Challenging but Connective: Large-Scale Characteristics of Synchronous Collaboration Across Time Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations are becoming increasingly distributed and many need to collaborate synchronously over great geographical distances. Despite a rich body of literature on spatially-distanced meetings, gaps remain in our understanding of temporally-distanced meetings. Here, we characterize cross time zone collaborations by analyzing 20 million meetings scheduled at a multinational corporation, Microsoft, supported by a survey on how 130 employees perceive their scheduling needs. We find that cross time zone meetings are closely associated with scheduling patterns around early morning and late evening hours, which are challenging and discordant with employees’ stated temporal preferences. Additionally, the burdens of meeting across time boundaries are asymmetrically distributed among workers at different levels of the organization and different geolocations. Nonetheless, we further observe evidence that cross time zone attendees are organizationally distant and diverse, suggesting that addressing these challenges by limiting meetings would disafford employees the opportunities to connect. We conclude by sharing opportunities for facilitating cross time zone meetings that foster healthier global collaborations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".