” This uncertainty about their colleagues’ availability hindered participants in proactively initiating RIC. Mark, with pre-pandemic remote work experiences, stressed the utility of remote visual availability cues, contrasting it with the ease of assessing availability in an office setting:

[In the office] you can just walk into the neighboring office, look at someone, and then they talk to you. Sometimes you may see that they’re focused on something, so you won’t talk to them. But if I’m sitting here and I call someone on MS Teams, I don’t know what they’re doing. Sometimes I see the status that is green, yellow, or red. Then I know whether they are on the phone or absent or not there at all.

Thus, reliably used virtual visual availability cues were reported to be a remote equivalent of an open office door. Overall, paralleling the importance of visibility in face-to-face settings, visibility appears to be central for accomplishing RIC.

Fourth, selectivity (i.e., the option to choose who the audience is) impacted RIC in the spur of the moment. Participants reported that remote meetings, in which they could not choose their audience, were not conducive to informal communication. For example, Angela reported that “whenever you speak, the whole spotlight is on you.” In contrast, smaller groups or dyads allowed for more spontaneous, off-topic RIC, as described by Rosa: “In smaller circles […] you’re usually not muted so that you can just talk.” Elizabeth further reported using private (group) chats for informal conversations: “We can communicate freely. No one interferes.” Chatting with a pre-selected group not only provided the intimacy necessary for certain discussions but can also occur simultaneously with attending a larger meeting, leading us to our final technological factor of RIC.

Finally, synchronicity (i.e., the timing or simultaneity of communication) emerged as a fifth technological factor of RIC. On the one hand, delayed responses could constrain RIC. For example, Alice, who collaborated very closely with her colleagues, shared that “it’s always more difficult with chats, […] it takes maybe two hours until they answer or get in touch or confirm something.” On the other hand, a lower degree of synchronicity sometimes offered benefits, particularly for the receiver. Participants appreciated the ability to continue conversations at a more convenient time, a flexibility not always available in office settings.

For example, Frank, a leader who collaborated very closely with his team, noted the advantage of this flexibility in remote settings over the immediacy expected in an office:

If someone writes to me needing help, I have the freedom to choose when to respond. Unlike in the office, where you can’t bluntly say ‘I can’t right now’ or you might say ‘I’ll come right away’ but can’t delay for half an hour. With an email, you have the flexibility to respond later. That’s just how it works.

In line with socio-technical systems theory, these findings highlight not only how the interplay between users and the nature of their relationships influences the level of synchronicity afforded by a technology but also how synchronicity relates to RIC.

Discussion

Amid the rise of remote and hybrid work arrangements (Aksoy et al., 2023; Gallup, 2022), understanding RIC is crucial for organizations’ and employees’ ability to survive and thrive in the future. Our study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of RIC by identifying eleven interrelated enabling and constraining factors of RIC. Inspired by a socio-technical systems perspective (Leonardi, 2012; Trist, 1981), we categorized these into socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors. Through the intricate interdependencies we find among these factors, our study extends the underlying concepts of socio-technical systems theory to the realm of RIC.

Theoretical contributions

Due to the shift from a shared physical environment to reliance on communication technologies, our study revealed various enabling and constraining factors of RIC. While some of the factors are only relevant for remote settings (i.e., accessibility, usability, synchronicity, and technology skills and familiarity), others also play a role in co-located work settings, yet with a different meaning and meaningfulness (i.e., visibility, selectivity, proactivity, need for informal communication, perceived workload, communication norms, perceived proximity). In both cases, we argue that the difference to findings from co-located settings originates in the intricate and recursive relationship between the social and technical subsystems of the larger socio-technical system that is remote work (see also Wang et al., 2021). We propose that to understand what factors enable or constrain RIC, we should not consider remote work as an independent variable (as often seen in research on virtual work; e.g., Gilson et al., 2015; Raghuram et al., 2019) but as a context in which socio-contextual, intrapersonal, and technological factors are uniquely intertwined. Accordingly, by extending socio-technical systems theory to remote work, we provide insights into how the interrelation of the social and technical subsystems shapes RIC.

In the next two subsections, we thus present the various enabling and constraining factors of RIC that can be found in this socio-technical system, starting first with those specific to remote work, followed by those which differ in meaning and meaningfulness compared to co-located settings.

Remote-specific factors of informal communication

Physical proximity (Kraut et al., 1990) and other factors dependent on the physical environment, such as the office layout (Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Liu & Fan, 2022), obviously become irrelevant as drivers of informal communication in remote settings. Instead, accessible technology naturally emerged as a fundamental requirement for RIC. Tied to the technology required for remote communication, synchronicity, usability, and technology skills/familiarity also emerged as factors specific to remote settings.

Remote communication requires different skills than face-to-face communication (Schulze et al., 2017). According to CMC theories such as electronic propinquity theory (Korzenny, 1978), channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), or social information processing theory (Walther, 1992), increased familiarity and/or competence with communication technology can change a technology’s affordance (e.g., usability) such that communication is perceived as closer, more personal, and richer in information. This may not only alleviate anxiety or discomfort associated with communication technologies (Brown et al., 2004), but also support RIC.

