Nowhere and Everywhere? How digital spaces become social spaces

Zoom fatigue is more than simply feeling exhausted after too many meetings. In „Nonverbal Overload”, Bailenson (2021) describes it as the result of structural overload: constantly seeing one’s own image, the feeling of being continuously watched by numerous pairs of eyes, the physical constraint of remaining within a narrow camera frame, and the additional effort required both to send non-verbal signals and to interpret those of others. What happens almost effortlessly in a physical space becomes a continuous cognitive task on screen. There is also a second sensation: that of being „nowhere”. Those who spend their day moving between channels, tiles and documents are working in many places at once – and yet never quite in any one of them. What is missing is a place that one enters and leaves again, a place that makes presence visible and belonging tangible.

As described in previous articles in this column, “space” only becomes “place” through meaning. The same applies to digital spaces – only the means are different. Two older yet still highly relevant concepts can help us understand this. Social presence theory (Short et al., 1976) describes the extent to which a medium allows other people to be experienced as “present” – in other words, as immediate and meaningful. Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) adds another perspective: media differ in terms of how many cues they can convey and how immediately feedback can be provided. In this sense, a video call is “richer” than a chat message, which in turn is richer than a ticket in a task management system. Both concepts are explanatory models, but they help to explain why purely text-based collaboration can feel socially “thin”. A key point, supported by more recent research, is that social presence is not a fixed characteristic of a particular tool; rather, it depends on how that tool is used. Accordingly, Lane et al. (2024) place the “affordances” of technology – the specific possibilities it offers for use – at the centre of successful digital collaboration.

Digital spaces are particularly effective when it comes to accessibility, documentation and asynchronous participation. They enable people to contribute regardless of location, keep knowledge permanently accessible and lower the threshold for participation – including for those who may be less likely to speak up in a physical setting. These strengths are a key reason why organisations are advancing the digital workplace. Attaran et al. (2019) argue that a purposefully designed digital workplace should increase workforce productivity and that employees’ expectations of their digital tools grow as the technology itself continues to develop. Digital spaces are less effective, however, when collaboration is informal, spontaneous and relationship-driven. The casual conversation in the corridor, the peripheral awareness of who is present and what mood they are in, the effortless development of trust: research into distributed teams identifies precisely these socio-emotional processes as vulnerable when they are not consciously designed for. This finding reflects the everyday experience of many employees: digital spaces transmit tasks more reliably than they convey a sense of belonging.

A sense of place in digital environments is not created by adding more tools, but through deliberate design. This is consistent with research into digital work. Dittes et al. (2019) emphasise that digital working involves more than simply introducing new technology. As flexibility increases, so too does employees’ need for balance and structure, particularly as the boundaries between professional and private life become increasingly blurred. Based on their study of three organisations, the authors derive recommendations for designing digital work effectively. Four approaches are particularly important.

1. Rituals: Regular formats such as check-ins, stand-ups or virtual coffee breaks create a sense of temporal orientation – people know when and where they “meet”.
2. VisuAL Codes And Avatars: Camera images, status indicators, reactions and personal profiles make presence and mood visible and enhance social presence.
3. SPATIAL Metaphors: Environments such as “Gather” or other metaverse-style platforms represent proximity and distance spatially, so that approaching someone can initiate a conversation and spontaneous encounters become possible again. This is a promising approach, although its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented in each individual case and cannot be assumed universally.
4. Moderation And RULES: Clear norms regarding camera use, response times and channel structures reduce non-verbal overload and uncertainty.

In practice, tools can be categorised according to this logic: Microsoft Teams and Slack function as persistent channels – places for topics and teams that accumulate meaning over time; video conferences provide synchronous richness for coordination and relationship-building; and digital spatial environments aim to facilitate informal, incidental encounters. No tool can replace thoughtful design: the same platform can become either a vibrant or a lifeless space.

Digital collaboration is here to stay. The question, therefore, is not whether we work digitally, but whether our digital spaces become social spaces. Technology provides the space, but not the sense of place. Here, too, a sense of place is created through meaning: through rituals, visible presence, reliable rules and deliberate moderation. The more distributed work becomes, the more important a question becomes that has long shaped physical space – now under different conditions: Where do we meet, and how do we know that we have arrived?

Attaran, M., Attaran, S. & Kirkland, D. (2019). The Need for Digital Workplace: Increasing Workforce Productivity in the Information Age. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 15(1), 1–23.

Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1).

Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Dittes, S., Richter, S., Richter, A. & Smolnik, S. (2019). Toward the Workplace of the Future: How Organizations Can Facilitate Digital Work. Business Horizons, 62(5), 649–661.

Lane, J. N., Leonardi, P. M., Contractor, N. S. & DeChurch, L. A. (2024). Teams in the Digital Workplace: Technology’s Role for Communication, Collaboration, and Performance. Small Group Research, 55(1), 139–183.

Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.