The paper explores how geographical distribution and technology mediation affect team conflict in distributed teams. Traditional team research is based on collocated teams, but distributed teams, which rely on technology for communication and collaboration, are becoming more common. Studies suggest that distributed teams experience more conflict than traditional teams, but the mechanisms behind this are not well understood. The authors propose a theory-based explanation of how geographical distance and technology mediation contribute to team-level conflict. They identify unique antecedents of conflict in distributed teams and argue that conflict of all types (task, affective, and process) is detrimental to performance in distributed teams, contrary to findings in traditional teams. They also examine conflict as a dynamic process, suggesting that teams may mitigate negative impacts over time. The paper discusses how distance and technology mediation affect team members' shared context, familiarity, friendship, and homogeneity, all of which can heighten conflict. Distance reduces shared context, familiarity, and homogeneity, leading to increased task and process conflict. Technology mediation can also lead to reduced familiarity and increased affective conflict. The authors propose that distance and technology mediation engender task, affective, and process conflict in distributed teams. They also argue that technology mediation has negative relational effects, including reduced cohesion, increased competitiveness, and less sharing of relational information, which contribute to lower trust and a sense of belonging, ultimately leading to affective conflict. The paper also examines how technology mediation affects information transfer and coordination in distributed teams. Uneven distribution of information, unevenly weighted information, and difficulties in coordination can lead to task and process conflict. Technology mediation may also induce time lags and sequencing problems that further hamper coordination. The authors propose that technology mediation engenders task, affective, and process conflict in distributed teams. The paper concludes that distributed teams are likely to experience more conflict than traditional teams due to the unique challenges of geographical distance and technology mediation. However, the authors argue that distributed teams may have certain advantages, such as access to global expertise and the ability to work around the clock. They also suggest that conflict in distributed teams can be managed over time as teams learn to work and communicate across distances and use technology more effectively. The authors propose that conflict in distributed teams is a dynamic process and that teams may mitigate the negative effects of distribution over time.The paper explores how geographical distribution and technology mediation affect team conflict in distributed teams. Traditional team research is based on collocated teams, but distributed teams, which rely on technology for communication and collaboration, are becoming more common. Studies suggest that distributed teams experience more conflict than traditional teams, but the mechanisms behind this are not well understood. The authors propose a theory-based explanation of how geographical distance and technology mediation contribute to team-level conflict. They identify unique antecedents of conflict in distributed teams and argue that conflict of all types (task, affective, and process) is detrimental to performance in distributed teams, contrary to findings in traditional teams. They also examine conflict as a dynamic process, suggesting that teams may mitigate negative impacts over time. The paper discusses how distance and technology mediation affect team members' shared context, familiarity, friendship, and homogeneity, all of which can heighten conflict. Distance reduces shared context, familiarity, and homogeneity, leading to increased task and process conflict. Technology mediation can also lead to reduced familiarity and increased affective conflict. The authors propose that distance and technology mediation engender task, affective, and process conflict in distributed teams. They also argue that technology mediation has negative relational effects, including reduced cohesion, increased competitiveness, and less sharing of relational information, which contribute to lower trust and a sense of belonging, ultimately leading to affective conflict. The paper also examines how technology mediation affects information transfer and coordination in distributed teams. Uneven distribution of information, unevenly weighted information, and difficulties in coordination can lead to task and process conflict. Technology mediation may also induce time lags and sequencing problems that further hamper coordination. The authors propose that technology mediation engenders task, affective, and process conflict in distributed teams. The paper concludes that distributed teams are likely to experience more conflict than traditional teams due to the unique challenges of geographical distance and technology mediation. However, the authors argue that distributed teams may have certain advantages, such as access to global expertise and the ability to work around the clock. They also suggest that conflict in distributed teams can be managed over time as teams learn to work and communicate across distances and use technology more effectively. The authors propose that conflict in distributed teams is a dynamic process and that teams may mitigate the negative effects of distribution over time.