Moreover, we understand synchronicity as a factor of informal communication unique to the remote context, as face-to-face interactions do not vary in synchronicity. In remote settings, the degree of synchronicity of the communication is shaped not only by the type of communication channel chosen but also by how the conversation partners utilize it. Thus, while a sender may choose a highly synchronous communication channel for urgent messages, the receiver has the flexibility to respond later. This ability to control the timing of communication allows remote channels to be more adaptable to message types and urgencies than face-to-face interactions, highlighting the nuanced role of technology in RIC.

Changes to meaning and meaningfulness of factors in remote settings

Informal communication depends on individuals both signaling availability for communication as well as being able to control the boundaries of communication (Fayard & Weeks, 2007). In co-located settings, availability is conveyed through physical proximity (e.g., standing next to one another by the coffee machine or passing an open office door). In remote settings, however, technology’s visibility features serve to signal openness to RIC and to observe others’ visibility when initiating RIC, thus supporting previous considerations of visibility as a central affordance of CMC (Treem et al., 2020). Similarly, while individuals’ control over the communication boundaries in co-located settings is mediated by the physical materiality within the office environment (e.g., shutting the door, semi-enclosed spaces), in remote settings, this control is exercised through selectivity options of a technology (e.g., private chats).

Accordingly, RIC requires more deliberate actions from individuals, which relates to our findings on the role of proactivity, need for informal communication, and workload. Specifically, factors tied to agency (i.e., the need for informal communication and proactivity) may be more important in remote than in co-located settings. With fewer chance encounters, RIC requires intentional effort and can feel less spontaneous compared to co-located settings (Blithe, 2014; Viererbl et al., 2022). However, the more RIC has to be proactively enacted to satisfy individuals’ need for informal communication, the more it can be experienced as effortful and unnatural, which may again constrain RIC. This is likely to be further exacerbated by the high perceived workload often experienced by remote workers (see Wu & Chen, 2020), which arises as workers attempt to compensate for reduced face time through deliberately signaling their availability (Cristea & Leonardi, 2019) as well as the increase of (formal) meetings in online settings (see also Brodsky & Tolliver, 2022; Reed & Allen, 2022; Romney et al., 2023).

These deliberate and effortful behaviors are generally enforced through remote communication norms. For instance, our results align with prior studies showing that remote workers typically feel compelled to be constantly available and ensure their efforts and performance are recognized (e.g., Barsness et al., 2005; Baruch, 2000; Brocklehurst, 2001; Leonardi et al., 2010). Next to these rather dysfunctional norms related to availability, remote communication norms also pertain to whether to engage in RIC (e.g., whether videoconferences include time for pre-meeting small talk) as well as how to do it (e.g., camera use). Functional remote communication norms are central to promoting RIC, although it is important to note that what type of norms may be perceived as functional is shaped by the broader cultural context (Morris et al., 2001). For instance, digital productivity monitoring is spreading in the U.S. (Kantor & Sundaram, 2022) even among white-collar jobs, and camera use may feel more like a means of surveillance than a way to improve communication with co-workers.

At the same time, the intricate interdependencies of the factors suggest that certain constraining experiences can be mitigated by other factors, such as perceived proximity, to adapt to the remote context. Our results suggest that RIC between close colleagues is less effortful and more natural, maintaining the effectiveness compared to co-located settings (Fulk et al., 1987; Viererbl et al., 2022). This aligns with channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), suggesting that technology-mediated communication is perceived as richer the more individuals know about their conversation partners, as is typical among close colleagues. Perceived proximity may not only help offset potentially constraining factors such as missing visibility, but may actually enhance visibility (van Zoonen et al., 2023). While perceived proximity also promotes informal communication in co-located settings (Ellwardt et al., 2012; Kraut et al., 1990), our results indicate that it becomes one of the primary drivers of RIC, potentially serving as the virtual counterpart to physical proximity. Therefore, proximity as a broader construct remains an important enabling factor of informal communication, but it substantially changes from physical to perceived in remote contexts.

Our results can partially be extended to hybrid work settings as they are enacted today (in which individuals alternate between remote and co-located work). Generally, hybrid workers are more likely to use the time working remotely to avoid social interactions (Windeler et al., 2017), such that informal communication is presumably more likely to take place in co-location. However, given the flexibility of hybrid work schedules, colleagues who collaborate will not necessarily be in the office at the same time (Charpignon et al., 2023), such that RIC is still relevant for connecting people who spend less time in co-located settings. In these cases, RIC may not require as much effort compared to fully remote work, as the intermittent face-to-face interactions enable individuals to build closer relationships (Holmes & Marra, 2004) and thus increase perceived proximity. Moreover, remote communication norms are likely to be more relaxed, given that there are enough possibilities to show commitment through face time at the office.

Practical implications

Our comprehensive framework of RIC points to important practical recommendations to promote RIC. First, organizations and team leaders should set functional norms for using communication technologies, such as aligning synchronicity with task requirements (e.g., task interdependence; Rico & Cohen, 2005) and establishing healthy availability norms to reduce perceived workload. This could also include balancing the extent of formal compared to informal communication to leverage the benefits and efficiency of informal channels (Burke & Wise, 2003) while still keeping everyone working remotely informed (Fay, 2012). Additionally, organizations should promote informal communication as a vital aspect of team functioning, which could help reduce the pressure to constantly appear busy. Moreover, employees can utilize technological affordances to signal unavailability, which can avoid interruptions and help manage workload, for example by going invisible (e.g., by setting one’s status to “offline”; Gibbs et al., 2013). Leaders should discuss these new norms (e.g., camera usage in videoconferences) openly with their employees and teams (Ford & Ford, 1995) and emphasize how they serve the team’s benefit, to ensure that employees view these norms as collaborative and supportive rather than as measures of control. It is also important to consider the broader cultural context when establishing norms, as the norms and how they are perceived can differ across different cultural contexts (Morris et al., 2001).

Second, although top-down initiatives such as virtual coffee breaks were popular measures to promote RIC, our results suggest that they are not necessarily effective and enjoyed by employees. Extending previous recommendations (Viererbl et al., 2022), our findings suggest that virtual coffee breaks are more effective when they consider key factors of RIC, such as visibility, selectivity, and need for informal communication. Turning on cameras enriches communication with more social cues and allows onboarding colleagues to connect a face with a name, which may support proactive RIC in the future. Additionally, to ensure natural conversation flow, it is beneficial to keep the size of informal virtual events small (Bleakley et al., 2021) and make participation optional, which respects individuals’ needs for privacy and comfort. Because the factors of RIC are dynamic and recursively shape each other, it is crucial for leaders to regularly assess the necessity for such measures and potentially adjust them.

Lastly, additional measures could involve leveraging in-person rituals such as informal pre-meeting conversations (Bleakley et al., 2021). Allowing more time for pre-meeting talk can not only spur informal conversations but also enhance the overall effectiveness of meetings (Allen et al., 2014). These strategies might also mitigate the challenges of forming close relationships in remote settings.

Limitations and future research

There are several limitations to our study that provide opportunities for future research. First, we chose an exploratory qualitative approach. While qualitative results restrict causal inferences, they provide in-depth insights into phenomena and contexts that are not extensively studied—such as the enabling and constraining factors of RIC. Regardless of our efforts to ensure scientific rigor and follow a well-established qualitative analysis approach, other researchers may still interpret the results differently. Despite our diverse sample of different age groups and professional backgrounds, our findings mostly pertain to European, white-collar workers who worked in teams, recently adopted remote and hybrid work arrangements, and mostly used chats, video calls, and virtual meetings. While this implies that we learn less about other media such as email and phone, the emphasis on certain media in our sample may also underscore the importance of synchronicity and visibility, with RIC being largely accomplished under conditions of high synchronicity and/or visibility. Nevertheless, future research should replicate and extend our findings to different remote settings that favor other types of media. Future studies should also broaden the scope to include diverse contexts, such as different cultural contexts, remote gig workers who do not work in a team but may still rely on informal communication channels, or teams that have worked in hybrid settings for a longer period.

Second, while we adopted a socio-technical systems perspective and identified interrelated factors of RIC, our data did not allow us to delve into the potential temporal dynamics of the relationships between the factors. Future longitudinal research is needed to explore how these factors interact and evolve over time. For example, examining how RIC practices and communication rituals adapt as remote work norms develop would provide valuable insights into the recursive relationship between factors to optimally fit the remote context.

Third, future quantitative research should substantiate our suggested framework of supporting factors of RIC and investigate important boundary conditions. Due to our exploratory approach, we did not account for differences in the degrees of factors. Therefore, future studies should examine the degree of interrelation between different factors and identify potential necessary conditions for RIC in both fully remote and hybrid contexts. Hybrid contexts, which merge elements of face-to-face and remote communication, could present unique challenges and benefits that necessitate a more detailed investigation. Additionally, the role of status as a potential boundary condition for RIC did not emerge in our data. Future research should investigate how status shapes the evolution of remote communication norms, and whether informal or formal status has a greater influence on evolving norms concerning informal communication processes. In conclusion, our comprehensive framework of enabling and constraining factors of RIC underlines the importance of interdisciplinary research on integrating informal communication in the increasingly remote and hybrid work contexts that characterize the future of work.

Notes

Data availability

The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly to protect the privacy of individuals that participated in the study. The data will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Funding

This research was not supported by any funding from the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank Carina Plath, Marilena Kronsbein, Alexandra Markus, and Tom Selas for their research assistance.

References

Appendix A: Participant profiles